Kerre Woodham: Fronting publicly is the least Ardern, Hipkins, and Robertson could do

There's an old saying, one generally used by mothers: I’m not angry, I'm just disappointed.  

Yesterday, hearing that the unholy Triumvirate of Ardern, Robertson, and Hipkins —Ayesha Verrall doesn't count— were choosing not to appear publicly at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 Response, I was both angry and disappointed. The second set of public hearings for the Royal Commission has been axed after key witnesses, including the aforementioned, refused to appear. Chairman Grant Illingworth has the power to summon people to appear before the Inquiry, those living in New Zealand, but said he would not use it. On balance, he said “we are of the view that a summons is undesirable given that the former ministers continue to cooperate with the evidence gathering of the Inquiry”. The writing was on the wall back in early July that Hipkins would not be showing his face publicly, when I asked him about attending to give his evidence in person. You could hear on the 8th of July that there was no way he was going to show his face. 

It may be true that government ministers have in the past given their evidence privately to Royal Commissioners. The Covid-19 response, I would argue, is different. The “most honest and transparent government ever” relied hugely on the trust and faith of the public to implement the nationwide wholesale measures that they did. We all sacrificed to varying degrees, and with varying degrees of willingness, personal freedoms, livelihoods, children's schooling, mental wellbeing, because the government engaged with us, talked at us, cajoled us, threatened us, reassured us it was a relationship. Every single day those people were up in our grills, in public, telling us what we needed to do, how we had to do it, and giving their reasons for why we had to do it. Enormous sacrifices were made by many, many people, and many of them are still counting the emotional toll.  

Ardern, Hipkins, and Robertson used their public profiles to ensure compliance with the decisions they were making, which grew ever more ridiculous and unworkable as time went on. I believe they have a moral obligation to front the public and answer the Commissioners questions publicly. Without manipulating the public trust, for better and worse, they couldn't have got away with what they did. Their objections to appearing appear to be Dentons’, the law firm’s, objections to appearing, but their objections include the convention that ministers and former ministers are interviewed by inquiries in private, and departing from that convention would undermine confidence. In what exactly?  

I hope I've put up a case that they do have an obligation to answer publicly because the Covid-19 response was unlike any other event where there's been a Commission of Inquiry.  They were also concerned that the live streaming and publication of recordings of the hearing creates a risk of those recordings being tampered with, manipulated, or otherwise misused. For heavens sake, any time you open your mouth in public your words and image can be manipulated and misused. Look at Neil Finn's erections for heavens sake. Anytime you appear talking about anything, AI can use your image, your words – it's not exclusive to the Commission of Inquiry.  

They have form, these people, as spineless decision makers, so it should be no real surprise they haven't showed publicly. They never once ventured to Auckland during the pointless, unreasonable lockdowns of 2021. So no huge surprise that they're not willing to stand by the decisions they made then, now. Ardern and Robertson have moved on. They don't need the New Zealand public. They don't need the New Zealand public to have confidence in them, Hipkins does. He wants to be Prime Minister again. He wants another bash at it. He'll point to the polls and say he's a third of the way there, that most New Zealanders have got over Covid, moved on. Some of us haven't. We are living with the decisions the economic, medical, and social decisions that this unholy triumvirate made every single day. And our children will live with those decisions, and our grandchildren. The very least they could do is appear before the same public, whose faith and trust they exploited and explain how and why they made the decisions that they did. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carywood and Mornings podcast from News Talks.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be there's an old saying, one generally used by mothers.
Not angry. I'm just disappointed yesterday hearing that the unholy
triumvirate of Aardurn, Robertson and Hipkins Aischaverel doesn't count hearing
that they were choosing not to appear publicly at the

(00:30):
Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID nineteen response. I was
both angry and disappointed. The second set of public hearings
for the Royal Commission has been axed after key witnesses,
including the aforementioned, refused to appear. Chairman Grant Illingworth has
the power to summon people to appear before the inquiry

(00:52):
those living in New Zealand, but said he would not
use it on balance. He said, we are of the
view that a summons is undesirable given that the former
ministers continue to cooperate with the evidence gathering of the inquiry.
The writing was on the wall back in early July
that Hipkins would not be showing his face publicly. When

(01:15):
I asked him about attending to give his evidence in person.

