Chris Hipkins says he's not worried by his party's showing in Tuesday night's 1News poll, showing his party down 5 points at 30 percent. 

Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, the Leader of the Opposition said polls bounce around, but he's confident in the trends he sees in Labour's internal polling, showing them sitting in the "high thirties". 

"I never get particularly obsessed about one individual poll, but you do look at the trends of polls, and trends have been showing Labour's support" 

Hipkins was also asked his thoughts on the Opportunity Party's continued rise, what Labour knew about the failed $32 million Immigration NZ IT project, and his thoughts on the New Zealand Initiatives' report on ACC. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Chris Hipkins says he's not worried by his party's showing in Tuesday night's 1News poll, showing his party down 5 points at 30 percent.&nbsp;
Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, the Leader of the Opposition said polls bounce around, but he's confident in the trends he sees in Labour's internal polling, showing them sitting in the "high thirties".&nbsp;
"I never get particularly obsessed about one individual poll, but you do look at the trends of polls, and trends have been showing Labour's support"&nbsp;
Hipkins was also asked his thoughts on the Opportunity Party's continued rise, what Labour knew about the failed $32 million Immigration NZ IT project, and his thoughts on the New Zealand Initiatives' report on ACC.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.

With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.

Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays. It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking. If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio. With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector. Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Chris Hipkins on Opportunity party, Superannuation, and ACC

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/5e212589-a3e9-4e79-9cfb-b47300073996/transcript

Labour has no plans to change the retirement age. No plan to start means testing the NZ Super pension. Nothing. 

Basically, Labour’s plan is for us all to keep sailing into our sunset years with our fingers crossed and the she‘ll be right attitude we’ve clung to for years. And, somehow, we’ll find the money to keep paying to NZ Super pension to anyone and everyone. 

I think it;s dreaming. Which is why I’m very interested in what Auckland University economist Susan St John is saying about a middle ground between lifting the retirement age and means-testing the pension. 

And, even though I’ve been pushing the idea of means testing for a while now, I’m listening to what she’s saying about this middle ground.  

It’s something we’ve done before in New Zealand but, politicians being politicians, they ditched it. Because it wasn’t popular. 

The superannuation surcharge, which we had during the 80s and 90s, hit people working beyond the retirement age with a special tax if the money they earned from their jobs went beyond a certain limit. 

It got up as high as 25 percent and the politicians got rid of it in 1998 because there was this view that it put people off working beyond the retirement age. 

That’s because about a quarter of people over the retirement age had to pay back some or all of their pension. 

But, given we have an ageing population and the cost of the NZ Super pension scheme is only going to become even more unaffordable in its current form, then I’m listening to what Susan St John is saying. 

Because if means testing the pension is too much for our politicians to stomach and if raising the age of entitlement spooks some of them too, then let’s meet in the middle and bring back the surcharge. 

It would be much more straightforward than means testing. Because how you define a person’s means? 

Is it just the money they earn over-and-above the pension from their job? Or is it also the money they earn over-and-above the pension from term deposits and other investments?  

Does it include any property they own? 

With the surcharge or the surtax, it would be very clear. 

And just like it was in the 80s and 90s, it would be unpopular. But so what? 

As Susan St John says, it would free-up money for those in genuine need.  

She’s done the numbers and reckons the surcharge would save us $3 billion, with little or no impact on the majority of low income retirees.

Sounds like the perfect middle ground to me. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Labour has no plans to change the retirement age. No plan to start means testing the NZ Super pension. Nothing.&nbsp;
Basically, Labour’s plan is for us all to keep sailing into our sunset years with our fingers crossed and the she‘ll be right attitude we’ve clung to for years. And, somehow, we’ll find the money to keep paying to NZ Super pension to anyone and everyone.&nbsp;
I think it;s dreaming. Which is why I’m very interested in what Auckland University economist Susan St John is saying about a middle ground between lifting the retirement age and means-testing the pension.&nbsp;
And, even though I’ve been pushing the idea of means testing for a while now, I’m listening to what she’s saying about this middle ground. &nbsp;
It’s something we’ve done before in New Zealand but, politicians being politicians, they ditched it. Because it wasn’t popular.&nbsp;
The superannuation surcharge, which we had during the 80s and 90s, hit people working beyond the retirement age with a special tax if the money they earned from their jobs went beyond a certain limit.&nbsp;
It got up as high as 25 percent and the politicians got rid of it in 1998 because there was this view that it put people off working beyond the retirement age.&nbsp;
That’s because about a quarter of people over the retirement age had to pay back some or all of their pension.&nbsp;
But, given we have an ageing population and the cost of the NZ Super pension scheme is only going to become even more unaffordable in its current form, then I’m listening to what Susan St John is saying.&nbsp;
Because if means testing the pension is too much for our politicians to stomach and if raising the age of entitlement spooks some of them too, then let’s meet in the middle and bring back the surcharge.&nbsp;
It would be much more straightforward than means testing. Because how you define a person’s means?&nbsp;
Is it just the money they earn over-and-above the pension from their job? Or is it also the money they earn over-and-above the pension from term deposits and other investments? &nbsp;
Does it include any property they own?&nbsp;
With the surcharge or the surtax, it would be very clear.&nbsp;
And just like it was in the 80s and 90s, it would be unpopular. But so what?&nbsp;
As Susan St John says, it would free-up money for those in genuine need. &nbsp;
She’s done the numbers and reckons the surcharge would save us $3 billion, with little or no impact on the majority of low income retirees.
Sounds like the perfect middle ground to me.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Pension procrastination isn't an option. But this is...

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/fa56f386-7751-47da-8de4-b473000b1e96/transcript

There were truckloads of people in Christchurch at the weekend for the Warriors game at One NZ Stadium.

How many? 6,000.

That’s how many out-of-towners were here during the weekend just gone. And they reckon the economic benefits for the city will be somewhere in the area of $4.7 million.

That’s on top of the $13 million that came into the city during the big Super Rugby Super Round weekend back in April.

Now, if you’re the government, you’d probably point to that and say this crowd calling today for a new bed tax to help cover tourism costs are barking up the wrong tree.

But I think the government needs to wake up to the fact that councils around the country are struggling to keep up and need a bed tax to take the burden off ratepayers.

The argument being that visitors should help pay for the infrastructure they use. Which I think is an absolute no-brainer.

So what’s happening, is Christchurch is one area pushing for a bed tax to help fund infrastructure and services to support and grow tourism.

The way it would work, is IRD would take in a nationwide visitor and accommodation levy and distribute the money back to the areas where it was collected.

The tax funds could only be used by councils on tourism spending. With the mayors and tourism leaders pushing for it saying it would ease the burden on ratepayers.

And it would be the same rate across the country. That’s why IRD would be involved, so that different places didn’t charge different amounts.

It would be a relatively straightforward solution to a major problem facing areas which have to rely on ratepayer money to pay for tourism infrastructure, as well as all the other stuff.

The government isn’t overly interested. And I know why.

It’s because it’s bought into this weird idea that, if you start charging visitors extra taxes, they won’t bother coming here. Which is such a backward way of looking at it.

Because, if you’ve been overseas, you’ll know how in other countries you pretty much pay to breathe. Slight exaggeration, but you know what I mean.

And if we think that paying a bit extra for accommodation - through this bed tax - is going to put people off coming here, then we’re not very confident about the place or ourselves, are we?

What’s more, this is the government that isn’t interested in a bed tax but, at the same time, increased the visitor levy for people from overseas.

The other thing, is whether a bed tax should only apply to visitors from overseas or whether it should apply to New Zealanders travelling around the country, as well.

My view is that it should apply to everyone - locals and people from overseas. Because when we go to places such as Queenstown or Twizel or up north somewhere, it’s very unlikely that we have contributed anything towards the key infrastructure that supports the tourism sector.

By and large, it’s local ratepayers who pay for that.

So, for me, I think we should have a bed tax in New Zealand. And we should all pay it, wherever we’re from.

LISTEN ABOVE

There were truckloads of people in Christchurch at the weekend for the Warriors game at One NZ Stadium.
How many? 6,000.
That’s how many out-of-towners were here during the weekend just gone. And they reckon the economic benefits for the city will be somewhere in the area of $4.7 million.
That’s on top of the $13 million that came into the city during the big Super Rugby Super Round weekend back in April.
Now, if you’re the government, you’d probably point to that and say this crowd calling today for a new bed tax to help cover tourism costs are barking up the wrong tree.
But I think the government needs to wake up to the fact that councils around the country are struggling to keep up and need a bed tax to take the burden off ratepayers.
The argument being that visitors should help pay for the infrastructure they use. Which I think is an absolute no-brainer.
So what’s happening, is Christchurch is one area pushing for a bed tax to help fund infrastructure and services to support and grow tourism.
The way it would work, is IRD would take in a nationwide visitor and accommodation levy and distribute the money back to the areas where it was collected.
The tax funds could only be used by councils on tourism spending. With the mayors and tourism leaders pushing for it saying it would ease the burden on ratepayers.
And it would be the same rate across the country. That’s why IRD would be involved, so that different places didn’t charge different amounts.
It would be a relatively straightforward solution to a major problem facing areas which have to rely on ratepayer money to pay for tourism infrastructure, as well as all the other stuff.
The government isn’t overly interested. And I know why.
It’s because it’s bought into this weird idea that, if you start charging visitors extra taxes, they won’t bother coming here.&nbsp;Which is such a backward way of looking at it.
Because, if you’ve been overseas, you’ll know how in other countries you pretty much pay to breathe. Slight exaggeration, but you know what I mean.
And if we think that paying a bit extra for accommodation - through this bed tax - is going to put people off coming here, then we’re not very confident about the place or ourselves, are we?
What’s more, this is the government that isn’t interested in a bed tax but, at the same time, increased the visitor levy for people from overseas.
The other thing, is whether a bed tax should only apply to visitors from overseas or whether it should apply to New Zealanders travelling around the country, as well.
My view is that it should apply to everyone - locals and people from overseas. Because when we go to places such as Queenstown or Twizel or up north somewhere, it’s very unlikely that we have contributed anything towards the key infrastructure that supports the tourism sector.
By and large, it’s local ratepayers who pay for that.
So, for me, I think we should have a bed tax in New Zealand. And we should all pay it, wherever we’re from.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: This bed tax idea isn't one to sleep on

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/7763aa11-0076-487e-a4ad-b4720007964c/transcript

Selwyn Mayor Lydia Gliddon joined John in the studio for their regular catchup.

They discussed the council’s response to the Government’s push for council amalgamation, her district’s efforts to slow drivers down and create safer roads in growing residential areas, and her views on Selwyn residents having to pay full price to tour the new One New Zealand Stadium.

LISTEN ABOVE

Selwyn Mayor Lydia Gliddon joined John in the studio for their regular catchup.
They discussed the council’s response to the Government’s push for council amalgamation, her district’s efforts to slow drivers down and create safer roads in growing residential areas, and her views on Selwyn residents having to pay full price to tour the new One New Zealand Stadium.
LISTEN ABOVE

Selwyn Mayor Lydia Gliddon on amalgamation, road safety and no discounts for stadium tours

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/5c893c67-3945-4dc8-99b7-b471018b0838/transcript

Chris Hipkins on Opportunity party, Superannuation, and ACC

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips