Public inquiries exist to serve the public interest by uncovering facts, clarifying decision-making processes, and ensuring accountability.
When the subject involves decisions that have significantly affected the public, such as those made during the COVID-19 response, the participation of key decision-makers is not only desirable but essential.
Former ministers, senior officials, and other public figures should be compelled to appear, as their direct testimony is critical to ensuring the process is complete, transparent, and credible. It does not matter how many times those concerned believe they have already answered questions; the public clearly expects an open, transparent account that can be seen and heard firsthand.
An inquiry’s findings are only as strong as the evidence presented. When decision-makers decline to appear, the result is second-hand accounts, written statements, or selective disclosures that may omit important context or avoid difficult questions.
Open hearings, where these individuals explain their actions in public, strengthen trust in the process. The chairperson has acknowledged that an open forum “would enhance public confidence,” and that confidence is vital if the inquiry’s recommendations are to be respected and acted upon.
Public figures operate with authority and resources granted by the people. In times of crisis, such as COVID-19, their decisions on lockdowns, border closures, and resource allocation have far-reaching consequences. The public has the right to understand why those decisions were made, what evidence was relied upon, and whether other options were considered. Compelling testimony ensures accountability is not optional.
Allowing public figures to decide if and when they appear gives them control over the narrative. It risks an uneven record where some accounts are complete, while others are filtered or absent. Using powers to summon witnesses removes that imbalance, ensuring all relevant parties give their account under the same conditions. The optics of declining to appear are particularly damaging, giving the impression that there is something to avoid.
For someone like Chris Hipkins, who may be seeking to rebuild public trust and political momentum, such reluctance could prove detrimental to future credibility. And let’s face it, if someone from the general public were called, they would not be allowed to decline.
Inquiries are not ceremonial; they are tools for learning and improvement. Without full participation, they risk becoming hollow exercises that fail to deliver the unfiltered truth the public deserves.
