Should Labour attend a set-up?
Written By:
- Date published:
10:57 pm, August 13th, 2025 - 158 comments
Categories: act, chris hipkins, covid-19, david seymour, jacinda ardern, labour, long covid, national/act government, nz first, winston peters -
Tags:
Post republished from Mountain Tui Substack
This afternoon, the Government Coalition and their affilates blanketed air waves with outcries about Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall not physically fronting the second week of the Covid-19 inquiry – intended to be a public session.
“We have showed up to the inquiry. I have showed up to the inquiry. I have been interviewed by them twice.”
“I have answered every question that they had. I attended the interview that they scheduled for me. They asked for two hours, they ran out of questions after an hour. They’ve indicated they have no further questions for me at that point.”
“I’d already answered all of their questions. They themselves said it wasn’t a matter of gathering further information, that there was no further information they were looking for from me.”
“I don’t accept [attending] would increase the public clarity the Royal Commission would have. I already appeared for them and they ran out of questions for me.”
1News thought this news was so important they billed it as their top story, with some less than satisfying “analysis” from Maiki Sherman.
Labour, she said, might pay the price for not attending.
My only reaction is “Why?”
Hipkins and co. already attended, and already answered every available question.
Second, the Covid inquiry in question is managed and led by ACT’s Brooke Van Velden.
The same Van Velden who was a vocal critic of Labour’s managment and argued:
“When it came to Covid, we completely blew out what the value of a life was. Completely. I’ve never seen such a high value on life”
i.e The values and parameters of what is important to her already appear starkly different to what Labour valued.
Worse, the Coalition parties and their allies have, over the last few years, stirred up innuendo, misinformation, and conspiracy about Labour’s handling of Covid.
NZ’s was a globally praised pandemic response that saw 20,000 + lives saved and the economy sheltered and in good hands, until National took over.
I’d also always felt that New Zealand, having avoided the very worst of Covid-19 deaths and in person experience, ended up being incredibly unaware of what was missed.
And therefore may have missed appreciating what was done, even if it was imperfect at times.
Look my real point here is their division tactics get attention, clicks, votes, and rouses anger.
People who chose not to get vaccinated, and/or believe it was a hoax or had their rights curtailed, are understandably angry in their world view. And the name Jacinda Ardern continues to garner incredible attention, visceral hate, and clicks unfortunately.
Too many fell into those corridors.
But most of NZ First’s supporters forget that Winston Peters was at the helm of the Covid-19 leadership response.
Too many ACT voters forget ACT advocated for vaccines – even offering money in exchange for vaccination.
And too many National voters forgot National begged Labour to borrow and spend more to hand out money to businesses, as demonstrated in this 2021 article by Christopher Luxon which called for more relief for landlords and businesses
And after the fact, each of these people turned around and attacked Labour – and continue to hurt the people that served our interests and saved our lives with the best intentions and no playbook available – for power and politics.
Should Jacinda Ardern and co have attended the public part of this hearing?
I think it was fine they chose not to attend this part of it.
It would have been set up to ensure they are set upon, and that would be filmed in manipulative ways. I’m sure Ardern is all too familiar with that.
I think Labour made the right call and Hipkins defended it well today.
PS
Stuff reports that not only had Ardern similarly gave information –
“It [is] convention that ministers and former ministers were interviewed by inquiries in private.
This commission wanted it to be public, but [Labour] saw no reason for deviating from standard procedure.
They expected the broadcast of their submissions would be misused to create misinformation, and they told the commission footage would likely be “tampered with”.”
PPS
In light of Labour’s policy vaccum National can’t seem to help but falter, punch at shadows and lie. Here is Simeon Brown at it today. Will Kiwis fall for it again? Time will tell.
Totally agree ; Maiki Sherman on TV1 news tonight was disgraceful. She should be called out for her hopeless and biased political reporting. Might write a letter!
What exactly led you to believe Sherman's coverage was disgraceful?
Why did you think her coverage was bias?
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/one-news-at-6pm/episodes/s2025-e225
Sherman interview starts 3mins50 sec.
There had already been a Royal Commission of Inquiry where they publicly fronted up as far as I can remember and attended countless formal interviews.
This [new] Inquiry is nothing more than a pernicious stick to beat the Opposition parties with, because they're flailing in Govt, and need a major distraction.
Instead of being thankful for the efficient handling of a global pandemic and saving the lives of thousands of people in the process, they want to put these ministers on trial for bogus crimes, thus risking further death threats and other forms of harm by a hoard of crackpots.
And what about Ashley Bloomfield? Has he been requested to attend this bogus Inquiry? If so, what is his response?
An opportunity for the opposition to focus on the wasteful spending at play here with this distraction.
They also get to tip the tin foil hat at what's regarded as one of the best if not the best responses to covid.
Tvnz not fit for purpose with reporting like that but I bet their boards pleased.
Wow , logans run here we come,
I wonder if she'd have cared if her parents/grandparents died. ?
Somehow, I don't think she would.
Or she'd find a way to blame them for their demise. Personal responsibility and all that…
It's a no-brainer for leaders of the last Labour government not to publicly attend a commission of enquiry that's deliberately been given a terms of reference aimed at identifying and publicising every mistake made in that government's Covid response.
I don't blame National for doing that – after all, the commission of enquiry that Labour ran had terms of reference deliberately aimed at not finding or publicising any mistakes it made. That's just how politics works. However, there's no obligation on political leaders to assist their opponents with making them look bad, and any alleged 'analysis' by journalists should take that fact into account.
As I posted last night, and I think bears repeating:
Jacinda, Chippy and Grant have given evidence already; presumably their evidence will all be made public in the final report. There is no need to attend this ACT-run show trial.
The sad anti-vax anti-mandate wankers need to take a look at themselves in the mirror.
As Jacinda says in her book:
"So when someone approaches me to tell me that they thought all our choices were wrong. maybe expressing themselves less politely than that, perhaps even with fists raised and their face twisted with fury, or in an expletive-filled rant, that's when I remember that all those hard, imperfect decisions saved twenty thousand lives. And that the person in front of me might just be one of them".
Yes, Maiki Sherman showed Hipkins saying he'd already answered all the commission's questions but she still chose to criticise him for not turning up to be asked the same questions again.
I'd be interested to see what the alternative would have been, ie suppose someone went through National and ACT's suggestions at the time for what the government should have done, or took van Velden's claim that we wildly overestimated the value of a human life, and gamed out what would have happened if that approach had been taken. (Too lazy to do it myself, of course)
Basically?
The health system would have collapsed in less than a month. Hospitals overflowing. Ambulances queued outside with nowhere to unload. Doctors forced to decide who gets a ventilator and who gets sent home to die.
About 20,000 of us wouldn’t be alive to complain about Labour or Jacinda Ardern: parents, grandparents, workmates, neighbours.
And the economy? Still stuck in a recession so deep it would make 1929, 1987, and 2008 look like minor speed bumps. Supply chains in tatters. Shops empty. Businesses gone for good.
Yes, governments have to take an actuarial view on the impacts of policy decisions. There are plenty of tools for that (QUALYs, for example).
But in the face of an unprecedented global pandemic, the only tolerable number of extra deaths caused by government action is zero. Anything else is a choice about who dies.
That’s a line no decent government should cross. And a decision no leader, no matter how morally worthy, should ever be forced to make.
To borrow a phrase: all of them were, and still are, us.
That's pretty much what I was thinking. My memory of NACT at that time was that they took a similar approach to the govt's Covid policy as they did to its climate change policies: compare them to the status quo, and point out that what the govt was doing was disruptive and harmful compared to the status quo, for all the world as though sticking with the status quo wouldn't come with any unpleasant consequences. I believe it's down to malice and greed rather than stupidity.
Isn't sherman shacked up with an action?
No
You say there is no need to attend.
Do you not think it is time to try and attempt to heal the wounds and reunite the nation?
Further, do you not think attending would be a good step in that direction?
Labour sure as hell look as if they will need the support come election time.
And do you not think calling people "wankers" reinforces the us and them division? Or is keeping that division running your desire?
The Cambridge Dictionary defines "wanker" as:
"an offensive word for a very stupid or unpleasant person"
That seems to nicely sum up the (among other things) ant-vax anti-mandate rabble that illegally occupied the grounds of parliament.
do you call individuals who were there or who supported it that to their face?
Good question. There is still a lot of healing to occur.
That things are so black and white to so many people gives pause for thought.
To dissent means you are either right wing, anti vax, fallen down a worm hole or a misogynist.
Regardless of yr position there is a civil discussion to he had, for example, iin respect to workers and mandates. Mandates that proportionately affected those that we had sympathy for when pay equity was scrapped.
Fair points weka and gsays and others above….the vicious and unfair attacks on Jacinda and Grant really rile me (these are actually ongoing-you should have heard ZB this morning) but intemperate language doesn't help.
I still think that most of the people who seized parliament grounds were dumb and unpleasant.
Just a gentle point of order.
The folk that seized Parliament grounds were principled, organised, coordinated, determined and brave.
Later on there was a presence that was dumb and unpleasant.
Except, in order to have civil discussions, ALL parties must be open to the fact that there are other opinions, and be prepared to listen to all points of view, and present their case without going OTT.
And sorry, but the people who have fallen down the rabbit hole simply aren't prepared to do that. Only their view (no matter how much it can be disproven) is correct. My one attempt to discuss this civilly with a relative did not go well. If people are beyond reason, then no amount of reasonable discussion can happen, certainly not unity.
What are your suggestions for this scenario?
If you enter the discussion with the aim of healing and reconciling then perhaps listening is the role to play.
There isn't a lot to be said that hasn't been heard thousands of times already from the team of four and a half million, the podium, mainstream media etc.
If people are still angry then they're probably still hurt.
I've said before for the left to truly unite a lot of people need to extend grace and forgiveness.
Thanks Kay for that. You can't have a civil debate with those that have scrambled down rabbit holes. They are incapable of sound cognition. Its been proven time and again.
BG @ 2:53pm:
So much so, a few of them wandered around wearing tin foil hats. Anyone there with a semblance of sanity was well gone before it descended into chaos.
This new Inquiry is just a pathetic political witch-hunt – in part for the benefit of NZ First who want the conspiracy crowd's votes to help get them over the line next year.
The local New World supermarket ran out of tinfoil. There were a lot of tin foil hats. My nephew was working at that supermarket at the time.
Yes. There is no need to attend a kangaroo court. They've been there ,done that already.
Do you think it is not time to try and attempt to open the wounds and divide the nation?
Further, do you not think ignoring the ACT inspired kangaroo court would be a good step ?
Labour sure as hell won't need the support of you and your conspiracy delusionists come election time.
And yes calling people "wankers" reinforces the division between you and realists.
That would be nice, but neither major party is going to set up a commission of enquiry with that purpose, so we're stuck with partisan politics-as-usual, and Hipkins et al need to work on that basis.
I can't see how healing the wounds and reuniting the nation could happen. Many people who lost jobs or businesses due to lockdowns or vaccine mandates are never going to accept that there was a greater good being served, especially when so many didn't suffer like they did. I argued with a few people online at the time along the lines that there were vaccine mandates because yes you can refuse the Covid vaccine but you can't then reasonably expect to continue turning up to work with vulnerable people who'll die if they get Covid, and 'wanker' would have been one of the more polite things I got called. The bitterness of those people goes deep and won't easily be undone.
Replying to 4.1 Bearded Git
100% Bearded Git, isn't that Jacinda to a "T". "Your life was worth saving even if you are bitter and twisted."
No Inquiry I remember in my long life required recorded personal testimony except those after World War Two.
They were not summonsed, so had the right to answer questions privately to the panel and Chair, who decided there was no need for the public questions, as they had answered all questions and any subsequent inquiries.
Chair Illingsworth decided to "save money". which left Van Velden in a cleft stick, as she felt money had been wasted on saving lives. Ironic outcome for her.
As to healing. Time is the greatest healer, and distance.
We had a great response to Covid, even a great recovery, GDP at 2.4% on the change of government.
Sadly since then we have had a forced crash to bring down interest rates and the value of assets including stopping all public building. Why?.
All of the building social growth and wellbeing removed deliberately to give private ownership more rights than public (people) owned entities of NZ. Public Services stripped of staff.
So all publicly owned land houses hospitals schools roads airports ports and water up for sale to whoever.
This is the current nirvana for our sorted christian (deliberate small c) and his cohorts, and if you think about how this recession is, you get a glimpse of how they would have handled covid.
Bodies in refrigerated trucks, short cuts and cost cutting mass graves just as Italy and New York had.
We were lucky, even with the odd mistake.
This CoC want to rewrite history trying to blame the Left for their created recession. Underfunding Public things and funneling money to their donors and friends. Crashing the economy in shaky world times is just not smart.
