December 10, 2024 • 22 mins
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has spent a year in opposition now - holding the top job longer than many commentators expected he would.
Looking forward to 2025, Nick Mills asked Hipkins how Labour plans to grow its vote and what policy it plans on looking at.
Also, what is likely to be in the government's new plan for the Interisland ferries, and why has Labour called for the government's boot camp trial to be shut down?
Hipkins joined Nick Mills for his final slot of 2025.
LISTEN ABOVE
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 (00:07):
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talks at b Y.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Join us for the final time this year as Ruematucker
MP and Labor leader chrissipiins, good morning, Chris. I'll just
turn your mic on. Let's try that now.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
We'll try that again, all right, yeah, getd a. I'm
very good. It's beautiful to see the sunshine here and
well it is.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Been out in the garden this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
No, no, no early start this morning. Had all the
TV and radio rounds and stuff this morning, but did
walk here from Parliament, so you know, good look for
the sunshine.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
We'll talk you about walking. Let's talk about fairies. Government's
expected to make its big announcement today on the future
of the endur Islam fairies. We all know what happened
Finance Minister Nichola Willis candit a year ago today. Can
your plans as they blew out to over three billion
dollars you like to spending money, didn't you?
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Well no, but the thing is that's not true. So
let's give you the real history here. Winston Peters came
up with the plan to buy two new what we
call mega fairies colloquially, you know, five hundred and fifty
one million bucks to buy the new mega fairies. The
proposal that he put forward, though, which we agreed with
as a government, clearly massively underestimated the fact that new
wolves and terminals were going to be required to accommodate that.
(01:18):
So we had to do that. We had not agreed
anywhere near the amount of money that the current government
are bandying about.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
When you kept on saying yes every time they knocked
on your door, well no we didn't.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Actually before the election, when they came back and said no,
we need more money, we said no, and we said no, no,
we're drawing a line here. You've got to go back
and basically trim the costs of this project to stick
within the budget. Now, they could have done that without
canceling the new ships. So five hundred and fifty one
million bucks was a really good price for two new ships.
My understanding now is that they're going to spend nine
hundred million dollars. They're going to get two smaller ships
(01:51):
for that, and they're not going to have rail capability,
so you're not going to be able to put trains
on them.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
You don't think they'll have rail capability.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
No, So basically what's going to get It's the story
on itself that is a massive story because one of
the reasons for going for the bigger Fairies, of course,
is you get more. You know, it's easier to put big,
longer trains on it, more efficient and you know a
huge increase in capacity across the Cook strait. Ultimately, who's
going to pay. So who's going to pay now for
the extra cost of the ships. It's ultimately going to
(02:17):
be the people who.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
How much has been spent? How much do you reckon's
been spent on those fairies to the day? How what
sort of money are we talking that we're just throwing away?
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Well, they're not giving us the numbers, so I understand
about half a billion, so about five hundred million has
been sunk in into things like the new Warves, which
they canceled so literally they had people driving piles for
the new Wolves and they just upsticks.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And but just the fairies myself, because you gave us
a quote a five hundred million for the two fairies,
how much do that money has been spent and lost?
Speaker 3 (02:44):
So my understanding is that they reckon, they're on the
hook for about three hundred million just for nearly two thirds. Yeah,
that's right. For canceling the five hundred and fifty million
dollar fairies, they're going to have to spend three hundred
million dollars to cancel them, and then they're going to
spend another nine hundred million on top of that buying
different ships.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
So how much they're going to save out the whole business?
How much they're going to save out of canceling your
deal if they could gone back and got the infrastructure
a bit cheaper like you said.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Well, I don't think they're going to save any money
at all. And the reason I think that is that
they're going to be they're going to be tricky with
the numbers that they put out there. If they put
any numbers out there and they're going to say, oh,
we're going to save on the wharf upgrades, well, how
they're going to save on the wharf upgrades. They're going
to go to the Port of Wellington and say, well,
you've got to pay for the warf upgrades. How are
Port of Wellington going to do that? We're going to
charge the people who use the port. So who's that, Well,
that's every truck every train, every person who's crossing the
(03:31):
Cook Straight is going to end up paying that.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Well, you're saying the trains can't go on it.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Well, with the trains, they're going to be they're going
to be hit with a massive whammy because they're going
to be paying for new fairies, new wharves. They're going
to have to also then pay to transfer the freight
off the trains onto trucks and back across and then
back onto trains at the other end. Here's my picnic.
If you were if you were a truck company, would
you do that? No, you just put them on trucks
from wherever they're going, and you just have them on
(03:56):
the trucks the whole way. What does that mean for
you for your typical motorists. Means get used to being
stuck behind many, many more trucks on the road.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
And if you're a consumer, if you're in.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Consumer, it means it's going to cost more because you know,
why do freight companies put freight on rail now?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Because it's cheap so they keep in convenience.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Yeah, they keep it on trucks and it's basically going
to cost the consum How sure.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Are you right that they're not going to be rail
compatible because my bully is that Winston Peters is going
to be the minister in charge of it and he
was all about rail capability. So if he's going to
be in charge of it, he hasn't got what he wants.
It's not a good sign, is it.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Well, if Winston Peters is going to become Minister for
Rail and we're not going to have rail capable feries,
it shows that Winston Peters has prioritized well baubles of
office over doing the right thing by the country.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Would you have made sure that it was rail capable.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Absolutely, and I still think we need to do that.
So even if they've ordered new Faeries that haven't got
rail capability, we need to figure out how we can
either get them retrofitted with rail capability or order some
other fairies that are going to have rail capability in
the long run.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
But you are convinced. Were not convinced, but you feel
that they would have we have lost three hundred million
almost certainly.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Yeah. I mean, look, if you're Kynda and they were
already well down the you know, well.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
I couldn't have done a deal with the new fairies
with Hiande exactly use some of that three hundred million
on that, because when.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
You text message someone and say sorry, we're not going
to honor our end of the bargain, you kind of
weaken your bargaining position.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Oh god, terrible. I want to ask you a question
about some comments made by your health spokesman Aishaverral and
repeated by you yesterday. I accused the Health New Zealand Commissioner,
Lester Levy of having a reputation for cooking the books.
He's a public servant and that comment essentially accuses him
of fraud. Surely this is not okay.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
So what I was commenting on yesterday and earlier in
the week was the fact that Lester Levy, as the Commissioner,
had put into last year's accounts the costs of redundancies
that he was proposing to make this year, and the
Auditor General said, you can't do that because it actually
inflates the deficit from last year and basically decreases the
(05:59):
projected costs this year. So when we say cooking the books,
basically transferring costs from this year which haven't yet been
incurred into the previous financial year is what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Isn't cooking the books a little bit worse than that?
Cooking the books is basically accusing someone of fraud if
you're cooking. If you said to me, you know you
cook the books, I've done something pretty pretty damn bad.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
I think if you're manipulating the books, to say something
that is.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
That's manipulating is a little bit different than cooking. Well
I disagree, Okay, Well, I mean tell me the difference
are you're cooking the books, you're doing something that is
firing it up doing something cooking.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Yeah, I mean they're basically firing up the deficit from
last year by incorporating into las years accounts expenses that
haven't yet been incurred.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
And do you actually believe he's been dishonered? But I
think it's a really no. Do you believe he's been dishoned?
Speaker 3 (06:48):
I think that clearly isn't correct because it's a dangerous
path because you're basically saying, oh, we made a huge
deficit last year, and we're going to use that to
justify making people redundant this year. But if the huge
deficit last year includes in it the cost of making
people redundant this year, you're basically using redundancy costs to
justify making people redundant.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
What's the difference from with dishonest and cooking the books?
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Well, I think they're the same thing.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
So you do believe he was dishonest.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
Well, I think that moving costs from this current financial
year into the previous financial year is a dishonest thing
to do, and the Order to General said they can't
do it.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Do you think that either you or I should should
apologize to a public servant for saying that.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
No, I mean, the Orders to General came out and
said they can't do this, So I mean, I think
we're on pretty strong grounds here to say to call
it out and say this is bad behavior.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
What are you thinking of? What's your thoughts after a
few months of Lester Levy? What do you think?
Speaker 3 (07:40):
What are you making out yet to see the real
evidence that he's doing anything that's going to make a
material difference to the health system, that's going to improve
health outcomes. At the moment, it just seems to be around,
you know, shifting money around, trying to make the books
look better, call it whatever you like, rather than actually
dealing with the underlying issues here.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
We talked this morning on the show about greyhounds your government,
and I was really against great so I publicly admit
to that and come out with it. And Grant Robinson,
I think it was twenty twenty one. It don't quote
me on the year, but around there gave them one
year fix everything up or he was going to close
it all down.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Yep. And I said at the last election, very elected,
we'd be shutting down greyhound racing because I just don't
think they've cleaned up their acts sufficiently and franquently. Also,
if you look at it, I'm not sure that there
would ever be able to do that to the point
where the animal welfare is going to be sufficiently looked
after that, I'd be comfortable with it continuing. So I
(08:39):
support the governments.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Why did you not do anything when you're empowered?
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Though?
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Why did they keep putting it off and putting it
off when they knew it was actually worse than it is?
That is now you know the facts are that, you
know more dogs were dying then than they are now.
Why did they not? Why did Grant Robinson not do anything?
Speaker 3 (08:53):
I think the industry were given a period of time
to clean up their act. They haven't And now I
think it's time to pull the pin.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
But this was kind of one of your things and
you didn't do it. Is that something that you think
about You think it was if we'd actually cleaned that
up and done that.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
I mean, I wasn't Prime Minister at the time we
made those decisions. But you know, ultimately I'm very comfortable
with shutting the industry down. Now.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Do you think there'll be repercussions? You think they'll take
it legal? Do you think it'll actually be shut down?
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Almost certainly, they'll pursue whatever avenues they're going to. But
I think it's the right decision. And you know, for once,
I agree with Winston Peters. This is the right decision.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Okay. Do you think that he will get some kudos?
I mean, I said this morning, I felt that he
really does come out in the big moments and makes
some big moves. Will you get some kudos out of
doing this?
Speaker 3 (09:36):
He should do. I mean, of course, I think Winston
Peter's interest here is that he wants to see the
money that currently goes into Greyhound's going into horse racing instead.
But actually, let's not discount from it too much. He's
doing the right thing and he deserves credit for doing
the right thing.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
I want to talk about the polls. Let's have a
look at them. One News poll has Labour sitting steady
on twenty nine compared to national thirty seven. But the
Taxpayers Union Courier poll has Labor on twenty seven down
four point six and National on thirty four. You've survived
a year, survived to twenty five. That was your motto too, Yeah,
a little bit, a little bit, Yeah, you survived. You've
(10:12):
survived at opposition without any major blow ups or leadership
problems that no one's really pushed you. What do you
make of the poll results.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
I mean, there's there's a bunch of them around at
the moment. So I think in the last couple of
weeks we've seen about five pole results come out and
they're all a bit different. So, you know, the one
that the Post released last week had labor going up
by four in National coming down by four. But over
if you take the average, it shows labor making progress
since the last election, and it shows National or you know,
(10:41):
the government overall sort of trending down a bit since
the election. So for the first year after an election,
I'll take that, you know, that's that's not bad. We
never expected that first year after election, suddenly you're going
to see a massive shift. You know, everyone's not going
to turn around straight away and be like, oh, let's
let's let's go go with the other team when they've
just voted differently. So I think I'm pretty pretty happy
(11:02):
that for the first year in opposition, it's a pretty
good place to be.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
And let's talk about your own personal popularity. I thought
you were dead in the warder. I thought after lecture night,
I said, poor old Chris, that's him. He's gone see
you later. Who's in next? Right, You're sitting at fifteen
percent on the TV in Z's pole, which was pretty
damn good after being a prime minister to being opposition.
