Jenny shipley wearing a purple jacket
Jenny Shipley. Photo: Diego Opatowski

PoliticsApril 28, 2017

‘Look at the language: men are bold, women are vindictive’ – ex-PM Jenny Shipley on depictions of politicians (WATCH)

Jenny shipley wearing a purple jacket
Jenny Shipley. Photo: Diego Opatowski

In the fourth of Guyon Espiner’s extended interviews with former prime ministers for RNZ, Jenny Shipley mounts a robust defence of the welfare reforms she oversaw as minister under Jim Bolger, assesses the strengths and weaknesses of Winston Peters, and points to sexism in political commentary.

In the hour-long conversation, Shipley, who was PM from 1997 to 1999:

  • Recalls the “lazy rhetoric” that was bandied around in commentary about women politicians, including her colleague and finance minister Ruth Richardson and her successor has prime minister, Helen Clark. “Look at the language,” she says. “Men are bold, women are vindictive.”
  • Laments the unrealised potential of Winston Peters, a “train wreck waiting to happen” whom Shipley sacked from cabinet.
  • Defends the reforms to welfare and the wider deregulation under National governments in the 90s.
  • Attacks “middle class welfare”, saying it is “mortally bankrupt” that there are subsidies available for student allowances and healthcare for the middle classes.
  • Says she has changed her view of MMP, which she strongly opposed but now thinks “essential”.
  • Describes both the coup that she led to oust Jim Bolger, and that which in turn ousted her (all four of the PMs interviewed so far in the series were ousted by their own caucuses; next up, Helen Clark).

 Here Espiner reflects on the conversation, which you can watch below.


Scroll down to watch the interview. View the interview with Geoffrey Palmer here, with Mike Moore here , and Jim Bolger here; review the series as a whole at RNZ. The Spinoff’s interview with Guyon Espiner about the project is here.


Jenny Shipley evoked strong responses from New Zealanders during her time in politics and I suspect that, with her new comments about “middle class welfare” and working with Winston Peters, she is about to do so again.

But while people respond strongly to Shipley, there has been very little examination of her leadership. Researching the interview for The 9th Floor series, Tim Watkin and I found there were few books and very little academic study of this hugely influential New Zealand politician.

We’ll look at why that might be in a moment – but it certainly isn’t because she doesn’t generate debate.

Jenny Shipley. Photo: Diego Opatowski

During the day we spent with Shipley she said New Zealand needs to take the “blowtorch” to middle class welfare, with student allowances and healthcare areas where middle and higher income earners should pay more. She finds it “morally bankrupt” that the country doesn’t have an honest discussion about this and that she personally feels “sick” that on her income she can’t opt out of subsidised health care.

She also has some fascinating observations about working with Winston Peters, who may again be a key coalition player after the coming election.

Shipley, who sacked him as Treasurer in 1998 as the first MMP government fell apart over the sale of Wellington Airport, offers bouquets and brickbats.

“Winston could have been prime minister but for want of himself. His complexity often got ahead of his capability. Watching him on a good day he was brilliant,” she says. “He was an 85 percent outstanding leader. And the 15 percent absolutely crippled him because he would get so myopically preoccupied with a diversion that it took away his capability and intent on the main goal.”

Shipley also says that Peters, deputy prime minister from 1996 to 1998, was excellent at absorbing information but sometimes simply hadn’t done the reading. “I would make a personal judgement as he came into my office as to whether the envelope with the papers in it was either open or closed and it often would tell me the extent to which he had read what we were then going to discuss. I learned to both respect and manage it and on those days the meetings were short.”

Shipley was prime minister for two years and before that was minister of health and of welfare, two of the biggest spending and most important portfolios. So where are the books and the documentaries and the academic study?

Moore and Palmer have generated a pile of books taller than your average populist politician. Shipley was prime minister longer than both of them put together. But there is almost nothing. Why?

Jenny Shipley with her mother and sisters after her 1997 swearing in. Photo: supplied

She was New Zealand’s first woman prime minister. She was the first woman in the world to chair an APEC leaders conference. She was the first New Zealand prime minister to go to a Hero Parade – and her reasons for brushing off the objections from her conservative colleagues and doing that are compelling on their own.

And, yes, I know the rejoinder: she wasn’t elected prime minister. No she wasn’t, but neither were Palmer or Moore. And neither was the current prime minister Bill English.

There is one hint of a regret towards the end of the interview – and it’s a critical one – but largely Shipley is unrepentant and puts the case for her legacy forcefully. Her argument for many of the toughest cuts National made in the 90s boils down to this: “We can’t squander a future generation’s chance, just because we are lazy or it is hard”.

Perhaps more than any other leader we spoke to she lets us in on the influences, conflicts and complexities of being prime minister. There are two striking aspects to this. The influence and impact on her family is one, and includes a harrowing story of how death threats against her affected her young son. The other is being a woman at the top of politics. Would history have treated Jenny Shipley and Ruth Richardson differently if they were men?

I know a lot of viewers and listeners saw Jim Bolger in a new light as he reflected on his legacy for The 9th Floor. I wonder whether people will be as generous with Jenny Shipley.


This content is brought to you by LifeDirect by Trade Me, where you’ll find all the top NZ insurers so you can compare deals and buy insurance then and there. You’ll also get 20% cashback when you take a life insurance policy out, so you can spend more time enjoying life and less time worrying about the things that can get in the way.

