spinofflive
Covid-19 response minister Chris Hipkins and PM Jacinda Ardern (Getty Images)
Covid-19 response minister Chris Hipkins and PM Jacinda Ardern (Getty Images)

OPINIONPoliticsApril 15, 2021

A system that can be hacked by lying is not a good system

Covid-19 response minister Chris Hipkins and PM Jacinda Ardern (Getty Images)
Covid-19 response minister Chris Hipkins and PM Jacinda Ardern (Getty Images)

Yesterday Jacinda Ardern angrily declared that an MIQ worker had lied. That should not be a sufficiently sophisticated technique to get around our border defences, argues Duncan Greive.

It emerged yesterday that “case B” in the small yet still concerning cluster of Covid-19 cases related to the Grand Millennium Hotel in Auckland had not been previously been tested since November. This came as something of a surprise, as Covid response minister Chris Hipkins had announced that such tests would be mandatory in September of last year. 

The security guard was not only infected with Covid-19, but worked while infectious and symptomatic, despite not having been tested for six months, missing at least 10 tests during that period. A situation which exposed them and ultimately their community to what ended up occurring: a small, hopefully contained outbreak of Covid-19.

How did the worker evade detection? According to prime minister Jacinda Ardern, their methodology was as daring as it was simple: “the individual was lying.”

Most would agree that lying is unfortunate, and that you would hope people don’t lie. But it’s also so utterly common that with almost any other area of human life we have safeguards to protect people and institutions from the impacts of lying. It’s why we have passports to confirm our identity when we travel. Why there are reference checks in employment situations, or warrants of fitness for our vehicles. Because most people will do the right thing, but if given the opportunity, some won’t.

It’s important to remember that this is not only to protect the institution – it’s also to protect the individual. In certain situations, the incentive to lie looms large.

One example might be a situation in which your employment status, and therefore your income was threatened by telling the truth. Here it’s entirely possible that, having missed a test for innocent reasons, the contractor might fear for their job security were they to reveal that they have missed a test. And that having missed a test and finding that there was no consequence to having lied about it, they continued to do so. And that the situation compounded from there.

There are other plausible reasons for the lie to have started innocently – a phobia, a communications failure, a painful experience with a test. What there is no reasonable explanation for is why both government and First Security did not protect the individual – and with them the whole country – from a simple lie being sufficient to get them into this situation. Ardern herself noted this yesterday, saying that the “employer needed to have checks and balances in place to make sure they were still doing what was required”.

Quite. But surely that is doubly true of government itself? Because First Security – brought to you by the team behind Wilson Parking – has had failings before during its time at MIQ, including employees falling asleep on the job and leaking private information of those staying at isolation facilities. There are inherent difficulties with the outsourcing of such crucial work, which is why the government announced in August of last year that use of contractors would be phased out. As Justin Giovanetti reports for The Spinoff today, this remains some way off, with the latest deadline for such an operational takeover revealed yesterday as October 2021, more than a year after its announcement and by which time the pandemic should, we hope, be winding down.

MIQ minister Chris Hipkins has rightly pointed out that some level of trust is involved in any private procurement – in that the employer will need to hand over staffing records around resignations and new hires, sick leave and shifts missed. But that should not and cannot extend to something as crucial as the testing regime, one which broke down because First Security’s procedure for ensuring regular testing was asking employees to sign a declaration certifying that they had been tested. Which is why we’re in this situation – the company designed and the ministry accepted a system which could be broken by the simple act of lying. Which is not a system at all – it’s a code, a wish, a vibe.

And now it’s an outbreak. One which so far seems to be contained, and that hopefully does not cause long term harm, let alone death to any of those infected. But it pays to remember that those are the stakes.

Last night brought further revelations from Newshub’s dogged investigations editor Michael Morrah, that as many as 450 missed their tests, and 85 may never have been tested at all. On Morning Report today Hipkins essentially affirmed those numbers while characterising that group as “a handful of people out there who are abusing the system”. 

He went on to say that a new system which would have more precise numbers around testing had been in development for some time, to improve the quality of data provided. “We do get a real desire from people to see data”, he said, oddly implying that data is something reporters or the public get a kick out of, rather than the bedrock of understanding what is happening within our border system.

The timing of this is very unfortunate, with the Australia bubble just days away from opening, and with it a massive test for our border, just as a large part of the system we rely on to protect us has been exposed as trust-based. Any system which relies on individual honesty is inevitably going to break, and duty of care as an employer should not allow frontline workers to be put in this position. 

So it seems fair to ask what would be the bigger lie: an individual signing a false declaration about testing. Or the New Zealand public being told that testing was already mandatory and occurring.


In the latest episode of Gone By Lunchtime, Toby Manhire, Annabelle Lee-Mather and Ben Thomas discuss MIQ, the temporary ban on arrivals from India, the Māori Party’s donations strife and more. Subscribe and listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast provider.

