January 6, 2026 • 27 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 (00:19):
Kyota.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I at Chelsea Daniels here, host of the Front Page.
We're taking away breakover summer, but to help build the gap,
we're re issuing some of our most significant episodes of
twenty twenty five on behalf of the Front Page team.
Thanks for listening and we look forward to being back
with you on January twelfth, twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Kyota.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
From entering Parliament in two thousand and.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
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 safe set of hands, tackling education,
health and becoming the Minister in charge of the COVID
response for a time. Now he is firmly setting his
sights on election twenty twenty six, but is he confident
(01:19):
he'll still be in Labour's driving seat when it rolls around?
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Today?
Speaker 2 (01:23):
On the Front Page, Hipkins joins us to discuss the
cost of living, vibes around Parliament and.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Whether he'll ever be able to shake COVID.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
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 Hipkins
to be working. He then made an odd reference calling
you Pooh Midas, which I can only assume is replacing
gold with pooh. So is everything you touched turned to
shit or something?
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Oh? Look, I mean, I think this is just what
we're seeing from this government, you know, and the culture
of starts from the top. It starts in the Prime
Minister when St Peter's David Seymour down where they just
think that attacking people, belittling people, degrading people is what
leadership looks like.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
I don't believe that.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
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 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,
(02:33):
get the economy moving. They haven't done either. Of those things.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Maybe they should focus on that rather than sledging other people.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Well what about more recently, looks like you got the
prime ministers go to little He said. I'm not taking
any lectures from frickin' Chris Hipkins or the Labor Party,
but why are you bothering people lately?
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Chris? Is it getting a bit testy in Parliament at
the minute.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
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
(03:14):
fifty dollars a fortnight better off, and 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.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
They're just trying to find.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
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 Labour do differently? 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
(03:51):
we've had way too much of that in New Zealand politics,
governments of all stripes making big, sweeping promises for elections
and they're 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
(04:12):
the shape the economies in and so on.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
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 is that how it works
in an election.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
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.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
The work for you. You've got to do the work.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
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 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.
(04:52):
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 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
(05:13):
credible and ones that they can rely on us delivering on.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
Well, mister speaker, hasn't it been a shambolic year for.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
The Labor Party, hasn't it?
Speaker 4 (05:25):
And I have to.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Say, has there ever been a leader of the opposition
with less substance than Chris Hipkins? 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.
Speaker 5 (05:41):
Because beneath it all, they have no policies, zero policies,
and they have no plan.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
What is something that the party's tinkering away in the
background at the moment.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
We're looking at a lot of things.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
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 to.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
Labor, fact, basic, back to basics jobs.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
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 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
(06:29):
to good quality health care, 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 you
look at so many of 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, you know,
(06:52):
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
(07:12):
it hasn't. Cost of living is getting worse. So I
think we need real action on the cost of living,
and it's going to have to be more than just
shouting at SOO markets 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 1 (07:26):
Well, when it.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
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 (07:36):
Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (07:36):
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 (07:45):
Why can't we do something like that again.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
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
(08:08):
on but I've never spoken so much about butter in.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
My life, as I have in the last week, you know.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
But again the government sort of shouting at Fontia is
not going to solve the problem. I think there are
real issues around the super market sector, around whether we've
got enough competition in the supermarket sector. But again just
talking about it and 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
(08:34):
and how we're going to support New Zealanders to have
a higher standard of living. Prices will go up and down.
You know, if you think about fruit and veggies, for example,
the weather has an impact. You know, we had our
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 veggie prices. The government couldn't
(08:56):
fundamentally change that, but we do have to make sure
we're supporting families through what is a really tough economic
cycle at the moment, so looking at their incomes, looking
at how we can 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
(09:17):
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 non food. So
for those families that are 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 expenditure doing,
you know, because are there other areas where we can
(09:39):
ease some pressure on families and things like public transport?
You know, there are good examples of things governments can do.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
What about the Greens approach? What about free dental, free
GP visits.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
And what was the third? Free childcare? Seems like a
good idea.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
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, dentals free. That
would be hard because we wouldn't have enough dentists, so
over time it's absolutely achievable.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
You know.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
I did this work as prim to identify, yes, we
can have 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
(10:39):
deal with that. But there's things that we can do.
Even before that, we abolished the five dollar 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
(11:01):
we did more than just that. We also said to pharmacists,
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
a job around the country. When I became Minister of
(11:21):
Health briefly, I learned so much more about what 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 (11:37):
And what about that free childcare?
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Yeah, and I've always been committed to that. So when
I was working for Trevor Mallard as the Minister of
Education back in 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
(12:00):
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.
(12:21):
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 childhood education really helps them to be
able to go out and earn money as well as
(12:42):
looking after the kids.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Right, So what's stopping us from just doing it tomorrow?
Is it the money? Do we need to tax the retch?
Speaker 3 (12:48):
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 Boost, 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
knowere was every family with a two year old would
(13:09):
have 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,
(13:30):
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 ECA, but we're getting more
money because of the parents earning more money.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
What do you think about taxing the rech I think
it's a I don't like the phrase.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
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 affair 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
benefit from having a good justice system, we all benefit
(14:18):
from having a defense. So we should all contribute to
the cost of those things. Then 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 4 (14:34):
I accept that. You know, it's a great tagline.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
You know it's on a poster, if.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
It's on a poster, but it kind of it creates
a culture of resentment about taxes. Taxes aren't a punishment,
you know, Texas are the contribution that we all make
to living in a decent society.
Speaker 5 (14:54):
And now Pole, 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 (15:14):
I've read something published on Aaron said.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
This was in December, though, and it suggested that you
will be care and painting on a capital gains tax
at the next election, and that quote details would be
announced as early as mid next year.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Now it's past mid next year. Now it's July. Now
any word on that how that might look?
Speaker 3 (15:31):
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 a 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
(15:53):
wealth 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 tex is one
of the ways we ensure that everybody gets the affairs
year and pays the affairs yere. But we've also got
to make sure that we're generating good, well paid jobs,
(16:14):
that 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 (16:22):
So you will commit to yes or no by the
end of.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
This Yeah, and look, we're going to have a different
text policy to the one we had at the last election,
very upfront about that. You know, 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,
(16:46):
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, 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
(17:07):
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 to
do that, but that's not sustainable. If every person who
owns a house now another one, the next generation of
homeowners won't exist. So we have to do things differently.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Do you think labor will ever escape the COVID curse?
Speaker 3 (17:30):
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 know, did we get everything right during that time?
Speaker 4 (17:41):
No?
Speaker 3 (17:41):
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
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
(18:03):
behind that decision and then they say, oh, so you
don't think you made any mistakes. I said, no, I'm not.
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
(18:25):
that if you were traveling, if you had to travel
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.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Really hard, 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, it seems.
I mean, every time it must come up, you must,
you must a little person inside you must just sigh.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
A little bit.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
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.
(19:14):
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
(19:36):
that time, other than you 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
(19:57):
early COVID to delta to omicron and then and then
we had, you know, moving from elimination were we were
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
(20:18):
there are people we'll look at that going you know,
if they'd been government or you know, would we have
made decisions differently if we knew then what we know now?
Speaker 4 (20:26):
Yes, unquestionably.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
When it comes to election next year, Chris, are you.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
Still confident that you'll be leading the Labor Party?
