Labour leader Chris Hipkins has kicked off the 2026 election year with twin pledges, vowing not to toll the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge to fund a second harbour crossing, and promising to scrap the Government’s proposed liquefied natural gas import terminal if Labour takes office before contracts are signed.
In his State of the Nation address in Auckland, Hipkins framed the election as a “choice between two futures”, casting Labour’s platform as a cost of living to-do list focused on; “Jobs. Health. Homes.” and a New Zealand-made economic strategy.
"We need change, and Labour knows how," he said.
"A future made in New Zealand. Not made for us, made by us."
Criticism came in fast, NZ First leader Winston Peters posting on X, calling him Chris “softy” Hipkins and accusing him of delivering "one of the most boring State of the Nation speeches in recorded history".
"No new policy. No new plan. No new announcements - apart from announcing they will announce policy later - maybe he’s just waiting for the Greens and TPM to fill in the gaps," he said.
While National deputy Nicola Willis said the speech "read like a lump of jelly, filled with platitudes and sentiment, but no concrete plans".
"Chat GPT could have written that speech," Willis said, "He actually needs to have constructive ideas for the future."
The Government earlier this month announced it would build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal as soon as 2027 to remove the risk associated with dry years. LNG is natural gas that has been cooled and liquified so it can be transported easily.
Hipkins said the “answer isn't to lock New Zealand into volatile global energy markets, it's to invest in cheap, clean power right here at home in New Zealand”.
“We don't support it. We won't support it. And if we're in government before a deal is done, we won't go through with it.”
Hipkins said Labour would not try to do everything in its first term, instead it would focus “on what matters most - and we will deliver”.
“We won't add new charges onto people - like increasing every household's power bill to pay for a gas import terminal, or tolling the Auckland Harbour Bridge to pay for a new crossing.
“Labour supports a second harbour crossing. But we won't penalise people for using the one that already exists."
The Infrastructure Commission has put a proposal of a $9 toll on the table for the current and future Auckland harbour crossings, saying its proposal reflects the maximum sustainable toll to help fund the multi-billion-dollar project.
Analysis from the Commission suggested it could bring in $7 billion to $9 billion, as unlike road upgrades, it was unlikely to be funded through normal revenues.
Transport Minister Chris Bishop last week stressed the Government had not made a decision on the second crossing.
“I get people want certainty. But also when you're spending like 15 billion bucks of government money on a new bridge or tunnel - not saying one or the other. People would want us to take a proper process around it, I don’t think that’s unreasonable.”
Finance Minister Nicola Willis on RNZ called the toll proposal a “completely hypothetical scenario in the Infrastructure Commission's plan”.
Hipkins used his speech to have a go at the Government, saying voters could; “choose a government that backs New Zealand businesses to compete and succeed, or one whose entire plan is to wait and hope foreign investors solve our problems”.
27 Comments
So the first lolly scramble is a "free" $20 billion (plus) bridge?
...from the party that wasted $55 million on consultants studying how to take bicycles across the current bridge
That study said they could build a cycle and rail bridge for around 2 billion. Hard to justify another 18 billion for more cars that have nowhere to go at the other end. But when money is free it’s all fine…
Don't forget how transparent Grant Roberston was (sarc)
Some well connected property owners living under the bridge (trolls?) ruined that one for us I suspect
Committing to not doing two things, in which the current government is still in the planning stage, does not constitute policy.
What was Chtis Trotter's comment in a recent column - that Labour's policy was to sit very still and hope to win the election by default?
Too early to announce policy, need to save it until closer to the election. You only announce unpopular policy this far out, like capital gains tax, and hope it’s forgotten.
Labour have a long track record of not announcing policy programs at all, particularly if they know people won't vote them in to act on it.
Exhibit A: He Puapua
But it was a National government that lined us up on that track and pulled the starter gun:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/nats-give-in-to-maori-over-rights-decla…
National has bowed to Maori Party wishes and agreed to support the highly contentious United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples despite the previous Labour Government issuing dire warnings that the document is fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand's constitutional and legal systems.
"A Declaration is an expression of aspiration. Unlike a treaty or covenant, a Declaration is not legally binding."
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-govt-support-un-rights-dec…
Hahaha - such a "cute" defense, profile. JK parroting Alan Greenspan?
