July 8, 2025 • 10 mins
Chris Hipkins is doubling down on saying the Covid Response Inquiry's terms seems to provide a platform for conspiracy views.
The Labour leader also said the second phase —that began this week— excludes looking at any decisions made when NZ First was in Government.
Hipkins told John MacDonald opinions from the likes of Brian Tamaki and Liz Gunn deserve to be heard but shouldn't overshadow submission on other experiences.
He says if the Government's genuine in wanting all voices heard, it's important for it not to be dominated by a few people.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talks the'b.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Chris, I'm not sure about the wheeling in, John, but
I'm very happy to be here.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Oh okay, you brought yourself. Are you as happy to
be here as you would be to front up the
COVID nineteen inquiry?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Yeah? I mean look, I've said that, you know, the
COVID nineteen enquiry. We're cooperating as much as we can.
As they've said this morning, they haven't made decisions about
who they want to appear in their public hearings, and
I don't want to add to the pressure that they're
getting from the government.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Come on, come on, they should and shouldn't be called
come on, you're putting your hand up or not.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I've said that we're cooperating as much as we can
with the inquiry. But I think me saying oh, yes, look,
pick me, pick me, or saying no, don't pick me,
don't pick me, I think would be the wrong thing
to do. The government are clearly trying to put as
much pressure as they go on them as they can
to have public hearings involving the former ministers as the
COVID inquiry themselves. As said, that's not a decision that
they've taken yet, and I'm not going to tell them
(01:02):
one way or the other what decision they should take.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
With respect. That's quite convenient and convenient. Where's the words
that I can say so with respect.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Chris, I don't think so, John. I mean, the the
pandemic was a very very difficult time for New Zealand.
The government decided to launch a second inquiry so that
people who were affected by the decisions that we took
around the pandemic have an opportunity to have their voices heard.
And I've said, I think it's really important that they
get the opportunity to do that, that we keep that
(01:31):
we get to hear from a broad cross section of people,
because there'll be people who were opposed some of the
things that we did, and there'll be people who want
to speak strongly in favor of it, and I think
it's important that you know, they get the chance to
have their voices heard. That's why the government claim they
set up the second inquiry, and you know, I'm cooperating
with them as much as possible. Enlightened that not.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
As much as you want to We've been talking about
this for the first hour on the show this morning,
and two questions have come up from our listeners which
I have to put to you. First of all, why
are you hiding or what are you hiding? What are
you hiding?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Well, I'm not I'm not hiding anything, John, I mean,
as I've said, at the moment, I'm working through a
series of written questions that the Commission have sent. I
spent several hours with the first Royal Commission. I thought
that their report was a very good one. It was
quite critical of the government's decisions. But actually I think
the criticisms were behind large, very valid ones. You know.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
The other one. The other one is we.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Didn't have but we're being as open with the inquiry
as possible.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Right, next question, all of the documents.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Who are produced? And as I said, I've already spent
several hours with the.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
First bar Right, next question, what are you scared of?
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Well, again, I'm not sure what. I'm not sure where
the questions coming from. As I've said, I think the
Royal Commission is independent. It's important they operate independently and
politicians shouldn't tell them what to do.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
If it's good, if it was good enough for Boris Johnson,
who was the king of COVID cock ups, if it
was good enough for him to turn up in person
the COVID inquiry in the UK. Theoretically, it would make
perfect sense for the COVID Minister or the former COVID
Minister to turn up at New Zealand's inquiry. Theoretically, wouldn't it, Well,
I already have.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
I mean, I spent seven the next face Phase two
Second Royal Commission, and we've said to the Second Royal
Commission that well, you know, we're trying to provide them
with whatever information they're asking.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
So for consistency, it would make sense for the former
COVID Minister to turn up to Phase two, wouldn't it.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Well, that's a that's a question for the Commission.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
What did you mome when you said the inquiry provides
a platform for conspiracy theorists?
