COVID-19 update 13 December 2021 4pm

>> Apologies, I can see we are a bit tardy this afternoon. Kia ora koutou katoa, good afternoon.

Today Cabinet undertook its first review of the new COVID- 19 protection framework which came into effect roughly 10 days ago. Cabinet considered several factors when deciding whether or not to move regions into different levels in the traffic light system, including vaccination rates, health system capacity, and the status of the current outbreak.

 It's encouraging to see Auckland's case numbers have continued to decline since the new framework came into effect, giving because for cautious optimism. the seven-day average in Auckland as of Friday was 113 per day compared to 126 the week prior and 179 the week prior to that. All lower than the 200 cases per day that modelling suggested in early November. This lower number of cases in Auckland is good news for all of us as it reduces the risk of the virus spreading outside Auckland once the boundary changes on Wednesday.

We currently have 61 people in hospital, four are in the ICU or the high dependency unit. Case numbers, new hospitalisations and new cases in the ICU are all running slightly under levels predicted. The R-value which is indicative of the pace of spread slowed to under 1 for the first time in several months on 1 December.

Over the past two weeks our vaccination rates in total have increased more than the previous two weeks, and as a country we are now just 47,527 vaccinations away from hitting 90% fully vaccinated. As I said last week we should hit that milestone in the middle of this week.

There are other factors we must also keep in mind.

Firstly, that we have long said we want to see good vaccination levels across all parts of the country. Those areas outside Auckland that are in red for the most part won't reach rates in the mid to high 80s until the end of December.

Secondly, while Auckland is one of the most highly vaccinated regions, it continues to be the centre of the outbreak with several hundred active cases obviously being managed.

 While there is good cause for optimism, we only moved into the new COVID protection framework 10 days ago which doesn't yet represent a full transmission cycle.

However, ministers and the Director-General were supportive of recognising the progress that has been made and more will be made in the coming weeks as people seek their second dose. They also expressed the view that with an additional transmission cycle they believe there will be enough comfort for Auckland to move.

On this basis, Cabinet has decided on the recommendation of the Director-General to move Auckland to orange at 11:59pm on Thursday 30th December.

Cabinet has also decided those remaining areas that are currently in red, excluding Northland, will also move to orange at 11:59pm on Thursday 30th December.

This decision means that Auckland will move approximately four weeks after they moved into the COVID protection framework at the beginning of the month. And it will give extra time for any potential impacts of that move to be seen. This represents two incubation periods of the virus which we have consistently used to provide confidence around outbreak control throughout the pandemic. That means we can see the impact of the Auckland boundary opening also. It means other regions in red, currently Taupo, Rotorua, Lakes district, Gisborne District, Wairoa, Rangitikei and others have additional time for rates to reach a greater level of protection. And by this time as I said we expect those areas to reach the mid to high 80s in terms of fully vaccinated residents.

Here today we have carefully balanced the range of advice, risks, views and settled on an outcome that means the country moves into the New Year with all but one region in the orange setting. That means vaccine passes will be in use up and down the country as well as masks and other public health measures that are designed to keep us safe during this time of change.

It also means we are being proportionate and people will be able to gather together, and that is because it will be safe to do so. I want to acknowledge the huge work undertaken in Northland. And the enormous progress made there, too. I think it is right to be cautious in this move. This does not move of course that people in Auckland fulfil the requirements around vaccination or testing cannot move into Northland, of course they continue to be able to.

A next full review of the traffic lights will be in the week of 17 January. Finally a word on Omicron. Currently New Zealand maintains a layer of protection at our border through our ongoing use of managed isolation quarantine. Y

ou will be aware this is due to undergo significant change on 17 January when New Zealand residents and citizens in Australia are able to travel home and instead of going into MiQ will be able to isolate at home for seven days. But in light of the global Omicron situation, we will receive the latest advice on the variant in early January.

This check-in will be to confirm that we remain comfortable in the next step of our reconnecting work. I won't pre-empt the outcome of that check-in now but it makes sense to assess the next move against all the latest information and advice we have including the relative effectiveness of vaccines against the Omicron variant.

One final note. On Wednesday, Aucklanders who are fully vaccinated can travel around the country again and the boundary has played an extraordinary role in containing the Delta outbreak the past four months changes. Those unvaccinated can also travel but must provide a negative test taken within the previous 72 hours.

We announced last week but I am confirming again today that test can be a rapid antigen test and they will be available at 149 pharmacies around Auckland from Wednesday. They will also be available at other pharmacies around New Zealand from Wednesday also. The results are available after 15 minutes, and you will be issued with proof of your test for travel across the border. I encourage you to use this simple, accessible option for surveillance testing if you are not vaccinated and you intend to travel and you are in Auckland. But if you are symptomatic, please still get a full PCR test. Some will ultimately say this decision today feels right, some will say it feels too slow and others too fast, so instead I come back to the two-year perspective. For the second year in a row now we have finished the year with measures that matter - the lowest cases, hospitalisations and deaths in the OECD, and the opportunity to have a summer break with comparatively low rates of COVID-19.

 Happy to take questions.

>> Do the decisions you have made today change your thinking around the Auckland border especially to the south, given that if Auckland can be in Orange and everywhere else is in orange, what is the point?

>> What we were ultimately trying to do is continue to slow any spread. I think that remains important. Part of the success of our containment of Delta has been those border arrangements. So it is fitting that we change them, that we is them. Now what we are asking -- to ease them. Now we are asking if you're in Auckland, if you are double vaccinated, not to move until you get a test while we consider these settings.

>> Did you consider dropping the boundary because the police said it was so resource heavy to monitor and given that everyone is at the same level...

>> Two things. First, it is not an owner is ask -- it is not an owner is task for the double vaccinated Aucklanders. They just carry the same information they carry with them now. For the police, ultimately they are the only ones who can legally operate compliance around these checks, and it is totally their operational decision as to how. They have expressed a view that they will continue to manage the free flow of traffic. That's one of the things they will undertake so they will be determined when and how they choose to check compliance.  JEN:With Northland, 81% are vaccinated and 87% have had their first vaccinated so that me they should be on track to reach 87%. Isn't it really high and is it really necessary to still stay in restrictions?

>> My regulation in terms of numbers is they are still around 4000 shy of reaching the 90% first dose target. I confirm that with you while I am here. But ultimately, the distance between them and those other regions at the moment is in the order of several thousand. That is not to say that we will not see Northland move, like other regions, into orange. We fully anticipate that. At a time when we are going through a clear full transition, it makes sense to us as a cabinet to be most cautious with the area where we have the lowest vaccination. I do want to acknowledge the huge effort that has gone in from the region, it has been significant. We have seen a big increase. But as I say it is about being cautious.

>> Have you ruled out anyone going to green, especially in spite of the South Island?

>> Only for now. Through the transition period. We obviously anticipate that we will have areas that will move into green but this is to see us over that period of transition. Wanting to keep in mind is green does enable vaccinated and unvaccinated people to get gather in high-risk areas. Our view is that during the transition, actually, it's important that we continue to maintain confidence as we transition. I know a number of people will appreciate knowing they are around in high-risk venues with other vaccinated people.

>> Can you give an assurance to Auckland's who want to travel north of the border on Wednesday that not every car is going to be stopped by police?

>> That is certainly the the application from the communications I have seen from police. The goal is to continue to maintain the flow of traffic. The way that you see them operate other clients compliance checks, they will be undertaking a similar approach, where they will be compliance checking but also essentially ensuring that we don't have a large hole upon vehicles. She

>> (inaudible) was saying that everyone is...

>> Obviously it is operational so I won't be dictating how they operate them.

>> They were saying that every car should be stopped, quite categorical.

>> Police will operate the cheques, they will put out official statements and how they intend to operate them. You can see they will be taking into account traffic flow. The other thing is that checkpoints can be legally run by the New Zealand police, only. They can others in terms of those compliance checks like the defence Force, community wardens, Maori or Pacific wardens, but police ultimately are the ones in charge and must be present to manage those compliance checks.

>> Are you aware of police being dispatched to Gassman to set up roadblocks there? ? No, nor would I have an expectation of that. Ultimately, the way that the police due to operate over some barriers are up to them. You are a member, does make you will remember that there are different pressures on polytree the summer period, we remember when Coromandel became a very busy place for young people to congregate and police made operational decisions about deployment then. These will be decisions made by police but the only place we have set expectation around compliance checks is around the southern and northern part of Auckland.

