April 8, 2025 • 23 mins
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has thrown his support behind Andrew Little as the former party leader mulls a run for the Wellington mayoralty.
Speaking to Nick Mills today, Hipkins said Little is a “top bloke” and would be a “very, very good option for Wellingtonians”.
“He’s both a leader and a capable manager and I think Wellington city needs both at the moment,” Hipkins said.
“No one can doubt Andrew’s left-wing credentials, he’s a true Labour Party stalwart.”
He also discussed the government's new Defence Capability Plan, his party's standings in the polls and the fight against organised crime.
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 Bill us.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Now is Labor leader and Ruema Tucker MP, Chris Hopcomes,
Good morning, Chris Goda, good to be here. Nice to
have you here. I'm just make sure I've got your
microphone on. Nice and lo out. If you get nice
and close away we go. I really have to start, bob,
how things. I mean, it's good, it's good.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
I mean if winter's coming though, so you know Wellington's
feeling a little bit chilly in the last.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Couple of days. Now, I don't like I know you
don't like talking about poles, and I know you keep
telling everyone says the same thing, but well, you.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Know us politicians and never look at poles in it.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Of course, you're right, except when you're sitting on the
toilet reading them like gospel talk. You missed the popularity
at the moment, aren't you.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but look, it's encouraging.
You know, we said after the last election, we knew
we had some work to do, including me to rebuild
the Labor Party support. Where we're making good progress. But
you know, eighteen months has been a long time for
this government, and the next eighteen months is going to
be feel like a long time as well. So you
can't read too much into polls at this point in
(01:08):
the electoral cycle, but you know it's encouraging so far.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Something that intrigued me personally, this is a personal question,
is that you were interviewed yesterday and with the success
of the polls, and you said, I'm just being myself.
I've decided that I was going to be myself after
the election. What was the who was the old Cris Upkins?
If this is a new Cris up Get.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Well, I mean I think I was myself up until
I became Prime Minister, and then you know, I kind
of got thrust into that, you know, when just steps down,
and it is an enormous weight of responsibility. And so
I felt that weight of responsibility quite heavily. And we
only had eight months to run until the election, and
I sort of felt this huge responsibility both to lead
the country and to and to sort of compete in
an election campaign. And as a result, it probably did
(01:54):
become a bit more formal, a bit more sort.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Of removed ministeria.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Yeah, exactly, And you know, I've decidedly didn't work for me.
We didn't win, and so I'm just going to be
myself again.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
You know, if you had your time again, and obviously
the doors were knocking to Zinder would have come in
first and said, I'm stepping down. What do you think
do you want to take it over? And then everything
would have gone and everything would have gone nuts. If
you had your time again, do you think you would
have taken more time on that decision? Do you think
you would have waited and let someone else have a
crackt and then come back.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Because I don't think that's a responsible thing to do
in politics, you know. I think when an opportunity like
that comes, if you think you're the best person to
do it, then you should do it. I've watched other
people see a leadership opportunity sail past, and they've sort
of thought, oh, well, it's not the right time for me,
or I don't think I can win, so I'll just
let someone else lose and then, you know, and then
(02:45):
I'll have a go after that. And I just don't
think that's right, you know. I think ultimately, if you
think that you're the best person to take on the
challenge at that time, then you have a responsibility.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
To do that. Did it excite you at the time?
It did.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
It was pretty overwhelming at the time though. And look
for the first four or five months, I actually think
we were doing all right. I think from about June
July that's when things started to get a bit herey
for it us. And that wasn't just things going wrong
for the government. I think the economy started to create
some real headaches and heartaches for people. So things like
we had, you know, the petrol tacks we discounted that. Well,
(03:18):
that all ended around about June July, and the combination
of that and other rise and cost of doing factors
hurt the government, as well as having a few personnel
issues that you know, that distracted a lot of attention.
And that was where our support really started to dive
away because up until up until July, we'd been doing
all right. But but you know, you can't spend too
much time looking backwards.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Just I just tell well, I had the opportunity I
just did. Andrew Little.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Yeah, look, Andrew Little is the top bloke, very safe
pair of hands. I think if he decides to throw
his hat in the ring for the Wellington Mayalty, I
think he'd be a very very good option for Wellington
lead it. He's an absolute leader, and I think he's
also a very capable He's both a leader and a
(04:05):
capable man, and I think the Wellington City needs both
at the moment. I think he'll be a Andrew can
bring people together and you know, no one can doubt
Andrew's left wing credentials.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
You know he's a true Labor Party So that was
my next question, and let me interrupt you because I've
got it on the tip of my tongue. Now. My
big gripe about Wellington City Council is there's about two
hundred people too many in there. If he became mayor,
he's not going to cut a whole lot of staff,
is he.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Well. I think what he'll do is make sure that
where Wellington City actually does what it needs to do,
that it functions effectively. And what I was sort of
saying there is while you can't doubt Andrew's left wing credentials,
he is capable of working with people on the other side,
and I think Wellington City needs a bit of that
at the moment as well. I think, you know, we
ultimately need a mayor who's going to calm things down
(04:52):
and bring the council together. So I think of Andrew
puts his hat in the ring. I think he's the
sort of person who.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Could do that.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Have you had a conversation with him. I had a
conversation with him a while back. It's obviously his decision.
I'm not making any announcements on his behalf or whatever,
but i'm you know, I'm I think it's great for
Wellington that he's considering it.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Will Labor back him? Will he be Labour's guy if
he decides to put his name in the hat?
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Well, that's a hypothetical, of course, But I mean Andrew,
Andrew is a very loyal member of the Labor Party
and I think he's got very very strong support within
the Labor Party.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
So that would have to go back to the party before.
I mean, would that be a reasonably hard decision to make?
I wouldn't have thought so better.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Of course, he hasn't sought that endorsement at this At
this stage, did he ask your advice?
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Well, look, I said to him.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
I gave him some observations on where I think Wellington
is at and what I think Wellington needs. We had
a good conversation about that. That was a few weeks back. Really,
it's his call and it's his decision, and I'll fully
support whatever decision he chooses to make.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Do you think he's capable of beating Tory Farmer?
Speaker 3 (05:55):
I think Andrew would be an incredibly strong candidate if
he decides to run for the mayor of Wellington. And
as I said, I think that he provide the sort
of option that I think Wellingtonians are looking for.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Did he seem like a little bit excited by it
when you spoke to it?
Speaker 3 (06:09):
I know you're trying to get me to sort of
tease out an announcement. I don't think that's fair, but
I mean, I think he can make his own decisions
in his own announcements.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
But I mean, you get a feeling from someone you know,
like it's like me ringing you up and saying, hey, look,
I'm thinking of running for me, but I'm really not,
but I'm thinking about it. Let's have a chat. Was
it more serious than that? Oh?
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Look, I'm not going to get further into that because
I don't think that's fair on Andrew. I mean, ultimately,
if he decides to run, he decides to run, and
he can make his own choice.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
And you personally would give him your backing of.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Course if he decided to run here to have my
full support.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Okay, let's talk defense. Let's get you off that that
sticky question. Let's talk defense. The government's announced twelve billion
dollars of funding for the Defense Force part of its
new Capability Plan. We'll get new planes and choppers and
other kit We just think when you first heard this announcement, overall,
it's pretty good.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
You know, if you go back to twenty nineteen, we
released a defense Capability plan that sort of did the
first part of it, so that replace the orions, replace
the hercules, new bush masters for the army and so on.
Quite a lot of investment in new tech and for them,
and the Defense Capability Plan that the government have released,
(07:20):
by and large picks up where the twenty nineteen plan
left off. There's some new stuff in there. Technology has
changed since then, and I think this is one of
the things that we're going to have to grapple with
over the next five years. So if you think about,
you know, five years since the last plan and it'll
be five years before the next one. Technology is going
to continue to really change the game. So you know,
you've got you've got nuclear warships tied up in dock
(07:44):
and not able to sail basically, and the current war
around in Ukraine because of drone technology, and so I
think that the whole nature of this is changing a lot.
And I think we need to realize that big decisions
ahead for us, like what we do with our frigates.
You know that next decade we've got to do something
with those. I think it's too soon to tell what
(08:06):
we can do there.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Would you if you become Prime minister in the next year, gosh,
this's next year, next election, would you make any changes?
Would you stop anything? Would you do a fairies on us?
Speaker 3 (08:18):
No? Nothing fundamental. As I said, I think the Defense
Capability Plan there is flexible enough to recognize that as
technology changes, what we decide to buy might change. But
I think the plan that they've released is high level
enough that it leaves space for that to happen.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Would you agree in principle of the idea of borrowing
to pay for it because we basically we're a country
with no money.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Well, if you think about say that Hercules, the orions,
the ones that they replaced were forty fifty years old,
and the idea that we have to pay upfront for
stuff that we're buying now, which we might be using
for the next forty or fifty years is a bit unrealistic.
So we are going to have to borrow for some
of the stuff and pay it off over its lifetime.
You know, when you buy a house, you typically mortgage
it and you pay it off over the time that
(09:01):
you're living in it. I think we have to have
a more matured conversation about government debt buying if we're
borrowing money to buy the assets that we're going to
then use over the next thirty forty years. And this
isn't just defense either, this is things like schools, hospitals, roads, railways.
We have to be realistic that to meet the needs
of the country in terms of our infrastructure and the
(09:22):
public investment that's required, we're going to have to have
a serious conversation about borrowing for that.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Zan's is pillar too dead? Now? Do you think aucas
orch Sorry? Sorry?
Speaker 3 (09:32):
From New Zealand's perspective, I think it should be. I
think the reality is I think the nature of orcust
is going to change too. As I just said, you know,
the speed of which technology is changing the game militarily
can't be overstated at this point, you know, are the Australians,
you know, ten years from now really still going to
be talking about nuclear submarines. One of the things about
(09:53):
a submarine is you use it for stealth like capability
because you can't see it coming. Well, if surveillance technology
is advancing to the point where you can see a
submarine sitting on the ocean floor, our government's still going
to want to put that much money? You're given how
much money is actually involved? Are they still going to
want to put that much money into them?
Speaker 2 (10:12):
You think not?
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Well, I mean that's a question for the Aussies, but
I think a lot can happen in a decade.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Remind me to ask you before we finish about the
debate last night? Did you watch it? Which debate Australian one? No?
I haven't. Actually, okay, there's no point asking you about it.
I didn't watch it either. I recorded it was too
late at night for me, probably too late at night
for you too. Wellington Mornings with Lucky enough to have
a labor leader and Ruemattucker MP Chris Hipkins in the
Studio comes in once a month and has a little
bit of a chat to us when he's got very
(10:39):
little on or a little bit of time. Wouldn't go
that far. No, No, it's good. It's always great fun.
Let's talk tariffs. The global markets have plummeted after US
President Donald Trump's wide ranging tariffs. New Zealand was stung
with a blanket ten percent tariff on everything we sell
into the United States. What do you make of us?
What are you? What's your gut telling you? And where
(11:00):
are we going to go? Oh?
Speaker 3 (11:01):
I mean, let's be clear. Donald Trump's tariffs are global
economic vandalism, and they're bad for New Zealand. They're going
to be bad for the world economy, and they're going
to actually be bad for American consumers. Everyone in the
States is going to pay more for every time they
go to the supermark, every time they need to buy something.
Americans going to pay more. And there's no logic behind
(11:23):
some of them either. So I mean, I saw an
analysis this morning. If you take coco, for example, the
stuff you need to make chocolate, the Americans couldn't grow
enough of it in order to meet their own domestic demand,
so they have to import it. So wacking a big
tariff on it is just going to push up the
price of chocolate for Americans. It doesn't make any sense.
(11:43):
And the way the analysis of the supposed tariffs of
New Zealand that suggested we had twenty percent tariffs on
the US is just absolute, an absolute lie. Frankly, we've
got some of the lowest tariffs in the world.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
So tell me, do you think that when St. Peter's
and its role sort of doing it the right thing
feed on the ground has helped us only get a
ten percent or is that just because we're a good
guy and we just got it.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
I mean, if you look at the United Kingdom, the
United Kingdom actually do have tariffs on US imports and
we mora or least don't in the UK United Kingdom's
only got a ten percent tariff. So I don't think
Winston Peter's representations have made any difference whatsoever. But I
think he missed an opportunity to state a principled New
Zealand position, which is what he should have done.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
And what about the fact that the government hasn't said
anything about putting tariffs on the South or standing up
to them or having a go do you think we
should do anything, or just shut up and put up
with it.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
I don't think we should get into a tariff war.
I don't think that's working for the other countries that
are doing it. I think we should speak up strongly
against tariffs. We should take a principled position. But also
a principal position is a lot less principled if you
then start to do the very thing that you're criticizing.
So I think we should say, look, we're opposed to tariffs.
That's New Zealand's long standing position.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
How's it going to hurt us? Give us crystal ball
here for a little bit. What do you think is
going to happen over the next six or eight months,
ten months, twelve months. Do you think it's going to
really affect that.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
My inclination, having spoken to a lot of our export business,
is that I think where the economic kind of consensus
is going is that the indirect impact of tariffs is
probably going to be stronger for New Zealand than the
direct impact of tariffs. So it's take Kei we wine.
We export a lot of wine into the United States.
It's a premium wine product in the United States. Is
a ten percent price premium going to you know, generate
(13:25):
that much less demand. I'm not sure that it necessarily will.
Something like key we fruit. About eight percent of our
key fruit goes into the US, but it's a premium product,
you know, it's highly desirable. I think with A bigger
issue for US will be if there's a global economic
downturn and other export markets get disrupted as a result
of it, that will be a problem for US. So
demand in other markets like China could actually cool off.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Is you've got telling you that's going to happen, because
that's what That's what the concern is, really, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
That's what a lot of the economic commentators are predicting
and are very concerned about. And I think we should
be concerned about that because you know, say, you know,
we eight percent of our key we fruit going to
the US, about twenty five percent of it goes to China.
So you know, all those big exporting industries a lot
of stuff going to China. If demand for that calls
even just a little bit, that could have quite a
big flow on effect. Then you've got the displacement stuff.
(14:13):
So year ago countries who are no longer exporting to
the US could potentially now be competing with us for
the markets that we currently have a dominance, and it's
so I think that indirect flow on effect is probably
going to be bigger to New Zealand than.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
The direct effect.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
Quite scary, I think it is. I mean, it's a
very volatile time for the world. I don't think we've
ever had somebody in the White House, certainly ever, who
has been doing stuff that says that has as little
evidence to back up the decisions as the current administration does.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Talk to me about David Parker, I mean, most people
would think that you'd have a sort of a rocky
relationship with him. He really was pushing for a whole
lot of taxation that you didn't want to have wealth tax,
you know, capital gains tax. You know, you and him
sort of didn't see eye to I in taxation. That'd
be fair to say, well.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
I mean we certainly didn't to run up to the
last election, but I don't think you could say that
that characterizes our relationship. I regard David is a good friend.
Some of my some of my closest friends are the
people who have some of the strongest disagreements with Grant
Robertson and Jesinderadun and I used to argue a lot
with each other, but there are two of my closest friends,
and so, you know, I think sometimes the political debate,
(15:28):
or the coverage of the political debate can be a
bit immature in that regard, because you can still be
very good friends with someone, you can still have a
very good wordan relationship with them, but for have areas
where you disagree.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
And what would his legacy be.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
I think David can leave politics really proud of a
lot of the things that he's done. You know, David
was one of our early ministers of climate change. I
think he was in New Zealand's second minister for climate
change after Pete Hodgson, who was our first. So I
think the massive shift and attitudes towards climate change in
the environment, David's been a very big part of that.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
I do feel for.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Him in the sense that I think one of the
biggest legacies could have he could have left us was
was the replacement of the RMA, And just out of
pure spite and pettiness, the new government came in and
repealed all the work that he's done so that they
could then basically put in place a system that looks
very similar to the one that David designed, when they
could have just actually worked from the one that David
(16:21):
had already done. So I'm disappointed by that, but I
suspect the rime reform they come out with is going
to look quite similar to what David had already done.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
The taxation plan that we keep waiting for with data breath,
we'll be waiting a little bit longer for how much
what have he had to do with that? I mean,
is it going to be any of his ideas?
Speaker 3 (16:42):
And that I mean David, if you go back to
so our last stint in opposition, was very active in
the text debates there around formulating Labour's previous capital gains
tax policy, and you know, so yes, of course his
thoughts and his ideas will go into shaping that's we're
working through a range of options around tax at the moment,
and we haven't actually made decisions on that yet. So
(17:04):
I think anyone trying to say that it's because of
disagreement on text where we haven't actually formulated a tax
policy yet, I think that's just people I interviewing their own.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
To be fair, to be fair and honest, he was
very upset that he didn't get his capital gains and
he didn't get some of the taxation. Wealth tax is
a big thing for him and he basically got cold
shouldered on it, didn't he. So I mean, you know
that's he was always going to go.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
Well, the decision to rule those things out was actually
made before I became leader, and we reconsidered that when
I became leader, and in the end we didn't end
up adopting the wealth tax for the for the last
election campaign. That wasn't just my decision, as much as
the media might try and portray it that there was
a decision made first by the cabinet and then by
(17:45):
the party's policy process. But you know, tax is back
on the table and a live conversation for us at
the moment.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Will you make of the temoth of Paul stuff? Now?
I know that we talk about this every time you
come in because you know, chances are for you to
be government chances and I know you want everyone to
vote for labor and I'll get I get that narrative
all the time, but for you to become government, you're
going to have to have some support and right now,
(18:14):
you know the Green Party and to party Maria putting
that putting a strain on that relation should be putting
a strain on that relationship. I mean that's the nature
of m MP.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
The smaller parties will always take positions that the bigger
parties aren't always supportive of. So I disagree with Tamoth
Thepaul on policing. You know, I think I've been around Wellington.
I spect to a lot of those retail businesses. They
actually quite like having more police foot patrols around the place,
and they're very supportive of them. So I think she
was wrong when she said that, you know, Wellingtonians don't
(18:43):
like seeing more police out and about walking the pavements.
I actually think the majority Wellingtonians do like that. I
think one of the things that frustrates me here is
that there are some big debates around how victims of
crime feel towards the police, and some victims of crime
actually end up with quite a negative impression of the police,
(19:04):
and the police has still got more work to do
in that, but I think it's a big leap to
go from that where I think there is a legitimate
conversation to be had to saying that people feel less
safe when they see the police around.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
I don't agree with that. Can I just quickly ask
you too? We just did an hour and we had
amazing story from a young woman who was a meth
addict and cleaned her act up. It was just a
beautiful story by you know, trying to think of her name, Bex.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
It was.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
We were talking about the fact that right now crime,
you know underworld crime and drugs, is worse than it's
ever been. Jared Savage said that I tried to compare
it to mister Asia. He laughed at me. He said,
it's just horrific. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Well, see, taking gang pictures off the gangs hasn't done
anything to deepen their business. If anything, their business is booming.
Meth andphetamine use in New Zealand's doubled in the last
year if you go based on wastewater testing, and that's
just in the last year. And you know current government
can't blame the last government for that. You know, we've
got a big problem here and I don't think that
(20:08):
the tough law and order stance is necessarily the thing
that's going to solve the problem. I think what's going
to solve the problem is figuring out why people start
using meth in the first place. It's a tragedy and
so mental health's part of it. Providing better health services
and health support is part of it. Providing hope for
people is a big part of it. And I think
(20:29):
that we can't just assume that that being tough and
taking gang pittchures always going to solve meth ANDFETA mean
because that's not working.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
So but surely that we should be putting more resources
into policing, into customs to stop the stuff coming in.
I know you're going to turn around and say we're
doing that with record numbers, but it's still very readily available.
In cocaine, a drug that used to be for the
very rich and famous, now it's on the streets.
Speaker 3 (20:55):
So I started a look at this briefly in my
brief tenure about six months as Minister of Police, and
so I did talk to customs about that, and I
talked to police about it because I was like, how
are these drugs getting into the country Because there's the
meth us here. It's not locally manufactured. It's all coming
in across the border, well not all of it, but
the vast bulk of it's coming in across the border,
So how is it coming in across the border? You know,
(21:15):
we don't search every shipping container that comes into the country.
The reality of doing so would be massively expensive and
almost impossible, and so you have to rely on intelligence,
and so investing in that kind of police and customs
intelligence is really really important because that's how you identify
how the drugs are getting in and that's why we've
(21:37):
had those big drug busts. So under our government we
actually put quite a bit more money into doing these things.
So things like our partnership, our five Eyes partnership, which
gets you talked about quite a lot. Actually busting drug
rings is one of the things that their intelligence contributes towards,
and I think that's an undersold value of what they do.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Can I just ask you. One of our call has
said that he can go on Facebook and get any
drug he wants, any time he wants. Why are police
not policing that if they can get so? Can the
information must be out there? Do you think that we're
resourcing it well enough?
Speaker 3 (22:11):
That's probably a bit a question for the police because
that gets into how they actually do their operations. I
do know police do do sort of COVID surveillance of
that kind of thing, but the details of that really
are more questions for them.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Thanks for coming in. Always good fun. I really do
appreciate you taking time out to come in and joining
us on the show. Hopefully you have a really good
weekend that your popularity keeps continuing. Well go away. Congratulations
on that, by the way, it's well done, job well done.
Chris Hapkins, labor leader and rumatucka MP, joins us once
a month I think roundabout once a month when he
(22:49):
gets an opportunity, he comes in and has a chat
to us because he's one of our local MP's. Thank you, enjoyed,
enjoy having a chat.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am week days,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio like
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talk said Bill us.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Now is Labor leader and Ruema Tucker MP, Chris Hopcomes,
Good morning, Chris Goda, good to be here. Nice to
have you here. I'm just make sure I've got your
microphone on. Nice and lo out. If you get nice
and close away we go. I really have to start, bob,
how things. I mean, it's good, it's good.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
I mean if winter's coming though, so you know Wellington's
feeling a little bit chilly in the last.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Couple of days. Now, I don't like I know you
don't like talking about poles, and I know you keep
telling everyone says the same thing, but well, you.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Know us politicians and never look at poles in it.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Of course, you're right, except when you're sitting on the
toilet reading them like gospel talk. You missed the popularity
at the moment, aren't you.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but look, it's encouraging.
You know, we said after the last election, we knew
we had some work to do, including me to rebuild
the Labor Party support. Where we're making good progress. But
you know, eighteen months has been a long time for
this government, and the next eighteen months is going to
be feel like a long time as well. So you
can't read too much into polls at this point in
(01:08):
the electoral cycle, but you know it's encouraging so far.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Something that intrigued me personally, this is a personal question,
is that you were interviewed yesterday and with the success
of the polls, and you said, I'm just being myself.
I've decided that I was going to be myself after
the election. What was the who was the old Cris Upkins?
If this is a new Cris up Get.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Well, I mean I think I was myself up until
I became Prime Minister, and then you know, I kind
of got thrust into that, you know, when just steps down,
and it is an enormous weight of responsibility. And so
I felt that weight of responsibility quite heavily. And we
only had eight months to run until the election, and
I sort of felt this huge responsibility both to lead
the country and to and to sort of compete in
an election campaign. And as a result, it probably did
(01:54):
become a bit more formal, a bit more sort.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Of removed ministeria.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Yeah, exactly, And you know, I've decidedly didn't work for me.
We didn't win, and so I'm just going to be
myself again.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
You know, if you had your time again, and obviously
the doors were knocking to Zinder would have come in
first and said, I'm stepping down. What do you think
do you want to take it over? And then everything
would have gone and everything would have gone nuts. If
you had your time again, do you think you would
have taken more time on that decision? Do you think
you would have waited and let someone else have a
crackt and then come back.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Because I don't think that's a responsible thing to do
in politics, you know. I think when an opportunity like
that comes, if you think you're the best person to
do it, then you should do it. I've watched other
people see a leadership opportunity sail past, and they've sort
of thought, oh, well, it's not the right time for me,
or I don't think I can win, so I'll just
let someone else lose and then, you know, and then
(02:45):
I'll have a go after that. And I just don't
think that's right, you know. I think ultimately, if you
think that you're the best person to take on the
challenge at that time, then you have a responsibility.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
To do that. Did it excite you at the time?
It did.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
It was pretty overwhelming at the time though. And look
for the first four or five months, I actually think
we were doing all right. I think from about June
July that's when things started to get a bit herey
for it us. And that wasn't just things going wrong
for the government. I think the economy started to create
some real headaches and heartaches for people. So things like
we had, you know, the petrol tacks we discounted that. Well,
(03:18):
that all ended around about June July, and the combination
of that and other rise and cost of doing factors
hurt the government, as well as having a few personnel
issues that you know, that distracted a lot of attention.
And that was where our support really started to dive
away because up until up until July, we'd been doing
all right. But but you know, you can't spend too
much time looking backwards.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Just I just tell well, I had the opportunity I
just did. Andrew Little.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Yeah, look, Andrew Little is the top bloke, very safe
pair of hands. I think if he decides to throw
his hat in the ring for the Wellington Mayalty, I
think he'd be a very very good option for Wellington
lead it. He's an absolute leader, and I think he's
also a very capable He's both a leader and a
(04:05):
capable man, and I think the Wellington City needs both
at the moment. I think he'll be a Andrew can
bring people together and you know, no one can doubt
Andrew's left wing credentials.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
You know he's a true Labor Party So that was
my next question, and let me interrupt you because I've
got it on the tip of my tongue. Now. My
big gripe about Wellington City Council is there's about two
hundred people too many in there. If he became mayor,
he's not going to cut a whole lot of staff,
is he.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Well. I think what he'll do is make sure that
where Wellington City actually does what it needs to do,
that it functions effectively. And what I was sort of
saying there is while you can't doubt Andrew's left wing credentials,
he is capable of working with people on the other side,
and I think Wellington City needs a bit of that
at the moment as well. I think, you know, we
ultimately need a mayor who's going to calm things down
(04:52):
and bring the council together. So I think of Andrew
puts his hat in the ring. I think he's the
sort of person who.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Could do that.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Have you had a conversation with him. I had a
conversation with him a while back. It's obviously his decision.
I'm not making any announcements on his behalf or whatever,
but i'm you know, I'm I think it's great for
Wellington that he's considering it.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Will Labor back him? Will he be Labour's guy if
he decides to put his name in the hat?
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Well, that's a hypothetical, of course, But I mean Andrew,
Andrew is a very loyal member of the Labor Party
and I think he's got very very strong support within
the Labor Party.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
So that would have to go back to the party before.
I mean, would that be a reasonably hard decision to make?
I wouldn't have thought so better.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Of course, he hasn't sought that endorsement at this At
this stage, did he ask your advice?
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Well, look, I said to him.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
I gave him some observations on where I think Wellington
is at and what I think Wellington needs. We had
a good conversation about that. That was a few weeks back. Really,
it's his call and it's his decision, and I'll fully
support whatever decision he chooses to make.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Do you think he's capable of beating Tory Farmer?
Speaker 3 (05:55):
I think Andrew would be an incredibly strong candidate if
he decides to run for the mayor of Wellington. And
as I said, I think that he provide the sort
of option that I think Wellingtonians are looking for.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Did he seem like a little bit excited by it
when you spoke to it?
Speaker 3 (06:09):
I know you're trying to get me to sort of
tease out an announcement. I don't think that's fair, but
I mean, I think he can make his own decisions
in his own announcements.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
But I mean, you get a feeling from someone you know,
like it's like me ringing you up and saying, hey, look,
I'm thinking of running for me, but I'm really not,
but I'm thinking about it. Let's have a chat. Was
it more serious than that? Oh?
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Look, I'm not going to get further into that because
I don't think that's fair on Andrew. I mean, ultimately,
if he decides to run, he decides to run, and
he can make his own choice.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
And you personally would give him your backing of.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Course if he decided to run here to have my
full support.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Okay, let's talk defense. Let's get you off that that
sticky question. Let's talk defense. The government's announced twelve billion
dollars of funding for the Defense Force part of its
new Capability Plan. We'll get new planes and choppers and
other kit We just think when you first heard this announcement, overall,
it's pretty good.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
You know, if you go back to twenty nineteen, we
released a defense Capability plan that sort of did the
first part of it, so that replace the orions, replace
the hercules, new bush masters for the army and so on.
Quite a lot of investment in new tech and for them,
and the Defense Capability Plan that the government have released,
(07:20):
by and large picks up where the twenty nineteen plan
left off. There's some new stuff in there. Technology has
changed since then, and I think this is one of
the things that we're going to have to grapple with
over the next five years. So if you think about,
you know, five years since the last plan and it'll
be five years before the next one. Technology is going
to continue to really change the game. So you know,
you've got you've got nuclear warships tied up in dock
(07:44):
and not able to sail basically, and the current war
around in Ukraine because of drone technology, and so I
think that the whole nature of this is changing a lot.
And I think we need to realize that big decisions
ahead for us, like what we do with our frigates.
You know that next decade we've got to do something
with those. I think it's too soon to tell what
(08:06):
we can do there.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Would you if you become Prime minister in the next year, gosh,
this's next year, next election, would you make any changes?
Would you stop anything? Would you do a fairies on us?
Speaker 3 (08:18):
No? Nothing fundamental. As I said, I think the Defense
Capability Plan there is flexible enough to recognize that as
technology changes, what we decide to buy might change. But
I think the plan that they've released is high level
enough that it leaves space for that to happen.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Would you agree in principle of the idea of borrowing
to pay for it because we basically we're a country
with no money.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Well, if you think about say that Hercules, the orions,
the ones that they replaced were forty fifty years old,
and the idea that we have to pay upfront for
stuff that we're buying now, which we might be using
for the next forty or fifty years is a bit unrealistic.
So we are going to have to borrow for some
of the stuff and pay it off over its lifetime.
You know, when you buy a house, you typically mortgage
it and you pay it off over the time that
(09:01):
you're living in it. I think we have to have
a more matured conversation about government debt buying if we're
borrowing money to buy the assets that we're going to
then use over the next thirty forty years. And this
isn't just defense either, this is things like schools, hospitals, roads, railways.
We have to be realistic that to meet the needs
of the country in terms of our infrastructure and the
(09:22):
public investment that's required, we're going to have to have
a serious conversation about borrowing for that.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Zan's is pillar too dead? Now? Do you think aucas
orch Sorry? Sorry?
Speaker 3 (09:32):
From New Zealand's perspective, I think it should be. I
think the reality is I think the nature of orcust
is going to change too. As I just said, you know,
the speed of which technology is changing the game militarily
can't be overstated at this point, you know, are the Australians,
you know, ten years from now really still going to
be talking about nuclear submarines. One of the things about
(09:53):
a submarine is you use it for stealth like capability
because you can't see it coming. Well, if surveillance technology
is advancing to the point where you can see a
submarine sitting on the ocean floor, our government's still going
to want to put that much money? You're given how
much money is actually involved? Are they still going to
want to put that much money into them?
Speaker 2 (10:12):
You think not?
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Well, I mean that's a question for the Aussies, but
I think a lot can happen in a decade.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Remind me to ask you before we finish about the
debate last night? Did you watch it? Which debate Australian one? No?
I haven't. Actually, okay, there's no point asking you about it.
I didn't watch it either. I recorded it was too
late at night for me, probably too late at night
for you too. Wellington Mornings with Lucky enough to have
a labor leader and Ruemattucker MP Chris Hipkins in the
Studio comes in once a month and has a little
bit of a chat to us when he's got very
(10:39):
little on or a little bit of time. Wouldn't go
that far. No, No, it's good. It's always great fun.
Let's talk tariffs. The global markets have plummeted after US
President Donald Trump's wide ranging tariffs. New Zealand was stung
with a blanket ten percent tariff on everything we sell
into the United States. What do you make of us?
What are you? What's your gut telling you? And where
(11:00):
are we going to go? Oh?
Speaker 3 (11:01):
I mean, let's be clear. Donald Trump's tariffs are global
economic vandalism, and they're bad for New Zealand. They're going
to be bad for the world economy, and they're going
to actually be bad for American consumers. Everyone in the
States is going to pay more for every time they
go to the supermark, every time they need to buy something.
Americans going to pay more. And there's no logic behind
(11:23):
some of them either. So I mean, I saw an
analysis this morning. If you take coco, for example, the
stuff you need to make chocolate, the Americans couldn't grow
enough of it in order to meet their own domestic demand,
so they have to import it. So wacking a big
tariff on it is just going to push up the
price of chocolate for Americans. It doesn't make any sense.
(11:43):
And the way the analysis of the supposed tariffs of
New Zealand that suggested we had twenty percent tariffs on
the US is just absolute, an absolute lie. Frankly, we've
got some of the lowest tariffs in the world.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
So tell me, do you think that when St. Peter's
and its role sort of doing it the right thing
feed on the ground has helped us only get a
ten percent or is that just because we're a good
guy and we just got it.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
I mean, if you look at the United Kingdom, the
United Kingdom actually do have tariffs on US imports and
we mora or least don't in the UK United Kingdom's
only got a ten percent tariff. So I don't think
Winston Peter's representations have made any difference whatsoever. But I
think he missed an opportunity to state a principled New
Zealand position, which is what he should have done.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
And what about the fact that the government hasn't said
anything about putting tariffs on the South or standing up
to them or having a go do you think we
should do anything, or just shut up and put up
with it.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
I don't think we should get into a tariff war.
I don't think that's working for the other countries that
are doing it. I think we should speak up strongly
against tariffs. We should take a principled position. But also
a principal position is a lot less principled if you
then start to do the very thing that you're criticizing.
So I think we should say, look, we're opposed to tariffs.
That's New Zealand's long standing position.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
How's it going to hurt us? Give us crystal ball
here for a little bit. What do you think is
going to happen over the next six or eight months,
ten months, twelve months. Do you think it's going to
really affect that.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
My inclination, having spoken to a lot of our export business,
is that I think where the economic kind of consensus
is going is that the indirect impact of tariffs is
probably going to be stronger for New Zealand than the
direct impact of tariffs. So it's take Kei we wine.
We export a lot of wine into the United States.
It's a premium wine product in the United States. Is
a ten percent price premium going to you know, generate
(13:25):
that much less demand. I'm not sure that it necessarily will.
Something like key we fruit. About eight percent of our
key fruit goes into the US, but it's a premium product,
you know, it's highly desirable. I think with A bigger
issue for US will be if there's a global economic
downturn and other export markets get disrupted as a result
of it, that will be a problem for US. So
demand in other markets like China could actually cool off.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Is you've got telling you that's going to happen, because
that's what That's what the concern is, really, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
That's what a lot of the economic commentators are predicting
and are very concerned about. And I think we should
be concerned about that because you know, say, you know,
we eight percent of our key we fruit going to
the US, about twenty five percent of it goes to China.
So you know, all those big exporting industries a lot
of stuff going to China. If demand for that calls
even just a little bit, that could have quite a
big flow on effect. Then you've got the displacement stuff.
(14:13):
So year ago countries who are no longer exporting to
the US could potentially now be competing with us for
the markets that we currently have a dominance, and it's
so I think that indirect flow on effect is probably
going to be bigger to New Zealand than.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
The direct effect.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
Quite scary, I think it is. I mean, it's a
very volatile time for the world. I don't think we've
ever had somebody in the White House, certainly ever, who
has been doing stuff that says that has as little
evidence to back up the decisions as the current administration does.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Talk to me about David Parker, I mean, most people
would think that you'd have a sort of a rocky
relationship with him. He really was pushing for a whole
lot of taxation that you didn't want to have wealth tax,
you know, capital gains tax. You know, you and him
sort of didn't see eye to I in taxation. That'd
be fair to say, well.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
I mean we certainly didn't to run up to the
last election, but I don't think you could say that
that characterizes our relationship. I regard David is a good friend.
Some of my some of my closest friends are the
people who have some of the strongest disagreements with Grant
Robertson and Jesinderadun and I used to argue a lot
with each other, but there are two of my closest friends,
and so, you know, I think sometimes the political debate,
(15:28):
or the coverage of the political debate can be a
bit immature in that regard, because you can still be
very good friends with someone, you can still have a
very good wordan relationship with them, but for have areas
where you disagree.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
And what would his legacy be.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
I think David can leave politics really proud of a
lot of the things that he's done. You know, David
was one of our early ministers of climate change. I
think he was in New Zealand's second minister for climate
change after Pete Hodgson, who was our first. So I
think the massive shift and attitudes towards climate change in
the environment, David's been a very big part of that.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
I do feel for.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Him in the sense that I think one of the
biggest legacies could have he could have left us was
was the replacement of the RMA, And just out of
pure spite and pettiness, the new government came in and
repealed all the work that he's done so that they
could then basically put in place a system that looks
very similar to the one that David designed, when they
could have just actually worked from the one that David
(16:21):
had already done. So I'm disappointed by that, but I
suspect the rime reform they come out with is going
to look quite similar to what David had already done.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
The taxation plan that we keep waiting for with data breath,
we'll be waiting a little bit longer for how much
what have he had to do with that? I mean,
is it going to be any of his ideas?
Speaker 3 (16:42):
And that I mean David, if you go back to
so our last stint in opposition, was very active in
the text debates there around formulating Labour's previous capital gains
tax policy, and you know, so yes, of course his
thoughts and his ideas will go into shaping that's we're
working through a range of options around tax at the moment,
and we haven't actually made decisions on that yet. So
(17:04):
I think anyone trying to say that it's because of
disagreement on text where we haven't actually formulated a tax
policy yet, I think that's just people I interviewing their own.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
To be fair, to be fair and honest, he was
very upset that he didn't get his capital gains and
he didn't get some of the taxation. Wealth tax is
a big thing for him and he basically got cold
shouldered on it, didn't he. So I mean, you know
that's he was always going to go.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
Well, the decision to rule those things out was actually
made before I became leader, and we reconsidered that when
I became leader, and in the end we didn't end
up adopting the wealth tax for the for the last
election campaign. That wasn't just my decision, as much as
the media might try and portray it that there was
a decision made first by the cabinet and then by
(17:45):
the party's policy process. But you know, tax is back
on the table and a live conversation for us at
the moment.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Will you make of the temoth of Paul stuff? Now?
I know that we talk about this every time you
come in because you know, chances are for you to
be government chances and I know you want everyone to
vote for labor and I'll get I get that narrative
all the time, but for you to become government, you're
going to have to have some support and right now,
(18:14):
you know the Green Party and to party Maria putting
that putting a strain on that relation should be putting
a strain on that relationship. I mean that's the nature
of m MP.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
The smaller parties will always take positions that the bigger
parties aren't always supportive of. So I disagree with Tamoth
Thepaul on policing. You know, I think I've been around Wellington.
I spect to a lot of those retail businesses. They
actually quite like having more police foot patrols around the place,
and they're very supportive of them. So I think she
was wrong when she said that, you know, Wellingtonians don't
(18:43):
like seeing more police out and about walking the pavements.
I actually think the majority Wellingtonians do like that. I
think one of the things that frustrates me here is
that there are some big debates around how victims of
crime feel towards the police, and some victims of crime
actually end up with quite a negative impression of the police,
(19:04):
and the police has still got more work to do
in that, but I think it's a big leap to
go from that where I think there is a legitimate
conversation to be had to saying that people feel less
safe when they see the police around.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
I don't agree with that. Can I just quickly ask
you too? We just did an hour and we had
amazing story from a young woman who was a meth
addict and cleaned her act up. It was just a
beautiful story by you know, trying to think of her name, Bex.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
It was.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
We were talking about the fact that right now crime,
you know underworld crime and drugs, is worse than it's
ever been. Jared Savage said that I tried to compare
it to mister Asia. He laughed at me. He said,
it's just horrific. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Well, see, taking gang pictures off the gangs hasn't done
anything to deepen their business. If anything, their business is booming.
Meth andphetamine use in New Zealand's doubled in the last
year if you go based on wastewater testing, and that's
just in the last year. And you know current government
can't blame the last government for that. You know, we've
got a big problem here and I don't think that
(20:08):
the tough law and order stance is necessarily the thing
that's going to solve the problem. I think what's going
to solve the problem is figuring out why people start
using meth in the first place. It's a tragedy and
so mental health's part of it. Providing better health services
and health support is part of it. Providing hope for
people is a big part of it. And I think
(20:29):
that we can't just assume that that being tough and
taking gang pittchures always going to solve meth ANDFETA mean
because that's not working.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
So but surely that we should be putting more resources
into policing, into customs to stop the stuff coming in.
I know you're going to turn around and say we're
doing that with record numbers, but it's still very readily available.
In cocaine, a drug that used to be for the
very rich and famous, now it's on the streets.
Speaker 3 (20:55):
So I started a look at this briefly in my
brief tenure about six months as Minister of Police, and
so I did talk to customs about that, and I
talked to police about it because I was like, how
are these drugs getting into the country Because there's the
meth us here. It's not locally manufactured. It's all coming
in across the border, well not all of it, but
the vast bulk of it's coming in across the border,
So how is it coming in across the border? You know,
(21:15):
we don't search every shipping container that comes into the country.
The reality of doing so would be massively expensive and
almost impossible, and so you have to rely on intelligence,
and so investing in that kind of police and customs
intelligence is really really important because that's how you identify
how the drugs are getting in and that's why we've
(21:37):
had those big drug busts. So under our government we
actually put quite a bit more money into doing these things.
So things like our partnership, our five Eyes partnership, which
gets you talked about quite a lot. Actually busting drug
rings is one of the things that their intelligence contributes towards,
and I think that's an undersold value of what they do.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Can I just ask you. One of our call has
said that he can go on Facebook and get any
drug he wants, any time he wants. Why are police
not policing that if they can get so? Can the
information must be out there? Do you think that we're
resourcing it well enough?
Speaker 3 (22:11):
That's probably a bit a question for the police because
that gets into how they actually do their operations. I
do know police do do sort of COVID surveillance of
that kind of thing, but the details of that really
are more questions for them.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Thanks for coming in. Always good fun. I really do
appreciate you taking time out to come in and joining
us on the show. Hopefully you have a really good
weekend that your popularity keeps continuing. Well go away. Congratulations
on that, by the way, it's well done, job well done.
Chris Hapkins, labor leader and rumatucka MP, joins us once
a month I think roundabout once a month when he
(22:49):
gets an opportunity, he comes in and has a chat
to us because he's one of our local MP's. Thank you, enjoyed,
enjoy having a chat.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am week days,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio like
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
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 Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.