Aotearoa New Zealand’s overall pandemic response Te urupare whānui o Aotearoa ki te mate urutā

Many people praised the Government’s pandemic response overall. They felt the response successfully protected vulnerable groups, saved lives, and made people in Aotearoa New Zealand feel safe.

“I believe the Government's responses during the pandemic saved many lives.”

65–74-year-old Chinese female, Auckland

People thought the Government took quick and decisive action in uncertain times. Others noted that the response was evidence-based and followed scientific advice.

People also felt that the pandemic response prioritised the health of the nation over economic concerns, yet was proportionate and balanced.

“It was hugely important to me in order to feel safe that we had leadership in government that valued lives over money. Health and wellbeing over commerce. While still making provision to keep the economy going as best as possible.”

65–74-year-old Pākehā female, Auckland

“...I would ask anyone who feels that we handled COVID-19 badly to put themselves in the shoes of the millions of people that lost husbands, wives, parents, children, siblings, remoter family and/or friends and ask themselves would they have wanted better protection?

In my opinion, without the protections introduced by New Zealand, and if not as early as they were introduced, countless thousands of Kiwis would have lost loved ones, and livelihoods, and the recovery for the country would have taken longer, both in terms of health and economically.

Would I have felt the same had I not lost my father to COVID-19? Yes, absolutely. Living with the fear that other relatives, of all ages, were at risk is not unique to someone with family overseas, but it was less prevalent for most Kiwis. Without the border protections enforced, then many more of my friends in New Zealand would have also worried for their family and friends.”

45–54-year-old Pākehā male, Canterbury

“...people started to question what we were being told, and what we were being told we had to do. And as this questioning and concern increased, and people queried the health regulations, then we started to move into the era of coercion, control, mandates and the whole labelling of people who wouldn’t ‘comply’…”

55–64-year-old male, Nelson-Tasman

Many other people, though, were generally critical of the Government’s response. They often felt the Government response was too strict or controlling; had too much of an economic impact on the country; relied too heavily on scaremongering and fear to encourage compliance; or that measures were ineffective or harmful, particularly when compared to the risks of COVID-19.

People who told us they considered the Government did a good job on its communications during the pandemic felt that messaging was clear and effective.

They appreciated the daily public briefings, finding them informative and reassuring.

People also commented that they found the rules and policies straightforward, reasonable, and easy to follow.

“We felt that the Government did a spectacular job informing us (and the nation) of what was happening, what we needed to do to be safe, what was going wrong, how they would remedy things, what we needed to do – how and why.”

55–64-year-old female, Canterbury

They felt the Government was transparent in its decision-making and appropriately engaged public health experts to tell the public about scientific information.

Others though, were critical of government communications during the pandemic. These people felt the media was biased or used as a tool to spread propaganda, or that the Government sought to control messaging and position itself as the sole source of accurate information regarding the pandemic in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Other people commented that there should have been better education about viruses, pandemics, and the evidence behind public health measures, in order to encourage people to follow these rules and understand why they were in place.

“The 'why' could have been explained better sometimes. Without that, a vacuum forms which people are great at filling with frustration and anger.”

25–34-year-old Indian male, Auckland

Some felt that rules and advice around COVID-19 were confusing or contradictory, or that they changed too often. Some also thought the Government was not open about all the decisions they made.

Daily public briefings were also described as anxiety-inducing, too frequent, and too long. Others suggested that communication styles should have been adjusted for different communities, and that people should have been given more warning ahead of restrictions being announced.

“The pandemic was handled badly by the government – in a very draconian and authoritarian manner and New Zealanders’ human rights were massively violated.”

Pākehā female, Canterbury

We heard from a large number of people who felt that the COVID-19 response ignored, compromised or infringed on human rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Some said that greater individual freedom and responsibility should have been allowed, while others expressed concerns about pandemic-related legislation being enacted without proper process being followed.

People praised the Government’s decision-making processes and felt government organisations and political parties were well coordinated and united in the response.

