 It is seven past seven I think for most the level three extension came as somewhat of a shock yesterday and as for the rest of the country being stuck with two because of Auckland can't have made it a good Monday the Prime Minister is with us a very good morning to you. Good morning. Is it fair to suggest we shouldn't actually be here and this is all on you? No I think it's all on COVID Mike and when I continue to look around the world you know and we should because obviously every other country is having similar experiences either battling COVID trying to keep it out or dealing with research and so we are not alone in that and so no I'm not sure it is fair to make that statement. The border leaked and you're in charge of the border? Well we are still working extraordinarily hard to determine what it is that occurred with this particular cluster. Comprehensive testing across all border staff both at front line and of course we've reached into wider testing even at the peripheries of our ports still yet to determine what exactly happened here. We will keep hunting though because I do want to learn what happened in this situation however having said that we'd always prepared for it as well because there are very few countries in fact I can't name one that had a outbreak like ours managed to get down to community transmission and then hasn't seen some form of resurgence. So you don't think the border leaked? Well I haven't been able to determine we yet Mike and I've wanted to know that because of course that's how we can make those constant improvements and we have all the way through this period constantly sought to improve and change our response based on the evidence because the world has been living. You proved your performance because you got caught with your pants down because you weren't testing the way you said you were. Sorry which what are you referring to specifics? You weren't testing at the border the border workers weren't being tested despite the fact you said they were. Not as comprehensively as we wanted to know so I've already run through this with you a couple of times. As you know we did have a regime in place that wasn't allowing us to data match to make sure everyone was being tested so we started doing it at the place of work. We then weren't getting the numbers high enough to give us confidence that we were capturing everyone on a regular basis but all of this is on you. And Mike that makes an assumption that that is where it came from and I'm not going to make any assumptions about what happened. Well where else did it come from? Well of course we've continued to run a few theories that we're trying to run down and you're probably better to ask a scientist for their reckons rather than mine but we have tested almost all our border workers and have not found it. We have tested our quarantine workers and have not found it. We've even done the genome sequencing of people who have been positive in our facilities and as yet have not been able to match it to what we have seen in this cluster. We've tested out our ports and have not been able to find it. There are a number of theories that extend outside of that whether or not people have reinfection after the fact after they've been tested. We've had theories around whether or not it's in cool store. We have not been able to prove anything yet Mike. I will take responsibility for our government's response but I also want to make sure that I know exactly what it is that didn't work here. Do you not think about things before you announce them? I'm thinking about the borders and the exemptions that you made people apply for to get in and out of the borders to come to work and then they did apply for them and they never heard back and therefore they couldn't go to work. Wasn't that always obvious and why didn't you think of that when you put that in place? Of course we think about all of these. That goes so wrong. Because Mike, sometimes we won't necessarily have the level of detail around who it is precisely that work, that live within the Auckland super city boundary but may work outside of that boundary. That's just a level of detail that no government agency would have. So what we have done is created class exemptions, basically those lists of exemptions. Those individuals do not need to seek permission to travel over the border. They just need to carry some evidence that they fit within those exemptions. So the list is pretty comprehensive. It's constantly being updated. When I spoke to the Health Team yesterday they still had a reasonable number of people applying that didn't need to so that has been one of the issues. Are you still claiming you're getting positive tests back in two days? The last time I checked in with Health and that was actually when we had higher testing numbers. We are getting them through the labs within that time so we don't have a backlog in our labs. So when people say they've waited four, five, six, seven days they're actually right? Not necessarily for the lab results. It may well be that results are coming back to their GP. It depends where they got tested by but if they are relying on their GP to send on results they can't account for whether or not that's causing delays. Was there any thoughts back yesterday in Cabinet to the decision at all or not? No, no, there was a little bit of discussion around what we might learn over the coming week but no, there was a consensus view on what we needed to do. Certainly based on the fact that if you remember last time we actually really got down into a very small number of cases before we saw ourselves moving to level two. But what we've all agreed is our constant approach here needs to be managing and stamping out cases with the fewest restrictions we can. So our viewers, once this cluster is under control, it is one we should be able to manage in a level two environment and that does need to be our ongoing goal. Any thought to moving this to a more apolitical setting? People like Gorman and Steven Joyce and Peter Gluckman and Bob Jones all think that this has got way too political, there are way too many buzzwords and we need some more economists and some more health professionals to make bolder decisions than the ones you're making. We make decisions based on health professional advice effects that we've always had the Director-General available to give us. But he's the only one. He is on the day of the decision and he of course utilises his own health chief science advisor in town. He of course is in touch with epidemiologists. The health advice we get is comprehensive advice and people can see whether or not we're listening to that on the day that we make those adjustments. So the answer to moving it to a more apolitical setting would be no then. So the suggestion that somehow that government should have no say and therefore... Didn't say no say. I just said a more apolitical setting. I quite see, A, how that would work and B, what Dez Gorman is suggesting here. We have used experts and evidence all the way through. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an example where we made a decision that wasn't informed by evidence and science. We of course then have the job of making sure that we're constantly weighing up the economic impact. It just so happens our view as a strong... Health view. Science evidence-based health view is the best way to support our economy. Should you be consulting the National Party and Shane Ritty more than you are? Our Minister of Health actually is staying in fairly regular contact design. Well, they claim they're not. Dr Ritty. I'd be interested in that because the last time I spoke to the Minister of Health, certainly he found that he was having really good, solid frequent engagement. Okay, I'll check with Judith Collins shortly. Are you looking at buying a chunk of Auckland Port? Whatever poll of what there, Mike. Because they're out of money and they've written to you four-page letter asking for it. Well, I get asked lots of... I have lots of requests and that does not mean that this government is actively considering it. So you're not at the moment. The Borodale case, are you embarrassed by that? No, no, not at all, in fact. The fact that lockdown was unlawful doesn't embarrass you? No, I don't think that that's a fair summary. I'd say our Attorney General would probably correct you on that. Of course he would. He should be embarrassed as well because he lost. It was an unlawful lockdown. The first nine days were unlawful. It's a statement of fact. That is a completely incorrect summation of that case. Mike, what it found was that actually we had good grounds in terms of protecting people's health for making the decisions that we did. They said that but they also said it was unlawful. Yeah, they did say that. So what they said... So what was wrong about me saying it was unlawful? Because they've also found that we had good grounds to have done what we did. So they've... I found it quite a balanced judgment in the end, Mike. Would you worry about losing to the Grey Mouth gas case? I can't comment on that. Because I just simply haven't been briefed on the Grey Mouth gas case and will just make any assumptions. You're being sued. I wouldn't want to say anything prematurely in a case we're engaged with either, Mike. All right. Do you look to take over in some way, shape or form either the Tauranga City Council or the Invercargill City Council? Why on earth are you making such suggestions? Because the Department has written to both of the councils looking for information that they may involve the role of the Minister in them. And you're suddenly making an assumption that we're going to take over... Well, that's one of the out-workings of the information they receive from the letter they seek to... The councils. Mike, if you've got a list of things that you want to run through this morning, then that is fine. If you're not aware of the Department writing to the councils asking for information of potential bacterial involvement. No, I think it's a ridiculous suggestion that we would take over a council or a port or, somehow, this morning that you would like me to get into the detail of a gas case. These are, well, the gas cases you have been sued. The port is you've been written to. That happens from all the time. And the councils, two government departments have written to the councils asking for information that potentially gets ministerial involvement. The idea that we are taking over a council, though, is incorrect. Neither council? No, Mike. Are you sure? Mike, when has this government ever taken over a council? Are you going to appoint anybody to run the councils is what I'm asking? No. Then why are you writing letters asking for information from the minister's department then? Look, Mike, I can't speak to that in detail, but no, we are not taking over a democratically elected council. Appreciate your time. Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister.