Inquiry Part 1 was a Labour Government stitch up. It was an exercise in smoke and mirrors.
Inquiry Part 2 is a coalition deal driven by ACT and NZ First, and was designed to look into areas not touched on in Part 1: access to vaccines, lock downs, economic damage, and so on.
I have argued since the start that we needed an advisorial approach. In other words, we do it like the Brits, who called people to a witness stand and held them accountable.
We didn’t do that and now we're paying the price.
Ardern and Hipkins, along with Robertson, have declined to appear.
No kidding. What a surprise. I wonder why?
Grant Illingworth KC, who is in charge of the current work, has the power apparently to pull them in. He is choosing not to do so, hence my assumption of disappointment at political party level.
The Illingworth justification is the aforementioned operators are cooperating with proceedings.
That's not good enough in my book, or indeed anywhere close.
Simple question: is there a broad expectation among ordinary, everyday New Zealanders that those who made life-changing calls in a life-changing period of New Zealand owe it to us all to front and be questioned under oath about why they did what they did?
Another question: what does it say about the morals and characters of said people, who seek public mandate and public support and approval, that when things get a bit awkward they are nowhere to be seen?
Where is the courage of their conviction? Where are their spines and gonads?
Can a person like Hipkins, and indeed Verrall, who I also understand is refusing to front, possibly present themselves to the voting public next year with a straight face and ask once again for the power to run the land, having been the same people who in august of the year before ran for the hills when accountability came calling?
The rules of engagement were lacking. We were let down.
As the head of this with power to do better, Illingworth is letting us down.
But nowhere near the level of Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson, and Verrall, who should be ashamed of themselves.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
We didn’t do that and now we're paying the price.
Ardern and Hipkins, along with Robertson, have declined to appear.
No kidding. What a surprise. I wonder why?
Grant Illingworth KC, who is in charge of the current work, has the power apparently to pull them in. He is choosing not to do so, hence my assumption of disappointment at political party level.
The Illingworth justification is the aforementioned operators are cooperating with proceedings.
That's not good enough in my book, or indeed anywhere close.
Simple question: is there a broad expectation among ordinary, everyday New Zealanders that those who made life-changing calls in a life-changing period of New Zealand owe it to us all to front and be questioned under oath about why they did what they did?
Another question: what does it say about the morals and characters of said people, who seek public mandate and public support and approval, that when things get a bit awkward they are nowhere to be seen?
Where is the courage of their conviction? Where are their spines and gonads?
Can a person like Hipkins, and indeed Verrall, who I also understand is refusing to front, possibly present themselves to the voting public next year with a straight face and ask once again for the power to run the land, having been the same people who in august of the year before ran for the hills when accountability came calling?
The rules of engagement were lacking. We were let down.
As the head of this with power to do better, Illingworth is letting us down.
But nowhere near the level of Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson, and Verrall, who should be ashamed of themselves.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment