September 30, 2025 • 18 mins
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins says the government's new electricity announcement is "throwing more money down empty holes".
Hipkins also shared his thoughts with Nick Mills on Wellington Morningon the lack of bi-partisan support from the National government, after the leak of Luxon's letter. He discussed how Labour were not informed of any of the announcements today, and says this shows that they are not open to working together on big issues.
In his monthly catch up with Nick Mills Wellington Mornings, Hipkins also talked about the new earthquake prone building rules, the decision on Palestinian state, and Trump's new plan for Gaza and if the UN is fit for purpose.
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 Talk said.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
B we're lucky enough to have the presence of the
Rimatucker MB and Leader of the Opposition Chris Hopkins join us.
Good morning, Chris, Good morning Nick.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
How are you great?
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Thank you? Good week so far?
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Yeah, pretty good week. Actually yeah, the weather could be better,
but you know, you can't complain.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Can't complain. This morning, Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and
Energy Minister Simon Watts made some big energy announcements. What
was your take on it?
Speaker 3 (00:39):
I think calling them big might be over selling it
a little bit. I think it was pretty disappointing.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Really.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
There's a lot of small businesses, medium sized businesses, manufacturers
who are holding out hoping the government were going to
do something bold in the electricity space and they've said yeah, no,
not today, and for a lot of them there'll just
be the last straw though. They've been holding out, waiting
for hope and the message from the government is no
one's coming to help.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Did you see the Fonterra report.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
I haven't had a chance to look at it in
detail yet, but it's clear that our electricity market isn't
working as we need it to work. People are paying
too high a price for electricity, particularly manufacturing businesses. It's
the main thing driving manufacturing businesses out of business, the
high price of electricity. Government needs to do more.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
We had a call of this morning, Dean that suggested
that a smart government would buy them back and take
over the electricity again like they did in the seventies.
What are your thoughts on that the.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Solutions now are going to be different to the nineteen seventies.
In the nineteen seventies, an abundant supply of gas in
particular was cheap and abundant, and it helped us to
keep our prices low. Gas is no longer abundant, and
it's certainly not cheap anymore. Even if the government did
manage to find some well, that was it was.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Just underding that. Stop that happening, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Well, it's just actually not true in the last is true?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
I mean stop that stop. People w actually be able
to drill.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Well, let me put some facts on the table neck
that might be inconvenient. In the last five years. So
in the last five years, the country spent one point
eight billion dollars drilling for new gas, and our guest
suppliers have continued to diminish. Throwing more money down empty
holes isn't going to solve our problem.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Why didn't If they weren't get any out, why did
you stop them?
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Because we need to move on to renewable energy. Renewable
energy is abundant, and it is cheap, and it is
going to be a source of competitive advantage for New Zealand.
And when it comes to gas, there are other alternatives.
Just yesterday I visited a business in Auckland, Biogas, who
are taking about one hundred thousand tons of food waste
out of landfill every year and turning it into gas.
(02:56):
That's the equivalent of one percent of our country's gas needs.
Every year. We sent four billion, four million tons of
food waste to landfill every year. That could be the
equivalent of that forty percent of our countries and your
guest needs. So we've got to start doing the things
that are going to work.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Why has no government been bold enough to do a
deal on solar, make it rules. You know, new homes
have to have solar on it, new businesses have to
have solar. Why have we not seen any either government
being sort of bold enough.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Solar is a big part of our electricity future, but
we've also got to deal with storage. So solar works
really well during the day, so good for businesses that
are using electricity during the day, can help to offset
their costs for electricity. But at peak times, so during
the evenings when people are preparing their meals, is often dark.
We need to have battery storage. That can be a
(03:50):
mix of our hydro lakes. It can be the new
battery that we've seen, you know, the new battery that
we've seen just up in Auckland, which is or up
in North and Run already making a difference there. So
I think we can see that there's real potential for
more batteries. But yes, government should be bold on solar.
We could be putting solar on state houses, we could
be putting solar on schools. We could be encouraging more
(04:11):
use of solar on new commercial and residential buildings. There's
a lot more we can do in that area.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
If you become government in the next selection, will you
instigate that.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
SOUL is definitely something that we want to do a
lot more on. I was in Australia the other week
and souls on just about every house there. It's something
that the Australians have really encouraged and it's really helping them.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Yesterday we had or was it yesterday or the day before,
we had the announcement the government announcement about earthquakes, the
Government changing the earthquake plans, meaning that fifty five percent
of the buildings would be deemed safe. Minister Chris penk
says this will save eight billion dollars. Eight and Wellington
are billion dollars alone. I thought it might be a
kickstart for Wellington. What are your thoughts on that one.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
I think it's a very good start. We worked with
the National government back in after the Canterbury earthquakes to
change the rules. I think it's absolutely fair to say
that those rule changes went too far and that we've
now got buildings that are perfectly safe requiring remediation, and
that that's it's design that you know, the rules aren't
working as intended. So I think the changes they announced
(05:18):
this week by and large look pretty sensible.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
What would you say to the building owners that, under
your leadership have spent millions and millions and millions of
dollars strengthen the buildings that might not have had to
be done. What do you say to.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Them, Well, I mean, ultimately, they were rules introduced by
the national government. They weren't introduced by our government.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
You could have changed them and you didn't.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Well, you need to actually have a good, you know,
a good period of time to figure out what's working
and what's not. I'm very supportive of the changes that
the government have made now. So what do you say
to them, Well, I'd say to them that unnecessary changes
constant flip flopping, which is something that businesses and particularly
commercial business owners have been complaining about, isn't something that
(06:01):
I want our government to do. I think it's really
important that we have a good evidence based on making
decisions where there is a clear evidence base for this now,
and I support what the government are doing.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
If you were in government, would you look at some
remuneration to those people that are spent that those millions
of dollars when they didn't need to.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
I think that's impossible to do and it's not necessarily
that they wouldn't have needed to do it anyway. Of course,
we want our buildings to be safe. That is not
wasted money. It's money that's making buildings safer, and that
is a good thing. But we also want to make
sure that the buildings that are currently sitting empty that
could be being occupied because they are safe, don't stay
sitting empty.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
And that has to be a good thing for Wellington.
What do you think is a Walingonian well.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
As the Wellingtonian think is a good thing. We've got
a number of buildings sitting empty. Unfortunately some of those
are even under the new rules. A number of those
are still going to require quite significant work anyway because
they are in the high risk category. But let's get
on with it and get it done. Hopefully, by taking
the buildings that aren't high risk out of it, we
can now focus on getting the buildings that genuinely need
(07:04):
to have the remediation work done done.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
I want to ask you about the now famous letter
about the cross party agreements. Did you actually receive that
letter before the media or do you believe you received
it at the same time the media got it.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
So my understanding is it got to my office about
half an hour before we were approached by a journalist
asking for comment on it. So I was on a
plane at that time, so by the time I saw
the letter, I was also dealing with the media's questions
about it. At the same time, there wasn't a genuine
attempt at gaining bipartisan support. Bearing in mind I've just
made announcements on the electricity market today that they didn't
(07:44):
talk to us about it all. If they wanted more
bipartisanship on energy policy, doing it writing a letter after
you've already made all the decisions as a point of
political posturing. That's not bipartisan support. That's just political posturing.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Let's talk about bipartisan support on the show. You know
I have asked you before, because you've come out and
said you're not going to automatically change things just for
the sake of chain when, in your words, not my words,
become the government at the next election. Why can't and
this is something I really gets into my head, why
(08:17):
can't people like you and Christopher Luxe and sit down
once a month and just have a chat and work
on things that actually could make our country better.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
We've had an offer on the table with them to
work on a range of issues, and they've chosen not
to even bother to talk to us about them. Christopher
lux has been very clear that Winston Beaters and David
Seymore are far more important to him, and he's going
to let them continue to call all the shots. He's
not willing to work in a bipartisan way on some
of these big issues. I think that's disappointing for the country.
If you look at the areas of energy geo thermal
(08:46):
for example, for an area where this government are doing
things that were started by the last government, by our government.
So I strongly, strongly support Geoffrmal has the potential to
be an abundant and cheap supply of electricity for US
as a country, and we're very willing to work with
them on those sorts of issues.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Would you give them the commitment to stick by things
things that they've made decisions on. Would you actually do
that if.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
You take things like land transport, so roading projects. I
think governments have to stop changing priorities after every electoral
cycle because that is what's slowing everything down. So what
you can expect from us is that projects that are
started by this government or are about to be started
under this government, we won't come in and say, actually,
(09:31):
we've got different priorities. We've got to keep things moving.
Otherwise all you're doing is putting people out of work.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Well Inton Mornings with Chris Hipkins on the show for
another ten or fifteen minutes. Chris Bishop is creating an
infrastructure pipeline and releasing new projects frequently over the next
few months. I really want to get an understanding of
what label will do with that list. Will your priorities
lead to cuts in the progress we're now making with roading.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
The infrastructure pipeline actually builds on the work that we
were already doing in government. It was labor that established
the Infrastructure Commission, who are now doing this work. So,
Chris Bishop, you know, sometimes timing and politics works to
your favor. It's worked as favorite gets to claim credit
for work that labor started. But it's really important that
we have a less political infrastructure pipeline, bearing in mind
(10:18):
that a lot of the things that the National Party
campaigned on at the last election aren't being identified by
the Infrastructure Commission as the highest priorities for the country.
Like what, well, many of the roading projects that they've
that they've previously promised people don't don't make the Infrastructure Commission's.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
List, right, can you name those?
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Well? I mean, look, people will look it up for themselves.
But you know the reality is the infrastructure commissions highlighting
what the country desperately needs to focus on, and it's
a lot of really basic stuff. It's pipes under the ground.
It's the stuff that you know is it shouldn't be political.
It's stuff that just needs to happen. If we want
you know, the populations wrong. We want more houses, we
want more buildings, We've got to have the you know,
(10:58):
the pipes and the infrastructure under the ground to support that.
It's unsexy stuff because people don't see it, but it's
just got to happen.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
A little bit like transmission Gully. Transmission transmission that was
a national It was a national thing, wasn't it.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
No, that's not true. Transmission Gully took decades. If you
look at a lot of the planning and consenting and
land acquisition for transmission Gully had already been done under
the previous Labor government. Basically the work on that started
in the nineteen nineties. So it's been through National Labor,
National and then Labor. So you know, I think Transmission
(11:33):
Gully is a great road. It's good. It's good that
Wellington's got it.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Let's talk about capital gains. It seems to be getting
a lot of momentum, a lot of people talking about
it in the media positively. Later, is this your spin?
Doctors going to work before you make an announcement?
Speaker 3 (11:50):
If only?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
No?
Speaker 3 (11:51):
The reality here is I think New Zealanders can see
that we need to think differently about tax and you know,
Labour's going to have a tax announcement shortly, and you
know people will see that we have been doing a
lot of thinking about how we're you know, basic broad
in the country's tax base, because what we're doing at
the moment isn't sustainable. How we make sure that it's fair,
(12:13):
but also how we make sure we are encouraging productive investment,
so not speculating in the housing market, but we're getting
people to invest in businesses that create jobs and create
a richer country for everybody.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
A quick question that i've that sort of confuses me,
and I'd love you to give me an answer for it.
You said you didn't agree with the cabinet's decision not
to recognize Palestine as a state, But Labor had six
years to do this and we've been talking about it
for forty years, so lots of governments have had time
to talk about it. Why suddenly, all of a sudden,
do you think it's wrong that we didn't.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
I made the decision as Prime Minister that we should
recognize Palestine in the state. That was a Labor Party
policy process that we started when I became Prime minister.
