Editorial: Kiwis demand public answers from former ministers

Published in Business and Finance on Sunday, August 17th 2025 at 1:41 GMT by The New Zealand Herald
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

OPINION: We aren't impressed by the decision to skip the public part of the inquiry.

Kiwis Demand Public Answers from Former Ministers in Covid-19 Inquiry: An Extensive Editorial Summary

In a compelling call for transparency and accountability, New Zealanders are increasingly vocal about the need for former government ministers to face public scrutiny in the ongoing Royal Commission of Inquiry into the country's Covid-19 response. The inquiry, established to examine the decisions, policies, and outcomes of New Zealand's pandemic management, has sparked widespread debate, with many citizens insisting that key figures from the previous administration provide direct, public explanations for their actions. This demand stems from a deep-seated desire to understand the rationale behind some of the most stringent measures implemented during the crisis, which profoundly affected daily life, the economy, and personal freedoms across the nation.

At the heart of the inquiry is the evaluation of New Zealand's "go hard, go early" strategy, which included nationwide lockdowns, border closures, and mandatory vaccination policies. These measures, while credited with saving lives and keeping infection rates low compared to many other countries, also drew criticism for their economic toll, mental health impacts, and perceived overreach. The editorial highlights how ordinary Kiwis, from business owners who saw their livelihoods disrupted to families separated by travel restrictions, are seeking clarity on why certain decisions were made and whether alternatives were adequately considered. For instance, the prolonged lockdowns in Auckland, which lasted over 100 days in 2021, left lasting scars on the community, prompting questions about the balance between public health imperatives and socioeconomic consequences.

Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who led the country through much of the pandemic, is a focal point of these demands. Her administration's approach was initially praised globally for its effectiveness in eliminating the virus through elimination strategies, but as the Omicron variant emerged, the shift to a "living with Covid" model raised eyebrows. Critics argue that Ardern, along with former Health Minister Chris Hipkins and Finance Minister Grant Robertson, should appear in open sessions to address specifics, such as the timing of vaccine rollouts, the enforcement of MIQ (Managed Isolation and Quarantine) facilities, and the communication strategies that sometimes sowed confusion or division. The editorial posits that without such public testimonies, the inquiry risks being seen as a closed-door exercise, potentially eroding public trust in government institutions.

The current phase of the inquiry, which began in late 2022 under the leadership of epidemiologist Tony Blakely and other commissioners, has so far involved gathering evidence from experts, officials, and stakeholders. However, the lack of public hearings featuring high-profile politicians has fueled frustration. Proponents of open sessions argue that this format would allow for real-time questioning, cross-examination, and the opportunity for ministers to defend their choices directly to the people they served. This is particularly pertinent given revelations from leaked documents and whistleblower accounts that have surfaced, suggesting internal debates over the proportionality of mandates, such as those requiring vaccination for certain jobs, which led to protests and social unrest, including the 2022 Parliament occupation.

Moreover, the editorial delves into broader lessons that New Zealand must learn from the pandemic. It emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing not just successes, like the low death rate per capita, but also failures, such as delays in procuring rapid antigen tests or inequities in how restrictions affected Māori and Pasifika communities, who faced higher infection rates and barriers to healthcare. The inquiry's terms of reference include assessing preparedness, response effectiveness, and future recommendations, but without public accountability from decision-makers, these findings could lack the weight needed to drive meaningful change. For example, the economic fallout—estimated in billions of dollars in lost productivity and increased national debt—demands explanations on fiscal decisions, including wage subsidies and business support packages that, while lifesaving for some, were criticized for inefficiencies and unequal distribution.

Public sentiment, as reflected in opinion polls and social media discussions, shows a clear divide. Supporters of the former Labour government's handling appreciate the decisive actions that protected vulnerable populations, but a growing chorus, including opposition parties like National and ACT, calls for greater openness to prevent a repeat of perceived mistakes. The editorial warns that shielding former ministers from public view could perpetuate a culture of opacity, especially in a democracy like New Zealand's, where transparency is a cornerstone. It draws parallels to international inquiries, such as the UK's Covid-19 probe, where figures like Boris Johnson faced intense public grilling, yielding valuable insights and apologies that helped in national healing.

Looking ahead, the inquiry is expected to expand into subsequent phases, potentially incorporating public submissions and hearings. Advocates are pushing for these to be televised or streamed, ensuring accessibility for all Kiwis, regardless of location. This would not only satisfy the demand for answers but also foster a collective reflection on resilience and unity during crisis. The editorial underscores that true accountability involves more than written reports; it requires facing the public eye, acknowledging missteps, and committing to better practices. For instance, questions linger about the mental health crisis exacerbated by isolation, with suicide rates and anxiety disorders spiking, and whether mental health support was sufficiently prioritized alongside physical health measures.

In essence, the push for former ministers to appear publicly is about more than retribution—it's about closure, learning, and rebuilding faith in leadership. As New Zealand navigates post-pandemic recovery, with ongoing challenges like long Covid and healthcare backlogs, the inquiry represents a pivotal opportunity. By demanding public answers, Kiwis are asserting their right to understand how their lives were upended and ensuring that future governments are better equipped to handle crises without unnecessary hardship. The editorial concludes with a hopeful note: transparency could transform this inquiry from a bureaucratic process into a catalyst for national strength, honoring the sacrifices made by all during one of the most trying periods in modern history. This demand reflects a maturing democracy, where leaders are held to account not in shadows, but in the light of public discourse.

Read the Full The New Zealand Herald Article at:
[ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kiwis-demand-public-answers-from-former-ministers-in-covid-19-inquiry-editorial/YICF5G3XZFFYLJEASMB3UKLTCU/ ]

N※N

Editorial: Kiwis demand public answers from former ministers

Kiwis Demand Public Answers from Former Ministers in Covid-19 Inquiry: An Extensive Editorial Summary