Tariffs and 2% of GDP for Defence expenses not in their budget. Oh dear.
They sought the distraction of a public hate session on the people tasked with getting us through covid.
Illingsworth would not change customary inquiry frames. Unlike our Speaker he is not into over reach.
@ p m…
What have you got against them fronting up ..and admitting to their mistakes..?..how else to learn from this..?
..and at the same time laughing the loony tunes crew out of the room..?
..do you think they are incapable of doing this..?
..IMHO…an opportunity to define this issue..and to put it to bed..has gone begging..
They took advice, unlike this CoC. They were advised it would detract from the actual reason for the report.
It would stir up the hate and take focus away from the report findings, which would not advance any more in the view of the chair.
I totally agree with this. Something which can also be applied to anti-vaxxers of all types. Growing up without ever encountering polio, diptheria, even measles etc. (because, effective vaccines). So if it doesn't exist, no need for immunisations.
Ergo, if we're not seeing people drop dead in the street, then covid isn't/wasn't a real thing. I think it was very hard for most of us to reconcile our local experience with the reality abroad, even those of us capable of employ logic and reason.
yes! It's a distinct dynamic of large scale, unrolling disasters of this kind I think. People against NZ's response seem to be comparing our response with pre-pandemic, instead of with places were lots of people died and hospitals became overrun.
I think NZ's response was as much about how unprepared our health system was as anything. That was invisible before, and still is in pandemic terms, but obvious in other ways, so it's strange people can't make the connection.
I wonder how much of it is trauma, and people's inability to take the collective good into account any more.
And, I’d argue, of a lack of information and shared human experience.
It was easy to sit in front of your TV and yell at the PM and Dr Ashley Bloomfield at 1pm if you felt like you were being locked in your home without a good reason.
But if you were working on the response, you had a very different perspective.
I work in local government, and was called into our Emergency Coordination Centre after the first couple of weeks of Level 4. One of my first jobs was to identify the best locations for mass graves in our region, in case we saw the kind of death rates hitting Italy or the US.
We were also working with the DHB to calculate how many trucks and ambulances would be needed to move the bodies.
They were the scariest few weeks of my life.
I don’t think most people realise how close the entire supply chain came to collapsing: food, fuel, medicine. Everything was balanced on a knife-edge.
The fact it didn’t tip over wasn’t luck; it was the result of frantic, behind-the-scenes work that most will never see. All while the information we had to hand changed by the hour.
That is a terrifying prospect.
that's sobering. Haven't heard much first hand account from NZ people outside of central government. I took my original cues from the Italian doctors tweeting in the first weeks about it like being on MASH. And having an existing illness sharpened focus.
At some point, someone high up (Bloomfield?) talked about how the NZ response came into being early on, that the infrastructure deficit was huge and there was this small window to jump and we jumped. My understanding is we got bloody lucky with the people who were in charge at the time, Ardern, Labour, and the health bods, for that decision.
My memory is that most of NZ was on board initially, it was later that people got angry and then history was revised. I do remember being surprised at Auckland people on TS being so angry during their last lockdown, with the government rather than the pandemic. Once we tipped, we tipped fast.
That was [in general terms] a small but vociferous minority weka. Most of us were tired of the lockdown and we expressed as much, but we were not so much blaming the government. I suspect that had more to do with media grabbing every opportunity to put Ardern and Co. down. Don't know the reason why. Tall poppy syndrome?
Mad at the Government. Instead of the weird church ignoring safety who made it necessary.
It's a shame that level of preparedness didn't flow through to all the hospitals.
There are so many examples of staff trying to do the right thing but coming up against neo liberalism from management.
Eg, at our local ED, at the height of the lockdowns there was an entry for Covid positive and an entry for others. Separated by…. cones, going through the same door.
During the first lockdown, when staff were getting scrubs, wearing them for their shift, then putting them into the hospital laundry. Messages, emails and and in person, this was discouraged as it 'hadn't been budgeted for'.
Did Hipkins really refuse to rule out taxing the family home?
This is why I think the Labour policy vacuum is a mistake. Others get to frame Lab policy and they're seen as playing catch up and reactionary. Eg I don't know explicitly what their policy is on oil & Gas ban (as the to ing and fro ing is played out in the media and milked by Matua Shane)> Likewise the CGT issue (which I support on all residential property)> BTW I just saw on Statsnz there are 200,000 empty houses in NZ ffs.
The empty houses are probably bachs and cribs
Perhaps they don't meet the healthy home standards?
Instead of 'probably', I offer this information from 2022. The situation then was the 2018 census that showed just over 100,000 empty residential properties. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/129998755/10-of-ghost-home-owners-intentionally-keeping-them-empty
"The Empty Homes Report included the results of a survey of 772 owners of ghost homes.
As well as the roughly 10% keeping their homes empty intentionally, about 35% said their properties were empty because they were holiday homes, just over 8% kept them empty for person use (often as a second home), 23% were empty for renovations and repairs, and about 17% were vacant rentals, sometimes due to non-compliance with Healthy Homes Standards.
The remaining 6% were empty for “other reasons”, which often meant they were awaiting sale."
10% of the 100,000 homes intentionally kept empty would more than house our 5000 homeless……
Thanks for the info.
As for 10% of the 100,000 homes housing the homeless, it would depend on how much the rental charges would be and how many people would be prepared to change regions to be homed. Further, how they match up (size-wise) to what is required.
yeah, but how long were they empty for?
64% of empty houses where empty for less than 12 months. 50% for less than 6 months. We need a better breakdown to see how many people are sitting on capital gains rather than for other reasons.
Weka, I'm assuming that the 10% of he 770 odd houses surveyed would extrapolate out to the entire 100,000 plus and therefore my point is that some 10,000 plus houses are intentionally empty which really does imply for a considerable period of time. 'Ghost houses' is sometimes used to describe them. Barcelona taxes these empty houses much as the Liberal government 1893-1908 did to open up farms from being used in an inefficient and socially harmful way, as are ghost houses today……
wait, they're basing the figures off a 770 sample? Huge differences across the country in terms of empty houses and why.
There's a graph in the Stuff piece with the timeframes. Is there anything to suggesting the longest empty are land banking rather than say holiday houses?
it's not clear to me if 'ghost houses' refers to all empty houses, so just the 10%
Weka, here is another source of information. https://emptyhomes.co.nz/Numbers
This group did a report that gives a number and regional breakdown and definitions of empty houses. Interestingly they say that stakeholders were not forthcoming with information when asked for comment. The regional breakdown does indicate where holiday homes are concentrated.
The question of whether empty houses were landbanking or holiday homes was answered in the Stuff report where both were given separate percentages.
"As well as the roughly 10% keeping their homes empty intentionally, about 35% said their properties were empty because they were holiday homes, just over 8% kept them empty for person use (often as a second home), 23% were empty for renovations and repairs, and about 17% were vacant rentals, sometimes due to non-compliance with Healthy Homes Standards.
The remaining 6% were empty for “other reasons”, which often meant they were awaiting sale."
I also found a comment that empty houses which are being landbanked for future sale at a profit from capital gains increases could be taxed though the commenter seemed to be unsure of its efficacy.
Totally agree Labour's policy vacuum is a mistake.
But taxing the family home is the wrong target and in my opinion will go down like a cup of cold sick with voters.
You have willingly walked down the Simeon Brown silo.
What I can say is that no previous iteration of a CGT concept by Labour ever included one on the family home. And there is no reason to think the next one would either.
The foremost proponent of such a CGT is David P Farrar, famous for his "if there ever is one, it should include the family home" (clue he does not support a CGT).
The reason was planted by Hipkins when/if he failed to rule it out
He was never asked.
Simeon Brown made up the issue.
Your playing footsie with Simeon Brown is pandering to their narrative.
Rubbish. Only people who believe lies will fall into that.
Aye MT. As QED. Great Post too..as always : )
What's "rubbish"?
And what are these "lies" you speak of?
Unfortunately, MT, there's an awful lot of people (or, if you like, a lot of awful people) who are only too willing to fall into it.
Here's some of what Barcelona in Spain is doing about its housing crisis. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dl4b5n/barcelona_will_eliminate_all_tourist_apartments/
Using local government initiatives to free up housing for the homeless, the young, the locals facing shifting away- a response to a problem that is not only NZ's.
The bridge I have for you is blue and red.
A classic show trial/Witch hunt had been set up so the Labour COVID leaders are justified in not attending, given they have contributed already. The anti vaxers would not be there to listen!
I think it was a missed opportunity to attempt to heal the wounds, recognise the mistakes made (so as we don't repeat them) and reunite the nation.
FFS Look who set it up and what its purpose is. A kangaroo court for the disgruntled anti-vaxers and tinfoil hat brigade – who by the way are the folk who are the reason Act and NZfist are back in parliament.
Its sole purpose is to pillory those who made the correct decisions by the disgruntled few.
Where is that stated? Or did you just make that up?
Have a look at the drilling Voices for Freedom got. The inquiry didn't seem to be too friendly towards them.
Ol' Winnie Peters as witchfinder general. IMO a desperate creep pandering to the cooker/assorted crazies voter.
And FFS, not forgetting the Nuremberg 2.0 gallows…
Where we could have been if not for Jacinda and others leadership, which was informed by Expert advice…
Why the fuck would Jacinda, Chris Hipkins, Sir Sir Ashley Bloomfield et al want to give any credence to this witch trial?
Anyone on the Left who still see Ol Winnie as a valid alternative? Living in a dystopian fantasy land.
Why do you call it a "witch trial"?
Did you see the inquiry's drilling of Voices for Freedom?
The inquiry didn't seem to be too friendly towards them.
Take a look
The case could be made that labour have blown an opportunity to present their case for their actions during covid ..
A chance to explain (to the public) why they did what they did. .the mistakes that were made ..and the lessons learnt for the next one…?
IMHO the cries of 'witch-hunt' are irrelevant..
I mean ..who cares what the intentions were of those who set up this inquiry..?
..do labour lack the skills/nous to turn those intentions on their head…and to finally draw a line under this bullshit..?
Their refusal to appear is just fodder for the maws of the covid conspiracy nutjobs ..
..(I can hear them frothing from here..)
In a better world Phillip you would be right, turn a potential debacle into an opportunity for healing, but my experience of Sov Cits, tin foil hatters and their more sophisticated chums in Act and NZFirst indicates a disruptive nasty attack on the Labour COVID leaders would have eventuated-for what political gain?
I don't see it so much as an opportunity to 'heal'..
I see it as a lost opportunity to slowly roast the covid nutjobs…to paint a clear picture of their idiocies…
..basically…to laugh at the idjits..
..and to totally devalued their gibberish…
The main reason given, apart from the fact that Hipkins had for example already spoken and answered questions, was that footage of their appearance would be misused by other players.
In the Eighties, I attended a NZLP Conference at which Geoffrey Palmer gave what I thought was a great speech, clear and logical, to which I listened with great interest.
The news on TV showed me, interspersed with Palmer's speech, looking totally bored.
What had been, I believe quite mischievously, done was, by use of footage from two days of filming, an editing job which used another time when I was studying papers placed on the seat in front of me during a remit session to give a very false impression of my reception of Palmer's address.
In basic terms it was a lie with the main-stream media doing that easily concocted con job.
How would some actors now in the political scene perform with their mysogynistic, racist and anti-woke opinions fully accessible to far more wide-ranging media opportunities?
Do we remember the beliefs and opinions that were rife in those days of Covid? The rabbit hole delusion, the angry threats, the anti-authoritarian sovereign citizens, the lies and 'misinformation', the 'influencers', the violence, the hatred?
Thanks to mountain tui for the post highlighting the lies, the misinformation, the half truths, the now conveniently forgotten pronouncements by politicians, to warn where this might lead us.
Thanks Mac1
I am wondering about the precedent this is setting? Has this happened before? The expectation that past ministers are intterrogated in a public hearing about public policy? Will we have the same in the future? Will the current ministers have to explain their policies that caused social and financial harm? Pleenty of those. Who decided when people injured by public policy deserves a public hearing? It is unfortunate that our current government are using this for political point scoring.
Ministers get interrogated while they are Ministers by the media, the opposition in Parliament, the public at meetings especially during elections, when their three yearly jobs are on the line, by constituents, and by their own members. They are also critiqued there by media, opposition and voters, and by letters to the editor, blog commenters, vox populi and social media.
Will the Commission publish a report, and when? How widely available will it be? Were the frames of reference influenced by political motivations, and thereby affect its conduct and findings? What are the special qualifications of its members?
Is it a fair and open enquiry or, as the post's heading suggests, a 'set-up'?
To these questions in themselves I do not know the answers. The enquiry itself was under my radar until the slinging started.
Report to Van Velden by 26th of February. Published for all? Lol Following Christmas Day? if Act don't like the results. (tongue in cheek).
