Putting politics aside, should the key leaders of New Zealand’s pandemic response have fronted their track record in public? Let's try to be fair minded about this.
An epidemic is a national emergency and in 2020 the then government appointed a multi-party Epidemic Committee chaired by National Party's Simon Bridges. He defied distancing regulations and in my opinion acted politically rather than collegially. It was in fact a Pandemic and as such it's importance transcends politics. There are other nations engaged in C19 enquiries, many aimed at attributing blame, with finger pointing at Wu Han.
Few nations with the good results NZ achieved in terms of keeping us kiwi alive are raking over the coals to the extent we now are.
Those politicians, like Peters, who grandstanded among the protesters outside the Beehive deserve censure. The fact that the same politician, Peters, has ensured the earlier days of the government response, when he was part of that government, not be examined speaks for itself. It's called having it both ways.
Personally I'm pleased the Commissioner has made the call to rely on the evidence before him. It will save money and time. And I am looking forward to learning how, with hindsight, we might do better when the next Pandemic hits.
It might be called Armageddon given the antics of the megalomanic with the red button nuclear war trigger in his carry-on wherever he goes, including no doubt, Alaska
Thank you Liam. Good to have your scholarly mind. The problem you leave us with, the problem that remains in our minds, is why? Why our previous much lauded leaders have refused to appear and tell the public why they did what they did, what were the reasons, the very important, the pivotal reasons, that left no room for compromise, that kept New Zealanders from returning to their homes, that prevented them from being with dying family, that forced them to have the jab whether their health situations could handle such interventions or not, that mandated another vaccination even when you had collapsed after the previous one. The sad fact remains that a no show suggests they are afraid of how they will fare when they have to explain their actions before their fellow citizens. In plain words, there is a whiff of guilt about their stance. They are clearly not as convinced they made the right decisions, as they were at the time they made them.
You are right, "the former ministers' rationale can’t be dismissed outright, they have misjudged the public’s appetite for a clear display of accountability. In an age of distrust, erring on the side of openness is usually the better course." How is it that the Ardern four cannot see that? Mike Hosking yesterday has Chris Hipkins simply repeating himself, avoiding answering the real questions Mike posed.
I suppose the basic question is why a medical event was turned into a political one. Why were the recommendations of the special committee appointed to advise government on covid in 2020, ignored by the very Ministers who appointed them? Why were individual doctors not trusted to use their skills and expertise to deal with this novel respiratory infection. And why were those who did, and successfully treated their patients, quickly shut down, deregistered and subjected to loss of income and loss of their practice? Were these the questions asked by the Commissioners and answered by the Ministers? Will we ever know?
I don't think they've got anything to hide that hasn't already been aired in the public hearings we've had. I think they're just gutless and truly underestimate the long memories of those who suffered. Karma will come knocking.
I do hope so but that is of course little comfort to the majority of the victims of the pandemic response who probably don’t believe in karma and might have benefited at least emotionally from the balm of a degree of acknowledgement from Her Highness and her Apostles that the way they steered the country through the global panic wasn’t as true as they have to date tried to portray.
The main thing I have taken away from this business is that the “most open, most transparent” government ever that aspired to govern “for all New Zealanders” was led by individuals who are not willing to stand in front of the public to argue the case for their socially and economically radical and costly decisions.
Their actions then and now seriously erode the promises they made to the electorate in the heady days of election victory with the additional effect that refusal to publicly testify makes me doubt even more the quality of, and intent behind, their decision making then.
An epidemic is a national emergency and in 2020 the then government appointed a multi-party Epidemic Committee chaired by National Party's Simon Bridges. He defied distancing regulations and in my opinion acted politically rather than collegially. It was in fact a Pandemic and as such it's importance transcends politics. There are other nations engaged in C19 enquiries, many aimed at attributing blame, with finger pointing at Wu Han.
Few nations with the good results NZ achieved in terms of keeping us kiwi alive are raking over the coals to the extent we now are.
Those politicians, like Peters, who grandstanded among the protesters outside the Beehive deserve censure. The fact that the same politician, Peters, has ensured the earlier days of the government response, when he was part of that government, not be examined speaks for itself. It's called having it both ways.
Personally I'm pleased the Commissioner has made the call to rely on the evidence before him. It will save money and time. And I am looking forward to learning how, with hindsight, we might do better when the next Pandemic hits.
It might be called Armageddon given the antics of the megalomanic with the red button nuclear war trigger in his carry-on wherever he goes, including no doubt, Alaska
Thank you Liam. Good to have your scholarly mind. The problem you leave us with, the problem that remains in our minds, is why? Why our previous much lauded leaders have refused to appear and tell the public why they did what they did, what were the reasons, the very important, the pivotal reasons, that left no room for compromise, that kept New Zealanders from returning to their homes, that prevented them from being with dying family, that forced them to have the jab whether their health situations could handle such interventions or not, that mandated another vaccination even when you had collapsed after the previous one. The sad fact remains that a no show suggests they are afraid of how they will fare when they have to explain their actions before their fellow citizens. In plain words, there is a whiff of guilt about their stance. They are clearly not as convinced they made the right decisions, as they were at the time they made them.
You are right, "the former ministers' rationale can’t be dismissed outright, they have misjudged the public’s appetite for a clear display of accountability. In an age of distrust, erring on the side of openness is usually the better course." How is it that the Ardern four cannot see that? Mike Hosking yesterday has Chris Hipkins simply repeating himself, avoiding answering the real questions Mike posed.
I suppose the basic question is why a medical event was turned into a political one. Why were the recommendations of the special committee appointed to advise government on covid in 2020, ignored by the very Ministers who appointed them? Why were individual doctors not trusted to use their skills and expertise to deal with this novel respiratory infection. And why were those who did, and successfully treated their patients, quickly shut down, deregistered and subjected to loss of income and loss of their practice? Were these the questions asked by the Commissioners and answered by the Ministers? Will we ever know?
Your last paragraph says it all.
I don't think they've got anything to hide that hasn't already been aired in the public hearings we've had. I think they're just gutless and truly underestimate the long memories of those who suffered. Karma will come knocking.
I do hope so but that is of course little comfort to the majority of the victims of the pandemic response who probably don’t believe in karma and might have benefited at least emotionally from the balm of a degree of acknowledgement from Her Highness and her Apostles that the way they steered the country through the global panic wasn’t as true as they have to date tried to portray.
The main thing I have taken away from this business is that the “most open, most transparent” government ever that aspired to govern “for all New Zealanders” was led by individuals who are not willing to stand in front of the public to argue the case for their socially and economically radical and costly decisions.
Their actions then and now seriously erode the promises they made to the electorate in the heady days of election victory with the additional effect that refusal to publicly testify makes me doubt even more the quality of, and intent behind, their decision making then.