Future vaccine mandates won't work, Covid inquiry told
Business leaders from Auckland and Northland have spoken about profound impacts on small to medium businesses coping with public health restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The comments were made at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the government's response to Covid-19, with one leader saying they didn't think vaccine mandates would work in the future.
The legal challenges for businesses to implement the mandates, and the enduring financial repercussions that are still felt today, were among some of the issues raised.
These are the first public hearings of the inquiry's second phase, which was called for by the coalition government last year.
The hearings concentrate on the impact of the extended lockdown in Auckland and Northland in 2021, vaccine mandates and safety, and the effects of public health measures on social division, isolation, health, education and business activity.
Auckland was in lockdown for 17 weeks, and Northland and parts of Waikato for 12, after community transmission of the Delta strain in August 2021.
Auckland's Heart of the City's chief executive Viv Beck said the pandemic was the "perfect storm" for CBD businesses, with the loss of tourists, international students, large events, and leaving many working from home.
This left businesses dealing with the "eye of the storm" - particularly for the 1300 consumer facing businesses facing a 95% drop in sales during the level four lockdowns, she said.
Beck cited data from banks which also showed a 38% drop in spending at CBD businesses during alert level two, and a 19% drop under alert level 1 restrictions. She said many were still trading below pre-Covid levels as of today.
Wage subsidies at the time had helped, but didn't cover businesses' operating costs and rent, she said.
The Employers and Manufacturers Association's (EMA) employment relations and safety manager, Paul Jarvie, told the inquiry that vaccine mandates had created legal challenges for businesses.
"You've got conditions of employment, running in parallel to that you got the Bill of Rights, so people to have the right to say yes or no to treatment, and treatment includes injections. Those businesses that were mandated to have vaccines, that immediately creates employment law issues, if someone doesn't get mandated [sic] what do you do with them?" he said.
When asked by the chairperson of the inquiry, Grant Illingworth, KC, whether employment legislation during the pandemic was adequate, Jarvie said it was "fit for purpose" at the time, but added that it would be helpful if there was a caveat under the employment law which allowed for certain public health measures under exceptional circumstances.
Jarvie and Beck told the commissioners that if there was another similar event, they hoped businesses could be involved from the very beginning.
Beck said while she had liaised with central government agencies from February 2020, she pointed out that being given information was different from being able to participate in decision-making.
"We got to a point where we were actually getting asked about a decision about to be made, often at the last minute, but that's the point - if it happens from the start, businesses have to be a trusted voice in decision-making."
A manager from the National Field Days Society also in her evidence spoke of feeling the events industry was not being listened to by decision-makers during the pandemic.
Head of customer and strategic engagement Taryn Storey said they had spoken to government agencies multiple times about how they could host field days safely, but felt ignored.
She said they were willing to integrate vaccine passports into its ticketing system, and thought their venue was well equipped to support the pandemic response.
However, Storey said multiple visits by decision-makers to their venue - including by district health officials - had led nowhere.
While they felt they had weathered the pandemic, the impacts were "exceptionally profound" and they're still financially trying to claw their way back, she said. Vaccine mandates 'not an option' in the future
Representatives from Northland's Chamber of Commerce said in their evidence today that a community-based approach would have worked better hard-handed vaccine mandates in persuading people to get vaccinated.
President Tim Robinson said rather than the "authoritarian" mandate path, he felt it would have been more effective to engage with Whānau Ora providers to talk to Northland communities and businesses about the vaccine.
"Anybody that I dealt with or worked with during that whole period, said look, I got a much better chance of convincing somebody that the vaccination's a good idea, if there's no threat attached to it," he said.
Robinson said the mandates made businesses feel that they were not trusted.
When asked by commissioner Anthony Hill whether vaccine mandates would ever be a valid tool in future events from a business perspective, Robinson said no.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Ray Chung's 'vile' email condemned across the political spectrum
By Lillian Hanly of RNZ Both the prime minister and the opposition leader have given scathing rebukes of Wellington councillor Ray Chung's email about Mayor Tory Whanau, saying it is "absolutely disgusting" and calling it "vile and unacceptable." Whanau has rejected the contents of the email, saying it is false and contains "malicious and sexist" rumour. The email - seen by RNZ - was sent to three fellow councillors, recounting a story Chung had been told by his neighbour about the neighbour's son allegedly having a sexual encounter with the mayor. The mayor received an apology from Chung earlier today over the email claims, which he sent to other councillors in 2023, but surfaced last week. Asked about the email in today's post-cabinet media conference, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said first and foremost it was "unacceptable" and "really pretty vile" stuff. Luxon said he did not know Chung, and did not remember meeting him. "I wouldn't be able to tell you who he is or point out who he is." With the upcoming local body elections, Luxon said "you get what you deserve" if you don't show up and vote, and "get good candidates in races". Asked whether Chung should stand down, Luxon replied: "I think the email was entirely inappropriate and utterly unacceptable. "But ultimately, it's up to the fine people of Wellington, who I'm sure will work through who they would like to represent them in that role." Chris Hipkins also criticised the councillor, saying the email was "absolutely disgusting" and there was no place for that content in "good, civilised, democratic debate". "Critiquing an opponent is one thing - those kind of personal, abusive, denigratory messages are just totally unacceptable." Asked whether Chung should stand down, Hipkins said it was a matter for Chung. "But I just think that kind of language should be called out in the strongest possible terms. "It denigrates an opponent. It's undoubtedly sexist, if not misogynist, and I just think there's no place for that in a fair election competition." Strained council relationships could undermine the 'good work' - observer Meanwhile, Lindsay McKenzie, the Crown Observer assigned to Wellington City Council, said he had made his concerns about the events known to Local Government Minister Simeon Brown as well as Mayor Whanau, councillors and council chief executive Matt Prosser. He said it was likely that the community perceptions of elected members "will be further harmed by what has gone on and will adversely affect the organisation". McKenzie said the strained relationships could undermine the "good work" the council had achieved over the eight months since he was brought in. He said the council still had significant decisions to be made ahead of implementing the amendment to the Long Term Plan and submitting the quality water services delivery plan. "Despite their focus on the election ahead, candidates who are councillors have been reminded that they are still elected members, are still being remunerated and should be focused on the duties and obligations that go with that status. "I have sought reassurances that elected members will stay focused on the interests of the community they are there to serve," McKenzie said. McKenzie said his role with the council would finish at the end of this month and he had no part in the "the formal pre-election period or in relation to electioneering". "I do have a stake in seeing that the gains of the past seven months or so are not lost and Council successfully navigates its way to the end of this term of office," McKenzie said. Prosser confirmed "a number of complaints" had been made against Chung following the revelations. "A number of complaints against the elected member have been received, including some complaints under Wellington City Council's Code of Conduct. Those complaints are currently being reviewed," Prosser said.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT's Campaign Calculus To ‘Keep The Government' And Keep Its Edge
Article – RNZ The party's challenge this term has been – and remains – how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. , Deputy Political Editor Analysis: For the ACT Party, the challenge this term has been – and remains – how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. That tension has ebbed and flowed – most clearly on display during the Treaty Principles debate and now reemerging around the Regulatory Standards Bill. But ACT's annual rally on Sunday gave a clear indication of how the party intends to navigate the tightrope for the remaining 15 or so months. For one, David Seymour centred his keynote speech on the cost-of-living, a recognition that that remains the biggest risk to the coalition's reelection. Of course, he did it in distinct ACT-style, making a comparison with his Cabinet colleagues' recent criticisms of the big banks, supermarkets or power companies. 'It would be the easiest thing in the world… to write and give a speech saying they're crooked and they need to be punished somehow,' Seymour told supporters. 'But that would be the curse of zero sum thinking.' Though Seymour denied it later, it was hard not to see the comment as a veiled criticism of National and NZ First ministers, given their recent attention on such industries. They might scapegoat those industries, Seymour implied, but ACT won't. Seymour's speech gave a nod to the voters ACT would be targeting next year – landlords, farmers, firearms users, small business owners – all hotly contested constituencies within the coalition. And he was not shy about reminding the 450-strong audience of other differences too. 