I got chills, they're multiplying
And I'm losing control
'Cause the power you're supplying
It's electrifying
Songwriter: John Farrar.
This morning Breakfast’s Chris Chang (CC) interviewed Chippy, and boy was he an enthusiast of your National-led government, if we can call them that.
“‘Everyone Must Go’, remember that controversial tourism slogan the government spent $500,000 on to attract Aussie tourists over autumn?” Chang asked.
We sure do, CC. Departures of Kiwis moving permanently across the Tasman have been at record levels since. Are they updating the slogan? How about, “Last one out, turn out the lights”?
Nick’s Kōrero is funded by paid subscribers. If you would like to support my work, please click here:
If full price is a bit much, you’re welcome to use the discounted offer:
“Now it will pump $13.5m over four years to convince more visitors from the US, China and more from Australia to visit our fine shores”, spouted Chang as if he were announcing a coming attraction at a cinema, which he could’ve been if his voice were a couple of octaves lower.
I was especially impressed by the way he said $13.5 million, as if it were some astronomically large amount. It’s not CC, it’s only $3.375m a year, but you score 10/10 for cheerleading.
Let’s compare that with the $12.8 billion that the government has taken from the working women of this country by cancelling pay equity claims. Now that’s a considerable number, CC, 1,000 times larger.
Instead of getting all excited about spending such a small amount, you could make it seem part of something bigger.
How about, “The Government has announced they will spend a tenth of one per cent of the money budgeted for equity claims to attract tourists - thanks, ladies, your contribution is always appreciated, if not financially”?
That provides context between a vast number, $12.8 billion, and a relatively minor investment, of $13.5 million.
CC wasn’t done, though; he mentioned the last announcement they made, so as to double it to now being not very much, times two, or $27 million. For context, that’s almost ten percent of the break fee set aside to pay Hyundai after Nicola Willis’ ferry-related tantrum.
Please note that this is different from a fairy-related tantrum, which is what many right-wing commenters have been having over the success of Jacinda’s new book.
Chang’s first question to Chippy was whether the $27m, being the current announcement and the previous one for effect, was a good use of taxpayers’ money.
Chippy indicated that, of course, it’s a good idea to spend money marketing the country with tourism an important part of our economy, but pointed out that the same government had cut $20 million in tourism funding the year before.
It occurred to me that if Chang were a journalist, that information might’ve made its way into his introductory spiel.
“They’re playing catch-up for cuts they made last year, right at the time when our Tourism industry was trying to recover from Covid, they cut tourism marketing funding, so I think it’s good that they’re now doing some more.”
Chippy also referred to the Government’s “Everyone Must Go” slogan and said it was sobering to reflect that every day the equivalent of an A320 plane left with Kiwis who were not coming back. Surely, he said, something the government should be worried about.
CC moved to his next question without acknowledging what the Labour leader had said. He asked if marketing was the right area to spend tourism money on, with a tourism operator earlier on the show having said they need infrastructure so people will stay here.
Chippy diplomatically said we need to do both, which, of course, we do.
This sort of thing shouldn’t be partisan, and quite frankly, the government shouldn’t be making such significant announcements about such small investments; this should be business as usual.
Hipkins said, “The government has hiked up the visitor levy, but they haven’t increased the amount of money that they’re spending on things like Tourism Infrastructure. So what they’ve done is cut money that the government was previously spending in those areas and transferred the cost onto visitors with those levies.”
In case you’re not following, this is the switcheroo…
The government provides tourism funding.
They announce an increase in the visitor levy, giving the impression they’re investing in infrastructure.
They cut the original funding.
The new money is used to cover the cuts, and all we have to show are some announcements
If you think that’s a cunning plan, so does the coalition, but less impressed are conservation and local government officials, who, like tourism, are finding that the new money from the International Visitor Levy is being used across all three sectors to cover government funding cuts.
Chippy pointed out that we need to increase the overall amount of spending. Bizarrely, CC then asked him how we could encourage tourists to visit smaller places, not just hotspots like Queenstown, which was an odd question to ask the opposition leader.
Chang then asked what Labour’s approach would be, whether they would look to attract more tourists or fewer, but wealthier tourists.
Chippy said we need to do both and ensure that whomever is coming has a good experience. Even backpackers bring significant benefits to NZ, as well, he said.
I was so pleased by his answer. With our tourism activities and cultural attractions, we should ensure that this is a place that is attractive to young travellers and families, not just wealthy people on package tours or cruises. Aside from anything else, some of those young people might decide to stay.
They moved to the government’s announcement of parental visas, which will be available to those who are independently wealthy or whose children earn above the average income.
