Question six, the House of Parliament Question Time.  

Winston Peters to Simeon Brown. The mandate for 12 to 17 year olds and the double dose of the vaccine – seek it out, it’s a fascinating exchange. 

Tuesday, Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verral denied the concerns raised by the Ministry of Health ever reached their desks. 

Peters presented evidence it did, and even after it did it took a very long time for anything to be done about it. 

So a couple of issues out of that. Firstly, it is potentially a misleading of the House – a very serious issue. More importantly, a misleading of us. 

There is little more egregious for a number of New Zealanders out of the Covid experience than the vaccine issue. 

Sadly, a lot of the noise around it was tin hat material driven by Ouija board thinking, but some of it, not much, but some of it was real. 

The risks became a lightning rod. All vaccines carry risk, but concerns were raised about rushed development. And then making that risk higher, mandating of that rushed development into the arms of New Zealanders. 

Also making this complicated is the line between politics and health, politics and expertise. 

The government has a right to ignore advice – they do it all the time. But can you ignore health advice – an area you are not expert in? 

Part of what Peters raised, that may well be a longer term issue, is legal. Is there a case to be heard, whereby a government knew of a problem around a vaccine and yet did nothing with that knowledge until later. Meantime any number of young people were exposed to a risk they didn’t have to be. 

Associated with the stance is the broader, but not legal aspect of this. If that is the sort of approach a government can take, then how does that dovetail with the overarching view that governments want vaccine rates in the high 90s – in other words, they want public trust. 

A lot of the Covid response and report is about interpretation and ideology. This appears much more specific, worrying, and potentially dishonest. Watch this space.