An unpleasant aspect of our current national character has come to light in recent times. When it comes right down to it, no matter what our pretences to the contrary, tolerance for a different point of view, or approach to things, is not a commodity in great supply at present, right across the political spectrum. Of course, there are moral absolutes like upholding universal equality and freedom from discrimination to which most of us adhere, but whereas previously we accepted other diverse views as either a person’s prerogative, or a harmless quirk, we now seem far less willing to do so. 

In part, this is due to the pandemic and the monolithic, support the “team of five million” approach we have been constantly exhorted to follow over the last year or so. By definition, anyone who is not part of nor wholly embraces what the team is about has been sidelined as uncooperative, divisive or any other negative epithet one cares to use. Think about how those academics and medical experts, let alone other community leaders, who have raised questions from time to time about our pandemic response have been dismissed and sneered at for daring to question the prevailing orthodoxy, as an example. 

But it goes far deeper than the pandemic, even though it has been fuelled by that. Public discourse generally has become far less tolerant, and our national capacity to absorb and assess different ideas and thoughts has significantly reduced. Increasingly, there now seems to be a prevailing “right” view, with no willingness to accept any alternative, or that the truth is far more likely to lie between the extremes. 

Here are some examples. The housing crisis we have today is generally held to be the fault of the baby boomers, who, at the same time, are considered to have no legitimate experience, or even right to be involved when it comes to resolving it. Their life’s work, saving in times of prolonged high inflation and the 20% mortgage rates of the 1980s, to provide decent housing for their families, not only is seen as the cause of today’s problem, but counts for nothing when it comes to its resolution. And any complaints from them are greeted with insults increasingly far worse and strident than the “OK, boomer” retort uttered in Parliament last year. 

The current hate speech debate is another case in point. A legitimate concern about the impact of inciteful, racially or gender-oriented attacks on vulnerable people risks becoming an all-out assault on the right to express political views, however innocently, that may deviate from the newly established norm. And those who express concern about this possibility are derided as out of touch, and part of the problem. 

However, this new intolerance is not restricted solely to the left wing of politics. Our political right is just as culpable, even though the topics it focuses on are different. But, like the left, the right is seeking to sharpen attention around particular issues that it can then use to convey a wider message to society about what it thinks overall.   

For example, in recent weeks the National Party has vigorously criticised the Human Rights Commissioner for going to a meeting with gang leaders and proffering a $200 koha, and the Prime Minister for committing around $2.5 million to a gang run methamphetamine addiction rehabilitation programme. National claims both moves show the government is soft on the gangs (a refrain every Opposition has uttered at some time during the life of every government of the last fifty years). It now wants the Auditor-General to investigate the legitimacy of both these items. 

The claim about the Human Rights Commissioner is frivolous and unlikely to go anywhere with the Auditor-General. There may be more substance to the claim about the methamphetamine addiction rehabilitation programme, although it would depend on the nature of any contract or other formal arrangement the government has with the gang agency carrying out the programme. In any case, the programme is not new – it was established by the previous National-led government during its last term of office. 

Not to be outdone by National’s moves and realising for itself the potency of using the gangs as a political prop, the ACT Party has now proposed its own strategy for dealing with the gangs. Casting aside its previous fundamental commitment to upholding personal liberty and freedom, ACT is now proposing gang injunction orders under which the Police could seek Court approval to prohibit a gang member from being in certain places or associating with certain people, and restricting their expenditure on alcohol, gambling and tobacco, if they were on a benefit. Beneficiaries who were gang members would be able to spend their benefits on food and clothing only. 

For both, the basic message is no different. Like the left, both National and ACT are using particular circumstances to promote a view that not only is their rigid view uncompromisingly the correct one, but that, correspondingly, everyone who does not wholeheartedly agree with them is not worth paying any attention to. 

In what seems to be a rapidly diminishing minority, I am one of those who stands between these extremes. For me, there are no inherently right or wrong answers on all of the great questions vexing contemporary society. Rather, there are only questions and challenges to be pursued. I instinctively rebel against those who present things as absolute and demand unquestioning support in response. Belief in an evidence-based approach to issues, which I support, does not mean uncritical acceptance of that evidence, but rather the opportunity to ask more questions and pose more challenges. 

In the difficult times we have today, people are craving certainty to overcome their fear and anxiety.  So, it is understandable that acceptance of broad, overall solutions in an uncritical way has wide appeal. But we cannot allow that to override our tolerance for the expression of different views the way we are at present.

 

 

The British Medical Association calls it “irresponsible”. The British scientific community’s “overwhelming view” is to move “slowly” and the country’s Opposition thinks it is a “fatalistic” move. Meanwhile the Chambers of Commerce say businesses will be “sighing with relief”. In New Zealand the Covid19 Minister dismissed the move as “not realistic” and one New Zealand would not be following. 

They are all referring to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision, for better or worse, to lift most of Britain’s Covid19 restrictions from 19 July. This move, which Johnson seems determined to carry out, despite the criticisms at home and abroad, will change the Covid19 game forever. Already, countries like Singapore and Australia are looking to move in a similar direction. The solid consensus on the elimination of the virus is starting to break down, and, like Humpty Dumpty, will become impossible to put back together, no matter what future developments there may be. 

Whatever one may think of the desirability or timing of the British move, it is going to be extremely difficult for the rest of the world to ignore, or not be impacted by it. Even isolated countries like New Zealand that are still pursuing an elimination strategy will be caught up in this, especially, if in our case, travel bubble partner and closest neighbour Australia follows the British lead, as Prime Minister Scott Morrison has strongly hinted is likely. 

So, while New Zealand may continue for its own legitimate national safety reasons to adhere to the elimination strategy that has worked for us to date, we are, as Professor Michael Baker observed a couple of weeks ago, likely to become the “last man standing” in that regard. And the blunt reality is that as other countries abandon the elimination approach in favour of learning to live with the virus it is going to become increasingly difficult to live on the elimination limb. 

For a start, as restrictions elsewhere are relaxed, and more and more people overseas become fully vaccinated, the expectation will grow that they will be able to travel more freely to countries like New Zealand, without facing the prospect when they arrive of enduring the near permanent quarantine system we seem to be developing. Not all these people will be casual tourists – many will be family members wanting to come home to re-unite with loved ones they have not seen for some time. But none are likely to take kindly to being treated as unwelcome intruders into a hermit kingdom. 

This is not to suggest that New Zealand should immediately follow the British example and remove the restrictions we currently have in place. We cannot even contemplate doing so until we have achieved a much higher level of vaccination than is currently the case, nor should we. Rather, the point is that we cannot remain static in our response, especially as other countries start to move, and that our isolation notwithstanding, we will not be immune to their moves. 

A small chink of optimism that New Zealand is beginning to understand that we are caught up in the changing international tides has emerged in comments this week from the Minister of Finance. Emerging from what he described as his post-Budget round of regional visits (curious of itself in that no Minister of Finance has ever spent nine weeks since a Budget touring the regions to promote it) Grant Robertson promised that the government’s blueprint for moving beyond the current situation would be released in the next few weeks. 

Leaving aside the customary accompanying gloom of his message that a long period of restriction still lay ahead, the Minister’s statement did contain the encouraging recognition that we do need to move on over time towards what might become the new post Covid19 normal. The welcome aspect is that this is one of the first times a government spokesperson has spoken publicly of the next phase. In contrast, as recently as last week the Prime Minister was saying she had not even yet begun to turn her mind to that. So, the Minister’s admission that the government is thinking about a world beyond Covid19 has to be regarded in a positive light, even if the details are still at best limited and vague. 

Britain’s moves make it clear, for better or worse, that we are moving to a new stage in the battle against Covid19. It is potentially the most difficult yet as the countries of the world start to seek ways of interconnecting after around 18 months of disruption – the biggest upheaval to international order since World War II. The new ways of interconnection will be at times be difficult and definitely uncertain. But they will also be inexorable, as more and more countries acknowledge, as Covid19 variants increase, the impracticality of complete elimination of the virus and accept the still unpleasant reality of learning to live as safely as possible with it. 

While New Zealand is still standing reluctantly near the start of the pathway, Grant Robertson’s comments, made with all the enthusiasm of Shakespeare’s schoolboy, suggest that New Zealand is beginning to realise, albeit still mightily grudgingly, that at some point it will need to join that journey.

