August 19, 2025 • 20 mins
Opposition leader Chris Hipkins denies that the Labour Party will lose support over his refusal to give evidence in a public session for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19.
Dame Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson and Dr Ayesha Verrall had refused to front up publicly.
But, Hipkins told Nick Mills on Wellington Mornings that he doubts it will affect his party's reputation.
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, bh.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
We finally got a smile out of cross up, good
and sad.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
There's a perfect piece of music to start the day
with it.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Well, I was just commenting and welcome to the show,
labor leader and MP for am attack of Chriss Upkins.
I was just mentioning to your fair that you don't
look your bubbly self as soon as Coops played that song,
you're up and wanting to have a dance. Now. I
don't think you're that great a dancer. You might be
a fantastic politician, but I've seen you dance and you're
not a great dancer.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Look, I unreservedly apologize for my dancing and the weekend.
It seems to have become a bit of a viral
sensation and I'm not sure that either the Prime Minister
or I covered ourselves in glory with that one.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
I said on my Monday morning show that it's further
proof that white men can't dance with both of you.
You both look as awkward as each other.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
It's a very difficult thing to argue against that one.
That we've proved it beyond all doubts.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
I mean, even to see you both on the same
stage dancing together, I thought you might have a little
hug and do a little bit of a waltz at once.
So let's not get too carried away, right, Let's start
with the situation that got up my nose this week.
You've had a few days, nearly a week since you
made the decision, or your lawyers have made the decision
not the front for the COVID nineteen public inquiry. I mean,
(01:33):
now you've had time to sit back and think about it.
You personally, keep the party politics, keep the lawyers out
of it. You're trying to be the next prime minister.
How is this going to affect you?
Speaker 3 (01:44):
I don't think it should. I mean, ultimately, I have
appeared before the inquiry on multiple occasions. All of that's public.
So all of the information that I've given them, all
of my answers to them, have been public, and the
inquiry themselves have said that that I have provided with
answers to all of the questions that they had, and
that you know they ran out.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
You're trying to tell me, and I know that you're
an extremely intelligent person, that this is not going to
have this decision by your lawyers, not or by the
Labor Marfia as I call them. Someone above you has
made this decision and you don't think it's going to
have any effect whatsoever on you standing for Prime Minister
next year.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
I don't think that New Zealanders ultimately want a show
trial around COVID. I think most people can see the
second Inquiry into COVID for what it is. It's a
desire by New Zealand first in particular to appease the
people who were protesting out the front of Parliament.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
What about the real New Zealanders that want to see this.
I mean, you can take the political bit out of it,
you can take the show trial out of you can
take all that. What about real New Zealanders who you
stood for and still do.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
And I think most of those New Zealanders want to
see us focused on the cost of living. They want
to see us focused on jobs, on health, on homes.
They know that the COVID period was a really, really
challenging time for the country and actually they want to
know what we're doing to make the future better.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
But surely making the few uture better is what this
is all about. Learning from mistakes. You know, you did
some things fantastic during COVID. No one's going to argue that,
but there was mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Surely fronting and
actually going out in front of your public, who you
did for eighteen months, Why wouldn't you do it now?
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Well, I still do every day. I mean, I'm here.
If you've got any questions about the COVID, respondiah, I mean, I've.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Got that narrative. But it's not that's not it's not
about me. It's about the public and it's a public
inquiry and it got called off because you guys wouldn't
front And if you want to try and try and
beat me up with words, you can, but you went
your lawyers made a decision. Now I'm a businessman. I
don't go to my lawyers unless I really really need to.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Well, no, that is the standard practice. Any minister appearing
before a court or an inquiry all have legal representation,
just as Jerry Brownly did when he also did the
same thing that we have done regarding the Royal Commission
of Inquiry into the Christchiech earthquakes. Similarly, the former ministers
who appeared before the Royal Commission of inquiry into the
March for fifteen terrorist attacks. All of these have followed
(04:09):
the same practice. So this is nothing new. This is
what has happened all of the time.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
You don't think it's going to affect your reputation as
your as leader by not fronting.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Oh, it's a principal decision. I mean, ultimately, I don't
think that a show trial, which seems to be what
Winston Peters is looking for.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Where did the show trial comes from? Robinson's big thing?
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Oh no, it's not at all, because if you look
at it, we've answered all of the questions. So if
the Royal Commission is about learning the lessons of the past,
then surely the performative aspect is far less important than
the substance.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Or fronting is far more important than not fronting.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Well, and I still do every day. You know, anyone
who's got questions on COVID gets the opportunity to ask
me those every day.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Okay, let's move on because we can. We'll spend the
whole half an hour arguing we've got different opinions on that.
The teachers strike. Thousands of secondary school teachers are on
strike today, six days in a negotiation gone straight straight
to strike.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Now.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I know that your background will tell you that's the
best thing they could do, it's the right thing. But
what does it tell our kids right now?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Well, I think what it says is there's I think
there's two big issues around the secondary school teachers in particular.