'Our partners… abandoned us in defining the Treaty Principles,' he told supporters. But beyond the differences came a curious confirmation: that ACT would be campaigning next year to 'keep this government'. The seemingly benign commitment is an open admission that a centre-right election victory will almost certainly require a repeat of the three-way coalition. Asked later by RNZ about the declaration, Seymour made it more explicit: 'We need to keep these parties in power.' These parties. NZ First included. That's perhaps not that surprising given current polling, but it is quite a difference from ACT's approach in 2023 – which saw Seymour viciously attack NZ First and its leader Winston Peters. It's also different from Peters' message several weeks ago as he handed over the deputy prime ministership to Seymour. Then, Peters said he intended to 'remove any doubt' next election. Of course, behind the scenes, ACT and NZ First would much prefer to eliminate the other and become the sole coalition partner. National, for its part, would like to get back over 40 percent to regain choice. But none can afford to bring the whole caboodle down in the process. And there, again, is the tightrope. One foot in Cabinet, the other in campaign mode ACT is currently polling roughly 9 percent – a fraction above its 2023 election result and consistent with its average across last year. Historically, a stint in government has proved electoral quicksand for support parties, but ACT and NZ First seem to be defying the trend. In large part, that's due to the political landscape with the major parties languishing in the low 30s, leaving more room for the minor parties. But ACT has also made a deliberate effort not to vanish into Cabinet. The party has kept one foot in government and the other in campaign mode – trumpeting its policy wins, while also criticising its coalition partners when convenient. It has certainly not shied away from provocation, as evidenced even by its choice of guest speaker on Sunday: anti-woke crusader Dr James Lindsay. Look to the 'gutsy' pay equity cuts, the Treaty Principles Bill, and now the Regulatory Standards Bill. On each occasion, the backlash was immense, but so too was the airtime. And each time Seymour declared unapologetically: we're not here to be liked, we're here to be right. He said as much again in his Sunday speech: 'People will pile on and say I'm defending big business, or whatever, but political risks are part of leadership.' The strategy carries risks indeed. Former National leader Simon Bridges, in his 2021 memoir, reflected on the personal toll of such tactics: yes, the party vote stayed up, but not so his personal ratings. David Seymour is experiencing something similar. His own favourability ratings are routinely poor. In the most recent Post/Freshwater Strategy poll, just 25 percent had a favourable view of ACT, while 47 percent were unfavourable – the second worst result of any party, after only Te Pāti Māori. But for a minor party, that trade-off seems worth it, with visibility counting for more than likability. The cost of instability ACT's strategy has also, at times, fed the perception of coalition instability, or of National being dragged around by its smaller partners. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly dismissed that, instead framing the dynamic as simply the 'maturation of MMP'. But voters are still adjusting to that reality. The latest example of friction would appear to be Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, bubbling away in the background. NZ First has made clear it wants changes to the legislation, but Seymour says he's yet to even hear what they are. Furthermore, he firmly believes he's under no obligation to make changes and that the coalition agreement already requires National and NZ First's support. The apparent impasse remains unresolved. For all that, though, the governing parties are aware the public does not look kindly on instability. Seymour learned that the hard way in the weeks before the 2023 election when he floated the idea of ACT signing a 'confidence-only' deal if National refused to cooperate during negotiations. Almost immediately, the party's support dropped several points in the polls. That lesson still looms over the coalition today, especially given the narrow margins and economic headwinds. All three coalition parties would do well to remember the common enemy. They may be competing for votes inside the tent, but the real fight lies outside it: with the opposition.
Otago Daily Times
10 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Murder victim's eerie message played in court
By Kate Green of RNZ "Not that I'm thinking of dying tomorrow or anything," said 79-year-old Helen Gregory, who would be killed in her home in the Wellington suburb of Khandallah the following day. The audio comes from a phone call to her bank, made on the evening of 23 January 2024. It was played to the High Court on Monday, where her daughter Julia DeLuney is charged with her murder. The trial is now in its fourth week. The court previously heard that DeLuney invested a large sum of money on her mother's behalf into crypto currency, which she had been trading in for years. In an email sent on 22 January - two days before her mother's death - DeLuney told her mother her money had made a profit of more than $268,000 - "not a bad investment for six months", she wrote. She recommended they withdraw the profit, and leave the initial investment of $100,000 there to keep growing. DeLuney then told her mother she needed to pay $30,000 in exchange fees and tax liability to be able to withdraw the money. She said she could cover half, but needed her mother to pay the rest. The following morning, Gregory wrote back that she agreed it was a good idea to cash up. DeLuney urged her not tell anyone about the profit. "Please please please don't show this to your friends, once people know that you've made some money they will change," she said. And in a later email: "Don't tell the bank about your crypto profits, they won't lend you a thing if you tell them that." On 23 January - the day before her death - Gregory went to the bank and deposited $6000 cash into her daughter's account, according to written evidence from the bank assistant who served her. Later that day, she phoned up to take money out of her Kiwisaver. "We're pre-paying a funeral thing," she explained. "Not that I'm thinking of dying tomorrow or anything." This part of the recording was met by a collective intake of breath from the public gallery. But the Crown says DeLuney misrepresented her mother's money having made a profit. Attached to her initial email, DeLuney sent her mother a screenshot of her account's profit and loss for the past three months. But the screenshot was of someone else's earnings, the Crown says. Crown witness Detective Constable Tobias Weavers, who investigated DeLuney's crypto accounts, told the court on Monday the screenshot matched a graph of a different user's account, publicly available on the leaderboard of crypto-trading platform WOO X. The Crown's case is that DeLuney attacked her mother and staged it to look like a fall, but the defence says, in the 90-minute window when she went to get help after the fall, someone else caused fatal injuries to her elderly mother. DeLuney cried quietly in the dock while her mother's voice played to the court. The trial continues, with only a handful of Crown witnesses to go.
