The government has agreed to act on all 63 recommendations from an official review of New Zealand's Covid-19 response. The review, called a Royal Commission, was set up to look at what went well and what didn't during the pandemic. The government's formal response was published on 29 July 2026 (Beehive).

A Royal Commission is the most powerful type of government investigation in Aotearoa New Zealand. It's run by independent experts who dig into an issue and tell the government what should change. This one was set up on 9 December 2022 by the previous Labour government (Beehive).

Of the 63 recommendations, the government accepted 21 in full, 36 in principle (meaning it agrees with the idea but may do it differently), and 6 partially (Beehive).

The Ministry of Health received the final report on 10 March 2026 (Ministry of Health) and is now in charge of carrying out the government's response (Ministry of Health). The full response document is on the Beehive website (Ministry of Health).

Professor Michael Baker, an infectious disease expert at Otago University who advised the government during the pandemic, said he was pleased the recommendations were accepted. But he worried about whether they would actually be put into practice. He said many changes should happen within the next 12 months, but that staying ready for future pandemics needs ongoing funding and effort — not a one-time fix (RNZ).

Baker's strongest message was to MPs: keep politics out of pandemic preparation. He said all parties should work together on this (RNZ).

That didn't last long. Within hours of the government releasing its response, MPs were arguing about it in Parliament (RNZ).

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon accused Labour of mishandling the economy during the pandemic. Labour's Kieran McAnulty said the government's response was a distraction from its own inaction (RNZ).

The coalition parties disagreed among themselves too. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters called the response "pathetic" and wanted another inquiry, saying there had been a cover-up. ACT leader David Seymour said Labour's pandemic rules had badly damaged the economy, education, business, and mental health (RNZ).

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick took a different view. She said the coalition has made the health system weaker for the next pandemic by cutting funding to front-line staff (RNZ).

The Science Media Centre published a collection of expert reactions to the government's response on 29 July 2026 (Science Media Centre).

The review was meant to be about learning lessons for next time, not about blaming anyone. But within a single day, politicians had moved on to pointing fingers. Luxon, McAnulty, Peters, Seymour, and Swarbrick each used the inquiry's findings to push their own political positions instead of talking about how the 63 recommendations would actually be carried out.

There's a practical issue behind all of this. When the government says it accepts a recommendation "in principle" or "partially," that leaves a lot of room for deciding how and how quickly it gets done. The Ministry of Health is in charge of making it happen, but that agency has been through restructures and budget cuts under this government — which is the point Swarbrick was making. Whether the 12-month timeline Baker mentioned actually holds will depend on what Cabinet prioritises, what gets funded in future budgets, and whether the Ministry has the capacity to deliver.

The broader context is that pandemic preparation involves health, emergency response, and the economy — and the plans need to survive changes of government. A new government can undo what the last one set up. Baker's call for all parties to work together reflects that reality. This week's arguing in Parliament suggests that problem is still unsolved.