February 17, 2026 • 11 mins
Chris Hipkins says we need to take the politics out of the Infrastructure Commissions National Infrastructure Plan.
The Leader of the Opposition told John MacDonald that he thinks the Commission has done a "really good job" on their recent report, and we need to focus on the basics.
"They've pointed out we have an over reliance on shiny new things, and we haven't done the basic maintenance of the things we've already got."
"We need to take the politics out of it and focus on a long-term plan."
On the rise of Winson Peters and NZ First in the polls, he said that Peter's lifetime in politics has given some unique political skills of reinvention.
"At the moment, he's trying to be an opposition MP while also trying to be the third highest ranking minster in the current government."
When asked if he has considered working with Peters to form the next government, Hipkins said that's something they will look at closer to election day.
"We'll set out closer to the election where we've got common ground with other parties."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I've for a regular catch up with the opposition and
label leader Chris Hipkins. Chris Heyway, John, how are you
extremely well?
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Now?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
The Infrastructure Commission has put out its Infrastructure Plan and
I say that you're already ripping into the government over
its roads of national significance. So what's your position on
the Infrastructure Commission's view that we should be less obsessed
with roads and spend more money on things like hospitals.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
I think the Infrastructure Commission has done a really good job.
They've pointed out that we've had an over reliance on
shiny new things and we haven't done the basic maintenance
of the things that we've already got and that we're
now suffering for that as a country. And I think
they've sort of hit the nail well and truly on
the head.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
What about the hospital bit, though, I mean there's obviously
a bit of a trade off, how or a proposed
or recommended trade off. How comfortable are you with that?
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Well? I think the hospital thing kind of touches on
both things. The populations grow and so the demand for
health services is growing and the population's age, so there's
more demand on our hospitals, and we haven't done the
basic maintenance of our hospitals, so there are always going
to be trade offs here. We've got to maintain what
we've got, We've got to make sure that we've got
the capacity that we need, but we have to consider
(01:30):
our infrastructure in the round. You know, we've got to
look at hospitals, schools, roads, rail pipes, energy, We've actually
got to look at our infrastructure needs as a whole package,
rather than just picking off the shiny bits that it
might be popular, ignoring the bits that aren't.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
I mean, it's easy to have a go at national
over the roads of national significance. But you talk if
you talk about hospitals, then you know your previous administration
was just as complicit in terms of turning us back
on health facilities as much as the current and even
the governments before that.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Well, no, we were actually trying to do something about that,
actually finding it quite tough going though, And I think
you know, all governments have got to learn from our experience,
and you know, not just our government. The last sort
of twenty thirty years or so of managing big infrastructure projects,
we haven't done that well. So to take a project
at the dened In Hospital, even the christ Church Hospital
rebuilds that have been post to earthquake, were they delivering
(02:26):
the very best value for money that we could have
achieved the New Zealand. I think that the fair conclusion is, no,
we've got to get better at managing these big infrastructure projects,
and that includes slowing down a little bit in the
early phase of these projects, not trying to get to
the point where you can sort of turn aside and
cut the ribbon as quickly as possible, but get the
planning right, get it right first time around, and not
(02:51):
rush that first part so that we can get better
value for money.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
And my my view is that the problem as politicians
tend to stake their political careers on big infrastructure projects
and any suggestion that they might change or be done
away with, they fight against it something because they see
it as a threat to their survival.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
I think that's a very fair conclusion, and actually I
think that all of us have learned over the last
ten or twenty years that politicians who put this paid
in the ground quite literally and say I'm going to
deliver this big major infrastructure project are actually setting themselves
up for, you know, a potential blowback when it doesn't
arrive on time, it costs too much money and there's
(03:27):
delays and complications and so on. And actually we probably
need to we do need to do what the Infrastructure
Commission are suggesting, which is why we there's a labor
government set it up. Take the politics out of it,
just focus on a long term plan. Yeah, but that
we have.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Yeah, that sounds the politics are never going to be
taken out of it, though, are they No?
Speaker 3 (03:47):
I mean they're not. I mean our own experience of
that was pretty evident. In twenty eighteen we tried to,
you know, put more money away from building new motorways
and into maintaining the motorways and the roads that we've
already gotten. We got huge blowbacks from that, so and
that was from the public. It was from the opposition,
but it was also from the public. So I hope
that the Infrastructure Commission and what they're doing, what they
(04:09):
have done, has opened up a bit of space for
us to have a more mature conversation about this. As
a country, We've got to maintain what we've got.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I'd like to say, the Infrastructure Commission and the Retirement
Commission have a conversation in a room for a day together,
because I think that's kind of where the rubber hits
the road, isn't it. With the aging population and the
challenge in relation to funding infrastructure, I think.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
That there are similar challenges, similar but different. You know.
