Maybe Hipkins avoids talking about family because he doesn't have one anymore?

There is a glaring contradiction at the heart of Chris Hipkins’ public persona, and it is becoming harder to ignore.

On one hand, he insists his private life and family are strictly off limits. Too personal. Too sensitive. Not for public discussion. On the other, the moment there is a soft-focus spread and a payday on offer from a glossy like Woman’s Day, that same “private life” is suddenly rolled out, polished and packaged for public consumption.

The rule seems simple. If it flatters the image, it is fair game. If it raises uncomfortable questions, it is off limits. That is not integrity. That is brand management.

So it is worth asking, why the sudden insistence on drawing a line around family life now? Why the reluctance to engage, unless it is on carefully controlled terms?

Because the version of “family man” that has been sold to the public may no longer match reality.

There have been ongoing rumours and allegations about his personal life that paint a far messier picture than the one presented in staged interviews and curated profiles. Instead of confronting those questions directly, Hipkins has chosen to retreat behind the convenient shield of privacy.

But that shield only works if it is applied consistently. You cannot monetise your personal life one minute and declare it untouchable the next. Voters are not that easily fooled.

At some point, the question stops being about privacy and starts being about credibility.