Neil Sands
Labour leader Chris Hipkins outlined his broad campaign issues in a state of the nation address on Monday, but provided no new details of the policies he hopes will win over voters in the November election.
In a speech that repeatedly referenced the cost-of-living crisis, Hipkins vowed to put affordability at the heart of his decision-making process, while yet again focusing on three areas – jobs, health and home – a return to Labour’s mantra before the 2023 election.
“These aren’t separate issues. They’re how you build an economy that actually works for people…good jobs that pay enough to get ahead, an affordable health system, homes that are more affordable to buy and better to rent,” he said.
“If we get those foundations right, everything else follows – including bringing down the cost of living.”
Hipkins acknowledged that the last Labour government “tried to do too much, too fast, and we lost our focus”.
He said during this campaign, policies would be announced closer to the November 7 election, when he had enough details to know they could be delivered.
“Frankly, Kiwis have had enough of promises that aren’t kept,” he said. “We won’t try to do everything in our first term. We’ll focus on what matters most – and we will deliver.”
In the absence of new policy announcements, Hipkins reiterated his reasoning for the major campaign platform he has already unveiled, a 28% capital gains tax on commercial property (including that owned by small businesses) and residential property, excluding the family home.
“For too long, too much capital has been locked up in housing speculation, driving up prices, while businesses struggle to find the investment they need to grow,” he said.
“That’s why Labour will introduce a simple, targeted capital gains tax on investment and commercial properties… This will unlock capital for the productive investments that New Zealand so desperately needs.”
He also pledged to tackle climate change, accusing the government of sidelining the issue even though “what were once one-in-100-year weather events are now happening every year”.
Hipkins said Labour would invest in industries that cut emissions and build climate resilience.
“New Zealand should be a renewable energy superpower, driving new industries, creating jobs in our regions and cutting our emissions,” he said.
“We have the resources, the talent and the technology to do that.”
He condemned the government’s plan for a $1 billion liquefied natural gas terminal, saying it would increase power bills without contributing to New Zealand’s renewable future.
“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,” he said.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis said Hipkins had outlined nothing new.
“His speech read like a lump of jelly filled with platitudes and sentiment, but no concrete ideas,” she said.
ACT leader David Seymour also accused Hipkins of lacking substance.
“He reminds me of an anaesthetist before he gives you the injection that knocks you out and makes you forget the pain. Underneath the smooth words there are no solutions, just new problems,” Seymour said.
Hipkins’ speech was broad, values-driven, and notably light on hard policy edges. That reads less like a conventional opposition platform and more like strategic positioning. When a party avoids drawing sharp contrasts, it’s often because it wants room to move after the election.
Pendulum politics also matters here. New Zealand looks to be at the bottom of the swing: voters fatigued by ideological lurches, short policy cycles, and reversals every three years. At that point in the cycle, stability becomes more attractive than purity. A centrist reset is a rational response.
Labour and National, despite tribal branding, sit closer to each other on the political spectrum than either does to their respective minor-party partners. On fiscal settings, infrastructure delivery, defence, trade, and much of economic management, the gap between them is narrower than campaign rhetoric suggests. The wider gaps tend to sit at the flanks.
There is also growing voter frustration with minor parties exercising outsized leverage under MMP, the “tail wagging the dog” dynamic. When small parties can veto or dilute major policy planks, it creates volatility and weakens long-term planning. Major parties know this. Business knows this. The public increasingly senses it.
In that context, a deliberately non-combative, non-specific State of the Nation speech looks like groundwork. Keep the centre open. Avoid red lines. Signal competence over ideology. If the numbers are messy on election night, a Labour–National coalition would be framed not as betrayal, but as responsible stabilisation.
The speech did not sound like a bid to rebuild a left bloc. It sounded like positioning for a centrist convergence. MMP finally matures?