Kerre Woodham: The hard questions about Covid need to be asked

A second Covid inquiry has been announced. And while that may sound like two Covid inquiries too many, this one may well get the answer a lot of us are looking for. New Zealand First has invoked the Agree to Disagree clause that allows a party within a coalition government to disagree in relation to issues on which the parties wish to maintain a different position in public. Generally, in a coalition agreement you like to present a united front, but when there are real disagreements, the clause can be invoked and that is what Peters has done.  

He wanted the first inquiry scrapped, saying it was nothing more than a political tool being used to craft a message through its limited scope and the lack of suitability of the Commissioners. The chair is epidemiologist Professor Tony Blakely, who advised during the pandemic, the economist John Whitehead, and former National MP Hekia Parata. He's not wrong, though. Unlike most other recent Royal Commissions, New Zealand's focus is explicitly on planning for the next pandemic, rather than assigning blame for any failings from the decision makers. It's like oh well, that happened, let's look ahead and see what we can do next time around. Its full name is “New Zealand Royal Commission Covid -19 Lessons Learned”, and the parliamentary order bringing it into being describes its intentions as examining the lessons learned from Aotearoa New Zealand's response to Covid-19 that should be applied in preparation for any future pandemic.  

So there would be no blame, no finger pointing, no public floggings in the public square. Really, it would be more like a series of patsy questions in Parliament. Did you do well? [Previous Labour government]. Thank you. Just how well did you think you did? [Previous Labour government]. What learnings do you think you can take forward? How many lives were saved? [Labour government]. You know, that sort of thing.  

Now Brooke van Velden, Internal Affairs Minister, says that when this inquiry finishes its work a second one will get under way and this one will ask the hard questions. 

 

“Where I think people are looking for more focus and what Phase Two will focus on, are things like the government's response and how that was weighed up against education, health, business, inflation. What its response did to debt and business activity? The social division that was caused in our society, and importantly also touches on New Zealand First’s commitment where they wish to look into vaccine efficacy. So it's a bit broader in range and I think answers a lot of those questions that will be on the top of people's minds. Was the government too fixated on just one aspect of its response?” 

 

And I think that's a reasonable question. That was Brooke van Velden talking to Mike Hosking this morning. I think those are really relevant questions. The vaccine efficacy and safety, the extended lockdowns in Auckland, in Northland. Now that we have the luxury of hindsight, you have to look and say, okay was that worth it? Was having borders at the Bombay Hills worth it?  

I'd be really interested to know whether there's any explanation for ‘the computer says no’ letters that so many families were given when they couldn't be with loved ones who were very, very ill or dying. Despite the fact that they were vaccinated, the family they were going to were vaccinated, there was just a simple computer say no denial from MBIE, a nameless official at MBIE, saying they could not be with a dying family member, or somebody who was very, very ill. And the pain that that caused was immeasurable. The grief that that generated was immeasurable. So I'd really love to know how you made the decision and who these faceless, nameless people were at MBIE who just deny, deny, denied access across the bor

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the carrywood of morning's podcast from News Talks.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
A second COVID inquiry has been announced and while that
may sound like two COVID inquiries too many, this one
may well get the answers a lot of us are
looking for. New Zealand first has invoked the agree to
Disagree clause that allows a party within a coalition government
to disagree in relation to issues on which the parties

(00:34):
wish to maintain a different position in public. Generally, in
a coalition agreement you like to present a united front,
but when there are real disagreements, the clause can be invoked,
and that is what Peters has done. He wanted the
first inquiry scrapped, saying it was nothing more than a
political tool being used to craft a message. Through its

(00:58):
limited scope and the lack of suitability of the commissioners.
The chair as epidemiologist Professor Tony Blakeley, who advised during
the pandemic, the economist John Whitehead and former National MP
Hekia Parata. He's not wrong, though unlike most other recent
Royal commissions, New Zealand's focus is explicitly on planning for

(01:23):
the next pandemic. Rather than assigning blame for any failings
from the decision makers. So it's like, oh, well that happened,
let's look ahead and see what we can do next
time around. Its full name is New Zealand Royal Commission
COVID nineteen Lessons Learned, and the parliamentary order bringing it

(01:46):
into being describes its intentions as examining the lessons learned
from ALTA or New Zealand's response to COVID nineteen that
should be applied in preparation for any future pandemic. So
there would be no blame, no finger pointing, no public
floggings in the public square. Really, it would be more

(02:09):
like a series of patsy questions in parliament. Did you
do well previous labor government? Thank you? Just how well
did you think you did previous labor government? What learnings
do you think you can take forward? How many lives

(02:31):
were saved labor government? You know that sort of thing now.
Brook van Walden, internal Affairs Minister, says that when this
inquiry finishes its work, a second one will get underway
and this one will ask the hard questions.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
Where I think people are looking for more focus and
what Phase two will focus on are things like the
government's response and how that was weighed up against education, health, business, inflation,
what its response did to debt and business activity, the
social division that was caused in our society, and importantly

(03:10):
also touches on New Zealand first commitment where they wish
to look into vaccine efficacy. So it's a bit broader
in range. I think answers a lot of those questions
that will be on the top of people's minds. Was
the government too fixated on just one aspect of its response.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
And I think that's a reasonable question. That was Brook
van Walden talking to Mike cost Hosking this morning. I
think those are really relevant questions, the vaccine efficacy and safety,
the extended lockdowns in Auckland and Northland. Surely you have
to look now that we have the luxury of hindsight,
you have to look and say, okay, was that worth it?

(03:50):
Was having borders at the Bombay Hills worth it. I'd
be really interested to know whether there's any explanation for
the PEW to say no letters that so many families
were given when they couldn't be with loved ones who

(04:10):
were very very ill or dying, despite the fact that
they were vaccinated, the family they were going to were vaccinated.
There was just a simple computer say no denial from MBI,
a nameless official at MBI saying they could not be
with a dying family member or somebody who was very

(04:33):
very ill. And the pain that that caused was immeasurable,
the grief that they generated was immeasurable. So how I'd
really love to know how you made the decision and
who these faceless, nameless people were at MBI who just
deny denied access across the border, which uels sounds incredibly weird.

(05:03):
You know, I think you have to ask those questions
before you move forward. I don't know that it's going
to resolve anything. I mean basically I want Yeah, I'd
be quite happy with stocks and the public square quite frankly,
But then there are others who will be not satisfied

(05:26):
until anybody who did to so much as criticize any
of the decisions made abases themselves before the likes of
Adern and Hipkins and Robertson and all the public health
officials and kisses the hem of their garment and repeats
three times, I am so sorry, I am so grateful

(05:49):
to be alive and it's only thanks to you. I
am so sorry, I'm so grateful to be alive, and
it's only things to you, which I think is tosh
so I I don't know. I mean, I do think
the hard questions have to be asked. This first Patsy
inquiry was precisely that how well did you do labor government? Oh?

(06:09):
Very well? Really, just how well? Oh exceptionally well. Any learnings,
oh a few?

Speaker 2 (06:18):
You know.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
No, you have to be able to weigh the costs.
You have to be able to weigh the different decisions
that were made that had so many impacts on so
many different people's lives. Some breezed through, loved it, thought
it was amazing, thought every decision made was the right one.

(06:39):
But not everybody did. And I think we're going to
see the damage for a very long time to come.
As I've always said, it'll be one hundred years from now,
there will still be people debating whether that second year
of decision making they were making the right decisions. But
it would be good to start now, to ask a

(06:59):
few tough questions now, rather than just sugarcoating the response,
which is all word of go from the first inquiry
for more from Kerry Wood and Mornings. Listen live to
news Talks at be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio