For those of us with PCT, post Covid trauma, I've just given it a name and an acronym, the news that Nicola Willis is launching an inquiry into the actions of the Reserve Bank during Covid is going to bring back some bad memories, but I guess that's what National's relying on. During the pandemic, you'll recall the Reserve Bank cut the Official Cash Rate to a record low and for the first time printed about $55 billion worth of digital money – $55 billion that was pumped into the economy to keep it afloat. Many other countries did that too. Most didn't do it to the same extent we did, but most countries, most Western economies did the same thing. But they, like we, found that there is a cost to free money. High inflation, massive increase in house prices, businesses struggling to pay the money back. Was the hangover worth it? That's what Finance Minister Nicola Willis wants to find out. 

“I think this is about the future. It's less for me about who was to blame and who we can tell was wrong. What it is about is saying, well, if you were doing it again, how would you prevent some of the overspending? How would you prevent some of the overuse of this money printing tool? How would you make sure you got it right? And so actually this is about the future and doing it better in the future. If we were to repeat the mistakes of Covid and just blindly ignore the lessons of history, I think that would be a major failure. 

“I fully acknowledge support for the economy was required. And so the question that we are asking is, well, the benefits that occurred because there was this money printing and this borrowing are known, but let's examine what the costs were and then do a weigh up of the benefits of the costs and ask ourselves, did we just maybe go a bit too far? And in future, how would we calibrate that better? And look, I think the idea that New Zealanders shouldn't have this information before the election is really wrong because actually it does have a bearing on the democratic process. It does have a bearing on the way that people position themselves for the future.” 

The timing is interesting. Reminding everyone of the Covid experience just before the election – who's that going to work for? You'd have to ask yourself. National promised during the last election campaign that they would order an independent review of the actions of the Reserve Bank and that review did not happen until now, and that's the start of the next election campaign. Willis says, oh come on, it's not about that. I was just really, really busy doing other stuff. I had a lot on my plate, I had a lot to deal with, which is true. I was updating the Reserve Bank's mandate to a sole focus on fighting inflation. I've had a lot on my plate. I'm only just getting round to it now.  

Still and all, I am not averse to an inquiry and I don't want it to be a witch hunt. And I think it would be really, really, really good to have a truly independent and dispassionate look at decisions made in the heat of the moment and weigh up whether you would make those same decisions next time. Obviously there'll be slightly different circumstances, but if people have to stay home and businesses have to shut down, how do you manage that? How do you manage that over the short term? How do you manage that over the long term?  

I would have really liked to have seen that happen with other decisions made during Covid, like having a long hard look at the way health and Covid health was prioritised over everything else. The decision makers at the time said the hospitals would have been overwhelmed and therefore all health would have suffered. You look now at the cancer waitlists and the deaths from people who weren't picked up while the hospitals were in shutdown mode and you say, okay, alright, so that happened, as a result this happened, was it worth it?  

I would love to see a dispassionate, cool, clear-headed look at the decisions that were made and bring into account everything that happened during that time and say was it worth it? I know we've had the Covid inquiries, but I don't really, I don't feel that we've had a clear, concise, dispassionate report. Yes, we would do this again. No, we wouldn't do that. Maybe we'd do this. I'd just like to see it set out a little bit more clearly, a blueprint, because what caused so much pain last time was the fudging and the decisions on the fly and not fully formed decisions. If you're able to get a really good analysis of the decisions made with a cost benefit factor weighed up, an emotional cost, personal cost, as well as the dollar figure, and if you broke it down to the Reserve Bank, to health, to employment, to housing, I think it would be really helpful for future generations to see, okay, they did that, let's not do that this time. It might look like a good idea, but ultimately the cost was just too great. When you look at the children and education and schooling, what was the cost there?  

It might have been worth it – that's what we might find. I might have to agree that for all my moaning and bitching and railing under the restrictions, they were the right decisions to make and I might have to accept that, but I don't really feel we've got a clear analysis of the decisions made and whether they were worth it. I mean, perhaps there has been and I just haven't been willing to hear them, but I can't recall seeing anything set out, laid out, simply, clearly, concisely, critically, and coolly. And that's what I'd really love to see. I bet there are some of you, probably in the South Island, who think, oh for God's sake, what a waste of bloody time. This again. And I don't blame you. I'd love to be in that position. I really would. So you might think it's a complete and utter waste of time. If so, I'd love to hear your thoughts too.