And who watches over the use of that power? Law professor Andrew Geddis on the way authority operates at Covid-19 alert level four.
Most of the time, we think of governing in pretty immediate terms. How effectively has the minister messaged their transport policy? Does the coalition have the numbers in the house to pass its bill? Will this new regulation affect my coffee cart business?
There’s some reason for that. As a species, we appear to have a tendency to prioritise the near and tangible over the long-term and abstract. And our modern communications environment only intensifies that tendency. Today’s news isn’t simply tomorrow’s fish-and-chip wrapper anymore. Rather, the last hour’s tweet is nothing more than so many electrons on a computer chip … because that’s how the internet works.
But the people actually in government, if they are even halfway decent at their job, have to think in a different way. They must consider not just what is happening now, but what could happen down the line. For which they then have to plan, so that we collectively have some idea of what to do if a black swan really does choose to come nest on our roof.
(On that point, remember way back in 2018 when the government’s coffers were filling up and Grant Robertson was facing intense pressure to spend it all (or give it back in tax cuts), but wouldn’t because of the claimed need to save “for a rainy day”? Well, now it’s gotten pretty freakin’ wet out there, it turns out he was right on the money (to coin a phrase … and thank you, I’ll be here all week).
The announcement that we’re going to shift to Covid-19 alert level four saw the fruits of such planning in spades. Plans that stretch back years, even decades, in recognition of the fact that what we experience as “normal” life actually rests on some pretty fragile foundations. When those foundations look like they are about to give way, government proves its real worth. Just as there (allegedly) are no atheists in a foxhole, there’s precious few libertarian micro-statists during a pandemic.
So, rather than heading down the route of societal collapse and the Bartertown method of resolving resultant conflicts, we’re facing a collective lockdown that will get enforced by central authority, combined with the ongoing provision of essential services and monetary support based on the state’s credit. Underpinning that response lies a bunch of different plans, policies and powers.
Ensuring a “whole of government” response
While no-one expected Covid-19 (cue obligatory Monty Python reference), the threat of global spread of some deadly disease is something that government has consciously prepared for since at least 2002 when the “New Zealand Influenza Pandemic Plan” first was created. As the acknowledgments section of that plan notes, its content is directly influenced by our experience of the 1918 influenza epidemic. Although a combination of effective modern medicine and conspiracy thinking – “how do we know vaccines are really safe, man?” – may have lulled some of us into a false sense of security, the government still remembers that the death of tens-of-thousands always is just a species-hopping mutation away.
This plan doesn’t tell government exactly what to do should an epidemic hit these shores. Rather, it tells each bit of government what its role will be and what it needs to do to prepare to fulfil it so that there’s as few gaps as possible in our collective response. It also sets out how decisions will get made and by whom, and how those decisions will be communicated so that everyone works in a common fashion. And it checks that each bit of government has the powers it actually needs to carry out its role.
In other words, the government doesn’t have to start from a blank page when deciding exactly how to respond to a disease like Covid-19. There’s a template that can then be adapted to meet the severity of the threat at hand. Which in the case of Covid-19 is pretty goddamn severe, which leads to …
National state of emergency
When announcing our immediate shift to Covid-19 alert level three, and impending move to level four, Jacinda Ardern told the media that “of course we are in a national civil defence emergency”. While I haven’t been able to find confirmation that the Minister of Civil Defence formally has declared this exists as per the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, I expect that if he hasn’t done so yet, he will do so very soon. After all, if shutting down virtually all of New Zealand for a month to avoid multiple deaths doesn’t constitute a national emergency, then exactly what does?
In a state of emergency, government power to combat Covid-19 expands even beyond the already extensive authority given by the Health Act 1956. In particular, police officers get the independent power to enforce “social distancing” measures, by “direct[ing] any person to stop any activity that may cause or substantially contribute to an emergency.” And the Government is authorised under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002 to provide food and shelter to those affected by the emergency, which may become important if commercial supply chains start to fail.
Army personnel direct traffic at a roadblock in Christchurch following the earthquake, February 26, 2011. {Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Epidemic notice
In preparation for moving to level four tonight, the prime minister has declared that Covid-19 is “likely to disrupt or continue to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand … significantly.” Or, as my kids might say, *furious eyeroll*, “Duh, Dad!!!”.
Such a declaration under the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 then enables ministers to set aside bits of our statute law that are judged an impediment to combating Covid-19. Those powers already have been used to modify the effect of parts of the Social Security Act and Immigration Act.
It’s also why Parliament has been called to meet this afternoon – the Act (as well as the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002) requires that that this happen, in order to let all our elected representatives hear the reason for the declaration and so why their usual power over the nation’s laws is being gazumped.
The prime minister’s declaration, I suspect, will be unanimously supported. After all, parliament united to give the executive government even more extensive law-amending powers following the Christchurch earthquakes. And the current national threat certainly rivals (and probably outstrips) those disasters. I’ll say a bit more about how those powers will get overseen at the end of this piece.
But before then, it’s worth noting some limits on them. They can’t be used in relation to a bunch of specific enactments:
Consequently, ministers can’t unilaterally change the term of parliament to extend the election beyond the end of this year. If that needs to happen – and it surely has to be a real possibility, depending on how the next month goes – then 75% of MPs still are needed to agree. Which also raises the question of whether the existing coalition should have the moral mandate to govern on past the end of the usual parliamentary term. Questions for another day, perhaps, but still questions we may need to ask.
Police powers
It would be nice to think that all that is required to knock out Covid-19 is the goodwill and voluntary compliance of each and every one of us. Resisting the temptation of sneaking a visit to a friend’s house for a coffee and chat. Saying “no” to your dad when he says he’ll just pop in for half an hour and promises he won’t touch anything. Committing to completely breaking the transmission chain, so that Covid-19 has nowhere left in which to breed.
But the impending level four lockdown poses real collective action problems. Sure, if everyone does “the right thing”, then we’ll all be OK. What, though, if someone doesn’t do this? In fact, what if lots of people don’t? Will I and my family then be the ones left out, facing disaster because we followed the rules when others did not? And if that’s the case, shouldn’t I break the rules before others do?
It’s this problem that leads to panic buying at supermarkets (as well, apparently, as at gunshops … which indicates where at least some people think things might go). It’ll also be the problem that could cause some people to fail to follow the self-isolation rules in weeks to come. After all, why put yourself through a month of social and mental hardship if you think a significant number of other people aren’t bothering to do so?
Here the police’s role kicks in, for two reasons. First of all, there are some situations where you really do want a firm hand available. To deal with those pushing into a supermarket line because “I waited 90 minutes yesterday and I don’t want to do it again”. To disperse those sitting in a park with a bottle of wine because “the fresh air will blow any virus away”. And so on.
And second, because the existence of such a visible firm hand can give confidence to everyone that the rules that are in place will get followed, so we ought to do the same. I don’t have to rely solely on the comfort of strangers (or, the goodwill and trustworthiness of people I nod to as I drive on my street).
The powers that the police then have to provide that reassurance largely existed before Covid-19 ever was heard of. Fighting over toilet paper in the Pak ‘n Save aisles was an arrestable offence before the virus came to town. Pushing into line was “disorderly behaviour” even when those lines weren’t caused by fear of running out of baked beans. And so on.
But with the various Health Act, civil defence emergency and epidemic notices in place, the police’s powers have become exponentially greater. And they can call on that other muscled arm of the state, the defence force, to bolster their numbers. Anyone wanting an illustration of Max Weber’s definition of the state – “the only human Gemeinschaft which lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimated use of physical force” – need only look out their car window over the next few weeks (but only while driving to the supermarket or other essential service, of course).
Now, a quick coda to this. I don’t want to be seen to be fetishising the strong arm of justice here. All the force in the country won’t work against Covid-19 unless the vast majority of us voluntarily commit to doing the right thing. And over the next four weeks human kindness and concern will matter every bit as much, no … will matter far more than, coercive enforcement of “the rules”. The police on our streets may give us the confidence to show that human kindness and concern – but each of us individually will have to look within ourselves to find it.
Who is watching all this?
Exceptional times call for exceptional measures. And in order to respond quickly to those times, we are going to be devolving a lot of power onto our executive branch of government. We do so in the trust that this power will be used to help us through a near-unprecedented challenge, because only collectively can we do so relatively unscathed.
But. There is a but. History also is replete with examples of turning to authority for security, only to find that the cost of doing so is much higher than expected. And the people who will wield that power are, after all, people. Subject to the same sort of impulses that cause a person to think that they are going to need 60 rolls of toilet paper in their house; or that Asian people somehow are more susceptible to carrying the virus.
What, then, watches over the use of that power by people? Well, it won’t be parliament in its usual form. That institution is being adjourned until April 28 – by which time we hopefully have starved Covid-19 from our shores. In parliament’s place, however, will sit a special cross-party select committee of MPs, chaired by the leader of the opposition, Simon Bridges. Its brief will be to scrutinise the government’s actions in relation to Covid-19; not as a rubber-stamping cheering section, but as a genuine venue for asking “did this need to happen, and why?”
Apparently that committee will be open for public viewing via the web. I’d like to think it will be a reasonably popular thing to watch on the three days a week it sits. Because big things are about to be done to us in the name of our safety. Let’s make sure they are the right things, for the right reasons.
HALIFAX – Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston says it’s “disgraceful and demeaning” that a Halifax-area school would request that service members not wear military uniforms to its Remembrance Day ceremony.
Houston’s comments were part of a chorus of criticism levelled at the school — Sackville Heights Elementary — whose administration decided to back away from the plan after the outcry.
A November newsletter from the school in Middle Sackville, N.S., invited Armed Forces members to attend its ceremony but asked that all attendees arrive in civilian attire to “maintain a welcoming environment for all.”
Houston, who is currently running for re-election, accused the school’s leaders of “disgracing themselves while demeaning the people who protect our country” in a post on the social media platform X Thursday night.
“If the people behind this decision had a shred of the courage that our veterans have, this cowardly and insulting idea would have been rejected immediately,” Houston’s post read. There were also several calls for resignations within the school’s administration attached to Houston’s post.
In an email to families Thursday night, the school’s principal, Rachael Webster, apologized and welcomed military family members to attend “in the attire that makes them most comfortable.”
“I recognize this request has caused harm and I am deeply sorry,” Webster’s email read, adding later that the school has the “utmost respect for what the uniform represents.”
Webster said the initial request was out of concern for some students who come from countries experiencing conflict and who she said expressed discomfort with images of war, including military uniforms.
Her email said any students who have concerns about seeing Armed Forces members in uniform can be accommodated in a way that makes them feel safe, but she provided no further details in the message.
Webster did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
At a news conference Friday, Houston said he’s glad the initial request was reversed but said he is still concerned.
“I can’t actually fathom how a decision like that was made,” Houston told reporters Friday, adding that he grew up moving between military bases around the country while his father was in the Armed Forces.
“My story of growing up in a military family is not unique in our province. The tradition of service is something so many of us share,” he said.
“Saying ‘lest we forget’ is a solemn promise to the fallen. It’s our commitment to those that continue to serve and our commitment that we will pass on our respects to the next generation.”
Liberal Leader Zach Churchill also said he’s happy with the school’s decision to allow uniformed Armed Forces members to attend the ceremony, but he said he didn’t think it was fair to question the intentions of those behind the original decision.
“We need to have them (uniforms) on display at Remembrance Day,” he said. “Not only are we celebrating (veterans) … we’re also commemorating our dead who gave the greatest sacrifice for our country and for the freedoms we have.”
NDP Leader Claudia Chender said that while Remembrance Day is an important occasion to honour veterans and current service members’ sacrifices, she said she hopes Houston wasn’t taking advantage of the decision to “play politics with this solemn occasion for his own political gain.”
“I hope Tim Houston reached out to the principal of the school before making a public statement,” she said in a statement.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.
REGINA – Saskatchewan Opposition NDP Leader Carla Beck says she wants to prove to residents her party is the government in waiting as she heads into the incoming legislative session.
Beck held her first caucus meeting with 27 members, nearly double than what she had before the Oct. 28 election but short of the 31 required to form a majority in the 61-seat legislature.
She says her priorities will be health care and cost-of-living issues.
Beck says people need affordability help right now and will press Premier Scott Moe’s Saskatchewan Party government to cut the gas tax and the provincial sales tax on children’s clothing and some grocery items.
Beck’s NDP is Saskatchewan’s largest Opposition in nearly two decades after sweeping Regina and winning all but one seat in Saskatoon.
The Saskatchewan Party won 34 seats, retaining its hold on all of the rural ridings and smaller cities.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.
HALIFAX – Nova Scotia‘s growing population was the subject of debate on Day 12 of the provincial election campaign, with Liberal Leader Zach Churchill arguing immigration levels must be reduced until the province can provide enough housing and health-care services.
Churchill said Thursday a plan by the incumbent Progressive Conservatives to double the province’s population to two million people by the year 2060 is unrealistic and unsustainable.
“That’s a big leap and it’s making life harder for people who live here, (including ) young people looking for a place to live and seniors looking to downsize,” he told a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Halifax.
Anticipating that his call for less immigration might provoke protests from the immigrant community, Churchill was careful to note that he is among the third generation of a family that moved to Nova Scotia from Lebanon.
“I know the value of immigration, the importance of it to our province. We have been built on the backs of an immigrant population. But we just need to do it in a responsible way.”
The Liberal leader said Tim Houston’s Tories, who are seeking a second term in office, have made a mistake by exceeding immigration targets set by the province’s Department of Labour and Immigration. Churchill said a Liberal government would abide by the department’s targets.
In the most recent fiscal year, the government welcomed almost 12,000 immigrants through its nominee program, exceeding the department’s limit by more than 4,000, he said. The numbers aren’t huge, but the increase won’t help ease the province’s shortages in housing and doctors, and the increased strain on its infrastructure, including roads, schools and cellphone networks, Churchill said.
“(The Immigration Department) has done the hard work on this,” he said. “They know where the labour gaps are, and they know what growth is sustainable.”
In response, Houston said his commitment to double the population was a “stretch goal.” And he said the province had long struggled with a declining population before that trend was recently reversed.
“The only immigration that can come into this province at this time is if they are a skilled trade worker or a health-care worker,” Houston said. “The population has grown by two per cent a year, actually quite similar growth to what we experienced under the Liberal government before us.”
Still, Houston said he’s heard Nova Scotians’ concerns about population growth, and he then pivoted to criticize Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for trying to send 6,000 asylum seekers to Nova Scotia, an assertion the federal government has denied.
Churchill said Houston’s claim about asylum seekers was shameful.
“It’s smoke and mirrors,” the Liberal leader said. “He is overshooting his own department’s numbers for sustainable population growth and yet he is trying to blame this on asylum seekers … who aren’t even here.”
In September, federal Immigration Minister Marc Miller said there is no plan to send any asylum seekers to the province without compensation or the consent of the premier. He said the 6,000 number was an “aspirational” figure based on models that reflect each province’s population.
In Halifax, NDP Leader Claudia Chender said it’s clear Nova Scotia needs more doctors, nurses and skilled trades people.
“Immigration has been and always will be a part of the Nova Scotia story, but we need to build as we grow,” Chender said. “This is why we have been pushing the Houston government to build more affordable housing.”
Chender was in a Halifax cafe on Thursday when she promised her party would remove the province’s portion of the harmonized sales tax from all grocery, cellphone and internet bills if elected to govern on Nov. 26. The tax would also be removed from the sale and installation of heat pumps.
“Our focus is on helping people to afford their lives,” Chender told reporters. “We know there are certain things that you can’t live without: food, internet and a phone …. So we know this will have the single biggest impact.”
The party estimates the measure would save the average Nova Scotia family about $1,300 a year.
“That’s a lot more than a one or two per cent HST cut,” Chender said, referring to the Progressive Conservative pledge to reduce the tax by one percentage point and the Liberal promise to trim it by two percentage points.
Elsewhere on the campaign trail, Houston announced that a Progressive Conservative government would make parking free at all Nova Scotia hospitals and health-care centres. The promise was also made by the Liberals in their election platform released Monday.
“Free parking may not seem like a big deal to some, but … the parking, especially for people working at the facilities, can add up to hundreds of dollars,” the premier told a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Halifax.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.
