4.4 What we learned looking back Ngā akoranga i te titiro whakamuri

1. Restrictions on who could enter Aotearoa New Zealand, and compulsory quarantine at the border, were key to the success of New Zealand’s elimination strategy.

• Both measures undoubtedly saved lives and reduced the burden on the health system in the critical pre-vaccination period.

2. Aotearoa New Zealand was inadequately prepared to use these measures before COVID-19. While setting up new border processes and MIQ quickly was a significant achievement, both systems had significant shortcomings.

• Before COVID-19, Aotearoa New Zealand had no plans in place for large-scale quarantine, either domestically or at the border. The fact that MIQ was operating so quickly is a huge achievement that deserves to be acknowledged.
• While making use of hotels that would otherwise have stood vacant was an efficient solution, the design of these buildings made it difficult to implement infection prevention and control measures. Supporting people’s wellbeing in hotel environments was also difficult.
• While those involved in running the MIQ system should be rightly proud of their achievements, the High Court and the Ombudsman both made findings that speak to the issues with the MIQ system. In particular, the booking system for MIQ had significant shortcomings, the criteria for emergency allocations were narrow and many emergency applicants felt the process was impersonal and lacking in compassion.
• The Inquiry is aware of the difficulties experienced by some people working in MIQ facilities. They included Defence Force personnel and other staff who faced increased exposure to the virus and were sometimes stigmatised.

3. While border restrictions and the MIQ system adapted in response to changing circumstances and new information, the accommodation of community cases and the transition to home isolation was challenging.

• Despite some high-profile incidents of COVID-19 ‘escaping’ MIQ, the MIQ system learnt from these incidents and adapted accordingly. Changes were also made to better support the wellbeing of people in MIQ in response to independent reviews.
• Planning to reopen the border began reasonably early in the pandemic. This work was evident in the experiments with quarantine-free travel with Australia and the Pacific, and the flow of advice to the Government on the ‘Reconnecting New Zealand to the World’. The arrangements for border and MIQ exemptions also evolved throughout the pandemic in response to changing needs and pressures.
• Accommodating community cases in MIQ was particularly challenging and inadequately thought through. Rising case numbers during the Delta outbreak threatened to overwhelm MIQ capacity, which partly forced the adoption of home isolation in late 2021.

4. Border restrictions and MIQ took a significant toll on Aotearoa New Zealand, particularly because demand for MIQ spaces outstripped capacity and because of the length of time restrictions were in place for.

• The border closure took a significant toll on New Zealanders both here and overseas. While many public submissions to the Inquiry acknowledged that MIQ kept New Zealanders safe, being separated from family and loved ones was a hugely painful experience for many.
• The progressive lifting of MIQ requirements did not finally begin until the end of February 2022, at which point Omicron was freely circulating in Aotearoa New Zealand (meaning infected arrivals posed little additional risk), and domestic cases were isolating at home. Submissions to the Inquiry emphasised the frustration that this caused for many.
• Ultimately, decision-makers’ limited range of options for quarantine and isolation of international arrivals constrained their ability to mitigate some of the negative consequences of the border restrictions. In a future pandemic, having a larger and more flexible range of quarantine and isolation options ready to activate could create more opportunities for decision-makers to use these vital pandemic response tools in a way that has fewer negative impacts.