Dunne's Weekly: Ardern Must Front-Up At Covid19 Inquiry

Scoop

3 days ago

Phase Two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the government's response to Covid19 and its effects got underway this week, with the commencement of the hearing of public submissions.
According to the Commission chair, Grant Illingworth KC, the focus of this aspect of the inquiry is to hear from the public about their experiences, including the impacts on "social division and isolation, health and education, and business activity.' It will also " hear from experts about the key decisions and their consequences, and lessons to be learned from what happened."
There will be a further phase of the inquiry next month, to hear from key decision makers who "led and informed" the government's response to the pandemic.
Already there have been calls for former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern to return from the United States to give evidence to and be cross-examined by the Royal Commission, but it is not yet clear whether she will do so. Current Labour leader, Chris Hipkins was vague when interviewed about whether Ardern would appear, even though he says he met her in London last week. Ardern has subsequently said that she will be happy to 'provide evidence' to the inquiry but she has so far shied clear of confirming that means she is willing to appear in person.
As the person who led New Zealand through the pandemic crisis, and received wide international acclaim for her performance, there is no question that Ardern should front up at the New Zealand inquiry. Failure to do so, given the subsequent national division over the pandemic response, would send all the wrong signals, and would diminish the credibility currently attached to her government's overall Covid19 performance. Appearing before the inquiry would be a clear acceptance of public accountability for actions taken in the national interest during a national crisis. She owes it to New Zealanders – her 'team of five million' – to do so.
But whether Ardern decides to front or not, there are clear signs that her Labour Party colleagues are not impressed by the public phases of the inquiry now getting underway. They seem clearly uncomfortable with having to explain and justify their actions to an independent Royal Commission. Hipkins has already dismissed the new stages as being designed to 'achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views."
While he says he will co-operate with the inquiry and answer all the written questions put to him, he would not commit to appearing in person if asked to do so. 'I don't want to see happen … a whole lot of theatrics. I'm very interested in engaging with them on how … we can capture the lessons … [but] the terms of reference are certainly far more political than the first one,' he said.
As with Ardern, Hipkins should appear before the inquiry. He was one of the most senior Ministers involved in the then government's response, and will forever be associated with some of its more controversial measures like the MIQ scheme, restrictions on family reunification in stressful circumstances and the ridiculous short-lived suggestion in late 2021 that Aucklanders might have to get prior government permission for the time of day and dates on which they could leave for the summer holidays. Whatever his concerns about the terms of reference, Hipkins, like Ardern, owes it to all those who suffered through MIQ or not being able to join dying loved ones in their final few hours to front up and publicly justify those actions.
There is a third person who should similarly be required to front before the Royal Commission and that is the former Director-General of Health, Sir Ashley Bloomfield. Although the former government was ultimately solely responsible for the various decisions taken, many of those decisions were based on advice provided by Bloomfield. Moreover, during the period of the pandemic, Bloomfield enjoyed a level of access to both the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet that has not been shared by any other public servant in New Zealand's history. The unique nature of his role at that time makes him more accountable for the decisions taken than any other senior public servant would normally be.
A key element of Ardern's, Hipkins' and Bloomfield's success during the pandemic was that they all displayed a consistent level of confidence that they were making the right decisions in the best interests of all New Zealanders. That portrayal of confidence played a key role in getting New Zealanders onside and generally complying with the various measures put in place, despite the considerable disruption to their own lives and circumstances.
Given that level of unprecedented upheaval and restriction on personal freedom – greater even than wartime – which people went along with because they believed it was for the greater good, it is now far from unreasonable for New Zealanders to expect Ardern, Hipkins and Bloomfield to appear before the Royal Commission to explain their actions in a way that they would not and could not do at the time.
Only then will the Royal Commission be sufficiently informed to report on 'lessons to be learned from what happened.'