In brief

• Public testimony was a rare chance to reframe his legacy, acknowledge mistakes, and show he could own hard decisions. 

• Instead, Labour leader Chris Hipkins took the safer short-term path, which may prove costlier in the long run. 

• His absence now defines the story his opponents will retell until polling day.

• Hipkins will now have to convince voters he’s trustworthy without the benefit of having shown public transparency over his COVID record.

A missed chance to turn the page

In November 2021, when introducing the vaccine pass legislation, then COVID Minister Chris Hipkins said: “I stand behind the Government’s record on this. We have seen one of the lowest rates of hospitalisations, one of the lowest rates of mortality, one of the best economic recoveries… The results speak for themselves.”

As Public Service Minister, Hipkins pledged he was committed to “improving openness and accountability.”

Back in March 2020, as Leader of the House, Hipkins declared: “I passionately believe in the role of Parliament in scrutinising the actions of the executive… scrutiny during this unprecedented time, when the Government is placed in the position of exercising such extraordinary powers, has never been more important.” He also promised the newly created Epidemic Response Committee would “scrutinise the government’s management of the pandemic.”

Now, Hipkins wants voters to hand him the prime minister’s job. Yet his refusal to testify publicly at the Royal Commission into New Zealand’s COVID response leaves him open to the simplest attack line: if you will not defend your record now, why should voters trust you with the future? It is a contradiction that invites suspicion of a political stitch-up. By opting out, Hipkins risks fueling the perception that Labour prefers controlled messaging over unscripted accountability.

Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, and Ayesha Verrall also declined public testimony. Hipkins told Mike Hosking the group shares legal representation, a fact many see as a tacit admission that the refusal was coordinated. The visual is damning: an entire COVID leadership team sidestepping public accountability.

Inquiry chair Grant Illingworth KC could have compelled testimony but chose not to, noting the former ministers had already given evidence in private. With no procedural excuse left, Hipkins chose not to appear.

Keeping COVID alive as a campaign issue

If Labour’s strategy was to keep COVID off the 2026 campaign trail, this has backfired. The refusal ensures every COVID policy discussion between now and election day will carry the reminder that Hipkins avoided public questioning.

If Hipkins could stand at the podium day after day during the crisis, delivering lines to millions, he can hardly claim that a one-off public appearance before a commission is political theatre. National’s Judith Collins wasted no time branding the refusal “gutless and hypocritical,” twisting Hipkins’ own “1pm podium of truth” branding into a barb: “Where the hell are they now?”

ACT’s David Seymour called it “running from accountability.” These lines will live rent-free in campaign speeches, debate prep, and social media memes.

Polling by Curia for the Taxpayers’ Union found a majority of New Zealanders, including over a third of Labour voters, opposed the decision by Hipkins and other former ministers to avoid public testimony. Majorities in every other party, from National and ACT to NZ First and even Te Pāti Māori, wanted them to front the inquiry.

What does it mean when Hipkins calculated it better not to testify publicly, even though polls show many of his own supporters wanted him to?

The counter-narrative: political theatre

Supporters argue public testimony would have been political bloodletting. With an election looming, they say the format risked devolving into point scoring and grandstanding.

That defence might stand, if not for Labour’s own history. The daily 1pm COVID briefings under Ardern and Hipkins were political performances in all but name. Many suspected those sessions doubled as campaign rallies, framing Labour as New Zealand’s saviour in real time. Rejecting a single public grilling now rings hollow.

Most parties, even those now criticising him, backed the bulk of the government’s COVID actions at the time. That makes the “bloodletting” defence weaker. It was a chance to walk through his decisions. While opponents might have fought over details, most shared his framing and agreed with the thrust of many major decisions.

Editor’s note: The feature image is an AI-generated illustration. It is a satirical depiction and not a real photograph of Chris Hipkins.

_{Receive our free newsletter here}