12 - Mandatory measures Ngā whakaritenga whakature

The Inquiry assessed compulsory testing, contact tracing and mask wearing, and considered how these measures were mandated, how requirements were implemented, and what the effects were.

We considered the most controversial measures – vaccination requirements – of which there were three categories: Government-issued vaccine mandates for certain occupations, workplace-specific vaccine policies (enabled by legislation but set by employers), and vaccine passes for entry to certain locations and social gatherings. We consider the case for such measures, the evidence available to decision-makers, how this changed over time, and some of the direct social and economic consequences.

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.

We also looked at how controversy about these matters played out, including a condensed account of the Parliamentary protest and occupation in early 2022. We discuss the impact of these events – and the pandemic in general – on social cohesion and trust in Aotearoa New Zealand, and what this might mean for future preparedness. A short summary is provided in this chapter.

Through the Inquiry’s public submissions process, we received a large amount of feedback about the range of mandatory measures implemented during the pandemic response, both positive and negative. People told the Inquiry that vaccine mandates and vaccine passes were necessary and helpful, as they helped people feel safer in spaces outside of their homes and protected vulnerable communities.

Others described their opposition to these sorts of mandatory measures, often commenting that the overall response was a breach of people’s personal rights and freedoms. Many people said vaccine mandates and vaccine passes divided the country into two groups – the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

People told us they didn’t agree with people losing their jobs because of vaccine mandates, noting that this caused mental health issues and financial hardships.

For future pandemics, some people suggested vaccine mandates are an appropriate measure and should be used again. At the same time, other people also told the Inquiry vaccine mandates should not be used again, due to the social divisions they caused and the significant impacts on people who cannot (or choose not to) be vaccinated.

“I have always been glad for the mask mandate, and when it stopped I became much more fearful for my health.”

“While some aspects of the vaccine mandates have been deemed unlawful, I firmly believe they were necessary and the right thing to do, particularly given the overwhelming amount of disinformation being pushed on social media.”

“I don’t think people should have lost their jobs. People on the ground were the ones that had to deal with mandate decisions. Caused lots of anxiety and stress.”

“What happened was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. The Government should never have such control over the population. People were quite capable of making up their own minds about what medical treatment to take. If I saw the need to be vaccinated, I would have done so.”

“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.”

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. The use of compulsion was one of the most controversial aspects of the COVID-19 response.

• In deciding whether to mandate various public health measures, ministers weighed up the need to protect public health (especially for vulnerable populations) and individual freedoms and rights. These were not easy decisions, and ministers were aware they would carry a social and economic cost.
  
  
• In addition to restrictions on movement and gatherings (such as ’lockdowns’) and quarantine and isolation requirements, ministers judged it necessary to mandate COVID-19 testing, contact tracing, masking and vaccination in particular circumstances at various points in the COVID-19 response.
  
  
• Vaccine requirements were a major source of tension and social division, and there were strongly held views both for and against their use.
  
  
• Organised opposition to mandatory measures contributed to the 28-day occupation of Parliament grounds in February and March 2022.
  
  

2. Testing, contact tracing and masking requirements were reasonable, but their implementation could be improved in a future pandemic.

• Testing, contact tracing and mask wearing were all important components of the COVID-19 response. Given the need for widespread uptake and how they were mandated (i.e. in limited circumstances), we consider it appropriate that these measures were compulsory for periods during the pandemic response.
  
  
• There were practical issues with the implementation of testing, contact tracing and mask mandates that could be improved on if similar requirements are deemed necessary in a future pandemic.
  
  

3. It was reasonable to introduce some targeted vaccine requirements based on information available at the time.

• Based on the information available at the time (in 2021), it was reasonable for the Government to issue orders making vaccination mandatory for specific occupations (for example, border and health workers).
  
  
• It was also reasonable in late 2021 (when Delta was the dominant variant) to design a system where people were required to show a vaccine pass as a condition of entry to spaces and events where they would be in close proximity with others in confined conditions, because of the high risk of viral transmission. Having done so, it was logical to ensure that workers in such spaces were also vaccinated.
  
  
• Based on information available in late 2021, it was reasonable for the Government to introduce a simplified health and safety risk assessment tool to support employers who wanted to consider setting workplace-specific vaccine policies in contexts where people would be in close proximity in confined conditions.
  
  

4. Some vaccine requirements were applied more broadly than originally envisaged.

Testing, contact tracing and mask wearing were all important components of the COVID-19 response.

• Vaccine requirements were initially targeted and based on a clear expectation of public health benefit.
  
  
• However, over time, widespread concern about the risks of COVID-19 fuelled expectations that a wide range of settings and workplaces would be subject to vaccination requirements.
  
  
• This led to some vaccine requirements being applied more broadly than originally envisaged.
  
  

5. The case for vaccine requirements became weaker in 2022 once Omicron became the dominant COVID-19 variant.

• The case for vaccine requirements of all kinds weakened in early 2022 with the arrival of the Omicron variant, since vaccination was now much less effective in preventing COVID-19 transmission and immunity waned over time. While beneficial to the individual concerned, vaccination now offered less protection to others and the public health case for requiring it was weak.
  
  
• In our view, some workplace, occupational and other vaccine requirements were applied too broadly and remained in place for too long, which caused harm to individuals and families and contributed to loss of social capital.
  
  

6. While some people found vaccine requirements reassuring, they had wider social and economic consequences.

In our view, some workplace, occupational and other vaccine requirements were applied too broadly and remained in place for too long.

• Vaccine requirements may have helped facilitate a return to in-person work and social activities, by making people feel safe. Many workers were also in favour of vaccine requirements and made strong demands for employers to introduce them.
  
  
• However, vaccine requirements also had significant negative impacts, including exacerbating workforce issues and shortages in some sectors.
  
  
• Some people who chose not to get vaccinated lost employment, and many experienced stigma, or were unable to access important places and events. There were also difficult social consequences for some people who did choose to get vaccinated, such as the breakdown of family, work and personal relationships.
  
  
• Vaccine requirements (occupational mandates, workplace requirements and vaccine passes) reduced trust in government for some and probably contributed to lower uptake of other vaccines (such as childhood immunisations) in some communities, particularly among Māori.
  
  
• In hindsight, vaccine mandates had substantial, long-lasting impacts that would need to be taken into account in any future decisions around their use in a pandemic response.
  
  

7. The use of mandatory measures – and other aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic – affected trust and social cohesion in ways that may make future pandemic responses more difficult.

• The occupation of Parliament grounds in protest against a range of matters, including mandatory measures (especially vaccine requirements), represented the most significant civil unrest in Aotearoa New Zealand for some time. It is likely to have far-reaching social consequences.
  
  
• The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with declining levels of public trust in government (as occurred in other countries), particularly in some communities. Many of our public submitters expressed concern about the ongoing effects of the pandemic period on social cohesion, trust and collective identity in Aotearoa New Zealand.
  
  
• These are important matters for our Inquiry, because during a pandemic, high levels of trust and social cohesion support greater social licence for action, effective community-led responses, and are associated with lower infection and death rates.
  
  
• Pandemics can also damage social cohesion and trust in ways that – at their most extreme – threaten the rule of law, public safety, and provision of essential services.
  
  
• Fostering, rebuilding, and enhancing trust and social cohesion following the unsettling events of the COVID-19 pandemic should be a key part of preparing for any future pandemic.

The impacts of opposition on trust in institutions and social cohesion

As noted earlier, the use of mandates and orders to make various public health measures compulsory under certain circumstances were among the most controversial aspects of the COVID-19 response, in Aotearoa New Zealand and elsewhere – particularly vaccine requirements. The Inquiry considered how this controversy played out over the course of the pandemic, culminating in the 28-day occupation of Parliament grounds by a broad coalition of anti- mandate protestors in early 2022. Dramatic images from those events – and in particular the scenes that unfolded on 2 March 2022 during the Police operation to end the protest – remain etched in the minds of many people almost three years later.

Repairing, fostering and maintaining trust and social cohesion will be key to ensuring Aotearoa New Zealand is in a good position to respond effectively to a future pandemic.

Many of our public submitters expressed concern about the protest, the divisions that emerged between many people over COVID-19-related matters, and the potential long-term consequences of these. Other stakeholders commented that the loss of social licence and breakdown of social cohesion that occurred during this pandemic may shape how the population is likely to respond to public health responses like lockdowns and vaccine requirements in any future pandemics. Repairing, fostering and maintaining trust and social cohesion will be key to both countering the impacts of COVID-19- related misinformation and disinformation, and ensuring Aotearoa New Zealand is in a good position to respond effectively to a future pandemic.