They felt government departments did a good job, particularly Manatū Hauora the Ministry of Health and district health boards.

However, many more people were critical of the Government’s decision-making processes. They mostly stressed it was unfair the Government favoured particular groups, through vaccine exemptions, vaccine incentives, exemption from other pandemic rules, or financial support.

People also told us they felt the response should have been led using a bipartisan or cross-government approach, or by independent, non-political groups.

Others however, expressed views that certain pandemic measures introduced by the Government were illegal.

Many people told us they felt the negative impacts of the pandemic response outweighed those of the COVID-19 virus itself.

Some told us they considered that the Government response was an overreaction, was too inflexible, and should have considered a broader set of evidence.

We heard concerns that people’s opinions that did not align with the Government response were suppressed or ignored, and freedom of speech was stifled during the pandemic.

“I believe that the lockdowns and mandates have caused our country far more damage than the ‘pandemic’ itself. These impacts include, physical, mental, emotional, financial and social.”

65–74-year-old Pākehā male, Canterbury

People felt the Government should do more to stop the spread of mis/disinformation. One suggestion was for better public education about how pandemic measures work, as people would then be less likely to believe mis/disinformation.

We also heard concerns about how widespread mis/disinformation became during the pandemic and the impacts of this, such as people not following public health measures. Others shared how people they knew became convinced by mis/disinformation and spread conspiracy theories.

“Certain groups were very vocal and often gave inaccurate or downright incorrect information and conned people into feeling sorry for them.

Act immediately when misinformation hits the headlines – the NZ On Air (etc) funding was used as a stick to beat the Government and the news media because ‘it showed that the Government had bought the news media’ and that they were not to be relied on.”

65–74-year-old, Marlborough

“In some ways New Zealand’s success, in terms of limited loss of life, has blinded some to the seriousness of the challenge faced.”

45–54-year-old Māori/Pākehā male

Some felt that the lack of clarity from the Government about the reasons for certain pandemic measures may have contributed to the spread of mis/disinformation.

People also said the Government should prioritise public health, rather than listen to the opinions of people who are convinced by mis/disinformation.

People told us that the criticisms of those convinced by mis/disinformation often involve logical fallacies, bias, or a lack of perspective. People stated that those convinced by mis/disinformation weren’t aware of how severe the consequences could have been if appropriate measures were not put in place.

People told us that they, a family member, or the general public are more distrustful of the Government and/or democracy and public institutions because of decisions made during the pandemic.

They feel there is now a lack of trust in doctors, other healthcare professionals, or the wider medical field, for example.

Others stressed that trust in public institutions is important for a functioning society, and felt the Government should take measures to rebuild it.

Some people agreed with the Government’s elimination strategy and supported this approach being used again in a future pandemic response. They felt this strategy resulted in positive outcomes for people’s health as well as the economy.

Many more people though were critical of the Government’s COVID-19 management strategy. They considered it would have been better to only restrict sick or at-risk people and let the rest of society continue as normal.

“Isolate the sick and elderly. Only the sick should isolate, not the fit and healthy.”

35–44-year-old male, Manawatū-Whanganui

People thought the Government should have let the virus ‘run its course’ without any health measures in place. They said public health measures were not needed because they don’t work, or only delay the inevitable health outcomes.

People told us they felt the elimination strategy was unrealistic because COVID-19 could not have been kept out of the country forever.

People were also critical of the traffic light and alert level systems, as they found the shifts between settings confusing. Others said the Government used the traffic light system to control the public and enforce vaccinations.

Some people told us that they wanted the Government and politicians to be held accountable for decisions they made during the pandemic.

People said that holding the Government accountable would help the country move forward, restore public trust and stop future governments from putting certain public health measures, particularly vaccine mandates, in place.

They demanded some form of justice, through an apology, an interrogation or even criminal charges.

People shared a range of suggestions as to how Aotearoa New Zealand should better prepare for any future pandemic: people told us there should be a pandemic plan for future health emergencies that takes lessons from Aotearoa New Zealand and overseas, which prevents politicisation and allows the country to respond quickly.

