133 Molesworth Street
PO Box 5013
Wellington 6140
New Zealand
T+64 4 496 2000
25 June 2026
John Armstrong
By email: [FYI request #34024 email]
Ref:
H2026080370
Tēnā koe John
Response to your request for official information
Thank you for your request under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act) to the Ministry of
Health – Manatū Hauora (the Ministry) on 20 March 2026. You requested:
I request the following information relating to COVID-19 vaccination policies between 1
January 2021 and 31 December 2022:
All Cabinet papers and Cabinet committee papers relating to: •
COVID-19 vaccination policy
•
vaccination policy for individuals aged 12–17
•
COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
A list of all Cabinet minutes and Cabinet committee minutes recording decisions on the
above matters.
For each document please provide: •
the document title
•
the date it was considered by Cabinet or a Cabinet committee
•
the originating agency.
On 20 April 2026, the Ministry contacted you in accordance with section 18B of the Act, as your
request was for a very large volume of information and may be refused under section 18(f) as it
could not be made available without substantial col ation or research. You advised the below:
I am looking for any correspondence (eg, emails, memorandums) between MoH and
DPMC with regards the content in the OIA.
On 20 April 2026, the Ministry contacted you in accordance with section 15A of the Act
to extend the period of time available to respond to your request, as the request necessitated a
search through a large quantity of information and meeting the original time limit would
unreasonably interfere with the operations of the Ministry.
Unfortunately, the Ministry was unable to meaningful y refine the scope
of your request. Accordingly, we are releasing a subset of documents to you under section
16(2)(a) of the Act. This approach has been taken in preference to refusing your request under
section 18(f) of the Act. We considered the following keywords and subject matter to identify
information most relevant to your request within the timeframe you have specified:
• COVID-19 vaccination policy
• Vaccination policy for individuals aged 12-17
• COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
All documents are itemised in Appendix 1 and copies of the documents are enclosed. Where
information is withheld under section 9 of the Act, I have considered the countervailing public
interest in release in making this decision and consider that it does not outweigh the need
to withhold at this time.
The material we have identified largely consists of correspondence between relevant agencies
concerning the development of earlier COVID-19 vaccination policies. Information deemed out
of scope of your request, as well as information deemed purely administrative in nature, has
been excluded. It is important to note that given the age of this information, much of the
material, including discussions and draft documents exchanged, has since been superseded by
subsequent advice and updated information. Where final documents were produced and are
publicly available, we have referred you to those versions.
I trust this information fulfils your request. If you wish to discuss any aspect of your request with
us, including this decision, please feel free to contact the OIA Services Team
on:
[email address]. Under section 28(3) of the Act, you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review any
decisions made under this request. The Ombudsman may be contacted by email
at:
[email address] or by calling 0800 802 602.
Please note that this response, with your personal details removed, may be published on
the Ministry website at:
www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/information-releases/responses-
official-information-act-requests. Nāku noa, nā
Andrew Dames
Acting Group Manager, Government Services
Corporate Services | Te Pou Tiaki
Page 2 of 4
Appendix 1: List of documents for release # Date
Document details
Decision on release
1 18 January Email: RE Updated - Advice on Some information withheld under section
2022
updated vaccination
9 (2)(a) of the Act.
requirement for arrivals by air
1A 18 January Cabinet paper: Covid-19
Section 18(d) of the Act applies as the final
2 022
Vaccination Requirements For version of this paper is publicly available:
Non-New Zealand Citizens
www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-
E
ntering New Zealand
01/COVID-19-Vaccination-Requirements-for-
Non-New-Zealand-Citizens-Entering-New-
Zealand.pdf
2 22 January Email: 4 FW For comment by
Some information withheld under section
2 022
12pm Tuesday, 25 January
9 (2)(a) of the Act.
Draft Omicron Cabinet paper
2A 22 January Cabinet paper: Covid-19
Section 18(d) of the Act applies as the final
2 022
response Managing Omicron version of this paper is publicly available:
in the community
www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-
01/MO01-01022022-COVID-19-Response-
M
anaging-Omicron-in-the-Community.pdf
3 25 January Email: FYI - MIQ and Health's Some information withheld under section
2022
planning scenarios - FW For
9 (2)(a) of the Act.
comment by 12pm Tuesday, 25
January - Draft Omicron Cabinet
paper
3A 22 January Attachment: 250122-MIQ
Please refer to document 4A.
2 022
comment Cab paper - Omicron
and the CPF
4 25 January Email: 0220125 BEB paper on Some information withheld under section
2022
airport testing
9 (2)(a) of the Act.
4A 2 December Attachment: BEB advice on
Please refer to document 1A.
2021
outstanding operational issues
5 4 March
Email: FW: Post-peak Cabinet Some information withheld under section
2026
paper update
9 (2)(a) of the Act.
5A 2 March
Attachment: Memo
Released in full.
2022
Review of COVID-19 measures
in widespread Omicron outbreak
5B 4 March
Attachment: DPMC DRAFT
Section 18(d) of the Act applies as the final
2022
Working Paper
version of this paper is publicly available:
Post-peak COVID-19 response
www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-
options
01/PO01-21032022-The-COVID-Response-
After-the-Peak-of-Omicron.pdf.
5C Not dated Attachment: Post-peak
Please refer to page 41 of document 7B.
Reviewing the COVID-19
Protection Framework
and planning our response as
we emerge from the
Omicron peak
5D 4 March
Attachment: Covid-19 cases
Released in full.
2022
compared with TPM scenarios
6 14 March
Email: FW: FOR COMMENT BY Some information withheld under section
2022
11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-
9(2)(a) of the Act.
peak Cabinet paper
Page 3 of 4
# Date
Document details
Decision on release
6A 13 March
Attachment: Skegg advice 13
Released in full.
2022
March
7 14 March
FW: FOR COMMENT BY
Some information withheld under section
2022
NOON MONDAY RE: Post-peak 9 (2)(a) of the Act.
Cabinet paper
Page 4 of 4
From:
Maria Cotter
Sent:
Tuesday, 18 January 2022 10:15 am
To:
Sally-Ann Spencer [DPMC]
Cc:
Kate Taptiklis; Pippa Scott; Nik Mitchell; Amy Alexander; Alison Cossar; Laura Miller; Stephen
Harris
Subject:
RE: Updated - Advice on updated vaccination requirement for arrivals by air -- health review
requested by 10am tomorrow
Attachments:
2022_18Jan Health comments_Updated DPMC advice on updated vaccination requirement for
arrivals by air.docx
Importance:
High
Morena Sally-Ann
Thanks for seeking our review of this draft paper. Our comments are attached.
ACT 1982
I have also just been advised that an update will be provided to Vaccine Ministers on Friday (21 Jan) on the current
policy work around the definition of fully vaccinated, and the practical implications of any change to the definition to
include the requirement of a booster dose. We are not looking for any decisions at this time (but things could move
quickly – note the PM’s comments this morning on CVCs), and any change to the definition will impact on
considerations for the requirements for arrivals as well. My colleague @Kate Taptiklis is leading that work.
Ngā mihi
INFORMATION
Maria
ICIAL
Maria Cotter l Principal Policy Analyst, Covid-19 Policy
System Strategy and Policy l Ministry of Health l s 9(2)(a)
[email address]
Me mahi tahi tâtou mô te oranga o te katoa - We must work together for the wellbeing of all
From: Sally-Ann Spencer [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 17 January 2022 4:42 pm
To: Maria Cotter <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Updated - Advice on updated vaccination requirement for arrivals by air -- health review requested by
10am tomorrow
RELEASED UNDER THE
Kia ora Maria
This is the version with the updated information that has just come through from Nik included at paragraph 14.
Let me know if it would be helpful to have a marked-up version of the placeholder Health advice and I’ll do that
now.
Thank you
Sally-Ann
1
Sally-Ann Spencer
Senior Advisor, COVID-19 Group
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
P s 9(2)(a)
E [email address]
From: Sally-Ann Spencer [DPMC]
Sent: Monday, 17 January 2022 4:35 pm
To: 'Maria Cotter' <[email address]>
Subject: Updated - Advice on updated vaccination requirement for arrivals by air -- health review requested by
10am tomorrow
ACT 1982
Kia ora Maria
As discussed, I’m attaching the full draft of the updated briefing. It includes placeholder Health advice for MOH to
confirm this is the position or to adapt accordingly. I’ve talked to Nik who was working on the information about
cases in MIQ. The key recommendations regarding the proposal have not changed, but we have updated the report-
backs to align with the further strategic advice on border settings that will be provided further to the current
Reconnecting briefing.
INFORMATION
Please give me a call about any problems. Unfortunately we have just learnt the Minister will be unable to address
the advice for another week if he does not receive it tomorrow morning, so we are requesting comments by mid-
morning (10am).
Thank you again for all your help with this
Sally-Ann
Sally-Ann Spencer
ER THE OFFICIAL
Senior Advisor, COVID-19 Group
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
P s 9(2)(a)
E [email address]
RELEASED U
The information contained in this email message is for the attention of the intended recipient only and is not necessarily the official view
or communication of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, copy
or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please destroy the email and notify the
sender immediately.
2
From:
Kirsten Stephenson
Sent:
Saturday, 22 January 2022 11:27 am
To:
Sarah Turner; Brent Quin; Gill Hall; Rachael Hopkins; Darryl Carpenter; Dan Bernal; Dom Harris;
Joe Bourne; Zainab Abbas; Chrystal O'Connor; Laetitia O'Connell; Toby Regan; Brent Quin
Cc:
Mikey Smyth
Subject:
FW: For comment by 12pm Tuesday, 25 January - Draft Omicron Cabinet paper
Attachments:
Cab paper - Omicron and the CPF 2022 - 22 Jan.docx
Importance:
High
Hi there
Another paper expecting feedback over the weekend! I’m sure this will also come out from SS&P at some point, in
the meantime, again I am happy to compile feedback for feeding back to this one too if folk can come back to me by
ACT 1982
10ish on Monday monring
Mā te wā
Kirsten Stephenson
Mobile: s 9(2)(a)
From: Beth Hampton [DPMC] <[email address]>
INFORMATION
Sent: Saturday, 22 January 2022 11:12 am
To: Kirsten Stephenson <[email address] nz>
Subject: FW: For comment by 12pm Tuesday, 25 January ‐ Draft Omicron Cabinet paper
Importance: High
Hi Kirsten, forwarding so this gets to you quickly too. I’ll be in touch about getting the Tuesday meeting set up.
Thanks,
Beth
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Saturday, 22 January 2022 11:07 am
To: Kay Baxter [DPMC] <Kay [email address]>; ^Crown Law: Mark Bryant <[email address]>;
^Customs: Fiona McKissock <[email address]>; ^Customs: Kathryn Maclver
<[email address]>; ^Customs: Richard Bargh <[email address]>; ^Customs:
Sarah Holland <[email address]>; ^DIA: Paul Barker <[email address]>; ^EDU: Andy
Jackson <[email address]>; ^Education: Tony Clark <[email address]>; ^Ethnic: Jeet
Sheth <Jeet [email address]>; ^EXT: Aphra Green <[email address]>; ^EXT: Emily Owen
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
<[email address]>; ^EXT: Emma Spooner <[email address]>; ^EXT: Laura Crespo
<[email address]>; ^Health: Maree Roberts <[email address]>; ^HUD: Anne Shaw
<[email address]>; ^Justice: Brendan Gage <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Dean Ford
<[email address]>; ^MBIE: Kara Isaac <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Karl Woodhead
<[email address]>; ^MBIE: Ruth Isaac <[email address]>; ^MFAT: David Taylor
<[email address]>; ^MPI: Fiona Ducan <[email address]>; ^MPI: Julie Collins
<[email address]>; ^MPP: Matthew Aileone <[email address]>; ^MSD: Nic Blakeley
<[email address]>; ^TeArawhiti: Warren Fraser <[email address]>; ^Transport:
Bronwyn Turley <[email address]>; Bryan Chapple [TSY] <[email address]>; Cheryl
Barnes [DPMC] <[email address]>; Jeremy Corban [DPMC] <[email address]>; John
Beaglehole [TSY] <[email address]>; Kerryn Fowlie <[email address]>; Richard
1
Schmidt [DPMC] <[email address]>; ^Health: Steve Waldgrave <[email address]>;
^Police: Gillian Ferguson <[email address]>; Anna Cassie <[email address]>;
^SSC: Tania Ott <[email address]>; Roger Ball [NEMA] <[email address]>; Annie Hindle
<[email address]>; Carl Van Der Meulen <[email address]>; Brent Lewers
<[email address]>; ENGELBRECHT, Cherie <[email address]>;
[email address]; [email address]; Terina Cowan <[email address]>;
[email address]; ^MBIE: Iain Cossar <[email address]>; David Darby
<[email address]>; Maria‐Laura Crespo <Maria‐[email address]>; Kristie Carter
<[email address]>; Sacha ODea [DPMC] <[email address]>
Cc: Beth Hampton [DPMC] <[email address]>; Alice Hume [DPMC] <[email address]>; Nita
Sullivan [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: For comment by 12pm Tuesday, 25 January ‐ Draft Omicron Cabinet paper
Kia ora koutou
Firstly my apologies for sending this paper on Saturday. I appreciate this means that you may have to work over the
ACT 1982
weekend.
Thank you for the comments received yesterday, which we have incorporated. Can you please send any further
comments by noon Tuesday, 25 January to Beth, Kay and me.
MBIE / MSD / Treasury – we understand you may need a bit more time to work through any the implications of TTIQ
for your areas but we really need some updated info by Tuesday afternoon so we can include it in the Ministerial
consultation version for Wednesday version. We will continue to update the paper during the week.
INFORMATION
Health – we have quite a few clarification questions on the TTIQ info which are included in a box on pp8‐9 to which
we would appreciate answers by noon Tuesday or if possible before. It may be easiest to discuss on Tuesday
morning – Beth will be in touch.
You will see that there are recs TBC – if these fall in your area, could you please send us some draft recs that we can
work with, including report backs if there is still work to come.
Thank you very much and please call if any questions. (I’m on call over the weekend.)
Ruth s 9(2)(a)
From: Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 21 January 2022 5:16 pm
To: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>; ^Crown Law: Mark Bryant
<[email address]>; ^Customs: Fiona McKissock <[email address]>; ^Customs:
Kathryn Maclver <[email address]>; ^Customs: Richard Bargh
<[email address]>; ^Customs: Sarah Holland <[email address]>; ^DIA: Paul Barker
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
<[email address]>; ^EDU: Andy Jackson <[email address]>; ^Education: Tony Clark
<[email address]>; ^Ethnic: Jeet Sheth <[email address]>; ^EXT: Aphra Green
<[email address]>; ^EXT: Emily Owen <[email address]>; ^EXT: Emma Spooner
<[email address]>; ^EXT: Laura Crespo <[email address]>; ^Health: Maree Roberts
<[email address]>; ^HUD: Anne Shaw <[email address]>; ^Justice: Brendan Gage
<[email address]>; ^MBIE: Dean Ford <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Kara Isaac
<[email address]>; ^MBIE: Karl Woodhead <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Ruth Isaac
<[email address]>; ^MFAT: David Taylor <[email address]>; ^MPI: Fiona Ducan
<[email address]>; ^MPI: Julie Collins <[email address]>; ^MPP: Matthew Aileone
<[email address]>; ^MSD: Nic Blakeley <[email address]>; ^TeArawhiti: Warren Fraser
<[email address]>; ^Transport: Bronwyn Turley <[email address]>; Bryan Chapple
[TSY] <[email address]>; Cheryl Barnes [DPMC] <[email address]>; Jeremy Corban
2
[DPMC] <[email address]>; John Beaglehole [TSY] <[email address]>; Kerryn
Fowlie <[email address]>; Richard Schmidt [DPMC] <[email address]>; ^Health:
Steve Waldgrave <[email address]>; ^Police: Gillian Ferguson <[email address]>;
Anna Cassie <[email address]>; ^SSC: Tania Ott <[email address]>; Roger Ball
[NEMA] <[email address]>; Annie Hindle <[email address]>; Carl Van Der Meulen
<[email address]>; Brent Lewers <[email address]>
Cc: Beth Hampton [DPMC] <[email address]>; Alice Hume [DPMC] <[email address]>; Nita
Sullivan [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: For comment by 12pm Tuesday, 25 January ‐ Briefing attached, Draft Omicron Cabinet paper ‐ to come late
tonight
Kia ora koutou
Further to Ruth’s email below:
1. The next version of the Cabinet paper will be very late this evening – we’re waiting on information from
Health. So please don’t wait around for it tonight! We’ll ask for
comments by 12pm Tuesday (instead of
10am) given how late it will be.
2. I’ve attached a draft of the briefing re tightening the Red settings. We look forward to your feedback on that
ACT 1982
by
12pm Tuesday as well.
That’s all for now.
Ngā mihi
Kay
Kay Baxter
Policy Manager, Strategy and Policy | COVID-19 Group
INFORMATION
P s 9(2)(a)
E [email address]
The information contained in this email message is for the attention of the intended
recipient only and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If you are not the intended recipient
you must not disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If
you have received this message in error, please destroy the email and notify the
sender immediately.
a mihi
Kay
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 20 January 2022 8:20 pm
To: ^Crown Law: Mark Bryant <[email address]>; ^Customs: Fiona McKissock
<[email address]>; ^Customs: Kathryn Maclver <[email address]>; ^Customs:
Richard Bargh <[email address]>; ^Customs: Sarah Holland <[email address]>;
^DIA: Paul Barker <[email address]>; ^EDU: Andy Jackson <[email address]>; ^Education:
Tony Clark <[email address]>; ^Ethnic: Jeet Sheth <[email address]>; ^EXT:
Aphra Green <[email address]>; ^EXT: Emily Owen <[email address]>; ^EXT: Emma
Spooner <[email address]>; ^EXT: Laura Crespo <[email address]>; ^Health: Maree
Roberts <[email address]>; ^HUD: Anne Shaw <[email address]>; ^Justice: Brendan Gage
3
<[email address]>; ^MBIE: Dean Ford <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Kara Isaac
<[email address]>; ^MBIE: Karl Woodhead <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Ruth Isaac
<[email address]>; ^MFAT: David Taylor <[email address]>; ^MPI: Fiona Ducan
<[email address]>; ^MPI: Julie Collins <[email address]>; ^MPP: Matthew Aileone
<[email address]>; ^MSD: Nic Blakeley <[email address]>; ^TeArawhiti: Warren Fraser
<[email address]>; ^Transport: Bronwyn Turley <[email address]>; Bryan Chapple
[TSY] <[email address]>; Cheryl Barnes [DPMC] <[email address]>; Jeremy Corban
[DPMC] <[email address]>; John Beaglehole [TSY] <[email address]>; Kerryn
Fowlie <[email address]>; Richard Schmidt [DPMC] <[email address]>; Ruth Fairhall
[DPMC] <[email address]>; ^Health: Steve Waldgrave <[email address]>; ^Police:
Gillian Ferguson <[email address]>; Anna Cassie <[email address]>; ^SSC: Tania
Ott <[email address]>; Roger Ball [NEMA] <[email address]>; Annie Hindle
<[email address]>
Cc: Beth Hampton [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>; Alice
Hume [DPMC] <[email address]>; Nita Sullivan [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: For comment by 10am Tuesday, 25 February ‐ Draft Omicron Cabinet paper
ACT 1982
Kia ora koutou
Please find attached the draft Omicron strategy Cabinet paper. Thank you for contributions to date. As you will see
there is still some key information to come. Given that, we will send you an updated draft later on tomorrow (the
same version that will go to PMO and MO – but not Ministers). You may want to wait for that version before
circulating in your organisations. In the meantime, if there are any changes that you would like made in time for
tomorrow’s draft (where we have got things wildly wrong or there is updated info) can you please get back to us
INFORMATION
Friday morning. Otherwise can we please have
comments by 10am Tuesday. Please send comments to
Beth, Kay
and myself.
We will then provide a Ministerial consultation version on Wednesday, looking to lodge the final on Friday.
Re the proposals to change the Red settings, there is some high‐level information in this paper. We are also
preparing a briefing in case decisions need to be made before 1 February. Kay will send the draft briefing out
tomorrow for comment by midday Tuesday If you have any initial views or concerns with anything in the table or
have something you’d like to feed into the draft briefing, please get in touch with Nita Sullivan (email:
[email address]).
Re the content on Reconnecting New Zealanders, there is a placeholder for decisions in this paper but it may end up
being a separate Cabinet paper. In addition to the briefing which went to Ministers on Monday and was discussed
yesterday, we are preparing an AM with more information about modelling etc to help Ministers with a further
discussion on Tuesday. Key agencies are well across the issues related to RNZ so there should be no surprises in the
eventual Cabinet paper.
If you have any questions tomorrow, please contact Kay or Beth as I am taking a day’s leave.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Thanks very much.
Ruth
4
From:
Beth Hampton [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent:
Tuesday, 25 January 2022 12:51 pm
To:
Steve Waldegrave; Annie Hindle
Cc:
Ivan Luketina [DPMC]; Kay Baxter [DPMC]
Subject:
FYI - MIQ and Health's planning scenarios - FW: For comment by 12pm Tuesday, 25 January -
Draft Omicron Cabinet paper
Attachments:
250122-MIQ comment-Cab paper - Omicron and the CPF 2022 - 22 Jan.docx
Kia ora Steve and Annie,
Just passing on feedback that we’ve received from MIQ that is relevant to content previously provided by Health –
ie, that MIQ will not be accommodating community cases.
Thanks,
ACT 1982
Beth
From: Sophie Matthewman <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2022 12:44 pm
To: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>; Beth Hampton [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Cc: Nora Burghart <[email address]>; George Pallikaros <[email address]>
Subject: RE: For comment by 12pm Tuesday, 25 January - Draft Omicron Cabinet paper
INFORMATION
Kia ora Beth, Kay, and Ruth
Please find attached comments from MIQ.
Our main comment relates to the table at para 34 - in short, MIQ will not be accommodating community cases
under low, medium, or high-risk scenarios at this juncture (as per this morning’s meeting with the PM/Ministers).
Very happy to discuss.
Kind regards
Sophie
Sophie Matthewman
Principal Policy Advisor
Managed Isolation and Quarantine Unit (MIQ)
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
[email address] | s 9(2)(a)
1
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Saturday, 22 January 2022 11:07 am
To: Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>; ^Crown Law: Mark Bryant <[email address]>;
^Customs: Fiona McKissock <[email address]>; Kathryn MacIver
<[email address]>; ^Customs: Richard Bargh <[email address]>; ^Customs:
Sarah Holland <[email address]>; Paul Barker <[email address]>; ^EDU: Andy Jackson
<[email address]>; ^Education: Tony Clark <[email address]>; ^Ethnic: Jeet Sheth
<[email address]>; ^EXT: Aphra Green <[email address]>; ^EXT: Emily Owen
<[email address]>; ^EXT: Emma Spooner <[email address]>; ^EXT: Laura Crespo
<[email address]>; ^Health: Maree Roberts <[email address]>; ^HUD: Anne Shaw
<[email address]>; ^Justice: Brendan Gage <[email address]>; Dean Ford
<[email address]>; Kara Isaac <[email address]>; Karl Woodhead
<[email address]>; Ruth Isaac <[email address]>; ^MFAT: David Taylor
<[email address]>; ^MPI: Fiona Ducan <[email address]>; ^MPI: Julie Collins
<[email address]>; ^MPP: Matthew Aileone <[email address]>; Nic.Blakeley005
ACT 1982
<[email address]>; ^TeArawhiti: Warren Fraser <[email address]>; ^Transport:
Bronwyn Turley <[email address]>; Bryan Chapple [TSY] <[email address]>; Cheryl
Barnes [DPMC] <[email address]>; Jeremy Corban [DPMC] <Jeremy [email address]>; John
Beaglehole [TSY] <[email address]>; Kerryn Fowlie <Kerryn [email address]>; Richard
Schmidt <[email address]>; ^Health: Steve Waldgrave <[email address]>; ^Police:
Gillian Ferguson <[email address]>; Anna Cassie <[email address]>; ^SSC: Tania
Ott <[email address]>; Roger Ball [NEMA] <[email address]>; Annie Hindle
<[email address]>; Carl Van Der Meulen <[email address]>; Brent Lewers
INFORMATION
<[email address]>; ENGELBRECHT, Cherie <[email address]>;
[email address]; [email address]; Terina Cowan <[email address]>;
[email address]; Iain Cossar <[email address]>; David Darby <[email address]>;
Maria-Laura Crespo <[email address]>; Kristie Carter <[email address]>; Sacha ODea
[DPMC] <[email address]>
Cc: Beth Hampton [DPMC] <[email address]>; Alice Hume [DPMC] <[email address]>; Nita
Sullivan [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: For comment by 12pm Tuesday, 25 January - Draft Omicron Cabinet paper
Kia ora koutou
Firstly my apologies for sending this paper on Saturday. I appreciate this means that you may have to work over the
weekend.
Thank you for the comments received yesterday, which we have incorporated. Can you please send any further
comments by noon Tuesday, 25 January to Beth, Kay and me.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
MBIE / MSD / Treasury – we understand you may need a bit more time to work through any the implications of TTIQ
for your areas but we really need some updated info by Tuesday afternoon so we can include it in the Ministerial
consultation version for Wednesday version. We will continue to update the paper during the week.
Health – we have quite a few clarification questions on the TTIQ info which are included in a box on pp8-9 to which
we would appreciate answers by noon Tuesday or if possible before. It may be easiest to discuss on Tuesday
morning – Beth will be in touch.
You will see that there are recs TBC – if these fall in your area, could you please send us some draft recs that we can
work with, including report backs if there is still work to come.
