July 27, 2025 • 26 mins
From entering Parliament in 2008 – to leading the country in 2023 – Chris Hipkins is no stranger to the spotlight.
During Covid’s beginnings, he was known as a safe set of hands, tackling Education, Health, and becoming the Minister in charge of the Covid Response for a time.
Now, he’s firmly setting his sights on election 2026 – but, is he confident he’ll still be in Labour’s driving seat when it rolls around?
Today on The Front Page, Hipkins joins us to discuss the cost of living, vibes in parliament, and whether he’ll ever be able to shake Covid.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
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 (00:05):
Kyota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. From entering
Parliament in two thousand and eight to leading the country
in twenty twenty three, Chris Hipkins is no stranger to
the spotlight. During COVID's beginnings, he was known as a
(00:28):
safe set of hands, tackling education, health and becoming the
Minister in charge of the COVID response for a time.
Now he's firmly setting his sights on election twenty twenty six,
but is he confident he'll still be in Labour's driving
seat when it rolls around?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Today?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
On the Front Page, Hipkins joins us to discuss the
cost of living, vibes around Parliament, and.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Whether he'll ever be able to shake COVID.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
First off, Chris, we had David Seymour on a wee
while back. We asked him if it'd be open to
working with you. He said that would require Chris Hopkins
to be working. He then made an odd reference calling
you Pooh Midas, which I can only assume is replacing
gold with pooh.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
So is everything you touched he in to shit or something?
Speaker 4 (01:19):
Oh? Look, I mean I think this is just what
we're seeing from this government, you know, and the culture
starts from the top, It starts in the Prime Minister,
Winston Peter's David Seymour down where they just think that
attacking people, belittling people, degrading people is what leadership looks like.
I don't believe that. I'm all for a bit of
humor in politics, you know a little bit of a
sledge now and then where it's funny. That can add
(01:41):
to a bit of you know, political engagement. But they're
not very funny, and they're also not very good at it,
so I think they should just stick to actually doing
what people ask them to do. You know, the New
Zealanders wanted them to fix the cost of living crisis.
They wanted them to, you know, get the economy moving.
They haven't done either of those things. Maybe they should
focus on them rather than sledging other people.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well what about more recently, looks like you've got the
prime ministers go to little He said. I'm not taking
any lectures from frickin' Chris Hipkins or the Labor Party.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
But why are you bothering people lately? Chris? Is it
getting a bit tasty? In Parliament at the minute.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
I think it's getting The government's certainly feeling the pressure,
and they should be feeling the pressure because they made
people a whole lot of promises that they haven't delivered on.
But I remember standing next to Christopher Luxan during the
leader's debates where he said that, you know, families with
kids were going to be two hundred and fifty dollars
a fortnight better off if he became Prime minister. And
they haven't identified one single family that's two hundred and
(02:36):
fifty dollars a fortnight better off, and you know, food
prices are still going up. You know, households are still
really feeling the squeeze, and so I think the government
are feeling that pressure. Really, they shouldn't have made promises
that they didn't intend to keep, and so I think
that's why they're lashing out at everybody else. They're just
trying to find people to blame for that. And you know,
on the other side, there's a lot of pressure coming
on us to say, well, what would labor do differently?
(02:58):
Shear your policies, But the point that I've been making
to people is I'm not going to put policies out
there unless I know that I can deliver on them,
because I don't want to end up two years down
the track and find myself in the same position that
they're currently in, where I've promised stuff that I can't deliver.
I think we've had way too much of that in
New Zealand politics, governments of all stripes making big, sweeping
(03:19):
promises for elections and then not delivering on them. So
we're keeping up how to dry on the policy front
deliberately because when we do announce it, I want to
know that we can do it, and we won't be
able to make that judgment till closer to the election,
once we see the shape the economies in and so on.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
So you basically do want to have a look at
the books, maybe by next budget, and then you'll start
kind of trickling out stuff.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Is that how it works in an election?
Speaker 4 (03:43):
It is, it's kind of about looking at the government's books,
but it's also about making sure we're doing the work
now and opposition you don't unlike in government. You know,
you don't have the entire public service doing the work
for you. You've got to do the work. So we're
looking at you know, what would things cost, how would
we actually deliver them. I think one of the valid
criticisms of us last time we were in opposition was
that we had some really good ideas, but we hadn't
(04:04):
worked through the detail of exactly how would we do that.
And then when we got into government, we found that
some of the things that we said we were going
to do very well intentioned, we didn't have a clear
plan for how we would do it. And I think
the same thing has happened to this government. They've made
promises with no plan on how they're actually going to
do it, and I don't want to be in that position.
So we're going to take our time. I know people
are eager to hear what we want to do, but
(04:26):
I'm going to make sure that when I do go
out there and say label will do X, I can
then answer all the questions about it, and I can
tell people how we're going to do it, so that
they know that the promises we're making a credible and
ones that they can rely on us delivering.
Speaker 5 (04:39):
On Well, mister Speaker, hasn't it been a shambolic year for.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
The Labor Party?
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Has that?
Speaker 6 (04:47):
And I have to say, has there ever been a
leader of.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
The opposition with less substance than Chris Hopkins, because what
you get, what you get is a lot of carping.
What you get is a lot of points of order,
and you get a lot of wishy washy, don't you.
It's a lot of wishy washy because beneath it all,
they have no policies, zero policies, and they have no plan.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
What is something that the party's tinkering away in the
background at the moment.
Speaker 6 (05:16):
We're looking at a lot of things.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
I mean, I think if you look at what is
important to us, I said when I took over from
Jacinda that I wanted to see labor get back to
the core sort of things that are important.
Speaker 6 (05:27):
To labor, back to basic, back to basics. Jobs.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
You know, it's in the name of the Labor Party.
That's what the Labor Party was founded on the basis of,
you know, good jobs that mean people get well paid
and could have a better life. That's why the Labor
Party exists. So that's that's got to be front and
center for us. And at a time when unemployment's going up, jobs, jobs, jobs,
is very very important. So jobs health because you know,
if you don't have access to good quality health care.
(05:52):
Then you're going to your options in life are going
to be limited. And homes. Everyone deserves a place to
call home. And if I've got so many the other
issues we deal with, it stems back to one of
those three things, or sometimes a combination of those three
things not not being where we need them to be. So,
you know, kids not going to school. Well, if your
family's moving around houses all the time because they haven't got,
(06:14):
you know, somewhere that they can put down roots, that's
actually a big part of the problem. Kids who are
getting into trouble In many cases, it's because they're living transiently.
So let's make sure everyone has a home. And then
I think more recently, you know, we were expecting that
once inflation was back down within the target band, that
cost of living would sort of drop off the radar
almost It hasn't. Cost of living is getting worse. So
(06:36):
I think we need re election on the cost of living,
and it's going to have to be more than just
shouting at supermarkets and shouting at banks. It's going to
have to be things that government can actually do that
will tackle the cost of living for people.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Well, when it comes to that, I was doing some
research about it, and I mean, how do we make
sure that the price of butter doesn't get anywhere like
any more ridiculous?
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
In the Great Depression, I know that the government introduced
subsidies for farmers and agriculture that kind of dropped off
in the seventies and eighties.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Why can't we do something like that again.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
Ultimately, we do live in a global market for that,
and the real challenge for us is if we started
to do that sort of thing here, we potentially limit
our ability to then sell into the international market. It
would compromise our ability to trade internationally if we brought
back subsidies. I think there are real questions about our
New Zealander is paying too much for butter everyone's fixated
(07:30):
on but I've never spoken so much about butter in.
Speaker 6 (07:32):
My life as I have in the last week.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
But again, the government sort of shouting at Fontier is
not going to solve the problem. I think there are
real issues around the supermarket sector, around whether we've got
enough competition in the supermarket sector. But again, just talking
about it, admiring the problem, it's not going to solve it.
So what's the government actually going to do in that
space to get better competition in supermarkets, and how we're
(07:56):
going to support New Zealanders to have a higher standard
of living will go up and down. You know, if
you think about fruit and veggies, for example, the weather
has an impact.
Speaker 6 (08:05):
You know, we had our.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
Cyclone in the first few weeks that I was Prime
Minister that wiped out a huge amount of our fresh
produce across the East Coast to the North Island, and
that meant that that actually was one of the things
that forced up fruit and vegie prices. The government couldn't
fundamentally change that, but we do have to make sure
we're supporting families through you know, what is a really
tough economic cycle at the moment, So looking at their incomes,
(08:28):
looking at how we can you know, contain other costs.
Public transport, which the government have cut subsidies for, is
going up hugely. Families on low incomes are more likely
to rely on public transport, and now they're finding that
their cost of transport, the cost of getting to and
from work is going up. That's money that they then
can't spend on food. So for those families that are
(08:50):
living hand to mouth, everything matters and regardless of what
the price of butter is doing. The real question is
what's the overall family expendit you're doing. You know, because
there are areas where we can ease some pressure on
families and things like public transport. You know, there are
good examples of things governments can do.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
What about the Greens approach, what about free dental, free
GP visits.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
And what was the first free childcare? Seems like a
good idea.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
So if you look at what we were talking about
at the last election, you know, we had a plan
to start delivering free dental. The reason that we were
setting that out over a period of time is we
don't have the dentists to be able to just you know,
turn on a tap and say right, dental's free. That
would be hard because we wouldn't have enough dentists. So
over time it's absolutely achievable. You know, I did this
work as Prime Minister to identify, yes, we can have
(09:43):
free dental here, and the case of GP visits, I
wouldn't necessarily start there. I do think that making it
easier to go to the GP is really important. So
we might not get to free immediately. At the moment,
it's costing some families one hundred bucks for a GP visit.
I don't think that's okay. I think we've got to
deal with that. But there's things that we can do.
(10:03):
Even before that, we abolished the five dollars co payment
for prescriptions because if people were not picking up their prescriptions,
they were more likely to end up having to go
to a GP or go to a hospital emergency room
than if they went to the pharmacist, got whatever medications
they need and stayed healthy in the first place. So
we did more than just that. We also said to pharmacists,
(10:25):
you can give out some medications without prescription for winter ailments.
And as a result, because people could go to the pharmacy,
they didn't end up going to the doctor because they
didn't need to. And I think there's a lot more
we can do in that area. You know, pharmacies do
an amazing job around the country. When I became Minister
of Health briefly, I learned so much more about what
(10:47):
pharmacists can do. And I think that those opportunities to
provide better preventative health care are just all over the place.
Keep people healthy and the health system will be under
a lot less pressure.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
And what about that free childcare.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Yeah, and I've always been committed to that. So when
I was working for Trevor mallard is the Ministry of
Education back at a long time ago now, I was
working on implementing twenty hours free early childhood education for
three and four year olds. As Prime Minister, I extended
that to two year olds. The current government have canceled
the extension to two year olds unfortunately, but I do
(11:22):
think progressively increasing more access to free early childhood education. A.
It's got benefits for the kids because we know kids
who have been in early childhood education quality early childhood
education do better when they go to school. But it
also means that for parents it's a huge easing of
cost and it allows them to get back into work.
(11:43):
And it will benefit women more than men, but there
are some men who will benefit from that too. So
women are more likely to be the person who is
at home looking after the kids, but increasingly now in
this day and age, there are more dads doing that too,
and free early old education really helps them to be
able to go out and earn money as well as
(12:04):
looking after the kids.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Right, So what's stopping us from just doing it tomorrow?
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Is it?
Speaker 1 (12:08):
The money, do we need to tax the retch.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
We could have done twenty hours free early childhood education
for two year olds, and we had done that. Actually
the government took the money away from that to fund
their Family Boosts, which has been an absolute flop. You know,
one hundred and fifty three families I think have actually
got the full amount of the family boost which you know,
whereas every family with a two year old would have
(12:32):
got the twenty hours free and they wouldn't have had
to fill in a form to get it. It just
would have happened automatically, so big saving for the family.
So there is money there to extend that out over
time to more so you could potentially, you know, increase
the number of hours or increase the age groups who
are eligible. I think that's something that we should certainly
aspire to and we can afford that as a country
(12:52):
if we make the right choices. Bearing in mind that
if we've got kids in early childhood education and the
result of that is that their parents are then going
back to work, those parents are going to be earning
money and paying taxes, which is a good thing for
government because it means that ultimately governments and you know, yes,
we're spending more money on ECU, but we're getting more
money because of the parents earning more money.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
What do you think about taxing the.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
Rech I think it's a I don't like the phrase.
And the reason I don't like the phrase is because
I think that tax fundamentally should come down to fairness.
Everyone should pay their fair share, Everyone should make a contribution.
We all benefit from health education, you know, the infrastructure
that we build, things like roads, we all benefit from that.
We all benefit from having a police force, we all
(13:36):
benefit from having a good justice system. We all benefit
from having a defense force. So we should all contribute
to the cost of those things. And the tax system
should be fair, which means those on higher incomes. And
I am one of those people should pay more. And
I'm quite proud to say that I'm happy to pay
more as someone on a higher income.
Speaker 6 (13:57):
I accept that. You know, it's a great tagline.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
You know, it's on a poster.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
If it's on a poster, but it kind of it
creates a culture of resentment about Texas. Texas aren't a punishment,
you know, Texas are the contribution that we all make
to living in a decent society, and.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
Ow poll, we asked do you support or oppost the
introduction of a capital gains tax on properties other than
the family home. Forty six percent of voters are in
support of the idea, while forty one percent oppose it,
and thirteen percent either don't know or preferred not to say.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
I've read something published on Aaron said.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
This was in December, though, and it suggested that you
will be campaigning on a capital gains tax at the
next election, and that quote details would be announced as
early as mid next year.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Now it's past mid next year. Now it's July. Now
any word on that how that may look.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
Yeah, well, I've said that we'll announce our policy on
that before the end of this year, because I think
it is important. You know that that is big policy area.
People want to know where they stand. Certainly people to
my left, you know, on the left of politics, get
really excited about tax debates, and I understand that, but
we also need to talk about how we get people
into good, well paid jobs, how we generate more wealth
(15:16):
for the country, and we need to do that as
well as ensuring that the benefits of that are fairly
shared by everybody. And you can't have one side of
that debate without the other. So tax is one of
the ways we ensure that everybody gets the affairs share
and pays the affairs here. But we've also got to
make sure that we're generating good, well paid jobs, that
(15:36):
we've got businesses who are doing well so they can
employ more people. And I don't think you can separate
those two things. I think those two things do need
to go together.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
So you will commit to yes or no by the
end of this.
Speaker 4 (15:48):
Yeah, and we're going to have a different tax policy
to the one we had at the last election. Very
upfront about that.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
You know.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
In New Zealand, I think we've paced far too much
emphasis on buying and selling houses amongst ourselves, pushing up
the price so that potentially a whole generation of homeowners
is being shut out of the housing market, and not
enough emphasis on productive investment, on building businesses that employ
people that allow them to earn more money. And our
tax system currently encourages people to do that, you know,
(16:15):
to basically go and just speculate in the residential property market,
and that's not going to make us rich as a country.
So I think our tech system does need to change.
I understand why mums and dads have gone out and said, oh,
I've got a house. Now I can use the equity
I've got my house to buy our rental property and
that that can be my retirement savings. I understand why
people have done that. The tax systems actually encouraged them
(16:35):
to do that. But that's not sustainable. If every person
who owns a house now buys another one, the next
generation of homeowners won't exist. So we have to do
things differently.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
Do you think labor will ever escape the COVID curse?
Speaker 4 (16:52):
When you say COVID curse, I mean it's challenging because
it was hard. You know, it was hard for the
whole country, and it's actually really I find as a
politician it's also quite hard to talk about it now
because you did we get everything right during that time? No,
I don't think we did get everything right. Were there
lessons that we learned from that? Yes, of course, you know,
no one had ever done this before, no government had
ever encountered what we encountered with COVID. Undoubtedly there are
(17:14):
things that if we could go back and do them differently,
we would do some things differently. I can say that,
And then someone asked me a specific question that'll be like, well,
what about decision X, And so you explain the reasoning
behind that decision and then they say, oh, so you
don't think you made any mistakes.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
I said, no, I'm not.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
I'm just explaining why we made the decision we made
at that time because there wasn't a rule book and
it was hard. The management of the border was so
hard because one of the ways that we avoided lockdowns,
long prolonged lockdowns in New Zealand was by having the
border restrictions in place that we had. But that meant
that if you were traveling, if you had to travel
(17:49):
for business, if you had family who were away overseas
and they wanted to come back and see you, or
you wanted to go and see them, you couldn't travel
freely in the way that we're all used to being
able to travel. And that was really, really hard.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
And some people have just gotten over the fact that
we didn't travel for a couple of years, and some
people are still holding onto it.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
It seems.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
I mean, every time it must come up, you must,
you must a little person inside you must just sigh.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
A little bit.
Speaker 4 (18:16):
But I do understand because it was hard and there were,
and it really had a bigger effect on people's lives.
But I guess the point that I would make is, yes,
government decisions weren't perfect, but actually it was the virus
and the global pandemic that caused a lot of the pain.
(18:36):
Because the decisions the New Zealand government was making we're
not out of line with what other countries were doing.
We were more successful, I think partly because we're an
island nation and we were able to isolate ourselves better
and avoiding long protracted lockdowns. I mean, I've got friends
and family who are in the UK who spent a
year and a half of rolling lockdowns. We avoided that
here and we were able to live relatively freely during
(18:58):
that time, other than know some periods where we weren't.
And you know, for Auckland, that last lockdown was the
hardest and it was hard, and that was one of
the areas which I don't think we got it completely right.
You know, it went on for too long and we
as we moved, as we dealt with the new variants.
