Chris Hipkins: "I don't recall" is starting to sound like the new "just following orders"

There are topics I’ve deliberately avoided, not because they don’t matter, but because they ignite a kind of blind, tribal fury that makes rational discussion nearly impossible. The COVID vaccine mandates sit firmly in that category. I’m not a doctor, and I’ve seen firsthand how quickly dissent gets shouted down. In fact, I once had a GP, convinced his credentials made him infallible, erupt in my comment section, insisting everyone else was ignorant. He refused to engage in anything resembling debate. Eventually, I deleted his comments and refunded his subscription. That’s how toxic the conversation became.

But time has a way of dragging uncomfortable truths into the light…

We now know that Chris Hipkins was reportedly advised that the COVID vaccine could pose risks, particularly to younger people, yet the machinery of mandates rolled forward regardless. That should concern anyone who believes in accountability. Not hysteria, not conspiracy, but accountability.

Because when governments impose sweeping medical directives on entire populations, especially young people, the bar for transparency and caution should be impossibly high. If there were credible warnings, if there were even questions about risk, then pushing ahead without full public scrutiny demands explanation.

This is where the conversation gets uncomfortable.

For years, people invoking comparisons to the Nuremberg Trials were dismissed as unhinged. To be clear, those historical events stand in a category of horror that should never be trivialised. The underlying principle they established, that “just following orders” is not a moral defence, remains relevant in any era. It is not about equating situations, it is about recognising a standard.

If decisions were made that ignored potential risks, if dissenting voices were sidelined, if caution was brushed aside in favour of compliance, then those responsible should be willing to stand in the open and defend those decisions. Not behind bureaucratic language. Not behind “we did our best.” In the open.

Will that ever happen? It is hard to believe it will. Political systems have a remarkable ability to protect their own. Inquiries come and go, carefully managed, carefully framed. The people at the centre of the storm rarely face anything resembling real scrutiny.

That is what erodes trust.

Because whether you supported the mandates or opposed them, one thing should unite everyone. If leaders were warned of risks and chose to proceed anyway, the public deserves a full and honest accounting of why.

Accountability is not extremism. It is the bare minimum.