COVID-19 PROTECTION FRAMEWORK: REVIEW
Background
1. On 18 October 2021, Cabinet agreed to shift from an elimination to a minimise and protect
COVID-19 strategy, protecting our health system and those most at risk of severe disease.
2. To support the minimise and protect strategy, the country moved in early December from
the Alert Level System to the COVID-19 Protection Framework [CAB-21-MIN-0421]. Lifting
the country’s vaccination rates, protecting the health system and reducing super spreader 1982
events were key goals of the new Framework.
3. Cabinet asked officials to review the Framework and use of My Vaccine Passes (MVPs) in
Act
early 2022 [CAB-21-MIN-0497 and CAB-21-MIN-0438 refer]. The government has kept the
Framework’s settings under continual review to ensure they remain fit for purpose as the
pandemic evolves. Amendments to the application and scope of some settings have been
made in response to feedback received from government agencies and stakeholders, or to
emerging information about Omicron. The review informing this paper has looked at both
the Framework’s settings and its overall efficacy in the Omicron context.
Efficacy of the COVID-19 Protection Framework in the Omicron context
4. We have considered the overall efficacy of the Framework and assessed whether its use,
or restrictions within it, need to change to support the short (now) and medium (post
Information -peak)
term COVID-19 response.
5. When Cabinet agreed to the Framework, Cabinet agreed its goals would be to:
a) maximise vaccination – including ensuring good coverage across geographic areas,
age range, and ethnicity to prevent outbreaks;
Official
b) maintain effective testing, tracing and isolating of cases and contacts when they do
arise;
the
c) control transmission of the virus through sustainable public health measures;
d) give as much certainty and stability as possible for people, and business, including by
removing the need for Alert Level 3 and 4 lockdowns;
under
e) catch cases at the border, but work towards removing the bottlenecks, and being more
open;
f) ensure our hospitals and public health system are well equipped to care for cases if
and when they do arise; and
g) maintain equity in health and economic outcomes [CAB-21-MIN-0406].
6. Based on analysis of these objectives, we are confident that the Framework is working as
intended in the Omicron context. There are high vaccination rates across the country, a
Released
health system that is responding well to increasing pressure (although it is experiencing
strain and delays, particularly at primary care), and more economic and social activities are
being enjoyed compared to higher levels of the Alert Level System.
Page 1 of 7
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
vaccinated, almost all cases are occurring in people who are ‘fully vaccinated’ (two doses
of the Pfizer vaccine).
15. The combination of Framework restrictions and vaccinations have helped to reduce
pressure on the health system. Although the health system is currently under strain and
experiencing delays as a result of Omicron (in part due to staff isolation requirements),
vaccines have been effective at reducing the likelihood of severe COVID-19 il ness and
hospitalisation from the Omicron variant.
16. Because the Framework does not include specific protections for those more susceptible
to the effects of COVID-19 (including certain iwi, Māori from the disabled community and 1982
individual Māori in some areas, and older people), these groups reportedly feel their needs
have been neglected. Some people within these at-risk groups consider economic recovery
has been prioritised over their protection.
Act
Border outcomes
17. The Framework has supported our approach at the border, supporting us to prepare
domestically for Omicron and enabling the progressive reopening of New Zealand’s
borders.
18. Ef ective domestic measures, including high vaccination rates, testing and isolation
requirements have supported management of the domestic outbreak and have meant that
the borders can progressively re-open with a level of confidence that additional border
arrivals wil not overwhelm the health system.
Information
19. Further work is underway by the Ministry of Health to consider the use of the Very High-
Risk classification and associated border measures (such as MIQ or other risk mitigation
options) in the current context. For example, this could include responding to a serious
variant of concern. However, future use of this classification would need to be determined
in light of the current high vaccination rates and the added immunity boost that the Omicron
variant wil add for many both domestically and internationally.
Official
Social outcomes
the
20. That there has been mixed feedback about whether the Framework has provided greater
certainty and stability for dif erent groups. Some have reportedly found the Framework and
associated approaches (e.g., the phased Omicron response) more confusing, especially
as settings within the levels of the Framework have been progressively tweaked. This has
made it hard for some to plan for the impact of each level on their sector or community. On
the other hand, others have reportedly found the Framework less complex than the Alert
under
Level System, which has improved certainty and stability. Most feedback indicated the
Framework was preferable to widespread lockdowns.
21. Concerns remain about social licence as the settings within the Framework and our COVID-
19 response continues to be updated and amended, as needed. Confusion about the
Omicron response phases, isolation rules and rationale, and testing has been reported
recently through Unite Against COVID-19 channels. Of icials are also seeing an increase
in misinformation (particularly relating to the vaccine), online harms and related activity.
This trend, coupled with misunderstanding about restrictions and why they are needed,
Released
may result in erosion of social licence especially as New Zealanders look at the freedoms
being enjoyed off-shore.
22. The use of MVPs has been particularly divisive, with some in the community associating
MVPs with government control and removal of individual rights and freedoms. There is a
Page 3 of 7
sense that MVPs have “caused damage”, and “divided the vaccinated and unvaccinated”.
Sentiment research conducted on behalf of DPMC in January 2022 reported disagreement
with vaccine mandates (including the use of MVPs) as the third most popular driver of
feeling like the current response is ‘going in the wrong direction’ (28 percent of those
surveyed). For others, the use of MVPs has provided confidence e.g., to visit hospitality
venues.
23. Feedback also indicates that the negative impacts of MVPs has been disproportionately
felt in certain communities. Engagement with the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pandemic
Response Group (NICF PRG) has reflected that MVPs have isolated some whānau,
negatively impacting communities in terms of access, where MVPs have created barriers 1982
for whānau who are not vaccinated. Te Puni Kōkiri have received reports that Māori
businesses are struggling to continue operating as they have lost customers due to the
vaccine pass requirements.
Act
24. Feedback from Māori groups also requested the need for clear and simple communications
when measures are removed (or leading up to their removal). This also included enough
time for Māori to understand the impacts of the removal of these measures for their
communities.
Economic outcomes
25. Knowing that most businesses and services can operate at all levels of the Framework may
have provided a sense of certainty and stability for some New Zealanders. However, the
extent people have chosen to self-regulate and avoid higher-risk settings as the Omicron
Information
outbreak advances has exacerbated economic impacts. This behaviour has been
demonstrated by lower spending and activity levels.
26. As at Thursday 24 February, Treasury advised electronic card spending had increased
across New Zealand, rising to be 7.4 percent below the same level in 2020. However, latest
reporting shows a decline in aggregate electronic card spending, suggesting that rising
COVID-19 case numbers are lowering economic activity. Total Jobseeker Support numbers
Official
continue to fall as seasonal work becomes available and tertiary education resumes.
Applications for the latest COVID-19 Support Payment have been high. As at 1pm
Thursday 10 March, $323.27mil ion had been disbursed to 65,439 applicants.
the
Faith-based and cultural activities
27. A number of faith-based organisations that operate churches or mosques have made a
claim to the High Court in relation to the Framework. The claim states that the Framework
limits the rights of people of faith, their churches, and their mosques to practise their faith.
under
There have been concerns with how the Framework mandates the use of MVPs, requiring
faith-based organisations to either exclude or segregate their congregations, limiting
religious freedom.
28. Places of worship have also raised concerns relating to the dif erent measures within the
Framework, in particular seeking clarification on the requirements for capacity limits,
masks, physical distancing and treatment for vaccinated and unvaccinated members.
Of icials have worked alongside the Inter Church Bureau to provide updated guidance and
ensure it addresses the common queries and implementation issues that places of worship
Released
have faced operating under the Framework.
29. Although the Framework has been a helpful guide for businesses, employers and
employees, regular updates and tweaks to the settings, as we have moved through the
levels of the Framework and the phases of the Omicron response, have led to some
Page 4 of 7
confusion. For ethnicities and communities who are culturally and linguistically diverse this
has resulted in dif iculties to understand and then apply these settings.
30. The continual postponement and cancellation of social and cultural gatherings, events and
festivals may lead to an increased disconnect between people and ethnic groups. For
example, Diwali festivals are pivotal in other New Zealanders understanding and
connecting with those for whom it is an important cultural element.
31. In general, there has been increased ability to attend tangihanga, marae, and faith-based
services under the Framework (with some restrictions based on whether vaccine passes
are used or not). However, some marae have chosen to no longer allow gatherings, while 1982
others have significantly reduced the number of people who can attend gatherings or be
on the premises. This has led to a number of impacts such as less koha to support the
overhead costs of marae, or poor emotional and mental wellbeing as whānau are unable
Act
to carry out traditional burial practices or share important events with their whānau.
32. The Framework’s gathering restrictions have also impacted many hui and religious
gatherings that would traditionally occur face to face. While some have shifted to being
conducted online, it has impacted negatively on those who have dif iculties with technology
or have limited or no access to the internet. Moving cultural practices and activities online
has worsened inequities for whānau and aiga who experience barriers to connectivity.
33. Reducing access to hui and religious services has created feelings of being disconnected
from the benefits that these significant cultural and community structures add to the overall
wellbeing of ethnic communities. In the long-term, this has the potential to disconnect
Information
people from their cultural identity.
