Brooke Van Velden, David Seymour and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon responded after NZ First invoked the first use of “agree to disagree” provisions. Video / Mark Mitchell
NZ First has invoked the first use of the “agree to disagree” provisions in the coalition government, saying it disagrees with elements of the Government’s decisions on an expanded Covid-19 inquiry.
NZ First leader Winston Peters issued a press release setting out the party’sposition after Brooke van Velden released the form the inquiry would take.
Peters said while NZ First agreed with the scope of a proposed “second phase” of the inquiry, it disagreed strongly with the decision to complete the current Royal Commission into Covid-19 inquiry first and to keep its chair Tony Blakely in place.
A “second phase” of the inquiry would then begin with a new chair and new commissioners, which would have wider terms of reference. It would report back with recommendations by February 2026.
“It will focus on matters of ongoing public concern including vaccine efficacy and safety, the extended lockdowns in Auckland and Northland, and the extent of disruption to New Zealanders’ health, education and business,” van Velden said.
Van Velden said she preferred the Government not set a precedent by ending a Royal Commission of Inquiry, particularly given it had originally been expected to report back in September.
She argued the coalition agreements had been met and this was simply a “serious, little, tiny, little bit where we have disagreed”.
She claimed the two-phase approach was the most “fiscally prudent way forward” and defended the decision to continue the current inquiry.
“There was a lot of evidence gathered to date and it would have been a waste of evidence, resources and the commissioners’ time for this to end a few months before it was expected to report back.
“What we’ve done is expand those terms of reference into areas that were missed out in the first terms of reference and there will be additional cost but I think the path forward also saves taxpayers money by not asking us to end and re-litigate all of the evidence that’s already been gathered.”
The second phase was expected to cost about $14 million. Van Velden understood the first phase had cost about 17m so far.
With the new terms of reference including vaccine efficacy, van Velden said she would “ideally” employ commissioners that had legal, medical, public health and economics expertise.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins was the former Covid-19 Minister in the previous government. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Labour leader Chris Hipkins speculated the new inquiry phase was “an attempt by David Seymour and Winston Peters to try and cook up an inquiry that reinforces their conspiracy theories”. He also appeared to joke Peters would prefer to have former TVNZ host and anti-vaccination campaigner Liz Gunn as a commissioner.
Peters dismissed Hipkins’ claims, saying the Opposition leader could “go down the rabbit hole that he’s talking about and stay down there”.
He accepted NZ First’s promise to hold a new Covid inquiry would be upheld, even if it took “a bit longer than we thought”.
In his press release, Peters said NZ First had always wanted the current inquiry scrapped completely and could not agree to continuing it, saying it was “nothing more than a Labour Party political tool”, being used to craft a message through its lack of scope and lack of suitability of the commissioners.
“We believe that ‘phase one’ of the Royal Commission is simply a continuation of the current inquiry, which is far too narrow in scope and remains compromised by the current Chair’s direct involvement with the previous government’s administration and direct planning of the Covid pandemic response.”
Peters said that led to a perception of bias which would undermine the credibility of that part of the inquiry.
The former Labour Government set up the Royal Commission into Covid-19 in December 2022, setting its focus as looking at what could be learned to improve the response for future pandemics.
That narrow scope was criticised strongly at the time by National, Act and NZ First who accused Labour of trying to dodge accountability for the decisions they had made.
A broader inquiry was included in the coalition agreements of both Act and NZ First.
NZ First leader Winston Peters rebuffed the Labour leader's claims. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Van Velden said more than 13,000 submissions had been received from the public during the consultation earlier this year on the need to expand the terms of reference.
The new commissioners and detailed terms of reference would be announced in August.
The coalition agreements include dispute resolution clauses which require the parties to “work together and in good faith” to reach agreement with each other and try to get consensus.
The agreements – and the Cabinet Manual – provide for the parties to agree to disagree in relation to issues on which parties wish to maintain different positions in public.
In such a case, attempts to get consensus have to be tried first, and it has to be dealt with at the leadership level.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said his conversations with Peters on the matter had been “incredibly calm, reasonable, natural, normal”.
He claimed the coalition Government was “very mature” and “well-functioning” in how it had navigated the disagreement.
Act leader David Seymour said his party was “really comfortable” with the outcome as it delivered a “wider, more open inquiry” that would “ask some of the questions that I think should have been asked all along”.
Hipkins, the former Covid-19 Minister, said he had no issue with the second inquiry phase if it was independent.
In a statement, inquiry chairman Professor Tony Blakely and commissioner John Whitehead maintained their terms of reference were broad but acknowledged the reasoning behind the Government’s decision.
“Our current terms of reference are broad enough to allow us to look at a wide range of Covid-19 related topics, like mandates, lockdowns, and social impacts such as the impact on education and mental health.
“However, we recognise there are specific areas that people have said they would like considered and that’s been reflected in what has been outlined by the Government.”
The statement did not address the criticism levelled by Peters.
Claire Trevett is the NZ Herald’s political editor, based at Parliament in Wellington. She started at the Herald in 2003 and joined the Press Gallery team in 2007. She is a life member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