>> Is just a numbers thing with Norland, obviously Taranaki is ready 81%, similar to Northland, but a smaller (inaudible)?

>> On rounding, they are at 90% at the moment, on Northland it is over 4000. A number of factors we take into account but vaccination was significant in those factors and in deciding that Northland will hold for now. It is not to say that the only way that Northland can reach any other level is solely on vaccination rates. This is about taking a cautious approach while we transition.

>> Any transition period period you are saying the reason you are not (inaudible) until January 17, that is one month and 1/2 after. Seven mine

>> Keep in mind though that we will have regular to weekly reviews. We will have that point have a chance to see the Auckland boundary lifting, movement across the country, and the new sepia framework. CS, that point the transition will have been done, we'll see impact of the new settings and we will be fully implemented by that point.

>> Is the only chance of the timetable may being moved up slightly like a straighter, with (inaudible) moving with us. Is there a possibility will move to five months or four months?

>> The first want to make is the vast bulk of New Zealanders who are eligible for boosters or come up to their opportunity for boosters are actually across March, April and May. A large number of New Zealanders are quite some way of the six month mark let alone the five month mark and so on. I will leave it to Dr Bloomfield to comment on any further consideration by a Technical Advisory Group on boosters.

>> Thank you prime minister and hero. Whether watching this carefully over the last two or three weeks is the first announcement about Micron and the information from Pfizer last week was reassuring in a way that the Pfizer vaccine does seem to have a good level of efficacy against the Omicron variant. Especially with that third base is lactose. Technically advisory group is considering this tomorrow and we are meeting in the afternoon with some modelling work from our team. Our key objective is to go into winter with our maximum population immunity. That will be one thing we will be weighing up around the timing of that booster dose. In the meantime, there are, by Christmas, 450,000 people to their booster, at least Xmas, and I would strongly encourage them to get that as soon after six months as possible. To make sure that they have got full immunity. We will be providing further advice through the middle to late part of this week to see whether there is any change to the current period before that date.

>> That is not a concrete (inaudible). You will advise the change?

>> Yes we could and that will be on the advice of the Technical Advisory Group looking at the sites and also again, with the primary is perfectly. Winter is the problem as we are seeing in Europe. Pfizer's advice last week was that you could bring that anti- three months, that interval, but they had a caveat that if you were in winter and you have a large outbreak which we have neither, looking in Europe it is the equivalent of us having three 5000 cases a day and obviously we are nowhere near that in our case numbers are dropping.

>> Even if you were to move by a month you would still see the vast bulk every March April based on the sequencing of most of the large block of Zealand population second dose.

>> Could you or Dr Bloomfield explain the rationale behind the date of the 30th? What particular reason?

>> Can you back from the third. We go to the CBF on the third, you will recall that we have taken into account those translucent cycles, those blocks of two weeks to be able to give ourselves time to see the impacts. With the older alert levels we used to use it to see if we had missed cases. Now it is to see the impact of easing the restrictions. If you can't forward from the third you land on the 30th or 31st.

>> Can people potentially plan uses? This

>> You can yourself that's where you land.

>> The Friday before last, someone asked about those open our updates and you against about the fact that people who overseas might be looking at getting (inaudible) and relying on seven days of isolation to carry on (inaudible) change is a sense of the moment. People who have been relying on those dates and on that basis, (inaudible)?

>> No, we haven't changed our plans. We haven't changed the timelines we have set out. But it does make sense for us to have that check in before they are due to come in to ensure that we still have our comfortable based on the latest advice we have on any crime. There is nothing for which we can make that decision now,. At the moment we know it is more transmissible, we know there has been some land-based work on the effectiveness of vaccine and from that, you have seen the pharmaceutical companies coming out and speaking about the greater rates of effectiveness based on how recent your last dose was. Our view is we will know even more even in that first week of January. It makes sense for us to review that information and then confirm comfort call or, if there is something to alarm us, to be willing to speak to that as well.

>> We brought that up today and with some people, is that (inaudible)?

