Peter Williams: Hipkins should appear at the Covid-19 Inquiry

Written responses are not enough

We should be thankful for small mercies.

Chris Hipkins says he’s preparing a written response to the Covid Phase 2 inquiry. He seems decidedly unenthusiastic about appearing in person.

Here’s the problem. We don’t know what questions Hipkins has been asked by the Commissioners.

The former Prime Minister has moved onto the front foot with his claim that the terms of reference for Phase 2 “have been deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views.”

Hmm.

Here’s what I’d really like to know Mr Hipkins.

When the government approved the Pfizer vaccine in February 2021 were you as the Covid-19 Response Minister aware that:

1. The duration of vaccine protection was not established beyond two months?

2. That there was limited evidence of protection against severe disease?

3. That there was no long term safety follow-up information?

4. That prevention of disease transmission had not been established?

Because you see Mr Hipkins, on 10 February 2021 you were told in writing by Ashley Bloomfield that

“We do not yet have conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine at preventing or reducing transmission to be confident of the public health value of this vaccination, beyond the individual level. So, unlike testing, which had a clear public health benefit, vaccination at this point in time is expected to reduce risk through a reduction in the likelihood of severity of disease and onward transmission. This may change as more evidence becomes available. However, at this time, mandatory vaccination is unlikely to be a justified limitation of the right to refuse medical treatment under Section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act.”

There is no conspiracy theory here Mr Hipkins. These are facts.

Medsafe Group Manager Chris James wrote to Pfizer Australia on January 28, 2021 and said “having reviewed the information supplied in your initial application and in your further responses, I am not satisfied that I should give my consent to the distribution of the product.”

So Medsafe moved the application for approval onto the (still) anonymous members of the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (MAAC).

That committee did not undertake any further testing or evaluation of the Pfizer product but on February 3, 2021 wrote back to Medsafe saying it has “recommended that you grant provisional consent to the distribution of the following medicine: Comirnaty (COVID-19 mRNA vaccine).”

Only a week later Bloomfield advised Hipkins that mandatory vaccination was unlikely to be justified under the Bill of Rights Act because there as just not enough information about either the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine.

Yet that May, just 3 months later, the Covid-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 came into force.

Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern knew that the Pfizer product wasn’t going to make much difference to the health of New Zealanders because both Medsafe and the Director-General of Health had told them so.

But they still insisted on mandatory vaccinations if you wanted unfettered access to most aspects of New Zealand life during 2021 and 2022.

Numerous lives and careers were ruined by vaccination mandates.

That’s why both Hipkins and Ardern need to appear at the Royal Commission.

But they won’t because they cannot justify their actions.

Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.