How many people saw Facebook claims against Chris Hipkins?

Wednesday, 18 March 2026

ANALYSIS: When Chris Hipkins fronted up to the news cameras yesterday to reject claims made by his ex-wife on social media, many Kiwis would have been hearing about them for the first time.

But many would have not.

The unsubstantiated claims ‒ which are not criminal in nature, and have been rejected by Hipkins ‒ began as a Sunday evening Facebook post by Jade Paul, Hipkins’ ex-wife.

Paul’s page was set to private but screenshots of the post were in wide circulation soon afterwards. By Monday morning they were posted to X, formerly Twitter, and from there were spread across social media.

It is unlikely that Hipkins would have felt the need to address the allegations publicly in the pre-social-media age. Absent verification and publication by a media outlet they would have remained as rumours. But in a New Zealand where around 88% of adults have a social media account that becomes less tenable.

It is incredibly difficult to know exactly how many people saw screenshots of Paul’s post. But we can make some educated guesses.

A survey of X posts conducted by The Post on Wednesday morning found posts containing the screenshots had at least 64,000 views. Some users were clearly very keen to make sure the post was seen as widely as possible, replying to the accounts of major news accounts and the like. One account posted the screenshot 10 times in a three-hour span.

X publicly lists view counts, making it easier to check how much a post was seen. But some proportion of those views will be from the same accounts seeing the different posts more than once ‒ they are not unique views, in other words.

But X is just one social network, and one with a vastly smaller reach than networks like Facebook and Instagram.

Facebook is far more of a “black box” ‒ as much of the activity on the site takes place in private groups or on people’s private pages, and view counts aren’t made public. But a survey by The Post rapidly found posts by large pages or groups with tens of thousands of followers sharing the screenshot.

This survey found posts sharing the screenshot attracted more than 6000 reactions, 2700 comments and 800 shares across Facebook, in groups and pages with a combined following of more than 160,000 people.

Not everyone who follows those pages will have seen the post, but a substantial portion of them will ‒ especially given the posts are generally getting very high engagement. Indeed, many who don’t follow those pages will have seen them too ‒ as 800 people shared them to their wider network. It is not unreasonable to assume that tens of thousands if not well over 100,000 people would have seen the post on Facebook alone.

We can also look at Instagram. Instagram again does not provide view counts ‒ but a survey found several posts including one with 2500 likes and over 1000 comments. It is safe to assume many thousands of views there too.

And then there’s places like Reddit. A now-deleted post on R/NewZealand ‒ which has 513,000 members ‒ appears to have contained the screenshot.

Finally we are left with the biggest black box at all ‒ direct messages between people. Whether it be WhatsApp group chats, Facebook messages between two people, or simple text messages, this remains the foremost way a lot of people would communicate about a matter such as this. You might feel some compunction about sharing unverified claims on your public social media page, but not privately with a few friends.

Putting all this together one can say pretty confidently that at least 100,000 Kiwis likely saw the screenshot before Hipkins held his press conference ‒ and possibly a whole lot more. And this is just the screenshot ‒ countless others will have read or heard descriptions of what it contained.

The rumour mill pulls in Hipkins’ ex-wife

Soon after Paul’s post began to go viral, another claim about her started to go viral ‒ that Paul was currently a NZ First staffer.

These rumours got their own head of steam and were being reposted by former Prime Minister Helen Clark on Wednesday.

But NZ First leader Winston Peters has clarified this claim ‒ noting that Paul did work for one of his ministers for a short time, but left the role amicably a year ago.

“We are not interested in a politician's current personal relationship issues and won’t be commenting at all on the matter ‒ apart from the fact that there are lies now being spread including that the person involved works for New Zealand First – this is false,” Peters said.

“This person does not work for New Zealand First nor has any affiliation or role with New Zealand First. They worked for a short period of time in an office then left amicably for another role around a year ago.”

Again, it is impossible to verify exactly how far this rumour in turn has spread in the black box of Facebook and other platforms. It will likely have less reach than Paul’s original claims ‒ but still go very very far.

How this could shape the election

Hipkins told media on Wednesday morning that he had considered resigning over the matter but decided to stay.

That could change rapidly depending on how the public continue to view these claims.

Many will have made up their minds immediately on seeing the screenshot. Others may have made up their mind in a different direction after seeing the claims about Paul working for NZ First.

The reality of life in the social media age is that it moves far far faster than the speed which many politicians grew up in. Had these claims been first raised by news media they would never have been presented without Hipkins also having a chance to present his side of the story ‒ and indeed, may never have been published at all, had media being unable to verify them. Media operate under strict defamation laws, and are also subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority and New Zealand Media Council.

On social media, such claims can reach tens of thousands before anyone like Hipkins has a chance to respond. They can do so via so many accounts that legal action becomes difficult.

This is unlikely to be the last time such claims are posted about a politician and real viral velocity in hours. Politicians can respond fast ‒ but many voters will have made up their mind long before they get a chance to.