8 - Keeping the country closed: border restriction­s and quarantine Ka noho kati te whenua: ngā rāhui pae whenua me te noho taratahi

The Inquiry examined and evaluated the border restrictions and isolation and quarantine requirements that collectively kept the country’s borders closed for the duration of the pandemic.^vii We considered the mechanisms used to close the air and maritime borders, how the borders were managed over the next two years, and the gradual steps towards reopening them.

We also looked at the regime for granting border exceptions to particular people in certain circumstances, and how the visa system changed over the period in which the borders were closed. The broader economic impacts of the border closure – on the labour market, the supply chain, tourism, the maritime industry and more – are also discussed and assessed.

The Inquiry traced the development of the MIQ (managed isolation and quarantine) system from its rapid establishment in April 2020. We assessed the utility and impact of the national border and quarantine measures adopted during the pandemic response, and the use of MIQ to isolate cases of COVID-19 detected within the community.

Note: detailed information about these topics and what occurred during Aotearoa New Zealand’s response to COVID-19, along with our complete assessment, can be found in the corresponding Looking Back chapter in our main report.

While we consider these measures were effective in stopping the virus from entering the country, and limiting its spread when it did, we also recognise the social, economic and personal costs were very high. How those costs might be mitigated in a future pandemic is considered in our lessons for the future and recommendations.

In the main report, the Chapter includes a case study (spotlight) called Stranded Kiwis, which looks at the experiences of New Zealanders overseas who faced challenges returning home during the pandemic.

Through the Inquiry’s public submissions process, some people told us they felt national border restrictions were necessary to save lives and prevent the spread of COVID-19. People told us that MIQ facilities played a large role in helping to protect the country from the spread of the virus and were managed as well as they could’ve been at the time.

Others told us about how challenging the border restrictions were for those with family overseas or with existing travel plans. Those with sick or dying loved ones, living in Aotearoa New Zealand or overseas, were particularly affected. Many New Zealand citizens based overseas shared the challenges they faced trying to return home. We heard the MIQ ’lottery system’ could be a problematic and even distressing experience, with some people noting the lack of flexibility for individual circumstances. Others shared how MIQ could be an isolating and stressful experience, particularly for those with young children. Some people felt that people with influence (including performers and athletes) received unfair preferential access to MIQ facilities.

“While banning direct traveller entry was very inconvenient for some, it was a measure that reduced the spread from overseas sources.”

“During the pandemic, a loved one was diagnosed with cancer. I knew that if I left where I was, I might not be able to get back. In the end, my loved one passed away and I wasn’t able to go and say goodbye.”

“The experience of logging on with your passport number and then waiting for the jackpot initially brought hope, but that hope quickly turned to despair and disappointment. I came to loathe my home country. Why should citizens have to compete to come home? Why should we be separated from family? How dare the Government stop us seeing our new grandchild? The whole sorry MIQ operation was a disaster.”

“Our two-week stay in MIQ with two young children was tough. The staff were universally wonderful and did their best, but being cooped up in a hotel room took a toll on our family. We observed behaviour from our children that we had never seen before. They argued and bickered about everything. We were very relieved to leave.”

Note: this material is taken from the Inquiry’s Experiences Report, which is a summary of the public feedback submitted to Phase One of the Inquiry during early 2024.

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 huge 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 protection 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 ’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.

• The national 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 delay 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.