Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has revealed Cabinet went against Ministry of Health advice by deciding to let travelling New Zealanders back into the country in March/April.
Peters said the Ministry recommended a “total shutdown of the border, including to returning New Zealanders”.
He said Cabinet rejected the advice because “it was and is inconceivable that we will ever turn our backs on our own. So, on March 17, New Zealanders were urged to come home while commercial options remained available.”
Defending Cabinet’s position was the main point of a speech Peters delivered on Wednesday, pitched to media as being on New Zealand’s “foreign policy response to COVID-19”.
With the Ministry’s advice only expected to be released in full next week, Peters appeared to be front-footing the contentious issue for political reasons.
He couldn’t say exactly when the Ministry wanted the border closed to New Zealanders, or whether it proposed a more staggered approach before a full shutdown.
Director General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, in a press conference later said the Ministry wanted a full closure temporarily, until there was a secure process in place to isolate and quarantine arrivals.
25 travellers quarantined by government found to have COVID-19
Since March 14, around 80,000 New Zealanders have travelled home.
It wasn't until April 10 that all arrivals were made to go into government-managed quarantine for at least 14 days. On March 25 Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said arrivals with COVID-19 symptoms and those who didn't have proper self-isolation plans would be put in government-managed quarantine.
There are currently 3,241 arrivals in government-managed quarantine. 25 people in these facilities have tested positive to COVID-19.
Ardern said Cabinet "never entertained" the idea of shutting kiwis out of New Zealand.
“It is an extraordinary thing to deem someone stateless," she said.
Peters made his speech against a backdrop of both himself and Australian politicians speaking of a trans-Tasman bubble at some stage being formed, enabling managed travel between the two countries.
He couldn’t say how much had been spent on repatriation flights to get New Zealanders home.
Direction of travel for New Zealand's foreign policy unclear
Peters didn’t provide any detail on how New Zealand’s foreign policy would evolve due to COVID-19, but did stand by a nationalist speech he delivered while wearing his New Zealand First leader hat on Tuesday.
“In 1882, our first export of frozen meat left New Zealand and confirmed that we were going to be then, and thereafter, an export nation. All our policy should be focused on that as well as import substitution,” Peters said on Tuesday.
“We're going to go back, dare I say it, to make New Zealand the great country it has been in the past, not because we have some nostalgic dream, but because in past times our country got it right. And of late, for far too long before this happened, as we tried to change our economy, we've been getting it wrong.
“New Zealand has enormous wealth and natural products above ground, below ground, and at sea, and it has, as the Prime Minister has referred to, a truly amazing people when put to the test.”
Notwithstanding this, Peters said he was on the same page as Trade Minister David Parker.
“We’ll soon be discussing with our Cabinet colleagues how New Zealand positions itself in the new normal that emerges post this COVID crisis,” Peters said.
Here's a full copy of Peters' Wednesday speech:
On behalf of the Coalition Government, and as responsible Minister, we extend our thanks to Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade Chris Seed and his team of dedicated diplomats, consular officials and other professionals working on behalf of their country.
We are very proud of your performance.
We acknowledge criticisms of the government’s efforts from individual citizens caught in difficult situations offshore, and by the media on their behalf. That is natural but sometimes the anecdotal can shade the larger response effort.
So, today offers an opportunity to explain the foreign policy dimension to choices the government has made in its COVID-19 response.
One criticism is that we should have closed our border sooner, that we did too little too late.
Another criticism was that the government’s response has been too myopic and captured by advice from the Ministry of Health. Both critiques could not be further from the truth.
We went hard and we went early.
International comparisons show that New Zealand was extremely unusual in closing its borders to foreigners and in implementing a lockdown before we lost a single person to COVID-19.
Very few other countries did that.
More generally, we were faster than countries we generally compare ourselves with, to:
• Require self-isolation by international arrivals, 17 days after the first Covid-19 case was confirmed;
• Close our borders to foreign nationals, 20 days after the first confirmed case, and;
• Impose a lockdown, 26 days after our first case.
These decisions were neither straightforward nor without debate.
Indeed, the Ministry of Health recommended a total shutdown of the border, including to returning New Zealanders. From its health perspective this was understandable and appropriate advice.
But the Coalition Cabinet rejected that advice because it was and is inconceivable that we will ever turn our backs on our own. So, on March 17, New Zealanders were urged to come home while commercial options remained available.
We built from scratch managed isolation and quarantine systems to mitigate against the heightened health risk posed by returning New Zealanders.
It was the right thing to do.
Around 80,000 New Zealanders have so far answered that call and travelled home since 14 March. Many thousands of those returning were assisted by MFAT.
This assistance has ranged from chartering planes to fly stranded New Zealanders home; getting Kiwis on to repatriation flights run by our partners, including Australia, Singapore and the United Kingdom; smoothing transit issues; and providing advice about travel options.
The managed exit of foreign citizens stranded here was another complex decision. The domestic movement of thousands of people risked our national health goals.
But one of the underpinnings of relations between nations is reciprocity. That is, we expect other countries to help return our people to New Zealand – so it would be wrong and dangerous to prevent foreign nationals from leaving here.
Cabinet rightly decided that, despite advice raising risks about the potential negative health consequences of such a decision, we needed to safely manage the exit of foreign nationals. So we did.
Around 45,000 foreign nationals departed our shores during the Level 4 lockdown.
Through these experiences we have built an effective delivery system for people safely entering and exiting the country, now and into the future.
Notwithstanding the ongoing massive consular effort, MFAT was also tasked three weeks ago with considering our post-COVID foreign policy priorities – and how we could use our foreign policy to support the domestic recovery and trade recovery that are starting to get underway.
Along with Minister of Trade David Parker, we’ll soon be discussing with our Cabinet colleagues how New Zealand positions itself in the new normal that emerges post this COVID crisis.
How we adapt internationally, how quickly, and how effectively, is crucial in promoting the peace and prosperity of New Zealand, and its regions, as it recovers from the massive disruption of COVID-19.
68 Comments
It is the undeniable rights for NZ citizens and residents to return New Zealand at any time.
However, it is also the undeniable obligation of New Zealand government to even consider quarantine these 80,000 people at the border.
By the time NZ announced border closure, it should have enough warning from WHO and guidance on why and how to quarantine importing cases.
It is a fair assessment that the government's failure to quarantine these importing cases led to the national lock-down. It would be a much much lower economic costs for NZ if the government had quarantined the importing cases!
It is a fair assessment that the government's failure to quarantine these importing cases led to the national lock-down. It would be a much much lower economic costs for NZ if the government had quarantined the importing cases!
Thanks, captain hindsight.
Nevermind where you're going to put 80,000 people for 14 days, or who is going to manage looking after them such as providing food, access to medication and the other basic necessities of life. All from a standing start where this country has never done anything like that on that scale ever before.
Much easier just to sit back as an armchair expert and say "the government should have done X at the time, it's so obvious now".
Talk is cheap.
Peter's being disingenuous here (also; water is wet). Closing the border didn't have to mean stopping everyone returning, just quarantining all arrivals. Unsurprising that MoH recommended this as was obvious to all from February. Coalition politicians thought they knew better and lacked competence to organise quarantine. Result: 10's of billions in lock-down and an economic recovery that will take many years.
A terrible comparison.
You will never know.
We have only one government, one PM, one Minister of Health.
All we can judge, was the decision taken, a sound one.
The decision taken, does it fit the understanding of going hard and going early.
All you can compare the decision taken, the action, compare it to the Pandemic Plan in place. And MoH advice.
Yes, all we can judge is how Soimon Bridges is even now demanding the lockdown be lifted, and a week before the borders were shut saying that Jacinda's job was to keep NZers employed. She replied that her job was to keep NZers healthy.
It's clear that National would not have gone as hard and as fast as Labour did and more people would have died from COVID-19 than the deaths we have today.
It's just hard to say how much worse it would have been under them.
New Zealand's first case: 28th February. Ireland's first cast, 29th February. Population of both countries approx 5 million.
At 26th April, NZ had 1,470 cases and 18 deaths. Ireland had 19,262 cases and 1,087 deaths.
We're clearly on the path to eradication of this through community spread, whereas Ireland isn't.
You can judge, just don't expect the judgement to be on a firm basis.
Selective memories are always a problem.
Best you review your scrap book of the 2 final weeks of March, look at the news clippings..
Here is one I found for you. Your welcome.
Henry Cooke
17:14, Mar 19 2020
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120422887/coronavirus…
National leader Simon Bridges is calling on the Government to completely shut the borders to anyone who isn't a citizen or permanent resident.
Currently the Government has imposed a 14-day self isolation period for all travellers from anywhere but the Pacific, as well as a full ban on travellers from China who aren't citizens or permanent residents.
You realise that is the same day the government in fact announced that it was shutting the borders? And that the announcement was timed to coincide with Australia's announcement?
You realise that the government would have already been working on those plans for at least a couple of days before then? Before Simon called for it publicly?
All you've provided is more evidence that National was not leading on this issue - they weren't calling for the borders to be closed a week before they were, just mere hours ahead, when the policy would already have been under development and imminently be announced.
Hours before the announcement, but potentially after he'd already been briefed on what was going to occur.
But the larger problems may have been (for example) the likes of Stu McCutcheon and the Chinese Consul General pushing to keep the borders open.
However, on the whole I'd doubt there would have been toooooo much difference between the parties' responses. It looks like both were being briefed with the same materials by the same ministries etc. and when the lockdown occurred Simon was quick to say that he backed the government's decision 100% and offered up the services of National MPs and staff to help.
Perhaps some differences earlier in the game (and perhaps slower on borders), but overall I'd guess they would have been very similar. Likewise now, if he was actually in the position to make the calls he'd be more cautious than he is from the opposition benches where it's easy to make general statements without a plan.
Lanthanide - I am not sure if you have the evidence to back up your praise of the Government. As you are well aware correlation is not the same as causation. We won't know if the lockdown saved any lives until much later and we include everything not just one statistic. I thought at the time of the lockdown and I still believe it that it was an overreaction.
Ireland, a country of approx 5 million people who had their first official case 1 day after we did, now has over 1000 deaths.
We have 19.
In this case saying correlation is not the same as causation shows you don't actually understand what those words mean and are just using it as a cool sounding slogan. We very well understand how pandemic respiratory illnesses spread and what actions to take to slow that spread down.
but where do we quarantine 80000 people for a month? IMO self isolation needed to be far more stringent with tracking done. Some people just ignored it
One reason Australia has done well is that they moved to quarantine sooner, and this seems to be overlooked by the media. We were already 2 weeks into lockdown before we started mandatory quarantine.
but have they done better they went sooner but have double digit cases and still some unknown why they got it like the 4 year girl today that has closed down a childcare centre
we have had 2 cases today 1 yesterday and 1 the day before and we know where they all come from
i have used confirmed cases because that is what Australia are measuring
they still have 109 in hospital and 42 in ICU we have 6 and 0 in ICU
we are 99% sure we dont have community spread and WILL move to level two before Australia
https://www.smh.com.au/national/covid-19-data-centre-coronavirus-by-the…
Yeah, cause requisitioning all those resources, getting them into place, fully staffed, secured, catered. You can do an that in 48 hours and execute it in such way that no problems arise and everyone praises you.
Or, more likely, it'd take 3 weeks to do what you're suggesting, by which time you needn't have bothered.
No wonder you think this government is crap at executing things, when you seem to believe snapping your fingers and saying "make it so" is all it takes to get things done.
You're also forgetting we live in a democracy with private property rights.
The Territorials too were on standby going into L4.
Fact check please.
Plus.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120606837/coronavirus…
Does seem pretty apparent that NZ was not ready to control it as Taiwan and South Korea being long time neighbours of Winnie the Flu were.
Contact tracing, isolation, testing, PPE etc. Maybe there's never been enough spare money in the health funding to be well stocked for a global pandemic.
NZ Health care has been underfunded for a decade and mass quarantine at the border several weeks ago was never going to be possible, not so much because of a lack of tents on the edge of the runway but because it takes time to get all the backup support manpower, supplies and effective oversight in place. Putting several thousand people in close proximity to each other with an unknown number of infected arrivals without effective control would have lead to an outbreak similar to that of several Ruby Princess scenarios. Don't assume this was not thought through by the DOH in March.
I have family working their arse off for the DOH making sure quarantine arrivals in hotels don't cause an unintentional outbreak by infecting other arrivals or the support staff and consequently their families. It requires a lot of attention to detail and a lot of trained and very aware staff.
Why go against the quarantine advice in the existing Pandemic Plan.
The advice was close the border, the step back is restrict border and quarantine.
https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/new-zealand-influenza-pandemic-p…
Border management - page 118.
In a potential or actual global pandemic, New Zealand may be able to prevent the virus from
entering the country or to delay its entry, allowing other response measures to be put in place
(during the Keep It Out phase). Such an intervention may be feasible because of New Zealand’s
geographical isolation, its limited number of entry points and its well-coordinated border
management systems. In the Keep It Out phase routine public health risk management
procedures at the border could be elevated, according to the development of the global situation.
Elevated measures may include increasing information to arriving passengers, providing travel
advisories, closing the border to certain categories of arrival or imposing mandatory quarantine
for categories of arrivals.
There is value in trying to keep the virus out, or to at least delay the arrival of the virus, to allow
time for virus attenuation and reduce the time the virus is in the country before a pandemic
vaccine for it becomes available. Effective border management is the best way to protect New
Zealanders from the effects of a future pandemic.
Henry_Tull you are asking one of the most important questions during this crises. Why did the Government depart from the existing Pandemic Plan? I suspect it was the fear-inducing numbers that Shaun Hendy and Siouxsie Wiles peddled. On one of the very rare times the media challenged the PM on the lockdown and presented Simon Thornley's argument, she countered by saying she had contrary advice from Shaun Hendy and, therefore, there was no need to discuss it further. Dr. Thornley is an epidemiologist and Prof. Hendy is a physicist. So was this approach backed by science?
What's your point? I'm agreeing with you. I was in favour of doing exactly that (Aus/NZ closing borders as early as possible), my point is the WHO were saying everyone should do the exact opposite of that which is why many countries were slow to do the obvious thing.
I felt the very strongly worded "return home now" from WP (and he said it more than once!) was mainly aimed at Kiwis in Oz who wouldn't be included in the welfare benefit initiatives there.
We didn't want to have tens of thousands of NZers over there needing money/relief from here. I note there are some still over there complaining in that regard.
No one knew what Covid19 was going to be when it emerged. It didn't even have a name other than Wuhan Flu until some time after it was identified.
No one knew that it wasn't going to be 'just another 2009 Swine Flu' and come-and-go. No one; regardless of all the comments that are now made with the benefit of hindsight. The opinions of 'what to do' that were wrong' back then' don't make the headlines today, and neither should they.
Every country would do things differently today, knowing what it knows now. But back then? We all did, differently, what we thought was the right thing to do. And if 'this' is as bad as New Zealand gets by 'failing to do what it should have done' then I'll take that, any day.
That was true until late Jan when Wuhan locked down and China instituted internal quarantines. It was pretty obvious then that this was the big one and people started calling for restrictions on Chinese travel. 7 weeks later the NZ govt finally woke from dithering stupor after ignoring their experts for weeks and went late and soft on borders (having been totally focused on Christchurch memorial with huge numbers of invitees till that point), another 4 weeks later they finally instituting proper boarder quarantine. The govts judgement has been found hugely wanting, at enormous cost to us all.
BW, Taiwan, HK, Singapore and Korea knew and acted immediately, did not take as gospel the CCP and WHO rubbish we were fed.They had plans in place, and were not afraid of being accused of over-reacting.
The rest of the world failed, because of terrible WHO leadership and their own lack of planning or ability.
They could have used a lot more discretion to try and manage this situation. e.g.
How many of these people had dual passports and were safely in one of the countries where they are residents. Surely they could have been held out while we sorted our situation out.
How many were NZ citizens who had been domiciled and working overseas with access to employment benefits. They could be told to stay where they are for a while.
How many just had work permits or similar. As work was about to close down, they would be better staying in their own countries where they have all the supports that they are legally entitled to.
Those tourist stuck in bad situations should have had first priority.
And so on. I am sure that by applying a bit of intelligence the problem could have been and broken down to a situation where the numbers returning could have been prioritised and managed with appropriate quarantining as it is now. This way we would have avoided the very poorly managed free for all that we witnessed and isolated what was our principal source of infection. If we had used every available hotel and institution bed in the country and the armed forces to police this, it would have be far less costly than what we have ended up with.
Does the Government have information about NZ citizens having other countries' passports and where each one is and under what employment and welfare conditions ? If not, how long will it take to collect that data ?
CV required urgent action and signals and what the Government did to assure New Zealanders overseas was the right move. It avoided panic and anti-nationalism. Of course there was and is a cost, but that is what Governments and citizens/residents here should be prepared to pay.
Remember we sent Kiwis to die in a few wars. This is much better.
NZ first may find themselves a supply and confidence partner outside the coalition , if they make it back next election. Labour will be calling the shots, that's for sure. Next few polls will be interesting, certainly Labour need s to decide wether to send them a lifeline or not.
It is unlikely Coalition can win an election now. Maybe if it was tomorrow, but it takes 6 weeks for a snap election, and in 6 weeks (let alone 5 months) the yawning economic chasm that has opened up in front of us with horrifying unemployment and pervasive financial distress will be at the front of everyone's minds. 'It's the economy stupid'
Yip, Simon is showing how effective he would be as PM every day. His preferred PM rating is eclipsing Ardern.
Meanwhile back in reality, we only need look at 2008-2014 to see how elections go for the party who has a preferred PM rating in the low teens or single digits, against one with ratings of 40%+
new party started today, that is anti CCP so trying to squeeze into NZ first space
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12328220
He said none of the established political parties have been prepared to speak out against the new risks the country is facing from the Chinese Communist Party.
"We are about to feel the economic effects of aligning ourselves so closely to China."
I think it's becoming clearer by the day that the Government of New Zealand let down the nation & people of New Zealand quite badly throughout February & the first 3 weeks of March in 2020. They not only went against their own state advice, but against written regulations if such an event was to occur. This has not only led to tens of thousands of employees losing their jobs & as we will see over the next few months, the lose of thousands of small businesses, who together, underwrite a large part of the NZ government's income, but their further in-debting of the NZ nation & it's people, by not only their faulty decision-making, but the probable result of doubling the public debt to GDP ratio on the way out of a situation they indeed created. My oh my. If my reading/understanding of the above is correct, then my recommendation is to assemble the cabinet at the nearest prison facility immediately.
LJM you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. I suspect you're just playing the devil's advocate here. What do you think the consequences of completely closing the borders would be, but with no lockdown? COVID was already in the country and spreading, and tourism would stop dead, imports and exports would stop dead. So while the damage may not have been as dramatic up front for business, down stream it could actually be worse, and the health impacts significantly worse.
Yeah, if we stayed open for business..... the hospitals would slowly first, but then quickly get overrun with dying Kiwis (because covid was already here by the time of the first case).
And no one would want to come to New Zealand if they could, because we became "England in the South Pacific" and Kiwis were too frightened to leave the house to go to work or anywhere to spend money beyond a queue at the supermarket..
LJM your thinking on this is delusional nostalgia. Name any country which is functioning as normal that you might claim as doing vastly better than us, there is none. And no Sweden is not a good suggestion, Taiwan perhaps, but it's not business as usual there either. There will be no return to "normal" anytime soon and this applies to virtually everywhere else on the planet.
We're currently viewed as having beaten Covid-19 by the rest of the world lets keep it that way. And remember it could be worse, we could be in the US right now with over million infected people and 58,000 deaths. More Americans have died with Covid-19 than died in the Vietnam War.
Now, only if we closed the border for tourists much sooner, by March 1 would have been nice.
We could be having our own bubble without a lockdown ?!
With all that said I think the government did well, but letting foreigners flood in and carry in covid19 for another 3 weeks in march was a mistake looking back.
The issue was not return, rather enforced quarantine. At that point, it was rather clear that symptoms were not sufficient to define infection which strongly suggests an enforced quarantine instead of an entry questionnaire. Sadly, testing upon entry was predicated on symptoms until very recently, likely due to test availability.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.