New Zealand’s economic response to the Covid pandemic is under scrutiny. 

The second phase of the Covid Inquiry found New Zealand’s overall pandemic response effective, but some restrictions went too far, and the Government moved too slowly in some areas. 

It highlights our Covid increase on health spending was one of the OECD's largest. 

ANZ Chief Economist Sharon Zollner told Kerre Woodham that debt is likely going to be permanently higher, and we have a lot of medium-term fiscal challenges as a result.  

She says in broad terms, we’ve used up two crises worth of buffer for a single crisis.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

New Zealand’s economic response to the Covid pandemic is under scrutiny.&nbsp;
The second phase of the Covid Inquiry found New Zealand’s overall pandemic response effective, but some restrictions went too far, and the Government moved too slowly in some areas.&nbsp;
It highlights our Covid increase on health spending was one of the OECD's largest.&nbsp;
ANZ Chief Economist Sharon Zollner told Kerre Woodham that debt is likely going to be permanently higher, and we have a lot of medium-term fiscal challenges as a result. &nbsp;
She says in broad terms, we’ve used up two crises worth of buffer for a single crisis. &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Sharon Zollner: ANZ Chief Economist on New Zealand's economic response to the Covid pandemic

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/4872a942-bf06-4d94-a8d2-b40a000b481d/transcript

Comparisons are being drawn between New Zealand’s approach to Covid, and Sweden’s.  

The findings of the second phase of the Covid Inquiry were released yesterday, and the response was found to be broadly effective, but slow to adapt and poorly communicated. 

It also found some mandates to be overly restrictive, and the Auckland lockdown went on too long.  

In Sweden, they had a less restrictive approach, focused on keeping life moving as normal as much as possible. 

Cato Institute Senior Fellow Johan Norberg told Kerre Woodham that the population voluntarily engaged in social distancing and reducing travel, and so they only felt the need to briefly enforce limitations when a new wave hit in 2020.  

He says the focus was on normalcy, as they didn’t know what would happen next, but they knew it would be a bad idea to hurt themselves further by shutting down schools and the economy.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

Comparisons are being drawn between New Zealand’s approach to Covid, and Sweden’s. &nbsp;
The findings of the second phase of the Covid Inquiry were released yesterday, and the response was found to be broadly effective, but slow to adapt and poorly communicated.&nbsp;
It also found some mandates to be overly restrictive, and the Auckland lockdown went on too long. &nbsp;
In Sweden, they had a less restrictive approach, focused on keeping life moving as normal as much as possible.&nbsp;
Cato Institute Senior Fellow Johan Norberg told Kerre Woodham that the population voluntarily engaged in social distancing and reducing travel, and so they only felt the need to briefly enforce limitations when a new wave hit in 2020. &nbsp;
He says the focus was on normalcy, as they didn’t know what would happen next, but they knew it would be a bad idea to hurt themselves further by shutting down schools and the economy. &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Johan Norberg: Cato Institute Senior Fellow on Sweden's Covid response compared to New Zealand's

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/aef3cc1e-36e1-4465-abc6-b40a0003b958/transcript

We all seem to be suffering from Long Covid. It's lingering as the findings of the second phase of the Covid-19 response inquiry were released yesterday. And what its findings were pretty much depends on what media you read. According to RNZ, it found the Government's response was effective but late and not communicated well enough to people. From Newsroom: ‘Lockdown, vaccine decisions considered and appropriate, Royal Commission’. So looking at that headline, you'd think nothing to see here, no criticisms, excellent, well done. ‘Covid-19 inquiry commission criticises length of Auckland lockdown and government spending’ – that's from the New Zealand Herald. Maybe read it yourself and see what you think. It's on publicly available on websites. There are video explainers, there are findings there. See for yourself. 

If you were anti-the infantilisation of the country, as I was, you will read it and wonder why the commission was so temperate in its findings. If you believed the Government was your saviour and without their instructions you would have died, you will read the excuses and the findings and nod along and say, “Yes, didn't we do well?" The second phase of the inquiry tested whether the Government took a balanced approach and found overall it largely did, but said the public was not brought on board —maybe they didn't want to be on board, maybe they could start to see through the nonsense— and the public must be brought on board in the next pandemic.  