IIRC Wayne Mapp (then no longer a MP) gave evidence to the Operation Burnham enquiry over the SAS in Afghanistan – and the decisions and/or information that he possessed at the time as Minister of Defense.
I don't know of your definition of 'public' but it was certainly reported on (so media were there)
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-defence-minister-wayne-mapp-gives-evidence-in-operation-burnham-inquiry/HEYPQNHLW2HVXRLE6UTB65JLK4/
There are two things I hope this enquiry addresses.
1. Why did we support the already wealthy and not the poor with the 58b that we printed. Bernard Hickey reported that the wealthy were nearly 1 billion richer at the end of Covid while the poor went backwards and needed foodbanks more than ever
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/covids-big-winners-and-losers-revealed
2. Why were mandates left in place when everyone could see that vaccination did not prevent people getting covid
Why were those dying with covid counted as dying from covid?
My take, because it's hard to separate out whether someone whose heart failed was killed by covid, or another factor, or both. Especially in the early years when little was known about the virus.
Covid-19 deaths are defined as “[d]eaths attributed to COVID-19 are deaths where COVID-19 was listed as either the underlying or a contributing cause of death.”
https://www.covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz/reports-lessons-learned/main-report
a more direct link,
https://www.covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz/reports-lessons-learned/main-report/appendices/b-2-data-and-methods
That's a review? Was that the definition NZ used during the pandemic?
??
I’d think so; the data source “National Health Index database, national mortality data”.
the reason I'm asking is during the pandemic, there was this idea of 'died with' and a lot of confusion around how data was being collected.
Yes, there was some confusion and IIRC the MoH communications weren’t always the most helpful for understanding, especially in the beginning when everybody was new to it. However, what contributed to the confusion may have been the way data were collected by government (DHBs, etc.) and how data were interpreted & reported by MSM & SM. Later in the pandemic mis- and dis-information spread faster than the virus.
The Chairman handily provided an example of public comms confusion below 😉
That could explain some cases no doubt. However, weren't they also counting the cases where it was clear the cause of death had nothing to do with covid?
please provide a credible example of that so we know what you are referring to.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/11/11/new-lynn-shooting-victim-was-positive-for-covid-19/
So it seems it was due to the WHO definition we were initially using.
So the question then becomes why was the WHO definition adopted and set that way?
did you miss this bit?
My bold.
Did you miss were I said initially using?
Nevertheless, the question of why the WHO definition was set up to count every death with covid as a covid death and the question of why we adopted that definition here remain.
Surely, counting every death (with covid as a covid death) as they initially did would have increased the death toll.
Thus, resulting in creating more fear and panic.
You asked,
then you said,
Without you explaining your thinking, it was reasonable to assume you were picking up on the trope that death rates were skewed because of what was counted (people with covid but dying from other things).
Health reporting is complex, even more so during an emergency. Incognito commented about the problems with collation and reporting. To my mind it looks like typical health system, in house, bods working with data kind of thing. I would like to see something well written about it, but am pushing back on what you are doing.
I think you could probably go look up why the WHO established reporting the way it did, but instead you ask questions that are actually takling point lines and this is why people call you a troll.
Since when did asking questions about talking points make one a troll?
I'm asking a question that you yourself would like to see something well written about. And was hoping someone could provide it. So I fail to see why you are pushing back.
But I don't mind you doing so as it is your right. And I respect that. Just as I have the right to question. Regardless of what you and others may think
The link I provided highlighted the suspected bias and incompetence in mainstream reporting. The question of why the WHO set it up that way (to report any death where the person had an acute Covid-19 infection regardless of what the cause of death might be) and the question of why we adopted that here were never asked or fully explained.
Additionally, isn't questions like this what the new inquiry is further looking into?
I’m more than happy to answer but you won’t like it. Hint: look at the many times you were moderated here on TS and the reasons for that.
Huh??
Indeed, you’re the infamous sealion.
Blind as a bat.
No, you don’t, as you don’t accept what you don’t want to hear.
Nope, you have commenting privilege here on TS, for now, but no right as such. Also see above.
You added more confusion to it.
The reason was to follow the global standard while fighting a global pandemic. Consistency in data is important.
You know it.
I can't remember if this guy got counted as a Covid death.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-shooting-new-lynn-victim-robert-hart-tests-positive-for-covid-19/J7GON3TOB44563L4WWJYTUZNCQ/
JAQ off.
/
or you could explain. Because it was one of the things that wasn't explained well during the pandemic.
Explain to a commenter with a history of sealioning who persists with their jaqoff trolling that during the first year or so of global shit fight nobody knew anything about the origins and treatment of covid, let alone managing a covid pandemic.
That prior to data gathering and reporting protocols being agreed, there were numerous fuck ups.
That by March 2022 the definition of being deaded by covid had changed from death within 28 days of testing positive for covid to death attributed to covid?
nah
/
"That prior to data gathering and reporting protocols being agreed, there were numerous fuck ups."
So that would have been covered off in the Covid enquiry that 'we' approve of…
because the vaccines limited severity and thus hospital admissions. That prevents death, disability, and health system overload. The latter was a big factor in NZ's response. We simply didn't have the capacity to cope with high numbers of very ill people.
Exactly, and the vaccine continues to make the illness less severe. Just like the flu jab isn't 100% perfect, but it's more likely you won't end up in hospital or dead if you're vaccinated. One has to wonder, how much of the overflowing EDs in Winter is due to avoidable flu complications?
I'm on my 8th covid booster and over christmas my daughter flew in from a long flight – she had contacted covid on the journey. Unknowingly she passed it on to me at the airport.I tested positive about 3 days later. I'm 79 and while she struggled with the disease for several weeks I had few symptoms apart from the runny nose and feeling rotten for 4 days, I was back to enjoying the xmas holidays with the rest of the family within a week.
Anyone with Elderly Family could well relate.
Best result Macro : )
Mandates covered more than vaccination- "In the context of the COVID-19 response in Aotearoa New Zealand, the term ’mandate’ was used to describe a range of public health measures that people were obliged to undertake in certain circumstances, including testing, contact tracing, mask wearing, vaccination and showing proof of vaccination before entering a venue."
Some mandates protected immune-compromised people, children and also those who opted to not follow the mandates. They in turn threatened mandate followers by not wearing masks and socialising inappropriately etc.
Mandates covered social distancing, testing, tracing as well as vaccination.
Whilst researching this comment, I found a royal commission report already published, set up in 2024.
https://www.covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz/reports-lessons-learned/summary-report/commissioner-foreword
Why is this new enquiry commissioned?
