The government’s decision to retain existing Covid19 settings for at least the next couple of months continues the same streak of stubborn arrogance that has detracted from the rest of its otherwise balanced and comprehensive approach to the pandemic since its outbreak over three years ago.

Inexplicably, throughout the pandemic response the government consistently ignored or overlooked overseas advice or experience in reaching decisions, preferring instead to re-invent the wheel for itself.

One of the reasons for the delays in getting vaccines in the early days for New Zealanders was because of the government’s unwillingness to accept overseas vaccine approvals as satisfactory for New Zealand. So, the verification procedure for vaccines that were being safely jabbed in arms the world over had to start from the beginning all over again before those same vaccines were approved for local use.

It was a similar story with self-testing equipment. When most other countries started making RAT tests, or similar tests, available to citizens from early 2021 so they could test their own exposure to the virus, our government prevaricated. Then Covid19 Response Minister Hipkins was worried New Zealanders might not use such tests “properly”, and that might lead to adverse consequences.

New Zealand retained lockdowns long after most other countries abandoned them as too socially disruptive and ineffective against new variants like Delta and Omicron. We clung to the notion that somehow we could do what no other country had done and beat the virus, without any negative social costs.

This week’s decision smacks of the same arrogant “New Zealand is different, and we know best” approach of earlier times. According to Health Minister Verrall, more work needs to be done on whether testing to return to work earlier than the seven days for people who are not symptomatic or are mild cases, could be a safe and effective approach.

Yet, Te Punaha Matatini principal investigator, and disease modelling expert, Professor Michael Plank says the “direction of travel” internationally has been to drop isolation requirements and treat Covid19 “alongside all the other important public health issues that we have to deal with.” Britain abandoned mandatory isolation a year ago, and Australia did so late last year.

There are already anecdotal reports here of people thwarting Covid19 isolation requirements to avoid having to take time off work by simply not reporting when they have the virus. Is our government naïve enough to believe that as the economy worsens, and pressure on jobs increases, that trend will not become more pronounced, especially if restrictions are prolonged?

Professor Plank’s team’s modelling results would have been available to Ministers before the latest Cabinet discussion. Any questions, along the lines now being posed by Minister Verrall, could have been put directly to the modellers. Given current international practice, Verrall’s call for more information seems an unnecessary excuse for inaction.

Epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker has argued for the retention of existing restrictions, but his reasoning seems to be less to do with Covid19 than other health matters. According to Baker, “self-isolation protects people from lots of dangerous respiratory illnesses including flu, whooping cough and other nasties that are doing the rounds.” The implication of his remarks that self-isolation should become a near permanent feature of our health response to annual viruses goes way beyond any other suggestions.

But perhaps that is where the government is heading? Verrall’s justification for retaining isolation requirements made no direct reference to Baker’s suggestions. But, given the potential pressures in the months ahead on our stretched public health services, there is some logic, albeit extreme, in what he is saying. So, is he being quietly encouraged to float an idea that the government might stealthily adopt over the next little while in the interests of taking seasonal pressure off the health system?

Plank’s modelling and what is happening internationally shows there is no compelling evidence for keeping isolation requirements in place in New Zealand insofar as Covid19 is concerned. Nor is doing so likely to be a popular move politically, with most sectors of the community keen to move on from the Covid19 era. Verrall’s excuse for not doing so now looks very weak, unless, of course, the government has another agenda in mind that it does not yet want to acknowledge, but for which continuing Covid19 restrictions is a convenient cover.

With the public perception of a public health service in crisis, and a reform programme that looks incoherent and disorganised, the last thing the government would want in the lead-up to the election, is the health service overrun by, and unable to cope with all the usual winter ailments. Far better, therefore, and certainly more cynical politics, to follow Baker’s suggestion and keep the Covid19 restrictions on for a little longer in the hope of keeping a lid on the spread of this year’s annual winter bugs.

Three years on, the government still seems determined to milk every political advantage it can from Covid19

 

 

Something is remiss in the way Ministers are being reminded of the potential conflict between their private interests and their public responsibilities if recent circumstances are anything to go by.

