NZ Government Ponders How to Loosen the Reins of COVID-19 Response Inquiry

Chair of the NZ Royal Commission in the COVID-19 response, Professor Tony Blakely. Courtesy of the NZ Royal Commission/Department of Internal Affairs/CC BY 4.0

Back in December 2022, New Zealand’s then-prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, announced the country would hold a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, calling it “the highest form of public inquiry and ... the right thing to do.”

It was to be chaired by Australian-based epidemiologist Professor Tony Blakely, alongside two members, former Cabinet Minister Hekia Parata and former Treasury Secretary John Whitehead, an economist.

Since then, Ms. Parata has stood down for personal reasons, and new Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden is considering whether the Commission’s terms of reference are too restrictive and whether Mr. Blakely, a New Zealander, is the right person to lead it.

Limited Time-Frame to Consider

As it stands, the Commission is barred from considering a wide range of information that could well be considered germane to forming a complete picture of the country’s response to the pandemic.

It can, for instance, only “consider the strategies, settings, and measures ... as they existed or operated between February 2020 and October 2022, and not outside those dates,” meaning no discussion about the adequacy of PPE stocks, or the lack of emergency department and intensive care beds—both the subject of criticism at the time.

Currently, New Zealand has 5.5 ICU beds per capita while other, much smaller countries, such as Estonia (14.6) and Luxembourg (24.8) remain far better equipped to handle another pandemic.

New Zealand Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden. She is faced with the question of whether she should replace Professor Blakely as chair of the COVID-19 Royal Commission and, if so, how she goes about it. Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

Nor can the Commission offer its thoughts on “how and when the strategies and other measures devised in response to COVID-19 were implemented or applied in particular situations or in individual cases,” which would appear to rule out any consideration of the highly controversial decision to close the country’s borders to its own citizens for almost two years.

It is also barred from looking at “particular clinical decisions made by clinicians or by public health authorities” which—given that quarantines, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and much else were “clinical decisions”—would appear to leave the Commission with the job of making recommendations about some (but not all) things that might provide for a better response in future, but without criticising anything the Ardern government did in the past.

‘Clinical Decisions’ Outside the Scope

Unsurprisingly, all of the main opposition parties objected to the limited Terms of Reference when they were announced.

Now sitting on the Treasury benches, the National Party is eager to broaden the terms to include a far wider range of issues.

On Feb. 8, the Commission began soliciting public feedback on the current terms of reference and—at the Minister’s request—is considering whether they should include issues such as vaccine procurement and efficacy and whether the rules set by the government appropriately balanced COVID elimination with other goals.

Commissioners Can’t Be Replaced

While broadening the scope of the inquiry could be achieved with minimal friction, the other question facing Ms. van Velden—the suitability of the man Ms. Ardern picked to head the Commission—is far more fraught.

Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announces her resignation at the War Memorial Centre in Napier, New Zealand, on Jan. 19, 2023. Kerry Marshall/Getty Images

Epidemiologist Tony Blakely is a professor at the University of Melbourne, and highly regarded in his field. However, he is also closely linked to key players in New Zealand’s decision to choose an “elimination” response to the pandemic.

They include public health physicians Michael Baker and Nick Wilson, with whom Mr. Blakely co-authored the paper “Elimination could be the optimal response strategy for COVID-19 and other emerging pandemic diseases,” published in the British Medical Journal in 2020.

While the government enacted its response, he was also a regular commenter in the media.

The Commission said in a statement that Mr. Blakely “was not formally engaged by any New Zealand government-appointed COVID-19 advisory groups” but “did maintain his usual professional networks and connections with New Zealand public health specialists, as he did with specialists around the world and in Australia during the COVID-19 period.”

However, that was not enough to assuage the concerns of many observers, including King’s Counsel Deborah Chambers, who last year said, “Putting an epidemiologist in charge of this inquiry is like putting a rabbit in charge of the lettuce garden.”

Starting Again Would Be Too Costly

Ms. van Velden can’t simply replace a Commissioner, as the Act under which a Royal Commission is established precludes politicians from doing so unless the incumbent leaves of their own free will; commits some serious act of misconduct; or cannot attend to, or neglects their duties.

The alternative—to scrap the Commission altogether and start again, at an estimated cost of $30 million (US$18.5 million)—is simply untenable to a government heavily advocating for cost savings across the entire public sector.

That leaves Ms. van Velden two choices: ask Mr. Blakely to step down and risk an embarrassing refusal, which would taint the inquiry’s findings regardless of what they may be; or look to replace Ms. Parata with someone the government feels might bring some balance to the Commission.

The cost of the current inquiry is expected to top $17 million. Originally budgeted at $15.47 million, in October the previous government approved a further $1.3 million to fund a three-month extension from June to the end of September this year.