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Well, know what I was saying is I don't want
people like Brian Tamick and Liz gam to dominate the.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Whole pointitled they're entitled to, aren't they?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Well, because there are other voices that deserve to be heard.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Are they Are they entitled to be heard? Are they
entitled to be heard.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Of course, of course they are, But I don't think
that they should dominate the whole thing because there are
people who have raised legitimate concerns who don't subscribe to
the kind of conspiracy theories that they do. And I
think it's important that you know this inquiry actually, if
the government are genuine and saying that they want this
to be an opportunity for everyone to have their voices heard,
(04:06):
that a few people don't dominate it.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
People who tragically lost family members because of reactions to
the vaccine, for example, And if they turn up at
the inquiry and speak out, will you also classify them
as conspiracy theorists?
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Well, no, Look ultimately, how somebody has passed away and.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Were No, that's not the answer to the question. The
question the question is if the question is if people
turn up and talk about their grief at losing someone
who died following getting the vaccine, will you consider them
to be conspiracy theorists?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
John, I'm not I'm not going to pass judgment awards.
When you pass judgment, Chris, Chris, I'm not a medical professional.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Chris, I'm not asking you to do that, but you've
passed judgment on the likes of Brian Tomaky and Liz Gunn.
So don't hold back.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Well, no, I'm not going to that, John, that's a
horrible thing. I'm not going to pass judgment on people
who have lost loved ones during COVID, whether that's because
they got COVID or whether it's because they had an
adverse reaction to the vaccine. And there were a very
small number of people who are in that category. I
absolutely accept that I'm not going to pass judgment on them.
That that would be a horrible thing to ask for anybody
to do.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
This is not the only thing on the agender at
the moment. The government's announced changes to the Family boost scheme.
How comfortable are you personally with a family earning two
hundred and twenty nine thousand dollars getting a government subsidy
for sending their kids to preschool?
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Oh, I think a Family boosts been an absolute flop.
And I think what Nikola Willis has done now I
was take money that she said was going to be
targeted at people who were struggling to pay, you know,
low income people who are struggling to pay for early
childhood education, and now she's giving more of it to
people on higher incomes. I think that kind of defeats
the purpose of what she was trying to do, which
was she claimed she was targeting it at the people
(05:54):
who were really struggling. And now we know that people
on higher incomes are going to get more of it, So.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
You're not poorly to dying, you're not comfortable with it?
Speaker 2 (06:03):
I mean, ultimately, I think we should target the support
to those who are on the lowest in.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Okay, why why aren't you saying you're uncomfortable? Why aren't you.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Saying hang on? Or can there be finished? Because the
alternative is that you make it universal, everyone benefits equally.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Yeah, are you scared of are are you scared of
brassing off these people? The middle class voters that you're
trying to hold on to or attract next year at
the election. Why can't you come out and say why
can't you come out and say someone a family bringing
a nearly two hundred and thirty K year doesn't deserve
government support? Why can't you say that?
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Well, Well, if I could get a word in each ways,
I'll answer your question. We had a plan that it
was implemented, it was funded, that would have given twenty
hours free free early childhood education to all two year olds.
It wasn't in any way means tested. Nicola Willis took
that away and used that money, saying she was going
to target it instead to people on low and middle incomes,
(06:56):
and she ultimately now is giving it to people on
higher incomes as well. So why not go back to
the universal entitle went to twenty hours free which everyone
would benefit from?
Speaker 3 (07:04):
So why not answer why did? I? Why do not
I answer the question? Why why not? It's all fine?
Speaker 2 (07:11):
I think the whole scheme is an administrative nightmare. Parents
have to go and they have to claim it. They've
got to wait three months to claim it. A lot
of parents are finding it too hard to be able
to claim it, so they're not bothering to claim it.
It would have been better if they just stuck with
a universal free entitlement which everybody would care right, and
they don't have to go through and bureaucratic nightmare of
trying to claim it.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
So therefore, a universal titlement means you're comfortable with people
bringing in two hundred and thirty thousand dollars a year
getting government support, yes or no.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Well, they pay more tax. So yes, I am comfortable
with it. If it's a universal entitlement, everybody benefits and
everybody contributes by paying their fairshere of tax.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
What did you mean when you said last week that
newstalks they'd be in the New Zealand Herald aren't reporting
on ran raids anymore because we're owned by a bunch
of Tories.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Oh Im, I think what I said at the time,
John explains that you know what I was getting that there,
which is brand raids failed between two thousand and twenty
two or twenty twenty two, when we introduced a range
of changes change is around how we handle RAM raids.
They fell again between twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four,
and they continued to fall this year. But it wasn't
(08:15):
because of what this government did. It was because of
this action that the previous government took to change the
way we deal with RAM raids, which was to look
at the root cause of the issue.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Okay, can I stop, trust Christ? Can I stop that?
Can I stop be there? Because then yourself we've got
to go and now and run a time we've talked
to in two weeks. I want you to answer the
question what you were getting at when you said that
we News Stalks, they'd be on the Herald aren't reporting
on ram raids because of our Tory owners. What does
that mean?
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Oh John, I know you people at New Stalks, they'd
be in the New Zealand. He would love talking about yourself.
But ultimately, I think the issue here you were.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Talking about what do you mean government? What did you
mean when you said that.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Well, people can form their own judgments on whether the
New Zealand Herald and New Stalks they'd be a a
lean to the right. I think most people had formed
the judgment that they do. Well.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
You talked about our Tory owners. Who are our owners?
We're a publicly listed company.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Well look again, I mean you've.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
The answer is the party minister.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
The answer is domestic domesticus conversion. Fair enough, he might
suddenly decide that he's a labor supporter somehow to ask.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
That, But how do you know who our owners are?
We're a publicly listed company, and how do you know
they're all a bunch of Tories?
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Oh? Look, John, you can continue to obsess about it
if he wants to The New Zealand here and use
we certainly seemed to be continuing to assess about it
probably proves the point.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
What do you think if Peter Jackson wanted to bring
back the more.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
He's not the first person to suggest that. I remember
when Triva Mallard suggested that some years ago as well.
If he's got the money and he wants to have
a crack at that, good on him.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Do you think you might talk to him if he's
interested in bringing things back from the dead.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Ah? Oh, John, goodness me.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
You've got a good sense of human behaying. Thanks for
fronting today at least anyway, I talked to you in
a fortnight John Ruiant Opposition and labor leader Chris Hopkins.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald. Listen live
to news Talks at be Christchurch from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talks the'b.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Chris, I'm not sure about the wheeling in, John, but
I'm very happy to be here.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Oh okay, you brought yourself. Are you as happy to
be here as you would be to front up the
COVID nineteen inquiry?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Yeah? I mean look, I've said that, you know, the
COVID nineteen enquiry. We're cooperating as much as we can.
As they've said this morning, they haven't made decisions about
who they want to appear in their public hearings, and
I don't want to add to the pressure that they're
getting from the government.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Come on, come on, they should and shouldn't be called
come on, you're putting your hand up or not.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I've said that we're cooperating as much as we can
with the inquiry. But I think me saying oh, yes, look,
pick me, pick me, or saying no, don't pick me,
don't pick me, I think would be the wrong thing
to do. The government are clearly trying to put as
much pressure as they go on them as they can
to have public hearings involving the former ministers as the
COVID inquiry themselves. As said, that's not a decision that
they've taken yet, and I'm not going to tell them
(01:02):
one way or the other what decision they should take.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
With respect. That's quite convenient and convenient. Where's the words
that I can say so with respect.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Chris, I don't think so, John. I mean, the the
pandemic was a very very difficult time for New Zealand.
The government decided to launch a second inquiry so that
people who were affected by the decisions that we took
around the pandemic have an opportunity to have their voices heard.
And I've said, I think it's really important that they
get the opportunity to do that, that we keep that
(01:31):
we get to hear from a broad cross section of people,
because there'll be people who were opposed some of the
things that we did, and there'll be people who want
to speak strongly in favor of it, and I think
it's important that you know, they get the chance to
have their voices heard. That's why the government claim they
set up the second inquiry, and you know, I'm cooperating
with them as much as possible. Enlightened that not.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
As much as you want to We've been talking about
this for the first hour on the show this morning,
and two questions have come up from our listeners which
I have to put to you. First of all, why
are you hiding or what are you hiding? What are
you hiding?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Well, I'm not I'm not hiding anything, John, I mean,
as I've said, at the moment, I'm working through a
series of written questions that the Commission have sent. I
spent several hours with the first Royal Commission. I thought
that their report was a very good one. It was
quite critical of the government's decisions. But actually I think
the criticisms were behind large, very valid ones. You know.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
The other one. The other one is we.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Didn't have but we're being as open with the inquiry
as possible.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Right, next question, all of the documents.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Who are produced? And as I said, I've already spent
several hours with the.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
First bar Right, next question, what are you scared of?
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Well, again, I'm not sure what. I'm not sure where
the questions coming from. As I've said, I think the
Royal Commission is independent. It's important they operate independently and
politicians shouldn't tell them what to do.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
If it's good, if it was good enough for Boris Johnson,
who was the king of COVID cock ups, if it
was good enough for him to turn up in person
the COVID inquiry in the UK. Theoretically, it would make
perfect sense for the COVID Minister or the former COVID
Minister to turn up at New Zealand's inquiry. Theoretically, wouldn't it, Well,
I already have.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
I mean, I spent seven the next face Phase two
Second Royal Commission, and we've said to the Second Royal
Commission that well, you know, we're trying to provide them
with whatever information they're asking.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
So for consistency, it would make sense for the former
COVID Minister to turn up to Phase two, wouldn't it.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Well, that's a that's a question for the Commission.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
What did you mome when you said the inquiry provides
a platform for conspiracy theorists?
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Well, know what I was saying is I don't want
people like Brian Tamick and Liz gam to dominate the.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Whole pointitled they're entitled to, aren't they?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Well, because there are other voices that deserve to be heard.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Are they Are they entitled to be heard? Are they
entitled to be heard.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Of course, of course they are, But I don't think
that they should dominate the whole thing because there are
people who have raised legitimate concerns who don't subscribe to
the kind of conspiracy theories that they do. And I
think it's important that you know this inquiry actually, if
the government are genuine and saying that they want this
to be an opportunity for everyone to have their voices heard,
(04:06):
that a few people don't dominate it.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
People who tragically lost family members because of reactions to
the vaccine, for example, And if they turn up at
the inquiry and speak out, will you also classify them
as conspiracy theorists?
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Well, no, Look ultimately, how somebody has passed away and.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Were No, that's not the answer to the question. The
question the question is if the question is if people
turn up and talk about their grief at losing someone
who died following getting the vaccine, will you consider them
to be conspiracy theorists?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
John, I'm not I'm not going to pass judgment awards.
When you pass judgment, Chris, Chris, I'm not a medical professional.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Chris, I'm not asking you to do that, but you've
passed judgment on the likes of Brian Tomaky and Liz Gunn.
So don't hold back.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Well, no, I'm not going to that, John, that's a
horrible thing. I'm not going to pass judgment on people
who have lost loved ones during COVID, whether that's because
they got COVID or whether it's because they had an
adverse reaction to the vaccine. And there were a very
small number of people who are in that category. I
absolutely accept that I'm not going to pass judgment on them.
That that would be a horrible thing to ask for anybody
to do.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
This is not the only thing on the agender at
the moment. The government's announced changes to the Family boost scheme.
How comfortable are you personally with a family earning two
hundred and twenty nine thousand dollars getting a government subsidy
for sending their kids to preschool?
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Oh, I think a Family boosts been an absolute flop.
And I think what Nikola Willis has done now I
was take money that she said was going to be
targeted at people who were struggling to pay, you know,
low income people who are struggling to pay for early
childhood education, and now she's giving more of it to
people on higher incomes. I think that kind of defeats
the purpose of what she was trying to do, which
was she claimed she was targeting it at the people
(05:54):
who were really struggling. And now we know that people
on higher incomes are going to get more of it, So.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
You're not poorly to dying, you're not comfortable with it?
