July 10, 2025 • 21 mins
The long tail of Covid is still being felt for some parts of our society.
The second stage of the Royal Commission into the Covid-19 response kicked off this week, with public testimony from business owners and those impacted by vaccine mandates and the lengthy lockdowns in Auckland and Northland.
It’s part of the coalition deal between National and both ACT and NZ First, and has prompted criticism over being overtly political and spotlighting conspiracy theorists.
But with so many in the community still focused on the events of 2020 and 2021, are we ever going to move past it?
We’ll discuss that later with independent political and social commentator Grant Duncan, but first on The Front Page, Newstalk ZB reporter Emily Ansell is with us to explain what’s happening with the royal commission.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kiyota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The long
tale of COVID is still being felt for some parts
of our society. The second stage of the Royal Commission
into the COVID nineteen response kicked off this week with
(00:26):
public testimony from business owners and those impacted by vaccine
mandates and the lengthy lockdowns in Auckland and Northland. It's
part of the coalition deal between National and both ACT
and ENZ First and has prompted criticism over being overtly
political and spotlighting conspiracy theorists. But with so many in
(00:48):
the community still focused on the events of twenty twenty
and twenty twenty one, are we ever going.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
To just move past it.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
We'll discuss that later with independent political and social commentator
Grant Duncan, But first on the Front Page News Talks,
that'd be reporter Emily ansel Is with us to explain
what's been happening with the Royal Commission. Emily, what is
the point of this second stage of the Royal Commission
(01:17):
of the COVID response.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
So this second phase is taking place so that those
who felt like they hadn't been heard in the first
could have their say on their experiences. Specifically this phase,
the Commission's job is to focus on the large lockdown
in Auckland, the twenty twenty one lockdown and how that
affected Auckland is but also Northlands, those in White cut
(01:41):
Or and around the rest of the country. They are
also looking at the vaccine mandates and the decisions made
around there and hearing from a variety of people who
both oppose and praise the vaccine mandates to understand and
I guess learn from how we responded and what we
can do next time.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
What are the sorts of people we've been hearing from
so far?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
We've heard from a variety lots of leaders and experts
in their sectors. We've heard from prominent GPS such as
Brian Betty and Angus Chambers. We've also heard from those
in the education sectors such as the president of the
New Zealand Principles Federation, Lean all Tenure, and spokespeople from
Kaitaia College speaking about their experience. We've heard from business
(02:24):
leaders in Auckland and Northland. We've heard from Marty, health
and social group leaders, community leaders from the Pacific community,
so a real briepth and depth of people from around
all parts of New Zealand society.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Has it been all conspiracy theorists like Labors Chris Hopkins
is alleged, or mostly just people with some sort of
issue with the response, I would say it doesn't seem
like there have been a lot of people who are
overly positive about the experience.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
With regard to the conspiracy side of things, I would
say no, I hadn't heard much in the way of
conspiracy up into today. We're hearing from people who have
been accused of spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. But as
I said, a lot of this week we've heard from experts,
from prominent leaders and the health and education and business sected,
(03:15):
basically just wanting to share what their experience was like.
I guess these decisions affected everyone and these were the
groups who felt like their experiences hadn't properly been considered.
So yesterday, the fourth day of the second phase of
this inquiry, we saw groups such as Voices for Freedom.
They were questioned I would say a little harder than
(03:38):
I had seen other groups by commissioners asking them to
be more direct in their answers, accusing them at least
once of avoiding the question questions such as do you
see that the government had a right to enforce quite
drastic actions in a crisis and a health crisis. But
(04:00):
the Commissioner did say right at the end that although
he did press them, that is not in any way
an indication of their stance. They have not made up
their mind. So they really are trying to emphasize that
they are listening and taking everything into account before they conclude.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
Telling people they have conspiracy theorist views doesn't stop them
having conspiracy theorist views. And in many cases, as you
discovered on the lawn of.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Parliament, you make them worse.
Speaker 6 (04:31):
Well, you're also giving them a platform, doesn't make them,
doesn't make them better.
Speaker 5 (04:34):
Is it a platform or is it a place where
they can be heard?
Speaker 6 (04:37):
Well, you know, have you mentioned the protest at Parliament?
There are people they're hanging nooses in the trees. Do
you really think that that was their constructive engagement? They're
not a platform for constructive engagement.
Speaker 5 (04:46):
Well, before we saw the nurses, and we don't know
who put the nurses up, of what they were there for.
Speaker 6 (04:51):
They hung them on the first who hung them. They
hang them on the first day they're own, and they
had names on them. Why was one of them? Who
are not going to go down and talk to them?
Speaker 2 (05:02):
And you've been listening all week, Emily, in terms of
the submitters and the submissions that you've heard, are there
any that's stuck out to you? Have any quite been
quite emotional or did you learn something that you didn't know?
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Perhaps there have been a few that have been emotional
for the people speaking. The ones that stand out in
that category would be people speaking about and members of
the public. They're also members of the public providing video
testimonies about how they missed out on farewelling their loved ones,
(05:36):
whether that for some of them that was really important
culturally the way that usually plays out, and they were
unable to do so. One woman spoke of losing her husband,
who was suffering with dementia, but he, according to her,
deteriorated quite quickly after the lockdowns, because she believed it
(05:56):
was because she was unable to see him as often
restricted in seeing him. One woman also spoke about losing
her sister, what she says was due to COVID nineteen
vaccine complications, so it's fair to say that the impact
that all of these measures had on people was pretty drastic,
(06:19):
and the people who were speaking at this inquiry really
wanted to make that clear. There was another one that
stood out to me with regards to some MARDI and
Pacific community leaders speaking about the use of vaccine vouchers
as an incentive to get people to get vaccinated. One
(06:40):
person said this in future probably wouldn't be the best
strategy just because it wasn't sustainable, and another woman spoke
of having to speak to a member of the public
who came through to get these vouchers to get vaccinated
three times because he didn't have any food and he
(07:02):
wanted to get those one hundred dollar food vouchers that
were being given out. So that was an interesting point
that kind of stood out to me. The other thing, though,
that stood out to me, was that this hasn't all
been negative. There has been praise of the vaccine mandates
from people with disabilities who feel that they can now
be a part of society and that they are safe
(07:23):
and healthy. People who have compared our response to those
overseas and the level of deaths at other countries experience.
Other people have praised the government's quick action the lockdowns
for stopping the spread for vulnerable communities. So it has been,
from what I've observed, a fairly balanced experience and a
fairly balanced take on what people went through.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Thanks for joining us, Emily, no problem. For more on
the ramifications of our continued focus on COVID nineteen, we're
joined now by commentator Grant Duncan.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Grant, how has social unity been since COVID?
Speaker 2 (08:15):
It felt like we were pretty united there for a while,
but then it kind of took a wrong turn, didn't
that what changed?
Speaker 7 (08:22):
Well? Look, can I be a little bit contrary for
a moment with you and suggest that back in twenty
twenty before the election, things weren't as united as we
thought they were. Yeah. Sure, the government of the day
had a lot of popular support and trust, particularly mid
twenty twenty, but it wasn't universal and that was clear
(08:43):
from a survey that I did, and that particularly on
the right, there was quite a strong level of agreement
with the idea that the economic costs of the public
health measures outweighed the benefits of those measures, and so
that would be a constituents of people, particularly in small
business and things like this who were directly feeling the
(09:05):
effect on their businesses, and so I don't entirely agree
with the idea that New Zealand was a team of
five million at that time. Yes, I agree, of course
that the durn led government at that time was getting
a really strong level of support and they got an
amazing election result fifty percent. But what about the other
(09:27):
fifty percent? They weren't so happy. It's just that you
weren't hearing much from them at that.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Time, and what's happening now We're hearing from them now. Hey,
a lot of people unhappy with the lockdowns are getting
to have their say at the Royal Commission at the moment.
We also saw the other week a girl who was
eleven at the time of the Parliament occupation. She winna
go ahead, ensued sear Trevet Mallard overplaying baby shark and
turning the sprinklers on on the protesters. Why does it
(09:52):
feel like people who were most unhappy and are most
unhappy still with the way that we went about things
with COVID.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Why can't they quite move on from it?
Speaker 7 (10:02):
Well, I'm not one of those people. I mean, I
got vaccinated and so forth, But my job is a
political scientist to try and understand other people's opinions, not
to impose my own. And you know, I've spoken with
a lot of people of that kind of opinion. You know,
I've had an ear bashing or two about vaccines and
so forth, and I've tried my best to understand the
(10:23):
opinions of people who feel excluded. They don't just feel excluded,
that actually were excluded. Remember, you know, some of them
lost their jobs. They couldn't go into cafes and get
normal service and things like that, and so suddenly it
wasn't a team of five million anymore. There was a
radical exclusion of a minority of people. But here's the
other thing. I think we focused too much attention sometimes
(10:47):
on that relatively small minority, because what was also going
on under the surface, and we weren't hearing much about it,
was that people just generally getting worn out and annoyed
with many of the consequences of the low down. These
were people who would have been quite moderate, quite compliant,
probably got vaccinated, but when they saw the consequences of
(11:08):
trying to book online on MiQ or you know, the
consequences for people whom they knew or difficulties getting stuff done,
traveling and so forth, or the isolation, the loneliness for
a lot of people, it started to wear them down.
And so I think we shouldn't put all of our attention,
so to speak, when we're thinking about shift of political
(11:29):
opinion and social cohesion here on a small minority represented
by people who protested outside of parliament for a couple
of weeks in February twenty twenty two, because that doesn't
fully explain why Labor lost so badly in twenty twenty three.
The reason, one of the reasons why they lost so
badly in twenty twenty three was that they lost the
(11:49):
confidence of quite a large swath of the population who
weren't necessarily protesting outside of parliament and that kind of thing.
They were probably even vaccinated, but they were just worn
down by the effects, and quite reasonably so, because there
were real impacts on people's businesses, their private lives, their
family lives, and the government. I think that it was
(12:12):
lacking the leadership at that time to reach out to
those people and just say, hey, we understand the effect
that this is having.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Do you reckon if we had a COVID two point
zero now and the government went about the same measures,
even though it was successful, and we know that we
were one of the better off countries in the world.
Do you think there would be more people in the
camp saying actually no, I.
Speaker 7 (12:37):
Thoroughly do think that exactly. And in other words, one
thing that I think needs to come out of this
COVID inquiry is recommendations about doing it differently next time,
partly because there's now quite a significantly ingrained level of
skepticism and a sense of oh no, not that again,
thank you very much. And as I said, not just
(13:00):
talking about people who were vaccine refuse nicks. I'm also
talking about people who, to a large extent, we're willing
to comply with the government's orders. So let's not just
focus on the conspiracy theorists for a moment and think
about the broad middle ground of New Zealand opinion. I
think that they've been through this experience. They know the
(13:20):
drill now, and they know people are pretty savvy. They
know what works and what doesn't work. They know what
kinds of risks they're prepared to take if once they
understand the nature of a pandemic. And I personally think
that if we had a COVID two point zero. The
government of the day would need to take quite a
different approach, put much more responsibility on individuals and non firms,
(13:45):
employers and people like that to take more responsibility for
how they protect themselves and the people around them.
Speaker 8 (13:54):
There might have been some differences around who was required
to get them versus who, you know, just needs to
stay home a bit longer and waited out for people
like me are able to get them. I think overall, though,
they did the best they could with information they have,
and if we keep the base of that game and
just alter it depending on, you know, whatever a new
disease comes over where, I think we'll keep saving lives
(14:17):
and we'll keep having a productive workforce because of it.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
We are seeing, though, especially during this inquiry, that the
conspiracy theorists or the people that are most displeased with
how we went about things do tend to be the loudest, right,
So we had a point now that we're just letting
everyone air their thoughts in a public forum, and I
guess hope everyone moves on.
Speaker 7 (14:41):
Well, it is a democracy, and the people who are
so disgruntled are our fellow citizens, and I don't think
we should refuse to listen to them. I think they
should be given a hearing, because sweeping things under the
carpet in a democracy, the ever works just boilers up
later on. So it may be a little bit painful
for some people to have to listen to some of
(15:02):
those complaints. But unfortunately, I think we should hear them out,
and a sensible commission of inquiry, will you know, explain
that you know, these are the views of certain people.
They may be minority views, there may be reasons why,
perhaps some of those views are incorrect, why they don't
stack up against scientific evidence, et cetera. But that's the
purpose of a commission of inquiries, to sort the wheek
(15:23):
from the chaff like that. But it would be worse
in the long run if those people kept saying, look,
no one's listening to us.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
I guess overall, we are also quite divided politically. We
have a pretty established left and right political blocks at
the moment, with a close fifty to fifty divide. Is
that concerning that we don't have much of a center?
Speaker 7 (15:44):
Now? I don't agree. I mean, I think that's just normal.
It's perhaps been a little bit exacerbated, obviously exacerbated by
COVID and also by the Treaty principles. Build debate, for instance,
has tended to damage social cohesion to some extent. But
you know, we have these upsets every now and then.
The Springbok tour was perhaps the most extreme example in
(16:05):
living memory. So you know, we do, we move on,
We forgive, and we forget. Maybe don't forget, but we
just forgive one another a little bit, and we do
come back together. But the nature of a democracy is
of course that there will be a division more or
less down the middle between say, you know, forragments sacer
left and the right. That's perfectly normal. One of the
(16:27):
problems that we have now is not just in New
Zealand but elsewhere, is that polarization is rather more intense,
and it is exacerbated by a whole range of issues.
You know, even for instance, the attacks on the Gaza
Strip for example, are really roiling up a lot of
those kinds of divisions. So these things happen. The question
really is not can we bring in everyone together and
(16:48):
make them agree? The question is how do we reach
across our disagreements, and how do governments handle all those
kinds of conflicts, and how do we well, we start
by listening to people. It is a democracy and so
the first place, the first thing to do is to
listen to what people have to say. If we have
to disagree with them, we disagree, but we ought to
do it respectfully. And I think that's where Kitkens and
(17:10):
Adoern got it wrong in February twenty twenty two. They
refuse to listen and disagree respectfully and explain to the
people out there outside Parliament why their demands could not
be met. And that was a complete failure of political
leadership on their part and they paid the price for that.
This is the thing. But they're still, i think, refusing
to admit that they got it wrong and they paid
(17:32):
a price for it. Maybe deep inside they do, but
publicly they won't admit it. So these are the sorts
of things that I think need to be done. And
so New Zealand has been through these polarising moments every
now and then. We get over them, we move through them.
Sometimes we sweep the issues under the carpet and they
just arise again. With the Treaty Principal's issue, it'll be back,
(17:53):
I can assure you. But with COVID, for instance, yes,
the difficulty. There is of the obvious risk that the
in our lifetime there may very well be another such event,
and we need to be better prepared. New Zealand was
simply not well prepared in a public health sense, or
in terms of law, or any of those responses. Back
(18:13):
in twenty twenty two, the government fumbled around for about
three months before anything serious was done. This whole idea
that we went and hard and went in fast is
absolute nonsense. The New Zealand government fumbled around was about
three months of fumbling around doing stuff, all before effective
pandemic measures were taken to close the border for instance,
(18:35):
way behind the ball compared to Taiwan. So we need
to be much better prepared like Taiwan was in twenty
twenty for the next one that comes along. But also,
and this is the point of this Royal Commission, we
need to make sure that people's disagreements have been aired
and heard and responded to so that when the next
(18:55):
one comes around, governments are better prepared in terms of
the kinds of messages that they give about why we're
doing what we're doing and why we need to do
it this way. Given that you know, as we learned
from the last pandemic. There's no nice way through it.
There's no kind way of getting through a pandemic.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
And just lastly, grant, if we were to look at
social unity in New Zealand today, say on a sliding
scale between one and I don't know ten, being a
utopian society, I suppose where do you reckon we are
at the moment?
Speaker 7 (19:27):
Ye, that's a good question. I mean, I guess I'd
put us at about a five. I mean, I think,
But on the other hand, five is probably normal, you know.
I mean, we've seen you know, when I think about
the divisions that happened in like Naty Wonderings, Bring Book Tour,
or when a lot of controversy erupted around Don Brash's
(19:48):
notorious Audiois speech in two thousand and four, these things
happen every now and then. What happens is that a quiet,
underlying division has brought out onto the suit by some
kind of event that divides public opinion, and it becomes
a politically crucial yes or no kind of question for
or against question, and it polarizes public opinion. But what
(20:11):
you're seeing there really is the surfacing of what's what's
previously been under the surface, and part of the thing
of being a democracy is that people are permitted to
argue and express their differences of opinion. And so I
don't think we should be aiming for a ten honestly well,
because as you say, that's a kind of utopian dream
(20:33):
and we'll never get to ten perfect social cohesion. So
the question really for a society like ours is how
do we manage our differences when they do come up,
and how do we act democratically to hear one another
out and to act respectfully across the political divide.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Thanks for joining us, Grant.
