Then they came for the Doctors

Written By: - Date published: 10:38 am, March 22nd, 2025 - 21 comments
Categories: act, david seymour, health, human rights, national, same old national, simeon brown - Tags:

It seems that the National Act Government is looking at what is happening in the US of A and thinking that the rolling out of fascist restrictions of freedom of speech is a good thing.

Because recently they tried to restrict one aspect of free speech, that of highly trained professionals who are able to comment with knowledge on issues of importance.

From Glenn McConnell at Stuff:

Public health leaders say the Government’s insistence on vetting advice from senior public health doctors is unprecedented and deeply concerning.

But Acting Prime Minister David Seymour has hit back at concerns, saying he’s “cheering on Simeon [Brown] putting those muppets back in their box”. In doing so, Seymour indicated the vetting directive had come directly from the health minister’s office.

During a meeting on Tuesday, medical officers of health were told they would need “national level” approval before making public statements about health concerns.

Health Minister Simeon Brown then doubled down on the edict, saying it was justified given he didn’t want public health doctors making submissions about “fast food restaurants” or “leading advocacy campaigns”.

Why should we allow highly trained professionals to comment about the effect of fast food? Perhaps because they will want to point out that fast food causes obesity, a spike in blood sugar, contribute to high blood pressure, cause bodily inflammation, adversely affect nutrient intake, accelerate insulin resistance, cause type 2 diabetes, and contributes to various cardiovascular conditions. Some of the funders of the right would be concerned.

The only muppets I can see are David Seymour and Simeon Brown. Seymour’s background is in engineering. Brown’s is is Accounting and Law. From what I can see his only activism in relation to health issues is to oppose the right of women to seek to an abortion. I struggle to see what qualifications they have to make important decisions concerning health.

Dr Gary Payinda, someone who actually knows what he is talking about, has explained why this is so dangerous and so worrying.

From his substack (which I recommend):

Why the disgusting, unprofessional, and sustained attack on Public Health?

Because public health doctors (sometimes) stand in the way of Maximising Corporate Profits.

And if there is one thing this current government has looked out for, it’s not the health of communities, or the economic well-being of the country, its Corporate Profits.

Watch the video. If it makes sense, please share it widely. Please subscribe. Please talk with your friends, and please act to stop this “Corporate Profit” government.

People must protest, patients must make their needs heard, and people must realise we are not fighting culture wars, we are simply trying to keep communities, society, democratic government, and public services alive, and healthy…

And safe from these political vandals.

And here is the video:

Collin Tukuitonga, whose contribution to health is prodigious, has said this:

“It’s a very Trumpian approach, with Government dictating to various agencies what they can and can’t say. It’s absolutely ridiculous. We must push back on this stuff. It is unacceptable in Aotearoa and I hope the public see it for what it is,” Tukuitonga said.

He said he saw it as “censorship”.

“They’re being told they can’t do their jobs and they have to refer to ministerial officers for approval. I mean, it’s ridiculous. They’re being censored,” he said.

This is appalling. What sort of political calculation is involved in deciding to require medical professionals to not talk about health issues.

And Simeon should be aware that there is actually a statutory mandate for members of Health New Zealand to speak out on issues concerning health. Section 18 of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022 provides that Health New Zealand’s objectives include encouraging, supporting, and maintaining community participation in health improvement and service planning as well as promoting health and preventing, reducing, and delaying ill-health, including by collaborating with other agencies, organisations, and individuals to address the determinants of health. And its objectives also require an obligation to achieve the best possible health outcomes for all New Zealanders. Engaging in public planning processes and speaking out on health issues are not only relevant activities, they are mandated.

If public sector Doctors are prevented from commenting on health issues then no area is safe. And we will have a dumbed down stupid commentary on important issues.

Perhaps this is what is intended.

21 comments on “Then they came for the Doctors ”

  1. SPC 1
    22 March 2025 at 10:49 am

    Medical Officers of Health being required to get permission from central office to make any public statements, is the sort of media management that governments seeking to control the message/narrative apply.

    It is not an approach that shows confidence on their part about delivering results – improved health sector performance.

    It also shows an intent to use centralisation to exercise authority over the sector and this intent being one unrelated to focus on delivery of services.

    Reply
  2. Ed1 2
    22 March 2025 at 11:24 am

    There is the possibility that this is a carefully orchestrated attack – see:

    https://www.fsu.nz/blog/clarifying-accusations-of-public-health-overreach

    which may be an attempt to blame public servants if it all goes wrong, by implying that all the Atlas politicians were doing is backing up the officials in terms of priorities . . .

    Reply
  3. bwaghorn 3
    22 March 2025 at 12:08 pm

    Where old dr ciggiretti on this?

    Reply
  4. adam 4
    22 March 2025 at 1:32 pm

    Funny how all the free speech people are deathly quite on this one…

    Reply
  5. Incognito 5
    22 March 2025 at 2:11 pm

    It’s one thing to remind health officials of their professional responsibilities but Seymour’s outburst was vindictive and emotive and very Trumpian.

    On the other hand, the submission against the fast-food restaurant was a textbook example of mission-creep even though it likely was with good intentions.

    Reply
  6. Reality 6
    22 March 2025 at 2:51 pm

    By chance I came across Dr Payinda speaking on BHN. It was so heartening hearing someone with knowledge and passion speaking out on the pipsqueak's edict. Brilliant in fact. As for Seymour chiming in with his muppet insult – does that man have any regard for anyone but himself?

    Reply
  7. alwyn 7
    22 March 2025 at 3:02 pm

    The reaction by the Government to reign in the activities of the Public Health doctors appears to be due to the rather ill-conceived opposition to a McDonalds outlet in Wanaka.

