Michael Laws analyses media coverage of the Chris Hipkins affair allegations
Michael Laws hosts a solo segment on The Platform NZ, dissecting how New Zealand's mainstream media has handled allegations made by Chris Hipkins' ex-wife Jade Paul.
Summary
Michael Laws opens his segment by addressing the allegations made on Facebook by Chris Hipkins' ex-wife, Jade Paul, which went viral across New Zealand social media despite being removed. Laws draws on his own experience of a toxic relationship breakdown that attracted intense media scrutiny, arguing that he understands Hipkins' position — but only to a point. The central argument Laws makes is that Hipkins forfeited his claim to media privacy by repeatedly and deliberately using his romantic relationships in women's magazines and on social media to portray himself as a trustworthy, decent man worthy of public office. Laws then turns his fire on Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand, accusing both state broadcasters of describing Jade Paul's allegations as "unsubstantiated" — which Laws interprets as calling her a liar — without conducting any investigation of their own, and doing so purely out of ideological alignment with Hipkins.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
The Chris Hipkins allegations and media silence
Michael Laws: The other big story in New Zealand has been run away from by the media, and it's something I intend to touch on now. I had a chat last night — this is Sean, in actual fact — and we talked about how we felt about this particular issue. But I guess out of the two of us, I would be the one who has lived the issues that Chris Hipkins is currently undergoing.
The social media avalanche that occurred on Sunday night — the Chris Hipkins ex-wife Jade Paul allegations that dropped on Facebook on Sunday evening — were removed, but made the rounds nonetheless and are now widely spread throughout social media in New Zealand. Everybody knows what they are. A copy of that particular Facebook posting would be in almost every letterbox. I can't imagine any of you listening to me now are not aware of them in some great detail. They've made the rounds, and have actually been affirmed by Chris Hipkins' ex-wife Jade Paul, who has said and repeated: "I've had enough." And she hasn't had enough of media coverage. She's had enough of what she sees as the self-serving hypocrisy of her ex-husband.
Michael Laws' own experience of media intrusion
Michael Laws: I've been where Chris Hipkins has been. I have been in a toxic relationship breakdown. I have been in a toxic relationship breakdown that had the media probing every aspect of my private life. So I've got an understanding of where Chris Hipkins is. I've also been through a media of the time attempting to get my ex to make prurient allegations. There were children involved, and two of those children were at school. That didn't happen so long ago — a little over a decade in my life.
I have to say the principal protagonist was not the parties in a toxic relationship breakdown. The principal protagonists were the New Zealand media. Why were the New Zealand media after me? Because they didn't like me — because my politics was wrong.
The Sam Uffindell parallel
Michael Laws: I'm also reminded of a very similar case, which was when National selected a candidate to replace Simon Bridges as their candidate for the Tauranga by-election. A youngish man — I guess he was in his forties when he was selected — Sam Uffindell was selected as that National Party candidate. The media went after Uffindell like a rabid dog. They probed every aspect of his private life: when he was at boarding school, a series of bullying allegations, and then when he was an undergraduate at Otago University, where he allegedly called one of his flatmates "fatty." This was deemed so significant that the media were calling for Uffindell to be removed, his political career to be eviscerated before it had even started. They were relentless in their pursuit of things he allegedly had done twenty years beforehand — things that suited their particular ideological bent.
Were the New Zealand media reluctant to investigate, to marshal their media resources, probe his friends and associates, and seek to dig daily dirt? No. The New Zealand Herald and the Herald on Sunday were the most prominent. But the nature of private relationship breakups, as everybody who has been through one knows, is that they can often be very messy, very angry, very hurtful, and very harmful to the innocents involved — especially children. As I said, I've been there. I've lived that deeply distressing and dark part of my life, because there was nothing I could do — and I mean nothing — to stop the media intrusion, nor the desire of antagonistic reporters and journalists to try to get others to provide any information by which they could blacken my character and reputation.
Hipkins forfeited his right to privacy
Michael Laws: So can I just say to Christopher Hipkins, leader of the Labour Party, leader of the opposition, former prime minister — I understand entirely where you are, to a point. And the point is: you've got the media on your side. Sam Uffindell and I did not.
Fast forward to March 2026, and the leader of the opposition is having his moment — being portrayed as the vengeful ex serving a kind of cold revenge, and other truisms that have been trotted out in the last 24 hours, like "hell hath no fury as a woman scorned," which I always thought was Shakespeare but apparently isn't. It was almost a century after Shakespeare — William Congreve, in a play called The Mourning Bride, at the end of the 17th century.
The fact is that Chris Hipkins, despite a plaintive plea for media privacy relating to his breakup, has parlayed his past romantic relationships for public and political gain. And so it's a bit tough — and a bit interesting — that in 2023 when his relationship with his wife broke up and he announced his legal separation from his then-wife Jade Paul and sought privacy on the matter, indeed threatened to consult lawyers — well, he was more than happy, three years prior to that in 2020, to parlay that relationship and marriage in women's magazines and other media and to share them on social media. In fact, I think he described himself as: "One of the happiest days — I'm absolutely incredible — yesterday as I married my best friend and the love of my life. I'm a very lucky man." That was his post on Instagram six years ago.
He has also parlayed his relationship with his new partner Toni Greig, his engagement, and his impending nuptials — which are meant to happen this year, as I understand it — through women's magazines and the like. Why did he do that? Why were his previous relationships and marriages with his partners publicly relayed through women's magazines and sympathetic, very complimentary media? The argument was because they were designed to show Chris Hipkins as a good, decent, loving man that you could trust.
Let's be very clear about this. Chris Hipkins invited the media into his private life for the point and purpose of portraying himself as a decent, honourable, loving man that you will vote for because of his character. Now, at that point, Chris Hipkins has disarmed any defence he has that the media should or should not inquire into these allegations from his former wife. He's disarmed it by utilising his private life for political and personal gain. But the moment that turns septic, and one of those partners used for that purpose says, "Wait on — you're not the man you say you are" — it is not a legitimate defence to say, "I've got a private life. Think of the kids." That is just absurd. And for the media to try and play that role as well — ditto. They played the role of portraying his character as comfortable, comforting, and indeed complimentary, but the moment something goes wrong, they want to walk away from it and ignore it.
The state broadcasters' response
Michael Laws: Hipkins says he's seeking legal advice over his wife's claims. What are the claims? I'm not going to give them to you in detail because you can find them for yourself. But I will say this: they are a personal repudiation of the Labour Party's emphasis on three key policies — health, homes, and jobs — as they relate to Chris Hipkins personally. Plus there's the allegation of a relationship somewhere along the lines. I'm not entirely sure what context that sits in.
Are these claims defamatory? Well, you might argue on the face of it — but only if they weren't true, or weren't based on truth. And because relationships get messy, the perceptions of its partners always vary. It wouldn't be any of us who've been in that position where we'd get a definitive truth from ex-partners about the nature of their relationship and the things that went wrong in them. This is hers.
Will Jade Paul be sued? No, of course not. He'll be hoping, with the aid of the New Zealand media, that all this goes away. And Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand News have done their very best to make this go away. They tried to make it go away yesterday.
The media are running tackle for Chris Hipkins and his private life. Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand both dismissed Jade Paul yesterday as making unsubstantiated allegations. What does the word "unsubstantiated" mean? It's meant to mean that they have no validity, no factual basis behind them. Essentially, what Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand did yesterday is say Jade Paul was lying — she made it up. They played the vengeful ex card in their reporting of these particular allegations.
It was fascinating that they used that word. No others did, as I understand it. I looked at New Zealand Herald coverage, I looked at Stuff coverage yesterday, I looked at other media coverage. It was only Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand News who described Jade Paul's allegations as "unsubstantiated," with the clear intent and purpose of saying they are false, made-up, defamatory, and that she's a liar. That was the defence yesterday that the state broadcasters ran for Chris Hipkins — without one skerrick of investigating on their own, they came to a conclusion I would suggest born wholly of ideological considerations.
The MeToo contradiction
Michael Laws: How ironic that Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand would be the first upfront in the MeToo movement — oh my god, yes they were. But the moment a woman alleges that a man has treated her badly from some position of power and influence, dear Lord, we'll abandon that particular social cause, won't we? That feminist sympathy — we will instantly use our ideology and political bias to protect an individual we think is on our side.
It was fascinating watching it yesterday on both Television New Zealand, where they dismissed it in just a sort of redline almost, using the word "unsubstantiated," and Radio New Zealand, who had already got there first.
There's also the effort to discredit Jade Paul — and you will see it — because she ended up working, I don't know if she still is, in the office of a New Zealand First MP. And the suggestion is already running through the media: "Ah well, there you are — she was put up to it." Already that allegation is running as they seek to protect Chris Hipkins from his private life — a private life he was more than happy to use in the past, and is still happy to use as of 2026, for the point and purpose of saying what a wonderful fellow he is, and for personal and political ends.
Will this damage Hipkins — and will the media investigate?
Michael Laws: Will all this have an effect upon Chris Hipkins? Yes, it will. Will it be serious? Well, not unless there's a more detailed media case to accompany the allegations, it has to be said. Will the media investigate? No — not the mainstream media. They will not. We already know they're out to protect. And we already know that if this was somebody on the other side of the political fence, they would be after them in a huge way. They would have staked out the ex to start with. They'd be talking to all her friends. There would be stories for Africa. You won't get that this week. You won't get it next week. You won't get it at the weekend.
Is this media hypocrisy? Absolutely. This is the mainstream media and its hypocrisy writ so large that they may as well take out advertisements and shove them on the front page everywhere: "We are not going to give you unbiased coverage. We're going to support those we like. We're going to defend them and ignore any allegations against them. And if there are the same allegations against people we don't like, we're going after them — leaping for the throat, as we have constantly in the past."