Advice on Covid-19 vaccines for children not shown to ministers: Royal Commission

Tuesday, 10 March 2026

Official advice cautioning the Government against mandating two doses of the Covid-19 Pfizer vaccine for under-18s was never shown to ministers, the Royal Commission’s inquiry reveals.

With younger people more at risk of developing myocarditis after the second dose of Pfizer vaccine and less at risk of serious infection from Covid-19, a technical advisory group made up of experts advised the Government twice to only mandate one dose.

It advised the Government should allow younger people to work and do other activities covered by the mandate, and said the risks were insufficient to justify a full vaccination mandate.

The inquiry found that ministers they interviewed could not recall receiving the advice, and both doses were mandated as a result.

Read more:

• National Party president says horror poll result ‘disappointing’ ahead of caucus meeting

• The other poll figures pointing to trouble for Christopher Luxon

• Government pushed ahead with move‑on orders despite officials’ warnings

• Labour yet to hear from Government about support for India trade deal

The Royal Commission is considering it a failure that the advice did not reach ministers or the public, noting 12 to 17-year-olds were not informed of the risks when making the decision to get vaccinated.

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle and is a rare side effect of the Covid-19 vaccine.

The advice not shown was found in a paper on how the Government should define being fully vaccinated, provided to the Ministry of Health in November in 2021,

Earlier advice raising concerns around mandating vaccines for younger people was provided to then Health Minister Chris Hipkins and then Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall, however it did not include any warnings about the dosage levels.

The advice raised concerns about vaccine mandates requiring those under 18 years to be fully vaccinated, advising to permit people who had one dose to do other mandated activities such as work.

Verrall, who considered the paper, commented in the margins that its “concerns, at the time, were about insufficient data on safety of second dose”.

The Royal Commission accepted that Verrall was aware of the group’s general concerns but it was different in substance to the later advice that was not shown to ministers.

Health Minister Simeon Brown believed an explanation was required from Verrall and Hipkins as to what they did with that information when they were provided it, he said.

He said ministers met multiple times a week with officials where the advice provided was tested, and were obligated to ask questions.

He considered it a significant failure from the Ministry of Health that the advice was never shown and said it was concerning for New Zealanders, who needed trust and confidence in the vaccine programmes in place.

Labour has been approached for comment.

Hipkins said it was a major oversight by the officials who prepared that advice, and he was disappointed to have not seen it at the time.

He was away when the earlier advice was considered by Verrall, and said her comments in the margins sought more advice, which was then never shown.

A Ministry of Health spokesperson acknowledged the commission's finding that it was a significant failing.

“We recognise the importance of timely, evidence-based communication for maintaining public trust and confidence. In this instance, the standard was not met.”

The ministrywould reflect carefully on this finding, including reviewing its processes to assure its advice is being delivered clearly and consistently, the spokesperson said.

The advice was about whether it was justified to impose a vaccine mandate on this age-group, based on the relative risk to health. The advice was not about balancing the overall benefits and risks of the vaccine for this age group, they noted.

Speaking to media about the inquiry more broadly, Hipkins said there were always going to be things that he could look back on with more reflection, more time and more evidence.

He said he could have handled the Auckland lockdown decisions better, and the transition from elimination to living with Covid-19 in the community was “a bumpy ride”.

Sir Ashley Bloomfield, the Director-General of Health during the pandemic, told The Post he would not be making any comment in response to the report.

Vaccine mandates involved ‘difficult trade-offs’

Decisions on vaccines reflected advice given, but more could have been done to assess the impacts on social cohesion and labour market implications.

The report also found in some cases vaccine mandates were introduced too slowly, lasted too long, and went too far.

It found there was insufficient monitoring of the use and impacts of vaccination requirements, including uptake of the Vaccination Assessment Tool, job losses and reinstatements, and limited enforcement activity.

The lack of monitoring meant advice about continuing or removing these mandates was not well-informed by data about the outcomes resulting from various vaccine requirements

During the elimination strategy where vaccination rates were low and there was no natural immunity, preventing the spread of infection was essential.

Ministers and senior public servants had well-founded fears that exiting the elimination strategy could have overloaded the health system and disrupted essential services.

There were existing social pressures within the community for higher vaccination levels and more stringent measures, especially as lockdowns ended, it observed.

The negative impacts of the vaccine requirements were also clear, and for some, it meant a loss in trust of the Government.

It said the employment and wage impacts on those who declined the vaccine was foreseeable but poorly monitored.

Many individuals reported feeling excluded, stigmatised, and experiencing loss of relationships and well-being, while others felt coerced into taking the vaccines, despite their preferences.

While the Government did explore testing as an alternative but found testing systems under severe pressure, the report noted the Government’s lack of strategic agility, and taking “a very conservative and centralised approach to testing technologies”.

The requirements involved difficult trade-offs and limited some fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, including the right to refuse medical treatment and the rights to freedom of movement and association.

However, the Government had a responsibility to protect public health, it stated.

Vaccine requirements were welcomed by substantial majorities of the population, the report found, and where many of the vaccination requirements were challenged through judicial review, almost all were upheld in the courts.

The inquiry also found:

• The PCR testing system was overwhelmed in early 2022, partly because the Government was too slow to approve rapid antigen tests and allow firms to import their own.

• The economic response - including quantitative easing - had costs larger than anticipated, leaving New Zealand in a weaker position for future shocks.