On the issues around superannuation, we've we've got some long
term decisions that we've got to take. If you look
at what the Ausies have done, they didn't do something
dramatic overnight, over a long period of time. They basically
changed the way they fund superannuation and the longer term
and that's worked very well for them in a way
(04:52):
that New Zealand hasn't made those decisions over that same
period of time, and so I think that that's where
we should focus there. Again, we've got to stop thinking
that we can solve every problem and that we should
only do things for the politically attractive for the next
three years. We have to do some of the things
that might not be dramatic now, might not be huge
vote winners now, but actually over the next twenty or
thirty years will put us in a better position.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Okay, So in that spirit. Are you prepared to say
then that the retirement age at the very least should
be increased, whether it be the seventy two that's been
floated around, and what's your willingness to talk about the
future of New Zealand, Souper.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
My willingness to talk about how we fund retirement is
very high. Do I think raising the retirement age is
the place to start that conversation? No, I don't. Do
I agree with everything the current government's doing. No, I don't,
But I do agree with them on key we Saver labour,
set up key We Saver, nationals now proposing to increase
kei we Saver contributions. I think that is part of
(05:52):
the answer. So I agree with what they're doing there
and they'll have our support on that. The next question becomes,
how do we get those who are not in ke
we Saver, or who are in key we Saver but
not currently contributing to it. How do we make sure
they don't get less behind? So I think people who say, look,
it's just all about the age and all of the
other problems go away, that's not true.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
So are you saying are you saying hold on? Are
you saying that you think it should stay sixty five.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
I think for some New Zealanders, particularly those who do
hard physical work, sixty five, raising the age of eligibility
will means some of them will never get to retire.
So I think that we've got to be more you know,
we've got to be more considering of the considerate of
equity considerations here. For you and I who sit by
the desk, all gay Jo, I'm fine. But for those
who are doing hard physical work, those whose life expectancy
(06:41):
is a lower and people who do hard physical work
their life expectancy is lower.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
It would be very unfair, all right, But also you know,
don't you you'd be very unpopular in this year's election
if you said anything different. No, you're you're committing the
sun that you talked about before.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
No, I'm trying to actually have a principal based, principles
based discussion of how we get to a point where
our retirement as a country is sustainable. Sure it's not
at the moment. I'll put my hand up and say
that's absolutely not the case. But I think you can't
just reach for a bumper stick a solution. It's going
to be a more complex solution. Than what most people
(07:20):
are talking about.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
It well, something that isn't a bumper stick. A solution
would be would be agreeing with the likes of the
opportunity parties saying New Zealand souper is not sustainable.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
I think again, I think that they're going to the
other end of the spectrum. They're going full radical just
abolish it altogether. And I don't agree with that approach either.
I think there will need to be New Zealand superannuation.
I think there will need to be key we savor.
I think we will need to save more as a country.
We will need to make sure that what we do
in retirement is equitable, so we don't create two classes
(07:53):
of retirement, those who are doing well on those who
basically get left behind. We've got to create a comfortable
retirement for everybody.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Why do you think people are loving New Zealand first
so much at the moment?
Speaker 3 (08:06):
A leader, I mean, you've got to hand it to him.
He's a lifetime in politics, has given him some unique
political skills of reinvention. But you know he's currently What do.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
You mean by that hold on? What do you mean
by that reinvention? What do you mean?
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Well, his position has changed dramatically all the time. You know,
if you look at the pattern and government over the
last just the most recent government cycles, he's voted in
favor of a change, which he's then voted to repair,
which he's then voted to reinstate, and you can find
multiple examples of that. He's you know, he's become quite
a positioning himself wherever he needs to be in order
to advance his own political party. In the moment, he's
(08:42):
trying to be an opposition MP whilst also trying to
be the third highest ranking minister in the current government.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
And we might've answered the question why he's managing to
put it off? So yes, So why is he so popular?
What's resonating?
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Well, I mean, I think people he's creating the impression
that he's opposed to the current government despite the fact
that he's the third ranks minister in it.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
So you think that's why why to get getting what
ten percent support in the latest poll and doubled it
in the past year.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
A lot of the people who are currently flirting with
New Zealand First are dissatisfied with the National Party. For
the reality for those people as a vote for Winston
Beaters is effectively a vote for a re election in
the current National.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Government unless he flirts with you. Are you flirting with him?
