March 10, 2026 • 8 mins
The former Covid Response Minister admits some pandemic decisions were mishandled.
The second phase of the Covid inquiry has found New Zealand’s overall response was effective, but the Government went too far with some restrictions and moved too slowly in some areas.
It's recommending new pandemic legislation before future outbreaks and stronger financial reporting.
Chris Hipkins told Mike Hosking he recognises his mistakes, in hindsight.
He says he'd would've made decisions about the Auckland lockdown and the roll-out of RAT testing differently.
But he’s defending their Covid spending, saying the inquiry raises questions about what was included as ‘Covid spending’.
Hipkins told Hosking that the category was too broad, and could’ve been broken down.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Back to COVID Part two, ironically released as the country
faces its latest wave. I'm told thirty one thousand submissions
were made. You know what it says by now. Initial
response was fine, it went downhill from there. Chrishipkins as
the Labor leader and former COVID minister, of course, and
is with us. Good morning, Good morning, Mike.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I'm please you haven't lost my number.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Completely, No worries at all. It's on a speed dial
for appropriate occasions. Should I feel sorry for you? I
felt a bit sorry for you yesterday getting beaten up
in the house.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Oh look, I mean the next politics, isn't it. I
mean it's always easy to look back on things when
you've got two and a half years to look at
them in retrospect and say you could have done this,
could have done that, could have done this. It was
a pretty extraordinary time. I think the COVID Royal Commission,
despite its loaded terms of reference, actually came up with
a pretty fear and balanced report.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Would you argue it was actually needed given you stitched
up Phase one?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
No, I think I mean I disagree that we stitched
up Phase one. But while I was skeptical about the
terms of reference, that I'm on record as being skeptical
about that. I actually think they did a pretty good
job and I think it's a useful to the record
of what happened during the COVID period.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
The twelve to seventeen mandate thing wasn't part of Phase one,
was part of Phase two. That alone makes Phase two worthwhile,
doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
I certainly think they've highlighted a real issue there, which
was that while Minister's got some initial advice and queried
there to the actual advice that raised concerns about you know,
myocarditis for those younger people being vaccinated was never given
to ministers. And yes, that highlighted I think a.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Very real issue is that on Bloomfield, I know with.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Someone, whether it was someone or a group of people
within the Ministry of Health clearly didn't pass that evidence
on to the ministers. And I think that is a
failing of the Ministry of Health.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
But if you believe in the buck stops at the top,
Bloomfield was at the top and he didn't pass it on,
it's on him, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
You could argue that I think Ashley Bloomfield, on balance,
you know, it did an outstanding job and he was
getting a lot of advice and a lot of information.
I've disappointed that BIS didn't come to ministers. I don't
know whether that was specifically his decision or someone else's.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Could you argue that if you got that advice you
would have one hundred percent acted on it.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Well, of course I don't know, but reading it now, yes,
it raises concerns that I certainly would have had some
very serious conversations with them about of.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
The problems that have been highlighted, what would you argue
were the most damaging the medical side of the equation
or the financial side of the equation.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
I think the medical side of the equation. Actually, if
you look at the concerns about the vaccine being rolled
rushed in its roll out and not being properly approved
and so on, I actually think the Royal Commission did
a very good job of going through that in great
detail and saying no, actually this was a thorough process,
it was very safe and you know, the right steps
were followed. So I think the Royal Commission actually did
(02:49):
a very good job of speaking to those concerns. The
broader issues around the economy and around government spending and
so on, there's a lot of political arguments in there.
The Royal Commission have a view, various economists to have
a view, we would have a view, The current government
have a view, and I don't think everyone's going to
have a completely aligned to you on that.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
No Piker do you see? To me? Was when Stuart
Nash was on this program arguing that fishing boat cameras
money was from COVID and I thought this was too
mental for words. Do you with the benefit of hindsight
except that you went nuts with the money?
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Well, some of the things that the government did during
that period of things we would have done anyway. Some
of the things that recorded as COVID nineteen expended doors
not COVID nineteen expenditure, and the Royal Commission's reported I
would argue, actually were so things like supporting kids to
learn from home, you know, providing them resources to learn
from home. They said, that's not related to COVID nineteen.
I would say that actually telling kids that they needed
(03:42):
to keep doing this schooling while their at home is
related to COVID nine.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
What about fishing boat cameras.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Yeah, a lot there were things that the government was
doing at that time that they argue it was not
COVID nineteen expenditure. That's probably fear. I think the government
would have ended up doing those things anyway.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Right, what about school lunches?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
The school lunch was part of our work to get
the country back to work, and maybe we should have actually, well,
maybe we should have called it something else. Maybe we
should have actually separated and said, look, there's the COVID
nineteen response Fund, and there's the Broad Economic Recovery and
we should have actually, maybe we should have called them,
you know, different things. But making sure the economy rebounded
from COVID nineteen was a priority for the government, and
(04:21):
those that fund did both of those things.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Is there any difficulty that sits with you at the moment? See,
I know that Robinson put out a statement along with
the Dune yesterday and Bloomfield isn't talking and ill I mean,
everyone's run for the hills and you're the last SAP standing.
I mean, does it would you like a bit of
support from them, like.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
They're allowed to move on with their lives. I mean,
it's pretty unusual for a government to be subjected to
the amount of Post Office scrutiny that they have been,
you know, very few. I mean, John ket you could
have gone back and had a Royal commission on the
government's response and to the Canterbury earthquakes after he had
left office. I don't think that never happened. You know,
you can always go back, but eventually people are allowed
(05:02):
to move on with their lives.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Okay. Do you feel one that this will still be
a part of some people's votes come November and two?
If it is, have you been contrite enough?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
I think if it's a part of I don't think
it will be a part of a lot of people's votes.
But I think for those who is you know who,
it is a major issue. I'm not sure that anything's
going to change their perspectives on it. I think they
will have locked in their view one way or the other.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
So do you feel you've been contrite at all or not?
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Well? I mean I said years ago actually that I
thought that that transition from COVID nineteen elimination to ending
the lockdowns, ending the boundary around Auckland and sort of
the living with COVID in the community was not as
good as I would have liked it to have been.
I think there are some of the Walk Commission's criticisms
of that are actually quite.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Fear Did you actually make mistakes like straight up and
down black and white? I got that wrongs, Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
If you look at the I mean I've said this before.
I think if I could go back and make decisions
again on the end of the lockdown and Auckland, I
would do that differently. If I was going to make mistakes,
you make decisions around the role out of rap testing
where there was a conflict between ministers and the Ministry
of Health, I would have pushed harder to do that faster.
So you know, I think not doing some of those
things were mistakes, and if I could go back and
(06:22):
do them again, I would do them differently.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
One of the things in the report that appeals to
me in terms of an idea is there's a pressing
need quote unquote to reduce public debt to provide a
buffer for future pandemics or other economic shocks. And yet
I read with Barbara Edmonds in this now famous article
with Thomas Coglan, She's not running a surplus anytime soon,
so public debt's not going down. So you still run
(06:45):
the same ideology, and when the next pandemic arrives you'll
be no better prepared than you were last time.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
No, I disagree with that assertion, Mike. I think what
we have to have as a conversation of the country
about how we pay for the things that we need
to do. We need to build some long lived infrastructure,
and borrowings of those things is actually a very reasonable
thing to do, such as if you're buying a new house,
you might borrow some money and you pay that off
over time. The issue is if you're borrowing to pay
the power bill, then that's not sustainable. So we do
(07:14):
need to get to a position as a country where
we're no longer borrowing to pay for things like people
on jobs that could benefits and superannuation. But borrowing for
investment and long lived assets that will benefit future generations
is a legitimate thing for governments to do.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
But you're not reducing public debt, and if you're not
reducing public that you're not preparing the country. So that's
a worry, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
And I disagree because actually some of those long lived assets,
the investment in those things is about preparing the country.
So to think about some of those shocks that we
might see in the future. Climate change more severe weather events.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
I'm talking about pandemic now, I'm talking about pandemics. I mean,
if you build a new road, closing a road and
a pandemic's not really going to help us, is it.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
The governments actually need to look at all of the
risks facing the country, not just one. And if you
look about something like you know we're going to get
more extra weather events, we need a resilient infrastructure that
can cope with that. So investing in that now so
that we don't have to spend even more money cleaning
up and repairing afterwards as we're currently doing is actually
a very legitimate thing and very sensible thing for governments
(08:14):
to do.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
You're glad it's ober now.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
I was glad it was over years ago. You know,
if anybody who thinks that we were sitting there enjoying
ourselves during that time is diluted. You know, it was
probably one of the most stressful things that any government
can go through. It was a once in a generation,
something that the country hasn't had to deal with for
one hundred years, and it was all consuming and bloody
heart and I'm very pleased that we're not dealing with
(08:38):
that now.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Appreciate your time. Chris Sipkins, Leader of the Leader of
the Labor Party and Minister of various aspects of the
COVID response. For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen
live to news talks it'd be from six am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Back to COVID Part two, ironically released as the country
faces its latest wave. I'm told thirty one thousand submissions
were made. You know what it says by now. Initial
response was fine, it went downhill from there. Chrishipkins as
the Labor leader and former COVID minister, of course, and
is with us. Good morning, Good morning, Mike.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I'm please you haven't lost my number.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Completely, No worries at all. It's on a speed dial
for appropriate occasions. Should I feel sorry for you? I
felt a bit sorry for you yesterday getting beaten up
in the house.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Oh look, I mean the next politics, isn't it. I
mean it's always easy to look back on things when
you've got two and a half years to look at
them in retrospect and say you could have done this,
could have done that, could have done this. It was
a pretty extraordinary time. I think the COVID Royal Commission,
despite its loaded terms of reference, actually came up with
a pretty fear and balanced report.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Would you argue it was actually needed given you stitched
up Phase one?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
No, I think I mean I disagree that we stitched
up Phase one. But while I was skeptical about the
terms of reference, that I'm on record as being skeptical
about that. I actually think they did a pretty good
job and I think it's a useful to the record
of what happened during the COVID period.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
The twelve to seventeen mandate thing wasn't part of Phase one,
was part of Phase two. That alone makes Phase two worthwhile,
doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
I certainly think they've highlighted a real issue there, which
was that while Minister's got some initial advice and queried
there to the actual advice that raised concerns about you know,
myocarditis for those younger people being vaccinated was never given
to ministers. And yes, that highlighted I think a.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Very real issue is that on Bloomfield, I know with.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Someone, whether it was someone or a group of people
within the Ministry of Health clearly didn't pass that evidence
on to the ministers. And I think that is a
failing of the Ministry of Health.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
But if you believe in the buck stops at the top,
Bloomfield was at the top and he didn't pass it on,
it's on him, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
You could argue that I think Ashley Bloomfield, on balance,
you know, it did an outstanding job and he was
getting a lot of advice and a lot of information.
I've disappointed that BIS didn't come to ministers. I don't
know whether that was specifically his decision or someone else's.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Could you argue that if you got that advice you
would have one hundred percent acted on it.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Well, of course I don't know, but reading it now, yes,
it raises concerns that I certainly would have had some
very serious conversations with them about of.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
The problems that have been highlighted, what would you argue
were the most damaging the medical side of the equation
or the financial side of the equation.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
I think the medical side of the equation. Actually, if
you look at the concerns about the vaccine being rolled
rushed in its roll out and not being properly approved
and so on, I actually think the Royal Commission did
a very good job of going through that in great
detail and saying no, actually this was a thorough process,
it was very safe and you know, the right steps
were followed. So I think the Royal Commission actually did
(02:49):
a very good job of speaking to those concerns. The
broader issues around the economy and around government spending and
so on, there's a lot of political arguments in there.
The Royal Commission have a view, various economists to have
a view, we would have a view, The current government
have a view, and I don't think everyone's going to
have a completely aligned to you on that.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
No Piker do you see? To me? Was when Stuart
Nash was on this program arguing that fishing boat cameras
money was from COVID and I thought this was too
mental for words. Do you with the benefit of hindsight
except that you went nuts with the money?
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Well, some of the things that the government did during
that period of things we would have done anyway. Some
of the things that recorded as COVID nineteen expended doors
not COVID nineteen expenditure, and the Royal Commission's reported I
would argue, actually were so things like supporting kids to
learn from home, you know, providing them resources to learn
from home. They said, that's not related to COVID nineteen.
I would say that actually telling kids that they needed
(03:42):
to keep doing this schooling while their at home is
related to COVID nine.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
What about fishing boat cameras.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Yeah, a lot there were things that the government was
doing at that time that they argue it was not
COVID nineteen expenditure. That's probably fear. I think the government
would have ended up doing those things anyway.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Right, what about school lunches?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
The school lunch was part of our work to get
the country back to work, and maybe we should have actually, well,
maybe we should have called it something else. Maybe we
should have actually separated and said, look, there's the COVID
nineteen response Fund, and there's the Broad Economic Recovery and
we should have actually, maybe we should have called them,
you know, different things. But making sure the economy rebounded
from COVID nineteen was a priority for the government, and
(04:21):
those that fund did both of those things.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Is there any difficulty that sits with you at the moment? See,
I know that Robinson put out a statement along with
the Dune yesterday and Bloomfield isn't talking and ill I mean,
everyone's run for the hills and you're the last SAP standing.
I mean, does it would you like a bit of
support from them, like.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
They're allowed to move on with their lives. I mean,
it's pretty unusual for a government to be subjected to
the amount of Post Office scrutiny that they have been,
you know, very few. I mean, John ket you could
have gone back and had a Royal commission on the
government's response and to the Canterbury earthquakes after he had
left office. I don't think that never happened. You know,
you can always go back, but eventually people are allowed
(05:02):
to move on with their lives.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Okay. Do you feel one that this will still be
a part of some people's votes come November and two?
If it is, have you been contrite enough?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
I think if it's a part of I don't think
it will be a part of a lot of people's votes.
But I think for those who is you know who,
it is a major issue. I'm not sure that anything's
going to change their perspectives on it. I think they
will have locked in their view one way or the other.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
So do you feel you've been contrite at all or not?
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Well? I mean I said years ago actually that I
thought that that transition from COVID nineteen elimination to ending
the lockdowns, ending the boundary around Auckland and sort of
the living with COVID in the community was not as
good as I would have liked it to have been.
I think there are some of the Walk Commission's criticisms
of that are actually quite.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Fear Did you actually make mistakes like straight up and
down black and white? I got that wrongs, Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
If you look at the I mean I've said this before.
I think if I could go back and make decisions
again on the end of the lockdown and Auckland, I
would do that differently. If I was going to make mistakes,
you make decisions around the role out of rap testing
where there was a conflict between ministers and the Ministry
of Health, I would have pushed harder to do that faster.
So you know, I think not doing some of those
things were mistakes, and if I could go back and
(06:22):
do them again, I would do them differently.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
One of the things in the report that appeals to
me in terms of an idea is there's a pressing
need quote unquote to reduce public debt to provide a
buffer for future pandemics or other economic shocks. And yet
I read with Barbara Edmonds in this now famous article
with Thomas Coglan, She's not running a surplus anytime soon,
so public debt's not going down. So you still run
(06:45):
the same ideology, and when the next pandemic arrives you'll
be no better prepared than you were last time.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
No, I disagree with that assertion, Mike. I think what
we have to have as a conversation of the country
about how we pay for the things that we need
to do. We need to build some long lived infrastructure,
and borrowings of those things is actually a very reasonable
thing to do, such as if you're buying a new house,
you might borrow some money and you pay that off
over time. The issue is if you're borrowing to pay
the power bill, then that's not sustainable. So we do
(07:14):
need to get to a position as a country where
we're no longer borrowing to pay for things like people
on jobs that could benefits and superannuation. But borrowing for
investment and long lived assets that will benefit future generations
is a legitimate thing for governments to do.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
But you're not reducing public debt, and if you're not
reducing public that you're not preparing the country. So that's
a worry, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
And I disagree because actually some of those long lived assets,
the investment in those things is about preparing the country.
So to think about some of those shocks that we
might see in the future. Climate change more severe weather events.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
I'm talking about pandemic now, I'm talking about pandemics. I mean,
if you build a new road, closing a road and
a pandemic's not really going to help us, is it.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
The governments actually need to look at all of the
risks facing the country, not just one. And if you
look about something like you know we're going to get
more extra weather events, we need a resilient infrastructure that
can cope with that. So investing in that now so
that we don't have to spend even more money cleaning
up and repairing afterwards as we're currently doing is actually
a very legitimate thing and very sensible thing for governments
(08:14):
to do.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
You're glad it's ober now.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
I was glad it was over years ago. You know,
if anybody who thinks that we were sitting there enjoying
ourselves during that time is diluted. You know, it was
probably one of the most stressful things that any government
can go through. It was a once in a generation,
something that the country hasn't had to deal with for
one hundred years, and it was all consuming and bloody
heart and I'm very pleased that we're not dealing with
(08:38):
that now.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Appreciate your time. Chris Sipkins, Leader of the Leader of
the Labor Party and Minister of various aspects of the
COVID response. For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen
live to news talks it'd be from six 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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe
When a group of women from all over the country realise they all dated the same prolific romance scammer they vow to bring him to justice. In this brand new season of global number 1 hit podcast, The Girlfriends, Anna Sinfield meets a group of funny, feisty, determined women who all had the misfortune of dating a mysterious man named Derek Alldred. Trust Me Babe is a story about the protective forces of gossip, gut instinct, and trusting your besties and the group of women who took matters into their own hands to take down a fraudster when no one else would listen. If you’re affected by any of the themes in this show, our charity partners NO MORE have available resources at https://www.nomore.org. To learn more about romance scams, and to access specialised support, visit https://fightcybercrime.org/ The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe is produced by Novel for iHeartPodcasts. For more from Novel, visit https://novel.audio/. You can listen to new episodes of The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe completely ad-free and 1 week early with an iHeart True Crime+ subscription, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. Open your Apple Podcasts app, search for “iHeart True Crime+, and subscribe today!