2
Thank you very much and please call if any questions. (I’m on call over the weekend.)
Ruth s 9(2)(a)
From: Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 21 January 2022 5:16 pm
To: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>; ^Crown Law: Mark Bryant
<[email address]>; ^Customs: Fiona McKissock <[email address]>; ^Customs:
Kathryn Maclver <[email address]>; ^Customs: Richard Bargh
<[email address]>; ^Customs: Sarah Holland <[email address]>; ^DIA: Paul Barker
<[email address]>; ^EDU: Andy Jackson <[email address]>; ^Education: Tony Clark
<[email address]>; ^Ethnic: Jeet Sheth <[email address]>; ^EXT: Aphra Green
<[email address]>; ^EXT: Emily Owen <[email address]>; ^EXT: Emma Spooner
<[email address]>; ^EXT: Laura Crespo <[email address]>; ^Health: Maree Roberts
<[email address]>; ^HUD: Anne Shaw <[email address]>; ^Justice: Brendan Gage
<[email address]>; ^MBIE: Dean Ford <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Kara Isaac
<[email address]>; ^MBIE: Karl Woodhead <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Ruth Isaac
<[email address]>; ^MFAT: David Taylor <[email address]>; ^MPI: Fiona Ducan
ACT 1982
<[email address]>; ^MPI: Julie Collins <[email address]>; ^MPP: Matthew Aileone
<[email address]>; ^MSD: Nic Blakeley <[email address]>; ^TeArawhiti: Warren Fraser
<[email address]>; ^Transport: Bronwyn Turley <[email address]>; Bryan Chapple
[TSY] <[email address]>; Cheryl Barnes [DPMC] <[email address]>; Jeremy Corban
[DPMC] <[email address]>; John Beaglehole [TSY] <[email address]>; Kerryn
Fowlie <[email address]>; Richard Schmidt [DPMC] <[email address]>; ^Health:
Steve Waldgrave <[email address]>; ^Police: Gillian Ferguson <[email address]>;
Anna Cassie <[email address]>; ^SSC: Tania Ott <[email address]>; Roger Ball
INFORMATION
[NEMA] <[email address]>; Annie Hindle <[email address]>; Carl Van Der Meulen
<[email address]>; Brent Lewers <[email address]>
Cc: Beth Hampton [DPMC] <[email address]>; Alice Hume [DPMC] <[email address]>; Nita
Sullivan [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: For comment by 12pm Tuesday, 25 January - Briefing attached, Draft Omicron Cabinet paper - to come late
tonight
Kia ora koutou
Further to Ruth’s email below:
1. The next version of the Cabinet paper will be very late this evening – we’re waiting on information from
Health. So please don’t wait around for it tonight! We’ll ask for
comments by 12pm Tuesday (instead of
10am) given how late it will be.
2. I’ve attached a draft of the briefing re tightening the Red settings. We look forward to your feedback on that
by
12pm Tuesday as well.
That’s all for now.
Ngā mihi
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Kay
Kay Baxter
Policy Manager, Strategy and Policy | COVID-19 Group
P s 9(2)(a)
E [email address]
3
The information contained in this email message is for the attention of the intended
recipient only and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If you are not the intended recipient
you must not disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If
you have received this message in error, please destroy the email and notify the
sender immediately.
a mihi
Kay
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 20 January 2022 8:20 pm
To: ^Crown Law: Mark Bryant <[email address]>; ^Customs: Fiona McKissock
ACT 1982
<[email address]>; ^Customs: Kathryn Maclver <[email address]>; ^Customs:
Richard Bargh <[email address]>; ^Customs: Sarah Holland <[email address]>;
^DIA: Paul Barker <[email address]>; ^EDU: Andy Jackson <[email address]>; ^Education:
Tony Clark <[email address]>; ^Ethnic: Jeet Sheth <[email address]>; ^EXT:
Aphra Green <[email address]>; ^EXT: Emily Owen <[email address]>; ^EXT: Emma
Spooner <[email address]>; ^EXT: Laura Crespo <[email address]>; ^Health: Maree
Roberts <[email address]>; ^HUD: Anne Shaw <[email address]>; ^Justice: Brendan Gage
<[email address]>; ^MBIE: Dean Ford <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Kara Isaac
INFORMATION
<[email address]>; ^MBIE: Karl Woodhead <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Ruth Isaac
<[email address]>; ^MFAT: David Taylor <[email address]>; ^MPI: Fiona Ducan
<[email address]>; ^MPI: Julie Collins <[email address]>; ^MPP: Matthew Aileone
<[email address]>; ^MSD: Nic Blakeley <[email address]>; ^TeArawhiti: Warren Fraser
<[email address]>; ^Transport: Bronwyn Turley <[email address]>; Bryan Chapple
[TSY] <[email address]>; Cheryl Barnes [DPMC] <[email address]>; Jeremy Corban
[DPMC] <[email address]>; John Beaglehole [TSY] <[email address]>; Kerryn
Fowlie <[email address]>; Richard Schmidt [DPMC] <[email address]>; Ruth Fairhall
[DPMC] <[email address]>; ^Health: Steve Waldgrave <[email address]>; ^Police:
Gillian Ferguson <[email address]>; Anna Cassie <[email address]>; ^SSC: Tania
Ott <[email address]>; Roger Ball [NEMA] <[email address]>; Annie Hindle
<[email address]>
Cc: Beth Hampton [DP
[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>; Alice
UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Hume [DPMC] <Alic
pmc.govt.nz>; Nita Sullivan [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: For com
m Tuesday, 25 February - Draft Omicron Cabinet paper
4
Re the proposals to change the Red settings, there is some high-level information in this paper. We are also
preparing a briefing in case decisions need to be made before 1 February. Kay will send the draft briefing out
tomorrow for comment by midday Tuesday. If you have any initial views or concerns with anything in the table or
have something you’d like to feed into the draft briefing, please get in touch with Nita Sullivan (email:
[email address]).
Re the content on Reconnecting New Zealanders, there is a placeholder for decisions in this paper but it may end up
being a separate Cabinet paper. In addition to the briefing which went to Ministers on Monday and was discussed
yesterday, we are preparing an AM with more information about modelling etc to help Ministers with a further
discussion on Tuesday. Key agencies are well across the issues related to RNZ so there should be no surprises in the
eventual Cabinet paper.
If you have any questions tomorrow, please contact Kay or Beth as I am taking a day’s leave.
Thanks very much.
Ruth
ACT 1982
www.govt.nz - your guide to finding and using New Zealand government services
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the M nistry of Business, Innovation and
Employment. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be
INFORMATION
advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the
sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
5
From:
Mark Heffernan
Sent:
Tuesday, 25 January 2022 11:46 am
To:
Emily Black
Subject:
BEB paper on airport testing
Attachments:
BEB advice on outstanding operational issues.pdf
From: Rob Huddart [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 21 January 2022 1:25 pm
To: Mark Heffernan <[email address]>; Celeste Gillmer <[email address]>; Rachel
Lawn <[email address]>; Darryl Carpenter <[email address]>; Jo Pugh
<[email address]>; Alice Hume [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: FW: (PRESSING) Reconnecting NZ testing and airport advice
ACT 1982
Team,
This is the paper I referenced. Paras 4 and 34 are the key ones referencing “strongly encouraged”.
Best wishes,
Rob
INFORMATION
From: Rob Huddart [DPMC]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 January 2022 4:06 pm
To: 'Jo Pugh' <[email address]>
Subject: FW: (PRESSING) Reconnecting NZ testing and airport advice
Jo,
This is the BEB paper that I understand Ashley signed off at the BEB (afraid I don’t have the BEB minute but Sarah
Holland could provide this if needed – paras 4 and 34 state that Travellers will be strongly encouraged to use this
option [PCR at airport] in preference to going to a CTC at or near their place of home isolation.
Presumably if this remains the case, the infrastructure costs will be lower as less building work will be needed?
Best wishes,
Rob
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
From: Sam Willis [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 2021 1:08 pm
To: Alice Hume [DPMC] <[email address]>; Rob Huddart [DPMC] <[email address]>; Sally-
Ann Spencer [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: FW: (PRESSING) Reconnecting NZ testing and airport advice
FYI – signed briefings from the Minister on arrival testing
1
From: Laura Miller <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 2021 1:03 pm
To: Sam Roberts <[email address]>; Sam Willis [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: FW: (PRESSING) Reconnecting NZ testing and airport advice
Sorry, wrong Sam in the first email.
Ngā mihi
Laura
Laura Miller l Manager, COVID-19 Policy, System Strategy and Policy
l Ministry of Health
l DDI: 04 907 6041
l
Mobile: s 9(2)(a)
From: Laura Miller
Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 2021 1:02 pm
To: Emily Black <[email address]>; Sophie Matthewman <[email address]>; Jane
Hubbard <[email address]>; Sam Roberts <[email address]>
Subject: FW: (PRESSING) Reconnecting NZ testing and airport advice
ACT 1982
As discussed
Ngā mihi
Laura
Laura Miller l Manager, COVID-19 Policy, System Strategy and Policy
l Ministry of Health
l DDI: 04 907 6041
l
Mobile: s 9(2)(a)
INFORMATION
From: Dawn Kelly <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 2021 10:02 am
To: Laura Miller <[email address]>
Cc: Maree Roberts <[email address]>
Subject: FW: (PRESSING) Reconnecting NZ testing and airport advice
HI Laura
The Minister has signed the attached papers as discussed.
These have been sent to other Ministers for signing. Given these have already been discussed at RNZ there is not
expected to be any issues
Rgds, Dawn
From: Erin Sampson
Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 2021 9:30 AM
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
To: Holly Donald <[email address]>; James Little <[email address]>; Jordan Ward
<[email address]>; Jessica Thorn <[email address]>; Chris Holland
<[email address]>; Lu Avia <[email address]>; Sophia Faure
<[email address]>; Clyde Smith <[email address]>; Seb Brown
<[email address]>; Charlie McLean <[email address]>; Chris Holland
<[email address]>; Craig Pontifex <[email address]>; Peter Strawbridge
<[email address]>
Cc: Charlie McLean <[email address]>; Morehu Rei <[email address]>; Dawn
Kelly <[email address]>
Subject: (PRESSING) Reconnecting NZ testing and airport advice
2
Kia ora te tira,
Please see attached advice, signed by Minister Hipkins in line with discussions by the group last Friday, for decision
of RNZ Ministers.
These decisions feed into a Cabinet paper that is currently under development. Given timelines, grateful if you can
let me know soonest if your Minister DISAGREES with this approach. If your Minister is comfortable, happy to get
the paperwork back in much slower time.
See also attached, FYI, signed advice on operational approach for the medium risk pathway.
Noho ora mai | Stay well
Erin Sampson (he/him) |
Private Secretary, COVID-19 Response
Office of Hon Chris Hipkins Minister for COVID-19 Response
waea pūkoro: s 9(2)(a)
īmēra: [email address]
ACT 1982
****************************************************************************
Statement of confidentiality: This e-mail message and any accompanying
INFORMATION
attachments may contain information that is
and subject to
legal privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate,
distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message.
****************************************************************************
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by the Ministry of Health's Content and
Virus Filtering Gateway
The information contained in this email message is for the attention of the intended recipient only and is not necessarily the official view
or communication of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, copy
or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please destroy the email and notify the
sender immediately.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
3
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC]
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2022 4:37 pm
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address];
Carmen Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address]>; ^PCO: Richard Wallace <[email address]>; Alanna Sullivan-Vaughan
<[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper update
As per yesterday’s email, please find attached, FYI, the slides which were provided to MO and PMO today for
Ministers to consider. We made it clear that agencies hadn’t seen them. Tomorrow we will circulate, for comment,
the next set of draft slides for Tuesday’s Ministers meeting (time still TBC), and our working paper (which will also go
to CCB).
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2022 5:24 pm
ACT 1982
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address];
Carmen Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address]>; Hart, Stevie-Rae <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Jeremy Greenbrook-Held [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: Post-peak Cabinet paper update
INFORMATION
Kia ora koutou
Thank you for another very helpful discussion yesterday afternoon. We then met with PMO and MO and have some
more guidance on timeframes for advice on post-peak measures. I have attached a table of our planned deliverables
and engagement over the next couple of weeks but in short:
-
Tomorrow we are providing Ministers with some slides about the key things officials are looking at to help
them start thinking about this issue. We will send you a copy. It is the sorts of questions we have been
asking you so should be no surprises.
-
Week of 7 March:
o A meeting on Tuesday with Ministers and the Chairs of the Advisory Groups (Roche, Skegg, Fyfe), key
agency CEs senior officials and science advisors. Time TBC so no invites have gone out yet.
We will
circulate draft slides for that meeting on Friday for comment by first thing Monday.
o CCB on Tuesday – we are proving them a brief process note and a draft briefing / narrative about where
the advice is heading based on the work so far. You will receive a copy on Friday, and we are happy to
receive any further thoughts that might prompt. (It is not intended to be a final product but the basis of
the Cab paper.)
