Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Health Minister Chris Hipkins announcing the government's Covid-19 response framework. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Health Minister Chris Hipkins announcing the government's Covid-19 response framework. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Editorial
EDITORIAL
The Prime Minister's decision to this week outline a plan of defence should Covid-19 re-gain a foothold in the community is a timely warning and necessary preparation, but also prudent politics.
Having delivered the message, authorities will be able to act quickly with targeted, localised lockdowns, testing, checkpoints, andother measures if required. If an outbreak occurs, the public should be less likely to succumb to collective shock and panic. We were warned. We know what will happen.
The plan is about managing our expectations, giving us time to get our heads around the possibility that we may need to return to that lockdown space. We can get ready for the eventuality.
It also means that should the unwelcome event happen – perhaps at the pointy end of the election campaign – the reaction will be somewhat muted, even in a more politically tribal atmosphere than in March and April.
Of course, that would make a return to some restrictions less damaging politically, but it is simply good strategy. In the meantime, the Government gets to remind voters of its pre-border setback, lockdown competence and allows Jacinda Ardern to stay above-the-fray in governing rather than campaign mode.
The messaging is reminiscent of how the Prime Minister shepherded us into level four a few days before the country's first death from the coronavirus, rather than doing so in reaction to the bleak milestone.
At the time, deaths were unfortunately anticipated, and they tend to hit home harder in a small-sized community such as ours. Lockdown provided some sense of security - comfortably inside while a storm rages against the windows.
The latest move appears to be an acknowledgement that a cluster is highly possible and news reports from across the Tasman are evidence. Those news scenes and words also mean the best time to grab the public's attention is now.
It is not so easy to dismiss cases of quarantined returnees sneaking out as rather harmless, isolated incidents when the current cluster in Sydney can reportedly be traced to a visitor from Melbourne who mingled at a hotel party.
The coronavirus outbreaks in Victoria and New South Wales have the attention of our authorities. Photo / AP file
The question of how to deal with returnees generally and those who do not abide with the rules is an issue for both New Zealand and Australia.
Should they be expected to pay for some, or all, of their quarantine costs instead of the taxpayer picking up the tab? Perhaps they could at least make a means-tested contribution? Haven't they had months to arrange to get home?
However, there are compelling arguments for continuing a softly, softly approach. For a start, a government has obligations to its citizens in a crisis. Many people coming home are dealing with more costs than in normal times.
Plus, it is the smarter way to ensure a majority co-operate and have fewer would-be runners from quarantine hotels. With that in mind, in the event of escapees sparking clusters, a user-pays quarantine system could be a costly false economy.
In Australia, there is a tougher approach. Returnees travelling to most states will now have to pay their quarantine hotel bill. The number of arrivals and flights are also being cut. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says he wanted to divert the money into testing and tracing.
Here, the best defence remains having tight borders. But it is prudent to have a Plan B.