Remember we sort of shifted from from COVID early COVID
(19:20):
to delta omicron and then and then we had you know,
moving from elimination where we're aiming to just get back
to what we've been doing before, to realizing that we
couldn't and that we were going to have to deal
with COVID in the community. That was very bumpy and
very hard, and we didn't get every decision right in there,
and I'd never say that we did. And so as
a result, I think there are people who look at
(19:41):
that going, you know, if they'd been government, why or
you know, would we have made decisions differently if we
knew then what we know now.
Speaker 7 (19:49):
Yes, Unquestionably, when it comes to election next year, are
you still confident that you'll be leading the Labor Party?
Speaker 4 (20:03):
Absolutely? And you know, look, I've still got a lot
of energy for this job. I only took over about
eight months before the election. I had eight months as
Prime Minister, and you know I said there as soon
as I took over from Jacinda, I want Labor to
get back to focusing on what the Labor Party is
all about, jobs, health, homes, you know, making sure we're
raising living standards for all New Zealanders, focusing on the
(20:25):
things that unite New Zealanders rather than the things that
divide us apart making sure that we we're dealing with
controversial and tricky areas like the Treaty for example, that
we're slowing down a bit and we're bringing people with us.
Speaker 6 (20:38):
We're not.
Speaker 4 (20:38):
You know, people don't feel like a whole lot's happening
that they don't know about, and they're mistrustful of that.
You know, I started that work when I became Prime Minister,
and then you know, I still think that's work that
the Labor Party needs to do. I think we need
to make sure that we're there for the people who
we represent.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
And would you be open to working with the Greens
and TPM or those conversations just not started yet.
Speaker 6 (20:59):
We work closely with them.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
When I say closely, we cooperate with them quite a
lot in opposition. And you'll see things like the Treaty
Principles Bill, which we thought was a really divisible but
we work really closely with the Greens and with the
Mardi Party to oppose that and to make sure that
it was defeated. We have a lot of values in
common with both of those parties, you know, if you're
talking about the values of unity, of collective action, of
(21:21):
making sure that we are catering to the squeezed middle,
but also those on the lowest incomes. I think we
share those aspirations. We want to make sure that we're
leaving the planet in at least as good as state
as we found it. I think we share those goals.
I've said that what we will do before the election,
as I did last time, as I say, look, these
(21:43):
are the areas that we've got in common with other parties,
and these are the areas where we think we can
work with them, and these are the things we categorically
would take off the table. We won't do that, and
I think that will make it clear what the future
governing arrangements might look like. But I differ for a
bit from the current govern in the sense that, you know,
I respect the important constituencies the smaller parties represent, and
(22:06):
I also respect that we compete with them for votes too.
Speaker 6 (22:10):
I don't think.
Speaker 4 (22:10):
Under MMP the smaller parties should call all of the shots.
You know, I still think that the bigger parties have
a mandate to reflect the view of a much larger
section of the electorate, and so I do think under
MMP you need to kind of keep proportionality in mind. Yes,
there should be some concessions and some trade offs to
the other parties in order to form government. But that
(22:33):
doesn't mean that you should be doing things that you
specifically told the electorate before the election that you weren't going.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
To do, like the Treati's Principle.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
The Treaty Principle's Bill is a good example, the Regulatory
Standards Bill. You know, some of these things that no
one knew that they were voting for at the last election,
and now they're being inflicted on them. I don't think
that's the spirit of MMP or democracy. I think, you know,
the majority should still rule in a democracy, and at
the moment that's not happening. We're currently being ruled by
a minority, a small minor, and I don't think that's
(23:01):
what New Zealand has voted for.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
I can only assume David not Winston.
Speaker 6 (23:07):
When I'm talking about the minorities.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
There's the small minority.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Well, both of them to some extent on different issues.
You know, they've both got their hobby horses that they're
sort of inflicting on the rest of the country, and
they're not things that New Zealand has voted for.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
Well, Ending greyhound racing is not that.
Speaker 4 (23:22):
Look, I support Winston Peters on ending greyhound racing that
I know the greyhound racers don't particularly like the fact
that were supporn in the government on that, but it's time.
And you know I said before the election that I
thought it was time and I congratulate him for doing it.
You know, not everything in politics needs to be about
saying I impose that just because it's the other side
that are doing it. I think there's actually too much
(23:43):
of that. And I also think let's make sure that
when we're opposing each other, it's for the right reasons,
not the wrong reasons. So it shouldn't be just it
should be because we disagree, not because we're trying to,
you know, secure political advantage or political points. So thinks
things like infrastructure projects, why does everything take so long
in New Zealand and why does it cost so much money? Well,
(24:04):
the political cycle is part of the problem. You know.
New government comes in and says we don't like all
that stuff that the last lot we're doing, so we're
going to stop all of that and we're going to
start again. Everything slows down, everything costs more money, and
in the meantime, seventeen thousand fewer people are working in
construction today than they were at the last election, and
the government's part of the problem. I've said that I
(24:25):
want to take a lot of the politics out of that.
The Infrastructure Commission have come out with a big list
that says these are the things that New Zealand needs.
They're not things that political parties have decided, you know,
these are the things the Infrastructure Commission have said. For
the country of the size that we are, with the
geography we are, this is what we need and we
need to do it. I've said to the current government,
(24:45):
if you're doing stuff that's on that list, let's not
fit all with that. Let's just get on and do
it because that's been objectively determined that that's what we
need as a country. And let's stop the stop start
nature of what we're doing because not everything needs to
be political.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
And looking forward, Chris, what does a better New Zealand
look like to you?
Speaker 4 (25:07):
I think it involves higher standards of living for all
New Zealanders, So people having good jobs, recognizing that there's
going to be turnover in jobs as technology changes, but
that if you lose your job because things have changed,
that you can get another one, if you need to
retrain and reskill in order to do that, that you're
supported to do that. That you can have a place
(25:28):
that you can call home, whether it's owning your own
home or having a security in your rental, that you
can access good healthcare, that your kids are getting a
good education, a world class education. That we are actually
preserving the environment that we live in so that it
can sustain future generations of people, and that we're living sustainably.
(25:50):
You know that we're having a high quality of life,
but in a way that's sustainable. To me, that's what
New Zealand should be all about. There's huge opportunities for us.
You know, the move to a more sustainable way of
living doesn't need to be a hardship. Infact, it could
be the source of our great prosperity in the future.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
Thanks for joining us, Chris.
Speaker 6 (26:11):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzidherld dot co dot mz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for
another look behind the headlines.
Kyota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. From entering
Parliament in two thousand and eight to leading the country
in twenty twenty three, Chris Hipkins is no stranger to
the spotlight. During COVID's beginnings, he was known as a
(00:28):
safe set of hands, tackling education, health and becoming the
Minister in charge of the COVID response for a time.
Now he's firmly setting his sights on election twenty twenty six,
but is he confident he'll still be in Labour's driving
seat when it rolls around?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Today?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
On the Front Page, Hipkins joins us to discuss the
cost of living, vibes around Parliament, and.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Whether he'll ever be able to shake COVID.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
First off, Chris, we had David Seymour on a wee
while back. We asked him if it'd be open to
working with you. He said that would require Chris Hopkins
to be working. He then made an odd reference calling
you Pooh Midas, which I can only assume is replacing
gold with pooh.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
So is everything you touched he in to shit or something?
Speaker 4 (01:19):
Oh? Look, I mean I think this is just what
we're seeing from this government, you know, and the culture
starts from the top, It starts in the Prime Minister,
Winston Peter's David Seymour down where they just think that
attacking people, belittling people, degrading people is what leadership looks like.
I don't believe that. I'm all for a bit of
humor in politics, you know a little bit of a
sledge now and then where it's funny. That can add
(01:41):
to a bit of you know, political engagement. But they're
not very funny, and they're also not very good at it,
so I think they should just stick to actually doing
what people ask them to do. You know, the New
Zealanders wanted them to fix the cost of living crisis.
They wanted them to, you know, get the economy moving.
They haven't done either of those things. Maybe they should
focus on them rather than sledging other people.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well what about more recently, looks like you've got the
prime ministers go to little He said. I'm not taking
any lectures from frickin' Chris Hipkins or the Labor Party.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
But why are you bothering people lately? Chris? Is it
getting a bit tasty? In Parliament at the minute.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
I think it's getting The government's certainly feeling the pressure,
and they should be feeling the pressure because they made
people a whole lot of promises that they haven't delivered on.
But I remember standing next to Christopher Luxan during the
leader's debates where he said that, you know, families with
kids were going to be two hundred and fifty dollars
a fortnight better off if he became Prime minister. And
they haven't identified one single family that's two hundred and
(02:36):
fifty dollars a fortnight better off, and you know, food
prices are still going up. You know, households are still
really feeling the squeeze, and so I think the government
are feeling that pressure. Really, they shouldn't have made promises
that they didn't intend to keep, and so I think
that's why they're lashing out at everybody else. They're just
trying to find people to blame for that. And you know,
on the other side, there's a lot of pressure coming
on us to say, well, what would labor do differently?
(02:58):
Shear your policies, But the point that I've been making
to people is I'm not going to put policies out
there unless I know that I can deliver on them,
because I don't want to end up two years down
the track and find myself in the same position that
they're currently in, where I've promised stuff that I can't deliver.
I think we've had way too much of that in
New Zealand politics, governments of all stripes making big, sweeping
(03:19):
promises for elections and then not delivering on them. So
we're keeping up how to dry on the policy front
deliberately because when we do announce it, I want to
know that we can do it, and we won't be
able to make that judgment till closer to the election,
once we see the shape the economies in and so on.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
So you basically do want to have a look at
the books, maybe by next budget, and then you'll start
kind of trickling out stuff.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Is that how it works in an election?
Speaker 4 (03:43):
It is, it's kind of about looking at the government's books,
but it's also about making sure we're doing the work
now and opposition you don't unlike in government. You know,
you don't have the entire public service doing the work
for you. You've got to do the work. So we're
looking at you know, what would things cost, how would
we actually deliver them. I think one of the valid
criticisms of us last time we were in opposition was
that we had some really good ideas, but we hadn't
(04:04):
worked through the detail of exactly how would we do that.
And then when we got into government, we found that
some of the things that we said we were going
to do very well intentioned, we didn't have a clear
plan for how we would do it. And I think
the same thing has happened to this government. They've made
promises with no plan on how they're actually going to
do it, and I don't want to be in that position.
So we're going to take our time. I know people
are eager to hear what we want to do, but
(04:26):
I'm going to make sure that when I do go
out there and say label will do X, I can
then answer all the questions about it, and I can
tell people how we're going to do it, so that
they know that the promises we're making a credible and
ones that they can rely on us delivering.
Speaker 5 (04:39):
On Well, mister Speaker, hasn't it been a shambolic year for.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
The Labor Party?
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Has that?
Speaker 6 (04:47):
And I have to say, has there ever been a
leader of.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
The opposition with less substance than Chris Hopkins, because what
you get, what you get is a lot of carping.
What you get is a lot of points of order,
and you get a lot of wishy washy, don't you.
It's a lot of wishy washy because beneath it all,
they have no policies, zero policies, and they have no plan.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
What is something that the party's tinkering away in the
background at the moment.
Speaker 6 (05:16):
We're looking at a lot of things.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
I mean, I think if you look at what is
important to us, I said when I took over from
Jacinda that I wanted to see labor get back to
the core sort of things that are important.
Speaker 6 (05:27):
To labor, back to basic, back to basics. Jobs.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
You know, it's in the name of the Labor Party.
That's what the Labor Party was founded on the basis of,
you know, good jobs that mean people get well paid
and could have a better life. That's why the Labor
Party exists. So that's that's got to be front and
center for us. And at a time when unemployment's going up, jobs, jobs, jobs,
is very very important. So jobs health because you know,
if you don't have access to good quality health care.
(05:52):
Then you're going to your options in life are going
to be limited. And homes. Everyone deserves a place to
call home. And if I've got so many the other
issues we deal with, it stems back to one of
those three things, or sometimes a combination of those three
things not not being where we need them to be. So,
you know, kids not going to school. Well, if your
family's moving around houses all the time because they haven't got,
(06:14):
you know, somewhere that they can put down roots, that's
actually a big part of the problem. Kids who are
getting into trouble In many cases, it's because they're living transiently.
