Jack Tame: Transparency and the flaws of the Covid Inquiry

I think we are all served best by transparency in government.    

Leaders should be accountable for their decisions, and they should be willing to take our questions and answer them in a public format.   

But it’s pretty clear to me the Covid Inquiry has fallen victim to bad and even cynical design, shaped by politics rather than a sincere desire to get a full accounting of our response. 

It’s a shame, because it threatens to undermine some of the inquiry’s more useful conclusions. It is a missed opportunity.   

In my view, there’s plenty of blame to share. I think the first phase of the Covid Inquiry, introduced by the last government, missed some critical elements in its terms of reference. Worst of all was the decision not to include vaccine efficacy. For something so fundamental to the response, and so important to some New Zealanders that they were willing to lose relationships, jobs, and livelihoods over it, I think the effectiveness of vaccines and whatever slim risk they carried, should have been included. I think it’s clear that different vaccines had different impacts on different variants. You can see how this might impact our procurement decisions in future. 

In principle, I supported expanding the inquiry until I saw the refreshed terms of reference. If it was to be a sincere effort to consider our Covid response, the good calls and the bad, in order to move forward and better prepare for the next pandemic shock, how could you leave out the first year of the response? Sure, much of the second phase of the Inquiry might have focused on vaccines, but it also focused on lockdowns and control measures. If you really cared about our Covid response, you’d start that line of inquiry with, you know, the start of the pandemic. To exclude the period when it wasn’t just Labour in government and to exclude what have proved to be the more popular components of the government’s response was disingenuous and cynical. 

The Covid-19 response was vast and complex. It’s almost impossible to unpick every decision because you have to try and separate the information we have now from the information we had at the time. The virus has cast a long shadow in New Zealand. Our response undoubtedly saved a lot of lives, but it wasn’t without costs. The pandemic might have been over ages ago, but the economic and social impacts endure. 

One thing I’d add to the Royal Commission’s conclusions is that next time we need to find a better, respectful way to hear and consider dissenting views. Media obviously plays a critical role in this. But although I think we did a reasonable job last time, I reckon next time is going to be much more difficult. 

Depending on the circumstances, it may not massively change government policy or the public health response. Given the conspiratorial nature of the fringiest elements, it may be an impossible task. Nevertheless, I think one of the key lessons from the Covid years is that somehow making people feel heard and respected instead of ostracised is a vital part in preventing the worst of the societal division that still afflicts us, years on. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
You're listening to the Saturday Morning with Jack Team podcast
from News Talks at be.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
You know what, in principle, I think we are all
best served by transparency and government. I think leaders should
be accountable for their decisions, and they should be willing
to take our questions, and they should answer them in
a public format. It is after all, it is my job.
It is what I do. So probably not a great surprise,

(00:35):
I feel that way. That being said, it's pretty clear
to me the COVID Inquiry has fallen victim to some
bad and even cynical design shaped by politics, rather than
a sincere desire to get a full and comprehensive accounting
of our response. And it's a shame. It really is

(00:56):
a shame because I think actually it threatens to undermine
some of the inquiri's more useful conclusions. In a way.
It is a bit of a missed opportunity. So in
my view, there's plenty of blame to go around. I
reckon the first phase of the COVID Inquiry, which was
of course introduced by the last government. I reckon that
missed some critical elements in its terms of reference. There

(01:18):
was the stuff around monetary policy, the role of the
Reserve Bank. There was a little bit of that in
the inquiry's conclusions, but I think it should have been
included more comprehensively in the terms of reference. But worst
of all was the decision not to include vaccine efficacy
for something so fundamental to the response and so important

(01:40):
to some New Zealander is that they were willing to
lose relationships, jobs, and livelihoods over it. I think the
effectiveness of vaccines and whatever slim risk they carried should
have been included. And I think the fact that was
missing from the first stage of the COVID inquiry, I
think that is a real shame. In principle, I supported

(02:04):
expanding the inquiry. I saw the refreshed terms of reference.
If it was to be a sincere effort, a truly
sincere effort to consider our COVID response, the good cause
and the bad calls, in order to move forward and
to better prepare for the next pandemic shock, how could
you leave out the first year of the response? Come on. Sure,

(02:28):
much of the second phase of the inquiry has focused
on vaccines, but it also focused on lockdowns and control measures,
and if you really cared about our COVID response. You
would start that line of inquiry with I don't know
the start of the pandemic, rather than starting at fourteen
months on. Don't you think to exclude the period when

(02:50):
it wasn't just labor and government and to exclude what
with time have probably proved to be the more popular
components of the government's response. I think was disingenuous and cynical.
The COVID nineteen response was vast. It was just incredibly complex,
right and all these years on it it's almost impossible

(03:14):
to unpick every decision because you have to try and
separate the information we have now with the information we
had at the time. I don't know about you, but
COVID to me is this weird blur. I find it
incredibly difficult in my own mind and memories to distinguish
between really big events. Was it this lockdown? Was it
that lockdown? I'm not too sure. The virus has cast

(03:37):
a long shadow in New Zealand. Though our response undoubtedly
saved a lot of lives, but it wasn't without its costs.
The pandemic might have been over ages ago, but the
economic and social impacts endure. And one thing I would
add to the Royal Commission's conclusions thus far is that
next time, I think we need to find a better

(04:00):
respectful way to hear and consider dissenting views. Media obviously
played a critical role in this, but although I think
we did a reasonable job last time, I reckon next
time is going to be so much more difficult. Depending
on the circumstances. It may not massively change government policy

(04:22):
or the public health response. We don't know, but given
the conspiratorial nature of the fringiest elements, it may honestly
be an impossible task. Nevertheless, I just think one of
the key lessons from the COVID years is that somehow
making people feel heard and respected instead of ostracized is

(04:46):
a vital part in preventing the worst of the societal
division that still afflicts us years.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
On for more from Saturday Morning with Jack Tame. Listen
live to News talks'd B from nine am Saturday, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.