Comment National health system and national cooperation (Score 2) 300
What made the difference in Australia at least, is a national health system and an early approach on a national level.
A national health system means centralised coordination for health resources. none of this silly states bidding against each other for resources.
Also, very early on, a "national cabinet" was convened which consisted of the Prime minister and the state premiers. They coordinated policies across the whole country which were then implemented in each jurisdiction. There was none of this "we do our own thing whenever".
One of the other main contributors is testing. We started testing very early on well before March, and it gradually expanded in scope as things chnaged.
But, the main contributor, and I think this is a good Australian setup, is a responsibility matrix (or combat agency).
In Australia, the Chief Medical Office is the authority when it comes to panedemics/infectious diseases. This means that they usually have the final say, but in this very complex and devastating situation, they advise the governement of the day.
They listen and act accordingly.
It is evident in how things progressed in Australia. Initially our PM was playing it down, but then his tone and approach changed as the advice changed and so we are in a good place now.
I suspect NZ is in a similar setup hence the same (actually better) scenario.