One of the 24 recommendations made yesterday said that there should be more open decision making in future around the impacts on people's isolation, health, and incomes. And that's really, really important because surely, we must be allowed to question decisions, we must be able to debate them and argue against them without being considered treasonous or a conspiracy theorist or a granny killer. Look what happened when then leader of the National Party Simon Bridges grilled Ashley Bloomfield over the Ministry of Health's decision-making transparency and data at the Covid Response Select Committee hearing. In effect, just by daring to question the Director General of Health, just by asking him some tough questions, he lost his job. Cost him the job as leader of the National Party.  

We have to be able to question and debate, even if the decisions are ultimately the Government's based on the best possible advice. The report confirmed, as reported at the time, that the Auckland lockdown in late 2021 went on six days longer than recommended by Ashley Bloomfield. I think Aucklanders would argue it went on six weeks longer than it should have, but hey ho, there we go. That's what they found. It also found that advice from health experts that under 18s in work shouldn't be mandated to have two vaccine doses because of the risk of cardiac myocarditis wasn't followed. Another finding was that the Auckland Northland border stayed in place over the 2021/22 Christmas period when it was advised it could be reopened.  

There was also criticism of the then Labour Government's economic approach, saying policies around stimulus and inflation became unaligned from mid ‘21. For unaligned, I'd have put unhinged, but again, hey ho, it's their report. And that was despite the best advice from Treasury that spending must be temperate, timely, and targeted. The people of New Zealand are now vulnerable for at least the next 40 years to another shock, another pandemic, an earthquake. We're built on the shaky isles, you know, there's bound to be another, and we are now really vulnerable because too much money was not just spent but wasted by the previous Labour Government.  

And it's not just Treasury or the Inquiry that have pointed the finger at Labour for their financial sloppiness. Auditor General John Ryan, as he was then, heavily criticised the $15 billion infrastructure spend up during the pandemic. He said he decided to look at the funding because of the scale of the investment and the potential intergenerational impacts. His criticism and list of failings by officials and ministers are many. This is from a man who could ask the hard questions and get the answers that he needed to get, unlike journos who had to go through the OIA to get any kind of answers to any pertinent questions. They were far too busy saving lives to give answers to genuine questions around lockdowns, around vaccinations, around mandates and the like. But even with the hard data in front of them, Chris Hipkins and the like just recycle the “it's hard to be sorry when you've saved lives" trope.  

The inquiry finishes: “These lessons do not detract from the overall success of the pandemic response. Indeed, our findings, lessons, and recommendations are offered in the hope that they will assist decision makers to be as successful in fighting a pandemic in the future." Well, with what you know now, do you believe that the response was a success? Do you believe that when all is said and done and you look at other countries and they've done their reports, it was a success? I'll be talking to an economic policy analyst from Sweden, I spoke to him before the show and we'll be playing that next hour. They've conducted a rigorous review of their response and, you know, given the choice next time, I think that's the one we should be following. And certainly, Europe would be looking long and hard at it. Despite Sweden coming under so much criticism and heavy fire for having a light touch and open policy, they had the lowest death rate amongst all the European countries. So, there are alternatives, there are options. This is not the way, the truth, and the light. And I don't think it's treasonous or misogynist or conspiracy theoretical to say there is another way of doing things and, do you know what, it might actually be better.

We all seem to be suffering from Long Covid. It's lingering as the findings of the second phase of the Covid-19 response inquiry were released yesterday. And what its findings were pretty much depends on what media you read. According to RNZ, it found the Government's response was effective but late and not communicated well enough to people. From Newsroom: ‘Lockdown, vaccine decisions considered and appropriate, Royal Commission’. So looking at that headline, you'd think nothing to see here, no criticisms, excellent, well done. ‘Covid-19 inquiry commission criticises length of Auckland lockdown and government spending’ – that's from the New Zealand Herald. Maybe read it yourself and see what you think. It's on publicly available on websites. There are video explainers, there are findings there. See for yourself.&nbsp;
If you were anti-the infantilisation of the country, as I was, you will read it and wonder why the commission was so temperate in its findings. If you believed the Government was your saviour and without their instructions you would have died, you will read the excuses and the findings and nod along and say, “Yes, didn't we do well?" The second phase of the inquiry tested whether the Government took a balanced approach and found overall it largely did, but said the public was not brought on board —maybe they didn't want to be on board, maybe they could start to see through the nonsense— and the public must be brought on board in the next pandemic. &nbsp;
One of the 24 recommendations made yesterday said that there should be more open decision making in future around the impacts on people's isolation, health, and incomes. And that's really, really important because surely, we must be allowed to question decisions, we must be able to debate them and argue against them without being considered treasonous or a conspiracy theorist or a granny killer. Look what happened when then leader of the National Party Simon Bridges grilled Ashley Bloomfield over the Ministry of Health's decision-making transparency and data at the Covid Response Select Committee hearing. In effect, just by daring to question the Director General of Health, just by asking him some tough questions, he lost his job. Cost him the job as leader of the National Party. &nbsp;
We have to be able to question and debate, even if the decisions are ultimately the Government's based on the best possible advice. The report confirmed, as reported at the time, that the Auckland lockdown in late 2021 went on six days longer than recommended by Ashley Bloomfield. I think Aucklanders would argue it went on six weeks longer than it should have, but hey ho, there we go. That's what they found. It also found that advice from health experts that under 18s in work shouldn't be mandated to have two vaccine doses because of the risk of cardiac myocarditis wasn't followed. Another finding was that the Auckland Northland border stayed in place over the 2021/22 Christmas period when it was advised it could be reopened. &nbsp;
There was also criticism of the then Labour Government's economic approach, saying policies around stimulus and inflation became unaligned from mid ‘21. For unaligned, I'd have put unhinged, but again, hey ho, it's their report. And that was despite the best advice from Treasury that spending must be temperate, timely, and targeted. The people of New Zealand are now vulnerable for at least the next 40 years to another shock, another pandemic, an earthquake. We're built on the shaky isles, you know, there's bound to be another, and we are now really vulnerable because too much money was not just spent but wasted by the previous Labour Government. &nbsp;
And it's not just Treasury or the Inquiry that have pointed the finger at Labour for their financial sloppiness. Auditor General John Ryan, as he was then, heavily criticised the $15 billion infrastructure spend up during the pandemic. He said he decided to look at the funding because of the scale of the investment and the potential intergenerational impacts. His criticism and list of failings by officials and ministers are many. This is from a man who could ask the hard questions and get the answers that he needed to get, unlike journos who had to go through the OIA to get any kind of answers to any pertinent questions. They were far too busy saving lives to give answers to genuine questions around lockdowns, around vaccinations, around mandates and the like. But even with the hard data in front of them, Chris Hipkins and the like just recycle the “it's hard to be sorry when you've saved lives" trope. &nbsp;
The inquiry finishes: “These lessons do not detract from the overall success of the pandemic response. Indeed, our findings, lessons, and recommendations are offered in the hope that they will assist decision makers to be as successful in fighting a pandemic in the future." Well, with what you know now, do you believe that the response was a success? Do you believe that when all is said and done and you look at other countries and they've done their reports, it was a success? I'll be talking to an economic policy analyst from Sweden, I spoke to him before the show and we'll be playing that next hour. They've conducted a rigorous review of their response and, you know, given the choice next time, I think that's the one we should be following. And certainly, Europe would be looking long and hard at it. Despite Sweden coming under so much criticism and heavy fire for having a light touch and open policy, they had the lowest death rate amongst all the European countries. So, there are alternatives, there are options. This is not the way, the truth, and the light. And I don't think it's treasonous or misogynist or conspiracy theoretical to say there is another way of doing things and, do you know what, it might actually be better.

Kerre Woodham: Do you feel our Covid response was successful?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/f239dc9b-72b9-4361-9bca-b409017ebddd/transcript

The Government is doing its bit to protect children from themselves by banning the use of smartphones during the school day and by moving to bring in legislation restricting social media use for children under 16. The schools are doing their bit, although it's more mopping up than prevention, by bringing in counsellors to help children, some as young as eight, who've been exposed to extreme online content. 

The question is what are parents doing to protect their own children? Teachers talk about hearing students discussing their gaming exploits late into the night and doom scrolling TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram, repeating objectionable things they've heard online that they don't really understand. 

I'm not in the position of having to deal with young ones and smartphones, not in terms of setting the rules. The young ones in my house, the just-turned-nine year old and seven year old, love using my phone to look at videos or to add music to their playlists on Spotify, so I've put controls on the phone, but then we couldn't get some of Eminem's stuff, so we had to go for the radio edit version of Eminem. And that's fine, we work around that, but I have put controls on the phone just in case. It's not them looking for it, it's the accidental discovery of things that you cannot unsee. But I don't have to set the rules around how many hours they can have and when they can view it – that's for their parents to do. 

But surely, and that's the way it works in our house, you set limits on what the kids can access, how much time they have to access it, when they can access it, and if they break those rules, their rights are rescinded. That hasn't happened yet, but they're not old enough I suppose to go looking for trouble. But surely that's the way it works. It always has worked. You set the rules and if the children break the rules, then there are consequences for that. Or has parenting suddenly been turned on its head since the year 2020? 

Why on earth should schools have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on counsellors to mitigate the harm children have exposed themselves to outside of school hours when they're supposed to be under parental supervision? One parent talked about getting up to go to the loo in the middle of the night and seeing the light behind the closed bedroom door – their daughter was on the phone at 1am. That's not the school's problem if she has access to material she finds harmful or if she's been exposed to material that's disturbed her. 

When you're looking at the amount of money that schools say they're having to spend because the kids are so upset and beside themselves, surely that money could be better spent on activities or resources for the school that all children could enjoy, rather than have it spent on a small number of traumatised late night scrollers.  

I'd really love to know what the rules are, what rules you've set. According to the Greens, it's pointless putting any kind of restrictions on children and social media use. Pointless having legislation around it because the kids will just get around any restrictions placed on them by the government. But as a parent, can you say that you have put protections in place that work, that you have got rules in place for your house that work, or has the whole concept of parenting as I understood it completely and utterly changed, that there are no rules and there are no consequences? 

The Government is doing its bit to protect children from themselves by banning the use of smartphones during the school day and by moving to bring in legislation restricting social media use for children under 16. The schools are doing their bit, although it's more mopping up than prevention, by bringing in counsellors to help children, some as young as eight, who've been exposed to extreme online content.&nbsp;
The question is what are parents doing to protect their own children? Teachers talk about hearing students discussing their gaming exploits late into the night and doom scrolling TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram, repeating objectionable things they've heard online that they don't really understand.&nbsp;
I'm not in the position of having to deal with young ones and smartphones, not in terms of setting the rules. The young ones in my house, the just-turned-nine year old and seven year old, love using my phone to look at videos or to add music to their playlists on Spotify, so I've put controls on the phone, but then we couldn't get some of Eminem's stuff, so we had to go for the radio edit version of Eminem. And that's fine, we work around that, but I have put controls on the phone just in case. It's not them looking for it, it's the accidental discovery of things that you cannot unsee. But I don't have to set the rules around how many hours they can have and when they can view it – that's for their parents to do.&nbsp;
But surely, and that's the way it works in our house, you set limits on what the kids can access, how much time they have to access it, when they can access it, and if they break those rules, their rights are rescinded. That hasn't happened yet, but they're not old enough I suppose to go looking for trouble. But surely that's the way it works. It always has worked. You set the rules and if the children break the rules, then there are consequences for that. Or has parenting suddenly been turned on its head since the year 2020?&nbsp;
Why on earth should schools have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on counsellors to mitigate the harm children have exposed themselves to outside of school hours when they're supposed to be under parental supervision? One parent talked about getting up to go to the loo in the middle of the night and seeing the light behind the closed bedroom door – their daughter was on the phone at 1am. That's not the school's problem if she has access to material she finds harmful or if she's been exposed to material that's disturbed her.&nbsp;
When you're looking at the amount of money that schools say they're having to spend because the kids are so upset and beside themselves, surely that money could be better spent on activities or resources for the school that all children could enjoy, rather than have it spent on a small number of traumatised late night scrollers. &nbsp;
I'd really love to know what the rules are, what rules you've set. According to the Greens, it's pointless putting any kind of restrictions on children and social media use. Pointless having legislation around it because the kids will just get around any restrictions placed on them by the government. But as a parent, can you say that you have put protections in place that work, that you have got rules in place for your house that work, or has the whole concept of parenting as I understood it completely and utterly changed, that there are no rules and there are no consequences?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Are parents restricting their kids' online access?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b35d7df6-c859-43ad-b4d3-b40900008171/transcript

Sharon Zollner: ANZ Chief Economist on New Zealand's economic response to the Covid pandemic

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips