Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 20 March 2023

Why Ginny Andersen?

Ginny Andersen is familiar with the Police portfolio. She’s been the chair of the Justice select committee. When I’ve looked at what I wanted to see from the Minister of Police, I think she’s very well suited to take up that role.

She’s the second-lowest rated Minister in Cabinet. What does that say about your priorities around crime?

It doesn’t say anything about our priorities around crime, and you’ll know that the Minister of Justice sits on the front bench. Many of the policy issues that the Police deal with are covered by the Justice portfolio, and, of course, I have an interest in this as well. I can provide an absolute reassurance that law and order and crime will continue to be a key area of focus for the Government.

So you personally will take an oversight of that role as Prime Minister?

No, that’s what I’m saying—I’m saying I still have an interest in it. Having recently been Minister of Police, I’ll continue to monitor progress in that area.

Why is Ginny not here?

Sorry, what’s that?

Why is she not here today?

We don’t routinely always bring up new Ministers when they have just been appointed to a new role.

What was her experience with the Police when she worked for them in the public service?

As I’ve indicated, she worked for the Police for 10 years, and has, you know, experience working there. I’m happy for—you know, we’ll send out some biographical details of the areas that she has been working on. But, actually, probably the more recent and relevant experience is as chair of Parliament’s Justice Committee. Of course, she will have had quite a lot of exposure to the police and to the issues that police are dealing with at the moment.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense to you as Prime Minister to give it to someone who’s a safe pair of hands, who can just guide the portfolio into the next election and really hold their own; wouldn’t that have been a sensible choice?

I think Ginny Andersen will hold her own.

But she’s not exactly a safe pair of hands, though, in terms of ministerial responsibility—this is a big one.

It is a big portfolio, and I have confidence in Ginny and her ability to tackle it.

And in terms of your leadership, though, why not give it to a safe Minister—why did you choose to take this position, perhaps giving it to someone who still has a bit to prove as a Minister?

I think Ginny is a safe Minister.

Why is Stuart Nash still a Cabinet Minister?

I went through all of this last week, and I’m not going to recanvas that ground now.

I set out all of that out really clearly last week. You know, Stuart’s on his final warning. I’m confident that he’ll, you know, knuckle down into the portfolios that he has.

Reactions that, in any single one of them, could have been a sacking offence, yet he’s still in your Cabinet. I mean, demotion really means nothing apart from dropping status. He’s still got all the perks of being a Cabinet Minister. Is that really a message to send about your Ministerial standard expectations?

I went through all of that last week, Jane. I’ve also been clear that I do accept that people are human beings and, from time to time, will make mistakes. Stuart is well aware that he’s on his final chance, though.

Have any other Ministers come to you in light of Stuart Nash’s actions and said, “Look, there’s something I need to confess: I’ve inappropriately meddled in affairs that I shouldn’t have.”

No.

Would you expect them to have done some hard thinking over the weekend and know by now if any other—

I made it clear to all Ministers at Cabinet this morning that I want them to make sure that they’re very familiar with the Cabinet Manual, that they’re very familiar with the conduct and the expectations of Ministers, and that they’re living up to those.

The Foreign Minister said that she is going to China. First question: she’s not doing media interviews, so, from you, what is she hoping to achieve over in China; what’s the point in going?

China’s a very important relationship to New Zealand and, obviously, travel between New Zealand and China has been quite restricted at a diplomatic level over the last few years. So it is important that we re-establish those in-person opportunities to engage country to country. So I think, primarily, that’s what Minister Mahuta will be focused on—is just re-establishing that in-person relationship after several years where we haven’t been able to do that.

Will she be raising some of the human rights concerns that your predecessor has put on record?

Our position has not changed. The topics that we continue to discuss with China have not changed just because we haven’t been meeting in person for the last few years. And again, the opportunity to travel in person and to raise issues in person, I think, is an important one. This’ll be our first significant in-person ministerial visit since the global pandemic, so it is an opportunity for us to raise a range of issues.

And is she doing the groundwork because you’re planning on a visit in the coming months as well?

As you will know, I certainly haven’t taken off the table the potential for me to visit China at some point later this year.

Should New Zealand be officially engaging with China this week given Xi Jinping is about to visit Vladimir Putin in Moscow?

Let me, again, restate our position: we are emphatically opposed to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We are also very opposed to any suggestion that other countries might support Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Our position on that absolutely remains.

Just on China, Prime Minister, have you received an invitation from your Chinese counterpart to go and visit?

I don’t have an update on potential dates or the process around that today. There’s been ongoing discussions around that, obviously.

But, obviously, that comes months in advance—an invitation—so you have received that invitation to visit Beijing at some stage later in the year?

I’m not announcing a visit today. There’s still quite a lot of moving parts, in terms of my international travel for this year, as you’ll imagine, and so we haven’t locked down the programme. And, look, let’s be frank, it’s election year, so while there are some international obligations that, as Prime Minister, I will need to be able to fulfil, I’m also mindful that I’m going to want to be here in New Zealand a fair amount this year as well. So we’re just working through just finalising what the international programme for the year will look like.

Should Government agencies be hiring lobbyists to run what seem to be pretty standard comms lines?

No.

Should they be hiring lobbyists at all to interact with your Government?

Look, there can be some instances where bringing in some external expertise can be useful. So, in a state of emergency, for example, where an agency is under a lot of pressure, needs to bring in people to help with communications in order to get work done, there might be justification for that. So there were agencies that brought in external help to support the COVID-19 response or to support the recent extreme weather response, and I’m not going to say they shouldn’t do that. I don’t expect Government agencies to be, as a matter of their day-to-day business—I don’t expect them to be employing external consultants to help them with their communications. And certainly, given that Government agencies have more access to Government Ministers than just about anybody else, I don’t expect them to be engaging the services of lobbyists.

The difference between consultants, which is sort of what you were referring to there, and lobbyists, which—in this instance raised by RNZ—seem to be generating oppositional research on Ministers in your Government. How is that appropriate?

It isn’t appropriate.

What are you going to do?

Look, I’ll certainly be talking to all Ministers to remind their respective agencies that I don’t expect them to be engaged in that kind of work.

Were you aware, when you were health Minister, that Pharmac was using external consultants on that?

I was only health Minister for a few months, as you may recall, but no I wasn’t aware at the time.

Do you think lobbyists have too much easy access to Ministers and MPs, and that actually the system needs to be tightened up a lot?

New Zealand, in my experience, having looked at other democracies around the world, is actually incredibly open in terms of New Zealanders’ ability to access their elected representatives. I don’t want to see us do things that might change that and might distance us. In terms of the flow of information from lobbyists, again, you have to look at it on a caseby-case basis. I don’t think that lobbyists necessarily get preferred access. I don’t think they necessarily get access that other members of the public can’t get. In many cases, they’re simply providing a flow of information that can be quite useful.

Are you seriously saying that senior lobbyists have the same access rights to Ministers as any member of the public?

I’m saying that members of the public are still able to access Government Ministers, and I think it’s important that we continue to allow for those opportunities.

It’s a very different relationship from a member of the public who might have something that they need to talk to a Minister and a lobbyist with an established relationship with Ministers, partly because of political relationships and earning a lot of money off that and leveraging a lot of influence. Are you really saying there’s no difference? I mean, that’s just—

I wouldn’t want to suggest that there’s no difference. What I would want to say is that we’re very open as a Government and as a Parliament. I think that’s a good thing. I think that lobbyists can play a positive role in the functioning of democracy, particularly where they help people who find it difficult to navigate the political system, when they provide avenues for them to do that. I think it’s important that Parliament and Government continues to work hard to ensure that those who don’t have means, don’t have that ability to access that, have other ways to be able to access the democratic process, and I think we should continue to look at how we can improve that.

In what ways do you think it’s—

Well, I think, if you look at Parliament’s processes, for example, just at a very simple level, things like select committees moving to a more digital environment has actually opened up that opportunity for people to participate in that part of our democratic process much, much more than was available before.

Do you think parts of the political system that deal with lobbyists and the interaction between Ministers needs to be tightened up?

I think the key thing is transparency. One of the reasons we’re having this debate is that it is relatively transparent at the moment, and I think that that should continue.

is it?

—OIAs and a lot of work; it’s not just there. I mean, it’s not really that transparent,

Look, we’ve always—I remember being relatively sympathetic to a bill that was brought before the Parliament during the tenure of the last Government, around making lobbying more transparent, and one of the things that—and I certainly wouldn’t rule out more work in that space in the future, because I think it’s a legitimate debate to have. One of the things that becomes really challenging there, though, is where you draw the line and how you define it, because I’d hate to see a situation where, say, a tradesperson wanting to meet with their local member of Parliament to complain about the regulation in their industry had to register as a lobbyist in order to be able to do that. And that was a very real scenario that got raised during that—

Isn’t the difference whether you’re making money off it? I mean it’s a pretty easy delineation—

Well, they are making money. If it’s their vocation; it’s their occupation—or where they use a peak body, you know, say Master Builders or Master Plumbers or Master Electricians. I don’t want to stop them being able to participate in the process or make it more difficult for them to be able to participate. So it always comes down to that question of: how do you not discourage the positive things whilst ensuring we’re getting more transparency so that people can see what’s happening. I’m certainly open to future change in that area.

What about, at the very least, a stand down period between having access to Cabinet and Cabinet decisions and Ministers before going into a lobbying system?

I think one of the challenges around that is that, you know, everyone’s entitled to earn a living, and former members of Parliament are entitled to earn a living. It’s not a job that I would take up after leaving this place, but I think we do need to be careful that we’re not precluding people from paying the bills.

Prime Minister, look, some pretty ugly scenes from Melbourne on the weekend at an anti-trans rally in Melbourne—some Nazi “Sieg heil!” and all the rest of it. That same woman that held the rally is coming to New Zealand this week; what preparation is New Zealand taking, and is the Government seeking to block the woman from entering New Zealand?

In answer to the last part of the question, obviously that is a process that is being worked through at the moment, and I don’t want to comment on that process while they’re working their way through that. Obviously, I condemn people who use their right to free speech to do that in a way that seeks to deliberately create division. It’s not something that I would attend or would engage with, and I don’t think it is helpful overall to social cohesion— or, to, actually, rational and constructive debate.

To be clear, are you talking about the views of what the woman was speaking about, or the actions of the men outside that were doing the “Sieg heil!” and engaging in Nazi stuff?

20 March 2023

I think both of them are unhelpful.

Prime Minister, should New Zealand start having discussions about banning Nazi symbols and memorabilia—like other countries, including Australia, is doing in light of these situations?

It’s not something I’ve turned my mind to. I’m happy to have a look at it, but it’s not something that I’ve turned my mind to at this point.

Are you worried about the risk of the same situation that we saw in Victoria happening here—this activist is allowed to come to New Zealand and speak in Wellington and Auckland, that there could be, you know, a rerun of the situation that might attract the same kind of behaviour, and our police are faced with the same sort of challenges?

Yeah, as I’ve indicated, there’s a process that gets worked through when people apply for visas to come to New Zealand—or apply for, you know, the ability to come to New Zealand. There’s a process that gets worked through around that, and I don’t want to interfere in that. But I guess my message is: anybody exercising their right to free speech—whatever the circumstances are—should be mindful that we don’t want to incite hateful behaviour or violence; in fact, it’s illegal to do so, and I think everybody should bear that in mind.

Does it go to—so MBIE have responded to our queries about the visa and the exhibit this person has, but does it go to a Minister for discretion? If there has to be decisions made, is that a ministerial decision, or is that made by MBIE?

My understanding is that that’s made by MBIE, but I’ll clarify that, and just confirm that for you.

Are you concerned about the potential for any contagion here following the buyout of Credit Suisse?

Sorry, what was that?

Are you concerned about the potential for any contagion here following the buyout of Credit Suisse?

To be honest, I haven’t looked at that specific issue—happy to come back to you on it, though.

Just on Ginny Andersen, when did you decide to put her in the role?

As I indicated, I had a few conversations with Ministers over the weekend. I’ve been pondering that carefully, you know, just thinking through the best person to do the job. I have absolute confidence that Ginny will do the job very well.

What Ministers did you consult with?

I’m not going to go into any internal conversations that I have had about that.

Well, just on Ginny Andersen then: have you given her any priorities, any focus areas to look at? Obviously it’s not a long time that she’ll be in the portfolio, so any areas— given your interest in the role—that you’re wishing for her to look into?

We’ve had some initial conversations over the last few days, and we’ll have some further conversations in the next few days as I go through the process of the prioritisation work, which is an ongoing basis. But certainly, I’d like to see her see through some of the work that’s already under way. So the work around retail crime is clearly an important area of priority—an area where I know the public want to see the Government making good progress, and so we’ll continue to do that. The focus around youth offending, making sure that we’re targeting those prolific youth offenders and getting them back engaged in something more positive so that, you know, the pattern of offending is broken. The work that the police have been doing around organised crime and gangs needs to continue to have ministerial focus. I mean, these are operational matters for the Police, but I’d expect the Minister of Police to be taking an interest and making sure that they’re being kept up to date with the work that the Police are doing in that area, and then working with the Minister of

Justice, again, seeing through the current legislation that we’ve got before the House around organised crime.

What makes you confident that she can have an appropriate relationship with the Police and particularly the Police Commissioner that Nash couldn’t quite hold?

Look, I’ve got absolute confidence in Ginny. She’s been the chair of the Justice select committee, so, through that, has had the opportunity to know many of the key people working in the justice space, including the commissioner and others, and I’m confident that she’ll be able to forge a good working relationship with them.

In the conversations you had with Cabinet colleagues, did anyone say, no, they didn’t want it? Was Ginny Andersen your first choice?

In every reshuffle—well, I’ve only done two—every time I’ve had to go through the process of allocating portfolios, no one has ever said no.

So no one said, “Look, I’m not really that interested.”?

No.

Police?

Can you just outline—sorry, I may have missed it before—what did Ginny do at

I’m happy to share the details with—you know, I haven’t got them in front of me.

So I’ll get you the—

You don’t know?

I haven’t got the details in front of me, but I will get them for you.

So you chose a police Minister based on her having experience in the Police, but you don’t know she did it for?

I think having a decade working in the Police means that she will understand how the Police operate and understand the Police systems well. I’m happy to get you further detail of the particular projects that she worked on when she was there.

But she was non-sworn?

She was not a—she was a civilian member of the Police staff. I’m happy to get you, again, detailed biographical information on the projects that she was working on.

There have been complaints laid with both your Auditor-General and the Serious Fraud Office over this rental arrangement that Ginny was running out of her office in Petone, along with Trevor Mallard; do you think what they were doing there was ethical?

I don’t have a huge amount of detail on that. It was a wee while ago that that was in the public domain. My understanding is that they were—

Well, I mean, they were charging $1,500 rent a week, and they were charging taxpayers $6,000.

Yeah, my understanding is that there’s an element of the historical arrangement in that—which I’ll have to go back and look at before I pass judgment on it. Like I said, I don’t know the details of it. I’m happy to go have a look at it.

Can I ask about a second ugly protest in Ōrewa on the weekend, this anti - cogovernance tour. So, now, did you see them, or did you catch that?

I’ve only caught glimpses of it over the weekend, so I haven’t had the opportunity to see any of the detail of exactly how that unfolded.

A lot of the arguments are based from the other side of politics is that this is what happens when you don’t explain the co-governance agenda—people sort of jump into it with disinformation or whatever. Do you accept that criticism, and, you know, how are you going to go about getting rid of this stuff in a pretty hotly contested environment?

I reject a little bit of the assertion in that. I mean not understanding something is never an excuse for, you know, a violent reaction to it. Everybody in a democracy has a responsibility to make sure that they’re informed about the sort of thing that they’re participating in, and violence is never a legitimate way of demonstrating your democratic views.

In terms of co-governance, as I’ve indicated, there are a variety of views around cogovernance. I understand that, but trying to kind of simplify that down and suggest that there is one agenda and one model of co-governance that everyone should or shouldn’t be concerned about, I think, is oversimplifying the situation.

Can I put that in a slightly different way then? Do you worry that, this year, this election campaign will be really hateful and worrying for Māori?

Certainly I’ll be doing everything I can to avoid that.

Prime Minister, before you said that you had to tell your Cabinet to make sure they were very familiar with the Cabinet Manual, how embarrassing is that to have to do as Prime Minister to your power brokers at that top table?

It never hurts for everybody to have a reminder.

But is that what you expect to have to say to that group of people? Like, is that pretty embarrassing and pretty frustrating for you?

Like I said, it never hurts for people to have a reminder of these things. All right, we’ll have the last couple of questions.

Has Cabinet considered Te Whatu Ora’s winter health plan to manage assistance through winter, and if so, when will it be released? And also do you have more detailed timing on State Highway 2 in Hawke’s Bay in terms of opening the key or bigger part?

Sorry, I can get you detail on the last one. In terms of the winter health plan, we did consider something a few weeks ago but I can’t remember whether it was the final plan or not. So, again, I’ll come back to you on that. But there’s been conversation so far.

Winter is coming.

I’m not sure if—winter is coming, but we’ll certainly have a final comment on that soon. Yeah, yeah absolutely.

Just on the Greens, will you be promising the—well, the language they used was “strongest possible action” on climate change if you’re in a position to negotiate with the Greens post election?

Look, I’m absolutely confident we will have some very constructive negotiations with the Greens after the election if that is the verdict of the people—if that is what New Zealanders vote for. There’s still a long way to go between now and then, though.

What were your thoughts on those comments, and also what do you think about James Shaw’s comments aimed at that National and ACT would be the most reactionary, race-baiting, right-wing Government in decades?

Ultimately, James can articulate his own party’s position, including his own party’s position on who he will and won’t work with. That is entirely appropriate for him to do.

Just as a former COVID-19 Minister, have you got any advice for the Opposition leader coming out of COVID, any advice on avoiding long COVID, any activities he shouldn’t be doing?

I can tell him, as someone who’s had it only once, thankfully, that you’ve got to give yourself a little bit of time to recover, lest you end up standing on a podium and saying something stupid.

Just continuing the COVID theme, you’ve said that Ministers would be looking into a number of different COVID initiatives, such as the isolation period—I think it was every month. Have you had any advice thus far, or when is the next time that you’re considering whether the isolation requirement needs to be dropped from seven days to five or less?

We are due to consider that again before winter—so actually, you’ve jogged my memory, thank you. In answer to the previous question, yes, we are due to consider that again before winter and we haven’t done that yet.

When’s “before winter"? That’s a long time—

In the next few months.

What’s the difference between now and, say, a couple of months ago, in terms of the COVID front? Why would you wait so long if things haven’t materially changed or they have?

We consider it every couple of months—issues like isolation periods and so on.

And so we did that recently, and we announced the result of that, which was to continue the isolation period. And we’re due to consider it again shortly.

Last year, though, you had the health Minister and the director-general basically begging New Zealanders to put their masks on because the COVID plan came out so late and we were already in the thick of it. Cases were through the roof. Everyone was having to isolate and stay home. How are you going to make sure that that doesn’t happen again this winter? If you’re only going to reconsider it at some point before winter, why not consider it now, before winter, so, before it gets out of hand, the plan is ready to go?

Yeah, look, I’m confident we’ll be able to do that in a timely manner. I wasn’t aware that the question was going to come up so I don’t have a specific timetable for when the decision will be made, but I’m happy to get you a more exact timetable of that. But it is imminent—like within the next, you know, couple of weeks, I believe—but I just don’t have it with me.

you?

Just back on those questions around lobbying. Did that story this morning surprise

I haven’t had the opportunity in the brief time available—I had a Cabinet meeting today so I haven’t had an opportunity to look at all of the detail of it. But I certainly don’t expect to see Government agencies engaging the services of lobbying firms, and certainly not for their day-to-day business.

With respect, Prime Minister, how are you not across that? You’ve just been the Public Service Minister for the last five or six years.

Yeah, Pharmac as an agency does not report to me—or did not report to me—as the Public Service Minister.

What’s your definition of free speech?

Crikey. I guess the ability to articulate your own opinions free from sanction, free from pressure from others.

Is it absolute? Like, should there be limitations on freedom of speech?

Well, there are limitations on it in the law at the moment, so you can’t express your right to free speech in a way that incites people to harm others. There are already limitations on it.

Do you think that’s in the case of this woman who’s coming to New Zealand?

Sorry, what was that?

Do you think that is what is happening in the case of this Parker person who’s coming to New Zealand?

I’m not sure what you’re asking me.

Posie Parker—do you think that what she says should be a freedom of speech that is limited because it harms certain groups?

I haven’t actually seen the details—the precise details—of exactly what it is that she said, so I don’t want to articulate a view on that without actually considering it. But I would say that there’s a process that’s being gone through at the moment where those things, those sorts of things, are considered. All right—last question.

A bit of a hypothetical, but if Vladimir Putin came to New Zealand, would we execute the arrest warrant on him?

Well, I don’t think he’ll be coming to New Zealand and I don’t think we would want him. Thanks everybody.