Speaker 3 (01:19):
Again, I don't want to tell the Royal Commission how
to conduct the inquiry, so cooperative as possible with the
Royal Commission.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
So if they ask him to attend in person, you'll
be there.

Speaker 3 (01:32):
As I've said, those conversations are happening with the Royal
Commission at the moment. And because of the conversations with
the Royal Commission, and because the Royal Commission operate under
a protection of independence, I don't want to get into
that because ultimately those are questions for them.

Speaker 2 (01:45):
No, but if they ask you, I've said that.

Speaker 3 (01:47):
I'll cooperate with the Royal Commission, all right.

Speaker 2 (01:49):
Yeah, yeah, And you could hear on the eighth of
July there was no way he was going to show
his face. It may be true that government ministers have
in the past given their evidence privately to Royal Commissioners.
The COVID nineteen response, I would argue, is different. The
most honest and transparent government ever relied hugely on the

(02:12):
trust and faith of the public to implement the nationwide
wholesale measures that they did. We all sacrificed, to varying
degrees and with varying degrees of willingness, personal freedoms, livelihoods,
children's schooling, mental well being because the government engaged with us,

(02:36):
talked at us, cajoled us, threatened us, reassured us. It
was a relationship. Every single day, those people were up
in our grills in public, telling us what we needed
to do, how we had to do it, and giving
their reasons for why we had to do it. Enormous

(03:01):
sacrifices were made by many, many people, and many of
them still counting the emotional toll. Adrne, Hipkins and Robertson
used their public profiles to ensure compliance with the decisions
they were making, which grew ever more ridiculous and unworkable
as time went on. I believe they have a moral

(03:24):
obligation to front the public and answer the Commissioner's questions
publicly without manipulating the public trust. For better and worse,
they couldn't have got away with what they did. Their
objections to a pairing appear to be Denton's the law
firm's objections to a pairing, but their objections include the

(03:46):
convention that ministers and former ministers are interviewed by inquiries
in private. Departing from that convention would undermine confidence in
what exactly and I think of it. I hope. I've
put up a case that they do have an obligation
to answer publicly, because as the COVID nineteen response was

(04:08):
unlike any other event where there's been a Commission of Inquiry.
They were also concerned that the live streaming and publication
of recordings of the hearing creates a risk of those
recordings being tampered with, manipulated, or otherwise misused. For Heaven's sake,
any time you open your mouth in public, your words

(04:32):
and image can be manipulated and misused. Look at Neil
Finn's erections. For heaven's sake. Any time you appear talking
about anything, AI can use your image, your words. It's
not exclusive to the Commission of Inquiry. They have form

(04:54):
these people as spineless decision makers, so it should be
no real surprise they haven't showed publicly. They never once
ventured to Auckland during the Wentless Unreasonable lockdowns of twenty
twenty one, so no huge surprise that they're not willing
to stand by the decisions they made. Then now a

(05:19):
durn and Robinson have moved on. They don't need the
New Zealand public. They don't need the New Zealand public
to have confidence in them. Hipkins does. He wants to
be Prime Minister again. He wants another bash at it.
He'll point to the polls and say he's a third
of the way there. That most New Zealanders have got

(05:42):
over COVID moved on, Well some of us haven't. We
are living with the decisions, the economic, medical, and social
decisions that this unholy triumvirate made every single day, and
our children will live with those decisions and our grandchildren.
The very least they could do is a pair before

(06:04):
the same public who faith and trust they exploited, and
explain how and why they made the decisions that they did.

Speaker 1 (06:13):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
News Talks at B from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio