��һ�ǿ�����

New Zealanders disagree with former Labour ministers refusing to give evidence in a public session as part of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic. 

A minute from the commission this week confirmed Dame Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson and Dr Ayesha Verrall had refused to front up publicly. 

The Herald has obtained the results of a snap poll by Curia Market Research for the Taxpayers’ Union on the issue. 

The poll was undertaken on Thursday and Friday, with 500 respondents who were contactable through an online panel. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4%, higher than normal political polls that measure party support. 

Participants were told that the former ministers had refused to give evidence in a public session as part of the commission’s inquiry. 

“They have said they will only give evidence at sessions which are not open to the public. Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the former ministers to refuse to give evidence in a public session to the royal commission?” the pollster asked. 

The results show more than half – 53% – of respondents disagreed, 28% agreed and 19% were unsure. 

A report on the results goes into detail about the demographics of those who agreed, disagreed and didn’t know. However, these have a higher margin of error. 

A majority of National, Act, NZ First and Te Pāti Māori voters disagreed with the decision. 

Of Labour voters, 43% agreed, 36% disagreed and 21% were unsure. The report emphasises a “large” margin of error for these subgroups. 

Taxpayers’ Union head of communications Victoria Relf said the inquiry relates to “the most significant public policy decisions of our lifetime”. 

“Very clearly New Zealanders expect those decision-makers to justify those decisions in a public hearing, as many world leaders in other democracies have already done. Accountability is mute when it’s behind closed doors.” 

Former Prime Ministers Dame Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins say they won't give evidence publicly. Photo / Jed Bradley 

This is the second phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry and relates to the period of February 2021 to October 2022. It has a focus on vaccines, including the use of mandates and vaccine safety, lockdowns such as the one in Auckland in late 2021, and the use of public health tools. 

It had scheduled a public hearing this month to hear from so-called “decision-makers”, such as Government ministers, public servants and advisers. 

The commission summarised three reasons for Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson and Verrall declining the invitation to appear publicly. 

These concerns included a convention former ministers are interviewed privately and to depart from this may undermine public confidence, that the foursome had already attended interviews and answered questions, and the recording of public hearings could be “manipulated”. 

The royal commission considered going forward with the hearing without them, using its legal powers to compel the Labour figures to appear, or not proceeding with the hearings and using other means to gather evidence. 

In making its determination, the minute notes the commission believed the public being able to see the former ministers questioned “would significantly enhance public confidence in our processes”. 

The commission also did not accept the argument that having former ministers appear publicly would undermine public confidence, noting this has happened before commissions of inquiry in New Zealand and overseas. 

“Looking at the options now before us, however, we consider that proceeding with a ‘decision-makers’ hearing in the absence of the central decision-makers could undermine the public confidence that would otherwise be achieved by hearing evidence in public.” 

The commission said the former ministers had provided a “significant amount of information” privately, answered a wide array of questions and had agreed to answer more. 

“There is additional information we need from former ministers and from other witnesses we invited to the hearing, including about the reasoning and advice behind several key decisions, not specifically covered in interviews to date.” 

It did not believe proceeding without the former ministers would be an efficient process to obtain that remaining evidence. 

“We also consider that compelling the former ministers to attend a hearing would risk a more adversarial situation than putting the remaining questions to them at further interviews. Our terms of reference direct us to operate in a way that does not take a legalistic and adversarial approach.” 

The commission also dismissed concerns about recordings being manipulated, saying this reflected risks within a modern communications environment. 

“Few public hearings are immune to misrepresentation or misuse by those intent on it. It is also relevant that the former ministers are public figures whose images widely appear in the media in other contexts. In our view, these risks do not, on their own, outweigh the benefits of having a public hearing.” 

The commission in the end decided proceeding without the Labour figures was not justified and said it was not hampered to obtain information in other ways. 

“We need to be clear that the refusal of former ministers in this case to attend the public hearing is not a refusal to provide information, just to answer questions at a public hearing.” 

The Labour foursome who have refused to front the public hearings. Photo / Mark Mitchell 

Hipkins, the current Labour leader, has done numerous media interviews in the past few days since the minute was published. Verrall has also spoken to ��һ�ǿ�����talk ZB and defended her decision along similar lines to her boss. 

Hipkins said he answered every question put before him and believed he was not hiding from scrutiny. 

“I have provided written evidence to the inquiry, I answered every question they had and I attended the interview they scheduled for me. They asked for two hours, but they ran out of questions after an hour.” 

Also the former Covid-19 Response Minister, Hipkins said he speaks with media most days and is always open to answering questions about his actions during the pandemic. 

Hipkins denied any suggestion of collusion with Ardern. 

“She is still a very close friend of mine. We have people representing us in common, but any suggestion we colluded with this is wrong.” 

The governing parties, which set up this phase of the inquiry, have been critical of the public no-show. 

“Hipkins and co loved the limelight at 1pm every day,” said Act’s David Seymour. “They wielded extraordinary powers over citizens’ lives, dismissing those who questioned them as uncaring. Now they’re refusing to even show up, what a contrast.” 

NZ First leader Winston Peters said: “These former ministers do not want to sit in a public hearing and answer the hard questions that every New Zealander deserves to know.” 

Judith Collins, who was National Party leader for much of the pandemic response, was also critical. 

“I think it’d be a little bit rude to say entirely gutless and hypocritical, but maybe not. I mean, honestly ... 1pm podium of truth. Well, where the hell are they now? 

“I just imagine what would be being said if the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon tried to pull that stunt. And all this nonsense about ‘people might be mean to us on social media’. Oh, well, you know, have a look at what people do to the rest of us.” 

Hipkins has previously taken issue with this phase of the inquiry excluding the period in which NZ First was in power with Labour. 

“I think the terms of reference have been deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views.” 

A spokesperson for Ardern told RNZ she had co-operated fully by providing extensive evidence, including through a three-hour interview. 

“The commission’s work is important and she will continue supporting them in reaching their terms of reference.” 

Robertson, who was Finance Minister at the time, said he had given more than two hours of testimony but was concerned about the precedent appearing in public may create. 

“I feel we have been accountable: I have given extensive evidence to both phases of the inquiry,” he told the Otago Daily Times. 

The inquiry is due to report back at the end of February 2026. The decision not to proceed with a hearing is not expected to impact that timeline. 

Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the ��һ�ǿ�����hub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.