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
o Lots of other engagement, including potentially with Ministers and NICF-PRG, Iwi chairs and other
Māori organisations.
-
SWC – 16 March and Cabinet on 21 March for decisions. This does not mean decisions will take effect from
21 March. The timing of when any decisions will take effect is something we need to work on over the next
fortnight.
We will circulate a draft Cabinet paper for comment late next week (we are planning to lodge on
Monday 14 March).
Please note that PMO have indicated that they would like the Cabinet paper to include advice on vaccination
mandates (Health / MBIE – we will be in touch with you about this. The Strategic Public Health Advisory Group have
also been asked to look at vaccination mandates and CVCs as a priority (followed by masks, capacity limits and
isolation).
2
Also attached, FYI, are the latest list of briefings, and a slide pack of hospitalisations and cases against the updated
TPM modelling so you can see when the expected peaks might be. Pay most attention to hospitalisations – they are
the key metric now. Any questions on those, please direct them to Jeremy G-H (cc’ed).
As always, happy to answer any questions.
Ruth
Ruth Fairhall
Head of Strategy and Policy | COVID-19 Group
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
M s 9(2)(a)
E [email address]
ACT 1982
The information contained in this email message is for the attention of the intended recipient only and is not necessarily the official view
or communication of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, copy
or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please destroy the email and notify the
sender immediately.
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
3
Memo
Review of COVID-19 measures in widespread Omicron outbreak
Date:
2 March 2022
To:
Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director-General of Health
Copy to:
Dr Caroline McElnay, Director of Public Health
Robyn Shearer, Deputy Chief Executive, DHB Performance and Support
Bridget White, Deputy Chief Executive, COVID-19 Health System Response
ACT 1982
John Whaanga, Deputy Director-General, Māori Health
Lorraine Hetaraka, Chief Nursing Officer
Dr Ian Town, Chief Science Advisor
Dr Robyn Carey, Chief Medical Officer
From:
Maree Roberts, Deputy Director-General, System Strategy and Polic
INFORMATION y
For your:
Decision
Purpose of report
1.
This memo seeks your decision on which public health measures should change or remain
the same now that COVID-19 is widespread in New Zealand, and planning in anticipation
of an eventual peak of the Omicron outbreak.
Background and context
2.
The Government has moved to Phase Three of the Omicron response strategy given that
there is now widespread community transmission. Phase Three of the response has a
greater focus on equity, pivoting health services towards those who are the most at risk,
and steps away from the ‘stamp it out’ approach that we have typical y taken to date. In
line with this shift, the use of public health tools and practices, such as testing, contact
tracing and case investigation, have been adapted t
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL o manage the virus more effectively
and proportionately.
3.
Practices such as contact tracing and case monitoring are no longer carried out for the
population at large and have shifted to a self-management model. The rationale for this is
that case numbers are now so high that population-wide contact tracing and monitoring
cannot be carried out by the health workforce, and that most cases wil be vaccinated and
able to manage their care at home. However, the health system does maintain some
contact tracing and case monitoring for identified at risk groups and locations to ensure
they receive the appropriate level of care and equitable outcomes.
4.
As we approach the expected peak in the Omicron outbreak, officials have reviewed the
current range of public health measures in place to ensure that they remain fit for
purpose. This includes considering which of the measures remain effective and
proportionate in light of recent changes to wider government settings, such as border
management and given recent changes to MIQ and self-isolation requirements.
5.
Following the review, officials are proposing that certain public health measures either
change (e.g., are removed) or remain as they are both before and after the peak of the
current Omicron outbreak. These changes span the COVID-19 Protection Framework
(CPF), the Omicron response strategy and several COVID-19 Orders.
6.
A summary of the measures and any proposed changes you may wish to recommend to
Ministers is outlined at
Appendix A.
Outlook – towards a peak of this outbreak
ACT 1982
7.
The outbreak is tracking above the “middle” scenario and more towards the “pessimistic”
scenario at a national level (
Figure 1) and is consistent with peak hospital bed occupation
being reached in the second half of March.
8.
Forecasting from the extrapolation of PCR tests indicates that the model’s median
estimate is that national reported positive tests could r se to around 31,000 cases each day
by 4 March (with a range of between 20,000 to 36,500 daily). The model estimated that
10,000 cases per day would be reported by 27 February, whereas 14,941 actual cases were
INFORMATION
reported – which suggests that the short-term predictions are affected by the changes in
timing of test results as RATs replace PCRs. The median estimate of effective R number
national y is 1.7 for cases to 25 February
Figure 1 – COVID-19 Modelling Aotearoa predictions compared to actual cases
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Current COVID-19 measures
9.
Public health measures that limit rights are justified if they contribute materially toward
the overarching public health goals: reducing the spread and impact of COVID-19. The
limits on Bill of Rights Act human rights associated with each measure need to be
proportionate to the benefits such measures offer.
10.
To ensure public health measures remain proportionate, they should be reviewed
regularly. Furthermore, rights should be restored as soon as safely and reasonably
possible, consistent with response objectives. Finally, consideration is always given to
whether measures that limit rights less can be applied to achieve a similar outcome.
Maintaining overall integrity of the response
11.
Any advice on how, when and why public health measures are removed needs to consider
the impact on the integrity of the response overal and alignment with other measures (f
ACT 1982or
example worker vaccination orders, international and domestic self-isolation etc).
12.
Some measures would be difficult to reintroduce once removed and consideration should
be given to the future utility of public health measures. When removing measures, it is
important that individuals, businesses, and other organisations have the resources and
clear information about any changes to measures.
Protecting the most at risk
INFORMATION
13.
Protecting those more at risk or enabling those people to protect themselves is central to
ensuring we mitigate the most at risk from severe outcomes, deliver on the principle of
equity, and respond to obligations under Te Tiriti.
14.
This means that there may be a case for sometimes retaining certain measures for longer
than necessary for the majority of the population if they protect a minority (e.g. Māori and
Pasifika) from severe outcomes due to COVID-19.
Mandatory (legal) requirements versus public health guidance and promotion
15.
Over the course of the pandemic, the Government has used different levers to
operationalise parts of the response, ensuring the desired outcomes of decisions were
achieved. In some instances, such as infection prevention and control protocols for
businesses, guidance has been a sufficient tool. Other measures, such as vaccination
mandates and the use of face coverings, have required more robust legal measures to
protect public health.
16.
Consideration has been given to when guidance and mandatory requirements should be
used in different circumstances, and how these might change the current settings. In some
cases, shifting from mandatory requirements to gui
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL dance and/or promotion is preferential
to removing a measure al together.
Record keeping and QR-code scanning
17.
The CPF imposes two requirements in relation to record-keeping:
a.
The requirement for al business and services to have systems and processes to
ensure people entering the workplace scan the QR code or provide a contact record;
and
b. The requirement for workplaces and public transport services to display a QR code
in a prominent place.
18.
At the current high volumes of cases, we have limited capacity to follow-up on QR code
scan data and only household contacts are required to isolate. In places where scanning is
in place, there are other measures also in place, such as vaccine pass, mask requirements,
physical distancing. This means the risk is low in these places.
19.
Consequently, in the interim, we recommend a temporary suspension of the legal
requirement for al business and services to have systems and processes to ensure people
entering the workplace scan the QR code or provide a contact record. However, it is
possible that centralised contact tracing arrangements may once again play a role in
reducing the transmission of COVID-19 through the community once we are past the
peak.
20.
By contrast, we propose that the requirement for workplaces and public transport services
to display a QR code in a prominent place be maintained (since it is a low impost on most
businesses (most already have it in place). People should also be encouraged to continue
ACT 1982
to scan in and keep a record of where they have been to support them if they become a
case to identify their contacts and use the system as a digital diary of where they have
been. This al ows cases to advise people that they are close contacts and need to self-
monitor for symptoms
21.
It is proposed that both settings above be reviewed again once we are past the peak of
the current Omicron outbreak to ensure they remain fit for purpose.
Physical distancing and capacity limits
INFORMATION
22.
While we have significant cases in the community, the value of physical distancing and
capacity limits remain pertinent. Evidence on physical distancing and gathering limits
continues to point to these measures as a basic public health tool to reduce spread of
COVID-19. Further, there have been consistent examples of COVID-19 spreading at
gatherings where large numbers of people congregate and intermingle.
23.
The CPF provides a system for managing physical distancing and capacity limits. If the CPF
is retained (even if modified), it can continue to be used as the tool to implement these
measures, i.e., moving up and down the colours – but the settings should be kept under
review based on available evidence.
24.
As we move past the peak of Omicron, there wil be a strong case for re-evaluating
gathering limits. Outdoor gatherings in particular could likely be relaxed soon as a
preliminary measure given their lower risk profile compared to indoor gatherings.
Face masks
25.
Face masks are shown to reduce transmission of the virus from person to person. They are
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
required, in some capacity, at al three colours of the CPF given the significant body of
available international evidence on their efficacy around reducing the spread of COVID-19.
We propose maintaining a legal requirement to wear face masks both leading up to, and
after the outbreak peaks.
26.
We note that further work may be needed on the appropriateness of face masks in
different environments at the orange and green CPF settings given ongoing evolving
evidence from scientific studies global y about their value in reducing transmission.
However, once we have comfortably passed the peak of Omicron, it may be appropriate to
change face mask wearing from a legal requirement to public health guidance in most
settings.
27.
Work is underway to ensure that the current requirements for wearing face masks in the
education sector are not disproportionate, nor detrimental to the learning environment of
students. This work is explicitly considering whether the current mandatory requirement is
proportionate when considered against the possible burden on young people’s
educational outcomes.
28.
Work is also underway on how to best manage exemptions to face masks while retaining
the confidence of affected communities, key sectors (e.g. the retail sector) and the public
general y. This advice wil be coming to you shortly.
COVID-19 Vaccine Certificates
29.
The use of COVID-19 Vaccine Certificates (CVCs) in the CPF was based on vaccination
providing significant population protection against infection, separating vaccinated and
unvaccinated people as a tool to reduce transmission in the community.
ACT 1982
30.
New Zealand now has some of the highest vaccination rates in the world, with
approximately 94% of those aged 12 and over having had two doses of an approved
vaccine. Achieving this high rate of vaccination can, in part, be attributed to the use of
CVCs which are the foundation of the CPF.
31.
Further, we know that current vaccines are less effective at protecting people from
contracting Omicron. As most of the population is vaccinated, almost al cases are
occurring in people who are ‘fully vaccinated’ (2 doses of the Pfizer vaccine).
INFORMATION
32.
Given there is now significant community transmission, but with very high rates of
vaccination, the use of CVCs do not provide the same population protection. This brings
the validity of retaining CVCs as a public health measure, at this point in time, into
question. The Director of Public Health’s advice is that, given the very high rate of
vaccination national y, there is no longer a sufficient public health rationale to justify CVCs
being used to prevent entry to certain premises during this phase of the response.
33.
We note you wil be receiving further advice relating to vaccine tools, including boosters,
the definition of “up-to-date vaccination status”, and mandates for affected groups of
workers which should still remain at this point.
Isolation and quarantine (domestic settings)
34.
Isolation and quarantine are important public health measures that can be highly effective
at limiting the transmission of COVID-19. The Omicron response strategy sets out isolation
periods with a gradual reduction in isolation periods and those who are required to
adhere to them based on the extent of the outbreak. Work is being undertaken by the
Ministry that is investigating the required length of t
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL ime for self-isolation based on
emerging evidence. We are not immediately recommending any changes to self-isolation,
and work that outlines any suggested changes wil be delivered to you by Science and
Insight in col aboration with the NITC.
Isolation and quarantine (international settings)
35.
On 28 February, the Prime Minister announced that fully vaccinated travellers to New
Zealand would no longer need to isolate upon arrival, beginning with NZ citizens and
permitted travel ers from Australia from 2 March and from the rest of the world from 4
March. Once these settings are in place, they wil be the most permissive that we have
seen since the beginning of the pandemic, mirroring the pre-pandemic entry requirements
(or lack thereof).
36.
The Reconnecting New Zealand (RNZ) workstream is currently determining the potential
settings for fully vaccinated travellers of different visa categories, and for unvaccinated
travellers or travellers who only meet the minimum vaccination requirements.
37.
This memo does not recommend further changes to isolation and quarantine settings at
this time.
Other border settings
38.
Arrivals to New Zealand are currently required to be vaccinated (unless a citizen) have a
negative pre-departure test, and take a rapid antigen test on days 0/1 and 5/6 after arrival
(for non-QFT pathway travellers).
39.
These settings and the traveller pathways are currently under review as part of the RNZ
ACT 1982
workstream and advice wil be delivered separately on these.
Testing
40.
PCR testing has been used as the main testing method since the beginning of the
outbreak, though we are now shifting to more sustained use of rapid-antigen tests (RATs).
RATs provide a faster result with an acceptable degree of accuracy and are more useful in
light of high-volume case numbers. In the current settings, we retain the use of PCR
INFORMATION
testing, often as an adjunct to RAT, in certain higher risk settings and situations, such as
(but not limited to) the first case in an Aged Residential Care facility, or when a positive
diagnosis is important for clinical management as they are more accurate and ensure that
appropriate actions are taken.
41.
As we move past the peak of Omicron, the need to count all cases on a daily basis could
become less relevant, indicating that a shift back to use of PCR testing when case load
becomes more manageable may not be necessary. Ultimately, we wil likely transition
towards a general message of stay home if you are sick with testing reserved for those for
whom an early diagnosis wil change their management.
42.
There is currently no recommendation to change the approach to testing under the
current settings and once we surpass the peak, we recommend that the nature of testing
should be modified to align with the post peak response. This could include maintaining
the current approach or reducing the focus on testing; more advice will be provided to
you on this at the time.
Case investigation and management
43.
Throughout our pandemic response, we have taken a
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL centralised approach to case
investigation and management, contact tracing al cases and close contacts. While
successful in previous outbreaks, the significant increase in daily case numbers and the
highly transmissible nature of the Omicron variant means that such an approach is
untenable in the short term. Under Phase Three of the Omicron response plan, case
investigation and management become more targeted to those who are the most at risk
of adverse outcomes from infection.
44.
The focus of Phase Three is on equitable outcomes for the population, which targeted
case investigation contributes to achieving. For this reason, we are not recommending any
change to the current approach, as we do not have the workforce capacity to increase
efforts and decreasing efforts would negatively impact equitable outcomes.
45.
Once we are confident that we have passed the peak of the Omicron outbreak, we
recommend maintaining the current case investigation and management settings, rather
than reverting to previous approaches. This wil ease the burden on the health system and
ensure that we have the appropriate systems in place to address COVID-19 long term.
Permitted work and other exemptions from the requirement to isolate
46.
The Close Contact Exemption Scheme (CCES) allows asymptomatic workers in critical
services to test before returning to work each day in the event that they are a household
contact. If we reduce the period of self-isolation for cases, the period of time that
household contacts are required to regularly test for should be reduced to reflect that.
47.
A reduction in the required isolation times will create less undue burden on society at
ACT 1982
large with a portion of the population unable to work as either cases or household
contacts. However, reducing isolation times could lead to sustained, or even increased,
spread of the virus given that it would involve more people circulating in the community
potential y before the end of their infectious period. Consideration should be given to the
potential risks and benefits of further reducing isolation periods and the Ministry will
continue to monitor and provide updated evidence on this over time.
48.
Over 1 mil ion workers (over 40 per cent of the workforce) have already been registered as
INFORMATION
critical services. As long as the household contact is asymptomatic and tests negative,
there is also limited public health justification for al owing people to break self-isolation
for certain types of work, but not for other work, education or other reasons. With growing
supplies of RATs available – through the Ministry and commercial y – greater use of testing
to exit isolation is possible.
49.
We also note the ongoing workstreams between the Ministry of Health and Sport New
Zealand (Sport NZ), where international sports players may be required to isolate should a
team member test positive and that team is residing in the same accommodation. A
solution is being sought on how to establish a system that does not disrupt the sport
competitions as much as practicably possible, and advice wil be delivered to you as soon
as possible.
50.
As above, we are developing advice to widen the CCES to al ow al household contacts to
test to break self-isolation each day, if they are asymptomatic and return a negative test.
Other public health measures (e.g. use of face-coverings, social distancing) would be
required to protect the community from the risks of transmission that this would create.
COVID-19 Public Health Response Orders
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Required testing order (RTO)
51.
The RTO outlines the testing requirements on border workers who work in settings that
put them at higher risk of being exposed to COVID-19. Given the widespread community
transmission of COVID-19, and the low incidence of what were previously considered
‘high-risk’ workers having contracted COVID-19, there is no longer a strong rationale for
imposing the requirements of the RTO on border workers.
52.
We are recommending that the RTO be reviewed immediately as the nature of risk for
most workers has changed significantly, and such requirements are no longer considered
appropriate and proportional given the widespread community transmission. In the event
that the RTO is suspended, and a new variant of concerns arises, the RTO should be
reinstated to mitigate the risk of its spread.
Vaccinations Orders
53.
The Orders specify the groups of affected workers who must be up to date with their
COVID-19 vaccinations, including booster doses, to carry out their work. Given the change
in the risk profile now that we have a highly vaccinated population and Omicron is
spreading widely in the community, we are undertaking a risk assessment to ascertain
whether the public health rationale behind the decision to include each group of workers
in the Orders still supports inclusion.
ACT 1982
Treaty of Waitangi analysis and equity
54.
All advice and recommendations in this memo have been made with consideration
regarding te Tiriti, impact on Māori and equity. Since the beginning of the pandemic,
Māori have been disproportionately affected by both the virus and the impact of measures
that have been taken to mitigate it’s spread.
55.
A 27 February report has indicated that cases in Māori have decreased over the previous
INFORMATION
week by 7 percent, likely attributed to the sharp rise in cases in the European/other
ethnicity category. The same report also shows that Māori are behind in adult, child and
booster vaccination rates when compared to the general population. This indicates that
the inequitable outcomes experienced by Māori are not uniform, and that a tailored,
targeted approach for Māori is required to address the discrepancies in vaccination efforts
and in other parts of our pandemic response.
56.
The recommendations in this memo seek to reduce the burden of restrictions on the
Public (including Māori), while ensuring that the health system can target its services and
resources towards the most at risk. We are advising that most measures that are shown to
material y reduce the spread of COVID-19, such as masks, gathering limits and social
distancing, remain in place at least until the peak of the Omicron outbreak. Any decision
to remove such measures once we have reached the peak should only be made after
considering the impact on Māori.
57.
Loosening restrictions in the future, will reduce the burden on Māori, but may increase
their risk of contracting the virus. Should such changes to the restrictions take place, the
ability of the health system to accommodate the needs of Māori should remain a key
consideration, with focus on strengthening services
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL that cater to Māori.
Recommendations
It is recommended that you:
1.
Note that the COVID-19 Act (s. 4) and Humans Rights Act require that public
Noted
health measures that limit freedoms be reviewed regularly to ensure they
coordinated, orderly and proportionate.
2.
Note that the peak of the current Omicron outbreak is very unlikely to have
Noted
been reached yet and different parts of New Zealand may peak at different
times.
3.
Agree that recent changes to border management settings, managed isolation
Yes
and quarantine, and self-isolation requirements make it timely to review public
health measures that limit rights to ensure that they remain proportionate and
relevant.
4.
Note that a public health review of the effectiveness of current public health
Noted
measures was held on 28 February 2022
5.
Indicate your preferred advice to Ministers for each public health measure as
Yes
ACT 1982
set out in
Appendix A, noting
that ‘post-peak’ is defined as the setting that
would remain in place until a further review (likely 2 weeks after reaching the
peak of the Omicron outbreak)
6.
Note the Director of Public Health’s advice that, given the very high rate of
Noted
vaccination nationally, there is no longer a sufficient public health rationale to
justify COVID Vaccine Certificates (CVCs) being used to prevent entry to certain
premises during this phase of the response.
INFORMATION
7.
Note that further advice is being prepared for you regarding broader issues
Yes
relating to vaccinations, including:
• boosters and the definition of “up-to-date vaccination status”, and
• mandates for affected groups of workers.
8.
Indicate your preference to either:
• Immediately
advise Ministers to remove the requirement for people to
No
show a CVC to enter certain premises,
OR
• Defer advising Ministers on changing CVC requirements until you have
Yes
received further advice on various matters pertaining to vaccination,
boosters and vaccine mandates.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Signature ______________________________________________
Date: 3 March 2022
Dr Ashley Bloomfield
Te Tumu Whakarae mō te Hauora
Director-General of Health
From:
Shane Kinley <[email address]>
Sent:
Monday, 14 March 2022 7:52 pm
To:
Douglas Woolridge; Rebecca Heerdegen; Anna Clark (GM WRSP); Tracy Mears; Lisa Collins; Zach
Boyle; Gayathiri Ganeshan; Chris Hubscher; Kelly Hanson-White (WorkSafe); Chris Thornborough;
Alison Cossar
Subject:
FW: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Attachments:
Skegg advice 13 March.pdf
Hi all
Please find attached the advice from the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group, chaired by Sir David
Skegg.
Please note and respect the request that “This is shared in confidence and we ask that you keep it tightly held.”
ACT 1982
Having re-read this, it really does not answer the questions that we asked re the public health rationale for employer
vaccination requirements or whether the factors in the vaccination assessment tool remain appropriate.
The Ginger Group discussion tonight (while with limited participants) emphasised the importance of communicating
the public health rationale for positions taken and advice on what should be considered.
Alison, with that in mind, would be good to discuss if we can get public health advice from MoH which would help
INFORMATION
us with this, recognising that the decisions on what to do with mandates are still to be made by Cabinet. Can we
discuss tomorrow please
Anna – do you want to share with the office?
Ngā mihi
Shane Kinley
Telephone: +64 4 9018619 | Internal extension: 48619
Please note: I am currently working from the office Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and working from home Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The best way to contact me in either case is a text to my mobile s 9(2)(a)
From: Shane Kinley
Sent: Monday, 14 March 2022 6:23 pm
To: Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>
Cc: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC <[email address]>; Megan Stratford [DPMC <[email address]>;
Kay Baxter [DPMC <[email address]>; Anna Clark (GM WRSP) <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Thanks Ashlee,
My read is that this doesn’t really address what the public health grounds are for employer requirements in the
absence of government mandates, or on the appropriateness of the vaccination assessment tool criteria.
What is helpful is that this highlights the blurring of the term “vaccination mandate” which can also include other
situations where vaccination is required.
Para 28 touches on what I think we are looking for:
1
28. Mandates for these occupational groups need to be replaced by national advice as to how the leaders of
the services should protect their staff and reduce the spread of disease to others. Such measures should
include clear recommendations for vaccinations and other public health measures that reduce the
transmission of respiratory infections. In some cases, it would be appropriate for vaccination to be a
condition for new employment. New Zealand has been slow to develop occupational vaccination policies for
a whole variety of infectious diseases, and we hope that experience of the current pandemic will lead to
new initiatives in this area
I’ll go back to MoH on this, and we may want to come back to the Skegg group.
My intention is that I share this with the small group at MBIE directly working on this, the WorkSafe leads (Kel and
Chris) and MoH key contact (Alison Cossar). Let me know if that is an issue. Its likely our Minister’s office will also
want to see this, if this hasn’t been shared with relevant Ministers already?
One small point of clarification. This paper repeats the statement that Fire and Emergency have a mandate (as was
said in the CAB paper). Do you know where this has come from? My understanding is that Fire and Emergency only
have a mandate apply to the extent they are part of one of the other groups covered by the COVID-19 Public Health
Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 Schedule 2 Groups of affected persons. The Vaccinations and work | Unite
ACT 1982
against COVID-19 (covid19.govt.nz) webpage picks up this nuance, that certain FENZ workers are covered under the
health and disability, or education mandates.
Ngā mihi
Shane Kinley
Telephone: +64 4 9018619 | Internal extension: 48619
Please note: I am currently working from the office Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and working from home Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The best way to contact me in either case is a text to my mobile s 9(2)(a)
INFORMATION
From: Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 14 March 2022 5:16 pm
To: Shane Kinley <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Hi Shane
I have attached the Skegg advice for your information. This is shared in confidence and we ask that you keep it
tightly held.
Thanks so much
Ashlee
From: Shane Kinley <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 14 March 2022 4:23 pm
To: Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>; Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Douglas Woolridge <[email address]>; ^MBIE: Rebecca Heerdegen
<[email address]>; Anna Clark (GM WRSP) <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Thanks Ashlee.
I’ve been in other meetings so just closing the loop on this.
I’ll be following up with MoH now too – can I check though if you know whether the broader questions were put to
the Skegg group (see highlighted para below)?
2
Ngā mihi
Shane Kinley
Telephone: +64 4 9018619 | Internal extension: 48619
Please note: I am currently working from the office Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and working from home Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The best way to contact me in either case is a text to my mobile s 9(2)(a)
From: Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 14 March 2022 12:59 pm
To: Shane Kinley <[email address]>; Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Douglas Woolridge <[email address]>; Rebecca Heerdegen <[email address]>;
Anna Clark (GM WRSP) <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Thanks Shane.
I’ve flagged that we need to include more about the health benefits of boosters. Great that MBIE is working with
ACT 1982
MOH on the other two points – definition of vaccinated and health advice from PCBUs risk assessments.
Happy for you to share with WorkSafe. We need to ensure their views are reflected, including how they plan to
manage compliance and enforcement following changes post-peak.
We’ll get back to you with any questions following our review of your second set of feedback this morning.
Thanks
Ashlee
INFORMATION
From: Shane Kinley <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 14 March 2022 8:18 am
To: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address] nz>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>; Douglas Woolridge <[email address]>;
^MBIE: Rebecca Heerdegen <[email address]>; Anna Clark (GM WRSP)
<[email address]>
Subject: Re: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Morena Ruth and DPMC colleagues,
Thanks for sending through the paper and I see the challenge you having had.. I've skim read and will go over again
this morning for more specific comments.
From a clarity perspective, knowing the public health benefits of boosters feels key and possibly underdone. For the
mandated workforces and MVP, the Yardley judicial review comments (assuming not being appealed on these)
could be reinforced about least rights infringing solutions and not weighting operational simplicity. I'll check with
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
MIQ if they have anything to add specifically given the recommendation from MoH they be kept in the mandated
groups.
I'm going to follow up with MoH re the definition of vaccinated too. We've alerted them previously that the ERA
changes for the right to paid time off for Vaccinations and termination provisions are linked to that, so I want to
make sure they don't lose sight of that.i think that is severable from a decision on mandates, especially for situations
where employers consider work is high enough risk to maintain an employer requirement for vaccination (which
should be a PCBU decision based on public health advice, though see comment re WorkSafe view below).
I don't think I saw comments from the Skegg group re public health advice for employers on HSWA risk assessment
and the indicators in the vaccination assessment tool. We had asked that be put to them via MinWRS' office. Do you
3
know if they considered this, as that is key to our business guidance and advice to MinWRS about whether the VAT
can remain in place as is. The latter was intended as a simplified process for employers, reflecting public health
advice. If we don't have that from the Skegg group we'll need to go back to MoH. I know WorkSafe are concerned
too about the implications of this for their guidance on PCBU's risk assessment approaches.
I think the key thing there is being able to clearly express the public health advice and then reinforce PCBU
responsibility for doing risk assessments taking that into account, with PCBUs owning risk tolerance. We will also
want to be clear that business continuity is not a HSWA ground but can be taken into account under an employer
policy if justified and the ERA consultation process are followed, or as a condition of access to a place. We'll provide
further comments after the WorkSafe convened Ginger Group at 5pm tonight (which Aaron Wright, Kay and Megan
are invited to).
Can I please ask permission to share the paper with WorkSafe too, so they can consider the balancing needed re
HSWA duties.
I wasn't looking for compliance and enforcement implications last night, but assume you are clear that rolling back
PCBU's duties has a commensurate impact on WorkSafe's role a
Nd will need to be taken into account in existing compliance actions ie do they continue, as some of the breaches
ACT 1982
were blatant disregard of rules, even if those rules may be relaxed by the time they get to a judge.
Cheers,
Shane
Get Outlook for Android
From: Shane Kinley <[email address]>
INFORMATION
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2022 11:51:28 AM
To: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address] nz>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>; Douglas Woolridge <[email address]>;
Rebecca Heerdegen <[email address]>
Subject: Re: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Sounds good, thanks Ruth!
Get Outlook for Android
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2022 11:25:25 AM
To: Shane Kinley <Shane [email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>; Douglas Woolridge <[email address]>;
Rebecca Heerdegen <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
As just discussed with Shane, we’re intending to circulate it this afternoon. Shane, I will text you when I send it so
you don’t have to keep an eye on your emails.
From: Shane Kinley <[email address]>
Sent: Sunday, 13 March 2022 11:20 am
To: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>; Douglas Woolridge <[email address]>;
^MBIE: Rebecca Heerdegen <[email address]>
Subject: Re: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
4
HI Ruth and DPMC colleagues,
Any update on Ministerial consultation version please?
Cheers,
Shane
Get Outlook for Android
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 5:09:29 PM
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address]
<[email address]>; C Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA]
<[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff Short <[email address]>; ^PCO: Richard Wallace
<[email address]>; ^Education: Alanna Sullivan Vaughan
<[email address]>; Shane Kinley <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
ACT 1982
Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Good evening
Thank you for your comments on last night’s draft. We are awaiting the final Health advice so will provide the
Ministerial consultation version to you during the weekend.
INFORMA
Ruth
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address] nz>
Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2022 6:24 pm
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address]; C
Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address]>; ^PCO: Richard Wallace <[email address]>; ^Education: Alanna Sullivan
Vaughan <[email address]>; Shane Kinley <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <Ashlee [email address]>
Subject: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Good evening
Please find attached, for your comment, the draft Cabinet paper. Can you please only forward on a need to know
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
basis given the sensitivity of the proposals in the paper and that we still have a way to go before decisions on
Monday 21 March.
Could you please provide comments to Ashlee Bowles, Megan Stratford and Kay Baxter by
11.30am Friday tomorrow (earlier would be better if possible but I am conscious that I am sending this later than intended). The
draft reflects the interim health advice we received yesterday (please see attached email from Steve Waldegrave –
this replaces the PDF I sent out last week). We are awaiting updated health advice tomorrow which will inform some
of the proposals in this paper. Please note that while CVC and vaccine mandates are currently in a section labelled
short-term considerations, the final advice from Health will help guide us on whether any changes should be made
post-peak or sooner.
5
We will send you a further version of the paper tomorrow (the Ministerial consultation version) and would welcome
further comments on that version. We are aiming to lodge on Tuesday for SWC on Wednesday.
Thank you for all your input to date.
Ruth
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 4:34 pm
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address]; C
Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address]>; ^PCO: Richard Wallace <[email address]>; ^Education: Alanna Sullivan
Vaughan <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Alice Hume [DPMC] <[email address]>
ACT 1982
Subject: RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper update
Kia ora koutou
Please find attached:
• For comment: draft slides for Ministers meeting on Tuesday (confirmed for 4.45-5.45pm, invite has been
sent to CEs) – could we please have comments by
10am, Monday. Please send the comments to Kay Baxter,
INFORMATION
Megan Stratford
and me. We know they need refining, fewer words, some key questions etc but keen for
your thoughts on the direction of proposed amendments to the CPF, and two key timing questions: when
should restrictions come off post-peak and how long should we retain the CPF.
• For context / discussion at CCB: our working paper on our thinking, which we will draw upon for the Cabinet
paper. We are interested in your thoughts on this, but not detailed comments given it is essentially an
internal document. Thoughts by Tuesday would be good and we can discuss again at our 2pm Tues
meeting.
• FYI: Health’s advice to the DG on the public health measures
• FYI: today’s cases against TPM’s modelling
• FYI: updated engagement table (Warren, as discussed, appreciate you liaising with Kelly on the agendas for
Wed meetings with iwi.)
The first 3 papers have also been provided to CCB with a cover note for their discussion on Tuesday.
Alice is the DPMC Policy contact over the weekend for anything urgent.
Thanks very much everyone.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Ruth
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC]
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2022 4:37 pm
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address];
Carmen Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address]>; ^PCO: Richard Wallace <[email address]>; Alanna Sullivan-Vaughan
<[email address]>
6
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper update
As per yesterday’s email, please find attached, FYI, the slides which were provided to MO and PMO today for
Ministers to consider. We made it clear that agencies hadn’t seen them. Tomorrow we will circulate, for comment,
the next set of draft slides for Tuesday’s Ministers meeting (time still TBC), and our working paper (which will also go
to CCB).
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2022 5:24 pm
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address];
Carmen Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address]>; Hart, Stevie-Rae <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Jeremy Greenbrook-Held [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: Post-peak Cabinet paper update
ACT 1982
Kia ora koutou
Thank you for another very helpful discussion yesterday afternoon. We then met with PMO and MO and have some
more guidance on timeframes for advice on post-peak measures. I have attached a table of our planned deliverables
and engagement over the next couple of weeks but in short:
INFORMATION
• Tomorrow we are providing Ministers with some slides about the key things officials are looking at to help
them start thinking about this issue. We will send you a copy. It is the sorts of questions we have been
asking you so should be no surprises.
• Week of 7 March:
o A meeting on Tuesday with Ministers and the Chairs of the Advisory Groups (Roche, Skegg, Fyfe), key
agency CEs, senior officials and science advisors. Time TBC so no invites have gone out yet.
We will
circulate draft slides for that meeting on Friday for comment by first thing Monday.
o CCB on Tuesday – we are proving them a brief process note and a draft briefing / narrative about where
the advice is heading based on the work so far. You will receive a copy on Friday, and we are happy to
receive any further thoughts that might prompt. (It is not intended to be a final product but the basis of
the Cab paper.)
o Lots of other engagement, including potentially with Ministers and NICF-PRG, Iwi chairs and other Māori
organisations
•
SWC – 16 March and Cabinet on 21 March for decisions. This does not mean decisions will take effect from
21 March. The timing of when any decisions will take effect is something we need to work on over the next
fortnight
We will circulate a draft Cabinet paper for comment late next week (we are planning to lodge on
Monday 14 March).
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Please note that PMO have indicated that they would like the Cabinet paper to include advice on vaccination
mandates (Health / MBIE – we will be in touch with you about this. The Strategic Public Health Advisory Group have
also been asked to look at vaccination mandates and CVCs as a priority (followed by masks, capacity limits and
isolation).
Also attached, FYI, are the latest list of briefings, and a slide pack of hospitalisations and cases against the updated
TPM modelling so you can see when the expected peaks might be. Pay most attention to hospitalisations – they are
the key metric now. Any questions on those, please direct them to Jeremy G-H (cc’ed).
As always, happy to answer any questions.
Ruth
7
Ruth Fairhall Head of Strategy and Policy | COVID-19 Group
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
M s 9(2)(a)
E [email address]
The information contained in this email message is for the attention of the intended recipient only and is not necessarily the official view
or communication of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, copy
or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please destroy the email and notify the
sender immediately.
ACT 1982
www.govt.nz - your guide to finding and using New Zealand government services
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the in
INFORMATION tended recipient, be
advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the
sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
www.govt.nz - your guide to finding and using New Zealand government services
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be
advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the
sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
www.govt.nz - your guide to finding and using New Zealand government services
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be
advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the
sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
www.govt.nz - your guide to finding and using New Zealand government services
8
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person
responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in
error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and
any attachment from your computer.
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
9
Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group
13 March 2022
Hon Dr Ayesha Verral
Associate Minister of Health (Public Health)
Parliament Buildings
Wel ington
Dear Minister
Vaccine mandates
We welcome your invitation to review the place of vaccine mandates in the current
strategy for minimising harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, to health, society
ACT 1982
and the economy. As we have not previously advised on this subject, we have been
able to take a fresh view of the evidence, without any temptation to defend previous
positions.
Scope of this advice
1. There is often confusion about the term “vaccine mandate”. In the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, vaccination of children against smal pox was
INFORMATION
compulsory in New Zealand, as in many other countries, but the mandate was
not rigorously enforced. Vaccination of citizens against SARS-CoV-2 has
been mandated in some parts of China, and a proposal to require this in
Germany wil be debated in the Bundestag within the next few weeks. In Italy
and Greece, vaccination is mandatory for people in older age groups.
Compulsory vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has never been proposed in
New Zealand.
2. The term vaccine mandate has mainly been used, during this pandemic, to
describe Government orders for people in certain occupational groups, such
as health care workers, to be vaccinated in order to continue working in those
roles. Apart from the Health and Disability sector, vaccine orders currently
apply to at least some workers at the Borders and in Education, Corrections,
Fire and Emergency, the Police, and the Defence Force. Such occupational
mandates are the subject of this report.
3. Employers can also require vaccination against various diseases as a
condition of employment. This has been common for many years in certain
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
sectors, such as health care providers and armed forces. Since the advent of
COVID-19, some employers have required vaccination against the virus,
either to ensure continuity of their business or to protect other staff or
customers who may be vulnerable. Government regulations introduced in
December 2021 provided an assessment tool that an employer may (but is
not required to) use to assess whether it is reasonable to require that workers
be vaccinated. We wil discuss such employer-imposed mandates only briefly
here.
Via Secretariat DPMC COVID-19 Group
Level 9, TSB Building, Parliament Buildings | Wel ington 6145 | New Zealand
64 4 817 9700 Facsimile 64 4 472 3181 www.dpmc.govt.nz
The DPMC COVID19 Group is a business unit of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
2
4. Final y, the term “vaccine mandate” is sometimes used loosely to refer to the
requirement that people show a vaccination certificate (“My Vaccine Pass”) in
order to attend places such as hospitality venues that are using these. Under
the COVID-19 Protection Framework (CPF), limits on the numbers of people
who can attend hospitality venues or gatherings such as church services or
marae, depend on whether or not vaccination certificates are used. There is a
legal requirement that businesses that have to use vaccine passes to operate,
or to operate with fewer restrictions, must ensure that their own employees
are vaccinated. We understand that the CPF wil be reviewed soon, and so
wil not consider the role of vaccination passes at this stage.
5. In the remainder of this report, the term “vaccine mandates” wil refer to
occupational mandates imposed by the Government.