It's a pretty big jump, isn't it. And then twenty
(11:25):
percent in the courier. I mean you, I think it's
quite amazing result. You should be reasonably pleased with it.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
I am man. Actually again, the postal result last week
had me slightly ahead of the current Prime minister, which
is pretty unheard of for, you know, a prime minister
who's just lost their job to be outpolling the guy
who replaced them. But it's early days.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Why do you think you have you remain popular and
he doesn't. What do you think does that?
Speaker 3 (11:50):
I hope, on my part part of it is just
because I just I am who I am. You know,
I'm not going to be I'm not going to try
and be something that I'm not just because I think
that's going to be popular or unpopular or whatever it is.
So you know, when I took over from Jasinda, I
said to people at the time, I'm going to be me.
I'm just going to be me, and I'm still doing that.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Labor I want to get actually what Labour's actually offering
voters right now at your conference, which I was very
impressed with the numbers you had. I thought you did
extremely well getting big numbers to that conference in christ Church,
right there was no new ideas you were going to
get proper into Ireland fairies. While we're going to get
those today. Hopefully you wouldn't join Aucust, which surprised me
(12:32):
because you started negotiating for that. You were going to
be part of that, that was part of your thing
and then suddenly is that just a vote grabbing for that?
Speaker 3 (12:38):
No, we didn't start being part of aucas Actually, what
we said at the time when the Australians are having
meetings with them. When they announced it, we said, we
need to understand a bit more about what this is
all about. I think we now, can I take.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
You to task a little bit about that you were
reasonably positive about AUCUST Stage two, level two, whatever you
call it.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
No, no, you won't find any comments of me basically,
and labors do I said, no, no, and you won't
find well. I mean Andrew Little was as Minister of Defense,
but you know that the government's position at the time
was we're open to having conversations about it, and we've
had conversations about it, and I don't think it's going
to be in New Zealand's best interest to be part
of that.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
So what are you going to offer? That was different?
I mean the conference was successful, but you didn't offer anything.
You didn't give us a tax You didn't give us
any tax results from all your work on taxing. We
just sort of got nothing.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
No, we're not even halfway through the term yet. You
know we've still got two years to run before the
next election. You know, policy work, if you want to
do it well, does take time. So we've got a
lot of policy work underway, but you're not going to
see the results of that in the first year after
an election. And I think that's also one of the
reasons why poll results at this point in the electoral
cycle you've got to take them with a bit of
a grain of salt, because at the moment you're hearing
(13:49):
a lot from the government, you won't be hearing much
from us. So let's see how that shapes up in
another year from now. As we get closer to the
next election, people will see a bit more about what
we're going to be offering that's different to what the
government are offering, and they will have had a bit
more time to judge the government. I think, you know,
a year from now, polls on a bit more than
they do at this point.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
I want to sort of ask you what your thoughts
are on This is based on the polls as well.
Party mari are doing very well five point five and
couriers seven percent. In the tvN's head pole, Labour held
most of the MARII voters for a long long time.
That now has definitely shifted. Is that a concern for labor.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
No, I mean I don't actually agree with that. I
think what we say so you.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Can't not agree with that.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
I'm sorry that stats, but if you look at the
polling results, it's not just Marty who are voting or
who have indicated support for the Marty Party in these
most recent polls. It includes a lot of non Marty
New Zealanders. And I think that that's the reflection of
the sort of the backlash, if you like, against the
treaty principal spill. Whether that continues for the next two years,
that remains to be seen. I think this may well
(14:53):
be one of those sort of sugar hits that you
get when you get a whole lot of publicity but
it doesn't last. I mean, then the Martory Party supports growing,
but I'm not sure that's at the expense of labor. Actually,
if anything, I think that's more at the expense of
the government.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Labour's lost the confidence of Mariy, hasn't it.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
No, not at all if you look at that. But
if you look at the last election, we won the
party vote and every one of those MAJORI electorates, So
there was some strategic voting going on there where they
where people.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
I'm talking to maximum talking post the election. I mean,
right now, Maury, are not going to vote Labor. They're
going to vote to party Marrack on what?
Speaker 3 (15:26):
On what basis to make that conclusion.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
I'm just making that conclusion because the numbers are going
up and up and up. We've just seen the Hekoy,
we've seen how supportive they are of it. But as
I mean that, you'd have to you'd have to be
crazy not to believe.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
That there's a there's a bunch of non Marty who
have indicated that they support the Maori Party's position on
the Treaty principal spill. That doesn't mean that's going to
stick all the way through to the election. And actually
Labour's still got very strong support from Mary. As I said,
we won every of the party vote in every one
of those seats.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
We're going to come many seats that you want.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
Well, we're going to go out to what we won
one of the seven where we're going to go out
to get most of those back at the next election.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Do you really believe that what are you going to
do to get Mariy voters back on side?
Speaker 3 (16:06):
Oh? Well, you know, I think Marti voters don't vote
on single issues. And then they're going to be looking
at you know what sort of country they want to
live in. And actually, I think one of the great
anxieties amongst Marty voters, as it is amongst non Marty
voters at the moment, is that people don't want to
live in a country where their kids and their grandkids
feel that the only way they can get ahead is
to move to the Gold Coast. I think we want
to create a future where they're going to have good,
(16:27):
well paid jobs here, where they're going to actually have
a better life here, They're going to be able to
afford to buy their own house. Actually, this is the
sort of stuff that I hear Marty voters talking about
just as much as non Marty voters. And that's what
I said in my speech to the conference. Let's focus
on those issues where we all actually have a common
interest in the in a better future for this country,
because that's the stuff that brings us together. The divisive
Treaty Principles bills not going to create a better future
(16:50):
for the country.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Do you really want to make me believe that if
I took a video shot of your conference a couple
of weeks ago and one of five years ago, it'd
be the same amount of Mari people in.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
The audience almost certainly. Yeah, absolutely, I.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Think you're wrong. Well, look there look pretty damn white
to me.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
No, no, I was there. There was There was a
huge number of Marti voters, specific voters. But also we're
seeing an increasing support amongst some of our ethnic communities.
So if I look at areas like the Chinese community,
the Indian community, the Filipino community, there's a real disappointment
with the current government, you know that they're not delivering
what they promised, and so we're seeing some real increase
(17:30):
in support in those areas too.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
We've heard a lot about the boot camps. In the
last week. One young person was tragically killed in a
car accident, then another two absconded, and we're allegedly found
found in a stolen car, allegedly with a machete, allegedly
with with some masks and stuff. You've been really critical
of these boot camps, and I have to I haven't
been in favor of them either. These issues come have
(17:54):
come to have come to light. What's what's labor going
to say about them?
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Now?
Speaker 2 (17:58):
What do you think we should do?
Speaker 3 (17:59):
Now, Shakkarra, You know the all the evidence, all the advice,
all the experts in boot camps won't work. Boot camps
aren't working. I think what we've got to do is
figure out how we turn these kids' lives around, and
that involves looking at their families. You know, most of
these kids are coming from really dysfunctional family backgrounds. Pulling
them out of the community, shoving them in a boot
camp and then putting them back to where they came
from afterwards isn't going to change their life. It might
(18:21):
make them fitter and maybe give them a better diet
for a year, but it's not going to solve the problem.
Solving the problem means actually looking at the dysfunction and
fixing that. About ninety odd percent of the repeat youth
offenders have a parent who's involved in the correction system
are either been in prison or otherwise detained. That means
(18:41):
that that was I'm specific. I should be clear that
specifically the RAM rating kids that we looked at when
we were looking at who was causing all the RAM
rating problems. But actually I suspect you'll find similar stuff
around other young people getting into trouble. If we want
to turn these kids' lives around, let's deal with that
underlying dysfunction.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
What is your alternatives?
Speaker 3 (18:58):
The cycle is not going to fix it.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
Have you got an alternative plan to boot camps?
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Yeah? So what we did before the last election, we
had two things. One, we're a turnaround program that for
about seventy five percent of the kids who got referred
to it, they'd stop reoffending. We announced and hadn't yet
implemented before the last election, an advanced turnaround program which
was basically for that more persistent, you know, twenty five
percent of kids that was involving much more intensive mentoring,
(19:24):
support for the families, that kind of stuff, because that's
what's going to change their lives, not boot camps.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
We just got a text through and I'll ask you
the question. Could you please ask Chris Hipkins if Labor
we'll go into coalition with Party Mari at the next.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
I've said that we'll make those judgment calls closer to
the election and that will partly depend on what kind
of policy positions those parties shape up with. I'd point
out that the Marjori Party were in government with National
for nine years and you know, we're pretty pragmatic during
that time. But if they if they said as their
bottom line some of the more extreme positions. That would
be something that they've expressed before. That would be something
(19:58):
we would be that we will find very difficult to
work with.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Right next time we see you, it will be in
the new year. What are you? Firstly? What are your
ho for next year?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Look? I hope the economic going gets better for New
Zealanders because I don't think we can afford another year
like this one where so many businesses, you know, twenty
I think it's nearly thirty percent increase in business insolvency
this year. You know, that's jobs, that's people's livelihoods down
the good luck we can't afford it.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
It's entrepreneurs that have taken a kicking.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
Entrepreneurs have taken a real kicking. So I'm hoping economically
we'll see a better year for Keywi businesses because that's
how we're ultimately going to improve our living standards as
a country.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Now, I think we've still got a bet on for
the next election, haven't we.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
Of course, I never forget a bet.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
No, and that you're going to not only be still
leader at the next bit, you're going to win the election.
Do you think that we'll be sitting here well, it's
fifty to fifty question, because I might lose my job
as well. What are the chances of us both sitting
here in twelve months time doing the same thing again.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
Oh, very very high, very very high on your part.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
I'm not quite so confident. I've got a negotiation halfway
through the year, so I'm not quite as confident as you.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
Oh well, I'll tell you what you just got to
You've got to make They don't think you're a lefty
because they'll get, you know, ends in me. They won't
have a bar of you if they think you're too
much of a lefty.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
Can I tell you that? I get texts every day
whenever we do anything political they say I'm either left
wing or right wing's and I get criticized for being both.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
That's right, both, so do hi. So you know, I
think this is the thing about politics.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
People.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
If you do something someone disagrees with, they say, oh,
you're either an extreme lifty, you're a communist, or you're
a right wing near liberal, and there's no in between. Actually,
most politics is in between. And let's just get past that,
you know, let's just talk about the things that are
going to make the country better.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
Have you got a Christmas message for our show. Yeah, well,
I hope.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Weather like today is what we see over the summer.
Let's have lots of sunshine. I hope you get to
spend lots of time with your loved ones, get to
chill out on the beach or around Oriental Parade, or
go visit some of our hospitality businesses. I think they
could use the support.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Thank you very much for coming and being part of
the show. I really enjoyed talking to you and hope
you and your family have a wonderful, wonderful, relaxing Christmas.
You deserve it and all the best for next year.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
We'll see year in the new year.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
We both survived to twenty five.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
That's right, we go up to twenty five.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Let's go. Bring it on.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news Talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talks at b Y.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Join us for the final time this year as Ruematucker
MP and Labor leader chrissipiins, good morning, Chris. I'll just
turn your mic on. Let's try that now.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
We'll try that again, all right, yeah, getd a. I'm
very good. It's beautiful to see the sunshine here and
well it is.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Been out in the garden this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
No, no, no early start this morning. Had all the
TV and radio rounds and stuff this morning, but did
walk here from Parliament, so you know, good look for
the sunshine.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
We'll talk you about walking. Let's talk about fairies. Government's
expected to make its big announcement today on the future
of the endur Islam fairies. We all know what happened
Finance Minister Nichola Willis candit a year ago today. Can
your plans as they blew out to over three billion
dollars you like to spending money, didn't you?
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Well no, but the thing is that's not true. So
let's give you the real history here. Winston Peters came
up with the plan to buy two new what we
call mega fairies colloquially, you know, five hundred and fifty
one million bucks to buy the new mega fairies. The
proposal that he put forward, though, which we agreed with
as a government, clearly massively underestimated the fact that new
wolves and terminals were going to be required to accommodate that.
(01:18):
So we had to do that. We had not agreed
anywhere near the amount of money that the current government
are bandying about.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
When you kept on saying yes every time they knocked
on your door, well no we didn't.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Actually before the election, when they came back and said no,
we need more money, we said no, and we said no, no,
we're drawing a line here. You've got to go back
and basically trim the costs of this project to stick
within the budget. Now, they could have done that without
canceling the new ships. So five hundred and fifty one
million bucks was a really good price for two new ships.
My understanding now is that they're going to spend nine
hundred million dollars. They're going to get two smaller ships
(01:51):
for that, and they're not going to have rail capability,
so you're not going to be able to put trains
on them.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
You don't think they'll have rail capability.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
No, So basically what's going to get It's the story
on itself that is a massive story because one of
the reasons for going for the bigger Fairies, of course,
is you get more. You know, it's easier to put big,
longer trains on it, more efficient and you know a
huge increase in capacity across the Cook strait. Ultimately, who's
going to pay. So who's going to pay now for
the extra cost of the ships. It's ultimately going to
(02:17):
be the people who.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
How much has been spent? How much do you reckon's
been spent on those fairies to the day? How what
sort of money are we talking that we're just throwing away?
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Well, they're not giving us the numbers, so I understand
about half a billion, so about five hundred million has
been sunk in into things like the new Warves, which
they canceled so literally they had people driving piles for
the new Wolves and they just upsticks.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And but just the fairies myself, because you gave us
a quote a five hundred million for the two fairies,
how much do that money has been spent and lost?
Speaker 3 (02:44):
So my understanding is that they reckon, they're on the
hook for about three hundred million just for nearly two thirds. Yeah,
that's right. For canceling the five hundred and fifty million
dollar fairies, they're going to have to spend three hundred
million dollars to cancel them, and then they're going to
spend another nine hundred million on top of that buying
different ships.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
So how much they're going to save out the whole business?
How much they're going to save out of canceling your
deal if they could gone back and got the infrastructure
a bit cheaper like you said.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Well, I don't think they're going to save any money
at all. And the reason I think that is that
they're going to be they're going to be tricky with
the numbers that they put out there. If they put
any numbers out there and they're going to say, oh,
we're going to save on the wharf upgrades, well, how
they're going to save on the wharf upgrades. They're going
to go to the Port of Wellington and say, well,
you've got to pay for the warf upgrades. How are
Port of Wellington going to do that? We're going to
charge the people who use the port. So who's that, Well,
that's every truck every train, every person who's crossing the
(03:31):
Cook Straight is going to end up paying that.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Well, you're saying the trains can't go on it.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Well, with the trains, they're going to be they're going
to be hit with a massive whammy because they're going
to be paying for new fairies, new wharves. They're going
to have to also then pay to transfer the freight
off the trains onto trucks and back across and then
back onto trains at the other end. Here's my picnic.
If you were if you were a truck company, would
you do that? No, you just put them on trucks
from wherever they're going, and you just have them on
(03:56):
the trucks the whole way. What does that mean for
you for your typical motorists. Means get used to being
stuck behind many, many more trucks on the road.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
And if you're a consumer, if you're in.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Consumer, it means it's going to cost more because you know,
why do freight companies put freight on rail now?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Because it's cheap so they keep in convenience.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Yeah, they keep it on trucks and it's basically going
to cost the consum How sure.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Are you right that they're not going to be rail
compatible because my bully is that Winston Peters is going
to be the minister in charge of it and he
was all about rail capability. So if he's going to
be in charge of it, he hasn't got what he wants.
It's not a good sign, is it.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Well, if Winston Peters is going to become Minister for
Rail and we're not going to have rail capable feries,
it shows that Winston Peters has prioritized well baubles of
office over doing the right thing by the country.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Would you have made sure that it was rail capable.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Absolutely, and I still think we need to do that.
So even if they've ordered new Faeries that haven't got
rail capability, we need to figure out how we can
either get them retrofitted with rail capability or order some
other fairies that are going to have rail capability in
the long run.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
But you are convinced. Were not convinced, but you feel
that they would have we have lost three hundred million
almost certainly.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Yeah. I mean, look, if you're Kynda and they were
already well down the you know, well.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
I couldn't have done a deal with the new fairies
with Hiande exactly use some of that three hundred million
on that, because when.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
You text message someone and say sorry, we're not going
to honor our end of the bargain, you kind of
weaken your bargaining position.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Oh god, terrible. I want to ask you a question
about some comments made by your health spokesman Aishaverral and
repeated by you yesterday. I accused the Health New Zealand Commissioner,
Lester Levy of having a reputation for cooking the books.
He's a public servant and that comment essentially accuses him
of fraud. Surely this is not okay.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
So what I was commenting on yesterday and earlier in
the week was the fact that Lester Levy, as the Commissioner,
had put into last year's accounts the costs of redundancies
that he was proposing to make this year, and the
Auditor General said, you can't do that because it actually
inflates the deficit from last year and basically decreases the
(05:59):
projected costs this year. So when we say cooking the books,
basically transferring costs from this year which haven't yet been
incurred into the previous financial year is what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Isn't cooking the books a little bit worse than that?
Cooking the books is basically accusing someone of fraud if
you're cooking. If you said to me, you know you
cook the books, I've done something pretty pretty damn bad.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
I think if you're manipulating the books, to say something
that is.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
That's manipulating is a little bit different than cooking. Well
I disagree, Okay, Well, I mean tell me the difference
are you're cooking the books, you're doing something that is
firing it up doing something cooking.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Yeah, I mean they're basically firing up the deficit from
last year by incorporating into las years accounts expenses that
haven't yet been incurred.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
And do you actually believe he's been dishonered? But I
think it's a really no. Do you believe he's been dishoned?
Speaker 3 (06:48):
I think that clearly isn't correct because it's a dangerous
path because you're basically saying, oh, we made a huge
deficit last year, and we're going to use that to
justify making people redundant this year. But if the huge
deficit last year includes in it the cost of making
people redundant this year, you're basically using redundancy costs to
justify making people redundant.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
What's the difference from with dishonest and cooking the books?
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Well, I think they're the same thing.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
So you do believe he was dishonest.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
Well, I think that moving costs from this current financial
year into the previous financial year is a dishonest thing
to do, and the Order to General said they can't
do it.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Do you think that either you or I should should
apologize to a public servant for saying that.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
No, I mean, the Orders to General came out and
said they can't do this, So I mean, I think
we're on pretty strong grounds here to say to call
it out and say this is bad behavior.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
What are you thinking of? What's your thoughts after a
few months of Lester Levy? What do you think?
Speaker 3 (07:40):
What are you making out yet to see the real
evidence that he's doing anything that's going to make a
material difference to the health system, that's going to improve
health outcomes. At the moment, it just seems to be around,
you know, shifting money around, trying to make the books
look better, call it whatever you like, rather than actually
dealing with the underlying issues here.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
We talked this morning on the show about greyhounds your government,
and I was really against great so I publicly admit
to that and come out with it. And Grant Robinson,
I think it was twenty twenty one. It don't quote
me on the year, but around there gave them one
year fix everything up or he was going to close
it all down.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Yep. And I said at the last election, very elected,
we'd be shutting down greyhound racing because I just don't
think they've cleaned up their acts sufficiently and franquently. Also,
if you look at it, I'm not sure that there
would ever be able to do that to the point
where the animal welfare is going to be sufficiently looked
after that, I'd be comfortable with it continuing. So I
(08:39):
support the governments.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Why did you not do anything when you're empowered?
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Though?
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Why did they keep putting it off and putting it
off when they knew it was actually worse than it is?
That is now you know the facts are that, you
know more dogs were dying then than they are now.
Why did they not? Why did Grant Robinson not do anything?
Speaker 3 (08:53):
I think the industry were given a period of time
to clean up their act. They haven't And now I
think it's time to pull the pin.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
But this was kind of one of your things and
you didn't do it. Is that something that you think
about You think it was if we'd actually cleaned that
up and done that.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
I mean, I wasn't Prime Minister at the time we
made those decisions. But you know, ultimately I'm very comfortable
with shutting the industry down. Now.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Do you think there'll be repercussions? You think they'll take
it legal? Do you think it'll actually be shut down?
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Almost certainly, they'll pursue whatever avenues they're going to. But
I think it's the right decision. And you know, for once,
I agree with Winston Peters. This is the right decision.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Okay. Do you think that he will get some kudos?
I mean, I said this morning, I felt that he
really does come out in the big moments and makes
some big moves. Will you get some kudos out of
doing this?
Speaker 3 (09:36):
He should do. I mean, of course, I think Winston
Peter's interest here is that he wants to see the
money that currently goes into Greyhound's going into horse racing instead.
But actually, let's not discount from it too much. He's
doing the right thing and he deserves credit for doing
the right thing.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
I want to talk about the polls. Let's have a
look at them. One News poll has Labour sitting steady
on twenty nine compared to national thirty seven. But the
Taxpayers Union Courier poll has Labor on twenty seven down
four point six and National on thirty four. You've survived
a year, survived to twenty five. That was your motto too, Yeah,
a little bit, a little bit, Yeah, you survived. You've
(10:12):
survived at opposition without any major blow ups or leadership
problems that no one's really pushed you. What do you
make of the poll results.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
I mean, there's there's a bunch of them around at
the moment. So I think in the last couple of
weeks we've seen about five pole results come out and
they're all a bit different. So, you know, the one
that the Post released last week had labor going up
by four in National coming down by four. But over
if you take the average, it shows labor making progress
since the last election, and it shows National or you know,
(10:41):
the government overall sort of trending down a bit since
the election. So for the first year after an election,
I'll take that, you know, that's that's not bad. We
never expected that first year after election, suddenly you're going
to see a massive shift. You know, everyone's not going
to turn around straight away and be like, oh, let's
let's let's go go with the other team when they've
just voted differently. So I think I'm pretty pretty happy
(11:02):
that for the first year in opposition, it's a pretty
good place to be.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
And let's talk about your own personal popularity. I thought
you were dead in the warder. I thought after lecture night,
I said, poor old Chris, that's him. He's gone see
you later. Who's in next? Right, You're sitting at fifteen
percent on the TV in Z's pole, which was pretty
damn good after being a prime minister to being opposition.
It's a pretty big jump, isn't it. And then twenty
(11:25):
percent in the courier. I mean you, I think it's
quite amazing result. You should be reasonably pleased with it.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
I am man. Actually again, the postal result last week
had me slightly ahead of the current Prime minister, which
is pretty unheard of for, you know, a prime minister
who's just lost their job to be outpolling the guy
who replaced them. But it's early days.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Why do you think you have you remain popular and
he doesn't. What do you think does that?
Speaker 3 (11:50):
I hope, on my part part of it is just
because I just I am who I am. You know,
I'm not going to be I'm not going to try
and be something that I'm not just because I think
that's going to be popular or unpopular or whatever it is.
So you know, when I took over from Jasinda, I
said to people at the time, I'm going to be me.
I'm just going to be me, and I'm still doing that.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Labor I want to get actually what Labour's actually offering
voters right now at your conference, which I was very
impressed with the numbers you had. I thought you did
extremely well getting big numbers to that conference in christ Church,
right there was no new ideas you were going to
get proper into Ireland fairies. While we're going to get
those today. Hopefully you wouldn't join Aucust, which surprised me
(12:32):
because you started negotiating for that. You were going to
be part of that, that was part of your thing
and then suddenly is that just a vote grabbing for that?
Speaker 3 (12:38):
No, we didn't start being part of aucas Actually, what
we said at the time when the Australians are having
meetings with them. When they announced it, we said, we
need to understand a bit more about what this is
all about. I think we now, can I take.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
You to task a little bit about that you were
reasonably positive about AUCUST Stage two, level two, whatever you
call it.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
No, no, you won't find any comments of me basically,
and labors do I said, no, no, and you won't
find well. I mean Andrew Little was as Minister of Defense,
but you know that the government's position at the time
was we're open to having conversations about it, and we've
had conversations about it, and I don't think it's going
to be in New Zealand's best interest to be part
of that.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
So what are you going to offer? That was different?
I mean the conference was successful, but you didn't offer anything.
You didn't give us a tax You didn't give us
any tax results from all your work on taxing. We
just sort of got nothing.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
No, we're not even halfway through the term yet. You
know we've still got two years to run before the
next election. You know, policy work, if you want to
do it well, does take time. So we've got a
lot of policy work underway, but you're not going to
see the results of that in the first year after
an election. And I think that's also one of the
reasons why poll results at this point in the electoral
cycle you've got to take them with a bit of
a grain of salt, because at the moment you're hearing
(13:49):
a lot from the government, you won't be hearing much
from us. So let's see how that shapes up in
another year from now. As we get closer to the
next election, people will see a bit more about what
we're going to be offering that's different to what the
government are offering, and they will have had a bit
more time to judge the government. I think, you know,
a year from now, polls on a bit more than
they do at this point.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
I want to sort of ask you what your thoughts
are on This is based on the polls as well.
Party mari are doing very well five point five and
couriers seven percent. In the tvN's head pole, Labour held
most of the MARII voters for a long long time.
That now has definitely shifted. Is that a concern for labor.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
No, I mean I don't actually agree with that. I
think what we say so you.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Can't not agree with that.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
I'm sorry that stats, but if you look at the
polling results, it's not just Marty who are voting or
who have indicated support for the Marty Party in these
most recent polls. It includes a lot of non Marty
New Zealanders. And I think that that's the reflection of
the sort of the backlash, if you like, against the
treaty principal spill. Whether that continues for the next two years,
that remains to be seen. I think this may well
(14:53):
be one of those sort of sugar hits that you
get when you get a whole lot of publicity but
it doesn't last. I mean, then the Martory Party supports growing,
but I'm not sure that's at the expense of labor. Actually,
if anything, I think that's more at the expense of
the government.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Labour's lost the confidence of Mariy, hasn't it.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
No, not at all if you look at that. But
if you look at the last election, we won the
party vote and every one of those MAJORI electorates, So
there was some strategic voting going on there where they
where people.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
I'm talking to maximum talking post the election. I mean,
right now, Maury, are not going to vote Labor. They're
going to vote to party Marrack on what?
Speaker 3 (15:26):
On what basis to make that conclusion.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
I'm just making that conclusion because the numbers are going
up and up and up. We've just seen the Hekoy,
we've seen how supportive they are of it. But as
I mean that, you'd have to you'd have to be
crazy not to believe.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
That there's a there's a bunch of non Marty who
have indicated that they support the Maori Party's position on
the Treaty principal spill. That doesn't mean that's going to
stick all the way through to the election. And actually
Labour's still got very strong support from Mary. As I said,
we won every of the party vote in every one
of those seats.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
We're going to come many seats that you want.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
Well, we're going to go out to what we won
one of the seven where we're going to go out
to get most of those back at the next election.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Do you really believe that what are you going to
do to get Mariy voters back on side?
Speaker 3 (16:06):
Oh? Well, you know, I think Marti voters don't vote
on single issues. And then they're going to be looking
at you know what sort of country they want to
live in. And actually, I think one of the great
anxieties amongst Marty voters, as it is amongst non Marty
voters at the moment, is that people don't want to
live in a country where their kids and their grandkids
feel that the only way they can get ahead is
to move to the Gold Coast. I think we want
to create a future where they're going to have good,
(16:27):
well paid jobs here, where they're going to actually have
a better life here, They're going to be able to
afford to buy their own house. Actually, this is the
sort of stuff that I hear Marty voters talking about
just as much as non Marty voters. And that's what
I said in my speech to the conference. Let's focus
on those issues where we all actually have a common
interest in the in a better future for this country,
because that's the stuff that brings us together. The divisive
Treaty Principles bills not going to create a better future
(16:50):
for the country.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Do you really want to make me believe that if
I took a video shot of your conference a couple
of weeks ago and one of five years ago, it'd
be the same amount of Mari people in.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
The audience almost certainly. Yeah, absolutely, I.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Think you're wrong. Well, look there look pretty damn white
to me.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
No, no, I was there. There was There was a
huge number of Marti voters, specific voters. But also we're
seeing an increasing support amongst some of our ethnic communities.
So if I look at areas like the Chinese community,
the Indian community, the Filipino community, there's a real disappointment
with the current government, you know that they're not delivering
what they promised, and so we're seeing some real increase
(17:30):
in support in those areas too.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
We've heard a lot about the boot camps. In the
last week. One young person was tragically killed in a
car accident, then another two absconded, and we're allegedly found
found in a stolen car, allegedly with a machete, allegedly
with with some masks and stuff. You've been really critical
of these boot camps, and I have to I haven't
been in favor of them either. These issues come have
(17:54):
come to have come to light. What's what's labor going
to say about them?
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Now?
Speaker 2 (17:58):
What do you think we should do?
Speaker 3 (17:59):
Now, Shakkarra, You know the all the evidence, all the advice,
all the experts in boot camps won't work. Boot camps
aren't working. I think what we've got to do is
figure out how we turn these kids' lives around, and
that involves looking at their families. You know, most of
these kids are coming from really dysfunctional family backgrounds. Pulling
them out of the community, shoving them in a boot
camp and then putting them back to where they came
from afterwards isn't going to change their life. It might
(18:21):
make them fitter and maybe give them a better diet
for a year, but it's not going to solve the problem.
Solving the problem means actually looking at the dysfunction and
fixing that. About ninety odd percent of the repeat youth
offenders have a parent who's involved in the correction system
are either been in prison or otherwise detained. That means
(18:41):
that that was I'm specific. I should be clear that
specifically the RAM rating kids that we looked at when
we were looking at who was causing all the RAM
rating problems. But actually I suspect you'll find similar stuff
around other young people getting into trouble. If we want
to turn these kids' lives around, let's deal with that
underlying dysfunction.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
What is your alternatives?
Speaker 3 (18:58):
The cycle is not going to fix it.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
Have you got an alternative plan to boot camps?
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Yeah? So what we did before the last election, we
had two things. One, we're a turnaround program that for
about seventy five percent of the kids who got referred
to it, they'd stop reoffending. We announced and hadn't yet
implemented before the last election, an advanced turnaround program which
was basically for that more persistent, you know, twenty five
percent of kids that was involving much more intensive mentoring,
(19:24):
support for the families, that kind of stuff, because that's
what's going to change their lives, not boot camps.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
We just got a text through and I'll ask you
the question. Could you please ask Chris Hipkins if Labor
we'll go into coalition with Party Mari at the next.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
I've said that we'll make those judgment calls closer to
the election and that will partly depend on what kind
of policy positions those parties shape up with. I'd point
out that the Marjori Party were in government with National
for nine years and you know, we're pretty pragmatic during
that time. But if they if they said as their
bottom line some of the more extreme positions. That would
be something that they've expressed before. That would be something
(19:58):
we would be that we will find very difficult to
work with.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Right next time we see you, it will be in
the new year. What are you? Firstly? What are your
ho for next year?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Look? I hope the economic going gets better for New
Zealanders because I don't think we can afford another year
like this one where so many businesses, you know, twenty
I think it's nearly thirty percent increase in business insolvency
this year. You know, that's jobs, that's people's livelihoods down
the good luck we can't afford it.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
It's entrepreneurs that have taken a kicking.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
Entrepreneurs have taken a real kicking. So I'm hoping economically
we'll see a better year for Keywi businesses because that's
how we're ultimately going to improve our living standards as
a country.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Now, I think we've still got a bet on for
the next election, haven't we.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
Of course, I never forget a bet.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
No, and that you're going to not only be still
leader at the next bit, you're going to win the election.
Do you think that we'll be sitting here well, it's
fifty to fifty question, because I might lose my job
as well. What are the chances of us both sitting
here in twelve months time doing the same thing again.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
Oh, very very high, very very high on your part.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
I'm not quite so confident. I've got a negotiation halfway
through the year, so I'm not quite as confident as you.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
Oh well, I'll tell you what you just got to
You've got to make They don't think you're a lefty
because they'll get, you know, ends in me. They won't
have a bar of you if they think you're too
much of a lefty.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
Can I tell you that? I get texts every day
whenever we do anything political they say I'm either left
wing or right wing's and I get criticized for being both.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
That's right, both, so do hi. So you know, I
think this is the thing about politics.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
People.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
If you do something someone disagrees with, they say, oh,
you're either an extreme lifty, you're a communist, or you're
a right wing near liberal, and there's no in between. Actually,
most politics is in between. And let's just get past that,
you know, let's just talk about the things that are
going to make the country better.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
Have you got a Christmas message for our show. Yeah, well,
I hope.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Weather like today is what we see over the summer.
Let's have lots of sunshine. I hope you get to
spend lots of time with your loved ones, get to
chill out on the beach or around Oriental Parade, or
go visit some of our hospitality businesses. I think they
could use the support.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Thank you very much for coming and being part of
the show. I really enjoyed talking to you and hope
you and your family have a wonderful, wonderful, relaxing Christmas.
You deserve it and all the best for next year.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
We'll see year in the new year.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
We both survived to twenty five.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
That's right, we go up to twenty five.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Let's go. Bring it on.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news Talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.