People also said the Government should improve public understanding about viruses, work more closely with other countries, or set up a fund to ensure Aotearoa New Zealand is financially prepared for a future pandemic, for example.

Others suggested that stockpiling or local manufacturing of personal protective equipment (PPE) would help improve Aotearoa New Zealand’s preparedness.

“The supply of free RAT tests also helped me feel I had some control over our lives.”

55–64-year-old early childhood teacher

Some people praised the Government’s procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE), noting that this was easily accessible to them during the pandemic.

Many more people felt there was an undersupply of PPE and rapid antigen tests (RATs), stating they were not readily available during the pandemic, particularly for essential workers.

“In the early stages of the pandemic in 2020 there was insufficient access to appropriate PPE for healthcare workers, particularly N95 masks. I failed the fit test for the generally available masks, and only passed the ‘fit test’ with one particular brand. It was almost impossible to get access to these and I had to beg for a handful of masks before doing on-call shifts. The mask situation improved about a year into the pandemic, with good availability.

We must ensure we have adequate access to appropriate PPE. This means having adequate stock on hand at all times, and anticipating that global supply lines will be disrupted and that obtaining more PPE during a pandemic may be impossible due to worldwide high demand.

All health workers should be fit tested for PPE at the start of employment, and district health boards should proactively ensure they have adequate stocks for all staff needs. Unused PPE may end up being wasted, but this is preferable to sacrificing the lives of healthcare workers.”

45–54-year-old doctor, Hawke’s Bay

People told us they were proud of Aotearoa New Zealand’s ‘world-leading’ pandemic response. They stated it was better than other countries’ because health was prioritised, and more lives were saved.

It was noted that New Zealanders could continue to live somewhat normally while the rest of the world struggled with COVID-19. People acknowledged that New Zealanders faced less disruption because of quick actions, strong leadership, and clear communication.

Fewer people negatively compared Aotearoa New Zealand’s response to the responses of other countries. They mostly said that lessons from countries that experienced a low death rate and few restrictions should be included in a future pandemic plan.

People told us they thought Aotearoa New Zealand should have taken a similar response to the United Kingdom, the United States, or Sweden, who they felt did a better job at balancing saving lives with other aspects, like the economic impacts of the pandemic.

They also felt it was unfair that Aotearoa New Zealand was implementing restrictions when other countries weren’t.

“Sweden was 'open’ but was not functioning. Efforts to protect those at risk were practically non-existent and the minimal interventions which were in place did not in practice make any space safer, outside of paid sick leave.

I looked back to my home country of New Zealand and the stark difference between situations each country found themselves in was mind-boggling. Post-acute illness from COVID-19 infection is widespread among my Swedish colleagues, which is unsurprising given the country’s decision to have large numbers in the population infected before vaccines were available.

The interventions put in place in New Zealand in response to the pandemic were essential and minimised disruption and suffering as was experienced in other countries. As someone who experienced the polar opposite of responses in Sweden, I yearned to be back in New Zealand.

Our systems in New Zealand simply could not handle the disease burden of unchecked COVID-19 spread in the 2020-2022 period in the way I experienced it in Sweden.

Our response in New Zealand was necessary and effective.”

25–34-year-old New Zealander, living in Sweden during the pandemic

Some people suggested that international organisations, mainly the World Health Organization (WHO) but also the United Nations and World Economic Forum, had too much influence and power over Aotearoa New Zealand’s pandemic response.

These people said that the WHO or other bodies wanted increased power or control, and had ulterior motives or an ‘agenda’. Others accused the New Zealand Government and international bodies of being involved in bribery or corruption.

Some people were concerned about Aotearoa New Zealand’s sovereignty, commenting that international bodies shouldn’t influence how this country responds in a pandemic situation.

A similar number of people also told us they felt international pharmaceutical companies influenced the response too much. These people often questioned why details about the contracts between the New Zealand Government and vaccine manufacturers were not publicly available. People told us they felt pharmaceutical companies have too much power and influence, and cannot be trusted as they are motivated by making profits.

People told us they thought the Government made the COVID-19 response political and used the pandemic for its own benefit. They wanted to see politics left out of decision-making in a health emergency.

Some thought the media played a role in this politicisation, by reporting the Government’s actions or statements without question.

Others felt there was a loss of trust in the Government because the public believed the response was politicised.

Some people felt opposition parties were overly critical of the Government response. They told us that other parties shouldn’t have politicised the response, as this undermined it.

They noted that during an emergency, opposition parties have a responsibility to support the Government. Others supported legal consequences for politicians who spread mis/disinformation.

People praised government partnerships, particularly their relationships with iwi and Māori organisations, as they felt the Government supported these groups so they could plan and organise their own responses that suited their situations and needs.

Many more people were critical of the Government’s partnerships and relationships with other organisations. They noted that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to engage with communities is not effective.

Some suggested the Government should work with communities earlier, involve them in planning, and give them more freedom to organise their own responses.

People also told us the private sector should be better utilised during a future pandemic.

“Māori were not consulted adequately and when consulted our advice was ignored. There was no partnership approach.

We were put at disproportionate risk of being infected by the Delta strain of COVID-19, when compared with other population groups. In 2021, Māori made up over 50% of the Delta cases and 17% of the population, 39% of Delta hospitalisations, and 45% of the associated deaths.

Resources and funding did eventually arrive to ensure basic needs were being met for Māori communities in the Far North. This took a great deal of advocacy from community leaders, iwi leaders talking with Māori MPs along with hapū and other iwi, mobilising themselves to do whatever was needed to inform and protect our people.

The statistics speak for themselves. We had to look after ourselves because the prejudice we experienced told us we were an afterthought.”

65–74-year-old Māori (Ngāti Kahu), Auckland

Some people agreed with the COVID-19 measures but felt that restrictions were dropped too early and that the virus was an ongoing threat. It was also suggested that the easing of restrictions should be more gradual and should only happen when there are other measures in place to keep people safe.

Some thought the Government didn’t act fast enough at the outset of the pandemic and said that in the future, measures should be put in place earlier and decisions made more quickly.

Some people told us they agreed with the Government’s response up to a point. Most noted their ‘turning point’ was the introduction of vaccine mandates, however people brought up a variety of events that changed their opinion about the Government response. They stated that people didn’t follow public health measures once they no longer agreed with the overall response.

“I thought New Zealand did well for the most part in the initial response to COVID-19, and prevented a lot of deaths and overloaded hospitals because of it, but lost the plot right at the end, which ended with thousands of law abiding citizens camping out at the Beehive with no jobs to go to. That was so inhumane. I did not think I would ever witness injustice like that, especially here in New Zealand.”

25–34-year-old male, Canterbury

Many felt that, as the pandemic wore on, government communications turned into ‘propaganda’ and that certain restrictions were too severe.

People told us they thought the Government’s response saved lives initially, especially while the threat from COVID-19 was not fully known, but disagreed with how and when restrictions were relaxed. Some people thought pandemic restrictions were removed too soon, to the detriment of health outcomes, sometimes framing this as the country “giving up”.

Other people told us they felt restrictions went on for too long. People who disagreed with how or when restrictions were removed called for better planning to help the country return to normality in any future pandemic.

People told us they support more funding for research and science, to help improve Aotearoa New Zealand’s response to future health emergencies.

Positive environmental impacts of the pandemic were noted by people, who told us they observed less pollution and increased biodiversity during this period.

Slightly more people were concerned about negative environmental impacts of the pandemic, mostly the waste of single-use plastic medical equipment such as personal protective equipment (PPE), test kits and facemasks.

Others were concerned that future pandemics will be worse because of climate change, and noted a missed opportunity during the COVID-19 pandemic to address this global issue.