    If the submission to the District Council opposing the restaurant is typical of their work it is hard to see why they are wasting their time on such foolish exercises. Is this really what they are employed for? What part of the duties includes preparing such gems as

    "1. The environment is a fundamental determinant of human health and wellbeing. Public health prioritises planetary health, climate change, and human health. Related to this application, we are particularly concerned about:

    a) Environmental sustainability issues associated with takeaway food containers and food waste. A waste audit conducted by Keep New Zealand Beautiful was able to show that 63% of all branded packaging found around New Zealand was from McDonald's.

    b) Increased traffic and emissions. A report included in the application mentions that there is likely to be about 1610 additional vehicle trips per day. This generation of extra vehicle trips will contribute to the overall greenhouse gas footprint of Wānaka and goes against the objectives and policies of the proposed district plan (PDP) to ‘reduce(s) dependency on private motor vehicle and promote(s) the use of public and active transport’ and ‘contributes towards addressing the effects on climate change’.

    The submission goes on and on.

    It summarises the result as being

    "• strongly encourages further meaningful engagement with the community.

    • reminds council of its Te Tiriti obligations to Kāi Tahu as mana whenua.

    • is concerned about the impacts of MNC and TNC, such as McDonalds, on planetary health and the health of current and future generations.

    • recommends a comprehensive HIA (including cultural impact assessment to analyse the cultural impact for Kāi Tahu). We would like to see such an assessment demonstrating that the outcomes for the individuals and the community of Wānaka would mostly be positive before granting consent for this proposed fast-food restaurant. "

    What is that to do with Public Health?

    https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Submission-356-National-Public-Health-Service-for-Herald-oped.pdf

    Reply
    • roblogic 7.1
      22 March 2025 at 4:26 pm

      Doctors should not make submissions to their democratic representatives?

      I get it, they should only make statements pre-approved by the ACT party.

      This is the "Free speech" that Seymour is always crapping on about.

      Reply
      • Ed1 7.1.1
        22 March 2025 at 5:12 pm

        It is possible that a requirement to get approval for the submission may have affected the timing of this submission – from the last page:

        "Thank you for your email regarding the submission on RM230874. I acknowledge that our submission was received outside the formal submission period and would like to explain this delay. The delay was due, in part, to recent reforms and the introduction of new operational practices within our organisation.

        Regrettably, there were internal misunderstandings regarding the timeline and sign-out review needed. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

        I did reach out to Andrew Woodford last week to clarify a few points for our consideration/decision making process about whether to submit or not. Andrew affirmed that although the decision would be up to the commissioners, late submissions are sometimes accepted."

        The submission appears to include quite a bit of material that would be relevant to many submissions; much of it may well have been used for other submissions and is fairly standard material on the desirability of promoting public health. It did however also summarise responsibilities of various parties to the decision.

        I wondered about what the NZ Initiative itself (as a member of the Atlas Network) may have said themselves about this submission, but from a quick look I doubt many would find that particular url – are you able to assist, Alwyn?

        Reply
    • SPC 7.2
      22 March 2025 at 7:16 pm

      Would the governments sponsors, those profiting from production (and retail supply) of nicotine addiction, tobacco and vaping not like advocacy campaigns?

      Nor those supplying international on-line gambling?

      Nor those who oppose regulation of sugar and salt in products on sale?

      Nor those who want their commercial monopoly on medicinal drugs protected?

      Nor those who do not want their Pharmac decisions questioned?

      Nor those in the centralised health administration.

      Nor the minister.

      What will Medical Officers of Health
      then do.

      Be replaced by one person in Wellington?

      During a meeting on Tuesday, medical officers of health were told they would need “national level” approval before making public statements about health concerns.

      Health Minister Simeon Brown then doubled down on the edict, saying it was justified given he didn’t want public health doctors making submissions about “fast food restaurants” or “leading advocacy campaigns”.

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360620860/its-censorship-public-health-leaders-slam-trumpian-edict

      Reply
    • KJT 7.3
      23 March 2025 at 1:57 pm

      Fast food joints are definitely a public health problem within the remit of public health Doctors.

      And health, pollution, public amenities within the remit of local Democracy including councils.

      Don't you approve of local democracy and free speech?

      It is a pity Mcdonalds have been allowed in poorer parts of the country, not just Queenstown.

      The detrimental effect they have on local businesses, employment standards and public health is well documented.

      Reply
  8. tc 8
    22 March 2025 at 8:27 pm

    A continuing shutdown of the voices within our health system that have everyones interests at heart by the coalition pure and simple.

    Reply
  9. feijoa 9
    22 March 2025 at 10:52 pm

    So Big Corporate Food comes along and makes people sick.

    Then, LO! Big Corporate Health comes along and makes another ton of money trying to fix it up.

    That's how these guys roll.

    The only muppet I can see here is Seymour. The whole idea of public health does not fit his corporate agenda.

    Reply
  10. Drowsy M. Kram 10
    22 March 2025 at 11:00 pm

    Why the disgusting, unprofessional, and sustained attack on Public Health?

    Because public health doctors (sometimes) stand in the way of Maximising Corporate Profits.

    yes Once our senior public health doctors are making 'healthy' profits for private capital, all this fuss about vetting advice will die down – back in your box, you “woke” “muppets“.

    Stomach-turning Seymour will be our deputy PM after 31 May he get what he deserves.

    David Seymour: What free speech really is [9 April 2023]
    I could go on but, suffice to say, free speech matters, it is the foundation of a free society, alongside the rule of law it depends on.

    Reply
  11. joe 11
    23 March 2025 at 1:45 pm

    If they ignore the directive, then what possible consequences will there be?
    Dismiss them?
    Have them voluntarily say "Get stuffed' and leave?
    Be interesting to see Brown's bluff of a threat followed through.

    Reply

Leave a Comment