Speaker 2 (06:03):
I mean, ultimately, I think we should target the support
to those who are on the lowest in.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Okay, why why aren't you saying you're uncomfortable? Why aren't you.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Saying hang on? Or can there be finished? Because the
alternative is that you make it universal, everyone benefits equally.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Yeah, are you scared of are are you scared of
brassing off these people? The middle class voters that you're
trying to hold on to or attract next year at
the election. Why can't you come out and say why
can't you come out and say someone a family bringing
a nearly two hundred and thirty K year doesn't deserve
government support? Why can't you say that?
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Well, Well, if I could get a word in each ways,
I'll answer your question. We had a plan that it
was implemented, it was funded, that would have given twenty
hours free free early childhood education to all two year olds.
It wasn't in any way means tested. Nicola Willis took
that away and used that money, saying she was going
to target it instead to people on low and middle incomes,
(06:56):
and she ultimately now is giving it to people on
higher incomes as well. So why not go back to
the universal entitle went to twenty hours free which everyone
would benefit from?
Speaker 3 (07:04):
So why not answer why did? I? Why do not
I answer the question? Why why not? It's all fine?
Speaker 2 (07:11):
I think the whole scheme is an administrative nightmare. Parents
have to go and they have to claim it. They've
got to wait three months to claim it. A lot
of parents are finding it too hard to be able
to claim it, so they're not bothering to claim it.
It would have been better if they just stuck with
a universal free entitlement which everybody would care right, and
they don't have to go through and bureaucratic nightmare of
trying to claim it.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
So therefore, a universal titlement means you're comfortable with people
bringing in two hundred and thirty thousand dollars a year
getting government support, yes or no.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Well, they pay more tax. So yes, I am comfortable
with it. If it's a universal entitlement, everybody benefits and
everybody contributes by paying their fairshere of tax.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
What did you mean when you said last week that
newstalks they'd be in the New Zealand Herald aren't reporting
on ran raids anymore because we're owned by a bunch
of Tories.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Oh Im, I think what I said at the time,
John explains that you know what I was getting that there,
which is brand raids failed between two thousand and twenty
two or twenty twenty two, when we introduced a range
of changes change is around how we handle RAM raids.
They fell again between twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four,
and they continued to fall this year. But it wasn't
(08:15):
because of what this government did. It was because of
this action that the previous government took to change the
way we deal with RAM raids, which was to look
at the root cause of the issue.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Okay, can I stop, trust Christ? Can I stop that?
Can I stop be there? Because then yourself we've got
to go and now and run a time we've talked
to in two weeks. I want you to answer the
question what you were getting at when you said that
we News Stalks, they'd be on the Herald aren't reporting
on ram raids because of our Tory owners. What does
that mean?
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Oh John, I know you people at New Stalks, they'd
be in the New Zealand. He would love talking about yourself.
But ultimately, I think the issue here you were.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Talking about what do you mean government? What did you
mean when you said that.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Well, people can form their own judgments on whether the
New Zealand Herald and New Stalks they'd be a a
lean to the right. I think most people had formed
the judgment that they do. Well.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
You talked about our Tory owners. Who are our owners?
We're a publicly listed company.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Well look again, I mean you've.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
The answer is the party minister.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
The answer is domestic domesticus conversion. Fair enough, he might
suddenly decide that he's a labor supporter somehow to ask.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
That, But how do you know who our owners are?
We're a publicly listed company, and how do you know
they're all a bunch of Tories?
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Oh? Look, John, you can continue to obsess about it
if he wants to The New Zealand here and use
we certainly seemed to be continuing to assess about it
probably proves the point.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
What do you think if Peter Jackson wanted to bring
back the more.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
He's not the first person to suggest that. I remember
when Triva Mallard suggested that some years ago as well.
If he's got the money and he wants to have
a crack at that, good on him.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Do you think you might talk to him if he's
interested in bringing things back from the dead.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Ah? Oh, John, goodness me.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
You've got a good sense of human behaying. Thanks for
fronting today at least anyway, I talked to you in
a fortnight John Ruiant Opposition and labor leader Chris Hopkins.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald. Listen live
to news Talks at be Christchurch from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.