When asked what he thought of the move Chippy had the good humour to say that both Labour and National had campaigned on such a scheme. He noted that he thought the government had set some of the thresholds pretty high in terms of the level of wealth required.
The scheme is positive in its stated purpose of allowing parents to assist with young children, but surely it will be used as a backdoor to permanent migration. I’m also concerned about the financial limits. Yes, we want those who have not contributed to pay their way, but do low-paid families deserve less access to parental support? If anything, surely they need more?
Chippy, who had seemed a little subdued, I wondered if he might be carrying a cold or something, spoke so warmly about new babies and families. It made my heart swell to see the glint in his eyes when talking about people so positively. Chang was unmoved.
CC asked, “What would you like to see changed about it?”
Chippy said he agreed with the policy, but we need to keep an eye on it being available to the people who asked for it and who need it, which means monitoring that the asset threshold is set at the appropriate level. Seems like common sense to me.
Chang moved to Oil and Gas exploration, highlighting that we’re running out of gas.
Chippy was quick off the mark, spotting his intentions. Before CC could start channelling Shane Jones, he pointed out that it had been twenty years since the discovery of a significant new gas field, despite the government's claims that the shortage is due to the ban on new exploration under the previous government.
Hipkins pointed out that there had been no new finds in the 15 years before the ban; there was no guarantee that we would find further fields if we spent the money looking, and most importantly, that we have an abundance of renewable options.
Whether it's hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, or other sources, it's hard to think of many countries as blessed as we are with such an array of options for decoupling ourselves from dependence on fossil fuels.
Chippy said, “If you think about the two hundred million dollars that the government is giving to oil and gas companies, if we invested that in renewable energy projects, of which there are an abundance, we could guarantee more energy coming on-stream very quickly.
They’re not doing that; they’re investing in something that is a gamble, they’re throwing that money down a well, literally down a well, and they may not find anything down there.”
CC played devil’s advocate for the energy industry. I’m not sure what public interest he thought he was serving by doing so, but Chippy wasn’t having it.
“We’ve got to take Climate Change seriously. Renewable energy is the way of the future, and that’s what we should be doubling down on here in New Zealand. We have an abundance of it, it’s cheap, and why would we go for more expensive options where the risk is much higher and where the damage to the environment is much higher, when we can be bringing on-stream renewable energy options that are going to provide us with cheaper and more abundant electricity?”
And there it is. Renewable energy is more reliable; we’re not running out of tides, wind, or sunshine, plus it has the added bonus of not accelerating us towards an existential crisis.
In a mocking tone, that was most unbecoming, CC asked, “Is Shane Jones wasting his time over in Singapore?”
Chippy smiled, saying, “Oh look, Shane Jones seems to have a particular attachment to fossil fuel.”
Doesn’t he, though? NZ First seems endlessly fascinated by industries with heavy lobbying interests; I wonder what the appeal is? Even CC smiled at Chippy’s comment.
Chippy said, “That’s not the way of the future for NZ, the way of the future for NZ has got to be renewable energy. This can be a competitive advantage for New Zealand if we do this well. We could have very low electricity prices in NZ because renewable energy is cheap and because we’ve got so much of it.
He’s not wrong on everything. Geothermal energy, which I’m a big fan of, we’ve got a lot of geothermal potential in NZ. If they were putting that kind of investment into exploring geothermal, I’d be completely behind that, because geothermal can be the way of the future for NZ, it’s a much cleaner energy source, we’ve got an abundance of it, it can fill the gap that a lack of gas is creating at the moment so let’s get into doing that.”
Chippy finished the interview by saying, “Let’s think about the future, let’s not double down on the past.”
As someone who cares about the future liveability of our planet, I was pleased by his stance on renewables rather than fossil fuels.
Why on earth would we want to funnel millions into foreign corporations who have lied about their impact on the climate for decades, rather than investing in our own industries and helping do our bit to save the planet?
Common sense, brought to you by Chris Hipkins—a better choice for the future.
Have a good one, folks.
Ngā mihi,
Nick.
On this day in 1978, John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John went to No. 1 on the U.S. singles chart with "You're The One That I Want." To end today, a nice cover of that song by The Lennings.
There seem to be too many ‘young’ journalists who know little, don’t do their homework and bow to the bs of the coalition. Compare the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of ‘old timers’ like Gordon Campbell (Scoop) or Bryan Bruce (Substack) - they’re the ones that we want (and need)
The privatisation of our energy sector has caused a deliberate under investment in renewable energy sources to inflate profits. We should return the energy sector to state ownership.