The BFD | Royal Commission of Inquiry: Have Your Say

New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science

For those keen to have their official say regarding all we have been through in the past 4 years, there are now opportunities. There are a couple of things happening at once which confuses things.

The original Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) has now opened electronically for public feedback.
Feedback regarding expanded Terms of Reference (ToR) for the inquiry is also being sought (same link).
There has been talk of a possible road show where people can get to speak directly to the commissioners.

Background

The original Royal Commission of Inquiry was going to hear from ordinary New Zealanders from late November 2023 but public input was delayed until February 2024 following the election and uncertainty about the future of the Commission. Up until now the commissioners have been hearing from a variety of groups and individuals who are listed on the official website. It appears that people have been invited to speak, which presumably means they can decline.

The original Terms of Reference mean that the inquiry underway now is limited in both scope and time frame and is considering strategies, settings, and measures as they existed or operated between February 2020 and October 2022.

The RCI first convened in late 2022 with Chairman Dr Tony Blakely, epidemiologist and public health medicine specialist, and commissioners John Whitehead and Hekia Parata. Hekia Parata tendered her resignation in July 2023 and finished working for the inquiry on 15 Nov 2023. The remaining two commissioners are expecting a replacement will be appointed.

In the lead up to the election, both NZ First and ACT supported broader Terms of Reference than what the Labour government had settled on. Those original ToR were very narrow and excluded issues that were important to many people. So as part of the coalition agreement, consultation is open regarding what New Zealanders want the inquiry to investigate.

Further Information

There have been some useful interviews on the topic of the RCI and possible expansion of the ToR recently which provide more background information.

Mike Hosking spoke to Professor Tony Blakely on 8 Feb 2024 about the opening of the inquiry for public submissions. In the six-minute discussion he outlined the two questions the current commission is asking – looking back, what were your experiences, looking forward what are the lessons we have learned that we can use when we have the next pandemic “because ‘spoiler alert’ there will be others”.

Due to the coalition agreement a third question has been added for those who want to comment about possible expanded ToR. The current RCI will collect all views on behalf of the government, and forward data on to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). They will analyse it and give it to Minister Brooke van Velden in Apr or May, who will discuss the findings with the rest of government and cabinet and they will make their call as to what gets included and what the expanded inquiry looks like.

Prof Blakely described the difference between an adversarial and non-adversarial inquiry and advised that they have been charged with undertaking a non-adversarial inquiry. So, there is no ability to compel people to provide evidence or explanation, and no ability to ask the hard questions or cross examine the decision makers.

He advised that so far the commission has engaged with 1000 people in 300 different engagements and has 95,000 pages of evidence.

An important point was raised by Mike Hosking regarding vaccine harms. Prof Blakely said he thought looking at vaccine harms was beyond what the RCI should do, and that it could be done by others! We have looked into Professor Blakely’s background here.

Alistair Harding spoke to commissioner John Whitehead on RCR to find out more about him, his background and his role. He is a former economic advisor to NZ government, former Chief Executive of NZ Treasury, and on the Board of the World Bank.

He had spoken to protesters at Parliament in early 2022 as he was connected with the cathedral that opened its toilet facilities. He described what he had heard so far from people during the inquiry and said there was a great range of opinions expressed. He also said that the inquiry was looking to hear from the people who haven’t felt heard thus far during the pandemic.

Alia Bland of VfF spoke to Paul Brennan on RCR about her attendance at the inquiry’s portal launch and described meeting the commissioners and what she and Voices for Freedom see as important things to be included in the expanded ToR. Some of the thoughts were that the inquiry should not be behind closed doors, rather it should be transparent and broadcast.

The feedback about the expanded terms of reference should also be publicly visible. ‘Disruption to New Zealander’s health’ was interpreted as including harms caused by the vaccine, as well as by the other response measures. The preferred situation would be a new investigation with new truly independent (of government, bureaucrats and regulators) commissioners which would take an adversarial approach so that Kiwis can feel confident that no stone has been left unturned.

Feedback is limited to 10,000 characters or approx. 2500 words which may not be enough for some people to express the hardship of the last four years.

RNZ programme The Detail spoke to Prof Blakely about the Quiet Inquiry in November 2023. He discussed who they had been speaking to and explained why discussions were being kept confidential. He said the previous government decided against an adversarial inquiry with public hearings. He confirmed he had spoken with Jacinda Ardern as part of the inquiry but not Brian Tamaki and did not intend to speak with him.

He reiterated that the purpose of the inquiry was not to apportion blame but to pick out the tools and generic lessons learned so that the country is able ‘to do the next pandemic well’ i.e. better contact tracing, better ability to do surge testing. He noted the tools will be different for the next pandemic because ‘we’ll be able to produce mRNA vaccines a lot quicker’ and ‘will have a better understanding of how to do managed quarantine at the border’

Michael Laws interviewed commissioner John Whitehead on The Platform and asked some reasonable questions about the inquiry, its ToR, possible conflicts of interest etc.

John did say on several occasions that they were looking to draw out the lessons learned and not find blame.

When asked about vaccine efficacy and safety, he commented that vaccine efficacy had been specifically excluded in the original ToR but maybe that needed to be considered. However, he avoided answering about vaccine safety or harm and the point was not pushed.

Michael said he had spoken with Dr Des Gorman last year who said he felt shut down, very early on, and that voices of dissent or of discussion were shut down and people either complied with orthodoxy or buggered off. Michael asked whether that censorship would be covered by the inquiry and John implied that it could be considered.

Michael asked some more probing questions towards the end and voiced something that a significant number of New Zealanders are wondering: “I want to know if I can trust people.”

Our Position

NZDSOS will be contributing our thoughts as to what needs to be covered.

It is our position that vaccine efficacy and more importantly vaccine safety/harm MUST be covered. The influence of regulators, including the MCNZ also needs to be examined in full. We call for a new inquiry altogether with new commissioners.

We struggle to have confidence in the existing commissioners. The fact that they could accept roles in an inquiry that specifically excludes vaccine efficacy and does not even mention vaccine safety suggests they are compromised from the start. How could it be acceptable that the very things that most concern many New Zealanders are not being considered? We have concerns about the impartiality of Prof Blakely who is on the record as having promoted many of the measures that we believe have harmed the population of NZ.

The injection should be halted while the investigation is undertaken.

An adversarial approach with public hearings would be more useful. There needs to be accountability if it is determined that harm has been done to the population of New Zealand.