The secret diary of . . . Royal Commissioner Grant Illingworth KC
Thank you everyone for coming along to this excellent use of public spending.
As head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19, I shall investigate, and investigate fully, the claims of those who say the government's handling of the Covid-19 crisis was a crime against humanity and was led by Jacinda Ardern who is not actually human but some sort of lizard with speech and hair extensions.
We will now hear from an authority on the subject, and indeed on a great many subjects, Heather du Plessis-Allan from Newstalk ZB. She wishes to put forward the argument that Jacinda Ardern should attend the inquiry.
"She's making money off books and all sorts while many businesses here never recovered from lockdowns. Isn't a little truth-telling in order?"
Thank you. That's very helpful.
TUESDAY
We will now hear from someone with an audience of 15 people, down from 17 last week, but who has insisted on making his views heard and is indeed frothing at the mouth. Could someone please pass Ryan Bridge from Herald Now a tissue?
That's better. Mr Bridge wishes to jump on the bandwagon about Jacinda Ardern attending the inquiry.
"I was one of just a handful of interviewers who grilled her on a weekly basis during this time period. I'm saving the best bits for a book one day, but there was image and stage control happening behind the scenes you wouldn't believe."
Thank you. We cannot wait for the book. Will you write it?
WEDNESDAY
We will now hear, inevitably, from Stuff content provider Paddy Gower.
Mr Gower wishes to crush the Jacinda Ardern bandwagon beneath the weight of his polemic aimed at the lowest common denominator.
"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."
Thank you. God almighty. Are we done yet?
THURSDAY
We shall now hear from Voices for Freedom.
They signal they have very important information concerning the real figures of how many people died from Covid.
Data from the World Health Organisation shows there had been more than 7million Covid-19 deaths reported as of 22 June this year. What the hell do the WHO know about anything, contend Voices for Freedom, who stand before the Inquiry in a fetching array of tinfoil hats.
Thank you for coming today. Are you nervous? Is that froth? We have run out of tissues. Mr Bridge had great need.
Please compose yourself as best you can. Down to business. Many thousands of people around the world died, particularly in that early period, but do you dispute that?
"No doubt there were, as there are every year with flus and things like that, and yes, it might have been a particularly bad instance of that."
Thank you. Could someone please hand over a defibrillator? Or some heroin. I am losing the will to live.
FRIDAY
The Inquiry is pleased to announce that Jacinda Ardern says she will provide evidence to the second stage of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19.
I shall investigate, and investigate fully, the decisions she made which helped to save the lives of an estimated 20,000 New Zealanders.
Such an outcome must never happen again. It won't with this government.
By Steve Braunias
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: Pandemic probe media focus flipped to politicians
Representatives of pressure group Voice of Freedom addressing the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response, last Thursday. Photo: Royal Commission livestream "It's the big one. The inquiry into the Covid response kicks off this morning. It looks at lockdowns. It looks at all of the things you hated most," Ryan Bridge told viewers of NZME's streaming show Herald Now last Monday morning . But the public hearings which ran all week turned out not to be such a 'big one' for the media. "I saw the Covid inquiry in the news this morning and I just thought: how long does this have to go on for?" an exasperated Lara Greaves - an associate professor in politics - told Bridge later in the same show. She's not the only one who feels that way. But the hearings were barely in the news after they got under way on Monday. On Tuesday the inquiry was well down the running order in morning and evening news shows, long after coverage of the mushroom poisoning trial in Australia. On Wednesday the possibility of moa being regenerated with the backing of Sir Peter Jackson was a bigger story for most outlets. There was a little more coverage on Thursday when anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown groups appeared, ahead of anti-conspiracy theory group FACT and immunologist Professor Graeme LeGros later on. But by the time they wrapped up on Friday the hearings had virtually vanished from bulletins. And what was said over the five days generated less coverage than questions about whether politicians would appear at hearings in future. As for "the things you hated most" - people hated different things. Asthmatic Annie Collins told the inquiry on the first day she thought lockdowns worked and saved lives, and vaccine misinformation online was the real problem. "I think that was a major flaw in our system. All those social media streams should have been blocked. They were disgusting and they were basically lies," she said. Shutting down social media channels was out of scope for this inquiry, but the chairman Grant Illingworth KC told Ryan Bridge on Monday the big decisions made at the time were certainly not. Employment relations and safety manager Paul Jarvie and Heart of the City chief executive Viv Beck. Photo: Screengrab / Covid 19 Inquiry When the Herald Now host pressed the chairman about getting the big political decision-makers in front of the inquiry he said they would be invited to come and give evidence at a second set of hearings next month. When asked if former PM Jacinda Ardern would be one of them, Illingworth replied: "There are issues in relation to our powers when people are out of the country. If she's in the country, we will consider her position." He would not reveal details of specific communications, but he did say "those things are being worked through" and that "we will be fair, open and transparent at the appropriate time." That response was misinterpreted by many in the media as meaning Jacinda Ardern had been asked to attend - and either had not yet responded or that the chair would not say if she had or not. RNZ amended its reporting to make it clear the Commission said no decision had yet been made about who would appear at the August hearings. But Ryan Bridge continued to press for Ardern's appearance on Herald Now and Newstalk ZB. David Seymour - appearing as the acting PM - told Ryan Bridge the former PM should front up to answer questions about "the most significant political and economic event of this century so far." But Seymour was also at pains to point out that the inquiry is independent, and would make its own decision. That was the reason Labour leader Chris Hipkins - health minister during the period covered by the inquiry - gave on Morning Report the next day for not giving a view on Ardern's attendance. Hipkins also dodged a question about whether he'd discussed the issue with Jacinda Ardern herself. On Herald Now on Tuesday, Chris Hipkins confirmed he was cooperating with the inquiry, but equivocated on whether he himself would appear before it in August. He also made it clear he really didn't fancy what he thought had become a political process. "The terms of reference specifically exclude decisions made when New Zealand First were part of the government. So I think that the terms of reference have been deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorists' views," he said. NZ First demanded the inquiry when forming the coalition government in 2023. The party even invoked 'agree to disagree' provisions in that agreement when National persisted with the first Royal Commission the Labour government had already launched. The second phase opened this week with new commissioners and expanded terms of reference, which meant that fringe voices opposed to the vaccine mandates, and in some cases the vaccine itself, would be heard this time and heard but not cross examined. "It seems to have been specifically written into the terms of reference that they get maximum airtime," Hipkins told Herald Now , adding that some of those given a platform had inspired the occupation of Parliament in 2022, where platforms for gallows were built - including one with his own name on it. One of the groups that prompted the occupation was the anti-vaccine, anti-lockdown group Voices for Freedom. The group's Facebook page was taken offline in 2021 for what the platform said was "misinformation that could cause physical harm." "You seriously expect the people of New Zealand to accept that deaths being reported internationally (in 2020) were not genuinely from Covid?" Grant Illingworth KC asked them on Thursday. "We're not disputing that there were deaths. We're simply saying that it gets very complex, especially when people are being funded in order to tick a box to say that a death was caused by Covid," VFF co-founder Claire Deeks replied. Voices for Freedom is also promoting a Face the Music campaign pressing the inquiry's commissioners to summon Jacinda Ardern and others and "hold them accountable for their COVID abuse." Their online petition depicts Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Sir Ashley Bloomfield all shoulder-to-shoulder in a courtroom dock. It's not exactly in tune with the evidence-gathering and non-adversarial approach of this Royal Commission's mandate. But others in the media weighed in behind the idea. "It is actually bizarre that we are having a Covid inquiry without Dame Jacinda's participation. She owes it to Kiwis to front up," Stuff's 'good news' correspondent Patrick Gower declared on Wednesday. That was triggered by Sir Ian Taylor's open letter to Jacinda Ardern last weekend - also published by Stuff - accusing Ardern of turning her back on the nation of five million for "a waka for one." But the same day The Post had reported a spokesperson for Dame Jacinda Ardern said she would provide evidence to the Covid-19 inquiry if asked - and "discussions were ongoing about the best way for it to occur." "Fact: Ardern has agreed to give evidence to phase two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Government's response to Covid-19," The Herald's Fran O'Sullivan stated bluntly this weekend. "There is room to examine all of this dispassionately - not try to (figuratively) hang her again as the more deranged attempted when they wheeled out their noose on Parliament's grounds." For all the urging in the media, the story has actually been the same since March when the inquiry issued a minute , making it clear it could not take a legalistic or adversarial approach. "The commissioners expect that individuals will be prepared to attend interviews with them and or officers of the inquiry on a voluntary basis," the minute stated, regarding interviews with decision makers. "The interviews may be conducted online or in person, recorded and may be transcribed for the public record." In the end opinions about a point that was mostly moot overshadowed the coverage of what the commissioners were actually told in five days of public, livestreamed hearings. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Covid inquiry 2, fiscal holes set for re-run, TVNZ bias check
The backers of the second official inquiry into the Covid response say it's crucial for preparing us for the next pandemic - but the media mostly zeroed in on whether big-name politicians would show up. Also: TVNZ checking itself for bias, French vocab slipping into the news, and do we need to brace for more 'fiscal hole' fury in Election 2026?
