MIQ as we know it was coming to an end before the Charlotte Bellis case, but the Government must follow through and open the borders, writes Peter Dunne
Comment: Today's constant and instant news cycle means most reactions to politicians and political events are based on immediate impressions. Considered judgment and reflection on the merits of the argument often run a distant second to immediate impact.
The trend is not new, however. It has been steadily accelerating over the past 50 years. The speed of the news cycle now means there is frequently little time for detailed analysis before a dominant opinion is formed in the community. Politics has therefore become much more instant and immediate than the long-term game it used to be.
Similarly, political reputations are formed and destroyed quickly. Seldom today does a political leader who loses an election get a second chance. Unlike earlier years, losing leaders are quickly moved aside as liabilities by their parties, keen to rebuild and refresh their images. On today’s basis, recent Prime Ministers like Helen Clark and Jim Bolger probably would not have made it. Both lost an election as leader before becoming Prime Minister, so today may not have got the second chance that they needed to succeed.
A corollary of this new political immediacy has been the ever-increasing resort by politicians to trite and glib "sound bites" to catch a public headline, rather than detailed explanations. After all, as Ronald Reagan said about 40 years ago, "explaining is losing".
So, now, when things go wrong, or when the going gets tough, politicians generally resort to a superficial point that sounds clear and decisive, says very little, but underscores the wider political brand they are trying to promote. The Prime Minister's weekend brushing aside of falling poll ratings with "people know we've made those tough decisions but for the right reasons" is a case in point. It did not address the question why her poll ratings are falling but did reinforce her core message that she has made “tough” but “right” decisions, which people appreciate, during the pandemic crisis.
However, the Covid19 Response Minister's response to the Charlotte Bellis case has been more dramatic. His dismissal of her complaints about the way her MIQ application was initially treated by saying MIQ "has served New Zealand exceptionally well (and) saved lives" not only completely (deliberately) evaded the point, but also tapped into a key part of the Government's messaging that its Covid-19 response has kept people alive. It sounded good, but really had little to do with the issues the Bellis case raised.
Unlike the Prime Minister’s comment, however, it did not work. Although the polls suggest the Prime Minister’s support is waning, she still retains sufficient residual support for her “tough decisions but for the right reasons" comment to have some resonance. On the other hand, the Covid-19 Response Minister’s defiant defence of the now increasingly reviled MIQ system, the addition of another of the Government’s favourite tag-lines – “saved lives” – notwithstanding, appeared tone-deaf.
Throw in the specific case of the pregnant journalist seen to have been reporting bravely from Afghanistan during its recent dark days being denied the right to return to her country for the birth of her child, and the minister’s reaction became even harder to understand. Especially since the same minister was saying earlier this year that the current approach to MIQ was “unsustainable”.
It is hard to explain why a seasoned minister who has generally performed well on Covid-19 issues to date should have made such a gaffe. Perhaps the hangover of the Government’s earlier public relations successes with the handling of the pandemic response left him feeling too complacent when this case first became known. Or maybe he was succumbing to the creeping introspection that affects many ministers where, over time, defending the system they have created becomes more important than accepting that there will be times when it does not work and needs to be changed.
Whatever the explanation, the minister’s response was far from sure-footed, creating the immediate impression of callous insensitivity, rather than reinforcing the kind and compassionate brand the Government has worked so determinedly to promote to the world.
But the minister was not entirely to blame. He could not be expected to know the specific details of every case applying for an MIQ slot. Even more so since he is already extremely busy as Minister of Education, Minister for Public Services and Leader of the House. Nor should he have been expected to be involved in deciding which individual cases proceed and which do not. That is the proper role of his MIQ officials, and it looks like they let him down badly in this instance.
They should have recognised at the outset of Bellis’ application how turning it down would be treated by the electronic media. Consistent with the “early warning” approach public servants are expected to adopt, MIQ officials should have also been astute enough to have alerted the minister’s office at an early stage about the case.
Of course, it is possible that they did so. If that is the case, then any such advice or warnings were completely ignored, based on the subsequent turn of events. That raises further questions about what was going on in the minister’s office and whether he is just too overworked to do justice to all his portfolios.
Whether the minister had been warned or not, his first response on learning about the case should have been to ask the hard questions about what was going on. He should have been able to say publicly, when asked about it, that without going into specific details, he had raised hard questions about the case with his officials, rather than offering the platitudinous MIQ “has served New Zealand exceptionally well” excuse that he did. This was even more important from a credibility perspective, given his recent “unsustainable” comment. Now he has been left looking callous, hard-hearted, and inconsistent, no more than a stooge for his bungling officials.
Overall, the situation quickly became a no-win case for the minister and the Government. The blow to the Government’s international credibility has already been significant, as the widespread adverse international media coverage shows. Consistent with today’s instant media cycles, that impression will be hard to shift, despite this week’s hurried decision to find an MIQ place for Bellis. Nevertheless, it will be hard to overcome the impression we were the country that was willing to treat its own pregnant women worse than the Taliban, until the pressure came on.
But now that a way has been found to allow Bellis to have her baby in New Zealand the consequences will be no less difficult for the Government. Not unreasonably, every pregnant New Zealand woman overseas who wishes to return home for the birth of her child will now expect to be able to do so as well. The Government and MIQ will no longer be able to stop them.
Inevitably, the Government will tout finding an MIQ place for Bellis as a further example of its self-proclaimed compassion. Given what has happened, though, most will see that as just desperate and cynical spin. More seriously, the initial MIQ response has effectively driven a fatal nail into the already faltering credibility of the MIQ system. With a High Court review of whether MIQ for returning New Zealanders is in breach of the Bill of Rights Act due in mid-February, the days of MIQ look numbered.
It is therefore probably no coincidence that Cabinet has been considering this week the best time to reopen the New Zealand border and therefore phase out MIQ. The announcement expected Thursday by the Prime Minister of when that will happen has an eye on both clearing up the mess the initial response to the Bellis case caused and sending a signal to the High Court in advance of its hearing that MIQ is not here to stay.
For her announcement to be taken seriously, though, this time she will need to stick to the dates she announces.
