by VFF Directors

The second Covid Inquiry, released today March 10, ignores expert evidence and fails its own Terms of Reference, risking further loss of public trust, says Voices for Freedom (VFF).

“The report falls well short of the accountability many New Zealanders expected,” says co-founder Claire Deeks.

“Rather than rigorously testing the decisions made during the pandemic, the inquiry largely validates the governance model used during the response and leaves open the possibility that similar measures, including lockdowns and vaccine mandates, could be used again in the future.

“While the report acknowledges social harm, declining trust in institutions and policy failures, it ultimately concludes that the government’s response was balanced and reasonable.”

Inquiry criticised for failing to fulfil its own Terms of Reference

VFF argues the Terms of Reference required the Inquiry to assess whether pandemic decisions reflected the advice given to decision makers at the time and whether those decisions took account of the experience and evolving practices from comparable jurisdictions.

These were not optional considerations. The Terms of Reference state the Inquiry must examine them.

However, the final report does not demonstrate that these assessments were carried out.

“Instead, the report largely recounts advice from government agencies without examining the broader evidence environment available to decision makers during the pandemic.

“Medical professionals, academics, policy analysts and civil society organisations presented evidence challenging aspects of the response. Assessing whether decisions were properly informed would require examining whether this evidence was considered, weighed, or dismissed. The report does not do this,” Deeks says.

The Terms of Reference also required the Commission to examine the experience of comparable jurisdictions. Yet the report refers to overseas policies without analysing what actually occurred in those countries.

RCR Head of Legal Katie Ashby-Koppens said the report appeared “lazy”, noting that constitutional safeguards already existed but the Commission failed to examine how those protections were set aside.

“The Commission largely accepts the Government’s account at face value without deeper investigation. For decisions that affected every aspect of people’s lives, that is deeply disappointing. The report reads as procedural rather than substantive, entrenching the very narrative that required rigorous scrutiny.”

VFF submitted a 250-page evidentiary report analysing international pandemic responses and outcomes, forming the basis of The People’s Position provided to assist the Commission. 

VFF facilitated live evidence from internationally recognised experts including:

• genomic scientist Kevin McKernan
• cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough
• epidemiologist Dr Simon Thornley
• economist Professor Martin Lally
• vaccinologist Associate Professor Byram Bridle
• former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General Ramesh Thakur
• scientist and applied mathematician Jessica Rose
• public health physician, biotech consultant, and former World Health Organization (WHO) official Dr David Bell

These materials provided the Commission with a clear starting point for examining both the range of advice available at the time and the experience of comparable jurisdictions.

Yet the final report does not meaningfully engage with that evidence.

Ashby-Koppens said “Without analysing both the full range of advice available and the real-world experience of comparable jurisdictions, the Inquiry cannot credibly determine whether the decisions it reviewed were properly informed.

Key decision-makers were never publicly questioned

VFF also criticised the Inquiry’s decision not to require former ministers and senior officials to appear for public questioning. 

The Commission had previously acknowledged that public hearings with decision-makers would allow questioning of those responsible for key policies and enhance public confidence in the inquiry. However, after several former ministers declined invitations to attend voluntarily, the planned hearings were cancelled. 

“The Commission had the authority under the Inquiries Act 2013 to compel attendance but chose not to exercise those powers,” Deeks said. “That decision raises serious questions about the inquiry’s credibility.”

Report prepares the ground for future lockdowns and mandates

To top all the other criticisms off, VFF say that the new report ultimately validates the pandemic governance model used during Covid and lays the ground for it to happen all over again, but this time with primary legislation in place.

“In effect, the report is entrenching the legal framework for the next pandemic,” Ashby-Koppens says. “It does not remove these powers from the toolbox. Instead it seeks to codify them.”

This would include the use of mandates and lockdowns if deemed necessary, but with more clearly defined rules around when such limitations could be imposed and how they could be brought to an end.

“This is a major betrayal of Kiwi’s trust,” says co-founder Alia Bland. Mandates were the most painful and divisive part of the Covid response for many New Zealanders. People lost jobs, were excluded from public life, and communities were deeply divided. Yet the report refuses to confront the policy responsible for that harm.”

Bland noted that around 85 percent of the 33,000 public submissions were critical of mandates, yet the body of the report appears to treat public feedback as evenly divided.

“That does not reflect what people actually told the Inquiry,” she says.

Harms acknowledged — but not reflected in conclusions

The Commission acknowledges significant harms caused by pandemic policies, including:

• declining trust in institutions
• social division and stigma
• exclusion from public life
• damaged family relationships
• economic and psychological hardship

This is good to see, and is partly backed up by new VFF polling which suggests public trust in health authorities continues to erode (see notes to editor).

However, these harms do not meaningfully influence the report’s conclusions. Instead, the report proposes better monitoring of social cohesion and public sentiment during future crises.

“The fundamental problem with the report is that it documents the damage caused by the Covid response without allowing that damage to reshape its conclusions,” Deeks says.

“This is bizarre given that the Chair repeatedly emphasised that the Inquiry was intended to strengthen public confidence in the process and its conclusions.”

Instead, the Inquiry appears to attempt to shift the blame for the loss of trust towards so called ‘misinformation and disinformation”, she notes.

Bland says many New Zealanders will read the report and conclude that the hardest questions were once again avoided. 

“So what matters now is that the public conversation does not stop here. You don’t rebuild trust by avoiding the questions that broke it in the first place,” she says.