The Government's decision to essentially abandon an elimination approach may have been borne out of necessity, but it nonetheless feels like a political tipping point for Jacinda Ardern, Sam Sachdeva writes
Comment: As she approaches her fourth anniversary as Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern's reputation as a cool head in a crisis is being put to the test like never before.
Taken in isolation, the three-step roadmap to ease Auckland’s Level 3 restrictions she unveiled on Monday may not seem particularly objectionable.
The first step, coming into effect as of Wednesday – allowing two households to meet outdoors, in groups of no more than 10 and with masks and physical distancing still a feature – should give the city’s residents a (minor) degree of solace without appreciably increasing the risk of transmission.
The other two steps, gradually reopening different businesses with tight capacity limits, also helps to bridge the gap between “Level 4 with KFC” and the relatively unrestricted Level 2.
In truth, Auckland’s move down to Level 3 now seems a worse call, even if there was some reason for optimism about the decision at the time.
But the reaction to Ardern’s announcement suggests the Prime Minister may have only succeeded in capturing the worst of all worlds.
Those hankering for a definitive timeline for the Super City’s parole from lockdown were left with little to grasp onto, with the only Cabinet commitment being a weekly review and some experts suggesting Auckland could face months of Level 3 life.
But perhaps the biggest shock came for those Kiwis who had clung to the hope that the Government’s elimination strategy would return the country to zero Covid cases and its status as the envy of the world.
Just last week, Finance Minister Grant Robertson spoke of how “New Zealanders can be proud of the approach that they have taken to Covid-19” and an economy which had thrived as a result, while Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins derided National’s reopening plan as gifting Kiwis “Covid for Christmas”.
Strangely, Ardern spoke of the elimination strategy and the vaccine rollout as being two discrete points on a spectrum, even though experts like Professor Sir David Skegg have said high vaccination rates are part of – not an alternative to – an elimination approach.
Now, hopes of a summer season without any significant public health restrictions seems highly unlikely, while the country seems set to fall back into the pack of those who are learning to “live with the virus”, albeit for a shorter period than countries like the United States and United Kingdom.
Strangely, Ardern spoke of the elimination strategy and the vaccine rollout as being two discrete points on a spectrum, even though experts like Professor Sir David Skegg have said high vaccination rates are part of – not an alternative to – an elimination approach.
The Prime Minister took issue with that point when asked by Newsroom, saying: “I’m not sure that would be necessarily a fair characterisation of Skegg.”
But the report produced by a Skegg-led group for the Government was clear that levels of vaccination coverage in New Zealand would likely be insufficient to cross the herd immunity threshold.
“A successful vaccination programme will make the elimination strategy more feasible, in any situation where the virus keeps entering the country.”
Asked in July whether the Government would accept some level of deaths in the community once everyone had been offered a vaccine, Ardern demurred.
“At the moment, I’d say our thinking has been, let’s continue on a path that preserves as many options for New Zealand as possible, particularly as we see variants emerging.”
It may be that Delta’s greater infectivity has simply whittled away at the number of options at its disposal, leaving a hopefully brief period of pain as the least worst option.
But the Government’s critics would argue it could, and should, have done more to prepare the country’s public health processes for the increased dangers of Delta transmission, while some of its supporters accused ministers of waving a white flag when the war could still be won.
A political tipping point
It is hard to know exactly how the decision will affect public confidence in Ardern and her Government, who remain popular despite a slight drop back towards earth after the heights of last year’s election.
National and ACT may feel vindicated, having argued for some time that the elimination strategy could not hold – but it is far from clear that a majority of the public shares their enthusiasm for reopening the country to the wider world.
On the other side of the argument, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson called for the Government to stay the course, suggesting its road map “has serious risks for our vulnerable communities – including Māori and Pasifika, as well as people with underlying health conditions – who have disproportionately been impacted by lockdowns”.
Te Pāti Māori also has good reason for indignation, given the significant vaccine inequities facing Māori.
Of course, there are scenarios which represent less doom and gloom for the Government, and for the country.
It may be that Auckland’s modified Level 3 and (in theory) hard border keeps community transmission to manageable levels, while vaccination rates ramp up again after an easing off and move the country towards the magical 90 percent mark.
But this nonetheless feels like a political and policy tipping point, which could define how Ardern and her Government are looked back on.