“ I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
― Alan Greenspan.
Yep, Key sent his secret envoy Sharples off to sign UNDRIP. However they did state explicitly that it was non-binding & that Maori would not have right of veto - which the 6th Labour govt then secretly attempted to develop legislation to abrogate
"...the previous Labour Government (Helen Clark holding the Foreshore & Seabed Act line in the sand) issuing dire warnings that the document is fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand's constitutional and legal systems." - which the subsequent Labour govt (Jacinda & Hipkins in thrall to Willie Jackson) conveniently & hypocritically ignore.
Another apologist.
And yup, Key reversed the gift of common sense HC made on the F&S.
He was a nice, funny/jokie sort of guy but no where near the leader HC was.
Not apologising for pointing out the UNDRIP policy statement you ignored. I had agreed with you that Key "reversed the gift of common sense"...which begs the question of your silence on the lack of common sense Adern & Hipkins had
I really don't know what Ardern and Hipkins did that you think was a mistake. The implementation plan for UNDRIP in the local context was a requirement of NZ signing up on the declaration in the first place (a National government decision).
National lost the election and it was incumbent on the Labour government to get that planning underway. They formed an independent working group to develop that plan - and as I understand it, they were skeptical of the output of the working group, so they sat on it. Someone leaked it - and it became public knowledge - but it was never adopted by either that Labour government, nor this National government.
So, it is a part of the historical record but so far we have not submitted the way we intend to implement UNDRIP, to my knowledge. But, this National government has not withdrawn NZ from the Declaration. So, the implementation plan is still a work-in-progress.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
The mistake was creating legaling binding laws based on a non-binding declaration. A declaration is non binding so why "was incumbent on the Labour government to get that planning underway"? I think you're cute too!
Incumbent in that the declaration which National signed up to and which was then adopted by our Parliament, required an implementation plan to be written.
You really need to admit - it was a National government that caved in to their Māori coalition partners and that gave rise to the requirement. Not a Labour one, which by the way, has never invited any iteration of Te Pati Māori into a coalition.
Sheesh, profile, get the record straight. You cannot deny history with these "cute" (in the sense of obfuscating) excuses.
I'm not saying National were right of wrong (it was Helen Clark who said that) but throughout history, National governments have advanced Māori interests. Starting with the Sealord/Fisheries deal (1992 under Bolger). And the rest is history;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi_claims_and_settlements
PM Clark was versed and politically savvy enough to recognise a troubled pathway. The fact is, given the rapport, consensus and understanding enjoyed between the Māori Party and Key and English of National the interpretation , and implementation direction would not have occurred if Labour had not unexpectedly assumed power in 2017. To confirm that simply ask Winston Peters who as Deputy Prime Minister, had that agenda completely hidden from him.
That's all Nats had to do at the last one, but they got carried away making silly promises that they then had to follow through with.
When the political winds change it's best just to quietly put your sail up and go with it. (not a sailor)
As usual, Labour and Hipkins say what they won't do but fail to enlighten the electorate with what it's policies are.
The state of the nation is that NZ is still recovering from the disastrous 6 years of Hipkins' last government from 2017 - 2023. The honourable thing Chippy should do is apologize and resign.
The poor sod failed in at least 2 portfolios before failing as a prime minister, and he still comes back for more.
Incompetent and stupid
Incompetent + stupid = inept.
Came across as a very competent minister from where I was standing..
- Pushed the merger of numerous polytechs which have not found any benefit in doing so
- Held the portfolios of minister of education, minister for the public service, minister for COVID-19 response (we all know how well educational achievement has been since 2020....)
- Implemented the vaccine pass
- In charge of the MIQ and the Charlotte Bellis fiasco giving priority over many other citizens struggling to get home for funerals, dying loved ones, marriages etc, and sharing private details about this
- Apologised to former Finance Minister Bill English for suggesting that he had granted his brothers favourable government contracts (2022)
As such, failed in his portfolios, failed as prime minister then was given the boot by the nation by vote.
Personal grievances regarding C19 lockdowns belie the clear bias when assessing merits of unrelated policies. Time will tell
AI probably could do a decent job at speech writing for politicians now that I think about it
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.