Speaker 7 (20:52):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
That said for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about to stories and extensive news coverage
at enzdherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
a sound engineer.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Subscribe to The Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in on Monday for another
look behind the headlines.
Kiyota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The long
tale of COVID is still being felt for some parts
of our society. The second stage of the Royal Commission
into the COVID nineteen response kicked off this week with
(00:26):
public testimony from business owners and those impacted by vaccine
mandates and the lengthy lockdowns in Auckland and Northland. It's
part of the coalition deal between National and both ACT
and ENZ First and has prompted criticism over being overtly
political and spotlighting conspiracy theorists. But with so many in
(00:48):
the community still focused on the events of twenty twenty
and twenty twenty one, are we ever going.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
To just move past it.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
We'll discuss that later with independent political and social commentator
Grant Duncan, But first on the Front Page News Talks,
that'd be reporter Emily ansel Is with us to explain
what's been happening with the Royal Commission. Emily, what is
the point of this second stage of the Royal Commission
(01:17):
of the COVID response.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
So this second phase is taking place so that those
who felt like they hadn't been heard in the first
could have their say on their experiences. Specifically this phase,
the Commission's job is to focus on the large lockdown
in Auckland, the twenty twenty one lockdown and how that
affected Auckland is but also Northlands, those in White cut
(01:41):
Or and around the rest of the country. They are
also looking at the vaccine mandates and the decisions made
around there and hearing from a variety of people who
both oppose and praise the vaccine mandates to understand and
I guess learn from how we responded and what we
can do next time.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
What are the sorts of people we've been hearing from
so far?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
We've heard from a variety lots of leaders and experts
in their sectors. We've heard from prominent GPS such as
Brian Betty and Angus Chambers. We've also heard from those
in the education sectors such as the president of the
New Zealand Principles Federation, Lean all Tenure, and spokespeople from
Kaitaia College speaking about their experience. We've heard from business
(02:24):
leaders in Auckland and Northland. We've heard from Marty, health
and social group leaders, community leaders from the Pacific community,
so a real briepth and depth of people from around
all parts of New Zealand society.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Has it been all conspiracy theorists like Labors Chris Hopkins
is alleged, or mostly just people with some sort of
issue with the response, I would say it doesn't seem
like there have been a lot of people who are
overly positive about the experience.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
With regard to the conspiracy side of things, I would
say no, I hadn't heard much in the way of
conspiracy up into today. We're hearing from people who have
been accused of spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. But as
I said, a lot of this week we've heard from experts,
from prominent leaders and the health and education and business sected,
(03:15):
basically just wanting to share what their experience was like.
I guess these decisions affected everyone and these were the
groups who felt like their experiences hadn't properly been considered.
So yesterday, the fourth day of the second phase of
this inquiry, we saw groups such as Voices for Freedom.
They were questioned I would say a little harder than
(03:38):
I had seen other groups by commissioners asking them to
be more direct in their answers, accusing them at least
once of avoiding the question questions such as do you
see that the government had a right to enforce quite
drastic actions in a crisis and a health crisis. But
(04:00):
the Commissioner did say right at the end that although
he did press them, that is not in any way
an indication of their stance. They have not made up
their mind. So they really are trying to emphasize that
they are listening and taking everything into account before they conclude.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
Telling people they have conspiracy theorist views doesn't stop them
having conspiracy theorist views. And in many cases, as you
discovered on the lawn of.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Parliament, you make them worse.
Speaker 6 (04:31):
Well, you're also giving them a platform, doesn't make them,
doesn't make them better.
Speaker 5 (04:34):
Is it a platform or is it a place where
they can be heard?
Speaker 6 (04:37):
Well, you know, have you mentioned the protest at Parliament?
There are people they're hanging nooses in the trees. Do
you really think that that was their constructive engagement? They're
not a platform for constructive engagement.
Speaker 5 (04:46):
Well, before we saw the nurses, and we don't know
who put the nurses up, of what they were there for.
Speaker 6 (04:51):
They hung them on the first who hung them. They
hang them on the first day they're own, and they
had names on them. Why was one of them? Who
are not going to go down and talk to them?