This election year, support The Spinoff Politics by using LifeDirect for your insurance. See lifedirect.co.nz/life-insurance

Keep going!
Finance Minister Steven Joyce speaks to media while Transport Minister Simon Bridges looks on, April 27, 2017 (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Finance Minister Steven Joyce speaks to media while Transport Minister Simon Bridges looks on, April 27, 2017 (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

AucklandApril 27, 2017

Stuck in traffic: How the government is exploiting the Auckland transport crisis for votes

Finance Minister Steven Joyce speaks to media while Transport Minister Simon Bridges looks on, April 27, 2017 (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Finance Minister Steven Joyce speaks to media while Transport Minister Simon Bridges looks on, April 27, 2017 (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

The minister of finance just announced a multi-billion dollar spend up – and Auckland should be very worried. Simon Wilson explains how the government’s traffic plans are badly stuck.

Congestion for motorists on Onewa Rd isn’t any better than it ever was, Cr Richard Hills told his colleagues on the Auckland Council today. Despite all the work they’ve done to make Onewa Rd a more efficient arterial route for commuters, the cars are still stuck.

He wasn’t fussed, though, and here’s why. These days only 30 percent of the commuters spilling onto the motorway in the morning from Northcote and Birkenhead are motorists. The remaining 70 percent ride in buses, especially double decker buses, on Onewa Rd’s dedicated bus lane. The cars are struck but the buses go much faster.

You can measure the congestion on Onewa Rd in two ways. The old way is to say the road is still blocked so whatever we’re doing isn’t working. The new way is to say that congestion is being efficiently tackled, not just in the best way, but in the only way possible: by making public transport fast, frequent and functionally efficient for its users.

It takes only a moment to see the flaw in the first response. Yes, motorists are still stuck in traffic. But if those double decker frequent flyers weren’t in action, the functionality of the road probably would have collapsed altogether.

There’s a law of traffic that explains this: traffic expands to fit the available road space. It’s called the Lewis-Mogridge Position, named after the people who discovered it, way back in 1990. It means you can’t fix traffic congestion by building more lanes for private motorists.

True, when you’re stuck in traffic it feels wrong. It feels like there should be more roads. But that’s not the case. More roads encourage more driving, and people keep driving until they can’t. There are two reasons public transport is so important. One is because it can move lots of people. The other, arguably the more fundamental, is that it takes vehicles off the roads and therefore allows those that remain to keep moving.

Visualisation of trams on Queen St, Auckland. Source: at.govt.nz

That is why investment in public transport is not just a component of any smart transport policy, but should be its foundation. And by public transport, I mean fast, frequent and easy to use public transport: trams (“light rail”), electric trains (“heavy rail|) and buses on dedicated lanes and busways.


Read more:

Planes, trains and automobiles: inside the playground fight over the way to Auckland airport


So. Auckland transport is near collapse and nowhere is that more obvious than for people trying to get to or from the airport. What’s the solution? It’s those trams, or trains, or, possibly in the short term, fast buses. And why aren’t we building the lines to make this happen now?

Because the government won’t approve it or fund it. While the Auckland Council was meeting today, 700km away in the capital finance minister Steven Joyce made a speech to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce. He announced an $11 billion additional commitment to infrastructure. He mentioned rail only in passing, except in relation to Kaikōura. He mentioned Auckland only in passing too, saying how much he had enjoyed, the day before, driving on the widened roadways of the northwest motorway and airport route. He was lucky.

Aucklanders are not. Although he didn’t say it, some of Joyce’s new billions will flow to Auckland – but it’s not likely to be in a good way. Political analyst and former mayoral staffer James Bews-Hair, now with the consultancy McGredy Winder, says: “We think … we are seeing the government in the early stages of rolling out a carrot and stick political strategy in relation to Auckland. With the carrot being for ratepayers and the stick for the council. Any investment support coming Auckland’s way will almost inevitably be tied to some prerequisites in terms of the council stepping up to the mark. Equally inevitably, some of these conditions will be things that [mayor] Goff will find it very difficult to stomach politically.”

Finance Minister Steven Joyce speaks to media while Transport Minister Simon Bridges looks on, April 27, 2017 (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

The government’s refusal to prioritise fast, efficient public transport fails every credible test of good strategic planning. But it doesn’t fail another test: it’s quite possibly a vote winner. The government knows that people stuck in traffic don’t want to sit on a train, they want a free-flowing road. The government knows that in a built-up city at peak times that will never happen. But it’s not going to admit it.

The government sees votes to win among Aucklanders who want to stay in their cars, especially those who don’t like the mayor or the council anyway. And it sees far more votes to win among everyone else in New Zealand who think we’re greedy Jafas who already get far too much attention.

The future of rail to the airport – on trams or trains – is the benchmark measure for how true all this is. This year transport minister Simon Bridges revealed a decision would be 30 years away. Translation: we don’t care.

Meanwhile, the council and transport agencies are moving towards a consensus decision on rail to the airport. Whether to favour trams or trains or even “advanced buses”, and why. What’s at stake? What are the arguments for each and what would they cost? How would it work, where would it go and why aren’t we doing it already?

Clue: the answer is trams. Supertrams! The future of the super-city.

Actually it’s far more complicated than that. But in an effort to make it all a bit more easy to understand, today I wrote an explainer of the trams vs trains debate here.


The Spinoff Auckland is sponsored by Heart of the City, the business association dedicated to the growth of downtown Auckland as a vibrant centre for entertainment, retail, hospitality and business.