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Well, he's been pretty clear on that so no. You know,
he's been pretty clear that if you're voting for him,
you're voting for the current government.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Is that no, only because he doesn't want to talk
to you or because you don't want to talk to him.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
We ever set out who we could and could have
worked with closer to the election, but Winston Beaters himself
has been very clear that he doesn't want to work
with us, so therefore he's only willing to work with National.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
All right, would you like to work with them?
Speaker 3 (09:50):
We'll set out closer to the election and where we've
got common ground with other parties.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
What do you think about this idea of Act to
have fewer government departments in a smaller cabinet.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Well, laying aside there, you know, somewhat irate, you know,
somewhat ironic, name sure of that commitment, given the Act
party have actually been responsible for the proliferation of the
number of ministers and departments during their time in government.
I think it's the wrongest one.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Well, because of the are you saying that that limiting
the size of cabinet will be tricky with MMP.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Well, yeah, I mean if you look at the number
of portfolios, there's more portfolios now than there were pre election,
and the act Party hold a number of those new
portfolios that were created. Minister for Firearms that was created
for the act Party, Minister for Regulation that was created
for the Act Party. The Ministry of Regulation, the most
expecsive government ministry on a per person basis, was created
by the.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Export anyway, tack the irony out. Do you agree or
disagree with they?
Speaker 3 (10:50):
So take the irony out. We should be focused rather
than on the number of government departments. We should be
focused on where the government fits a purpose. And in
some cases it will mean fewer departments and other cases
that might mean splitting up departments so that they're actually
a bit more focused on what they need to be
focused on. Sometimes it will mean they get smaller sometimes
and I mean they get bigger. We've got to focus
on government not being too big and also not being
(11:13):
too small.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
All right, I'll go and think about that one. We're
talking a fortnite. Thanks Chris Cheers, John Okay. Opposition and
labor leader Chris Sipkins, as well us every fortnight on
Canterbury Mornings or News Talk Said Beers
Speaker 1 (11:28):
For more from Canterbury Mornings with John McDonald, Listen live
to News Talk Said be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I've for a regular catch up with the opposition and
label leader Chris Hipkins. Chris Heyway, John, how are you
extremely well?
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Now?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
The Infrastructure Commission has put out its Infrastructure Plan and
I say that you're already ripping into the government over
its roads of national significance. So what's your position on
the Infrastructure Commission's view that we should be less obsessed
with roads and spend more money on things like hospitals.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
I think the Infrastructure Commission has done a really good job.
They've pointed out that we've had an over reliance on
shiny new things and we haven't done the basic maintenance
of the things that we've already got and that we're
now suffering for that as a country. And I think
they've sort of hit the nail well and truly on
the head.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
What about the hospital bit, though, I mean there's obviously
a bit of a trade off, how or a proposed
or recommended trade off. How comfortable are you with that?
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Well? I think the hospital thing kind of touches on
both things. The populations grow and so the demand for
health services is growing and the population's age, so there's
more demand on our hospitals, and we haven't done the
basic maintenance of our hospitals, so there are always going
to be trade offs here. We've got to maintain what
we've got, We've got to make sure that we've got
the capacity that we need, but we have to consider
(01:30):
our infrastructure in the round. You know, we've got to
look at hospitals, schools, roads, rail pipes, energy, We've actually
got to look at our infrastructure needs as a whole package,
rather than just picking off the shiny bits that it
might be popular, ignoring the bits that aren't.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
I mean, it's easy to have a go at national
over the roads of national significance. But you talk if
you talk about hospitals, then you know your previous administration
was just as complicit in terms of turning us back
on health facilities as much as the current and even
the governments before that.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Well, no, we were actually trying to do something about that,
actually finding it quite tough going though, And I think
you know, all governments have got to learn from our experience,
and you know, not just our government. The last sort
of twenty thirty years or so of managing big infrastructure projects,
we haven't done that well. So to take a project
at the dened In Hospital, even the christ Church Hospital
rebuilds that have been post to earthquake, were they delivering
(02:26):
the very best value for money that we could have
achieved the New Zealand. I think that the fair conclusion is, no,
we've got to get better at managing these big infrastructure projects,
and that includes slowing down a little bit in the
early phase of these projects, not trying to get to
the point where you can sort of turn aside and
cut the ribbon as quickly as possible, but get the
planning right, get it right first time around, and not
(02:51):
rush that first part so that we can get better
value for money.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
And my my view is that the problem as politicians
tend to stake their political careers on big infrastructure projects
and any suggestion that they might change or be done
away with, they fight against it something because they see
it as a threat to their survival.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
I think that's a very fair conclusion, and actually I
think that all of us have learned over the last
ten or twenty years that politicians who put this paid
in the ground quite literally and say I'm going to
deliver this big major infrastructure project are actually setting themselves
up for, you know, a potential blowback when it doesn't
arrive on time, it costs too much money and there's
(03:27):
delays and complications and so on. And actually we probably
need to we do need to do what the Infrastructure
Commission are suggesting, which is why we there's a labor
government set it up. Take the politics out of it,
just focus on a long term plan. Yeah, but that
we have.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Yeah, that sounds the politics are never going to be
taken out of it, though, are they No?
Speaker 3 (03:47):
I mean they're not. I mean our own experience of
that was pretty evident. In twenty eighteen we tried to,
you know, put more money away from building new motorways
and into maintaining the motorways and the roads that we've
already gotten. We got huge blowbacks from that, so and
that was from the public. It was from the opposition,
but it was also from the public. So I hope
that the Infrastructure Commission and what they're doing, what they
(04:09):
have done, has opened up a bit of space for
us to have a more mature conversation about this. As
a country, We've got to maintain what we've got.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I'd like to say, the Infrastructure Commission and the Retirement
Commission have a conversation in a room for a day together,
because I think that's kind of where the rubber hits
the road, isn't it. With the aging population and the
challenge in relation to funding infrastructure, I think.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
That there are similar challenges, similar but different. You know.
On the issues around superannuation, we've we've got some long
term decisions that we've got to take. If you look
at what the Ausies have done, they didn't do something
dramatic overnight, over a long period of time. They basically
changed the way they fund superannuation and the longer term
and that's worked very well for them in a way
(04:52):
that New Zealand hasn't made those decisions over that same
period of time, and so I think that that's where
we should focus there. Again, we've got to stop thinking
that we can solve every problem and that we should
only do things for the politically attractive for the next
three years. We have to do some of the things
that might not be dramatic now, might not be huge
vote winners now, but actually over the next twenty or
thirty years will put us in a better position.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Okay, So in that spirit. Are you prepared to say
then that the retirement age at the very least should
be increased, whether it be the seventy two that's been
floated around, and what's your willingness to talk about the
future of New Zealand, Souper.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
My willingness to talk about how we fund retirement is
very high. Do I think raising the retirement age is
the place to start that conversation? No, I don't. Do
I agree with everything the current government's doing. No, I don't,
But I do agree with them on key we Saver labour,
set up key We Saver, nationals now proposing to increase
kei we Saver contributions. I think that is part of
(05:52):
the answer. So I agree with what they're doing there
and they'll have our support on that. The next question becomes,
how do we get those who are not in ke
we Saver, or who are in key we Saver but
not currently contributing to it. How do we make sure
they don't get less behind? So I think people who say, look,
it's just all about the age and all of the
other problems go away, that's not true.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
So are you saying are you saying hold on? Are
you saying that you think it should stay sixty five.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
I think for some New Zealanders, particularly those who do
hard physical work, sixty five, raising the age of eligibility
will means some of them will never get to retire.
So I think that we've got to be more you know,
we've got to be more considering of the considerate of
equity considerations here. For you and I who sit by
the desk, all gay Jo, I'm fine. But for those
who are doing hard physical work, those whose life expectancy
(06:41):
is a lower and people who do hard physical work
their life expectancy is lower.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
It would be very unfair, all right, But also you know,
don't you you'd be very unpopular in this year's election
if you said anything different. No, you're you're committing the
sun that you talked about before.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
No, I'm trying to actually have a principal based, principles
based discussion of how we get to a point where
our retirement as a country is sustainable. Sure it's not
at the moment. I'll put my hand up and say
that's absolutely not the case. But I think you can't
just reach for a bumper stick a solution. It's going
to be a more complex solution. Than what most people
(07:20):
are talking about.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
It well, something that isn't a bumper stick. A solution
would be would be agreeing with the likes of the
opportunity parties saying New Zealand souper is not sustainable.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
I think again, I think that they're going to the
other end of the spectrum. They're going full radical just
abolish it altogether. And I don't agree with that approach either.
I think there will need to be New Zealand superannuation.
I think there will need to be key we savor.
I think we will need to save more as a country.
We will need to make sure that what we do
in retirement is equitable, so we don't create two classes
(07:53):
of retirement, those who are doing well on those who
basically get left behind. We've got to create a comfortable
retirement for everybody.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Why do you think people are loving New Zealand first
so much at the moment?
Speaker 3 (08:06):
A leader, I mean, you've got to hand it to him.
He's a lifetime in politics, has given him some unique
political skills of reinvention. But you know he's currently What do.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
You mean by that hold on? What do you mean
by that reinvention? What do you mean?
Speaker 3 (08:21):
Well, his position has changed dramatically all the time. You know,
if you look at the pattern and government over the
last just the most recent government cycles, he's voted in
favor of a change, which he's then voted to repair,
which he's then voted to reinstate, and you can find
multiple examples of that. He's you know, he's become quite
a positioning himself wherever he needs to be in order
to advance his own political party. In the moment, he's
(08:42):
trying to be an opposition MP whilst also trying to
be the third highest ranking minister in the current government.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
And we might've answered the question why he's managing to
put it off? So yes, So why is he so popular?
What's resonating?
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Well, I mean, I think people he's creating the impression
that he's opposed to the current government despite the fact
that he's the third ranks minister in it.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
So you think that's why why to get getting what
ten percent support in the latest poll and doubled it
in the past year.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
A lot of the people who are currently flirting with
New Zealand First are dissatisfied with the National Party. For
the reality for those people as a vote for Winston
Beaters is effectively a vote for a re election in
the current National.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Government unless he flirts with you. Are you flirting with him?
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Well, he's been pretty clear on that so no. You know,
he's been pretty clear that if you're voting for him,
you're voting for the current government.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Is that no, only because he doesn't want to talk
to you or because you don't want to talk to him.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
We ever set out who we could and could have
worked with closer to the election, but Winston Beaters himself
has been very clear that he doesn't want to work
with us, so therefore he's only willing to work with National.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
All right, would you like to work with them?
Speaker 3 (09:50):
We'll set out closer to the election and where we've
got common ground with other parties.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
What do you think about this idea of Act to
have fewer government departments in a smaller cabinet.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Well, laying aside there, you know, somewhat irate, you know,
somewhat ironic, name sure of that commitment, given the Act
party have actually been responsible for the proliferation of the
number of ministers and departments during their time in government.
I think it's the wrongest one.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Well, because of the are you saying that that limiting
the size of cabinet will be tricky with MMP.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Well, yeah, I mean if you look at the number
of portfolios, there's more portfolios now than there were pre election,
and the act Party hold a number of those new
portfolios that were created. Minister for Firearms that was created
for the act Party, Minister for Regulation that was created
for the Act Party. The Ministry of Regulation, the most
expecsive government ministry on a per person basis, was created
by the.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Export anyway, tack the irony out. Do you agree or
disagree with they?
Speaker 3 (10:50):
So take the irony out. We should be focused rather
than on the number of government departments. We should be
focused on where the government fits a purpose. And in
some cases it will mean fewer departments and other cases
that might mean splitting up departments so that they're actually
a bit more focused on what they need to be
focused on. Sometimes it will mean they get smaller sometimes
and I mean they get bigger. We've got to focus
on government not being too big and also not being
(11:13):
too small.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
All right, I'll go and think about that one. We're
talking a fortnite. Thanks Chris Cheers, John Okay. Opposition and
labor leader Chris Sipkins, as well us every fortnight on
Canterbury Mornings or News Talk Said Beers
Speaker 1 (11:28):
For more from Canterbury Mornings with John McDonald, Listen live
to News Talk Said be christ Church 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
The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe
When a group of women from all over the country realise they all dated the same prolific romance scammer they vow to bring him to justice. In this brand new season of global number 1 hit podcast, The Girlfriends, Anna Sinfield meets a group of funny, feisty, determined women who all had the misfortune of dating a mysterious man named Derek Alldred. Trust Me Babe is a story about the protective forces of gossip, gut instinct, and trusting your besties and the group of women who took matters into their own hands to take down a fraudster when no one else would listen. If you’re affected by any of the themes in this show, our charity partners NO MORE have available resources at https://www.nomore.org. To learn more about romance scams, and to access specialised support, visit https://fightcybercrime.org/ The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe is produced by Novel for iHeartPodcasts. For more from Novel, visit https://novel.audio/. You can listen to new episodes of The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe completely ad-free and 1 week early with an iHeart True Crime+ subscription, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. Open your Apple Podcasts app, search for “iHeart True Crime+, and subscribe today!