Speaker 4 (20:41):
Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (20:42):
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 Gainda, 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 things that unite New Zealanders
(21:04):
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. We're not 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
(21:27):
Labor Party needs to do. I think we need to
make sure that we're there for the people who we represent.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
And would you be open to working with the Greens
and TPM or those conversations just not started yet.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
Well, we work closely with them.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
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 divisib 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
(21:59):
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, you know, in a at least as
good as state as we found it.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
I think we share those goals.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
I've said that what we will do before the election,
as I did last time, as I say, look, these
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.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
We categorically would take off the table.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
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 government
in the sense that you know, I respect the important
constituencies the smaller parties represent, and I also respect that
we compete with them for votes too. I don't think
under MMP the smaller parties should call all of the shots,
(22:52):
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
doesn't mean that you should be doing things that you
(23:13):
specifically told the electorate before the election that you weren't going.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
To do, like the Treaties principle.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
The Treaty Principles 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. At the moment,
that's not happening. We're currently being ruled by a minority,
a small minority, and I don't think that's what new
(23:40):
Zealand has voted for.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
I can only assume David not Winston.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
When I'm talking about the minorities.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
There's a small minority.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
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 (23:58):
Well, ending greyhound racing is not that.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Look, I support Winston Peters on ending greyhound racing that
I know the greyhound racers don't particularly like the fact
that we're supporting 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 it doing it. I think there's actually too much
(24:21):
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
secure political advantage or political points. So things like infrastructure projects,
why does everything take so long in New Zealand and
why does it cost so much money? Well, the political
(24:43):
cycle is part of the problem.
Speaker 4 (24:45):
You know.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
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
want to take a lot of the politics out of that.
The Infrastructure Commission have come out with a big list
(25:07):
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,
if you're doing stuff that is on that list, let's
not fit all with that. Let's just get on and
(25:28):
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.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
To be political and looking forward, Chris, what does a
better New Zealand look like to you?
Speaker 3 (25:45):
I think it involves higher standards of livings 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
(26:06):
that you can call home, whether it's owning your own
home or having a security and your rental, That you
can access good healthcare, that your kids are getting a
good education, a world class education. We are actually, you know,
preserving the environment that we live in so that it
can sustain future generations of people, and that we're living sustainably.
(26:28):
You know that we're having a high quality of life,
but in a way that's sustainable.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
To me, that's what New Zealand should be all about.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
There's huge opportunities for us. You know, the move to
a more sustainable way of living doesn't need to be
a hardship. In fact, it could be the source of
our great prosperity in the future.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
Thanks for joining us, Chris, thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
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 Sells and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Subscribe to The Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Kyota.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I at Chelsea Daniels here, host of the Front Page.
We're taking away breakover summer, but to help build the gap,
we're re issuing some of our most significant episodes of
twenty twenty five on behalf of the Front Page team.
Thanks for listening and we look forward to being back
with you on January twelfth, twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Kyota.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
From entering Parliament in two thousand and.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
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 safe set of hands, tackling education,
health and becoming the Minister in charge of the COVID
response for a time. Now he is firmly setting his
sights on election twenty twenty six, but is he confident
(01:19):
he'll still be in Labour's driving seat when it rolls around?
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Today?
Speaker 2 (01:23):
On the Front Page, Hipkins joins us to discuss the
cost of living, vibes around Parliament and.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Whether he'll ever be able to shake COVID.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
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 Hipkins
to be working. He then made an odd reference calling
you Pooh Midas, which I can only assume is replacing
gold with pooh. So is everything you touched turned to
shit or something?
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Oh? Look, I mean, I think this is just what
we're seeing from this government, you know, and the culture
of starts from the top. It starts in the Prime
Minister when St Peter's David Seymour down where they just
think that attacking people, belittling people, degrading people is what
leadership looks like.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
I don't believe that.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
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 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,
(02:33):
get the economy moving. They haven't done either. Of those things.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Maybe they should focus on that rather than sledging other people.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Well what about more recently, looks like you got the
prime ministers go to little He said. I'm not taking
any lectures from frickin' Chris Hipkins or the Labor Party,
but why are you bothering people lately?
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Chris? Is it getting a bit testy in Parliament at
the minute.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
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
(03:14):
fifty dollars a fortnight better off, and 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.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
They're just trying to find.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
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 Labour do differently? 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
(03:51):
we've had way too much of that in New Zealand politics,
governments of all stripes making big, sweeping promises for elections
and they're 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
(04:12):
the shape the economies in and so on.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
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 is that how it works
in an election.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
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.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
The work for you. You've got to do the work.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
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 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.
(04:52):
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 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
(05:13):
credible and ones that they can rely on us delivering on.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
Well, mister speaker, hasn't it been a shambolic year for.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
The Labor Party, hasn't it?
Speaker 4 (05:25):
And I have to.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Say, has there ever been a leader of the opposition
with less substance than Chris Hipkins? 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.
Speaker 5 (05:41):
Because beneath it all, they have no policies, zero policies,
and they have no plan.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
What is something that the party's tinkering away in the
background at the moment.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
We're looking at a lot of things.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
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 to.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
Labor, fact, basic, back to basics jobs.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
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 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
(06:29):
to good quality health care, 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 you
look at so many of 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, you know,
(06:52):
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
(07:12):
it hasn't. Cost of living is getting worse. So I
think we need real action on the cost of living,
and it's going to have to be more than just
shouting at SOO markets 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 1 (07:26):
Well, when it.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
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 (07:36):
Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (07:36):
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 (07:45):
Why can't we do something like that again.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
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
(08:08):
on but I've never spoken so much about butter in.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
My life, as I have in the last week, you know.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
But again the government sort of shouting at Fontia is
not going to solve the problem. I think there are
real issues around the super market sector, around whether we've
got enough competition in the supermarket sector. But again just
talking about it and 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
(08:34):
and how we're going to support New Zealanders to have
a higher standard of living. Prices will go up and down.
You know, if you think about fruit and veggies, for example,
the weather has an impact. You know, we had our
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 veggie prices. The government couldn't
(08:56):
fundamentally change that, but we do have to make sure
we're supporting families through what is a really tough economic
cycle at the moment, so looking at their incomes, looking
at how we can 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
(09:17):
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 non food. So
for those families that are 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 expenditure doing,
you know, because are there other areas where we can
(09:39):
ease some pressure on families and things like public transport?
You know, there are good examples of things governments can do.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
What about the Greens approach? What about free dental, free
GP visits.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
And what was the third? Free childcare? Seems like a
good idea.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
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, dentals free. That
would be hard because we wouldn't have enough dentists, so
over time it's absolutely achievable.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
You know.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
I did this work as prim to identify, yes, we
can have 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
(10:39):
deal with that. But there's things that we can do.
Even before that, we abolished the five dollar 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
(11:01):
we did more than just that. We also said to pharmacists,
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
a job around the country. When I became Minister of
(11:21):
Health briefly, I learned so much more about what 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 (11:37):
And what about that free childcare?
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Yeah, and I've always been committed to that. So when
I was working for Trevor Mallard as the Minister of
Education back in 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
(12:00):
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.
(12:21):
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 childhood education really helps them to be
able to go out and earn money as well as
(12:42):
looking after the kids.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Right, So what's stopping us from just doing it tomorrow?
Is it the money? Do we need to tax the retch?
Speaker 3 (12:48):
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 Boost, 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
knowere was every family with a two year old would
(13:09):
have 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,
(13:30):
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 ECA, but we're getting more
money because of the parents earning more money.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
What do you think about taxing the rech I think
it's a I don't like the phrase.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
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 affair 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
benefit from having a good justice system, we all benefit
(14:18):
from having a defense. So we should all contribute to
the cost of those things. Then 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 4 (14:34):
I accept that. You know, it's a great tagline.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
You know it's on a poster, if.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
It's on a poster, but it kind of it creates
a culture of resentment about taxes. Taxes aren't a punishment,
you know, Texas are the contribution that we all make
to living in a decent society.
Speaker 5 (14:54):
And now Pole, 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 (15:14):
I've read something published on Aaron said.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
This was in December, though, and it suggested that you
will be care and painting on a capital gains tax
at the next election, and that quote details would be
announced as early as mid next year.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Now it's past mid next year. Now it's July. Now
any word on that how that might look?