So let's make sure everyone has a home. And then
I think more recently, you know, we were expecting that
once inflation was back down within the target band, that
cost of living would sort of drop off the radar
almost It hasn't. Cost of living is getting worse. So
(06:36):
I think we need re election on the cost of living,
and it's going to have to be more than just
shouting at supermarkets and shouting at banks. It's going to
have to be things that government can actually do that
will tackle the cost of living for people.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Well, when it comes to that, I was doing some
research about it, and I mean, how do we make
sure that the price of butter doesn't get anywhere like
any more ridiculous?
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
In the Great Depression, I know that the government introduced
subsidies for farmers and agriculture that kind of dropped off
in the seventies and eighties.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Why can't we do something like that again.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
Ultimately, we do live in a global market for that,
and the real challenge for us is if we started
to do that sort of thing here, we potentially limit
our ability to then sell into the international market. It
would compromise our ability to trade internationally if we brought
back subsidies. I think there are real questions about our
New Zealander is paying too much for butter everyone's fixated
(07:30):
on but I've never spoken so much about butter in.
Speaker 6 (07:32):
My life as I have in the last week.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
But again, the government sort of shouting at Fontier is
not going to solve the problem. I think there are
real issues around the supermarket sector, around whether we've got
enough competition in the supermarket sector. But again, just talking
about it, admiring the problem, it's not going to solve it.
So what's the government actually going to do in that
space to get better competition in supermarkets, and how we're
(07:56):
going to support New Zealanders to have a higher standard
of living will go up and down. You know, if
you think about fruit and veggies, for example, the weather
has an impact.
Speaker 6 (08:05):
You know, we had our.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
Cyclone in the first few weeks that I was Prime
Minister that wiped out a huge amount of our fresh
produce across the East Coast to the North Island, and
that meant that that actually was one of the things
that forced up fruit and vegie prices. The government couldn't
fundamentally change that, but we do have to make sure
we're supporting families through you know, what is a really
tough economic cycle at the moment, So looking at their incomes,
(08:28):
looking at how we can you know, contain other costs.
Public transport, which the government have cut subsidies for, is
going up hugely. Families on low incomes are more likely
to rely on public transport, and now they're finding that
their cost of transport, the cost of getting to and
from work is going up. That's money that they then
can't spend on food. So for those families that are
(08:50):
living hand to mouth, everything matters and regardless of what
the price of butter is doing. The real question is
what's the overall family expendit you're doing. You know, because
there are areas where we can ease some pressure on
families and things like public transport. You know, there are
good examples of things governments can do.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
What about the Greens approach, what about free dental, free
GP visits.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
And what was the first free childcare? Seems like a
good idea.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
So if you look at what we were talking about
at the last election, you know, we had a plan
to start delivering free dental. The reason that we were
setting that out over a period of time is we
don't have the dentists to be able to just you know,
turn on a tap and say right, dental's free. That
would be hard because we wouldn't have enough dentists. So
over time it's absolutely achievable. You know, I did this
work as Prime Minister to identify, yes, we can have
(09:43):
free dental here, and the case of GP visits, I
wouldn't necessarily start there. I do think that making it
easier to go to the GP is really important. So
we might not get to free immediately. At the moment,
it's costing some families one hundred bucks for a GP visit.
I don't think that's okay. I think we've got to
deal with that. But there's things that we can do.
(10:03):
Even before that, we abolished the five dollars co payment
for prescriptions because if people were not picking up their prescriptions,
they were more likely to end up having to go
to a GP or go to a hospital emergency room
than if they went to the pharmacist, got whatever medications
they need and stayed healthy in the first place. So
we did more than just that. We also said to pharmacists,
(10:25):
you can give out some medications without prescription for winter ailments.
And as a result, because people could go to the pharmacy,
they didn't end up going to the doctor because they
didn't need to. And I think there's a lot more
we can do in that area. You know, pharmacies do
an amazing job around the country. When I became Minister
of Health briefly, I learned so much more about what
(10:47):
pharmacists can do. And I think that those opportunities to
provide better preventative health care are just all over the place.
Keep people healthy and the health system will be under
a lot less pressure.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
And what about that free childcare.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Yeah, and I've always been committed to that. So when
I was working for Trevor mallard is the Ministry of
Education back at a long time ago now, I was
working on implementing twenty hours free early childhood education for
three and four year olds. As Prime Minister, I extended
that to two year olds. The current government have canceled
the extension to two year olds unfortunately, but I do
(11:22):
think progressively increasing more access to free early childhood education. A.
It's got benefits for the kids because we know kids
who have been in early childhood education quality early childhood
education do better when they go to school. But it
also means that for parents it's a huge easing of
cost and it allows them to get back into work.
(11:43):
And it will benefit women more than men, but there
are some men who will benefit from that too. So
women are more likely to be the person who is
at home looking after the kids, but increasingly now in
this day and age, there are more dads doing that too,
and free early old education really helps them to be
able to go out and earn money as well as
(12:04):
looking after the kids.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Right, So what's stopping us from just doing it tomorrow?
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Is it?
Speaker 1 (12:08):
The money, do we need to tax the retch.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
We could have done twenty hours free early childhood education
for two year olds, and we had done that. Actually
the government took the money away from that to fund
their Family Boosts, which has been an absolute flop. You know,
one hundred and fifty three families I think have actually
got the full amount of the family boost which you know,
whereas every family with a two year old would have
(12:32):
got the twenty hours free and they wouldn't have had
to fill in a form to get it. It just
would have happened automatically, so big saving for the family.
So there is money there to extend that out over
time to more so you could potentially, you know, increase
the number of hours or increase the age groups who
are eligible. I think that's something that we should certainly
aspire to and we can afford that as a country
(12:52):
if we make the right choices. Bearing in mind that
if we've got kids in early childhood education and the
result of that is that their parents are then going
back to work, those parents are going to be earning
money and paying taxes, which is a good thing for
government because it means that ultimately governments and you know, yes,
we're spending more money on ECU, but we're getting more
money because of the parents earning more money.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
What do you think about taxing the.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
Rech I think it's a I don't like the phrase.
And the reason I don't like the phrase is because
I think that tax fundamentally should come down to fairness.
Everyone should pay their fair share, Everyone should make a contribution.
We all benefit from health education, you know, the infrastructure
that we build, things like roads, we all benefit from that.
We all benefit from having a police force, we all
(13:36):
benefit from having a good justice system. We all benefit
from having a defense force. So we should all contribute
to the cost of those things. And the tax system
should be fair, which means those on higher incomes. And
I am one of those people should pay more. And
I'm quite proud to say that I'm happy to pay
more as someone on a higher income.
Speaker 6 (13:57):
I accept that. You know, it's a great tagline.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
You know, it's on a poster.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
If it's on a poster, but it kind of it
creates a culture of resentment about Texas. Texas aren't a punishment,
you know, Texas are the contribution that we all make
to living in a decent society, and.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
Ow poll, we asked do you support or oppost the
introduction of a capital gains tax on properties other than
the family home. Forty six percent of voters are in
support of the idea, while forty one percent oppose it,
and thirteen percent either don't know or preferred not to say.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
I've read something published on Aaron said.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
This was in December, though, and it suggested that you
will be campaigning on a capital gains tax at the
next election, and that quote details would be announced as
early as mid next year.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Now it's past mid next year. Now it's July. Now
any word on that how that may look.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
Yeah, well, I've said that we'll announce our policy on
that before the end of this year, because I think
it is important. You know that that is big policy area.
People want to know where they stand. Certainly people to
my left, you know, on the left of politics, get
really excited about tax debates, and I understand that, but
we also need to talk about how we get people
into good, well paid jobs, how we generate more wealth
(15:16):
for the country, and we need to do that as
well as ensuring that the benefits of that are fairly
shared by everybody. And you can't have one side of
that debate without the other. So tax is one of
the ways we ensure that everybody gets the affairs share
and pays the affairs here. But we've also got to
make sure that we're generating good, well paid jobs, that
(15:36):
we've got businesses who are doing well so they can
employ more people. And I don't think you can separate
those two things. I think those two things do need
to go together.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
So you will commit to yes or no by the
end of this.
Speaker 4 (15:48):
Yeah, and we're going to have a different tax policy
to the one we had at the last election. Very
upfront about that.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
You know.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
In New Zealand, I think we've paced far too much
emphasis on buying and selling houses amongst ourselves, pushing up
the price so that potentially a whole generation of homeowners
is being shut out of the housing market, and not
enough emphasis on productive investment, on building businesses that employ
people that allow them to earn more money. And our
tax system currently encourages people to do that, you know,
(16:15):
to basically go and just speculate in the residential property market,
and that's not going to make us rich as a country.
So I think our tech system does need to change.
I understand why mums and dads have gone out and said, oh,
I've got a house. Now I can use the equity
I've got my house to buy our rental property and
that that can be my retirement savings. I understand why
people have done that. The tax systems actually encouraged them
(16:35):
to do that. But that's not sustainable. If every person
who owns a house now buys another one, the next
generation of homeowners won't exist. So we have to do
things differently.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
Do you think labor will ever escape the COVID curse?
Speaker 4 (16:52):
When you say COVID curse, I mean it's challenging because
it was hard. You know, it was hard for the
whole country, and it's actually really I find as a
politician it's also quite hard to talk about it now
because you did we get everything right during that time? No,
I don't think we did get everything right. Were there
lessons that we learned from that? Yes, of course, you know,
no one had ever done this before, no government had
ever encountered what we encountered with COVID. Undoubtedly there are
(17:14):
things that if we could go back and do them differently,
we would do some things differently. I can say that,
And then someone asked me a specific question that'll be like, well,
what about decision X, And so you explain the reasoning
behind that decision and then they say, oh, so you
don't think you made any mistakes.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
I said, no, I'm not.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
I'm just explaining why we made the decision we made
at that time because there wasn't a rule book and
it was hard. The management of the border was so
hard because one of the ways that we avoided lockdowns,
long prolonged lockdowns in New Zealand was by having the
border restrictions in place that we had. But that meant
that if you were traveling, if you had to travel
(17:49):
for business, if you had family who were away overseas
and they wanted to come back and see you, or
you wanted to go and see them, you couldn't travel
freely in the way that we're all used to being
able to travel. And that was really, really hard.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
And some people have just gotten over the fact that
we didn't travel for a couple of years, and some
people are still holding onto it.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
It seems.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
I mean, every time it must come up, you must,
you must a little person inside you must just sigh.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
A little bit.
Speaker 4 (18:16):
But I do understand because it was hard and there were,
and it really had a bigger effect on people's lives.
But I guess the point that I would make is, yes,
government decisions weren't perfect, but actually it was the virus
and the global pandemic that caused a lot of the pain.
(18:36):
Because the decisions the New Zealand government was making we're
not out of line with what other countries were doing.
We were more successful, I think partly because we're an
island nation and we were able to isolate ourselves better
and avoiding long protracted lockdowns. I mean, I've got friends
and family who are in the UK who spent a
year and a half of rolling lockdowns. We avoided that
here and we were able to live relatively freely during
(18:58):
that time, other than know some periods where we weren't.
And you know, for Auckland, that last lockdown was the
hardest and it was hard, and that was one of
the areas which I don't think we got it completely right.
You know, it went on for too long and we
as we moved, as we dealt with the new variants.
Remember we sort of shifted from from COVID early COVID
(19:20):
to delta omicron and then and then we had you know,
moving from elimination where we're aiming to just get back
to what we've been doing before, to realizing that we
couldn't and that we were going to have to deal
with COVID in the community. That was very bumpy and
very hard, and we didn't get every decision right in there,
and I'd never say that we did. And so as
a result, I think there are people who look at
(19:41):
that going, you know, if they'd been government, why or
you know, would we have made decisions differently if we
knew then what we know now.
Speaker 7 (19:49):
Yes, Unquestionably, when it comes to election next year, are
you still confident that you'll be leading the Labor Party?
Speaker 4 (20:03):
Absolutely? And you know, look, I've still got a lot
of energy for this job. I only took over about
eight months before the election. I had eight months as
Prime Minister, and you know I said there as soon
as I took over from Jacinda, I want Labor to
get back to focusing on what the Labor Party is
all about, jobs, health, homes, you know, making sure we're
raising living standards for all New Zealanders, focusing on the
(20:25):
things that unite New Zealanders rather than the things that
divide us apart making sure that we we're dealing with
controversial and tricky areas like the Treaty for example, that
we're slowing down a bit and we're bringing people with us.
Speaker 6 (20:38):
We're not.
Speaker 4 (20:38):
You know, people don't feel like a whole lot's happening
that they don't know about, and they're mistrustful of that.
You know, I started that work when I became Prime Minister,
and then you know, I still think that's work that
the Labor Party needs to do. I think we need
to make sure that we're there for the people who
we represent.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
And would you be open to working with the Greens
and TPM or those conversations just not started yet.
Speaker 6 (20:59):
We work closely with them.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
When I say closely, we cooperate with them quite a
lot in opposition. And you'll see things like the Treaty
Principles Bill, which we thought was a really divisible but
we work really closely with the Greens and with the
Mardi Party to oppose that and to make sure that
it was defeated. We have a lot of values in
common with both of those parties, you know, if you're
talking about the values of unity, of collective action, of
(21:21):
making sure that we are catering to the squeezed middle,
but also those on the lowest incomes. I think we
share those aspirations. We want to make sure that we're
leaving the planet in at least as good as state
as we found it. I think we share those goals.
I've said that what we will do before the election,
as I did last time, as I say, look, these
(21:43):
are the areas that we've got in common with other parties,
and these are the areas where we think we can
work with them, and these are the things we categorically
would take off the table. We won't do that, and
I think that will make it clear what the future
governing arrangements might look like. But I differ for a
bit from the current govern in the sense that, you know,
I respect the important constituencies the smaller parties represent, and
(22:06):
I also respect that we compete with them for votes too.
Speaker 6 (22:10):
I don't think.
Speaker 4 (22:10):
Under MMP the smaller parties should call all of the shots.
You know, I still think that the bigger parties have
a mandate to reflect the view of a much larger
section of the electorate, and so I do think under
MMP you need to kind of keep proportionality in mind. Yes,
there should be some concessions and some trade offs to
the other parties in order to form government. But that
(22:33):
doesn't mean that you should be doing things that you
specifically told the electorate before the election that you weren't going.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
To do, like the Treati's Principle.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
The Treaty Principle's Bill is a good example, the Regulatory
Standards Bill. You know, some of these things that no
one knew that they were voting for at the last election,
and now they're being inflicted on them. I don't think
that's the spirit of MMP or democracy. I think, you know,
the majority should still rule in a democracy, and at
the moment that's not happening. We're currently being ruled by
a minority, a small minor, and I don't think that's
(23:01):
what New Zealand has voted for.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
I can only assume David not Winston.
Speaker 6 (23:07):
When I'm talking about the minorities.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
There's the small minority.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Well, both of them to some extent on different issues.
You know, they've both got their hobby horses that they're
sort of inflicting on the rest of the country, and
they're not things that New Zealand has voted for.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
Well, Ending greyhound racing is not that.
Speaker 4 (23:22):
Look, I support Winston Peters on ending greyhound racing that
I know the greyhound racers don't particularly like the fact
that were supporn in the government on that, but it's time.
And you know I said before the election that I
thought it was time and I congratulate him for doing it.
You know, not everything in politics needs to be about
saying I impose that just because it's the other side
that are doing it. I think there's actually too much
(23:43):
of that. And I also think let's make sure that
when we're opposing each other, it's for the right reasons,
not the wrong reasons. So it shouldn't be just it
should be because we disagree, not because we're trying to,
you know, secure political advantage or political points. So thinks
things like infrastructure projects, why does everything take so long
in New Zealand and why does it cost so much money? Well,
(24:04):
the political cycle is part of the problem. You know.
New government comes in and says we don't like all
that stuff that the last lot we're doing, so we're
going to stop all of that and we're going to
start again. Everything slows down, everything costs more money, and
in the meantime, seventeen thousand fewer people are working in
construction today than they were at the last election, and
the government's part of the problem. I've said that I
(24:25):
want to take a lot of the politics out of that.
The Infrastructure Commission have come out with a big list
that says these are the things that New Zealand needs.
They're not things that political parties have decided, you know,
these are the things the Infrastructure Commission have said. For
the country of the size that we are, with the
geography we are, this is what we need and we
need to do it. I've said to the current government,
(24:45):
if you're doing stuff that's on that list, let's not
fit all with that. Let's just get on and do
it because that's been objectively determined that that's what we
need as a country. And let's stop the stop start
nature of what we're doing because not everything needs to
be political.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
And looking forward, Chris, what does a better New Zealand
look like to you?
Speaker 4 (25:07):
I think it involves higher standards of living for all
New Zealanders, So people having good jobs, recognizing that there's
going to be turnover in jobs as technology changes, but
that if you lose your job because things have changed,
that you can get another one, if you need to
retrain and reskill in order to do that, that you're
supported to do that. That you can have a place
(25:28):
that you can call home, whether it's owning your own
home or having a security in your rental, that you
can access good healthcare, that your kids are getting a
good education, a world class education. That we are actually
preserving the environment that we live in so that it
can sustain future generations of people, and that we're living sustainably.
(25:50):
You know that we're having a high quality of life,
but in a way that's sustainable. To me, that's what
New Zealand should be all about. There's huge opportunities for us.
You know, the move to a more sustainable way of
living doesn't need to be a hardship. Infact, it could
be the source of our great prosperity in the future.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
Thanks for joining us, Chris.
Speaker 6 (26:11):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzidherld dot co dot mz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for
another look behind the headlines.
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.
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