"Why is this new enquiry commissioned?"
I'm not sure if that is rhetorical, in case it isn't, the terms of reference in the first one were rather limited.
While this is beyond either enquiry, we missed a trick that could have helped world wide by doing serology tests on our population. To test lasting efficacy of pFizers drug. Something in my water tells me the results would not have been flash.
I assume you mean testing serum antibody titres, but these don’t tell a complete story and specific immune cells should be considered too.
Your point?
Umm.. pFizer's drug is far from as effective as hoped.
"I assume you mean testing serum antibody titres, but these don’t tell a complete story and specific immune cells should be considered too."
It would have been rare data outside of what the pharmaceutical companies publish/claim.
Ambiguous
Vague
Still not clear what point(s) you’re trying to make here. The vaccines were an effective tool that contributed to the successful navigation, health-wise, of NZ’s course through the pandemic.
Hmmm… sadly, the Pfizer Product(and Moderna and J&J) failed to live up to the hype as indicated by this well resourced study published by the US CDC on the 1st August 2021. Failed to stop infection or reduce viral load or necessarily keep the fully vaccinated out of hospital. This was for the Delta variant…and this was published before our most severe vaccine mandates were instituted.
As for being an 'effective tool for successful navigation…' ?
According to Wikipedia, NZ sits just about slap bang in the middle of the Covid- Deaths- per -million- of -population rankings. We sit at the world average…pretty shit really considering we locked down, closed the borders and the schools and was one of only two nations who refused citizens automatic right of return home.
Combined with ferocious vaccine mandates (and the deliberate formenting of division and hate towards those of us who refused) and the atrocious treatment of Pfizer vaccine injured and the continued denial from the Faithful herein that perhaps Mistakes Were Made…well, was it worth it?
As the smoke was clearing from Parliament grounds and the protestors tended their wounded bodies and souls a group of Public Health Experts published an academic paper that warrants a read…The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good .
Wikipedia? LOL
Hey Rosemary, welcome back!
I trust all is as well as can be expected.
Hey gsays…not back. Just passing through. I am indeed as well as can be expected, and I sincerely hope this finds you likewise.
I peruse TS periodically in case there's something interesting. I read MT's response to the response to the refusal of Certain Persons to front up to the public hearings of the Commission.
I was hoping that perhaps there might have been a relaxing of some of the beliefs and opinions that were being obstinately held onto by most commenting herein.
That perhaps there might be less antagonism and prejudice towards those who did not subscribe to said beliefs.
But no. All is as it ever was.
Yep, I hear ya.
The left used to identify with workers and unity. Those days are sadly gone.
Really?
To gsays, really.
The vast majority of workers showed solidarity with one another, did the right thing and protected themselves and those around them with vaccination. The general uptake of vaccination was about 95% of the eligible population and I suspect the uptake for people in work was higher because of the mandates.
I'm not sure why the left are being asked to identify with the less than 5% of workers who reject science and allow themselves to be taken in by anti-vaxxers. The people the left are inexplicably being asked to stand by went on to rampage outside parliament, a riot which would have Trump's Jan 6th Capitol attackers nodding with approval.
Me too – SSDD
https://thespinoff.co.nz/science/24-02-2021/siouxsie-wiles-toby-morris-how-the-pfizer-vaccine-for-covid-19-works
https://app.bookmyvaccine.health.nz/
Hi Rosemary
Yes, this thread has exposed some here have no intention in repairing the divide.
Cookers, wankers, the name calling continues. And most should know the name calling is an attempt to dehumanise.
Thus, the opening for further and hasher attacks.
We seen this before the police forcefully evicted the protestors. And we see it with Israel against Palestine
120th in the table.
Still below Oz, similar situation and they have the better health system.
One also has to factor in age of the population to identify relative risk to death from infection. We are one of the boomer nations.
Here we go again.
From your link.
In contrast to similar communities, pre vaccination!
Fuck, I sincerely hope not ! The whole anti Pfizer Ivermectin, Vitamin D, bleach…. nanobots. Enough already !
Classical straw man
The ‘rich’ metaphorical language of your comment shows that you’re still riding the same bigoted bandwagon.
From the link.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8367314/
Yaah, boosters against delta.
Yaah, but more than those not vaccinated.
It's median.
Once again, better than Oz.
Yeah na, we required quarantine in a designated facility
Nations that did not close borders had the longer school closures.
FactCheck
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-right-to-enter-his-or-her-own-country/
We required quarantine in a designated facility. Airlines required a booking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country#/media/File:World_map_of_total_confirmed_COVID-19_deaths_per_million_people_by_country.png
https://app.bookmyvaccine.health.nz/
As a 'vaccine aside', there was an interview towards the end of Jim Mora's RNZ program last Sunday morning, including something about the off-target effects of some vaccines reducing the incidence of dementia. There's so much to still to learn about the roles and workings of immune systems, but train 'em right and they can serve you for life!
So, vaccines might lower dementia risk? Do they have any effect upon intelligence? Research has shown a difference in IQ levels between Left and Right. Has there been any research done for IQ and EQ between those vaccinating and not?
Having asked that question as a dig at anti-vaxxers, consulting Dr Google discovered this study. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8133799/
Its finding- " After adjustment for age, sex, and ethnicity, study members with a lower baseline cognition score were markedly more likely to be vaccine hesitant"…….
Thanks, gsays. Not rhetorical. Is it too late to do these serology tests? Again, not rhetorical….
That horse has bolted.
Back in the day (is it too early?) we had the nation's attention. A populace accustomed to compliance plus staff, sites and budget.
I think you mean the ship has sailed.
Essentially, because the coalition parties wanted it. It’s in both Coalition Agreements.
Yes, it's in NZF 2023 election manifesto under the heading defending freedom-
And also in RNZ summary of election policies, ACT had it.
This level of ignorance is exactly why Labour shouldn't "front up" to the Witch hunt.
1. The reason for a wage subsidy, which drew great ire from NACTIOD's, instead of a direct subsidy to businesses, was to make sure that subsidies went to keeping people employed and the money in the community. Unfortunately the way our economy works some is bound to end up in wealthy hands. Poverty was decreasing under Labour/Greens. But covid happened!
2. How to show you have NFI how vaccination works to protect people. That no vaccine is 100% effective, is NOT a valid argument against them.
It's the same as with TV shows. If there were ever some controversy which I happened to be caught up in, I'd be very wary indeed about agreeing to appear on camera. There's invariably a "narrative" or "story" conceived by the producers, often with the aim of attracting as many viewers as possible so that the advertisers are kept happy. All filming and/or editing is aimed at illustrating that narrative, regardless of objective truth. If you're actually in the right, but producers decide to cast you as the bad guy – too bad!
At least with this misconceived farrago, everyone knows from the off what the narrative is going to be. Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson and Verrall have all realised it, and have taken the only sensible option. Let the RW attack-dogs (and assorted groupies) huff and puff all they like till they’re out of breath. The news cycle will move on, as always.
I have also seen the media get it wrong almost every time I've been personally in the loop, with something they have published.
One of the pluses with Labours COVID response was the daily explanations and talks from "those at the coal face" as it were. Experts and the leaders directing the response.
Of course this also inspired ire, from our, so called, journalists, because it exposed their normal level of spin and mis comprehension.
Adern was an excellent example of how to lead in times of danger.
Having had to do that myself several times in my life, though obvious not at a national level gives me an insight into how much is required to do that.
Of course your actions get criticised by those with 20/20 hindsight. But. You do the best you can with the information you have.
I find plenty of other things to criticise about Labour. The COVID response was excellent. Safeguarding lives, livelihoods and the community. Some people just can't forgive them for putting the community ahead of individual self interest.
Once this becomes available, it might be a good read too:
Document reveals minister’s early tensions with Covid Commission chair [behind subscription wall for the time being]
The linked article is now available to all for reading.
The comments (7 at present) are quite informative and Mountain Tui gets a special mention.
Can't help thinking the officials advising the minister on how to speak to Illingworth (literally drafting her script for meetings), found this second phase dreamed up by Peters and Seymour an absolute waste of time and money, "in a challenging fiscal and economic environment".
And what better way to waste time and money on the production of a report than to place onerous process and budget reporting requirements on the head. It seems for the public service anyway the progress reporting about the report is more important than the report itself.
The second phase doesn’t seem to fit with the Coalition’s ideology of cutting costs wherever and whenever, saving time, and pushing hard the agenda of unleashing economic growth. It clearly is high on their agenda and high on the agenda of Brooke van Velden who tends to avoid meetings with stakeholders. She comes across as a vindictive bully, IMO.
If their story was that good Labour should have fronted the public hearing.
It's a gift they should have taken.
Whether it is a set up or not may well be a matter of perspective, depending on the side of the political fence one sits on.
Regardless of that though, I think Labour missed the opportunity to take the moral high ground on this. They could have made it clear they believed it was a set up, but that they also valued the opportunity to communicate with the public on this issue, to help them understand why they took the action they did.
As it is now, rightly or wrongly, I think this is a public relations disaster for them.
Nice post. If Act/NZF are wagging a Natdog during the next pandemic then God save NZ.
Imho, the COVID freedum brigade couldn’t see reason, and hindsight critics never will.
The purpose of enhanced protections and hygiene measures (lockdowns and other travel restrictions, bubbles, physical distancing, masks, hand sanitising et al.) during novel pandemics is not to limit human freedoms, but rather to limit the freedom of potentially lethal pandemic agents (e.g. SARS‑CoV‑2) to cause illness and overwhelm public health services in the lead-up to and during a vaccine rollout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics_and_pandemics#By_death_toll
Our public health services are now close to being overwhelmed by everyday need, never mind another pandemic. Those opposed to commonsense pandemic responses are aiding and abetting pandemic pathogens, and they'll get no thanks from me.
I can still very distinctly recall National at the time constantly yelling "open the borders" when NZ was still very much dealing with Covid. National was quite happy therefore for more infected people to come into the country.
The Nats main credo : Freedom…to make money.
My biggest criticism of NZ's response is the way it almost completely ignores long covid, and pretends that covid is just like a flu. It's like we don't even care if people get covid now. Where are the retrofitted, state of the art air filtration systems in crowded spaces that would limit spread? Public messaging that a covid infection causes long term damage to the body in a certain % of the people infected? Public health initiatives to protect the people most vulnerable?
Sociopolitical discussion of the impacts over over the next 5, 10, 20 years of increasing numbers of people getting post-covid health issues, because the more times you are infected, the more likely you are to get post-covid issues? Impacts on health, welfare, productivity, businesses/employees. This alone, the lack of acknowledgment, blows my mind. We thought climate change denial was bad. Not even the left talks about long covid.
My biggest concern is that the overblown reaction. The storm of bullshit and ignorance that has resulted by a minority of "blithering idiots" (being kind here) pushed by cynical actors who think their own power and wealth should override the health and wellbeing of the community, will make an effective response to a future pandemic, politically impossible.
Cookers, is too mild a term for the people who have destroyed any chance of effective mandates, distancing, quarenteen, vaccination, masks etc being used to ameliorate the next pandemic.
Meanwhile the lack of preparedness and inadequacy of the health system is being ignored, and the need for infection controls, while we have "sideshow" enquiries to pander to the Cookers that supply ACT and NZF votes.
KJT. 100 %. Mis and Disinformation, deluded at best, but often malicious/political, fucking with people lives ffs, as proven in Samoa recently
Apparently around 6-8% of people contracted long covid. The information online seems to be limited but the consensus is that the percentage with long-covid is now dropping, and that the best way to get rid of it is to get Covid 19 vaccinated every 6 months.
The problem may be that some people ended up with long covid because they refused to be vaccinated and continue to reject getting vaccinated.
Take care..and listen to Expert Medical advice. Not Ivermectin pushers…
No Bearded Git. My regularly vaccinated son is in an ongoing Long Covid Study on the Gold Coast. He was considered at risk as he already had two serious health issues.
His bloods were taken every three months for two years, plus his breathing was measured, his antibodies checked etc.
It turns out that Long Covid is related to conditions commonly found after a viral illness. Fuzzy thinking deep tiredness aches and pains and anything up to 200 common symptoms. Like glandular fever.
The conditions can last 6 weeks to three years, coming in waves, and can become chronic.
Grant has been unlucky and now has fibromyalgia, which is managed not cured. This is one of the worst outcomes.
Others are an over active immune system which cause rashes swelling nerve pain and ongoing issues of over reaction, or the reverse, getting everything going round as the immune system does not react.
Organ damage is common, especially lung and heart damage. So NZ Health being overwhelmed by normal health issues and aging populations, has no resources to tackle this sadly.