Speaker 3 (15:31):
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 a 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
(15:53):
wealth 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 tex is one
of the ways we ensure that everybody gets the affairs
year and pays the affairs yere. But we've also got
to make sure that we're generating good, well paid jobs,
(16:14):
that 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 (16:22):
So you will commit to yes or no by the
end of.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
This Yeah, and look, we're going to have a different
text policy to the one we had at the last election,
very upfront about that. You know, 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,
(16:46):
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, 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
(17:07):
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 to
do that, but that's not sustainable. If every person who
owns a house now another one, the next generation of
homeowners won't exist. So we have to do things differently.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Do you think labor will ever escape the COVID curse?
Speaker 3 (17:30):
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 know, did we get everything right during that time?
Speaker 4 (17:41):
No?
Speaker 3 (17:41):
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
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
(18:03):
behind that decision and then they say, oh, so you
don't think you made any mistakes. I said, no, I'm not.
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
(18:25):
that if you were traveling, if you had to travel
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.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Really hard, 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, it seems.
I mean, every time it must come up, you must,
you must a little person inside you must just sigh.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
A little bit.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
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.
(19:14):
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
(19:36):
that time, other than you 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
(19:57):
early COVID to delta to omicron and then and then
we had, you know, moving from elimination were we were
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
(20:18):
there are people we'll look at that going you know,
if they'd been government or you know, would we have
made decisions differently if we knew then what we know now?
Speaker 4 (20:26):
Yes, unquestionably.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
When it comes to election next year, Chris, are you.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
Still confident that you'll be leading the Labor Party?
Speaker 4 (20:41):
Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (20:42):
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 Gainda, 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 things that unite New Zealanders
(21:04):
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. We're not 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
(21:27):
Labor Party needs to do. I think we need to
make sure that we're there for the people who we represent.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
And would you be open to working with the Greens
and TPM or those conversations just not started yet.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
Well, we work closely with them.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
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 divisib 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
(21:59):
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, you know, in a at least as
good as state as we found it.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
I think we share those goals.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
I've said that what we will do before the election,
as I did last time, as I say, look, these
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.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
We categorically would take off the table.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
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 government
in the sense that you know, I respect the important
constituencies the smaller parties represent, and I also respect that
we compete with them for votes too. I don't think
under MMP the smaller parties should call all of the shots,
(22:52):
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
doesn't mean that you should be doing things that you
(23:13):
specifically told the electorate before the election that you weren't going.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
To do, like the Treaties principle.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
The Treaty Principles 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. At the moment,
that's not happening. We're currently being ruled by a minority,
a small minority, and I don't think that's what new
(23:40):
Zealand has voted for.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
I can only assume David not Winston.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
When I'm talking about the minorities.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
There's a small minority.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
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 (23:58):
Well, ending greyhound racing is not that.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Look, I support Winston Peters on ending greyhound racing that
I know the greyhound racers don't particularly like the fact
that we're supporting 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 it doing it. I think there's actually too much
(24:21):
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
secure political advantage or political points. So things like infrastructure projects,
why does everything take so long in New Zealand and
why does it cost so much money? Well, the political
(24:43):
cycle is part of the problem.
Speaker 4 (24:45):
You know.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
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
want to take a lot of the politics out of that.
The Infrastructure Commission have come out with a big list
(25:07):
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,
if you're doing stuff that is on that list, let's
not fit all with that. Let's just get on and
(25:28):
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.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
To be political and looking forward, Chris, what does a
better New Zealand look like to you?
Speaker 3 (25:45):
I think it involves higher standards of livings 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
(26:06):
that you can call home, whether it's owning your own
home or having a security and your rental, That you
can access good healthcare, that your kids are getting a
good education, a world class education. We are actually, you know,
preserving the environment that we live in so that it
can sustain future generations of people, and that we're living sustainably.
(26:28):
You know that we're having a high quality of life,
but in a way that's sustainable.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
To me, that's what New Zealand should be all about.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
There's huge opportunities for us. You know, the move to
a more sustainable way of living doesn't need to be
a hardship. In fact, it could be the source of
our great prosperity in the future.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
Thanks for joining us, Chris, thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
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 Sells and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Subscribe to The Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
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
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.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!