The horrific events of October the seventh meant that we
didn't do that before the election. We had indicated very
clearly that we were going to do it. After the election,
we put all that on hold because I wasn't going
(13:07):
to do that at a time when you know, tensions
were as they were. Things have moved on a lot
since then. What's happening in Palestine now is an absolute tragedy.
There's a genocide unfolding in Palestine. New Zealand can't turn
its back on that. We should take a principal position
as our friends in Australia, the UK, Canada and elsewhere
(13:28):
around the world have been doing.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Yeah, but you had the opportunity, I mean, you could
have before the October seventh, couldn't you.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
I mean, I was only the Prime Minister for eight
months and I did look at this. During the time
that I was Prime minister. We did not get this done.
But I had been very clear that we were going
to do it if we'd been re elected.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Yeah, or maybe because now it's in the linelight a bit.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
No, not at all. You know, we had we'd worked
through the ins and outs of doing this, bearing in
mind too that when we committed to doing it, most
of the other countries that have now done it weren't,
so we would have been one of the earlier movers
in this regard. Now we're going to be one of
the very last.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
I want to ask you about this idea that Joel
not an idea, amazing plan that Trump's got to come
and has come out and said Israel has agreed to
his twenty one point plan to gain control and create
peace in Gaza, and they're waiting on an answer from Hamas.
Do you honestly think that this could work? And what
was your reaction to it all when you.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Heard Well, like all things with the current American administration,
there was a lot of drama and theatrics association with it.
But if they can achieve peace, who should No one
should stand in the way of that. Hamas do need
to be working towards peace, and they shouldn't be part
(14:48):
of any administration in the long term future of Palestine.
They are a terrorist organization and Palestine needs to have
a stable representative government so that we can actually achieve peace.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
What are your thoughts on a foreign country like the
USA controlling over Garba and without any democrapic process from
its own population. You can't be happy with that. You
can't think that's right.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
Any interim support that is provided by the rest of
the world has to be just that. There has to
be interim. We need to have a two state solution
where those countries can govern themselves.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Tell me why you think that the UN isn't being
that process and not doing anything to help. I mean,
this is the thing that gets me every time. Why
are they not going in there to sort it out?
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Well? One of the great ironies of this is, of
course the US have been blocking progress within the UN.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
So how do they do that?
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Well, ultimately, for you know, because big countries have a
big sway in what happens in the United Nations.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Do you think that we really need to look at
the United Nations and say, look, it's fifty years old,
we need to resort it, we need to clean it up,
we need to change.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
It, of course, but we should still have a United Nations.
I don't agree with not having a United Nations, but
it's clear that it's not off rating as intended. The
Security Council veto is something that we do need to
look again at the fact that Russia can veto UN
action against Russia for violating international law is something that
really highlights some shortcomings with the United Nations rules.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Why have we not why do we as a world
to sit back and lead the UN be as inefficient as.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
What it is. Well, you know, achieving global consensus is
a pretty big task, Dick, But I think New Zealand
should continue to be principled in what we advocate for
at the UN. I didn't see that from Winston Peters
last week, sadly, but we have under both labor and
national government been pretty principled in our international representations on
these sorts of issues previously. I mean, one of the
(16:47):
most passionate advocates for the two state solution in Palestine
was Murray McCully, who was previous National Minister of Foreign Affairs,
and he went out on a limb, you know, he
was sponsoring, you know, resolutions at the UN that Winston
Peters would never go anywhere near now, and so I
think you know we've been principled in the past, we
can be principled in the future.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
You're spending a lot of time in Auckland at the moment.
Is that deliberate? Are you trying to regain Labour's vote
back in Auckland, the biggest population in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Of course I want to get votes back in Auckland,
but it's also about the fact that it is the
economic center of the country in terms of that's where
a lot of our businesses are located, it's where a
lot of employment is and it's where the economy is
being really hit very hard at the moment. So any
responsible leader who wants to run the country should be
very in touch with what's going on in Auckland.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Thanks very much for joining us, Chris, appreciate you out
taking time out of your busy schedule to have a
bit of a chat to us in Wellington, your hometown
of course, So don't forget about us when you spend
all that time at Auckland. We need a bit of
help and but of love down here as well.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
Goods always love Wellington. Wellington is always home.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
For me, Chrisipkin, opposition leader and rimatucka MP.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
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 Talk said.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
B we're lucky enough to have the presence of the
Rimatucker MB and Leader of the Opposition Chris Hopkins join us.
Good morning, Chris, Good morning Nick.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
How are you great?
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Thank you? Good week so far?
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Yeah, pretty good week. Actually yeah, the weather could be better,
but you know, you can't complain.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Can't complain. This morning, Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and
Energy Minister Simon Watts made some big energy announcements. What
was your take on it?
Speaker 3 (00:39):
I think calling them big might be over selling it
a little bit. I think it was pretty disappointing.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Really.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
There's a lot of small businesses, medium sized businesses, manufacturers
who are holding out hoping the government were going to
do something bold in the electricity space and they've said yeah, no,
not today, and for a lot of them there'll just
be the last straw though. They've been holding out, waiting
for hope and the message from the government is no
one's coming to help.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Did you see the Fonterra report.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
I haven't had a chance to look at it in
detail yet, but it's clear that our electricity market isn't
working as we need it to work. People are paying
too high a price for electricity, particularly manufacturing businesses. It's
the main thing driving manufacturing businesses out of business, the
high price of electricity. Government needs to do more.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
We had a call of this morning, Dean that suggested
that a smart government would buy them back and take
over the electricity again like they did in the seventies.
What are your thoughts on that the.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Solutions now are going to be different to the nineteen seventies.
In the nineteen seventies, an abundant supply of gas in
particular was cheap and abundant, and it helped us to
keep our prices low. Gas is no longer abundant, and
it's certainly not cheap anymore. Even if the government did
manage to find some well, that was it was.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Just underding that. Stop that happening, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Well, it's just actually not true in the last is true?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
I mean stop that stop. People w actually be able
to drill.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Well, let me put some facts on the table neck
that might be inconvenient. In the last five years. So
in the last five years, the country spent one point
eight billion dollars drilling for new gas, and our guest
suppliers have continued to diminish. Throwing more money down empty
holes isn't going to solve our problem.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Why didn't If they weren't get any out, why did
you stop them?
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Because we need to move on to renewable energy. Renewable
energy is abundant, and it is cheap, and it is
going to be a source of competitive advantage for New Zealand.
And when it comes to gas, there are other alternatives.
Just yesterday I visited a business in Auckland, Biogas, who
are taking about one hundred thousand tons of food waste
out of landfill every year and turning it into gas.
(02:56):
That's the equivalent of one percent of our country's gas needs.
Every year. We sent four billion, four million tons of
food waste to landfill every year. That could be the
equivalent of that forty percent of our countries and your
guest needs. So we've got to start doing the things
that are going to work.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Why has no government been bold enough to do a
deal on solar, make it rules. You know, new homes
have to have solar on it, new businesses have to
have solar. Why have we not seen any either government
being sort of bold enough.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Solar is a big part of our electricity future, but
we've also got to deal with storage. So solar works
really well during the day, so good for businesses that
are using electricity during the day, can help to offset
their costs for electricity. But at peak times, so during
the evenings when people are preparing their meals, is often dark.
We need to have battery storage. That can be a
(03:50):
mix of our hydro lakes. It can be the new
battery that we've seen, you know, the new battery that
we've seen just up in Auckland, which is or up
in North and Run already making a difference there. So
I think we can see that there's real potential for
more batteries. But yes, government should be bold on solar.
We could be putting solar on state houses, we could
be putting solar on schools. We could be encouraging more
(04:11):
use of solar on new commercial and residential buildings. There's
a lot more we can do in that area.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
If you become government in the next selection, will you
instigate that.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
SOUL is definitely something that we want to do a
lot more on. I was in Australia the other week
and souls on just about every house there. It's something
that the Australians have really encouraged and it's really helping them.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Yesterday we had or was it yesterday or the day before,
we had the announcement the government announcement about earthquakes, the
Government changing the earthquake plans, meaning that fifty five percent
of the buildings would be deemed safe. Minister Chris penk
says this will save eight billion dollars. Eight and Wellington
are billion dollars alone. I thought it might be a
kickstart for Wellington. What are your thoughts on that one.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
I think it's a very good start. We worked with
the National government back in after the Canterbury earthquakes to
change the rules. I think it's absolutely fair to say
that those rule changes went too far and that we've
now got buildings that are perfectly safe requiring remediation, and
that that's it's design that you know, the rules aren't
working as intended. So I think the changes they announced
(05:18):
this week by and large look pretty sensible.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
What would you say to the building owners that, under
your leadership have spent millions and millions and millions of
dollars strengthen the buildings that might not have had to
be done. What do you say to.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Them, Well, I mean, ultimately, they were rules introduced by
the national government. They weren't introduced by our government.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
You could have changed them and you didn't.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Well, you need to actually have a good, you know,
a good period of time to figure out what's working
and what's not. I'm very supportive of the changes that
the government have made now. So what do you say
to them, Well, I'd say to them that unnecessary changes
constant flip flopping, which is something that businesses and particularly
commercial business owners have been complaining about, isn't something that
(06:01):
I want our government to do. I think it's really
important that we have a good evidence based on making
decisions where there is a clear evidence base for this now,
and I support what the government are doing.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
If you were in government, would you look at some
remuneration to those people that are spent that those millions
of dollars when they didn't need to.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
I think that's impossible to do and it's not necessarily
that they wouldn't have needed to do it anyway. Of course,
we want our buildings to be safe. That is not
wasted money. It's money that's making buildings safer, and that
is a good thing. But we also want to make
sure that the buildings that are currently sitting empty that
could be being occupied because they are safe, don't stay
sitting empty.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
And that has to be a good thing for Wellington.
What do you think is a Walingonian well.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
As the Wellingtonian think is a good thing. We've got
a number of buildings sitting empty. Unfortunately some of those
are even under the new rules. A number of those
are still going to require quite significant work anyway because
they are in the high risk category. But let's get
on with it and get it done. Hopefully, by taking
the buildings that aren't high risk out of it, we
can now focus on getting the buildings that genuinely need
(07:04):
to have the remediation work done done.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
I want to ask you about the now famous letter
about the cross party agreements. Did you actually receive that
letter before the media or do you believe you received
it at the same time the media got it.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
So my understanding is it got to my office about
half an hour before we were approached by a journalist
asking for comment on it. So I was on a
plane at that time, so by the time I saw
the letter, I was also dealing with the media's questions
about it. At the same time, there wasn't a genuine
attempt at gaining bipartisan support. Bearing in mind I've just
made announcements on the electricity market today that they didn't
(07:44):
talk to us about it all. If they wanted more
bipartisanship on energy policy, doing it writing a letter after
you've already made all the decisions as a point of
political posturing. That's not bipartisan support. That's just political posturing.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Let's talk about bipartisan support on the show. You know
I have asked you before, because you've come out and
said you're not going to automatically change things just for
the sake of chain when, in your words, not my words,
become the government at the next election. Why can't and
this is something I really gets into my head, why
(08:17):
can't people like you and Christopher Luxe and sit down
once a month and just have a chat and work
on things that actually could make our country better.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
We've had an offer on the table with them to
work on a range of issues, and they've chosen not
to even bother to talk to us about them. Christopher
lux has been very clear that Winston Beaters and David
Seymore are far more important to him, and he's going
to let them continue to call all the shots. He's
not willing to work in a bipartisan way on some
of these big issues. I think that's disappointing for the country.
If you look at the areas of energy geo thermal
(08:46):
for example, for an area where this government are doing
things that were started by the last government, by our government.
So I strongly, strongly support Geoffrmal has the potential to
be an abundant and cheap supply of electricity for US
as a country, and we're very willing to work with
them on those sorts of issues.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Would you give them the commitment to stick by things
things that they've made decisions on. Would you actually do
that if.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
You take things like land transport, so roading projects. I
think governments have to stop changing priorities after every electoral
cycle because that is what's slowing everything down. So what
you can expect from us is that projects that are
started by this government or are about to be started
under this government, we won't come in and say, actually,
(09:31):
we've got different priorities. We've got to keep things moving.
Otherwise all you're doing is putting people out of work.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Well Inton Mornings with Chris Hipkins on the show for
another ten or fifteen minutes. Chris Bishop is creating an
infrastructure pipeline and releasing new projects frequently over the next
few months. I really want to get an understanding of
what label will do with that list. Will your priorities
lead to cuts in the progress we're now making with roading.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
The infrastructure pipeline actually builds on the work that we
were already doing in government. It was labor that established
the Infrastructure Commission, who are now doing this work. So,
Chris Bishop, you know, sometimes timing and politics works to
your favor. It's worked as favorite gets to claim credit
for work that labor started. But it's really important that
we have a less political infrastructure pipeline, bearing in mind
(10:18):
that a lot of the things that the National Party
campaigned on at the last election aren't being identified by
the Infrastructure Commission as the highest priorities for the country.
Like what, well, many of the roading projects that they've
that they've previously promised people don't don't make the Infrastructure Commission's.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
List, right, can you name those?
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Well? I mean, look, people will look it up for themselves.
But you know the reality is the infrastructure commissions highlighting
what the country desperately needs to focus on, and it's
a lot of really basic stuff. It's pipes under the ground.
It's the stuff that you know is it shouldn't be political.
It's stuff that just needs to happen. If we want
you know, the populations wrong. We want more houses, we
want more buildings, We've got to have the you know,
(10:58):
the pipes and the infrastructure under the ground to support that.
It's unsexy stuff because people don't see it, but it's
just got to happen.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
A little bit like transmission Gully. Transmission transmission that was
a national It was a national thing, wasn't it.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
No, that's not true. Transmission Gully took decades. If you
look at a lot of the planning and consenting and
land acquisition for transmission Gully had already been done under
the previous Labor government. Basically the work on that started
in the nineteen nineties. So it's been through National Labor,
National and then Labor. So you know, I think Transmission
(11:33):
Gully is a great road. It's good. It's good that
Wellington's got it.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Let's talk about capital gains. It seems to be getting
a lot of momentum, a lot of people talking about
it in the media positively. Later, is this your spin?
Doctors going to work before you make an announcement?
Speaker 3 (11:50):
If only?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
No?
Speaker 3 (11:51):
The reality here is I think New Zealanders can see
that we need to think differently about tax and you know,
Labour's going to have a tax announcement shortly, and you
know people will see that we have been doing a
lot of thinking about how we're you know, basic broad
in the country's tax base, because what we're doing at
the moment isn't sustainable. How we make sure that it's fair,
(12:13):
but also how we make sure we are encouraging productive investment,
so not speculating in the housing market, but we're getting
people to invest in businesses that create jobs and create
a richer country for everybody.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
A quick question that i've that sort of confuses me,
and I'd love you to give me an answer for it.
You said you didn't agree with the cabinet's decision not
to recognize Palestine as a state, But Labor had six
years to do this and we've been talking about it
for forty years, so lots of governments have had time
to talk about it. Why suddenly, all of a sudden,
do you think it's wrong that we didn't.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
I made the decision as Prime Minister that we should
recognize Palestine in the state. That was a Labor Party
policy process that we started when I became Prime minister.
The horrific events of October the seventh meant that we
didn't do that before the election. We had indicated very
clearly that we were going to do it. After the election,
we put all that on hold because I wasn't going
(13:07):
to do that at a time when you know, tensions
were as they were. Things have moved on a lot
since then. What's happening in Palestine now is an absolute tragedy.
There's a genocide unfolding in Palestine. New Zealand can't turn
its back on that. We should take a principal position
as our friends in Australia, the UK, Canada and elsewhere
(13:28):
around the world have been doing.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Yeah, but you had the opportunity, I mean, you could
have before the October seventh, couldn't you.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
I mean, I was only the Prime Minister for eight
months and I did look at this. During the time
that I was Prime minister. We did not get this done.
But I had been very clear that we were going
to do it if we'd been re elected.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Yeah, or maybe because now it's in the linelight a bit.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
No, not at all. You know, we had we'd worked
through the ins and outs of doing this, bearing in
mind too that when we committed to doing it, most
of the other countries that have now done it weren't,
so we would have been one of the earlier movers
in this regard. Now we're going to be one of
the very last.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
I want to ask you about this idea that Joel
not an idea, amazing plan that Trump's got to come
and has come out and said Israel has agreed to
his twenty one point plan to gain control and create
peace in Gaza, and they're waiting on an answer from Hamas.
Do you honestly think that this could work? And what
was your reaction to it all when you.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Heard Well, like all things with the current American administration,
there was a lot of drama and theatrics association with it.
But if they can achieve peace, who should No one
should stand in the way of that. Hamas do need
to be working towards peace, and they shouldn't be part
(14:48):
of any administration in the long term future of Palestine.
They are a terrorist organization and Palestine needs to have
a stable representative government so that we can actually achieve peace.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
What are your thoughts on a foreign country like the
USA controlling over Garba and without any democrapic process from
its own population. You can't be happy with that. You
can't think that's right.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
Any interim support that is provided by the rest of
the world has to be just that. There has to
be interim. We need to have a two state solution
where those countries can govern themselves.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Tell me why you think that the UN isn't being
that process and not doing anything to help. I mean,
this is the thing that gets me every time. Why
are they not going in there to sort it out?
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Well? One of the great ironies of this is, of
course the US have been blocking progress within the UN.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
So how do they do that?
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Well, ultimately, for you know, because big countries have a
big sway in what happens in the United Nations.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Do you think that we really need to look at
the United Nations and say, look, it's fifty years old,
we need to resort it, we need to clean it up,
we need to change.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
It, of course, but we should still have a United Nations.
I don't agree with not having a United Nations, but
it's clear that it's not off rating as intended. The
Security Council veto is something that we do need to
look again at the fact that Russia can veto UN
action against Russia for violating international law is something that
really highlights some shortcomings with the United Nations rules.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Why have we not why do we as a world
to sit back and lead the UN be as inefficient as.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
What it is. Well, you know, achieving global consensus is
a pretty big task, Dick, But I think New Zealand
should continue to be principled in what we advocate for
at the UN. I didn't see that from Winston Peters
last week, sadly, but we have under both labor and
national government been pretty principled in our international representations on
these sorts of issues previously. I mean, one of the
(16:47):
most passionate advocates for the two state solution in Palestine
was Murray McCully, who was previous National Minister of Foreign Affairs,
and he went out on a limb, you know, he
was sponsoring, you know, resolutions at the UN that Winston
Peters would never go anywhere near now, and so I
think you know we've been principled in the past, we
can be principled in the future.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
You're spending a lot of time in Auckland at the moment.
Is that deliberate? Are you trying to regain Labour's vote
back in Auckland, the biggest population in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
Of course I want to get votes back in Auckland,
but it's also about the fact that it is the
economic center of the country in terms of that's where
a lot of our businesses are located, it's where a
lot of employment is and it's where the economy is
being really hit very hard at the moment. So any
responsible leader who wants to run the country should be
very in touch with what's going on in Auckland.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Thanks very much for joining us, Chris, appreciate you out
taking time out of your busy schedule to have a
bit of a chat to us in Wellington, your hometown
of course, So don't forget about us when you spend
all that time at Auckland. We need a bit of
help and but of love down here as well.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
Goods always love Wellington. Wellington is always home.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
For me, Chrisipkin, opposition leader and rimatucka MP.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.