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
The Corporate Takeover Of Housing
The 2025 U.S. housing market presents a paradox. Home sales are down, and there are far more sellers than buyers, yet prices continue to hit record highs. Over the past decade, home values have surged nationwide, including in once-affordable Sunbelt cities. Policymakers appear ill-equipped to respond to the situation. In a July 2025 interview with the New York Times, 16 U.S. mayors listed housing as one of their top concerns. During her 2024 presidential campaign, former Vice President Kamala Harris proposed tax credits for first-time buyers to alleviate the crisis, while President Donald Trump has renewed calls for interest rate cuts to help lower mortgage rates. Homeownership remains central to the American dream, and U.S. homeownership rates have typically hovered around 65 percent 'from 1965 until 2025,' according to Trading Economics. But the high-water mark came in 2004 when it reached 69 percent, and despite a temporary COVID-19-era spike, the rate has continued to inch downward. Worryingly, even among those who own homes, equity is shrinking. Many homeowners own less than half of their property's value today, with the balance tied up in debt. Many of the pressures are structural. Construction costs have soared, labor is in short supply, and tariffs have raised the price of materials. Zoning laws, tax regimes, and anti-density regulations have stifled urban growth, while sprawling development is hitting geographic and environmental limits. Mortgage rates remain high, and the national housing shortfall, now estimated to be more than 4.5 million, continues to worsen. But the crisis has opened the door for new kinds of investors. A growing cast of corporate actors is moving into residential real estate, lured by the prospect of stable returns in a tightening market. Though they still own a minority of U.S. housing, these firms are often concentrated in key regions and markets. Increasingly capable of setting the terms of access to housing, their rising influence threatens to reverse the post-World War II surge in widespread homeownership. Buildup Large-scale corporate ownership of homes and influence over rent prices is a relatively recent development. Before 2008, most institutional investors stuck to apartment buildings and urban areas, as single-family homes were seen as too dispersed and costly to manage. That changed after the housing crash, when a wave of foreclosures flooded the market, leading to the availability of deeply discounted homes in the suburbs. 'In the decade since the global financial crisis of 2007-2009, major institutional financial actors have invested heavily in U.S. single-family housing, acquiring anywhere up to three hundred thousand houses, and then letting them out,' stated a 2021 article in Sage Journals. In 2012, government-backed mortgage giant Fannie Mae began selling thousands of foreclosed homes in bulk to investors, showing single-family housing could be bought, held, and profited from at scale. At the same time, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expanded support for institutional buyers through favorable financing terms and lower rates. Homebuilding, meanwhile, had collapsed, and a supply shortage began to take hold. 'The crash badly hurt a variety of sectors, but it simply devastated the home construction industry, given that the crisis was directly centered there. … with a glut of foreclosures on the market and prices falling fast, America simply stopped building homes. New private home starts plummeted by almost 80 percent to the lowest level since 1959,' according to a 2024 article in the American Prospect. Investor interest surged as home prices recovered in the early 2010s. This era brought record-low interest rates and trillions in financial stimulus from the Federal Reserve and government, which helped stabilise the economy and flooded capital markets. With cheap borrowing and rising prices, housing became an attractive asset. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this trend. Remote work drove people from cities to suburbs, while eviction moratoriums pushed many small landlords to sell, opening the door for larger buyers. Digital platforms made it easier to browse, purchase, and manage properties remotely. Alongside traditional banks, a wide range of financial firms and platforms have been profiting from rising demand and tightening supply. Wall Street Landlords Blackstone, one of the world's largest private equity firms, became a pioneer in large-scale housing acquisitions after 2008. In 2012, it helped launch Invitation Homes, now the largest owner of single-family rentals in the U.S. Though Blackstone sold its stake in 2019, it reentered the market by acquiring Canadian real estate firm Tricon Residential in 2024, and sold 3,000 homes that year to UK's largest pension fund for approximately $550 million, showcasing its global influence in housing. Other major firms have followed suit. Progress Residential, backed by Pretium Partners, has come under fire for evictions, maintenance failures, and excessive fees. Amherst Holdings was profiled in Fortune in 2019 for using early predictive algorithms to identify and acquire homes, and advances in AI have only made this process more efficient. Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS), originally designed in the 1960s to give everyday investors access to real estate profits, are now largely dominated by major institutional firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, and private equity funds. Invitation Homes agreed to pay $48 million to the Federal Trade Commission in 2024 for junk fees, unfairly holding security deposits, failing to inspect homes, and using improper eviction tactics. Professor Desiree Fields, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in 2021, meanwhile, singled out Invitation Homes and American Homes 4 Rent as 'particularly vocal about the use of extraneous fees to increase total revenue,' stated a 2022 article in the Charlotte Observer. Corporate homebuying continues to climb. Institutional investors bought 15 percent of U.S. homes for sale in the first quarter of 2021, which climbed to nearly 27 percent by early 2025. In some markets, the footprint is even larger: during the third quarter of 2024, investors accounted for 44 percent of all home flips. Some firms, like Rise48 Equity, focus on acquiring and renovating large multifamily buildings to raise rental income and property value. Others, like Amherst Holdings, are beginning to enter the rent-flipping space as part of a larger expansion policy. Unlike smaller flippers who tend to cash out quickly, these companies renovate and hold properties long term. A growing number of companies are focusing on build-to-rent subdivisions, with entire neighborhoods constructed specifically for rentals. No single company dominates nationally, but corporate influence is unmistakable in certain cities. In Atlanta, private equity owns more than 30 percent of single-family rental properties, with corporate ownership disproportionately affecting Black neighborhoods, intensifying housing insecurity and displacement. Large firms enjoy several structural advantages. They access cheaper institutional financing, often pay in cash, and benefit from early access to listings and local policy influence. Firms can use creative financing tools, like combining many homes into a single investment package and using the expected rent payments as collateral to borrow more money. Bulk purchases allow them to cut costs on repairs, insurance, and maintenance, while builders are more inclined to sell homes in large blocks at a discount rather than wait for individual buyers, helping firms to avoid bidding wars. Unlike individual homeowners who often sell for financial reasons, institutional landlords can hold assets for years and sell only when market conditions are favorable. Tax policies further tilt the scales. While individual sellers pay capital gains taxes on home sales, corporate buyers can use the 1031 exchange to defer taxes by reinvesting profits into like-kind properties, pushing tax burdens into the future. Rental property owners also get tax depreciation benefits, which allow them to deduct part of the building's value each year, reducing their taxes, which compound over time. Tech Big Tech, with similar vast financial resources, has also become essential to the expansion of corporate housing. It enables investors to scale up, manage properties remotely, and influence markets and consumers to their advantage. One of the most influential tools is YieldStar, a rent pricing software developed by RealPage, purchased by private equity firm Thoma Bravo in 2021. RealPage gathers extensive rental data from participating landlords and uses algorithms to recommend optimal prices. Landlords who don't use the technology are often left at a disadvantage. Many property managers adopt these recommendations automatically, often under performance monitoring that discourages underpricing or offering tenant concessions. In cities like Seattle, where a handful of property managers control large shares of the market, RealPage's pricing influence can be especially powerful. A ProPublica investigation found that in one neighborhood, 70 percent of apartments were handled by 10 firms, all using RealPage software. Recommendations by the software included accepting lower occupancy rates if it leads to higher overall rent revenue. Critics argue that RealPage enables coordinated 'rent-setting,' effectively encouraging landlords to behave like a cartel. The U.S. Justice Department opened a lawsuit against the company in 2024 for causing harm to American renters by using its 'algorithmic pricing software.' The investigation remains ongoing. At the same time, short-term rental platforms like Airbnb have also reshaped housing. With vast reach and deep legal resources, Airbnb has helped normalize rental conversions and contributed to higher rents in many cities. In 2025, the New York Post reported that the company funded $1 million to alleged grassroots groups, such as Communities for Homeowner Choice, to oppose a New York City law requiring hosts to be present during guest stays. It has also backed tax battles and filed lawsuits across the U.S., challenging occupancy taxes and other local regulations, costing cities millions in legal fees. In both long- and short-term markets, tech platforms have made large-scale rental operations possible. Through pricing tools, political lobbying, and data leverage, housing is emerging as a more managed commodity. As corporate consolidation deepens and larger landlords become more integrated with tech platforms, these companies, and increasingly the property owners themselves, will exert even greater control over rent markets with less transparency or oversight. Addressing the Issue Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, including the U.S., now have some of the lowest home ownership rates in the world, and the rise of institutional landlords will drive those numbers lower. The core problem remains supply, with Wall Street firms targeting homes precisely because there's a shortage—something they openly acknowledge and tout to investors as a profit opportunity. The city of Austin is a rare success story. After peaking at $550,000 in May 2022, median home prices fell to $409,000 by January 2025, and indicators point to a continual downward trend. The key difference has been that Austin has built more affordable housing, providing incentives to ease zoning laws. Homeownership remains most common in rural areas, while urban centers have been hardest hit by rising investor activity and housing scarcity. Public involvement is critical to reducing the problem. Landlord interests, represented by groups like the National Multifamily Housing Council, carry enormous influence, while tenants rely on thinner support networks like the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Federal agencies like the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Housing Finance Agency play a role, but lag behind corporate influence. In comparison, Blackstone has faced greater resistance in European countries with stronger tenant protections and better-organised renters' movements. Policies like taxing the unimproved value of land could encourage development and discourage speculation on vacant or underused properties. Without effective measures, the concentration of land in private hands will only grow, whether through corporate landlords, billionaires like Bill Gates (who owns 250,000 acres spread out over 17 states), or creeping attempts to privatize public land. At stake is not just affordability but also whether the public retains any real claim to land and housing or surrenders it entirely to private capital.
