When people are hurt or feel an injustice has been done to them, one of the ways to assist the healing process is to ensure they have been heard and listened to. Importantly, they need to see and hear that they’ve been heard.
I recall one person coming into my electorate office early on in my parliamentary career with a rather complex and fraught situation, and as they spoke my mind was racing as to what I could do to solve the issue. As they finished and were about to leave, I frankly admitted that I did not know what could be done but that I would consider further. Their reply has always stayed with me – “Oh, I know there is nothing you can do, but I wanted to talk and be heard. And I was, thank you.”
Just over a week ago, the Royal Commission looking into New Zealand’s Covid response, published its second report. Reading through it, I was disappointed and quite frankly, bored. Not because the issues of Covid or how it was managed are boring, but the narrative lacked an acknowledgement of the many voices who wanted to be heard around their experiences.
The report also did not address some of the elephants in the room, notably the efficacy of the vaccine(s) and questions around vaccine injuries. To be fair, this choice goes back to the politicians in charge who set the terms of reference, not the commissioners.
Disappointingly, but not unpredictably, we’ve had some in politics and media saying we just have to move on from the Covid days. This is disingenuous and also suggests those writing and commenting are part of a ‘class’ that suffered little to no impact during those years and since.
There remains deep hurt within many New Zealanders due to the way Covid was managed. Whether around the mandates or vaccines; those unable to properly farewell loved ones who had died; those locked up in MIQ or who lost their livelihoods – the experience, the pain, the hurt, and sense of moral injury are very real. They do not want to move on and nor should they.
It is insulting to suggest they should, and more often than not, those who are saying that people should move on are usually the ones embarrassed by their own choices and actions during that period of time. For example, the people who stubbornly divided others according to vaccination status - insisting their children could not longer play with their best friends, or family members who refused to invite a brother or sister to a wedding. In situations such as this, there is deep and lingering hurt.
The Royal Commission’s report remains a lost opportunity to have allowed these voices of pain to be heard and seen. While the report provides a lengthy narrative around government decisions, it does not give sufficient voice to those still hurting. Had those in pain seen an acknowledgement of what they have been through, I think perhaps some may have been able to begin a process of reconciliation.
I should note, reconciling or healing does not mean accepting what happened. But acknowledgement of another’s experience goes a long way.
This said, there are a host of issues the Royal Commission did rightly highlight, yet sadly within the political and media realms, most have been buried, ignored, or had cold water poured over them. A Labour government that misspent over $30 billion on projects that had nothing to do with Covid; the decision to delay the use of rapid antigen tests (RATs); and the real clanger, Ministers (Hipkins and Verrall) who signed off on the double vaccination of young people despite the clearly outlined risks, something that should have New Zealanders outraged.
Screenshot of part of the ‘two shots for summer’ campaign
in 2021, clearly oriented towards the youth.
I think a key reason for this is the government of the day and the various bureaucrats, academics, media acolytes, and others were enjoying the power they possessed. It was a power trip.
I reflect on the mad last weeks of lockdowns in Auckland, with the bewildering array of rules and requirements. You could host another bubble on your property, but only outside, and they were not allowed to use your toilet inside. This example and many others were no longer an expression of health needs, but the exercise of power.
Those in control were enjoying – most likely subconsciously – having power over others. For those in favour of big government, the Covid days were a gift. Despite the advice not to double vaccinate young people, those in government decided it was in their power to allow it. When choice could have been given to be people between RAT tests and vaccinations, those with the power decided they preferred to be in control and not you.
It is clear the government preferenced a singular, monolithic, and unnuanced approach to managing Covid. They appreciated the power they had and to which they exercised. As we’ve seen since, many of the decisions have been struck down by the courts or explicitly challenged in public. The MIQ system was rightly criticised for having no subtly or flexibility. Mandates could have been reduced by allowing the use of RAT tests. Admitting that the vaccine had little impact on transmission would have allowed people to attend funerals and farewell loved ones and so on.
But no. What was sought was control and anyone who challenged the narrative was to be abused, discounted, and dismissed. The infamous ‘single source of truth’ was to be amplified and those providing an alternative view, sidelined and labelled fringe.
When those intent on seeking power and control succeed, then nuance, subtlety, exemption, and humanity fail.
I will end with something I said when in Parliament and addressing these very issues and which seems as pertinent today as it was then:
I think a key reason for this is the government of the day and the various bureaucrats, academics, media acolytes, and others were enjoying the power they possessed. It was a power trip.
I reflect on the mad last weeks of lockdowns in Auckland, with the bewildering array of rules and requirements. You could host another bubble on your property, but only outside, and they were not allowed to use your toilet inside. This example and many others were no longer an expression of health needs, but the exercise of power.
Those in control were enjoying – most likely subconsciously – having power over others. For those in favour of big government, the Covid days were a gift. Despite the advice not to double vaccinate young people, those in government decided it was in their power to allow it. When choice could have been given to be people between RAT tests and vaccinations, those with the power decided they preferred to be in control and not you.
It is clear the government preferenced a singular, monolithic, and unnuanced approach to managing Covid. They appreciated the power they had and to which they exercised. As we’ve seen since, many of the decisions have been struck down by the courts or explicitly challenged in public. The MIQ system was rightly criticised for having no subtly or flexibility. Mandates could have been reduced by allowing the use of RAT tests. Admitting that the vaccine had little impact on transmission would have allowed people to attend funerals and farewell loved ones and so on.
But no. What was sought was control and anyone who challenged the narrative was to be abused, discounted, and dismissed. The infamous ‘single source of truth’ was to be amplified and those providing an alternative view, sidelined and labelled fringe.
When those intent on seeking power and control succeed, then nuance, subtlety, exemption, and humanity fail.
I will end with something I said when in Parliament and addressing these very issues and which seems as pertinent today as it was then:
“I want to put this warning out, because history is very clear about this: you treat adults in a democracy responsibly. You allow them proportionally to take back their lives. Because I put this warning there now: if we don’t give it to them, they’ll take it back.
I want to end as I began: ‘when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not necessarily because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. That’s what I fear we are seeing now.’ Wake up, New Zealand.”
In Media
I’ve been interviewing people, and discussing, these very issues over recent days.
My and Bob’s first impressions, soon after the Royal Commission report was made public:
I sat down with Tanya Unkovich, a former NZ First MP and strong advocate around Covid accountability, to discuss her impression of the Royal Commission report:
And my own initial reflections on the day the report was released:
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
I'll be honest. Any government report these days which refers to our country as "Aotearoa New Zealand" (or simply "Aotearoa"), I refuse to engage with. You may consider it churlish, but it's fundamental. It demonstrates an arrogance to the people of New Zealand and fealty to fashionable, revisionist undemocratic trends. The substance inside is likely to reflect this foundational ideological framework. New Zealand is an intensely propogandised country on anything remotely relating to Maori, trans, race, sexuality, immigration, and diversity.
The were heard. There are 24 recommendations. The career politician who commissioned the report has fallen silent, and appears to have no interest in implementing any of the recommendations. Truly, virtue signalling at its best.
To FedupaTed I fully agree, and was dismayed recently to read a scientific paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of NZ (a fully woke organisation if ever there was one) where 'Aotearoa' was used throughout for the country in which the organisms resided, to an extent where I surmised no overseas' reader would have any idea what the authors meant. The only time 'New Zealand' was used was when another journal, the NZJ Zoology had to be cited, and this must have been anathema to the authors and the RSNZ who should perhaps be RSA, except there is already one with more to be proud of than a once respected (no more) scientific society. I was also disappointed that referees of the paper did not insist on the use of our country's correct name. Bad form and poor standards all round.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.