The first is that the pay increase they've been offered
will see their pay go backwards and real tims so
it's less than the rate of inflation. And I'm not
surprised the teachers are saying, well, hang on a minute,
you're basically giving us a pay cut that's not fair,
and they're going on strike over that. That's fair enough.
So yeah, but the other thing that government have done
(05:37):
is cancel their pay equity claim and change the law
so that they can't lodge another one. And given that
they can't strike over that issue, this is now the
only chance that they have to say, well, we want
to be paid better.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Does striking work?
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Well, it didn't, you know it has in the past.
I mean, I think that they've got a fair claim
to say that a pay cut and are real term's
pay cuts.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
We shot have to settle for that, and I don't
think we're arguing about that We're arguing about whether they
negotiated enough and hard enough and long enough before going
on right.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Well, you know, the unions will go out to their
members with an offer they think the members might accept.
They're not going to go out to the members with
an offer that they know they're going to reject and
a one percent pay increase they're almost almost.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Definitely going to reach again with the utmost of respect.
That's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing whether they
discussed that, negotiated, tried hard enough before resorting to striking.
Are we resorting as public servants to striking just because
we feel it's the only way we're going to get through.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
I don't think you could make that. I mean, ultimately,
if the government offers to cut your pay and you say, well,
if you're not willing to budge on that, we're going
to go on strike, and they say, well, we're not
willing to budge on that, there's not much more discussion
to have, is there.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
What number do you put on the pay increase that
I should be getting to keep up with inflation? I mean,
just you know, put it out there.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Well, I'm not going to put a number on it
for this, but certainly more than one percent. You know,
making sure that they are being compensated for inflation is important.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
So I want one last response from you on this.
Striking the only way people can get anywhere.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Now, No, it's not the only way. But if there's
good will on both sides, you don't need strike action
at all. If the government were showing up at the
negotiating table with some more good will, I'm sure that
there wouldn't be a strike.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Do you think LABEL would have given them a better offer?
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Absolutely, And history shows that, you know, the teachers generally
get stiffed a national government. And well, yeah, they've got
about a thirty something percent pay increase. You know, if
you're a secondary school teacher at the top of the
salary scale, there was about a thirty percent pay increase
during our time in government.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Our teacher's paid enough.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
They will never be paid enough as far as I'm concerned.
And I say that as someone who sat on the
other side of the bargaining table having to figure out
how to balance up their pay demands. You know, I
think they do a really really important job.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Talking about education. Willow gene Prime, your cabinet, your person,
it's a spokesperson for education. Is she lazy?
Speaker 3 (08:01):
No, not at all. I think well, I could have
handled the situation around in CEA better. But I think
she's actually been very conscient. She's been going out to
the educational community. She's new to the role, so she'd
been going out to teachers, to the academics, to the
experts and talking about the NCAA review and wanted to
do that before meeting with the minister. I think she
should have communicated to the minister that that's what she
(08:21):
do. Do you think I think she got to handle that better.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Do you think that teachers around New Zealand will think, gosh,
if she's going to be our education minister, are we
going to be Okay?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
No, not at all, because I think what she can
what they can see is that she's out in schools
actually talking to them. You don't think that they can
see that she's out of her depth. No, not at all,
And I don't agree with that. I mean, I think,
not not going back to Eric Stanford, we all have
text messages that we miss and ignore and don't really
to come on, and I think she should have handled that.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Hold on, hold on, hold on, I mean, you cannot
possibly sit here and tell me we know each other
well enough to say that. You know, if someone congratulated
you on a new job and you didn't text back
at very very least, it's bloody rude.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Well, I can tell you when I became Prime Minister,
there were hundreds of them and I tried to I
tried to message back or to as many as I could,
but I can't say I reply to every single We're.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
There are hundreds of them from ex ministers of ministers
of education. When you're you're you're the spokesperson for labor foot.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
As I've said, I think Willojen should have replied to
that message, but I'm not going to judge her whole
performance in the role based on that particular decision.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Are you going to sit here and tell me that
she is going to be your education spokes become an
election time? Yes, and if you become government, she will
be the Minister of Education, yes, one hundred percent.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Well, to be clear, I'm not digit dishing out cabinet
portfolios until we well you just sugg yes, until we've
won the election. But I back, well, Egene in education, really, yes,
I do.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Okay, let's talk about something that you are positive about
I mean not that you're not positive about Willogrene Prime,
but the government will hold councils being liable for fixing
buildings of bringing this new plan, and you are actually
relatively warm on this.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Yeah, I think we need to build more houses, we
need to avoid another leaky home saga. But I think
the consumer protection piece here is going to be really important.
So if they're saying at the moment, councils are the
last one standing, So if the builder goes broke or disappears,
if the other people involved in the construction suddenly are
no longer there and you end up with a leaky
(10:17):
home or a home that's defective, councils are the last
one standing. So at the moment, they wear the liability.
