𝕁𝕒𝕔𝕚𝕟𝕕𝕒 𝔸𝕣𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕟’𝕤 ℂ𝕠𝕧𝕚𝕕-𝕖𝕣𝕒 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕤𝕙𝕚𝕡 𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕤 𝕡𝕠𝕡𝕦𝕝𝕒𝕣

𝕋𝕙𝕖 ℂ𝕠𝕧𝕚𝕕-𝟙𝟡 𝕀𝕟𝕢𝕦𝕚𝕣𝕪, 𝕕𝕦𝕖 𝔽𝕖𝕓𝕣𝕦𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝟚𝟘𝟚𝟞, 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕤 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕤, 𝕟𝕠𝕥𝕒𝕓𝕝𝕪 𝕃𝕒𝕓𝕠𝕦𝕣’𝕤 ℍ𝕚𝕡𝕜𝕚𝕟𝕤. 𝔸𝕣𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕟’𝕤 𝕝𝕖𝕘𝕒𝕔𝕪 𝕕𝕚𝕧𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤: 𝟞𝟛% 𝕡𝕣𝕒𝕚𝕤𝕖 𝕙𝕖𝕣 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕤𝕙𝕚𝕡, 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝟞𝟘% 𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕝 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕚𝕟𝕢𝕦𝕚𝕣𝕪’𝕤 $𝟙𝟜 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 𝕨𝕒𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕗𝕦𝕝.

𝗧

he ongoing Covid-19 Inquiry is a source of some political interest. When it hands down its next report in February 2026 there are competing theories about how it will play politically. 

Particularly for Chris Hipkins - the person still in politics probably most associated with the pandemic - and by association, Labour. 

Former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern’s new book also coincided with the Covid-19 inquiry and it all seems to have kicked up two online universes: one that thinks she was the best PM ever, and one who thinks she was the worst. 

The fact is that the legacy wars will continue for a long period, and that Ardern’s place in it will be debated. 

The high temperature caused by Covid-19-era policies - which were largely not unique to New Zealand - will take some time to fade. 

But beyond the online and social media hyperbole, The Post managed to track down some numbers about both the inquiry and Ardern’s part in Covid. David Talbot - whose firm Talbot Mills is a corporate pollster as well as for the Labour Party - stuck a couple of questions into a poll he was conducting, just for interest. 

The results have been provided to The Post, but the numbers have not been published elsewhere.

When asked about Ardern’s leadership during the Covid-19 pandemic, 63% of 1359 respondents rated her leadership either good (25%) or very good (38%). 

Sixteen per cent said they didn’t know or were unsure, while 23% said it was either poor (7%) or very poor (15%). 

Good to know: 63% rated her leadership either good (25%) or very good (38%). 16% said they didn’t know or were unsure, while 23% said it was either poor (7%) or very poor (15%). Interesting how much airtime the media gave the 23%.https://t.co/9aTZUcZLZX

— Ms WonderOutLoud (@MsWonderOutLoud) July 30, 2025

In other words, while nearly a quarter of those polled thought she was no good, a handy majority thought she did well.

In the realm of political polling, and considering the economic struggles since, that seems a very strong grade. 

And interestingly - and against the prevailing narrative - the numbers in Auckland were the same as the rest of the country.

On the Covid-19 Inquiry, the question was slightly less helpful as it revolved around spending on the inquiry as opposed to the inquiry itself. Nevertheless, a solid 60% of 1027 respondents, either agreed or strongly agreed that spending $14 million on the inquiry is a waste of money, while 29% either disagreed or strongly disagreed, with 11% unsure. 

Younger voters were more likely to think the inquiry a good idea. 

This is not surprising. Voters don’t like how much inquiries cost in general, much less one that covers a period that most people would rather forget. 

When the Covid-19 Inquiry delivered its first report in December 2024, in terms of news coverage, it dropped like a stone. 

It was in the news for about 24 hours then was promptly forgotten about. 

People didn’t want to read about it or watch it. 

The second report which will focus on vaccines, lockdowns and tracing and testing tools, although in the lead-up to an election, will be similar I suspect. 

That’s because most people want to simply forget about Covid.  

Yet this inquiry is very important, and more important, in my view, than the first report was - which was more narrowly focussed around the mechanics of the Government’s response.  

The key lessons to be learned from phase two of the inquiry will be around some of the broader questions: whether lockdowns and certain decisions such as closing schools for lengthy periods, keeping the border closed and so on, were really worth it. 

Ditto with vaccine procurement and mandates. 

Overall, how much of the juice was worth the squeeze? These are uncomfortable questions, as to some degree this trades off human life against other factors. 

Governments do this all the time of course, but it wasn’t in anyone’s face the way it was during the pandemic. 

Will nutters come out of the woodwork and talk about vaccines and the deep state and all the rest of it? Sure. 

But they also do in many select committees. 

If trying to keep out conspiracy theorists and those who hold fringe beliefs becomes a standard for not doing something then we might as well give up on this democracy lark.

Other nations - including Australia - have done these sorts of inquiries and they have been worthwhile. 

But they are uncomfortable for those who were in power at the time and who worked in the Government coming up with the response. 

Decisions were made quickly and imperfectly. 

Hindsight is 20/20. That’s life. The public mostly backed the decisions made as did most of the political class most of the time. 

No one - from ministers to senior civil servants, to ordinary members of the team of 5 million who followed enthusiastically - will want to know that actually, some of it wasn’t really worthwhile or was detrimental, if those are the findings. 

And that’s why it is unlikely the commission’s work will have much immediate political impact. 

The minority who remain angry about the pandemic’s management may feel vindicated. 

The rest of the country will try to just ignore it and keep moving on with their lives.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐭

.