ACT 1982
Diverse benefits of vaccination
6. We often think of vaccination against any disease as a step that people take
to protect themselves from il ness. Such
individual protection is important, but
there are also other benefits. Vaccination may reduce the risk that a person
wil infect
other people around them, who may be particularly vulnerable (and
who may not themselves be able to derive as strong protection from
INFORMATION
vaccination). Vaccination can also provide
community protection, helping to
control the spread of il ness in the whole population.
7. In the case of COVID-19, vaccines have been shown to be especial y
effective at preventing severe il ness and death. This benefits not only the
sick person and their family and friends, but also the whole community –
because health services are less likely to become overloaded. In places like
the United Kingdom, where there have been very large outbreaks of COVID-
19 over the last two years, many people with unrelated diseases (such as
cancers) have had difficulty in accessing health care. Consequently, there
are now unprecedented numbers of patients waiting for delayed treatment or
elective surgery.
8. Evidence is mounting about delayed effects of infection with SARS-CoV-2,
including the condition known as Long Covid. By reducing the risk of such
complications, vaccination benefits both the individual and the community.
9. Control of COVID-19 also helps to protect public and private enterprises. In
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
many countries, large outbreaks have led to massive absenteeism and
temporary col apse of some public services and commercial businesses. This
has been less of a problem in highly vaccinated populations.
10. Experience has shown that the protection provided by vaccines wanes after a
few months, although it lasts for longer against severe disease. For most
vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the primary course for adults involved two
doses, but it is now clear that a booster dose is highly desirable – especial y
for people who are at risk of severe disease. It might be better if we talked
3
about a “vaccination course”, as the term “booster” is interpreted by some as
implying an optional extra. A ful vaccination course now involves three doses
for the majority of adults, and two doses for most children.
Immunocompromised people need three or four doses, depending on their
age and the severity of their condition.
Experience with vaccine mandates in New Zealand
11. Most of the occupational vaccine mandates in New Zealand were introduced
in the latter part of 2021, as the country was battling with the Delta outbreak.
The main purpose of these mandates has been to reduce the risk of workers
becoming infected and transmitting the virus to groups of people who may be
either unable to be vaccinated themselves (e.g. young children), particularly
vulnerable to infection (e.g. sick patients or residents in aged ca e), or at risk
ACT 1982
of large outbreaks (e.g. inmates in prisons).
12. Encouraging vaccination in the general population was not one of the specific
objectives of vaccine mandates. Nevertheless, the fairly wide application of
mandates probably was one of the factors contributing to the achievement of
New Zealand’s excel ent overal vaccination coverage. Along with other
public health measures, this averted what could have been a disastrous wave
of disease caused by the Delta variant. As we now deal with a large Omicron
INFORMATION
outbreak, vaccination is undoubtedly reducing the numbers of people who are
becoming seriously il and require hospital treatment.
13. As in other countries, people are becoming fed up with restrictions needed to
control a pandemic that has gone on for longer than anyone envisaged.
Vaccine mandates have attracted particular criticism. A smal minority of the
population harbour strong objections to vaccination, and some have been
prepared to accept redeployment or redundancy rather than agree to be
vaccinated. Some others feel that the imposition of occupational mandates,
even for sound public health reasons, involves an unjustified infringement of
personal liberty. There are also legal debates about the relevance of the New
Zealand Bil of Rights Act.
14. Clearly we are not qualified to comment on the legal issues. As public health
and medical professionals, however, we are vital y concerned about the wider
effects of preventive measures on societal wel being – and not just on
numbers of il nesses and deaths. In developing our recommendations, we
have taken account of the particular chal enges associated with the use of
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
vaccine mandates.
An evolving pandemic
15. Vaccine mandates were never intended to be permanent, and it was assumed
they would be reviewed periodical y. Such a review is appropriate now, for
several reasons. First, there is high overal vaccination coverage in the
community, although it is disappointing that the uptake of the third (booster)
4
dose of the vaccine has not been higher. Second, the proportion of people
with some immunity from natural infection wil be increasing greatly during the
current outbreak. Third, although some infections with the Delta variant are
probably stil occurring (and we need better surveil ance), there has been a
shift to the Omicron variant which now accounts for the vast majority of
infections.
16. Individuals infected with the Omicron variant are less likely to require
hospitalisation, and especial y intensive care, than people infected with Delta.
Nevertheless, Omicron is so infectious that in many countries it has caused
more hospital admissions and deaths than occurred during Delta outbreaks.
That wil also be the case in New Zealand.
17. One of the reasons why Omicron is so infectious is that it is more capable
than Delta of evading immunity conferred by vaccination or previous infection.
ACT 1982
Evidence about the effectiveness of vaccination against Omicron is stil
accruing, but we summarise here what is known at present. While current
vaccines provide less protection against symptomatic infection with Omicron
than with Delta, there is good protection against severe il ness, particularly
after a third (booster) dose. It is unclear how quickly the immunity provided by
the third dose against symptomatic infection wil wane, but protection against
severe disease wil last longer. Key observations for the current discussion
are that adults who have received three vaccine doses are (1) less likely than
INFORMATION
unvaccinated people to get infected with Omicron, and (2) less likely to pass
the infection on to others. The differences are smal er than in the case of
Delta, but stil appreciable.
18. We must remember that a new variant of the virus may displace Omicron in
the months ahead. Such a new variant could be more or less virulent in
causing human disease. Experience with previous variants suggests that
current vaccines would be likely to retain at least some of their effectiveness.
It is also possible that new vaccine formulations would be developed that
further reduce the risk of infection and transmission, particularly in the case of
a dangerous new variant.
Use of mandates in other countries
19. International y there has been wide variation in the use of occupational
vaccine mandates. It is perhaps most instructive to consider experience in
countries with which we share a similar constitutional background. The
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
United Kingdom requires aged care workers to be vaccinated. Legislation
was amended, with the intention to extend the mandate to frontline health and
social care workers, but in January 2022 this decision was reversed at the last
moment. It is believed that this was because of a fear that the National Health
Service, already critical y overloaded, would not be able to cope with the
withdrawal of large numbers of workers. Vaccine hesitancy among such
groups appears to be much commoner than in New Zealand.
5
20. The United States Government introduced vaccine mandates for federal
employees and contractors in July 2021. Most measures for control ing
COVID-19 are the responsibility of state and local governments. There is
wide variation in the use of vaccine mandates in different states. Some states
have imposed no occupational mandates, while others require vaccination of
public employees, as wel as health workers and other groups.
21. Australia, like the United States, has a range of public health measures
because of its federal system. The country is now wel past its peak of
Omicron cases. Yet while most public health restrictions have been lifted,
Australian states have largely maintained occupational vaccine mandates. In
New South Wales, employees in educational, health, and aged care services
are required to be vaccinated. Victorian vaccine mandates, requiring two
doses, apply to a very wide range of public and private sector employees.
Third doses are required for those in emergency services, health care,
ACT 1982
education, aged care, custodial settings, emergency services food
processing and distribution, and quarantine accommodation.
Recommendations
22. The case for or against retaining occupational vaccine mandates is now more
finely balanced, because of our relatively high vaccination coverage and
INFORMATION
increasing natural immunity, as wel as the apparent lowering of vaccine
effectiveness against transmission of the Omicron variant. We also recognise
the Government wil need to consider factors other than those discussed here,
such as legal considerations and political assessment of the “social licence”
for retaining this component of our public health strategy.
23. For a few occupational groups, we believe that vaccine mandates should be
retained for the time being. These groups are:
(a)
Health care workers.
(b)
Care givers in the disability sector.
(c)
Aged care workers.
(d)
Workers in Corrections.
(e)
Border and MIQ workers.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
24. Health workers are more likely to be exposed to COVID-19, and are also
liable to transmit the virus to highly vulnerable patients in their care. Aged
care facilities and prisons are also places where vulnerable people may be
exposed to large outbreaks.
25. Border and MIQ workers are likely to be the first people in our community to
be exposed to new variants of SARS-CoV-2. It is important to minimise their
risk of becoming infected, and passing the infection on to others.
6
26. Most of these groups have already been required to obtain a ful vaccination
course (including a booster dose), and this requirement for a booster dose
should be extended to any who have not yet been included.
27. While vaccination remains critical y important in protecting New Zealanders
from COVID-19, we believe that several of the vaccine mandates could be
dropped once the Omicron peak has passed. These include the mandates for
workers in
Education,
Fire and Emergency, the
Police, and the
Defence
Force.
28. Mandates for these occupational groups need to be replaced by national
advice as to how the leaders of the services should protect their staff and
reduce the spread of disease to others. Such measures should include clear
recommendations for vaccinations and other public health measures that
ACT 1982
reduce the transmission of respiratory infections. In some cases, it would be
appropriate for vaccination to be a condition for new employment. New
Zealand has been slow to develop occupational vaccination policies for a
whole variety of infectious diseases, and we hope that experience of the
current pandemic wil lead to new initiatives in this area.
29. Although vaccination is now available for children over 4 years of age, this is
not the case for those in early childhood education centres and kohanga reo.
INFORMATION
We are also conscious that, while COVID-19 is general y less severe in
children than in adults, some children suffer serious early and longer-term
effects. Outbreaks of COVID-19 in schools also have significant social
consequences for many children. Hence there needs to be a comprehensive
plan for protecting children from COVID-19. This could be incorporated into a
broader plan for protection against respiratory disease, recognising the
importance of influenza and other respiratory il nesses such as RSV.
30. Occupational vaccine mandates should be reviewed within six months. It is
possible that a review wil be needed earlier, if there is a new surge of
Omicron cases or emergence of a dangerous new variant. In such
circumstances, administration of a fourth vaccine dose might need to be
considered. It is always possible that some vaccine mandates might need to
be reinstated in the future.
We would be happy to discuss any of these recommendations.
Yours sincerely
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
David Skegg (Chair)
Maia Brewerton
Philip Hil
El a Iosua
David Murdoch
Nikki Turner
From:
Juanita Te Kani
Sent:
Monday, 14 March 2022 2:09 pm
To:
Helen Wyn-Ext
Subject:
FW: FOR COMMENT BY NOON MONDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
FYI
From: Deborah Roche <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 14 March 2022 1:58 pm
To: Juanita Te Kani <[email address]>; Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address] nz>; Caroline
Greaney <[email address]>
Cc: Ben McBride [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOR COMMENT BY NOON MONDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
ACT 1982
Kia Ora Ruth
Thanks for sending the paper through for comment. Please see below two main areas we would like to raise,
followed by some further points.
As you want to keep circulation tight this is a iHNZ management perspective, we have not discussed this paper with
the Board. The key issue from an iHNZ perspective is that the paper would benefit from a stronger understanding of
the impact of this on the health system, and the health workforce itself, outlined in details in the bullets below.
INFORMATION
In terms of MVP removal or not, when taking this decision consideration also needs to be given to the operational
perspective - we suggest you add in the improvements in IPC which will be material to limiting spread and protecting
the workforce.
Furthermore, we suggest you include the social licence for employees – the current industrial environment has low
tolerance when so many people have lost their jobs.
Please find below a summation of further comments:
•
The discussion of removing MVP and vaccination rates does not include any comment on the contribution
they make to reducing the impact of COVID-19 on the health system. It mentions that removal of these
requirements allows opening up more of the economy – suggest the paper also mention contribution to
impact on hospitalisation numbers. There are references to maintaining mandates for the health workforce
but no comment about the view of DHBs, providers about any implications of this on operations – how may
the proposed loosening of restrictions impact health system at a national or regional level, the mandate will
need to be clear about coverage of staff not engaged in clinical or non-patient facing duties, it affects ngo
employees etc not just those employed by DHBS
•
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Treaty impact - the potential regional and population impacts are material and views of iwi on loosening
restrictions, this could be brought out more prominently
•
Surveillance – it would be good to state how early warning systems through shared intelligence with other
jurisdictions will operate
•
Paragraph 20 - it would be helpful if this section also specifically mentions consideration of supports needed
for the health system post-peak, including the ongoing care and management of a long-tail of covid cases, as
well as the ongoing care for people who experience long-covid
•
Paragraph 22 - this could also include health and wellbeing support that may be needed, particularly for
those who continue to experience ongoing impacts of covid
•
Para 49, para 133 onwards- this should include health and recognise that the health system will need to
transition of a new norm of managing COVID—19 and supporting people to recover from its impacts
(including its health workforce)
1
• Para 63 - needs to recognise the high likelihood of another communicable disease – such as measles-
emerging in NZ at the same time as the country manages post-covid. It’s helpful that there’s mention of
other respiratory illness in para 63, but there’s a need to be broader than respiratory illness, and for the
paper to mention the risk of having to manage outbreaks of other communicable diseases, particularly given
the very low vaccination rates
• Para 146 onwards – longer term strategy work needs to involve the interim MHA and interim HNZ,
particularly with regards to including the operational considerations. Any decisions regarding the future of
funding arrangements, the ongoing need for COVID-19 specific architecture needs our input – and any
discussion regarding governance models that include arrangements with Maori needs to involve iMHA.
• Suggest please add in how health services are going to move forward eg: deferred electives etc, workforce
eg exhausted by Covid and running very high vacancy rates – health will have to respond to our
communities needs, an incremental approach.
• None of the long-term strategy work seems to include consideration of long-covid, and the surveillance
monitoring of the ongoing health impacts for individuals, whanau, communities or the health system. It
could potentially have consequences that impact on health, social and economic wellbeing and should be
factored into longer term strategy.
• In an ideal world this framework would be designed in a way that it can be used for future pandemics.
ACT 1982
Ngā mihi Deborah
Deborah Roche
Interim Lead Government & Partnerships
Health New Zealand Hauora Aotearoa
s 9(2)(a)
INFORMATION
M
E [email address]
W https://www.futureofhealth.govt.nz
From: Juanita Te Kani <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 14 March 2022 1:40 pm
To: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>; Deborah Roche <[email address]>;
Caroline Greaney <[email address]>
Cc: Ben McBride [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOR COMMENT BY NOON MONDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Kia Ora, please see below some key points pulled together at speed by the team.
Context which informs the perspective of the iMHA
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Since the beginning of the pandemic, Māori have been disproportionately affected by both COVID-19 and the impact of
measures that have been taken to mitigate its spread. Māori will continue to be vulnerable as they are more likely to be
exposed to factors that put them at greater risk, such as lower vaccination rates, poverty, crowded housing, intergenerational
households, higher rates of co-morbidities, and barriers to accessing health care.
It is critical that there is a focus on measures to minimise the results of inequity for Māori, particularly through initiatives that
are led by the communities themselves, and which allow for tino rangatiratanga by Māori.
The iMHA has the following commentary in response to the Cabinet paper
We support:
2
• The removal of MVP’s from the Framework, where there is public health justification. Because Māori are more likely to
be exposed to factors that put them at risk, we support a cautious approach to removal.
• Vaccine mandates being removed for groups, only where the public health advice is that they are no longer necessary.
• Three and then six months reviews of Mandates to ensure they continue to be supported by public health advice.
• Retaining some restrictions on the downside of the Omicron peak at Red and Orange will to mitigate the risk of a spike
in case numbers in the immediate post-peak period or during winter
• Prioritised support for businesses, communities and especially whānau to self-manage COVID-19 risk
• Monitoring and reporting on the success of health supports for protecting the most vulnerable, designed with Iwi
Māori hauora experts.
• Targeted protection towards the people who need it the most, particularly Māori,
• Communities to be supported as we transition through and beyond the post-peak phase of the COVID-19 response.
•
ACT 1982
Mandates continuing to be used while there is good evidence to suggest that they are well-targeted, effective and
proportionate to support high vaccination rates and therefore population immunity levels.
• Support to ensure that Māori communities are well prepared to avoid severe impacts of more widespread infection
• Increased surveillance, with surveillance and vigilance (domestically and at the border), taking innovative approaches.
• A targeted protection approach, for who have higher risks to the disease, who will no longer be protected by overall
low infection rates particularly – elderly, disabled, Maori, Pacific people with underlying health conditions.
INFORMATION
• We support measures developed with Māori and Pacific communities including free rapid antigen tests and readily
accessible anti-viral medication;
• The ability for tangata whenua to keep many restrictions in place after legal requirements are removed, to better
protect their kuia, kaumatua and vulnerable whānau.
• Targeted and sustained efforts to ensure Māori populations maintain current vaccination status on par with the
general population.
• The continued use of MVPs by tangata whenua, enabling the determination of tikanga through ongoing use of the tool
at their discretion.
• A commitment to partnership through ongoing and regular engagement with iwi and Māori on decisions about
Framework settings and to understand the impact changes may have on Māori.
• Measures within the Framework staying available for future preparedness and that measures such as mask wearing,
isolating, physical distancing and hand washing are critical to maintaining public health safety and should remain part
of the COVID-19 response.
• A focus in the health system on accommodating the needs of Māori, with focus on strengthening services that cater to
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Māori.
• Specific measures to protect vulnerable Māori and avoid severe health outcomes, such as providing readily accessible
free RATs, antiviral medication, face masks and other wrap around resources some Māori would otherwise struggle to
access (such as medicine and food parcels to support isolation).
• The continued support of locally organised initiatives, when Māori are resourced and have options on how to service
their own communities, there is a far greater impact.
• Ongoing resourcing for Māori providers, as well as generating flexible arrangements for contracting as it has been a
constraint on participation so far.
3
• Clear and simple communications when measures are removed (or leading up to their removal). Making enough time
to understand the impacts of the removal of these measures for their communities.
• Ensuring the COVID-19 response recognises that Māori should be considered as whānau and not as individuals alone.
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Sunday, 13 March 2022 9:06 pm
To: Deborah Roche <[email address]>; Juanita Te Kani <[email address]>; Caroline
Greaney <[email address]>
Cc: Ben McBride [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: FW: FOR COMMENT BY NOON MONDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Hi Deborah, Juanita and Caroline
ACT 1982
Following on from Ben’s email on Friday, I thought I should send you the latest draft of our Cabinet paper on the
post-peak proposals. We would welcome any comments tomorrow. Can you please keep the circulation tight given
the sensitivity of the paper.
I would be happy to meet with you, if that would be helpful, to talk to you about the work that my team does and
what we have coming up. Caroline and I caught up recently but it would be nice to see you again Deborah and I look
forward to meeting Juanita.
INFORMATION
Thanks very much.
Ruth
Ruth Fairhall
Head of Strategy and Policy | COVID-19 Group
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
M s 9(2)(a)
E [email address]
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Sunday, 13 March 2022 6:04 pm
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address]; C
Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address]>; ^PCO: Richard Wallace <[email address]>; ^Education: Alanna Sullivan
Vaughan <[email address]>; Shane Kinley <[email address]>; Caroline Flora
<[email address]>; Ross Thomas <[email address]>; John McGrath
<[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>; Nita Sullivan [DPMC] <[email address]>;
4
Jessica Gorman [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOR COMMENT BY NOON MONDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
Good evening
Please find attached the Ministerial consultation version of the paper. It should go to Ministers’ offices this evening.
Apologies for the delay – it all got rather complicated. The paper includes advice from the Strategic Public Health
Advisory Group on vaccine mandates, which we received this afternoon.
We would appreciate any further, significant comments by
noon Monday. Please send comments to Ashlee, Megan,
Kay and me.
Thanks very much.
Ruth
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC]
Sent: Friday, 11 March 2022 5:09 pm
ACT 1982
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; jacinda [email address]; C
Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <sarah.holland@nema govt.nz>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address]>; ^PCO: Richard Wallace <[email address]>; ^Education: Alanna Sullivan
Vaughan <[email address]>; Shane Kinley <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
INFORMATION
Good evening
Thank you for your comments on last night’s draft. We are awaiting the final Health advice so will provide the
Ministerial consultation version to you during the weekend.
Ruth
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2022 6:24 pm
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address]; C
Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address] nz>; ^PCO: Richard Wallace <[email address]>; ^Education: Alanna Sullivan
Vaughan <[email address]>; Shane Kinley <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Ashlee Bowles [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: FOR COMMENT BY 11.30AM FRIDAY RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Good evening
Please find attached, for your comment, the draft Cabinet paper. Can you please only forward on a need to know
basis given the sensitivity of the proposals in the paper and that we still have a way to go before decisions on
Monday 21 March.
Could you please provide comments to Ashlee Bowles, Megan Stratford and Kay Baxter by
11.30am Friday tomorrow (earlier would be better if possible but I am conscious that I am sending this later than intended). The
5
draft reflects the interim health advice we received yesterday (please see attached email from Steve Waldegrave –
this replaces the PDF I sent out last week). We are awaiting updated health advice tomorrow which will inform some
of the proposals in this paper. Please note that while CVC and vaccine mandates are currently in a section labelled
short-term considerations, the final advice from Health will help guide us on whether any changes should be made
post-peak or sooner.
We will send you a further version of the paper tomorrow (the Ministerial consultation version) and would welcome
further comments on that version. We are aiming to lodge on Tuesday for SWC on Wednesday.
Thank you for all your input to date.
Ruth
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 4:34 pm
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
ACT 1982
<[email address]>; [email address]; C
Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address] nz>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address]>; ^PCO: Richard Wallace <[email address] nz>; ^Education: Alanna Sullivan
Vaughan <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Alice Hume [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper update
INFORMATION
Kia ora koutou
Please find attached:
-
For comment: draft slides for Ministers meeting on Tuesday (confirmed for 4.45-5.45pm, invite has been
sent to CEs) – could we please have comments by
10am, Monday. Please send the comments to Kay Baxter,
Megan Stratford
and me. We know they need refining, fewer words, some key questions etc but keen for
your thoughts on the direction of proposed amendments to the CPF, and two key timing questions: when
should restrictions come off post-peak and how long should we retain the CPF.
-
For context / discussion at CCB: our working paper on our thinking, which we will draw upon for the Cabinet
paper. We are interested in your thoughts on this, but not detailed comments given it is essentially an
internal document. Thoughts by Tuesday would be good and we can discuss again at our 2pm Tues
meeting.
-
FYI: Health’s advice to the DG on the public health measures
-
FYI: today’s cases against TPM’s modelling
-
FYI: updated engagement table (Warren, as discussed, appreciate you liaising with Kelly on the agendas for
Wed meetings with iwi.)
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
The first 3 papers have also been provided to CCB with a cover note for their discussion on Tuesday.
Alice is the DPMC Policy contact over the weekend for anything urgent.
Thanks very much everyone.
Ruth
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC]
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2022 4:37 pm
6
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address];
Carmen Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff Short
<[email address]>; ^PCO: Richard Wallace <[email address]>; Alanna Sullivan-Vaughan
<[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Post-peak Cabinet paper update
As per yesterday’s email, please find attached, FYI, the slides which were provided to MO and PMO today for
Ministers to consider. We made it clear that agencies hadn’t seen them. Tomorrow we will circulate, for comment,
the next set of draft slides for Tuesday’s Ministers meeting (time still TBC), and our working paper (which will also go
to CCB).
From: Ruth Fairhall [DPMC] <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2022 5:24 pm
To: @EXT COVID-19 All-of-Government Policy Coordination Group
<[email address]>; [email address];
Carmen Mak <[email address]>; Sarah Holland [NEMA] <[email address]>; ^TPK: Geoff
ACT 1982 Short
<[email address]>; Hart, Stevie-Rae <[email address]>
Cc: Megan Stratford [DPMC] <[email address]>; Kay Baxter [DPMC] <[email address]>;
Jeremy Greenbrook-Held [DPMC] <[email address]>
Subject: Post-peak Cabinet paper update
Kia ora koutou
INFORMATION
Thank you for another very helpful discussion yesterday afternoon. We then met with PMO and MO and have some
more guidance on timeframes for advice on post-peak measures. I have attached a table of our planned deliverables
and engagement over the next couple of weeks but in short:
-
Tomorrow we are providing Ministers with some slides about the key things officials are looking at to help
them start thinking about this issue. We will send you a copy. It is the sorts of questions we have been
asking you so should be no surprises.
-
Week of 7 March:
o A meeting on Tuesday with Ministers and the Chairs of the Advisory Groups (Roche, Skegg, Fyfe), key
agency CEs, senior officials and science advisors. Time TBC so no invites have gone out yet.
We will
circulate draft slides for that meeting on Friday for comment by first thing Monday.
o CCB on Tuesday – we are proving them a brief process note and a draft briefing / narrative about where
the advice is heading based on the work so far. You will receive a copy on Friday, and we are happy to
receive any further thoughts that might prompt. (It is not intended to be a final product but the basis of
the Cab paper.)
o Lots of other engagement, including potentially with Ministers and NICF-PRG, Iwi chairs and other
Māori organisations.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
-
SWC – 16 March and Cabinet on 21 March for decisions. This does not mean decisions will take effect from
21 March. The timing of when any decisions will take effect is something we need to work on over the next
fortnight.
We will circulate a draft Cabinet paper for comment late next week (we are planning to lodge on
Monday 14 March).
Please note that PMO have indicated that they would like the Cabinet paper to include advice on vaccination
mandates (Health / MBIE – we will be in touch with you about this. The Strategic Public Health Advisory Group have
also been asked to look at vaccination mandates and CVCs as a priority (followed by masks, capacity limits and
isolation).
7
Also attached, FYI, are the latest list of briefings, and a slide pack of hospitalisations and cases against the updated
TPM modelling so you can see when the expected peaks might be. Pay most attention to hospitalisations – they are
the key metric now. Any questions on those, please direct them to Jeremy G-H (cc’ed).
As always, happy to answer any questions.
Ruth
Ruth Fairhall
Head of Strategy and Policy | COVID-19 Group
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
M s 9(2)(a)
E [email address]
ACT 1982
The information contained in this email message is for the attention of the intended recipi nt only and is not necessarily the official view
or communication of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, copy
or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please destroy the email and notify the
sender immediately.
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
8
Document Outline
