Then they came for the Doctors

Written By: - Date published: 10:38 am, March 22nd, 2025 - 45 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.

45 comments on “Then they came for the Doctors ”

  • Comments are now closed

  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.

  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 . . .

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

    Where old dr ciggiretti on this?

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

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

      • lprent 4.1.1
        23 March 2025 at 4:50 pm

        Ummm. So the “Free-speech-union” wrote a letter to the minister. Of which the first 4 fulsome points read exactly like a detailed set of talking points from National or Act about how others are presenting questions. In which the FSU misrepresented or missed all of the critical questions that have been asked.

        Have a single point saying ‘and our questions are’ followed by two actual questions. One on a specific processes including the national sign off procedure. The other asking a waffle question that could literally mean anything depending on what is meant by “conformist culture”.

        The response is noted as “Upon speaking directly with the Minister of Health, we can confirm this is not correct.”,

        ie not addressing either point unless there is a recording. Doesn’t address either point.

        Yeah the Free-Speech-Union – useless PR people doing exactly what their major donors wish. Because that letter and its craven acceptance of a meaningless assurance is exactly the kind of hard-hitting defence of free-speech that I’d expect of a Human Resources team trying to protect their pay cheque.

        Good work Psycho – looks to me like you can’t read your own links..

        Incidentally, I am kind of peeved with having to jump through hoops to read crap on X. I think that I should investigate simply blocking X – because that appear to be where PR/HR people go to try to make issues die.

        • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1
          23 March 2025 at 5:30 pm

          The claim was "all the free speech people are deathly quite on this one…"

          I pointed out they haven't been. Your assessment of the quality of their treatment of it is a different subject.

          And if there's to be a whitelist of acceptable sites to link to, please give The Standard's readers plenty of advance warning.

          • Incognito 4.1.1.1.1
            23 March 2025 at 5:42 pm

            As usual, the FSU polluted the debate with more noise & BS to further their agenda. This is also the MO of the Coalition and other RW shills and a variation of ‘flooding the zone with shit’.

            I think what Adam was after was a supportive stance from ‘the free speech people’ in favour of the Medical Officers of Health rather than support for the authoritarian State behemoth.

            • adam 4.1.1.1.1.1
              23 March 2025 at 6:47 pm

              yes

            • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1.1.2
              23 March 2025 at 6:48 pm

              Like I said, I don't agree with them on this issue. If what people want is for a freedom of speech lobby group to support their own particular interpretation of freedom of speech, they're inevitably going to be disappointed at some point – for example, the comments threads full of outraged conservatives when FSU pointed out that actually libraries are allowed to host drag queen story hours if they want to.

              In this case, I think they're wrong but their position is a legitimate one, not "flooding the zone with shit." If there were currently a Labour-led government, few on this site would dispute the point that public servants are obliged to implement government policy, not agitate against it. I'm not seeing how submitting against McDonalds setting up in Wanaka constitutes agitating against government policy, but also didn't care enough about it to press them on why they believe it is. Those who feel more strongly about it are free to respond to them directly.

              • lprent …
                23 March 2025 at 7:05 pm

                If there were currently a Labour-led government, few on this site would dispute the point that public servants are obliged to implement government policy, not agitate against it.

                Well that wasn’t what happened between end 2007 and end 2008, late 2017 and early 2020 and late 2022 to 2023 (ie being normal times rather than emergency times). The posts and comments on this site by our left leaning contingent are usually more critical of Labour-led governments than they are of National-led ones when looking at instances of public servants or anyone speaking out.

                It isn’t hard to find instances if you can be bothered looking. I’m pretty sure that my viewpoint looking at posts and comments as a whole is far more accurate than yours because I expect RW to attack Labour-led governments, but I get a heightened response when LW or Green writers do.

                That is just you asserting an convenient untruth because you’d prefer it that way for your piece of mind. Otehrwise you may have to use your ossified brain a bit more.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  23 March 2025 at 8:17 pm

                  I’m pretty sure that my viewpoint looking at posts and comments as a whole is far more accurate than yours…

                  Oh, I don't doubt you're very sure about that.