Speaker 2 (05:02):
And you've been listening all week, Emily, in terms of
the submitters and the submissions that you've heard, are there
any that's stuck out to you? Have any quite been
quite emotional or did you learn something that you didn't know?
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Perhaps there have been a few that have been emotional
for the people speaking. The ones that stand out in
that category would be people speaking about and members of
the public. They're also members of the public providing video
testimonies about how they missed out on farewelling their loved ones,
(05:36):
whether that for some of them that was really important
culturally the way that usually plays out, and they were
unable to do so. One woman spoke of losing her husband,
who was suffering with dementia, but he, according to her,
deteriorated quite quickly after the lockdowns, because she believed it
(05:56):
was because she was unable to see him as often
restricted in seeing him. One woman also spoke about losing
her sister, what she says was due to COVID nineteen
vaccine complications, so it's fair to say that the impact
that all of these measures had on people was pretty drastic,
(06:19):
and the people who were speaking at this inquiry really
wanted to make that clear. There was another one that
stood out to me with regards to some MARDI and
Pacific community leaders speaking about the use of vaccine vouchers
as an incentive to get people to get vaccinated. One
(06:40):
person said this in future probably wouldn't be the best
strategy just because it wasn't sustainable, and another woman spoke
of having to speak to a member of the public
who came through to get these vouchers to get vaccinated
three times because he didn't have any food and he
(07:02):
wanted to get those one hundred dollar food vouchers that
were being given out. So that was an interesting point
that kind of stood out to me. The other thing, though,
that stood out to me, was that this hasn't all
been negative. There has been praise of the vaccine mandates
from people with disabilities who feel that they can now
be a part of society and that they are safe
(07:23):
and healthy. People who have compared our response to those
overseas and the level of deaths at other countries experience.
Other people have praised the government's quick action the lockdowns
for stopping the spread for vulnerable communities. So it has been,
from what I've observed, a fairly balanced experience and a
fairly balanced take on what people went through.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Thanks for joining us, Emily, no problem. For more on
the ramifications of our continued focus on COVID nineteen, we're
joined now by commentator Grant Duncan.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Grant, how has social unity been since COVID?
Speaker 2 (08:15):
It felt like we were pretty united there for a while,
but then it kind of took a wrong turn, didn't
that what changed?
Speaker 7 (08:22):
Well? Look, can I be a little bit contrary for
a moment with you and suggest that back in twenty
twenty before the election, things weren't as united as we
thought they were. Yeah. Sure, the government of the day
had a lot of popular support and trust, particularly mid
twenty twenty, but it wasn't universal and that was clear
(08:43):
from a survey that I did, and that particularly on
the right, there was quite a strong level of agreement
with the idea that the economic costs of the public
health measures outweighed the benefits of those measures, and so
that would be a constituents of people, particularly in small
business and things like this who were directly feeling the
(09:05):
effect on their businesses, and so I don't entirely agree
with the idea that New Zealand was a team of
five million at that time. Yes, I agree, of course
that the durn led government at that time was getting
a really strong level of support and they got an
amazing election result fifty percent. But what about the other
(09:27):
fifty percent? They weren't so happy. It's just that you
weren't hearing much from them at that.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Time, and what's happening now We're hearing from them now. Hey,
a lot of people unhappy with the lockdowns are getting
to have their say at the Royal Commission at the moment.
We also saw the other week a girl who was
eleven at the time of the Parliament occupation. She winna
go ahead, ensued sear Trevet Mallard overplaying baby shark and
turning the sprinklers on on the protesters. Why does it
(09:52):
feel like people who were most unhappy and are most
unhappy still with the way that we went about things
with COVID.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Why can't they quite move on from it?
Speaker 7 (10:02):
Well, I'm not one of those people. I mean, I
got vaccinated and so forth, But my job is a
political scientist to try and understand other people's opinions, not
to impose my own. And you know, I've spoken with
a lot of people of that kind of opinion. You know,
I've had an ear bashing or two about vaccines and
so forth, and I've tried my best to understand the
(10:23):
opinions of people who feel excluded. They don't just feel excluded,
that actually were excluded. Remember, you know, some of them
lost their jobs. They couldn't go into cafes and get
normal service and things like that, and so suddenly it
wasn't a team of five million anymore. There was a
radical exclusion of a minority of people. But here's the
other thing. I think we focused too much attention sometimes
(10:47):
on that relatively small minority, because what was also going
on under the surface, and we weren't hearing much about it,
was that people just generally getting worn out and annoyed
with many of the consequences of the low down. These
were people who would have been quite moderate, quite compliant,
probably got vaccinated, but when they saw the consequences of
(11:08):
trying to book online on MiQ or you know, the
consequences for people whom they knew or difficulties getting stuff done,
traveling and so forth, or the isolation, the loneliness for
a lot of people, it started to wear them down.