 

Former United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously observed that, “there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.” While he was referring specifically to the American allegation that Iraq was harbouring “weapons of mass destruction” his comments could just as readily be applied to the current Covid 19 situation.

While most will be familiar with Covid19’s “known knowns” and the steps being taken by governments around the world to address those, the “known unknowns” and the “unknown unknowns” are a still a different situation altogether. Amongst the “known unknowns” two issues rank highly. The first relates to the way in which the virus is mutating, and the second the best way to move to a post Covid19 environment.

Already, the virus has been through many mutations, a few more virulent than others. The world is currently in the grip of a so-called Delta variant which appears to be more transmissible, cause more severe illness and potentially reduce the effectiveness of vaccines or treatments. What may come next and how potent that will be we do not know, but we do know, consistent with the nature of viruses, that Covid19 will continue to evolve. Nor do we know whether existing vaccines will prove up to the task of controlling all variants, or whether different formulations or combinations may be required. And we do not know what the level and impact of herd immunity will be, as and when it develops, and the extent to which it may vary from country to country.

The decision of countries like Britain and Singapore to move away from government-imposed restrictions towards a greater reliance on vaccination and personal responsibility to curb the spread of the virus is one most countries know instinctively they will have to make at some stage. None but the most rigid believe that humanity can survive indefinitely living in a set of disconnected hermit kingdoms. But what is not known is whether the steps being taken now by the likes of Britain and Singapore are precipitate and will cause even more problems than we currently face, or whether they are the way of the future. In the event it is the latter case, while we might accept that things will need to be different from what we knew before, we do not fully know what those adjustments will be, or how societies will react to their becoming the new normal.

As far as vaccination and testing are concerned we know these are likely to be critical elements of our futures. But will that mean annual vaccinations, like we have for the flu, and how readily will supplies of vaccine be maintained and supplied? What scope will there be countries to take advantage of some of the patent relaxations in place for existing vaccines to replicate or develop vaccines for their own countries, perhaps in concert with regional partners? And how will vaccinations be recognised across international borders?

At some point, international travel for other than essential purposes will resume, and people will expect relatively free movement across borders, although perhaps not to the extent previously. How will that work in practice, and what requirements will governments place on travel companies, airlines, shipping companies and tourism operators to ensure that public safety is maintained? Will they be practical and facilitate the return of international travel, or will they be so restrictive as to stifle it altogether?

Perhaps the biggest “known unknown” is the prospect of another virus, totally unrelated to Covid19, but no less virulent, while the current pandemic remains. Given the ravages Covid19 has already caused, and the international social and economic consequences of these so far, would the world cope with such a situation, or would it simply overwhelm many countries?

However, challenging as many of the “known unknowns’ are, and the uncertainties that still lie ahead in addressing them, they pale into insignificance alongside the “unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know” as Rumsfeld described them. By definition, our capacity to address these is severely limited because we do not know what they are or when they might arise. Therefore, applying the same solutions to them when they arise as we have to previous situations like the original Hong Kong flu, SARS and now Covid19 is unlikely to work, no matter how successful things were first time around.

What emerges from all this is a need for governments and their advisers to remain forever flexible in their policy responses to the twists and turns of Covid19, its variants and the other viruses that will assuredly come along. Their starting point must be to prevent the next epidemic becoming the next pandemic. In a world of constantly changing circumstances the need for governments to be ever nimble, open to new ideas and challenges to those ideas, and prepared to modify and adjust their approach as necessary is paramount.

There is still a long way to go on this journey. But there is one blunt and pervasive universal lesson, whether the crisis at hand be political, economic or social. Governments that assume they have all the answers and do not need to consider more diverse opinions to understand more widely what is going on around them, nor show any willingness to move from their original position, are most likely headed for failure.

 

Chris Hipkins’ admission that things could get “a bit hairy” if Covid19 vaccine supplies do not arrive as planned in early July could be applied to all aspects of the government’s Covid19 response.

In stark contrast to its approach during the early stages of the pandemic outbreak when it was so certain and assured, the government now looks indecisive, hesitant and uncertain. Very little seems to be going according to plan, and there is even doubt that there is much of a plan anymore.

Last year, New Zealand’s commitment to an elimination strategy was hailed around the world as an example other nations should be following. Now, top epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker says New Zealand is the “last man standing” in still believing that an elimination strategy can work.

