The covid-19 royal commission says it has no knowledge of a suppression order that would prevent Labour leader Chris Hipkins from appearing at a public hearing to detail his decision-making during the pandemic.
Plans for a public hearing were scrapped last month after Hipkins, former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, her deputy Grant Robertson and ex-health minister Ayesha Verrall all declined to appear and answer questions in public.
Hipkins, who was Minister for Covid-19 Response, says he has already given evidence in private to the inquiry, answering all its questions, and there is nothing to gain from a public hearing, which he has previously described as “political theatre”.
He also cited a suppression order as one reason for his decision not to appear, but said he could not provide further details.
“There is a current issue with a threat or threats against a figure associated with the covid response that is currently suppressed,” Hipkins told LawNews.
Asked to give details about where and when the suppression order was issued, and by which court, Hipkins replied: “No, I can’t, because I think that the suppression covers all the details around it… because basically it’s so that the person who’s made the threats isn’t identified, because basically the person who’s been doing it is basically wanting the publicity that comes from it and that is why they that’s all been suppressed.”
Hipkins could not say exactly how this was related to his ability to give evidence in public to the commission on his decision-making as a minister during the pandemic. Nor would he say which judge had made the suppression order.
‘Not aware’ of any gag order
The Royal Commission Covid-19 Lessons Learned inquiry said in a statement to LawNews it was not aware of the suppression order Hipkins was referring to.
It said publication of material gathered by the commission was not allowed under an interim order pending its final report, but this would not stop witnesses from appearing.
“The inquiry currently has interim section 15 orders in place [under the Inquiries Act 2013] that prevent publication of submissions or evidence that the inquiry has gathered as set out in procedural Minute 1,” it said.
“These interim orders, however, do not prevent a witness appearing before the commission.
“No witnesses have raised any concerns with us that appearing at a hearing and providing evidence has the potential to breach an existing court suppression order. We’re not aware of the details of the suppression order that Mr Hipkins refers to, but we do not believe it is directly related to the inquiry or to our interim section 15 orders.”
Phase one of the Royal Commission, headed by epidemiologist Tony Blakely, handed down its findings late last year, criticising an over-reliance on lockdowns and vaccine mandates in the pandemic response.
Phase two was demanded by the ACT and NZ First parties as part of the government coalition agreement to form government because they felt phase one’s terms of reference were too restrictive.
Led by litigation specialist and public law expert Grant Illingworth KC, it has been tasked with reviewing key government decisions during the pandemic, along with their economic, social, and other impacts.
Performative, not informative
Illingworth last month released a minute outlining the reasons the four former ministers provided for not appearing.
They said it was convention for ministers and former ministers to give evidence to such inquiries in private, not at public hearings, which they had done.
In addition, they said repeating evidence already given in private at a hearing would be “performative rather than informative”, and there were concerns that a livestream of proceedings could be manipulated or misused.
Illingworth said he believed an open hearing would bolster public confidence in the inquiry but there was no point in going ahead without the central decision-makers.
He revealed that he considered issuing a summons compelling them to appear but decided it was “undesirable” given their cooperation in giving evidence to the inquiry.
“It is our opinion that the use of summonses to achieve their participation at a public hearing would be legalistic and adversarial, which our terms of reference prohibit,” he said,
Phase two of the royal commission is due to deliver its final report by the end of February next year.
Article originally published at LawNews