logo
'They are ashamed': Former Labour ministers slammed for refusing to appear at Covid hearing

'They are ashamed': Former Labour ministers slammed for refusing to appear at Covid hearing

By Russell Palmer of RNZ
All three coalition parties are criticising Labour's former ministers for refusing to appear at a public Covid-19 hearing, saying they're trying to avoid scrutiny.
The second phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic was secured in coalition agreements between all three governing parties.
The chair, Grant Illingworth KC, yesterday confirmed that a week-long public hearing with decision-makers would not go ahead because former ministers had refused to participate.
They include former prime minister Dame Jacinda Ardern, current Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who was at times the health and Covid-19 response minister, former finance minister Grant Robertson and former health minister and current MP Ayesha Verrall,
Those former ministers argue they have provided ample evidence privately to the commission, which - despite having the power to - declined to summons them, saying on balance it was "undesirable given that the former ministers continue to co-operate with the evidence-gathering of the inquiry".
"We are confident that the former ministers declining to attend the hearing does not hamper us in our ability to obtain the information we need to be able to properly complete our task. Public hearings are only one mechanism of obtaining evidence, and their use is restricted under our terms of reference," Illingworth said.
The reasoning the ministers gave to the inquiry - according to a document the inquiry released - included that former ministers were conventionally interviewed privately for Royal Commissions of Inquiry, that they had cooperated so far and repeating the evidence publicly would be "performative rather than informative", and it risked the recordings being "tampered with, manipulated or otherwise misused".
The document noted other witnesses and their families had faced abuse after appearing in public hearings, including in the Royal Commission held in July.
Hipkins told RNZ's Morning Report programme today he has been interviewed in private, answered every question fully and even given the commission more information than what he had originally been asked.
He accused those involved with the Royal Commission of not knowing what they wanted because they had said public hearings wouldn't be held for five reasons, including avoiding participants being subject to abuse.
"They indicated at the end of that interview [his private appearance] ... that they didn't have any further questions and any public hearing would simply be a repeat of any questions they'd already asked me."
Hipkins acknowledged that the pandemic was "a really difficult time", however, he said he answered questions from media and the public on a daily basis.
Asked what he had to lose by fronting up, Hipkins responded that all the former ministers had followed the same protocol for the Covid commission as had occurred in the past, citing the examples of former Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee at the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of inquiry and other ministers involved in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks.
Ardern stood by her decision not to participate, with a spokesperson saying she had recently provided a three-hour interview and remained available to answer any further questions the commission had.
Hipkins earlier spoke to reporters at Parliament to defend his decision, and Dr Verrall provided a written statement. Robertson, who is now vice chancellor at the University of Otago, did not respond to RNZ's requests for comment.
At Parliament, senior National MP Chris Bishop used the general debate yesterday to call attention to their refusal, saying it was "perhaps unsurprising".
"They are ashamed of their record, and they know that held up to the light the decisions they made in 2020 and 2021 and 2022 have led us into the problems we are enduring today.
"It was really clear from the second half of 2020 and into 2021 that further stimulus of the New Zealand economy was not only not required, it was counterproductive."
He said Treasury pointed to 36% of spending for the Covid response happening after June 2021.
"At that point, GDP had already returned to its pre-pandemic levels and inflation was already outside the band and approaching 7.3 percent ... from financial year 2015 to 2019, core Crown debt was actually flat - it actually went down a bit. But from 2019 to 2023, net core Crown debt increased by 169 percent to $155 billion.
"That is the debt disaster this government inherited. That is the inflation disaster this government inherited. That is the cause of the recession this government inherited."
ACT leader David Seymour mimed running away from reporters before saying "kidding - that's the other guys".
He said a lot of people would see the former ministers refusing to appear publicly as "running from accountability, and that's what erodes that trust".
"I would have thought if you cared about this country and responding to its next pandemic, which will happen, then you'd want to front up and tell your story," he said.
"It's good that they've co-operated in privacy, we're told, but I think the New Zealand people deserve them to show up ... I think there was an opportunity here to come and explain their perspective. Maybe we have it wrong, but they're not doing it."
Seymour particularly focused on Hipkins.
"The contrast between his behaviour during the pandemic - when they do anything to get in front of the cameras, when we had to endure a 20 minute lecture before they gave us the daily numbers - compared with this behaviour we've learned about today, I think that contrast speaks for itself."
Asked about concerns of abuse, Seymour said the former ministers had a public duty to front up.
"Are we going to let a small group of anti-social people stop our great nation from having a democratic discourse? I think the simple facts are we don't decide that 'because there's a few crazies out there we're no longer going to have a Parliament'."
pic.twitter.com/qukRx7LtkA — Winston Peters (@winstonpeters) August 13, 2025
NZ First leader Winston Peters shared his views on X, saying the former ministers "colluded and decided to decline to give evidence".
"The 'Podium of Truth' has become the 'Podium of Evasion'. These former ministers do not want to sit in a public hearing and answer the hard questions that every New Zealander deserves to know. If ever there was a definition for "a different kind of 'abuse of' power" this is it."
He said they were undermining the second inquiry to avoid public scrutiny.
"Those former Labour Ministers have shown they care nothing about public confidence, and worse, are treating the entire public with distain (sic) and contempt ... and had a disastrous effect on the economy and future of our country - yet they refuse to be held to account."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy
Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy

NZ Herald

time11 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy

On July 1, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisers sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. 'Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your minister before we sent it off,' the email read. Act leader David Seymour sent a blunt letter to the UN after consulting Paul Goldsmith. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'It is a little more direct than what MFAT [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] might draft. Please let me know if your minister is happy.' Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of July 3, Seymour's adviser emailed him: 'Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka.' Seymour replied: 'Okay, great.' His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: 'When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine.' A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Emails between Seymour's staff in June canvassed the options for responding to the UN and noted MFAT's preferred approach was a joint reply from 'relevant ministers' Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a Government-wide letter on August 11, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the 'breakdown in protocol'. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K. Barume, had raised concerns on June 12 about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique 'presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced' and 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: 'I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN'. – RNZ

Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga
Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga

Otago Daily Times

time11 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga

By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Another Cabinet minister has been caught up in the United Nations letter-writing imbroglio, with new documents showing David Seymour first ran his response past Paul Goldsmith before he sent it. Seymour, writing as Regulations Minister, fired off a blunt reply to the UN in July that prompted public rebukes from both Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters for bypassing proper processes. Seymour refused to concede any mistake but agreed to formally withdraw his letter so Peters could issue one on behalf of the full government. New correspondence, released to RNZ under the Official Information Act, reveals Goldsmith, the Treaty Negotiations Minister, had been looped in early on and appeared comfortable with Seymour's approach. On 1 July, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisors sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. "Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your Minister before we sent it off," the email read. "It is a little more direct than what MFAT might draft. Please let me know if your Minister is happy." Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of 3 July, Seymour's advisor emailed him: "Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka." Seymour replied: "Ok, great." His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: "When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine." A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Earlier correspondence in late June showed Goldsmith's office drafted an initial "holding response" to the UN but requested it be sent with Seymour's letterhead as "the senior Minister for this response". Emails between Seymour's staff also canvassed the options for responding to the UN. It noted MFAT's preferred approach would be a joint reply from "relevant Ministers" Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a government-wide letter on 11 August, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the "breakdown in protocol". The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, had raised concerns on 12 June about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced" and "an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty". After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: "I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN."

Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter-writing saga
Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter-writing saga

Otago Daily Times

time11 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter-writing saga

By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Another Cabinet minister has been caught up in the United Nations letter-writing imbroglio, with new documents showing David Seymour first ran his response past Paul Goldsmith before he sent it. Seymour, writing as Regulations Minister, fired off a blunt reply to the UN in July that prompted public rebukes from both Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters for bypassing proper processes. Seymour refused to concede any mistake but agreed to formally withdraw his letter so Peters could issue one on behalf of the full government. New correspondence, released to RNZ under the Official Information Act, reveals Goldsmith, the Treaty Negotiations Minister, had been looped in early on and appeared comfortable with Seymour's approach. On 1 July, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisors sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. "Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your Minister before we sent it off," the email read. "It is a little more direct than what MFAT might draft. Please let me know if your Minister is happy." Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of 3 July, Seymour's advisor emailed him: "Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka." Seymour replied: "Ok, great." His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: "When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine." A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Earlier correspondence in late June showed Goldsmith's office drafted an initial "holding response" to the UN but requested it be sent with Seymour's letterhead as "the senior Minister for this response". Emails between Seymour's staff also canvassed the options for responding to the UN. It noted MFAT's preferred approach would be a joint reply from "relevant Ministers" Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a government-wide letter on 11 August, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the "breakdown in protocol". The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, had raised concerns on 12 June about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced" and "an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty". After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: "I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store