Late last year, just before the election the government assured us “we were at the head of the queue” when it came to obtaining vaccines. Now, when we have the lowest rate of vaccination of most of the developed countries, senior Minister David Parker, an intelligent man who really should know better, says the “head of the queue” comment only ever related to the AstraZeneca vaccine, not to vaccination as a whole.

AstraZeneca’s vaccine was approved for use in Britain last December. Since then, it has been approved throughout the European Union, in Asia, Canada and Australia, the Indian subcontinent and even in Brazil whose President continues to deny Covid19 is a problem at all. Meanwhile, according to Minister Hipkins, it is unlikely to be approved for use in New Zealand before the end of the year. Yet Medsafe follows the advice of other regulators like the European Medicines Authority, the United States’ Food and Drug Administration and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (all of whom have already approved the AstraZeneca vaccine) meaning there is no reason for its approval in New Zealand being delayed any further.

So far, “head of the queue” New Zealand has fully vaccinated less than 8% of its population, well below Israel’s 60%, the United Kingdom’s 48%, or the United States’ 46%. Even denialist Brazil has so far fully vaccinated 12% of its population – just over 50% more in percentage terms than New Zealand. Our approach to date to securing vaccines offers no hope that New Zealand’s relative position will improve any time soon.

Countries across Europe, the United Kingdom, Singapore and others are now well advanced on the development of their own “roadmaps” out of Covid19. In New Zealand, however, although there is a team of officials supposedly working on this, their work appears to be given little priority by Ministers. The Prime Minister has consistently declined to be specific about timeframes for removing Covid19 restrictions, or whether she was even prepared to look at options like vaccination passports. However, one of her senior external advisers, Sir Brian Roche, did observe recently that New Zealand could be facing a further three to five years of restrictions.

Meanwhile, consistent with Professor Baker’s “last man standing” comment other countries are learning how to live with Covid19. Singapore has recently announced a post Covid19 roadmap towards living with Covid19, based on expanding vaccination and rigorous testing, instead of continuing with its strict rules governing social gatherings, mask-wearing, contact-tracing and travel. 

Anyone watching the European Football Championship or the tennis at Wimbledon will have noticed the large crowds in attendance. Yet, we keep being told that although such things have been normal here for some time, it is only because we have done so well in eliminating the virus here. The fact that other countries, where the incidence of Covid19 has been far worse, are now able to return to relative normality, including allowing large-scale public gatherings and opening their borders, through vaccination and testing, seems to be completely ignored here.

The failures surrounding the vaccination programme are unconscionable. Not only have we failed to secure sufficient stocks to ensure the fast roll-out of the programme we were promised, the management of the roll-out has been inconsistent and unclear.  Previously identified key population groups like the frail elderly are still not fully vaccinated, and there is confusion over the timetable for the rest of the population.

Now, with the experts suggesting that a national vaccination rate of 83% to 97% of the total population is required to be certain of herd immunity being achieved, Minister Hipkins refuses to commit to that goal being achieved, let alone by the end of the year. Yet previously we were told that achieving herd immunity was an important step along the way to our returning to normality. Perhaps this is what Sir Brian Roche was referring to when he spoke of three to five more years of restrictions.

When the Prime Minister far too prematurely and quite erroneously proclaimed to the world just on a year ago that we had eliminated the virus and were looking to an early lifting of restrictions, we looked for a brief moment like world leaders. Since then, we have constantly slipped back and now lag behind many countries in adjusting to the new world order imposed by Covid19 and getting back to normal. Perhaps that is why she seems to be playing a far less public role in the government’s Covid19 response these days.

It is surely time for a Covid19 policy reset before things get any more “hairy”. That reset should have two prongs. First, the government and its specialist agencies need to be much more aggressive in securing and approving the vaccines needed to guarantee mass population vaccination by at least the end of the year. Second, the government needs to pay far more urgent attention to the development of the post Covid19 roadmap to get away from the impression we are trapped in some sort of Covid19 time warp we cannot or will not escape from, unlike other countries.

After all, if we really were one of the first countries to eliminate Covid19 as the Prime Minister claimed, we should not be one of the last, as now seems increasingly likely, to escape its clutches.

 

 

This week has been National Volunteers Week, the annual opportunity to celebrate the contribution volunteers make to our society. 

New Zealanders are great volunteers. Throughout our country volunteers make their presence felt constantly. They are the people who run the sports clubs, coach the kids’ teams, visit the sick and the elderly, run the school committees, and do the myriad range of other community things that make our society work. Volunteering New Zealand’s 2020 State of Volunteering Report estimates New Zealanders contribute 159 million hours of volunteer labour each year, amounting to just over $8 billion or around 3% of our Gross National Product. 

One of our largest groups of volunteers is volunteer firefighters. People are often surprised to learn that around 85% of our firefighters – urban and rural – are volunteers often sacrificing family life and time at work to community emergencies. Today, these are far more likely to be roadside or other emergencies, with less than 20% of fire callouts now being to actual fires. 

However, despite the overwhelming presence of volunteers in our fire and emergency services, and notwithstanding the legislation I put through Parliament in 2016-17 establishing Fire and Emergency New Zealand which gave legal recognition for the first time to the role of volunteers, there remain some areas where volunteer firefighters are not treated equally with their paid counterparts. The most obvious relates to Accident Compensation. 

The United Fire Brigades Association, the advocacy organisation which represents the volunteer 85% of our firefighters has recently highlighted an anomaly with regard to the treatment by the Accident Compensation Corporation of volunteer firefighters who suffer workplace related illnesses in the course of their firefighting work. The UFBA has pointed out that ACC covers paid firefighters, but not their volunteer counterparts, for certain cancers known to be related to firefighting duties, and job-related mental health trauma. 

The anomaly arises because paid firefighters are properly recognised as employees of Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and therefore covered by ACC in such situations, whereas volunteers, although legally recognised for the first time in the 2017 legislation, are, by definition, not so regarded. This is because they are considered to be “engaged” by Fire and Emergency New Zealand, but not “employed” by it. The problem lies with the ACC legislation which was last reviewed in 2014 – before the establishment of Fire and Emergency New Zealand. That means that ACC currently has no category for recognising volunteers in this way. Consequently, it still treats volunteer firefighting as a leisure activity. Yet, unlike their paid counterparts who work on a rostered hours basis, volunteer firefighters are constantly on call. Things clearly need to change. 

Data from an Australian study of volunteer firefighters has shown that the risk of Post-Traumatic Stress syndrome is significantly higher for those with the most frequent involvement with distressing incidents and the highest levels of cumulative trauma exposure. Volunteer firefighters frequently exposed to such situations face a significant risk of suffering mental health issues. 

Given the community’s reliance on volunteer firefighters, the implications of the current situation also have a wider impact. Already, many organisations – not just those working in emergency services – are finding it increasingly challenging to recruit and retain new volunteers. It will become even more difficult to do so if potential volunteers gain a sense that there is insufficient health protection available to cover them for the personal risks they will be exposed to. 

Aside from integrating volunteer, rural and paid firefighters into one national organisation for the first time, an important objective of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act was to ensure that all firefighters across the country were properly and equally resourced and trained for the vital work they carry out, regardless of their status. Since 2017, Fire and Emergency New Zealand has made much progress towards this goal, and a better service is being delivered to the public as a result. But now it is time to recognise the health risks volunteer firefighters are exposed to, in the same way we have always done with paid firefighters and to change the ACC legislation to provide for this. 

Volunteer firefighters seldom seek recognition for the work that they do, and they most certainly do not want to be paid for it. But they do expect to be able to carry out their often-dangerous work as safely as possible, and to be properly treated, rehabilitated and compensated for any injuries incurred as they do so. During National Volunteers Week the United Fire Brigades Association has been running an internal “Cheers volunteers!” campaign to acknowledge the contribution and sacrifices volunteer firefighters and their frequently long-suffering families make to serve their communities. 

A clear way the wider community could similarly show its support for the work of its volunteer firefighters – who already rank highly amongst the country’s most trusted professions – is to join the UFBA’s campaign for a better deal from ACC for volunteer firefighters.  

 

Over the last year there has been a series of official criticisms of the performance of the Ministry of Health. While some relate specifically to Covid19, others reflect upon the wider role of the Ministry. Nevertheless, the breadth of the criticisms should be of serious concern. Yet they seem to be water off a duck’s back. 

In the early stages of the pandemic the Crown Law Office advised the government that the first nine days of the Level 4 had been technically illegal because the Ministry had used the wrong legislation to impose it. That oversight was corrected by emergency legislation that was rushed through Parliament shortly afterwards. 

The Public Service Commission’s investigation into the disclosure of sensitive personal information by Michelle Boag and then National MP Hamish Walker found that although the disclosure itself did not come from the Ministry of Health, “the policy around the security of personal information within the Ministry of Health could have been tighter and the agency should have reviewed this earlier.” 

In December, the report from Sir Brian Roche and Heather Simpson of the COVID-19 Surveillance Testing Strategy advisory group into the management of Covid19 testing in the community and at the border was strongly critical of the Ministry for bad communication about the criteria for testing, and for keeping Ministers in the dark about concerns being raised by other agencies. That led the government to inject a further $2.8 billion into keeping current border controls and isolation facilities operating effectively until June 2022. 

Last month, the Auditor-General released a critical review of the government’s vaccine roll-out plan being managed by the Ministry, outlining several shortcomings, including adequacy of supply, whether there were sufficient vaccinators, problems reaching remoter communities and confusion among district health boards. He recommended the Ministry should “get moving” on the “non-regulated workforce-non-medical workers” to be trained to immunise. There is no evidence that is happening, with the vaccination programme still being centrally organised through district health boards, with insufficient medical practices and other community health providers being utilised. The Auditor-General concluded there was a “significant risk” the vaccine roll-out would not be completed on time, despite continuing claims from the government that it is presently running about 10% ahead of schedule. 

Clinicians in Dunedin last week expressed concern that the country’s vaccine supplies were running down “with not much transparency from the Ministry of Health regarding vaccine availability”. Earlier, the Covid19 Response Minister had blamed the looming shortage of vaccines on the fact that the vaccination programme was going so much better than expected. Yet, at the same time, there have been reports from around the country of key target population groups still waiting for vaccinations which are overdue. The Southern District Health Board said it was slowing its vaccination programme to protect its stocks until more vaccines became available. 

The management of the vaccination programme has become a weeping sore, with the Ministry increasingly looking not up to the task of ensuring the original intention of New Zealanders being fully vaccinated by the end of the year will be achieved, let alone of our ever being at the head of the queue as was so falsely promised by Ministers just before the election last year. There have clearly been faults in the vaccine ordering process, with the Ministry’s expectations of the ease with which a smooth supply line would be ensured now looking hopelessly naïve. 

But it is not only on the management of the Covid19 response that the Ministry has been found to be playing games with Ministers and the public when it comes to sharing information about what is going on. Last week the Public Service Commissioner slated the Ministry over its handling of a report on the state of mental health in New Zealand. The report had been released to the public but in a heavily edited and redacted form, leading the Commissioner to strongly criticise the Ministry and observe that its handling of the report had damaged its reputation with the public. 

The buck for all these failings rests with two people – the Minister of Health and the Director-General of Health. While the Minister is responsible overall to Parliament and the public for the state of the country’s public health, the Director-General is in turn responsible to the Minister for the performance of the Ministry of Health in delivering the government’s key policy objectives. 

In this instance, the primary responsibility for both the Ministry’s failings in the first place and for subsequently putting them right rests squarely with the Director-General. He alone is responsible for the operational conduct of the Ministry on these matters, whereas the Minister’s responsibility is to hold him to account for what has happened. 

Although the Director-General’s accountability is to the Minister of Health, he has been reporting to the Covid19 Response Minister on Covid19 matters, thus splitting the responsibility between the two Ministers. It appears this split has complicated the accountability process somewhat which may partially explain the gaps that have occurred. 

The problem is further compounded by the high positive public profile the Director-General has been allowed to develop during the Covid19 response. Not only has this made it more than likely that he has taken of his eye off the ball on some of the more basic issues he is responsible for, but also has given him a level of public immunity to any Ministerial rebuke. (Remember the criticism this time last year when the then Minister of Health was roundly attacked for his apparent temerity in “throwing the Director-General under a bus” over failures to manage the border control system properly.) 