And so I think we shouldn't put all of our attention,
so to speak, when we're thinking about shift of political
(11:29):
opinion and social cohesion here on a small minority represented
by people who protested outside of parliament for a couple
of weeks in February twenty twenty two, because that doesn't
fully explain why Labor lost so badly in twenty twenty three.
The reason, one of the reasons why they lost so
badly in twenty twenty three was that they lost the
(11:49):
confidence of quite a large swath of the population who
weren't necessarily protesting outside of parliament and that kind of thing.
They were probably even vaccinated, but they were just worn
down by the effects, and quite reasonably so, because there
were real impacts on people's businesses, their private lives, their
family lives, and the government. I think that it was
(12:12):
lacking the leadership at that time to reach out to
those people and just say, hey, we understand the effect
that this is having.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Do you reckon if we had a COVID two point
zero now and the government went about the same measures,
even though it was successful, and we know that we
were one of the better off countries in the world.
Do you think there would be more people in the
camp saying actually no, I.
Speaker 7 (12:37):
Thoroughly do think that exactly. And in other words, one
thing that I think needs to come out of this
COVID inquiry is recommendations about doing it differently next time,
partly because there's now quite a significantly ingrained level of
skepticism and a sense of oh no, not that again,
thank you very much. And as I said, not just
(13:00):
talking about people who were vaccine refuse nicks. I'm also
talking about people who, to a large extent, we're willing
to comply with the government's orders. So let's not just
focus on the conspiracy theorists for a moment and think
about the broad middle ground of New Zealand opinion. I
think that they've been through this experience. They know the
(13:20):
drill now, and they know people are pretty savvy. They
know what works and what doesn't work. They know what
kinds of risks they're prepared to take if once they
understand the nature of a pandemic. And I personally think
that if we had a COVID two point zero. The
government of the day would need to take quite a
different approach, put much more responsibility on individuals and non firms,
(13:45):
employers and people like that to take more responsibility for
how they protect themselves and the people around them.
Speaker 8 (13:54):
There might have been some differences around who was required
to get them versus who, you know, just needs to
stay home a bit longer and waited out for people
like me are able to get them. I think overall, though,
they did the best they could with information they have,
and if we keep the base of that game and
just alter it depending on, you know, whatever a new
disease comes over where, I think we'll keep saving lives
(14:17):
and we'll keep having a productive workforce because of it.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
We are seeing, though, especially during this inquiry, that the
conspiracy theorists or the people that are most displeased with
how we went about things do tend to be the loudest, right,
So we had a point now that we're just letting
everyone air their thoughts in a public forum, and I
guess hope everyone moves on.
Speaker 7 (14:41):
Well, it is a democracy, and the people who are
so disgruntled are our fellow citizens, and I don't think
we should refuse to listen to them. I think they
should be given a hearing, because sweeping things under the
carpet in a democracy, the ever works just boilers up
later on. So it may be a little bit painful
for some people to have to listen to some of
(15:02):
those complaints. But unfortunately, I think we should hear them out,
and a sensible commission of inquiry, will you know, explain
that you know, these are the views of certain people.
They may be minority views, there may be reasons why,
perhaps some of those views are incorrect, why they don't
stack up against scientific evidence, et cetera. But that's the
purpose of a commission of inquiries, to sort the wheek
(15:23):
from the chaff like that. But it would be worse
in the long run if those people kept saying, look,
no one's listening to us.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
I guess overall, we are also quite divided politically. We
have a pretty established left and right political blocks at
the moment, with a close fifty to fifty divide. Is
that concerning that we don't have much of a center?
Speaker 7 (15:44):
Now? I don't agree. I mean, I think that's just normal.
It's perhaps been a little bit exacerbated, obviously exacerbated by
COVID and also by the Treaty principles. Build debate, for instance,
has tended to damage social cohesion to some extent. But
you know, we have these upsets every now and then.