              • Incognito …
                23 March 2025 at 8:15 pm

                Let’s just say that the FSU too often applies a double-standard – they often display signs of mission-creep from pro-freedom of speech to anti-Left humming Atlas tunes.

                IMO, if-then statements are often quite weak and useless in debate and tend to stray into hypothetical whataboutery.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  23 March 2025 at 8:20 pm

                  Well, yes, it would be nice if there were a group promoting freedom of speech that had more left-wingers and fewer right-wingers in its leadership, but instead I mostly see leftists trying to pretend any promotion of freedom of speech is some right-wing obsession. I'll take a less-than-perfect actually existing free speech lobby group over a non-existent perfect one any day.

          • lprent 4.1.1.1.2
            23 March 2025 at 8:04 pm

            Your assessment of the quality of their treatment of it is a different subject.

            🙂 ok -I take the point.

            And if there’s to be a whitelist of acceptable sites to link to, please give The Standard’s readers plenty of advance warning.

            Happily, but it would probably be more of a java script popup pointing out that many can’t read links that are hidden behind paywalls or logins. Or a js overlay or note next to a link stating that it is probably paywalled or requires a login to read. Probably the latter or both.

            I can’t read virtually anything from NZ Herald because of their paywall (isn’t enough there to make it worth subscribing to). Others probably can’t read the links to some of the subscriptions I have, (Economist, NYT, WP, Guardian, LinkedIn and a number of science and tech publications). But they’re expected.

            But I can’t believe the amount of aggravation I got from trying to read two links to Twitter today. They cost me considerable time because it forced me to login, required 2FA via e-mail, wouldn’t allow me to set 2FA via TXT without paying for it, and eventually I had to set it up on Microsoft Authenticator. For a channel I neither want to use, nor have ever found to be particularly useful. The idea of always having to jump through 2FA make me want to get a warning to avoid it.

            • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1.2.1
              23 March 2025 at 8:23 pm

              It is annoying, that's why I used the xcancel link that Joe90 mentioned. You have to sit through an intermediary screen but it doesn't require login. I'll take an intermediary screen over the 2FA swearing-generator every time.

              • lprent …
                23 March 2025 at 9:59 pm

                I've been used to 2FA or key dongles for work for most of the last decade. They don't bug me.

                I'm tried shifting to using device based passkeys, but it is a bit of a pain bearing in mind how computers I use. Trying a few apps for it now that sync between devices and have a biometric lock that I use once to open up a lot of passkeys.

      • Incognito 4.1.2
        23 March 2025 at 5:12 pm

        As these individuals are tasked with implementing the Government's policy agenda, the sign-off process is to ensure submissions contrary to the Govt's agenda are not being made by public servants.

        At least three top-Ministers have come down hard on that single submission regarding a fast-food restaurant in Wanaka. Arguably, due process hadn’t been followed but what Government policy and agenda had been breached? Additionally, the submission was upon an official request from local Council, IIRC, and not an ‘advocacy campaign’ as such. The accusations by the Coalition are histrionics and authoritarian knee-jerks.

  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.

  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?

  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

    • 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.

      • 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?

    • 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

    • 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.

      • alwyn 7.3.1
        23 March 2025 at 3:52 pm

        I really don't think that the doctors employed to look after Public Health are really there to comment on how much detritus may, or may not, be created if you have a McDonalds in the area.

        Neither are they employed to discuss how many car journeys may occur and how we would all use Public Transport more if McDonalds did not exist.

        The certainly aren't employed to tell the local Council what there treaty obligations are or how a McDonalds may not be in line with the cultural needs of the residents of Wanaka.

        Let them stick to what they are employed to do. If they want to show their cultural feelings let them do so in their own time, and at their own cost, and without doing it under the guise of promoting Public Health.

        • Psycho Milt 7.3.1.1
          23 March 2025 at 4:09 pm

          There's a strong undercurrent of "Society must discourage plebeians from their uncouth habits" about these "public health" submissions. Allow a McDonalds to open in town and next thing the plebs will all be driving there in their shitty old cars, buying disgusting cheap food and chucking the packaging out the windows when they're finished. How unlike the home life of our own dear health professionals.

        • KJT 7.3.1.2
          23 March 2025 at 4:10 pm

          You are getting a bit confused between the appropriate concerns of the council, litter etc, and that of Doctors rightly concerned about the effects on public health.

          Both. Are correct.

          • alwyn 7.3.1.2.1
            23 March 2025 at 6:40 pm

            Are you seriously suggesting that it is the role of doctors employed for their expertise in Public Health to comment on the possible increase in the number of car journeys in Wanaka if the town gets a McDonalds?

            Are these doctors really advancing the cause of improved Public Health in Wanaka if they contribute their opinion that a new McDonalds in the area may increase the amount of litter in the town?

            Are we as a population getting our moneys worth if the Public Health professionals decide to tell the people examining a proposal to add a McDonalds to the eating options in Wanaka that they have an obligation to refuse to allow the building to proceed because in their view it might breach their supposed obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi?

            Well I don't think that is what they are employed for and I would really rather got on with what they are supposed to be doing.

            • lprent 7.3.1.2.1.1
              23 March 2025 at 7:32 pm

              Are these doctors really advancing the cause of improved Public Health in Wanaka if they contribute their opinion that a new McDonalds in the area may increase the amount of litter in the town?

              I guess that you have never looked at the role of litter as a public health issue. You know, like discarded food providing sustenance for vermin of all kinds. Non-food litter providing nesting material for vermin. Vermin providing vectors for infection… That sort of thing.

              There is a reason why looking at rubbish disposal is always part of a medical officers duties; why they are tasked with examining places like rubbish bins, landfills, and have authorities to compel local bodies about deficiencies.

              The google AI gives this summary of the role of Medical Officers in the health system ( https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=0080cf25a6b7ea6d&sxsrf=AHTn8zpg3dPeJrniBboTxzpT81eh79HmGg:1742710974210&q=nz+roles+of+medical+officer+of+health&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHpMGkyJ-MAxW-s1YBHQBqFJ8QkeECKAB6BAgNEAE ). It picked most of this from either Acts, or the descriptions by various pages on their duties.

              All of the things that you say are not, are in fact, well within their role.

              In New Zealand, a Medical Officer of Health (MOH) is a medical practitioner with public health expertise, designated by the Director-General, who protects and promotes community health through various functions like contact tracing, advising on health policies, and ensuring effective public health programs.

              Here’s a more detailed breakdown of their roles and responsibilities:

              Key Functions and Responsibilities:
              Public Health Protection and Promotion:
              MOHs play a crucial role in protecting and promoting the health of the community, working as part of a team with other public health professionals.
              Contact Tracing:
              They are involved in contact tracing and taking appropriate control measures for notifiable communicable diseases.
              Exercising Powers and Duties:
              MOHs exercise their powers and duties in accordance with directions from the Director-General.
              Health Assessment and Surveillance:
              They are involved in assessing the health status of the population and undertaking surveillance of both communicable and non-communicable diseases.
              Policy and Program Development:
              MOHs provide advice on the medical component of health protection, health promotion, and primary health care policies and programs.
              Environmental Health:
              They identify the effects of adverse environmental factors on the population and initiate action to control such hazards.
              Liaison with Stakeholders:
              They provide public health medical advice and liaise with local authorities, general practitioners, and other sectors in public health activities.
              Licensing and Regulatory Matters:
              They may be involved in enquiring into applications for licenses and renewals, and making reports to relevant authorities where there are matters in opposition.
              Delegation of Powers:
              A Medical Officer of Health may delegate to any person the exercise or performance of any or all of his or her powers or functions under the Health Act.

              It’d take changes to the various health related acts to remove those responsibilities – not simply a directive from a pumped up minister of health with delusions of competence, or a compliant director of health.

            • KJT 7.3.1.2.1.2
              23 March 2025 at 7:58 pm

              No "free speech" for Doctors. Eh?

              In fact they are within their powers and area of expertise. Unlike certain politicians, who should have been potty trained before they were allowed out in public.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  12. Psycho Milt 12
    23 March 2025 at 4:04 pm

    I agree with you, but mostly on the basis that laughing at doctors who pretend to have some professional expertise to contribute on the issue of where it's OK to open a fast-food 'restaurant' is more appropriate than government intervention.