Malpass critical of Government response on Coronavirus

Stuff Political Editor Luke Malpass writes:

The Government’s approach to the disease’s spread, which seemed pretty well on track last week, has fallen woefully short this week. As Covid-19 has moved to a new phase in New Zealand, the Government has not adequately moved with it.  …

Incredibly, it even refused to even take a commonsense approach with the official number of cases. It admitted that one person had caught the disease off another who had been sick but was now better, and hadn’t been tested – so they would not count them.

Just silly to play games like that with the numbers.

Yet this issue – especially now that the virus is in the country – is not one of technocratic finessing: it is one of political and crisis management. That requires regular briefings from the Government and much better information flow. Telling people to go to a website doesn’t cut it.

I have been covering this issue for days now and, besides knowing which international travellers can’t come, which should self-isolate and that wearing a mask doesn’t help, I know little off the top of my head about symptoms and what I should expect if I were unlucky enough to catch corona. The Government should have been repeating these details so much that I – and everyone else – reflexively know the key points without thinking.

I suggested a few days ago that the Government should use the civil defence facility to message all cellphones in New Zealand and use that to provide updates, specifically referring them to a comprehensive up to date website.

An Utting Research poll run exclusively by Stuff on Thursday showed that less than half of the country thinks the Government is handling the crisis well, four in 10 are worried about catching the virus, and over 50 per cent think New Zealand should stop accepting visitors from countries that have coronavirus deaths.

I don’t think we can close the border with Australia.

National has already publicly called for the Government to move on wage subsidies for affected areas, and Stuff understands the Government has already been considering these. Under John Key, such subsidies were employed to good effect in Kaikōura and Christchurch after earthquakes, and they have the advantage of being relatively cheap and comparatively easy to administer.

They are also – perhaps unusually – sort of in keeping with both parties’ political philosophies. For Labour they are targeted, temporary interventions for those in need; for National it is giving individuals the ability to spend their own money, which will inevitably be better spent than if it were funnelled through some bureaucratic government programme.

Normally I’m against subsidies but if thousands of businesses face going under due to temporary circumstances outside their control, I think it is better to help out, then have tens of thousands more people on the dole.