The Cabinet Manual, is the “primary authority on the conduct of Cabinet government” and “provides authoritative guidance” on how Ministers should operate. It requires a confidential annual meeting between the Cabinet Office and each individual Minister to discuss their situation, and how any potential conflicts of interest might be managed. It also makes clear that the primary role of a Minister is setting the policy direction for their portfolio and securing the necessary funding for those initiatives in the annual Budget round. While Ministers are accountable to Parliament and the Prime Minister for the overall performance of their department, they are not directly responsible for that department’s operational decisions which are taken to give effect to the government’s policies. And Ministers must always ensure the separation of powers between the Executive branch of government (the Cabinet) and the Judiciary (the Courts and law enforcement agencies) is maintained.

The Cabinet Manual also makes it clear that Ministers cannot intercede on behalf of family or close associates on official matters of interest to them, nor can they promote family members for official appointments, or use any information they gain through their Ministerial roles in a way that gives special benefit to any external groups.

It is all prudent common sense, really. However, recent Ministerial practice suggests that the processes by which the Cabinet Office advises Ministers each year about their responsibilities and managing any potential conflicts are not being taken as seriously as they have been previously. There is also an emerging view among some Ministers that in these days of feelings- rather than rules-based politics, these rules and conventions do not really apply to them, and that they can best judge for themselves how to manage such situations.

The circumstances surrounding both disgraced former Minister Stuart Nash and now Minister Kiri Allan suggest at best a cavalier disregard for the provisions of the Cabinet Manual regarding their own situations. Nash’s transgressions have been well aired, and do not require repetition. He has been properly dismissed by the Prime Minister and is planning to leave politics altogether.

But Allan’s situation is somewhat different and ongoing. Her breach was to make remarks that appeared critical of Radio New Zealand for not having promoted her fiancée at the function marking her fiancée’s departure from the organisation. Allan later claimed that the remarks were made in a personal capacity and has apologised to the Prime Minister for them.

This is a frankly disingenuous excuse. Allan is the Minister of Justice and an experienced public lawyer, so should understand the clear provisions of the Cabinet Manual regarding promoting family interests, better that most in Parliament. Her claim that she made her remarks in a personal capacity at a private function implies a personal naivety that does not wash either. As an intelligent person she knew full well what she was doing, and what the impact would be. It is hard to see that her remarks, no matter how strongly they were personally felt, made in the presence of board members, were anything more than a deliberate shot across the bows of Radio New Zealand.

Radio New Zealand is a public entity, with statutory autonomy regarding editorial opinion and staffing. Any comment by a Minister in any public setting that is either a direct or implied interference in that autonomy, or an attempt to promote the interests of family, however obliquely, is a breach of the Cabinet Manual provisions, as egregious as those that led to the downfall of Stuart Nash.

Of particular concern is the inconsistent and reluctant approach of the Prime Minister. He was very slow to act decisively on the Nash case, only doing so when the mounting evidence made it impossible for him to ignore the situation any longer. By contrast, his rebuke to Allan was extraordinarily mild, and smacked of differing standards. While it is perfectly understandable that he would have been extremely reluctant to stand aside another Minister for breach of Cabinet Manual standards with just a few months to go before the election, the inconsistency is inexcusable, and ultimately reflects poorly on his judgment.

The Cabinet Manual makes it clear that all Ministers are directly accountable to the Prime Minister for their performance and conduct, and that he is accountable to Parliament for the overall performance of his government. He cannot therefore brush aside the lapses of conduct that we have seen in recent weeks as nothing to do with him, the way he seems intent on doing. Nor, in fairness to his Ministers, or his own personal credibility, can he be seen to be applying different standards to different Ministers, the way he has been.

The Prime Minister has commissioned a review of the Cabinet Manual to upgrade and strengthen the provisions around the management of conflicts of interest. That is all very well but as the Cabinet Manual is already explicit on this point the review risks looking like window-dressing for election purposes. What is required right now is for its provisions to be upheld.   

All of which comes back to how seriously Ministers are following the Cabinet Manual provisions. In the light of the Nash and Allan incidents, and to restore confidence that Ministers do understand and will abide by the rules, it might now be timely for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary to jointly meet each individual Minister to assess their individual situations and identify any potential conflicts likely to emerge over the balance of the government’s term, well before they arise.

At the very least, this would stop the Prime Minister being caught on the hop by the conduct of Ministers who have not comprehended the Cabinet Manual provisions, or worse, think that they can ignore them.