The Springbok tour was perhaps the most extreme example in
(16:05):
living memory. So you know, we do, we move on,
We forgive, and we forget. Maybe don't forget, but we
just forgive one another a little bit, and we do
come back together. But the nature of a democracy is
of course that there will be a division more or
less down the middle between say, you know, forragments sacer
left and the right. That's perfectly normal. One of the
(16:27):
problems that we have now is not just in New
Zealand but elsewhere, is that polarization is rather more intense,
and it is exacerbated by a whole range of issues.
You know, even for instance, the attacks on the Gaza
Strip for example, are really roiling up a lot of
those kinds of divisions. So these things happen. The question
really is not can we bring in everyone together and
(16:48):
make them agree? The question is how do we reach
across our disagreements, and how do governments handle all those
kinds of conflicts, and how do we well, we start
by listening to people. It is a democracy and so
the first place, the first thing to do is to
listen to what people have to say. If we have
to disagree with them, we disagree, but we ought to
do it respectfully. And I think that's where Kitkens and
(17:10):
Adoern got it wrong in February twenty twenty two. They
refuse to listen and disagree respectfully and explain to the
people out there outside Parliament why their demands could not
be met. And that was a complete failure of political
leadership on their part and they paid the price for that.
This is the thing. But they're still, i think, refusing
to admit that they got it wrong and they paid
(17:32):
a price for it. Maybe deep inside they do, but
publicly they won't admit it. So these are the sorts
of things that I think need to be done. And
so New Zealand has been through these polarising moments every
now and then. We get over them, we move through them.
Sometimes we sweep the issues under the carpet and they
just arise again. With the Treaty Principal's issue, it'll be back,
(17:53):
I can assure you. But with COVID, for instance, yes,
the difficulty. There is of the obvious risk that the
in our lifetime there may very well be another such event,
and we need to be better prepared. New Zealand was
simply not well prepared in a public health sense, or
in terms of law, or any of those responses. Back
(18:13):
in twenty twenty two, the government fumbled around for about
three months before anything serious was done. This whole idea
that we went and hard and went in fast is
absolute nonsense. The New Zealand government fumbled around was about
three months of fumbling around doing stuff, all before effective
pandemic measures were taken to close the border for instance,
(18:35):
way behind the ball compared to Taiwan. So we need
to be much better prepared like Taiwan was in twenty
twenty for the next one that comes along. But also,
and this is the point of this Royal Commission, we
need to make sure that people's disagreements have been aired
and heard and responded to so that when the next
(18:55):
one comes around, governments are better prepared in terms of
the kinds of messages that they give about why we're
doing what we're doing and why we need to do
it this way. Given that you know, as we learned
from the last pandemic. There's no nice way through it.
There's no kind way of getting through a pandemic.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
And just lastly, grant, if we were to look at
social unity in New Zealand today, say on a sliding
scale between one and I don't know ten, being a
utopian society, I suppose where do you reckon we are
at the moment?
Speaker 7 (19:27):
Ye, that's a good question. I mean, I guess I'd
put us at about a five. I mean, I think,
But on the other hand, five is probably normal, you know.
I mean, we've seen you know, when I think about
the divisions that happened in like Naty Wonderings, Bring Book Tour,
or when a lot of controversy erupted around Don Brash's
(19:48):
notorious Audiois speech in two thousand and four, these things
happen every now and then. What happens is that a quiet,
underlying division has brought out onto the suit by some
kind of event that divides public opinion, and it becomes
a politically crucial yes or no kind of question for
or against question, and it polarizes public opinion. But what
(20:11):
you're seeing there really is the surfacing of what's what's
previously been under the surface, and part of the thing
of being a democracy is that people are permitted to
argue and express their differences of opinion. And so I
don't think we should be aiming for a ten honestly well,
because as you say, that's a kind of utopian dream
(20:33):
and we'll never get to ten perfect social cohesion. So
the question really for a society like ours is how
do we manage our differences when they do come up,
and how do we act democratically to hear one another
out and to act respectfully across the political divide.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Thanks for joining us, Grant.
Speaker 7 (20:52):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
That said for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about to stories and extensive news coverage
at enzdherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
a sound engineer.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Subscribe to The Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in on Monday for another
look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.