Sorry to hear that Patricia. The most frustrating thing is that good care could be provided and isn't. NZ Health is chronically underfunded, but NZ can afford good health services, we're just not making that a priority. It's mind boggling. I would have thought the lowered productivity over time along with the aging population might have made politicians think more clearly on it.
where did you get the 6-8% from?
The 6-8% was the best estimate I could come up with from half a dozen articles I looked at. In reality nobody seems to have clear data on LC, which is a little weird.
Two friends of mine, a couple, BOTH claim to have LC. Mutual friends of mine are skeptical. The chances of this are very low…I think 1/156 if the overall incidence is 8%.
While I fully accept that LC exists, people claiming to have it who don't have it blurs the picture.
Here's the CDC page on LC definition.
https://www.cdc.gov/long-covid/about/index.html
It's essentially any persistent symptoms following a covid infection. So someone with ongoing loss of smell, or brain fog, or digestive upset, can have LC, alongside people who are bed ridden. It can be hard for people to get their head around why there are so many symptoms and such a wide range of degree of effects. It's a syndrome driven by the impact of the acute infection on any system or tissue in the body that the virus comes into contact with (and afaik, viral particles can persist in some case well beyond the acute infection). We have a much better understanding now than we did, but still a lot is not known.
The reasons for such a wide variation in stats on LC incidence stem from a few things: novel virus with emerging post-viral complications that we are still learning about, unclarity on diagnosis, prejudice against people presenting with odd and varying symptoms, doctors being reluctant to say something is related to covid because of lack of clinical diagnostic tests or because they don't believe it's a thing. Imo, LC is being under-reported in NZ.
The political problem I have with your position here is that you have chosen to say the incidence is low (minimising), and this appears tied to personal experience of people you know.
Do you remember David Shearer's painter on the roof story? He gave a speech as Leader of the Opposition, to Grey Power in 2012,
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1208/S00094/speech-shearer-grey-power-auckland.htm
No-one can diagnose from a distance. LC is a medical condition that gets diagnosed by medical people. It's not causal assessment.
As someone with a long term invisible disability (pre-pandemic), I can tell you that this kind of political rhetoric directly harms people. It negatively impacts on healthcare, income, and family and social connections. This is common, because of the prejudice against people who look well but aren't. Thus the bludger meme aimed at people who are unwell that Shearer promoted and you inadvertently added to.
When you say you know people who say they have LC and probably don't, and LC is a low rate so it's improbable, that's a political position. It's political, because successive governments penalise people who have chronic illness and require income support. IMO it's part of why Labour won't raise SLP and the Sickness Benefit to liveable. Partly because of Labour's fear of backlash for raising benefits, but also imo likely to be partly philosophical, people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, it's only fair, and jobs solve everything.
That means that many people when at their most vulnerable are also pushed into poverty. Ironically, the health system also has some questionable world views on invisible disabilities and syndromes it doesn't understand well.
If someone is bed ridden following a car accident, they get ACC payouts (income and lump sum), and state funded home support. If someone is bed ridden with LC, they get the sickness benefit (same low rate as the dole), and very little home support. They can also apply for supplementary benefits from WINZ, if they have the ability to do that while ill. Those benefits are capped, so people in such a situation often experience a serious drop in standard of living that goes with the drop in income.
The numbers of never vaccinated against covid people in NZ is relatively small. I've not seen anything to suggest that unvaccinated people make up a big part of people with LC. There's been some evidence that vaccinated gives some protection against LC, but I don't know how robust it is, nor to what extent.
More of a problem with LC than unvaxxed people is where LC is minimised.
Misinfomation and panic abounded, aided by a dickheaded press. Early on the lack of ventilators, or more truthfully the lack of oversupply of ventilators was noticable ( remember that ) and led to enormous worry but wthin a few weeks in the US, Britain etc it was found that Covid affected lungs could not handle the pressure and caused more damage as it was the lining of the lungs that was primarily affected by the virus and placing the patient face down was far more effectice in enhancing breathing. My information came from my wife , a highly skilled ventilator operator. I asked her why there wern't enough and she replied that this was now the advice that they were acting on. I do not recall a single article coming from the the panic-mongering press once this treatment change became mainstream.
What's good for the goose…
/
The Waitangi Tribunal’s summons to sitting Minister Karen Chhour as part of its inquiry into the Government’s plans to amend the Oranga Tamariki Act was lawful, the Court of Appeal has found.
[…]
On Monday, the Government’s bill to repeal section 7AA was introduced to Parliament.
In late March, as part of its investigation, the Tribunal sent a list of questions to Chhour about the reasons behind the repeal. She declined to answer them, offering up Cabinet papers and making officials available to give evidence instead.
After some back-and-forth, the Tribunal issued a summons for Chhour to appear before it to answer the questions. In response, senior ministers David Seymour and Shane Jones threatened the Tribunal, warning it could be reformed or “wound up” entirely. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said these comments were “ill-considered” but took no further action as Seymour stood by them.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/05/13/waitangi-tribunal-able-to-summons-minister-court-finds/
And, it seems, Chhour then rendered the Waitangi Tribunal impotent by introducing a Bill into Parliament with the effect that the Tribunal could not then discuss the issue.
An Auckland University academic has linked the Bill and its effects into a wider attack by ACT and other anti-Tiriti actors upon the Tiriti o Waitangi.
Minister Chhour's tactics and refusal, and the introduction of the Bill that was passed into law prevented the Waitangi Tribunal's from examining her actions.
This opinion piece, however, does state the case. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2024/06/13/whats-behind-repeal-of-Section-7aa.html
Rather than be accountable she scorned the Tribunal by her actions.
ACT and NZF are dangerous and hypocritical.
Luxon is showing he has little ability to negotiate better outcomes with his activist coalition partners.
I hope that President Trump can be better today at negotiatiing with President Putin. In both cases, I fear not…..
In both cases…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe
I'd be happy for Hipkins et al to be summonsed to a Covid enquiry is Luxon and Willis stand trial for wrecking the economy after forcing tens of thousands out of work and scrapping women's wage claims for the purpose of showering lavish tax cuts on amateur landlords.
Ah yes, but you see, wrecking the economy isn't a blatant, unacceptable and unforgivable attack on personal freedoms, like pandemic protection is… /s
The problem is amateur landlords are not 'amateur' in the sense of unpaid. Consider these poor landlords deserving of lavish tax cuts. In 25 years in NZ from 2000 the average income increased 2.57 times but average rents by 2.97 times. Instead of being $575 average rent in 2025, keeping up with the average wage increase would have meant $488 per week.
Amateur indeed!