If the government is saying that that shouldn't happen, councils
shouldn't wear that liability, but all those other players in
them have gone, Who's going to wear the liability? You
need to have some consumer protection there. Otherwise it's homeowners
who end up wearing that liability.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Do you have any thoughts that it could be another
leaky home situation?
Speaker 3 (10:40):
If they do the consumer protection right, then we can
avoid that, but that is critical and they haven't set
out the details of how they're going to do that yet,
they've said that they're going to do it. That's the
right thing to.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Do and you won't change it if you become government because.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
You think that as long as they come up with
something that's sensible around consumer protection, this is the sort
of thing that will continue.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Okay. Joined in the studio by labor leader an MP
for Rimatuka, Chris Hopkins. Let's talk about the economy a
little bit. Nicola Willis says, Michael Cullen would have never
allowed the fiscally reckless approach that Chris Hipkins has been signaling.
Is she right?
Speaker 3 (11:16):
Well, Nichola Willis is all over the show. She's on
one hand saying, oh Aba needs to come up with
some policies and then she's saying that she's making up
policies on our behalf and calling the reckless. If Nikola
Willis was a bit more focused on doing her own job,
the country might not be in the pickle that is in.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Now, what did you make of that whole discussion about her?
When she's in England and maybe the next leader, there's
got to be something going on there isn't there or not?
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Well, I think the interesting thing is going to be
is it going to be Nichola Willis, christ Bishop or
Erica Stanford who ultimately put the knife into Christopher Luxen
Because they're all as ambitious as each other, and they
all think that their own personal talent is greater than
anybody else in the National Party. But you know, Nikola
Willis's track recorders Minister of Finance has been appalling. This
government got elected on the platform that they were going
(12:00):
to fix the economy, they were going to get the
cost of living under control. They were going to get
the economy growing. What's happened, cost of living's got worse.
More people are unemployed, the economy is growing slower than
it was previously forecast to grow, if at all. In fact,
it may be back in recession at the moment. These
are all the consequence of the decisions that Nicola Willis
has taken. So perhaps she should spend a bit less
(12:20):
time making up policies on behalf of the Labor Party
and focused a bit more on the current job she's got.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
I would love to see something come from your organization. Well,
we're not the government, you know, I mean, I want
to see what the plans are. What I mean, you know,
have you got a plan yet.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
What I've said to the current government is if they
if they're going to do sensible things, So let's give
some examples. Electricity. We need to change our electricity market.
It's broken, it's not functioning. If they came up with
plans that are sensible, then we would rather support them
to get the work underway and get it happening, then
come up with something completely different. On the other hand,
if they don't, then we will come.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Up with a plan and we and we will in
our sensible way, give us your plan.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
I think we've got to deal with the lack of
storage for renewable energy, and there are ways that we
can change the market to and sure that the market
delivers that. We've got to make sure that we're moving
to renewables. Renewables are cheaper than gas and coal, and
we don't actually have gas. You know, they're going on
about wanting more gas expiration. We spent the last twenty
five years looking for gas and haven't found any.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
I'm sorry, but it was your government that prevented you know,
people actually come in and trying to find.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Only in the last five years. The twenty years before that,
we didn't find any.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Right, But I mean there's still gas there isn't.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
There not in commercially viable pockets. That's you know. They
billions of dollars were spent drilling for gas and they
couldn't find any viable pockets. Now the government are saying
that they're going to subsidize drilling more. That's basically flushing
money down a hole. They're literally pumping money down a
hole which might not have any guess at the bottom
of it.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
You don't think there's gas out there.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Well, look, I'm not a geologist, but if they spent
twenty years looking for it and they didn't find it,
you've got to sort of at that point say, maybe
we should be thinking about the areas where there is energy.
See geothermal for example. We have an abundance of that,
it's guaranteed, it's renewable, it's better for the planet, and
it's cheaper than gas. Why wouldn't we be doing a
(14:15):
lot more with that?
Speaker 2 (14:17):
When's your policy going to come out?
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Well, will we releasing some policy this year and most
of it next year?
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Are you just sort of sitting back there waiting for
the coalition to self destruct and you can come out
riding on a white horse because we're not seeing any
constructive opposition to what's going on.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Well, the constructive opposition is if the government come up
with good ideas, will support them. We just talked about
the building stuff. You know, if they're coming up with
good things, then I'd rather give people the certainty of
knowing that, you know, good ideas are not going to
change when there's a change of government, then simply come
up with ideas for the sake of it.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
You have slightly changed your approach on that because I
remember us talking about it when you were saying you're
not going to change anything. You know, when you, in
your words, not my words, when you become government, you're
not going to go about slashing and cutting and changing suddenly.
