Will the COVID-19 Inquiry Deliver Justice?
- Gary Moller
- 7 hours ago
- 4 min read
Or Is this another exercise in Damage Control?
Introduction
I have been watching the Royal Commission’s COVID-19 Inquiry since the day it was announced. I have read every update, attended meetings, and studied the Terms of Reference. The latest newsletter only reinforces what has been obvious from the beginning: this process is highly unlikely to deliver justice for the people who suffered vaccine injury, coercion, job and business losses, financial ruin, and medical harm.
Will it bring justice to the countless health professionals who were, and still are, being hounded out of their professions? It looks and feels like another official clean-up job to me. How about you?
This is not an emotional reaction. It is an informed observation based on decades of experience dealing with ACC, medical and other bureaucratic systems, and government “reviews” that are designed to manage risk rather than confront uncomfortable truths. The tone, the language, the priorities, and the omissions all point in one direction - we are being gas-lit.
These patterns of gaslighting have been a recurring theme of the Inquiry since it started. However, the deception began from the very first day of the government's pandemic response in 2020. This ongoing gaslighting affects all well-meaning Kiwis, carried out by government officials, health professionals, scientists, and politicians, all of whom have undermined the health and prosperity of this country. And for what? I ask you: for what?
In the beginning....
In 2021, my friend, Dr Guy Hatchard, wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ahern, expressing deep concerns about the COVID response. Guy, had been advising members of the PM's COVID response experts, including Sir Michael Baker, but his advice had become unfavourable to them and he was being stonewalled. So Guy wrote an open letter to the PM which I published on my website:
Despite the censiorship at the time, the article was read by around 15,000 people.
Guy then wrote a few more articles including this one:
From these, was born the Hatchard Report:
And here is Guy's latest open letter - one that is very relevant to the article I am writing here:
If you have not subscribed to Guy's website please do so now.
No Confidence
I have minimal confidence that this will be anything other than a whitewash. Yet, I remain hopeful that common sense and human decency will somehow triumph.
We have seen this movie before: Erebus, Pike River, countless ACC reviews. Always the same tactics. Limit liability. Protect the system. Keep the public calm. Avoid blame at all costs.
Let’s pull apart what the latest newsletter tells us.
1. The Focus Is on Government Processes, Not Human Consequences
The Inquiry frames everything around decision-making processes:
Were decisions informed?
Did they reflect advice?
Were international comparisons considered?
That is not an investigation into harm, suppression, censorship, or safety failures. It is a management audit. It asks only whether officials behaved in a way that officials believe officials should behave.
Meanwhile:
vaccine injury
suppressed data
pharmacovigilance failures
violation of medical ethics
misleading public assurance of safety
are barely mentioned.
If this was truly about accountability, the language would be radically different.
2. The Terms of Reference Are Designed to Contain the Explosion
Look carefully and you’ll see the trap:
review decisions
provide recommendations for improvement
prepare for future pandemics
This is not a truth-finding mission. It is a future-risk-mitigation exercise. It is about protecting the system, not exposing wrongdoing.
When I read:
“What won’t be included” will be in the next issue
I read: the walls are already closing in. That is not transparency. That is scope control.
3. There Is No Sense of Medical Due Diligence
An honest inquiry would state plainly:
We will investigate the safety profile of the vaccines.
We will examine injury, long-term effects, and reporting failures.
We will hear from those harmed.
Instead we get bureaucratic language and public-sector CV highlights. New leadership appointments. Process. Drafting. Natural justice procedures.
Where is the scientific scrutiny?Where is the courage?
Where is the moral duty?
Absent.
4. The Absence of the Injured Speaks Loudly
When a public body genuinely cares about victims, they appear in the centre of the narrative:
stories, listening, apology, and redress.
Here the injured are invisible. Not mentioned. Not acknowledged. Not invited.
And if the harmed are ignored at the starting line, they will be ignored at the finish.
5. We Have Seen This Before in New Zealand
This entire structure is familiar:
Erebus Commission.
Pike River inquiries.
ACC medical and independent reviews.
These were promoted as independent mechanisms for justice. They became machinery for:
damage control, containment, and deflection.
The pattern is so consistent it is predictable.
Every Inquiry in this country that threatens powerful institutions eventually becomes a shield for those institutions.
That is why this newsletter, far from reassuring me, confirms my fears.
6. What Would a True Inquiry Look Like?
A real reckoning would include:
independent medical and scientific evidence
testimony from vaccine-injured people
public scrutiny of decision-makers
examination of coercion and censorship
pharmacovigilance transparency
long-term health impacts
We are not seeing any of that language.
Instead, we are seeing the typical “official process” playbook:
technical framing
procedural focus
institutional self-protection
It has all the hallmarks of a controlled outcome.
My View
New Zealand deserves the truth. Not another sanitised, bureaucratic review written to preserve government credibility. Not another slow walk-back of responsibility. Not another inquiry that ends up protecting those in power.
People were harmed. Some were silenced. Some lost careers, health, and loved ones. They deserve full sunlight, not another committee report.
Until the Inquiry shows it is willing to confront the human and medical reality of vaccine harm, I remain deeply sceptical. And I believe every New Zealander should be watching very closely.
If this becomes another exercise in protecting the system rather than serving the truth, then history will judge it the same way it judged Pike River and Erebus.
We cannot allow the vaccine-injured to be swept under the rug. Not again. Not this time.