Yet none of this excuses the Ministry’s day-to-day failings. Notwithstanding the extraordinary impact of Covid19, the Director-General’s primary responsibility remains unchanged from what it always has been – to ensure that the Ministry is fit for purpose across all its different areas of responsibility at all levels, now including Covid19, and able to deliver the government’s policy objectives. While his rapport with the public and positive media profile are additional positive attributes that can help the government in the promotion of its various health messages they are not substitutes for his basic role of running the health system effectively. 

It is up to the Minister of Health, bolstered if necessary by the Public Service Commissioner, to ensure the Director-General provides the professional leadership and day-to-day management the Ministry needs to function effectively.

 

The recent story that the Cashmere Lounge, a popular, high quality local restaurant in my neighbourhood may be forced to close for at least a few weeks highlights a serious issue. In this instance, the restaurant’s head chef is going on parental leave shortly, and local labour shortages mean that the restaurant has not been able to secure a suitable replacement. 

This is occurring against the backdrop of an overall 93% nett drop in immigration since the outbreak of Covid19 which has hit the hospitality industry especially hard. To make matters worse, as the industry now looks to join the road to recovery, higher wages across the Tasman look that much more attractive, even for New Zealanders who have traditionally not seen the hospitality industry as attractive. Cashmere Lounge is not the only restaurant caught this way, nor will it be the last. 

But the issue runs deeper than that. Immigration New Zealand’s approach to the hospitality sector’s needs over the years has been largely dismissive. It remains convinced that there is a large pool of New Zealand chefs and hospitality workers ready and willing to work in the sector, if only given the opportunity. This is despite the constant warning from industry groups about how hard it has become to recruit suitably qualified local staff, and that businesses are suffering as a consequence. 

There were many occasions during my time as an MP when I had to make representations to Immigration New Zealand on behalf of local ethnic or specialty restaurants seeking to hire trained staff from overseas, because no-one suitable was available locally. While often ultimately persuadable of the merit my constituents’ cases, Immigration’s doggedly persistent view that the restaurants’ needs could be met from within New Zealand was as infuriating as it was downright ignorant. There was a consistent failure to recognise that being chef in a restaurant often demanded a professional skill level and management expertise way beyond being a “cook”. 

Immigration was consistently incapable of understanding this point, opting instead for the more simplistic Plod-like view that cooking was just cooking after all, which anybody could do after a bit of training. They also believed that ethnic chefs or waiting staff were really just using their role as a back-door way of getting their families permanent residence in New Zealand. It was not only ignorance but also arrogance in the extreme, bordering in many cases on downright racism. 

This is not to decry the skills and capabilities of those professionally trained local chefs and hospitality staff. They are as good as any in their jobs and should be acknowledged for their expertise. But there are never likely to be enough of them to meet either the existing requirements of the hospitality sector, let alone the considerable new growth potential likely to occur as the country recovers from Covid19. 

However, the situation is likely to get worse in the future, directly because of new government policy. In its immigration policy reset announced a few weeks ago the government made clear that there will be a dramatic reduction in the levels of immigration compared to what was happening before Covid19. Moreover, the previous emphasis on skills-based migration is to be replaced by a new emphasis on whether New Zealanders can do the jobs required. 

The upshot will be that Immigration’s hitherto tunnel-vision approach will continue and probably intensify, most likely leading to the temporary or permanent closure of more restaurants around the country. A parallel situation is also likely to occur in other key industry sectors – like aged care, and horticulture – where chronic shortages over the years have been filled by short- or long-term migration, and where New Zealanders so far have shown little to no interest in becoming involved. 

Putting New Zealanders first when it comes to local employment is all very well. But it has to be based on more than wishful thinking. It needs to be properly evidence-based that the goal can be achieved. Despite the government’s optimistic rhetoric, there is no substantive evidence of a large number of New Zealanders showing any interest in doing the necessary work that migrants currently carry out. 

As for the hospitality sector, the prospects look grim. Wellington’s annual “Wellington On a Plate” festival celebrating the quality and diversity of the city’s many bars, cafes and fine restaurants gets underway shortly. In a city often described as having more restaurants per head of population than New York, this annual event is a popular showcase of the Wellington restaurant scene. But when the government’s recent policy changes are added to the staffing difficulties top restaurants like the Cashmere Lounge are facing right now, it could well be the last time such an event takes place at its current level. 

The message from all this is clear. The government’s well-meaning but impractical immigration policy will not help our hospitality sector recover from Covid19.