Now that's that narrative slightly changed because you said you
will change this, and you will change.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
There'll certainly be some things he changed. You know, any
change of government will bring change. I mean it wouldn't
be a change of government if there wasn't. But on
those big issues like infrastructure, for example, I have said
that we've just got to get on with it. You
know we spend way too much time in New Zealand
shopping and changing our priorities all the time. It's one
of the reasons nothing ever gets built.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Apparently the carnival is over. Winston Peter says after removing
former Speaker Trevor Mallard from his ambassador's posted islands. Should
politicians be given the golden handshake of a position overseas
where they can go back, kick back and learn a
lot of money.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
I don't think it was a golden handshake. I actually
think I've visited Trevor Mallard earlier this year in Ireland
and I went into the PLA to the Irish Parliament
with him. He was very, very well known and well
received there. I think he's done a good job for us.
Jim Bolger went to Washington, d C. And represented New
Zealand well as did Mike Moore, and as former prime
ministers they got more access to US elected government officials
(16:06):
when any career ambassador was going to get. So I'm
not saying that they're all.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
To change it back. If they If Winston Peters is
correct and he's going to change it and be career
diplomats from now on instead, of the high profile ex politicians.
Will that be something you will change? And if someone
is in a position, will you fire them half the
way through the like he's done with Phil Goff and
Trevor Malle.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
I just think that's petty and silly. So no, we
don't generally sack people halfway through their term just just
to make a political point. I mean that one is
just if you look at what he said yesterday, that's
just all about appeasing the people who are throwing rocks
at the police outside Parliament a couple of years ago.
You know, it's it's not actually a principal decision at all,
because if it was principal, he would have done it
as soon as he became minister.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Not wait a year and a half. Why did he
wait that time?
Speaker 3 (16:47):
I think I think he made that as a knee
jerk response in the last few days because the people
who were throwing rocks at the police have said to him,
you're not doing enough to support us, and so he's come,
He's offered them this little token offering any more to
go you reckon? Oh goodness knows. With Winston Peters. I mean, look,
he Winston's fixated on getting his five or six percent
of the vote where he gets it from, and he'll
(17:08):
do whatever it takes to secure that.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
So still no chance of coalition of New Zealand First
and Labor coming into the next election.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
They know, why not when they do silly things like that.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
So it's going to be the Greens and Labor and
to party Marrow.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
Oh look, there's a lot of water to flow under
the bridge before the next election.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Well you say that with the biggest smile since you
beat in there this morning. What do you know that
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Well, you just have to, you know, like elections are
unpredictable and there's a lot of water to flow under
the bridge. One of the reasons we've been keeping our
powder dry on policy is goodness only knows what the
economic situation will face the next election will be. I
don't want to make promises that I can't actually deliver on.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Could it be possibly that your campaign will be Labor
on our own?
Speaker 3 (17:49):
No, not at all. But let's go back. Let's go
back three years Christopher Luxen became leader of or four years,
wasn't it. Christopher Luxen became leader of the National Party.
His first major policy was to say that the government
should be spending a whole lot more on business subsidies
to get businesses through COVID. Now they're saying we spent
too much on those things.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
I want to quickly go through some quick fire stuff.
Have you read Grant Robinson's book.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Care Like all good politicians, I read the bits that
mentioned me.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
I kind of got the feeling when I read those
bits that you and him obviously disagreed on a few things.
Obviously capital gains tax.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Oh, we disagreed on a few things. I'ming on text
that was a difficult issue to navigate through. But in
the end, I mean, I think what Grant arrives at
was the conclusion that if we were going to make
significant text changes, we needed more time, and I agreed
with that conclusion.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
How often have you spoken to Andrew Little over the
last couple of months about Wellington and what's going to
be going forward for us?
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Haven't actually spoken to him very much. I mean, he's
been busy on the campaign trail and I've had other
things on the go. But I think he's from what
I've seen of his campaign, he seems to be doing
a great job.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Do you think that we're going to expect some policies
from Labor between now and the end of the year.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
Yep, you'll get a couple of policies from us at
least between now and the end of the year, and
then you're setting to get more in the new year.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
What have you learned from dancing with the Prime Minister?
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Maybe be a bit more careful about the things you
agree to do in public. You know. Look, everyone's allowed
to let their head down a little bit, make a
fool of themselves. I think. Isn't that an amazing thing
about New Zealand though, that you had this big community
event on Saturday night and you had the Prime Minister
and the leader of the Opposition on stage dancing with
each other. That wouldn't happen in many other countries.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
Well, dancing so badly it wouldn't happen. And to the
other countries, most other countries in the world have got
a little bit of rhythm. I'm always about to withdraw
all of those terrible things I said about David Seymour
when he was on Dancing with the Stars, but I'm
not willing to go that far just yet. I think
he would have actually taken the floor over of he
was up there as well.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
There's no twerking on Saturday Night. We didn't traumatize people
quite that badly.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Yeah, traumatize me. When I watched it, I was thinking, sheeshit,
I'm not going to dance ever again in my life.
After seeing that, it's like dancing in the mirror, I
started practicing. Oh you great to have you in the studio.
Appreciate you coming in. Labor leader Chris Hipkins joins us
once a month on the show, and it's great to
have him and answering the questions for me and you.
It is eleven thirty on the DOT. When we come back,
(20:10):
I want to talk to you about Trevor Meller. Should
have he got fired? I want to have open that
up for conversation.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
You've heard what for more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills.
Listen live to news talks. He'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, bh.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
We finally got a smile out of cross up, good
and sad.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
There's a perfect piece of music to start the day
with it.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Well, I was just commenting and welcome to the show,
labor leader and MP for am attack of Chriss Upkins.
I was just mentioning to your fair that you don't
look your bubbly self as soon as Coops played that song,
you're up and wanting to have a dance. Now. I
don't think you're that great a dancer. You might be
a fantastic politician, but I've seen you dance and you're
not a great dancer.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Look, I unreservedly apologize for my dancing and the weekend.
It seems to have become a bit of a viral
sensation and I'm not sure that either the Prime Minister
or I covered ourselves in glory with that one.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
I said on my Monday morning show that it's further
proof that white men can't dance with both of you.
You both look as awkward as each other.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
It's a very difficult thing to argue against that one.
That we've proved it beyond all doubts.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
I mean, even to see you both on the same
stage dancing together, I thought you might have a little
hug and do a little bit of a waltz at once.
So let's not get too carried away, right, Let's start
with the situation that got up my nose this week.
You've had a few days, nearly a week since you
made the decision, or your lawyers have made the decision
not the front for the COVID nineteen public inquiry. I mean,
(01:33):
now you've had time to sit back and think about it.
You personally, keep the party politics, keep the lawyers out
of it. You're trying to be the next prime minister.
How is this going to affect you?
Speaker 3 (01:44):
I don't think it should. I mean, ultimately, I have
appeared before the inquiry on multiple occasions. All of that's public.
So all of the information that I've given them, all
of my answers to them, have been public, and the
inquiry themselves have said that that I have provided with
answers to all of the questions that they had, and
that you know they ran out.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
You're trying to tell me, and I know that you're
an extremely intelligent person, that this is not going to
have this decision by your lawyers, not or by the
Labor Marfia as I call them. Someone above you has
made this decision and you don't think it's going to
have any effect whatsoever on you standing for Prime Minister
next year.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
I don't think that New Zealanders ultimately want a show
trial around COVID. I think most people can see the
second Inquiry into COVID for what it is. It's a
desire by New Zealand first in particular to appease the
people who were protesting out the front of Parliament.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
What about the real New Zealanders that want to see this.
I mean, you can take the political bit out of it,
you can take the show trial out of you can
take all that. What about real New Zealanders who you
stood for and still do.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
And I think most of those New Zealanders want to
see us focused on the cost of living. They want
to see us focused on jobs, on health, on homes.
They know that the COVID period was a really, really
challenging time for the country and actually they want to
know what we're doing to make the future better.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
But surely making the few uture better is what this
is all about. Learning from mistakes. You know, you did
some things fantastic during COVID. No one's going to argue that,
but there was mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Surely fronting and
actually going out in front of your public, who you
did for eighteen months, Why wouldn't you do it now?
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Well, I still do every day. I mean, I'm here.
If you've got any questions about the COVID, respondiah, I mean, I've.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Got that narrative. But it's not that's not it's not
about me. It's about the public and it's a public
inquiry and it got called off because you guys wouldn't
front And if you want to try and try and
beat me up with words, you can, but you went
your lawyers made a decision. Now I'm a businessman. I
don't go to my lawyers unless I really really need to.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Well, no, that is the standard practice. Any minister appearing
before a court or an inquiry all have legal representation,
just as Jerry Brownly did when he also did the
same thing that we have done regarding the Royal Commission
of Inquiry into the Christchiech earthquakes. Similarly, the former ministers
who appeared before the Royal Commission of inquiry into the
March for fifteen terrorist attacks. All of these have followed
(04:09):
the same practice. So this is nothing new. This is
what has happened all of the time.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
You don't think it's going to affect your reputation as
your as leader by not fronting.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Oh, it's a principal decision. I mean, ultimately, I don't
think that a show trial, which seems to be what
Winston Peters is looking for.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Where did the show trial comes from? Robinson's big thing?
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Oh no, it's not at all, because if you look
at it, we've answered all of the questions. So if
the Royal Commission is about learning the lessons of the past,
then surely the performative aspect is far less important than
the substance.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Or fronting is far more important than not fronting.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Well, and I still do every day. You know, anyone
who's got questions on COVID gets the opportunity to ask
me those every day.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Okay, let's move on because we can. We'll spend the
whole half an hour arguing we've got different opinions on that.
The teachers strike. Thousands of secondary school teachers are on
strike today, six days in a negotiation gone straight straight
to strike.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Now.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I know that your background will tell you that's the
best thing they could do, it's the right thing. But
what does it tell our kids right now?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Well, I think what it says is there's I think
there's two big issues around the secondary school teachers in particular.
The first is that the pay increase they've been offered
will see their pay go backwards and real tims so
it's less than the rate of inflation. And I'm not
surprised the teachers are saying, well, hang on a minute,
you're basically giving us a pay cut that's not fair,
and they're going on strike over that. That's fair enough.
So yeah, but the other thing that government have done
(05:37):
is cancel their pay equity claim and change the law
so that they can't lodge another one. And given that
they can't strike over that issue, this is now the
only chance that they have to say, well, we want
to be paid better.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Does striking work?
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Well, it didn't, you know it has in the past.
I mean, I think that they've got a fair claim
to say that a pay cut and are real term's
pay cuts.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
We shot have to settle for that, and I don't
think we're arguing about that We're arguing about whether they
negotiated enough and hard enough and long enough before going
on right.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Well, you know, the unions will go out to their
members with an offer they think the members might accept.
They're not going to go out to the members with
an offer that they know they're going to reject and
a one percent pay increase they're almost almost.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Definitely going to reach again with the utmost of respect.
That's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing whether they
discussed that, negotiated, tried hard enough before resorting to striking.
Are we resorting as public servants to striking just because
we feel it's the only way we're going to get through.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
I don't think you could make that. I mean, ultimately,
if the government offers to cut your pay and you say, well,
if you're not willing to budge on that, we're going
to go on strike, and they say, well, we're not
willing to budge on that, there's not much more discussion
to have, is there.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
What number do you put on the pay increase that
I should be getting to keep up with inflation? I mean,
just you know, put it out there.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Well, I'm not going to put a number on it
for this, but certainly more than one percent. You know,
making sure that they are being compensated for inflation is important.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
So I want one last response from you on this.
Striking the only way people can get anywhere.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Now, No, it's not the only way. But if there's
good will on both sides, you don't need strike action
at all. If the government were showing up at the
negotiating table with some more good will, I'm sure that
there wouldn't be a strike.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Do you think LABEL would have given them a better offer?
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Absolutely, And history shows that, you know, the teachers generally
get stiffed a national government. And well, yeah, they've got
about a thirty something percent pay increase. You know, if
you're a secondary school teacher at the top of the
salary scale, there was about a thirty percent pay increase
during our time in government.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Our teacher's paid enough.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
They will never be paid enough as far as I'm concerned.
And I say that as someone who sat on the
other side of the bargaining table having to figure out
how to balance up their pay demands. You know, I
think they do a really really important job.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Talking about education. Willow gene Prime, your cabinet, your person,
it's a spokesperson for education. Is she lazy?
Speaker 3 (08:01):
No, not at all. I think well, I could have
handled the situation around in CEA better. But I think
she's actually been very conscient. She's been going out to
the educational community. She's new to the role, so she'd
been going out to teachers, to the academics, to the
experts and talking about the NCAA review and wanted to
do that before meeting with the minister. I think she
should have communicated to the minister that that's what she
(08:21):
do. Do you think I think she got to handle that better.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Do you think that teachers around New Zealand will think, gosh,
if she's going to be our education minister, are we
going to be Okay?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
No, not at all, because I think what she can
what they can see is that she's out in schools
actually talking to them. You don't think that they can
see that she's out of her depth. No, not at all,
And I don't agree with that. I mean, I think,
not not going back to Eric Stanford, we all have
text messages that we miss and ignore and don't really
to come on, and I think she should have handled that.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Hold on, hold on, hold on, I mean, you cannot
possibly sit here and tell me we know each other
well enough to say that. You know, if someone congratulated
you on a new job and you didn't text back
at very very least, it's bloody rude.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Well, I can tell you when I became Prime Minister,
there were hundreds of them and I tried to I
tried to message back or to as many as I could,
but I can't say I reply to every single We're.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
There are hundreds of them from ex ministers of ministers
of education. When you're you're you're the spokesperson for labor foot.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
As I've said, I think Willojen should have replied to
that message, but I'm not going to judge her whole
performance in the role based on that particular decision.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Are you going to sit here and tell me that
she is going to be your education spokes become an
election time? Yes, and if you become government, she will
be the Minister of Education, yes, one hundred percent.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Well, to be clear, I'm not digit dishing out cabinet
portfolios until we well you just sugg yes, until we've
won the election. But I back, well, Egene in education, really, yes,
I do.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Okay, let's talk about something that you are positive about
I mean not that you're not positive about Willogrene Prime,
but the government will hold councils being liable for fixing
buildings of bringing this new plan, and you are actually
relatively warm on this.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Yeah, I think we need to build more houses, we
need to avoid another leaky home saga. But I think
the consumer protection piece here is going to be really important.
So if they're saying at the moment, councils are the
last one standing, So if the builder goes broke or disappears,
if the other people involved in the construction suddenly are
no longer there and you end up with a leaky
(10:17):
home or a home that's defective, councils are the last
one standing. So at the moment, they wear the liability.
If the government is saying that that shouldn't happen, councils
shouldn't wear that liability, but all those other players in
them have gone, Who's going to wear the liability? You
need to have some consumer protection there. Otherwise it's homeowners
who end up wearing that liability.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Do you have any thoughts that it could be another
leaky home situation?
Speaker 3 (10:40):
If they do the consumer protection right, then we can
avoid that, but that is critical and they haven't set
out the details of how they're going to do that yet,
they've said that they're going to do it. That's the
right thing to.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Do and you won't change it if you become government because.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
You think that as long as they come up with
something that's sensible around consumer protection, this is the sort
of thing that will continue.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Okay. Joined in the studio by labor leader an MP
for Rimatuka, Chris Hopkins. Let's talk about the economy a
little bit. Nicola Willis says, Michael Cullen would have never
allowed the fiscally reckless approach that Chris Hipkins has been signaling.
Is she right?
Speaker 3 (11:16):
Well, Nichola Willis is all over the show. She's on
one hand saying, oh Aba needs to come up with
some policies and then she's saying that she's making up
policies on our behalf and calling the reckless. If Nikola
Willis was a bit more focused on doing her own job,
the country might not be in the pickle that is in.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Now, what did you make of that whole discussion about her?
When she's in England and maybe the next leader, there's
got to be something going on there isn't there or not?
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Well, I think the interesting thing is going to be
is it going to be Nichola Willis, christ Bishop or
Erica Stanford who ultimately put the knife into Christopher Luxen
Because they're all as ambitious as each other, and they
all think that their own personal talent is greater than
anybody else in the National Party. But you know, Nikola
Willis's track recorders Minister of Finance has been appalling. This
government got elected on the platform that they were going
(12:00):
to fix the economy, they were going to get the
cost of living under control. They were going to get
the economy growing. What's happened, cost of living's got worse.
More people are unemployed, the economy is growing slower than
it was previously forecast to grow, if at all. In fact,
it may be back in recession at the moment. These
are all the consequence of the decisions that Nicola Willis
has taken. So perhaps she should spend a bit less
(12:20):
time making up policies on behalf of the Labor Party
and focused a bit more on the current job she's got.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
I would love to see something come from your organization. Well,
we're not the government, you know, I mean, I want
to see what the plans are. What I mean, you know,
have you got a plan yet.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
What I've said to the current government is if they
if they're going to do sensible things, So let's give
some examples. Electricity. We need to change our electricity market.
It's broken, it's not functioning. If they came up with
plans that are sensible, then we would rather support them
to get the work underway and get it happening, then
come up with something completely different. On the other hand,
if they don't, then we will come.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Up with a plan and we and we will in
our sensible way, give us your plan.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
I think we've got to deal with the lack of
storage for renewable energy, and there are ways that we
can change the market to and sure that the market
delivers that. We've got to make sure that we're moving
to renewables. Renewables are cheaper than gas and coal, and
we don't actually have gas. You know, they're going on
about wanting more gas expiration. We spent the last twenty
five years looking for gas and haven't found any.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
I'm sorry, but it was your government that prevented you know,
people actually come in and trying to find.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Only in the last five years. The twenty years before that,
we didn't find any.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Right, But I mean there's still gas there isn't.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
There not in commercially viable pockets. That's you know. They
billions of dollars were spent drilling for gas and they
couldn't find any viable pockets. Now the government are saying
that they're going to subsidize drilling more. That's basically flushing
money down a hole. They're literally pumping money down a
hole which might not have any guess at the bottom
of it.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
You don't think there's gas out there.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Well, look, I'm not a geologist, but if they spent
twenty years looking for it and they didn't find it,
you've got to sort of at that point say, maybe
we should be thinking about the areas where there is energy.
See geothermal for example. We have an abundance of that,
it's guaranteed, it's renewable, it's better for the planet, and
it's cheaper than gas. Why wouldn't we be doing a
(14:15):
lot more with that?
Speaker 2 (14:17):
When's your policy going to come out?
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Well, will we releasing some policy this year and most
of it next year?
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Are you just sort of sitting back there waiting for
the coalition to self destruct and you can come out
riding on a white horse because we're not seeing any
constructive opposition to what's going on.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Well, the constructive opposition is if the government come up
with good ideas, will support them. We just talked about
the building stuff. You know, if they're coming up with
good things, then I'd rather give people the certainty of
knowing that, you know, good ideas are not going to
change when there's a change of government, then simply come
up with ideas for the sake of it.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
You have slightly changed your approach on that because I
remember us talking about it when you were saying you're
not going to change anything. You know, when you, in
your words, not my words, when you become government, you're
not going to go about slashing and cutting and changing suddenly.
Now that's that narrative slightly changed because you said you
will change this, and you will change.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
There'll certainly be some things he changed. You know, any
change of government will bring change. I mean it wouldn't
be a change of government if there wasn't. But on
those big issues like infrastructure, for example, I have said
that we've just got to get on with it. You
know we spend way too much time in New Zealand
shopping and changing our priorities all the time. It's one
of the reasons nothing ever gets built.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Apparently the carnival is over. Winston Peter says after removing
former Speaker Trevor Mallard from his ambassador's posted islands. Should
politicians be given the golden handshake of a position overseas
where they can go back, kick back and learn a
lot of money.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
I don't think it was a golden handshake. I actually
think I've visited Trevor Mallard earlier this year in Ireland
and I went into the PLA to the Irish Parliament
with him. He was very, very well known and well
received there. I think he's done a good job for us.
Jim Bolger went to Washington, d C. And represented New
Zealand well as did Mike Moore, and as former prime
ministers they got more access to US elected government officials
(16:06):
when any career ambassador was going to get. So I'm
not saying that they're all.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
To change it back. If they If Winston Peters is
correct and he's going to change it and be career
diplomats from now on instead, of the high profile ex politicians.
Will that be something you will change? And if someone
is in a position, will you fire them half the
way through the like he's done with Phil Goff and
Trevor Malle.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
I just think that's petty and silly. So no, we
don't generally sack people halfway through their term just just
to make a political point. I mean that one is
just if you look at what he said yesterday, that's
just all about appeasing the people who are throwing rocks
at the police outside Parliament a couple of years ago.
You know, it's it's not actually a principal decision at all,
because if it was principal, he would have done it
as soon as he became minister.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Not wait a year and a half. Why did he
wait that time?
Speaker 3 (16:47):
I think I think he made that as a knee
jerk response in the last few days because the people
who were throwing rocks at the police have said to him,
you're not doing enough to support us, and so he's come,
He's offered them this little token offering any more to
go you reckon? Oh goodness knows. With Winston Peters. I mean, look,
he Winston's fixated on getting his five or six percent
of the vote where he gets it from, and he'll
(17:08):
do whatever it takes to secure that.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
So still no chance of coalition of New Zealand First
and Labor coming into the next election.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
They know, why not when they do silly things like that.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
So it's going to be the Greens and Labor and
to party Marrow.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
Oh look, there's a lot of water to flow under
the bridge before the next election.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Well you say that with the biggest smile since you
beat in there this morning. What do you know that
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Well, you just have to, you know, like elections are
unpredictable and there's a lot of water to flow under
the bridge. One of the reasons we've been keeping our
powder dry on policy is goodness only knows what the
economic situation will face the next election will be. I
don't want to make promises that I can't actually deliver on.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Could it be possibly that your campaign will be Labor
on our own?
Speaker 3 (17:49):
No, not at all. But let's go back. Let's go
back three years Christopher Luxen became leader of or four years,
wasn't it. Christopher Luxen became leader of the National Party.
His first major policy was to say that the government
should be spending a whole lot more on business subsidies
to get businesses through COVID. Now they're saying we spent
too much on those things.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
I want to quickly go through some quick fire stuff.
Have you read Grant Robinson's book.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Care Like all good politicians, I read the bits that
mentioned me.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
I kind of got the feeling when I read those
bits that you and him obviously disagreed on a few things.
Obviously capital gains tax.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Oh, we disagreed on a few things. I'ming on text
that was a difficult issue to navigate through. But in
the end, I mean, I think what Grant arrives at
was the conclusion that if we were going to make
significant text changes, we needed more time, and I agreed
with that conclusion.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
How often have you spoken to Andrew Little over the
last couple of months about Wellington and what's going to
be going forward for us?
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Haven't actually spoken to him very much. I mean, he's
been busy on the campaign trail and I've had other
things on the go. But I think he's from what
I've seen of his campaign, he seems to be doing
a great job.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Do you think that we're going to expect some policies
from Labor between now and the end of the year.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
Yep, you'll get a couple of policies from us at
least between now and the end of the year, and
then you're setting to get more in the new year.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
What have you learned from dancing with the Prime Minister?
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Maybe be a bit more careful about the things you
agree to do in public. You know. Look, everyone's allowed
to let their head down a little bit, make a
fool of themselves. I think. Isn't that an amazing thing
about New Zealand though, that you had this big community
event on Saturday night and you had the Prime Minister
and the leader of the Opposition on stage dancing with
each other. That wouldn't happen in many other countries.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
Well, dancing so badly it wouldn't happen. And to the
other countries, most other countries in the world have got
a little bit of rhythm. I'm always about to withdraw
all of those terrible things I said about David Seymour
when he was on Dancing with the Stars, but I'm
not willing to go that far just yet. I think
he would have actually taken the floor over of he
was up there as well.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
There's no twerking on Saturday Night. We didn't traumatize people
quite that badly.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Yeah, traumatize me. When I watched it, I was thinking, sheeshit,
I'm not going to dance ever again in my life.
After seeing that, it's like dancing in the mirror, I
started practicing. Oh you great to have you in the studio.
Appreciate you coming in. Labor leader Chris Hipkins joins us
once a month on the show, and it's great to
have him and answering the questions for me and you.
It is eleven thirty on the DOT. When we come back,
(20:10):
I want to talk to you about Trevor Meller. Should
have he got fired? I want to have open that
up for conversation.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
You've heard what for more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills.
Listen live to news talks. He'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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.