Unfortunately, the reality is far murkier. The coalition, driven by New Zealand First’s anti-mandate rhetoric and bolstered by selective public submissions, is misleading voters about the inquiry’s origins and purpose, using it as a cudgel to attack the Labour Party, particularly former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her successor, Chris Hipkins, while falsely claiming Phase Two covers entirely new ground.
The coalition’s narrative, as trumpeted by ACT Party leader David Seymour and Minister Brooke van Velden, suggests Phase Two emerged organically from public demand for answers on vaccine mandates, the 2021 Auckland/Northland lockdowns, and socio-economic impacts. This conveniently glosses over the obvious political machinery at work. The inquiry’s expansion was heavily shaped by coalition agreements with New Zealand First, whose election campaign leaned hard into anti-mandate sentiment.
Another fail @chrishipkins. The terms of reference were driven by public consultation. The people have a lot to say about your hapless, and often cruel reign as COVID Response Minister. pic.twitter.com/8cgVe1kWAQ
— David Seymour (@dbseymour) July 8, 2025
While many of the 13,000 public submissions during the first inquiry did highlight concerns about lockdowns and vaccines, as noted on the inquiry’s website, these were filtered through a coalition lens eager to spotlight Labour’s supposed missteps. The second inquiries February–March 2024 consultation period, ostensibly for public input, was more a formality rather than a driver, with the terms of reference reflecting the coalition government's priorities over any broad public consensus.
The terms of reference for Phase Two appear deliberately crafted to sidestep scrutiny of decisions made during the 2017–2020 period when New Zealand First was in coalition with Labour, revealing a calculated effort to shield their own record while targeting Labour’s.
The inquiry’s focus, as outlined in the 25 June 2024 Beehive announcement, zeroes in on the 2021 Auckland/Northland lockdowns and vaccine mandate decisions, conveniently post-dating New Zealand First’s time in government. This omission is glaring, given that early pandemic responses, such as initial border policies and economic support measures, were shaped under the Labour-NZ First coalition.
By limiting Phase Two to later decisions, the coalition avoids examining New Zealand First’s role in those formative policies, while amplifying criticism of Labour’s 2021 actions under Ardern and Hipkins. This selective framing, driven by New Zealand First’s influence in the current coalition, ensures that their past governance escapes the spotlight, allowing them to posture as critics of Labour’s pandemic strategy without facing accountability for their own contributions.
On Monday, the NZ Herald reported:
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour on Ardern, supermarket duopoly, and minimum sentences
Seymour told Herald NOW’s Ryan Bridge that although the Royal Commission is an independent body and they cannot direct it, if it were up to him, he would absolutely make sure Ardern fronted at the inquiry.
“Now, we need to get to the bottom of what happened, who it affected, not just because of history, but because there will be more epidemics in my and your lifetime.
“She was the key decision-maker through that period. But whether she does is up to her, whether she’s requisitioned by the commission is up to them. I just make the observation that this stuff’s important and all voices should be at the table.”
This politicisation, which is arguably a complete waste of taxpayers' money, is most evident in the coalition’s attacks on Ardern and Hipkins. By focusing Phase Two on vaccine mandates and lockdown decisions, issues Labour championed, the coalition is effectively predicating a conclusion that paints the former government as heavy-handed before findings are even released.
The inquiry’s terms, as outlined in the 25 June 2024 Beehive announcement, zero in on the “justification” and “equity” of the 2021 lockdowns, areas where Labour’s policies faced public backlash and have already been highlighted in the previous inquiries findings.
This is no accident. National, ACT and New Zealand First are weaponising the inquiry to rehash controversies, framing Ardern’s leadership as divisive and Hipkins’ stewardship as bumbling, despite Phase One’s report already acknowledging the complexities of those decisions. The coalition’s claim, echoed in van Velden’s unhinged statements, that Phase Two covers entirely new ground is therefore misleading.
The Auckland/Northland lockdowns and vaccine mandates were examined in Phase One, albeit more broadly, as part of public health responses. Phase Two’s narrower focus, decision-making processes and equity impacts, revisits these issues with a clear intent to amplify Labour’s perceived failures.
Yesterday, Stuff reported:
How good would it be if Dame Jacinda Ardern fronted up to the Covid inquiry?
It would be really good for New Zealand, in my opinion.
The inquiry reopened this week, and it has the ability to call Ardern to answer questions about the Covid response.
In my view, the inquiry should call her - and she should appear.
For Jacinda Ardern, engaging with this politicised inquiry risks lending legitimacy to a politically charged exercise. Her leadership during the pandemic, while not flawless, was globally lauded for its early decisiveness, saving an estimated 20,000 lives. The coalition’s attempt to rewrite history clearly serves their more unhinged electoral base, not the public good. In my opinion, Ardern, who has said she will supply evidence, should otherwise largely ignore Phase Two, focusing instead on her post-political work.
The inquiry’s findings are unlikely to shift public memory of her tenure, which remains anchored in New Zealand’s low death toll and community resilience. Responding to criticism risks entangling her in a coalition-scripted culture war, where facts will be secondary to optics.
This inquiry reeks of the same cynicism seen throughout the government's propaganda, pandering to a vocal minority while distorting broader truths. New Zealanders deserve an inquiry that seeks lessons, not vendettas. By using Phase Two to attack Labour, the coalition undermines the Royal Commission’s integrity, while misleading the public about its origins and purpose. Ardern, and the country, are better served by looking forward, not indulging a backward-looking political stunt.
