Covid-19 Inquiry: Families and businesses detail crippling losses, lost schooling and farewelling dying family
Public hearings for the second phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic response
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Greater Wellington Recommends Withdrawal Of Regulatory Standards Bill
Greater Wellington's submission to the Finance & Expenditure Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill recommends the immediate withdrawal of the Bill. Deputy Chair of Greater Wellington and Councillor for Wairarapa Adrienne Staples and Chief Executive Nigel Corry, speaking to its submission to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee said the Bill raised a cluster of red flags. 'It constrains government and regulators from acting in society's collective interest, it undermines Te Tiriti o Waitangi and constitutes executive government overreach, it attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist, it creates legal risks, inefficiency, complexity and increased costs for local government, its partners and communities. On top of all that it will lead to worse social, environmental and economic outcomes,' said Mr Corry. 'Parliament has already voted down the flawed and inflammatory Te Tiriti o Waitangi Principles Bill. Surely it did not intend that a second Trojan horse would be injected into the Parliamentary Chamber. New Zealanders deserve better political discourse frankly,' said Cr Staples. In its submission, Greater Wellington highlighted the many, varied and adverse effects the Bill would have in the region and across New Zealand, specifically outlining the risks to core council functions: Environment - conservation, biodiversity and pest control The Bill's focus on short-term measurable benefit may impact Greater Wellington's ability to invest in innovative or long-term initiatives like predator control, replanting programmes, mātauranga Māori and mātauranga-ā-iwi driven conservation practices, or protection of taonga species with no immediate economic value. Māori approaches to conservation including their right to exercise kaitiakitanga could be challenged by the Bill's focus on individual rights over collective obligations. The restrictions on new regulatory powers could slow Greater Wellington's responses to unforeseen or emerging threats to biodiversity. Environmental Regulation The Bill's push for nationally consistent, minimal rules could constrain councils' discretion to use precautionary limits or adopt stricter standards in sensitive areas. Efforts to regulate (e.g. high-emitting industries) might be challenged or require compensation for lost profits. Modern environmental law and policy is based on the 'polluter pays' principle - those causing pollution or environmental harm bearing the costs of remediation or prevention. The Bill's regulatory takings clause, however, reverses this principle. As an example, if a future government were to enact regulations to protect rivers, requiring a dairy corporation to reduce its pollution or stocking rates, and this action was deemed to impair the corporation's property, the Bill implies some form of compensation may be payable. This creates a perverse incentive structure where the public, through taxpayer funds, would effectively subsidise the costs of environmental protection, rather than the polluters. Water Greater Wellington could be constrained in restricting water use to restore the health of the waterways, or during drought or pollution events if such measures are judged as unfairly impacting certain users. Attempts to uphold Te Mana o Te Wai or incorporate tikanga into freshwater regulation could be undermined by a framework that prioritises uniformity and individual rights. Any efforts to address long-standing inequitable rights to water access for example, for Māori landowners or under-serviced rural communities, could be stopped, as inconsistent with the Bill's emphasis on formal equality, or identical treatment for all. In the same way, the following could be challenged: partnerships with communities, iwi and hapū to govern and manage water, and Māori and public input into water planning if they are not considered 'materially affected'. Climate change and infrastructure for resilience In elevating a narrow economic reading of regulation with efficiency and cost-limitation tests, the Bill could put broad constraints on Greater Wellington's ability to invest in: long term resilience infrastructure upgrades, Māori-led climate initiatives, equity-based adaptation initiatives, low-emissions public transport, and progressive social procurement policies e.g. hiring locally, involving Māori suppliers and paying the living wage. Transport The Bill could curtail New Zealand's ability to expand public transport for the public good, including but not limited to: supporting community-led transport initiatives e.g. connecting to marae and papakāinga; cross-subsidising services in less profitable areas or where there is a higher need e.g. rural areas, disability access upgrades; and initiatives to reduce transport emissions. These initiatives could be challenged as being 'unequal treatment', and/or inconsistent with centralised efficiency metrics or cost-benefit assessments. Greater Wellington's free, frank and robust submission can be found here: Greater Wellington — Regulatory Standards Bill – Greater Wellington Regional Council Submission
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Union explains support for pilot sacked over Covid-19 vaccine
The pilots' union says it hopes a sacked pilot who won an Employment Court case after a Covid-19 vaccine dispute can get on with his career. The New Zealand Airline Pilots Association (NZALPA) supported Philip Tighe-Umbers in his court case against Jetconnect, which supplies crew to Qantas. Tighe-Umbers
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
What the Covid-19 inquiry is teaching us
Comment: As the dust continues to settle from the peak pandemic years, New Zealand is taking a long, hard look in the mirror. The first phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned has been delivered, and it offers an unflinching account of our preparedness, decisions, and blind spots. The second phase is underway, tasked with interrogating the specifics: vaccination equity, disinformation, and the long shadow Covid cast across our communities. The power – and price – of going early The inquiry acknowledges that our early, bold elimination strategy was effective at saving lives. Compared with many other nations, New Zealand avoided mass deaths and overwhelmed hospitals. But it came with real costs: social isolation, educational disruption, economic harm, and deep psychological strain, especially in communities already living with inequity. For some, the border closures and MIQ system became a symbol of safety; for others, of exclusion and despair. A pandemic plan built for the wrong pandemic New Zealand's pre-Covid pandemic plans were largely geared towards influenza. This wasn't a case of simply dusting off an out-of-date playbook. The virus we faced was a novel coronavirus – more contagious, less predictable, and politically destabilising. Critical systems, from intensive care unit capacity to personal protective equipment logistics, weren't scaled or connected in the way a 21st century pandemic demanded. We weren't alone in that, but being unprepared is not something we should now excuse as inevitable. Who was heard – and who wasn't Perhaps one of the most damning findings is how poorly the early response incorporated Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations. Māori and Pacific voices were sidelined in national decision-making. Community providers who had the trust, the reach, and the relationships to respond effectively were often bypassed or underused. The equity gap didn't start with Covid-19, but the pandemic made it wider and more visible. The communication conundrum Early in the pandemic, New Zealand's public health messaging was lauded globally for its clarity and empathy. But the commission noted that as time went on, messaging became increasingly centralised and inflexible. Tailored communications for diverse populations were often absent. At times when nuance and dialogue were needed, the approach defaulted to broadcast mode rather than engagement. What phase 2 must tackle The second phase of the inquiry, now underway, is where the real grit begins. It will scrutinise the rollout of vaccines, particularly whether equity was achieved or merely promised. It will delve into vaccine mandates and their effects on public trust. It will explore the long-term health, economic, and educational impacts of our Covid-19 response. It will ask hard questions about the use of emergency powers and the resilience (or fragility) of our health systems. Perhaps most importantly, it will examine how trust was won, lost, and exploited. The rise of misinformation and targeted disinformation isn't just a curious byproduct of the pandemic era – it's a feature of our new public health landscape. If we fail to address it, we're not just failing to learn – we're inviting history to repeat itself. Why it matters Do we really need another report? Haven't we moved on? But in science, as in governance, learning from mistakes isn't optional – it's essential. The very act of reflection is a declaration that we take public health seriously, that we value lives lost and saved, and that we are willing to face uncomfortable truths to be better prepared next time. Pandemics will come again. Whether sparked by zoonotic spillover, synthetic biology, or climate-driven vector shifts, the next crisis is not a matter of if but when. The Royal Commission won't give us all the answers – but it can make sure we ask better questions and build a more inclusive, agile, and evidence-based response. In the end, the value of this inquiry isn't just in what it reports, but in whether we listen.