34. Via engagement with the NICF PRG, we understand that they consider that the COVID-19
response needs to recognise that Māori should be considered as whānau and not as
individuals alone. There are concerns about restrictions that some services have put in
place to respond to Omicron, which have created negative outcomes for Māori. For
example, limits on use of support people at court hearings and hospitals.
Official
Officials’ assessed options for change against a set of principles
the
35. DPMC are drafting a Cabinet paper for consideration at SWC on Wednesday 16 March
2022 which provides a high-level overview of the Framework review, and seeks decisions
on the post-peak COVID-19 response. The following principles were used to guide analysis
of the current COVID-19 restrictions in the Framework and recommend changes to support
the post-peak response:
under
a) New Zealand Bil of Rights Act 1990 rights wil be restored as soon as possible. Where
possible, less rights limiting measures should be applied to achieve a similar outcome;
b) The response and measures wil give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi;
c) Measures must materially contribute to the response objectives and be proportionate
to the level of public health risk, while minimising social and economic costs;
d) Response measures are most effective when people understand them and the
Released
rationale;
e) Social licence for the overall response and compliance with measures is essential for a
successful strategy;
Page 5 of 7
f) Measures rarely work in isolation – consideration needs to be given to the integrity of
the response overall and alignment with other measures;
g) Some measures would be dif icult to reintroduce once removed and consideration
should be given to the future utility of measures, if removed;
h) The post-peak phase is a runway to the longer-term response – we need to think about
how we transition to a sustainable approach over time; and
i) When removing measures, it is important that whānau, individuals, businesses, iwi and
other organisations have the resources and information to manage any significant, 1982
residual risk.
Medium term response objectives informed consideration for change
36. Immediate changes to current COVID-19 restrictions have the potential to limit longer term
Act
response options. To ensure proposed changes are sustainable, officials have considered
the following set of objectives to inform considerations for change:
a) Pursue equity in COVID-19 health outcomes for Māori and Pacific peoples in particular;
b) Resume normal social and economic activity – remove restrictions unless they are
necessary to reduce COVID-related health impacts;
c) Continue to reduce COVID-19 related hospitalisations, and strain and delays in the
health system;
Information
d) Continue to empower private and community sectors to manage COVID-19 in their
workplaces and communities;
e) Develop measures to support Māori response to and recovery from COVID-19 in
partnership with Māori;
Official
f) Support future resilience to COVID-19 and our ability to respond to changes in risk;
g) Ensure we have systems in place to enable surveil ance of COVID-19 in the community
the
and at the border so we can respond to outbreaks quickly;
h) People feel confident and safe; and
i) The system of measures is simple, predictable, certain and stable.
under
37. Both the principles and objectives were tested with stakeholders and refined at
engagement meetings in early March.
Next Steps
38. DPMC are currently drafting a Cabinet paper for consideration at SWC on Wednesday 16
March 2022. This Cabinet paper wil build on the review work outlined in this paper, public
health advice, as well as feedback received from agencies and their networks. It will also
reflect feedback received from DPMC engagement with the National Iwi Chairs Pandemic
Released
Response Group, the COVID-19 Independent Continuous Review, Improvement and
Advice Group, the Strategic Public Health Advisory Group, and the Business Leaders
Forum.
Page 6 of 7
Consultation
39. The following agencies were consulted on this advice as part of the Cabinet paper process
(which this information was originally included in): The Ministries of Social Development,
Health, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Business, Innovation and Employment,
Foreign Af airs and Trade, Primary Industries, Pacific Peoples, Transport, Education, Ethnic
Communities, and Culture and Heritage. Also consulted were the Crown Law Of ice,
Parliamentary Counsel Of ice, New Zealand Customs Service, New Zealand Police, Public
Service Commission, Treasury, National Emergency Management Agency, Of ice for
Disability Issues, Oranga Tamariki, Te Arawhiti, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the Departments of 1982
Internal Af airs and Corrections.
40. The advice provided by agencies was prompted by a questionnaire to understand the
impacts of the Framework on their relevant sectors. Agencies also sent the questionnaire
Act
to their networks to ensure there was well-rounded feedback from sectors and communities
across regions. Feedback on the questionnaire was received by the Ministries of Business,
Innovation and Enterprise, Culture and Heritage, Education, Health, Justice, Transport,
Primary Industries, Pacific Peoples, Social Development, the National Emergency
Management Agency, NZ Customs, Oranga Tamariki, NZ Police, Te Arawhiti, Sports NZ,
Te Puni Kōkiri, The Treasury, WorkSafe NZ, the Human Rights Commission, The National
Iwi Chairs Forum Pandemic Response Group, Te Kohitanga o Ngāti Tuwharetoa, Ngāti
Tara Tokonui and the Public Service Commission.
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Page 7 of 7
