To The 87,269 – You Were Right
To the 87,269 of you who signed our “Don’t Divide Us” petition in 2021 asking for rapid antigen testing as an alternative for unvaccinated kiwis to access workplaces, schools, marae, large gatherings, and places of worship, and perhaps contributed to the significant legal expense of the judicial review on behalf of 110 churches – thank you! You were right. We didn’t want the country to be divided. Unfortunately the government didn’t listen – and we are still paying the cost.
Show Script:
To The 87,269 – You Were Right
The petition promoted by Family First in 2021 and entitled “Don’t Divide Us.nz” had 87,269 signatures – perhaps you were one of the signatories – and was presented in December 2021 to ACT leader David Seymour, and was tabled in Parliament 10 February 2022.
The petition which was launched at the beginning of November 2021 said
“We oppose the ‘no jab no job’ policy, which will create a divided New Zealand. We call on the Government to allow the use of COVID rapid antigen testing as an alternative for unvaccinated kiwis to access workplaces, schools, marae, large gatherings, and places of worship.”
When we first launched this petition, the Government had succeeded in keeping the viable option of rapid antigen testing very quiet – partly because they had all but banned its use under the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Point-of-care Tests) Order 2021 (and despite its increasing and effective use overseas).
But nationwide polling found significant support from New Zealanders for regular testing to be allowed as an option so that kiwis can keep their jobs. Just 27% were opposed (including 30% of those who were already double jabbed).
Whenever polling was quoted by the media – of course they never reported our polling – they never distinguished between frontline workers in clearly high-risk areas such as retirement homes and border workers, and other workforces. They muddied the waters. Deliberately. This is what a $55m bribe to the media does eh
[1News Colmar Brunton Poll showed 74% supported the mandate that impacts teachers, health care workers, port, border, and prison workers only. The Talbot Mills Research poll found 79% agreed with a vaccine mandate for health workers, while 72% agreed to one for teachers. The Horizon Poll failed to make the distinction between wide-spread mandates and specific high-risk frontline workers.]
We were justifiably concerned that New Zealanders were being excluded from their teaching or nursing job, sporting career, going to their marae, going to church or the mosque or the gym or hair salon, university to study, weddings, visiting family members in prison, attending events – and there are many other examples – because they had chosen out of good conscience not to be vaccinated.
We were looking for a reasonable and workable middle ground that didn’t divide the country and set family members against each other. We argued at the time that with our evolving understanding of the waning immunity of the vaccine, the new variants and the need for boosters, we believed testing was an important component for all New Zealanders moving forward. It would be much fairer – and wouldn’t divide us.
But also in December 2021, as part of the 2nd part of the “Don’t Divide Us” campaign, our legal team filed an application to the High Court for a Judicial Review on the church vaccine mandate, on behalf of a group of 15 applicants representing 110 Church congregations and 2 Mosques.
We were asking for a less restrictive, more proportionate policy to be applied at that time. Once again, We promoted Rapid Antigen Testing as an alternative to vaccination for conscientious objectors; particularly in the context of religious and faith-based gatherings.
This group didn’t oppose vaccines, but they did oppose mandates. What was being sought was actually in step with how most of the governments of the western world were treating the right to manifest religion.
It fell on deaf ears – and the High Court rejected the application.
Ironically, RATs were the key test for arrivals in NZ from as early as June 2020. All incoming travellers were required to undergo a rapid antigen test (RAT) on the first/second and fifth/sixth day after arrival and report the results online. Any positive RAT results had to be followed up with a PCR test.
The resistance to our proposal was disappointing.
It would have saved jobs, social cohesion, churches could have gathered, schools could have operated…
We did try and persuade the government – but they just didn’t want to know.
But even in 2021, the Government-appointed independent review group headed by Sir Brian Roche told the Government: “It is critical that we actively promote and achieve widespread testing across the community irrespective of the known presence of the virus in the community. The availability of rapid antigen testing is critical to that.”
In many countries, rapid antigen testing for COVID-19 was widespread. They cost a fraction of other tests. They didn’t need medical professionals to administer. They gave you a response within 15 minutes – so whether a person was vaccinated or not it gave the most current status of a person as to whether they might have the virus and be able to share the virus – and especially with the developing understanding of the waning immunity of the vaccine at the time, it seemed that testing and then isolation at home if required was an important component, an important tool for all New Zealanders moving forward.
It seemed much fairer and wouldn’t divide us.
The Government ignored us – and divided us.
By the way, you’re probably saying – 87,000 signatures. That’s a big petition. How much media coverage was there?
Well the media didn’t report it. Although they did report this one. More than 1200 people have signed a petition calling on Wellington City Council to reverse its move in September to remove 145 carparks to create a cycleway.
Apparently, according to the media, 1,200 is bigger and much more newsworthy than 87,000 – especially when you’re getting $55m from the Government eh.
So the media didn’t report
- The petition
- Our polling around support for rapid antigen testing
- The presentation of the petition
Fast forward three years and in December 2024, Phase One of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 Response was released. A 713 page report includes 39 recommendations for the Government and its agencies to make sure New Zealand is pandemic-ready and resilient.
Inquiry head Tony Blakely, an epidemiologist, said that vaccine mandates caused huge pain and that while the mandates during the later stages of the pandemic were supported by most New Zealanders, the damage to social cohesion needed to be considered when planning for future outbreaks.
The report also highlighted then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s “single source of truth” comment as being highlighted by submitters as “unhelpful”.
Here’s what Jacinda said
Chis Hipkins tried to make out that the statement was just in relation to the number of actual COVID cases and it was just a statement by Jacinda.
Let’s just watch the response from Chris Hipkins further to the report
“Tried to acknowledge those things” Really? With the legacy media being paid to slam any dissenting opinion on vaccines, mandates, COVID response, I’m not sure there was any “acknowledgement”
Yes we all argued they went too far – and you promised they wouldn’t. There would never be compulsion. Persuasion – but not compulsion
That was when Jacinda lost the room – lost the public – and her time was up as Prime Minister. That interview was the turning point – in my view. Even worse than the “podium of truth” one.
“We lost the room in Auckland” – yes because they were completely irrational.
The problem I had was that they would not consider alternatives
Yes – they ignored you!
So just over a week ago, the 2nd review of COVID came out
I just want to read a few extracts from the report – to remind us all that we were right!
para 538
Before deciding to extend the ban, the Minister received advice from the Ministry of Health via three briefings. The first, on 28 January 2021, sought agreement to: continue the prohibition on the ‘importation, manufacture, supply, sale or use of antigen and antibody POC [point-of-care] tests under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act (the COVID-19 Act)’
This is despite the fact that in Singapore for example, as early as October 2020, rapid antigen tests were being successfully and effectively used.
Para 551
On 20 January 2022, the Director-General of Health agreed to allow a range of organisations, including all New Zealand-based businesses with a New Zealand Business Number, to import approved point-of-care tests themselves. These organisations had been permitted to purchase approved tests from 14 December 2021, but only from six authorised medical suppliers. However, advice to the Director-General on 18 January 2022 noted that many smaller companies had ‘been unable to access rapid antigen tests, as the larger authorised importing companies have not wanted to deal with them’.
Para 552
Although businesses were able to access rapid antigen tests earlier than the general public, they entered the global market at the same time that many governments (including New Zealand’s) were attempting to procure large volumes of RATs for community use. Competition for tests was stiff and, on more than on occasion, Ministry of Health officials asked suppliers to prioritise orders for New Zealand’s public health response.
Yep – we stuffed around for so long that suddenly we couldn’t access the product. The government didn’t think ahead. They were tunnel visioned on their own solution – and the mandates – and vaccinating everyone.
Para 558
…the COVID-19 Testing Technical Advisory Group reviewed the Government’s testing approach. The Group’s October 2021 report noted New Zealand’s ‘relative slowness to introduce saliva testing and to prepare for rapid antigen testing’ and concluded there was a ‘pressing need to ensure that COVID-19 testing is adaptable and fit for purpose’.
This is when we were raising signatures for our petition and raising awareness. The government didn’t listen to you. They didn’t even listen to their own technical advisory group.
Para 572
Finally, while the framework developed to evaluate point-of-care tests for approval was very thorough and robust, it was too conservative and slow. … In his interview with us, the Ministry of Health’s Chief Science Advisor Dr Ian Town observed that, upon reflection, New Zealand ‘could have relied on the Australian assessments of rapid antigen testing technologies to a greater extent’.
Para 573 – quoting the 1st review of COVID
…the benefits of RAT testing should have been seen in advance as outweighing their lower accuracy, and planned for by ordering and stockpiling tests in advance of when they were needed to be deployed.
Para 954
the Government did not make Rapid Antigen Tests easily accessible by the private sector until early 2022, after the existing PCR testing system had been overwhelmed. Under the elimination strategy, the precision of PCR tests was of paramount importance. Under the suppression strategy, however, ready access to tests became more important because people needed to make quick decisions about whether to isolate or return to work, for example.
So the Government undermined their own strategy with the blocking of rapid antigen testing
Para 977
availability of Rapid Antigen Tests might have enabled more flexibility in the design of occupational mandates.
Yep. In other words, you were right.
But even leading up to the election last year, Chris Hipkins was saying “there was no compulsory vaccination”
Let’s just put that one to bed – once and for all eh
And it wasn’t just Chris Hipkins
You may be asking- what did the latest review say about the church issue and the dividing of congregations through the vax pass etc – rather than allowing for rapid antigen testing so that church families weren’t divided.
The report makes just one mention (para 151) of our judicial review – and that’s in a general comment about groups being able to challenge government’s actions through the scrutiny of the courts. That’s it.
Para 483 relating to vaccine passes
Officials drew particular attention to the need to mitigate any impacts on social cohesion that could arise if ‘churches, marae and other religious/cultural settings are required to use CVCs [COVID Vaccination Certificates]’.
Para 484
To minimise the risks of losing social licence, officials recommended that any mandatory requirements be ‘narrow in scope, at least initially, and focused on the highest-risk events, to avoid any unacceptable impacts on people’s day to day lives’.
Remember that rapid antigen testing combined with the efforts that churches were willing to take in terms of seating and entrance ways would have not made church gathering a high-risk event. In fact, the RAT tests would make them very low risk because those with COVID would be immediately identified!
Para 485
The final vaccine pass settings – in particular, the breadth of venues covered – were not obviously narrow in scope nor focused on the highest risk venues. However, the Cabinet paper seeking final agreement to the settings acknowledged this expansion and the associated risks… This risks isolating the unvaccinated and increases the likelihood that we will see large scale protests similar to those experienced in other countries that have introduced vaccine requirements.
And finally – para 1372
First, the ‘key decisions’ examined during Phase Two involved some of the most significant and far-reaching uses of government power since the Second World War. They limited the ability of New Zealanders to move freely, meet with friends and loved ones, celebrate and commiserate together, and worship with other members of their faith communities. They required some New Zealanders to be vaccinated in order to keep working in their chosen professions. They also governed the approval and monitoring of a new vaccine, which had been developed at unprecedented pace. The decisions had major effects, and we heard about their impacts from the thousands of people who made submissions to the Inquiry or who met with us in person. Such decisions deserve thoughtful and thorough review.
So based on that info, here’s how the latest review summed up these two key issues
Testing
Mandates
A fair summary?No I don’t think so either.
Ironically, there was suddenly acknowledgement from Chris Hipkins that the RAT tests were too late – but he blamed officials. How convenient
By the way, you’re probably asking – what was the response to this large petition?
Here’s what the Select Committee said in their response – which didn’t come out until September of 2022 when rapid antigen testing was the new gold standard anyway – as we wanted almost a year before that!
Responding to the pandemic has required unprecedented measures. Determining these measures and developing a reasonable, justified, proportionate, and effective public health response has been made more difficult by the evolving nature of COVID-19, the capacity of our public health system, and the risks to vulnerable populations in New Zealand. We recognise that many New Zealanders have made sacrifices and shouldered hardship in the implementation of the public health measures and in protecting themselves and their families and communities from COVID-19.
We note that, when the Government considered it appropriate to do so, restrictions were removed and the vaccinations order was narrowed to require fewer groups of workers to be vaccinated. The vaccinations order has now been revoked entirely, effective 26 September 2022. We consider that this addresses the petitioner’s concerns and we have no further matters to draw to the attention of the House.
In other words, they faffed around for so long on the petition that we had already been proved right anyway.
So to the 87,269 of you who signed our petition, and perhaps contributed to the significant legal expense of the judicial review – thank you!
You were right.
We didn’t want the country to be divided.
Unfortunately the government didn’t listen – and we are still paying the cost.
Let’s pray that the division can be healed.