>> In Australia we have seen them put on additional self oscillation requirements and remove them. Around the world they have been reimposed. It is unrealistic frosty say there has been a plan and we will remove it despite what the readers evidence tells us of any crime. We have to listen and hear what the evidence tells us in the impact it will likely have a New Zealand.

>> If you are forced to go back into a (inaudible) isolation that is going to become difficult in terms of space. How will you become (inaudible)?

>> It would necessarily be longer but you are reverting into soft self isolation or not because the thing we have that point is people being able to self isolate at home. I will set I wasn't going to pre-emptive list regulate around what is good to happen and I won't. We haven't yet changed any of the decisions we have made. I do want to give comfort to people that if there is evidence that suggest to us that there would be a market and a negative impact on New Zealand, we need to listen to that. We have scheduled the check-in and I wanted to notify people we would do that.

>> Why is it then that (inaudible) is very committed to that day? They said it was definitive. If the question is not about the revision, it is this government's lack of communication style?

>> Ben, I have just said we're not changing any of the decisions at this point we have made. There is almost no country around the world that has done nothing in response to Omicron. Every country has responded to Omicron. In fact, we are one of the countries that has had to do the least because we have already had measures in place. In some parts of Australia they were reinstating requirements they had removed only a matter of weeks prior. Essentially what you're asking me to do is to ignore that evidence, my view is that we have a duty to make sure that before that decision we have made are not yet changed, comes into force, that we have a check-in.

>> Is New Zealand considering all you consider offering a sailing to Julie and a son?

>> No.

>> There is limited community transition and the whole system is ready to respond. Can we assume that Ellington and Canterbury are not ready?

>> Not at all. Thank you for the opportunity to say something specific to the South Island. At the moment they are in an exceptional position, high rates of vaccination, very location numbers. We are where we are now as we make a transition but I do expect things to change in the south. Keep in mind one of the big adjustments that comes from being orange to green is the ability to have a large number of people together who are both vaccinated and unvaccinated. What now as we transition quite a few people of the South Island would like some confident they are around vaccinated individuals.

>> Green is greater significance to unvaccinated people, are you keeping those low risk periods in Orange to as a tactic to encourage vaccination?

>> Not at all. We designed a system that would allow some flex ability at every level. Even at Orange you have some flex ability safely because we substituted vaccine passes with other health measures and we deliberately designed that way.

>> There are businesses those that are suffering from patronage because they are not at Green Day.

>> Sorry, would you mind giving me...

>> By having vaccinated and unvaccinated people coming in.

>> That they have the capability to operate for capacity with vaccine passes, so there is an option where people in Orange can be fully operating and open with as many people as their facility is able to contain as long as they are using passes.

>> In the South Island and some very high backs regions will go green in January (inaudible)?

>> Is a recognition that they are well-placed to but we are in transition and I get the sense that there will be understanding of the balance we are trying to reach here, as we move into the new framework. In the front.

>>

>> (inaudible) are you aware of this man and has be a future of the (inaudible)?

>> I have seen the media reports and as has been the case with any issue that has national security applications, I won't comment on the specifics. As you would expect, we take our international obligations seriously. Any New Zealand citizen or resident who is affiliated or associated with an organisation who is listed as a terrorist, you can be expecting to face the consequences of New Zealand's legislative framework.

>> What if he returns to the country?

>> I won't get into specifics but as a general statement you can expect we would apply our international obligations and take those international obligations seriously. I try to avoid getting into hypotheticals with national security issues. I am not going to comment on the specifics of the case. You know that's not unusual.

>> Would you remove citizenship?

>> Again I'm not getting into the specifics of the case.

>> Some of the early advice on the vaccine certificates in the framework envisioned they would only be required for high risk venues.

>> Large gatherings is my recollection. There was a view would be able to therefore give greater certainty around business remaining open during outbreaks if they were used in a wider range of settings.

>> That advice also looked at whether this would be temporary or an ongoing measure and it seemed to lean in the earlier stages towards being temporary. Do you have an idea whether you might see the traffic light system change if we reach higher vaccination rates?

>> Then you have the challenge of ensuring people are up-to- date with boosters, and they have the potential to provide an extra way to ensure people are taking up their boosters because it appears they are going to be material to keeping people well and communities safe in future. It is fair to say when we were considering in the early days, and no set decision was made around the idea they would be removed at any point, or the CPF framework no longer in existence, because we're still learning from what is happening overseas. You will have heard me comment a few times those countries that removed them, the likes of Denmark in August recently reinstated them. Germany is trying to step up their use. They remain in place in Italy, Spain. So we see those who have moved away have then gone back to them.

>> Does it sit easily or heavily with you the notion of the traffic light framework and separating out...

>> I would go to the little- discussed element of the framework. You won't find many countries in the world that have created a way of using vaccine passes or a framework for vaccine passes that give you options to operate differently as well. We have tried to do both. Very few places have done that. We have tried to do both carefully and safely, though, so it means you have lower numbers of people. They are required to have different public health measures. They do exist and it was because we were trying to create a system that allowed us to acknowledge there will be people who feel very strongly, and if they are going to maintain this use, how do we keep people safe in the meantime.

>> What is your advice to tourism businesses and people living overseas about whether there is any chance that they won't have to do self-isolate next year? Stuart Nash apparently told some tourism businesses that all through next year everyone would have to self-isolate.

>> At this stage we haven't removed that self-isolation requirement. Of course we have indicated our intent for MiQ to be the sole place you can carry that out. So for those we have sequenced it, for those double vaccinated, for those who have a predeparture test, we move first with Australia and then the rest of the world for New Zealand citizens and residents and then we look to move through other classes beyond that. But at this stage we haven't carte blanche said this is the date that self-isolation requirements will be removed. You can see in the world why that it is. In August when we announce the Reconnecting plan we said we were always going to continue to use tools to keep our domestic restrictions as low as possible. Having self-isolation is means we have a better chance of having fewer restrictions in our day-to-day lives. We have always tried to balance the two while getting rid of the bottleneck at the border.

>> Are you saying it is unrealistic to expect the relaxation of self-isolation?

>> Not necessarily but you have seen us express the higher bar. Whilst of course we all, with cautious optimism, look forward to the future with the hope we will be able to remove those. But our view is we want to give as much certainty. And at the border you don't want to YouGov because you have -- yo-yo because you have seen countries around the world doing that. So we will move cautiously.

>> On another matter, today we got fresh house inflation prices over 25% and you were quoted on the weekend as saying some sort of lowering of house prices or house price inflation would be OK. You talked about one or two years. If prices went back to where they were before COVID that would be a 27% fall in prices.

>> But you see in one year the significant increase even just against one year. If you had a fall that took us back to where we were even 12 months ago. That's the point I was making here, between the two things being argued here, no one wants to see our housing market crash. It still represents the single biggest asset most New Zealanders will own. It so happens we want to expand the number of New Zealanders who are able to access that market. With house prices increasing the way we have, that is unsustainable and it is locking people out of the market. So we are trying, of course, as you have heard me say many times before, use all the tools available to us whether it is changing or impacting demand for investors by the changes we have made to our tax settings to encourage people to invest in the productive economy instead of the housing market. Supporting first-time buyers with as much as we can with first home buying products. And also the levers of supply.

>> How is affordability going to improve if there is no prospect of a fall in prices?

>> You have heard, there is a lot of speculation about what is going to happen in the housing market over the next period of time. Time will tell whether those predictions end up being the case. But already we have seen first home buyers now making up 26% of the market versus the prior 22%. Core logic predicts we will see some heat come out of the market and I would say a large part of that will be what people are assuming and in part will be about what people are likely to see happen with interest rates. If I may, one last question and I will come back to those who haven't had a question.

>> Are you resigned to the fact that house prices...

>> I am not resigned to anything and that's why we keep doing all that we do on housing. Even this week you have seen us take significant measures in the planning space to try and again accelerate the supply of housing in those areas where we see the most demand. Name any area and you will have seen us pull a lever because we are determined to see change in housing.

>> Unions director Matt McCarthy said the toxic work environment remains at Parliament. How concerning is that for you and has anything changed... (INAUDIBLE)?

>> Of course since the Francis review we have been working very hard to make sure we take on board those recommendations, that we implement them. I can only speak from my perspective having been here over a number of years. I believe there has been changed. That does not mean there won't be individuals who have experienced poor practice, and we owe it to them to make sure we change both the culture of this workplace but also the ability for them to seek support or to seek a change in outcome if they experience that.

>> Just following on, on an enquiry into the Parliamentary service Chief Executive and the handling of complaints, would you be supportive of that?

>> To be honest, I haven't had a chance to look at some of what is reported on today so I wouldn't want to speak prematurely. If I may, and then I will come back around.

>> Once the government only announced it was walking away from the opt out model of three waters, the decision to walk away was made in June?

>> We continue to walk -- work alongside local government to build consensus over a number of months. Local government asked us to work with them through the heads of agreement we had over a period of time over the course of that period of time of course we worked up a package of support to ensure that no council was left worse off by any future decision- making. And of course ultimately, though, when it became very clear to us that the only way that we would be able to achieve the positive outcomes of lower rates, better infrastructure and the ongoing investment required, we would need everyone in rather than some out.

>> You went about getting that consensus after you had made up your mind and now councils are feeling like this was untruthful to them.

>> I disagree with that. In fact some councils were of the view it would only be able to be achieved by everybody being all in, and they were waiting for government to ultimately make that decision. We wanted to build as much consensus around it that we could.

>> You told them in June and you made the decision.

>> We stand by the decisions we have made to ensure that we were providing the evidence base for councils. They wanted to see the reporting and the work that had been done by DAA to form the basis of some of those future entity decisions to allow them to time to work with their communities over the future. We had again the heads of agreement. We were working through a process in good faith. Some councils don't agree with where we have landed, but it all comes back to one essential. In my mind, one essential issue - doing nothing is not an option. Yet if we are going to do something successfully it requires us all to be in it all together. OK, I think I was coming back over here.

>> Just to your first point about housing, would you be comfortable with house prices falling back to the level they were out in December 2020?

>> Sorry I have never made arbitrary calls on any particular level but what I simply pointed out was even if you had them come away from where they were a year ago, they have grown dramatically in that 12 month period. No one is arguing from our perspective that a collapse in the housing market would be an acceptable thing. It is the most significant asset most people are in. But we cannot afford to continue to see year on year dramatic increases in prices. Home owners are buying in the same market and for first home buyers it's increasingly hard for them to enter.

>> Are you saying you are effectively locking in house prices where they are?

>> No that's not what I'm saying.

>> (INAUDIBLE)

>> I have never given a particular numeric. I was asked in a question whether we would accept seeing prices fall away, or over a period of a few months. What I have explained of course, and again multiple times on this podium, is it is in no one's interest to see a complete collapse of the market but if we saw house prices fall back to where they were even 12 months ago that would still take us back to a very high rate of growth over the past few years.

>> To follow up on that...

>> Look I am trying to apportion questions across the gallery.

>> I have only had one question, sorry, two.

>> Sorry, I was making old versions of who was still working in the same outlets. You and then I will come over here and based on the level of the enthusiasm in the room we might wrap up.

>> 30% house prices, even though that might take us to a ridiculous level that's still better than where we are now where you need a $200,000 deposit to buy a medium house.

>> We have never put out singular goals to which we are aspiring. What we have said is the growth is unsustainable and we stand by that.

>> Do you think your position on house prices has a market effect?

>> No. No. I am glad you think I am that powerful but no. I think what matters is what we do. I also think the interest rate has a market effect as well. Last one, Jenna.

>> With house prices, if you are making these massive moves in the housing market what measure of affordability do you think is acceptable for a median house or even a lower?

>> We all know the growth rates are unsustainable. We have seen a small increase in the proportion of first-time buyers in the market, but it is still only 26%. Overall we have a lower proportion of New Zealanders in home ownership than what we had several decades ago. We want that to increase and we know it comes down to 2 things. How much income they are earning relative to what is happening with house prices and we have seen over a number of years that increase growth. So we need to things. House prices to not continue to increase at the extraordinary rate we have, and people's incomes need to continue to increase. We are a government who has focused on both. Thank you, everyone. You know the definition of housing affordability. It is well-defined.