[ad_1]
OPINION: Closing the New Zealand border was one of the most important decisions any leader in our country has made.
And likewise, another set of weighty decisions will soon be required: opening our border into a Covid-19 world, first in the form of a travel bubble.
It is amazing that there are no more conversations and details from our political leaders about their plans for the travel bubbles. Politicians are very good at indulging in traveling before elections, but where is the concrete plan? “When it’s safe” is not a plan, we need details.
It was announced last week that the Australian state of New South Wales and the Northern Territory would open one-way trips without quarantine to those traveling from New Zealand on October 16. However, the Kiwis would still have to pay for a two-week stay in isolation upon return.
123RF
New South Wales will open one way to New Zealand.
READ MORE:
* Covid-19: Fiji remains interested in the ‘bull bubble’ with New Zealand and Australia
* Covid-19: Judith Collins asks if Kiwis are ready for the trans-Tasmanian bubble
* Covid-19: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern Says Travel Through Tasmania May Be Possible Before Christmas
Understandably, there is little movement from New Zealand. New South Wales, in particular, has had a steady stream of mystery community cases in recent months, and while that has now declined, 28 days have not yet passed without community transmission.
Does that leave us all clearer on when, and under what circumstances, we might see a trans-Tasmanian travel bubble?
Here are five big problems that need to be solved first.
Why is New Zealand’s travel bubble strategy not a key electoral issue?
We know the two big parties want to start a travel bubble when it’s safe. But what does this really mean?
Where is the concrete 10-step plan that describes the conditions that must be met for a bubble to move forward?
Here are some of the questions that need to be addressed and discussed:
Will an Australian state simply need to go 28 days without transmission for it to be considered a bubble? What if a case arises in your community?
Will we subscribe to a common definition of a Covid-19 ‘hot spot’ as Australia is pushing? If not, at what point does the trip close if cases arise?
Will a test run be done first, with tests, to help build public confidence?
Could rapid tests be used in conjunction with the first 10,000 arrivals as an additional security measure?
Will our government have tolerance for the strange case that arises across the border and then aggressively contact and track it? Or if only one case appeared, would all trips be canceled?
If the plan shows that a travel bubble is next to impossible, so be it. But let’s discuss the plan, not some vague opening prospect for Christmas.
Australia will go ahead anyway.
The horse runs across Tasman. New South Wales has already opened its border to most states, South Australia is open to some, and Queensland is also moving towards interstate travel. It is a complex web of travel rules that changes forever.
The Australian government defines a hotspot, where travel is prohibited, as a location with a three-day moving average of three locally acquired cases per day. Not all states have agreed to work with this definition.
Will we accept it? If not, what would we like to see? If we don’t fix this, so that New Zealand and Australia can work in unison, the Tasmanian bubble could be dead upon arrival.
What will happen if community cases arise once travel is resumed?
One of the key questions surrounding a travel bubble with Australia is what happens if a community case arises? For example, if we have flights to Adelaide and only one mystery case appears, will the flights to and from New Zealand be canceled? If not, would we adopt Australia’s hotspot definition and stop travel if there were more than three cases for three days in a row? The New Zealand public may find that difficult to bear, but that is why a debate is needed now, before the elections, to try to resolve a risk that we are happy with.
Travelers, airlines, insurers and the tourism industry need this certainty. We could see cases arising once a bubble is underway, and no one knows exactly at what point travel would continue, or if tens of thousands of people would see travel plans disrupted by widespread cancellations.
rafaelbenari / 123RF
Economically, there is little profit from opening a travel bubble with the Cook Islands, but it is a safer option.
And Rarotonga?
A question that also needs public debate is which travel bubble should emerge first between the Cook Islands and Australia? Economically, there is little profit from opening a travel bubble with the Cook Islands, but it is a safer option.
One thing is clear: we must first test a travel bubble with one country, with the problems discovered and resolved, before considering the implementation of the second.
So should we focus on the Cook Islands? Or focus on a state like Western Australia that has gone more than 170 days without any recorded community transmission?
Travel insurance
Nobody likes to talk about insurance, but it will be a huge factor in a post-Covid-19 world. Insurers don’t like to cover known risks, and that could complicate travel.
For example, if a travel bubble were established and all flights were canceled due to an outbreak, will the insurance cover the cancellation costs? Historically, most insurers would say no, as you knew the risk when you booked.
Airlines like Emirates are avoiding this by offering their own Covid-19 insurance, but travelers will need to see trans-Tasman solutions in this area to help build consumer confidence.
What you think? What must happen before a travel bubble is established? And is there enough public debate about how the border will be opened? Let us know in the comments below.
