Covid Inquiry Phase 2 report released: The key points, and ask a bot about it

Tuesday, 10 March 2026

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 has finished phase two, and released a whopper of a report, all 1058 pages of it. We’ve pulled out the key points in reporting below, but you can ask our chatbot (right below) any specific questions you might have.

The Commission’s report findings out Tuesday broadly endorsed the former government’s commitment to an elimination strategy and vaccine roll-out, while noting that the exit from that elimination strategy for Covid-19 was slower than it should have been.

The report also noted the hefty impact that the pandemic had on our society and economy, but ultimately reasoned that decisions made at the time were “balanced and reasonable”.

What this inquiry covered

This was the second inquiry conducted by the Royal Commission.

The first, which was commissioned by the previous government in 2022, and released in late 2024, looked at border restrictions, the use of vaccinations, the immediate economic response and more.

That report found New Zealand’s Covid-19 response saved thousands of lives, but that the spread of misinformation, and the Government’s use of compulsion to control it, meant the country would struggle to manage a similar national emergency again.

This second iteration of the inquiry was limited to vaccine approvals and requirements, lockdowns and other public health tools relied upon between February 2021 and October 2022. Here’s what the Commission found this time around:

The Commission was more constructive than critical of the pandemic response

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday morning, Minister of Health Simeon Brown said “the report confirms how many people feel”.

“While many of the early decisions made by the previous government were well-supported, saved lives and protected livelihoods, as the pandemic continued the government’s response went further than public health advice recommended.”

He pointed to certain key findings in the report, including that Auckland’s lockdown went longer than recommended, spending was not as targeted as Treasury suggested, and some advice relating to vaccine mandates for under-18s was not made sufficiently clear.

However, a review of the report showed the Commission was more constructive than critical of the then-government’s pandemic response.

While the above criticisms were noted, they were overshadowed by a broad acceptance that the government acted as well as it could at the time, with the information it had.

There were areas that could be improved, and those were laid out. Some measures were too strict, or lasted too long. And with 24 formal recommendations, there’s plenty of room to learn.

The Government’s broad approach to vaccines was solid and based in evidence

The report noted that several submitters were concerned the development of Covid-19 vaccines was rushed, and important safeguards were abandoned.

However, on balance, the Government’s decision to adopt a vaccine strategy early on in the pandemic was “appropriate, and consistent with overwhelming scientific advice,” the Commission found. They concluded that decision-makers “carefully balanced the benefits of Covid-19 vaccines … against any potential risks.”

The Commission went on to review MedSafe’s process of approving the vaccines - and praised it.

“Medsafe was agile and adaptive in its regulation of Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic. This allowed rapid approval of a vaccine without taking short cuts.”

Once the vaccines were being used, and rare but serious side effects - like myocarditis - were occurring, the Commission noted that “decision-makers took extensive steps to mitigate risks”, and strengthened systems for monitoring their safety.

On the vaccine mistrust that came to dominate, the Commission found that “declining levels of trust and social cohesion cannot be solely attributed to Covid-19, or the response. Other issues undoubtedly contributed.

In New Zealand, as elsewhere, misinformation and disinformation affected several areas of the response, particularly the vaccination campaign and lockdowns.”

The report noted that the Government followed established communications procedures and could not have foreseen the extent to which anti-vaccine sentiment would take hold.

Vaccine mandates were reasoned, but not monitored enough

On the vaccine mandates, the Commission found the then-government’s decisions “reflected the advice given and paid significant attention to experience in comparable jurisdictions.”

However, the lack of monitoring of the impacts of the mandates was “striking”.

The Commission said it was impossible to measure how many workers were impacted because “no data was collected about the number and breadth of employer-led mandates”.

This meant that job losses and the uptake of the Vaccination Assessment Tool were not sufficiently tracked, which meant advice about continuing or removing the mandates was not well-informed.

This was reflected in the roll back of vaccine mandates, which was not always consistent or reasoned. For example, the government was too slow to revoke the mandate for border works, the Commission said.

They noted that unvaccinated residence visa holders were allowed in the country for two months before the mandate was revoked, and it is unclear why.

With the benefit of hindsight, the Commission now says the vaccine requirements had “significant social and economic implications” and the “employment and wage scarring impacts” of the vaccine mandates were big.

While the mandates are a valid intervention to keep in the toolbox for future pandemic responses, “the scale of their intrusion on fundamental rights and freedoms, and their potential for severely negative impacts on those who choose not to be vaccinated, means they should be used with great care,” the Commission noted.

More questions should have been asked about the risks to young people receiving vaccines

As Brown emphasised in his press conference on Tuesday morning as the inquiry findings came out, “advice relating to applying a two-dose vaccine mandate to 12-17-year-olds due to myocarditis risks was not made sufficiently clear when the mandates were introduced.

This is a point of concern laid out in the Commission’s report.

In short, there was advice from the Covid-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group that suggested there was an increased risk of myocarditis in 12-17-year-olds after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

That advice should have been taken into account by Ministers when deciding vaccine mandates for this age group.

However, according to the Commission’s findings, there is no evidence that any clear advice was provided to Ministers.

A paper went to the Ministry of Health in November 2021 that recommended considering a mandate for 12-17-year-olds that only required one dose. A couple of weeks later, further advice noted that “risks associated with the transmission of Covid-19 … among those aged under 18 are insufficient to justify mandating a 2 dose schedule of the Pfizer vaccine prior to working in any environment.”

The information that came through to ministers a few weeks later noted that “in November … [the advisory group] raised concerns about vaccine mandates requiring younger age groups (eg those under 18 years) to be fully vaccinated. Consideration should be given to permitting younger people who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the mandate.'

The Commission was critical of this, noting that “we consider the failure to ensure that this specific advice reached Ministers and the public was significant.

Brown said questions “will need to be asked to the ministers of the day, Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall, as to whether or not further questions were asked”.

He noted that the advice provided to Verrall in December was not signed until January, and the mandates remained in place for a while after that.

“Ministers have an obligation to ask questions when they receive advice from officials and to test the advice that is received,” he said.

He confirmed the technical advice that teenagers only need a single dose is now reflected in Covid-19 vaccination recommendations.

Lockdowns: The elimination strategy worked, but was hard to exit

On the 2021 lockdowns, the core issue identified by the Commission appears to be when the elimination approach should have ended.

Elimination strategies “can be very beneficial in terms of preventing large numbers of deaths and hospitalisations”, but “they are difficult to exit”, the report noted.

Speaking on Tuesday, Brown highlighted the finding that “Auckland remained in lockdown and separated from the rest of the country for longer than officials recommended.”

According to the Commission, it came apparent in October 2021 that the outbreak was not going to be eliminated - but the government was not prepared for that scenario.

Now, “with the benefit of hindsight and data from Australia”, we can say that decision-makers should have lifted the regional lockdowns sooner.

However, the Commission also expressed their confidence that decision-makers were trying their hardest to make the right decisions at the time.

“The Government clearly faced a situation of extreme difficulty in October and November 2021. This experience gives rise to some useful lessons about making the best decisions in the worst of circumstances.”

The report noted recollections from former ministers. “It was described to us as the ‘luckless responsibility of Government and senior officials to try to find and navigate their way through bad choices and worse choices’,” it said.

The Commission said the key lesson here is that elimination strategies (like lockdowns) can be useful, but they are hard to leave behind.

In future pandemic responses they should be presented as temporary measures, with clear mechanisms set in place to trigger “prompt, regular and transparent strategic reviews”.

“Taking these measures is likely to build trust in government and help plan for the exit from any elimination phase,” the Commission noted.