Keep going!
A man peers through security fencing at an isolation facility in Rotorua. (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)
A man peers through security fencing at an isolation facility in Rotorua. (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

OPINIONPoliticsApril 15, 2021

A day that laid bare the need for scrutiny of our Covid-19 response

A man peers through security fencing at an isolation facility in Rotorua. (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)
A man peers through security fencing at an isolation facility in Rotorua. (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

A sobering series of stumbles yesterday showed the country’s Covid-19 response, lauded around the world for its performance, is showing cracks as it enters its second year. Political editor Justin Giovannetti writes from parliament.

The opposition was left demanding more oversight of the country’s Covid-19 response through the re-establishment of the epidemic response committee yesterday and found itself accusing a government that prides itself on transparency of jealously hoarding data.

Where ministers and officials stalled for time, questions from the opposition exposed a new flaw in New Zealand’s border defences, while health officials belatedly released a vaccination plan for the first time that shows the country’s programme is running significantly behind a draft schedule released last month.

The day began early at a health select committee where MPs learned that an infected security guard at managed-isolation who was supposed to be tested every fortnight had somehow dodged a swab since November 2020, nearly five months ago. On Monday of this week, director-general of health Ashley Bloomfield has said the man was last tested in March.

The committee’s morning session did not focus on border failures however. Liz Craig, the committee’s chair, instead asked health officials to talk in general terms about how the border facility works.

The committee is the main venue for MPs to get clear answers from officials about the state of the Covid-19 response. Senior public officials were asked by Labour MPs, however, to detail a “customer journey” through managed-isolation. Opposition MPs, who can only question officials in these settings, watched on in disbelief. 

The frustration was clear in the room, as Bloomfield and the managers of the country’s border system were asked questions by Labour MPs around what they themselves described as “basic science.” 

The opposition did get 20 minutes to ask questions. Among other answers, we learned from officials that despite an announcement in August that private security guards would be phased out in favour of government staff and Defence Force personnel, the plan was still being developed. They should start arriving in October, more than a year after the announcement.

National Covid-19 spokesperson Chris Bishop sought more time to question the officials, but the Labour-dominated committee ignored his request and moved to a closed session.

The prime minister later used the L-word in parliament. The man who tested positive had “lied” to his employer, she said, which had allowed his lack of tests to go undetected. At an earlier press conference, Covid-19 response minister Chris Hipkins said he has now instructed that use of a registry that lists tests of all border workers will be mandatory by the end of the month. The system could have raised a red flag if it had been used, but the testing status of the country’s most at-risk workers was being conducted on the honour system.

Hipkins said there were some “people at the margins” of the border system who might be skipping their tests, but the number would be low. Asked how he knew it was low given no comprehensive record exists of testing and the man was only detected after he was positive, Hipkins demurred.

A long promised vaccination plan, where the government put out concrete figures, was the main draw for the minister’s afternoon press conference. The plan eventually appeared three-quarters of the way through, with a few copies handed out by health staff to reporters who were simultaneously learning for the first time that the security guard had misled health investigators who had required help from police to track the man’s movements.

The plan showed that the country’s DHBs are prepared to deliver 1,086,753 doses of the Covid-19 vaccine by the start of July. That’s a quarter of the doses that the government had previously suggested would be delivered by then.

The country’s strategy calls for vaccinations to move to the general public in July. Before jabs are made available to the public, 2.2 million people in three previous groups either need to be completely inoculated or progress needs to be well under way. Those three groups require 4.4 million doses. In response to questions, Hipkins said the country’s vaccination effort would “ramp up” in July.

Based on the current plan from DHBs, the country would need to vaccinate 40,000 people a day after July 1 to finish the effort this year. That’s about the number of people currently being given a shot every week.

Bishop said he had planned to ask Hipkins about the DHB plan during question time, but the data was only posted online a few minutes after his allocated slot yesterday in Parliament.

Hipkins told reporters that the country doesn’t need to revive the epidemic response committee. That group had been a one-time response to the lack of parliament during lockdown and with the return of question time, the health select committee and a weekly press conference, there are enough venues for scrutiny, he added.

Yesterday’s day of stumbles makes a mockery of that claim. Question time, as the speaker often reminds the house, is not answer time. Press conferences are also an imperfect creation, where follow-up questions are hurried and lines of inquiry on technical details are rarely able to be fleshed out.

The health select committee should be the polar star of the country’s response. Experts should be called to testify and all members should ask tough questions, regardless of party. In only a few fleeting minutes yesterday the opposition showed its possible value, while the Labour majority did its best to obfuscate. The country’s Covid-19 response deserves better.


In the latest episode of Gone By Lunchtime, Toby Manhire, Annabelle Lee-Mather and Ben Thomas discuss MIQ, the temporary ban on arrivals from India, the Māori Party’s donations strife and more. Subscribe and listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast provider.

Politics