Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 2 December 2024

Well, kia ora. Good afternoon, everyone. Good to see you all as we get into the home stretch of the year. We’ve got a very big legislative agenda ahead of us in the coming weeks, as we close out 2024.

Today, the second quarterly report on our Government’s nine public service targets has been released for results to September 30 this year. And, as you know, our Government established targets to focus our public sector and Government on delivering better results for New Zealanders in health, education, law and order, work, housing and the environment by 2030.

Setting clear targets helps to focus resources, attention and accountability to improve the delivery and the quality of public services, and these deliberately ambitious targets sit alongside our quarterly action plans, our regular strategy committee sessions and the agenda of rebuilding the economy, restoring law and order and delivering better public services. They’re critical mechanisms to ensure the Government, and also the public service, remain very focused on delivery for the New Zealand people. Now, these targets aren’t just numbers; they are about taking meaningful action to drive progress, measure outcomes and create better futures for all. Regular reporting allows us to be responsive, to really get under the hood of what is going on in the public services that matter the most to New Zealanders, and to use the data to make interventions and also decisions that will make the biggest impact.

It’s encouraging to see fewer victims of violent crime and a reduction in youth offending. We still have a long way to go, but our Government’s extensive law and order agenda is laser focused on going after criminals and keeping Kiwis safe. Work to get families out of emergency housing is making significant headway, with data showing a more than 60 percent reduction from when we came into office. This is a huge step forward, improving the lives of some of our most vulnerable families. There’s also been small improvements in emergency department and elective surgery wait times and in student attendance.

However, we know that there is much, much more to be done, and we also expect results to move around between reporting periods and we know that we won’t always improve every quarter. For example, the number of people receiving the jobseeker support benefit saw an increase of more than 8,000 this past quarter. No doubt life is still tough for many New Zealanders. Years of high inflation, high interest rates and a recession have taken their toll. But I’m confident that we’re now turning the corner. Between tax relief, Family Boost, expanded Working for Families credits, inflation relief and mortgage relief, life is getting materially easier for Kiwis.

For example, inflation is now down to 2.2 percent, the lowest in three and a half years. Food inflation is down to 1.2 percent from 12.3. We’ve seen wages grow faster than inflation for the four quarters in a row under this Government, versus 13 quarters in a row where it went backwards, and we have rents that are stable versus the $180 per week, under Labour, increase. We see the OCR now down to 4.25 percent and meaningfully that means for a Kiwi with a 25-year, $500,000 mortgage, they could save around $180 per fortnight. We’ve seen three rate cuts under our Government, versus 12 rate rises under the previous one.

And economic sentiment is improving. We see consumer confidence at a three-year high, we see business confidence at a 10-year high. Now, we expect job seeker unemployment to track the economic cycle, and as the economy improves, those on jobseeker will come down. Having said that, under Labour, despite lower unemployment and record job shortages, we actually saw 60,000 more people go on jobseeker unemployment benefit, putting 40,000 more kids into benefit-dependent homes.

Our Government will always champion a welfare safety net to help Kiwis in genuine need. However, our strong expectation, as we have foreshadowed, is that those who are able to work should work, and the more people who are working and the fewer who are on welfare, the better for them, their future, the better for their families, and the economy, and for New Zealand. Quite simply, employment is always going to offer people and their families more independence, more choice, more opportunity, and more money than welfare ever will. A life on welfare is not the way to maximise a young person’s creativity and untapped potential, we want more for our young people. So we’ll continue to do everything we can to get the economy growing so that we can create more employment and growth, but also to support people off welfare and into work and ultimately a better life for themselves and their families.

With that, I’ll hand over to Louise Upston, who will provide a little bit more additional support on what else we’re doing to get people on jobseeker into work.

Thank you, Prime Minister. Today, I’m pleased to talk about an essential step forward in our efforts to reduce long-term benefit dependency by supporting more people into work. The changes we are announcing today represent a clear commitment from our Government to providing welfare that works for job seekers who are most at risk of long-term benefit dependency. We are not prepared to accept the welfare system handed to us by the previous Government, where beneficiaries under the age of 25 were projected to spend 20 years on benefits over their lifetimes. We’re not prepared to accept 13 years of welfare dependency as a fate for people on jobseeker support who are ready to work now. We must ensure welfare is a stepping stone to opportunity, not a life sentence.

We remain committed to having 50,000 fewer people on jobseeker support by 2030, and to help achieve this I’m pleased to announce that as of today, MSD is now offering phone-based employment case management to 10,000 people. This means the total number of people supported by an employment case manager at any given time is 70,000, up from about 53,000.

These 70,000 will also begin receiving individual job plans, which are a cornerstone of our Welfare that Works programme. These job plans will include a new, comprehensive work readiness needs assessment that will go beyond a standard examination of someone’s work history and their availability, looking at the root causes of what’s holding them back from gaining employment. Case managers will dig deeper and consider any education, transport, addiction, health and childcare issues that a job seeker may also have. A plan will then be designed which includes actions and timelines to address the issues. Job seekers will be connected to the support services they need, whether it’s literacy programmes, driver licensing, mental health support or addiction counselling.

But with increased support comes responsibility. Job seekers will be required to follow through on the agreed steps in their job plans, and those who fail to meet work-testable actions may face sanctions through the new Traffic Light system. This initiative will provide robust support to job seekers, while also empowering them to take ownership of their journey towards employment and self-reliance. It is not enough to simply offer financial assistance. Real empowerment comes when people are given the tools and the opportunities they need to fully participate in society. The introduction of individual needs assessment job plans and the expansion of MSD’s case management services will equip job seekers with the support and structure they need, and help break the shackles of welfare dependency that are holding them back. And with that, I’ll hand back to you, Prime Minister.

Thanks, Louise. Look, in terms of this week, tomorrow I’ll meet the Czech President, Petr Pavel, in Wellington. On Wednesday and Thursday I’ll be in Southland before returning to Auckland. Parliament, as you will all know, has a different rhythm this week, given it’s scrutiny week. And with that, Minister Upson and I are very happy to take your questions.

Prime Minister—or to both of you, actually—how much pressure does your 50,000 target by 2030 come under, given that you’ve seen an uptick of 8,000 in just one quarter?

Well, look, as I said, there’s no doubt about it: we’re seeing unemployment has been really challenged in the last quarter, and it’s forecasted to actually get up to 5.2 percent, from memory. It’s at 4.8 today. That is a function of the lag effect of the inflation, the interest rates and the recession that we’ve been experiencing. Employers can only hang on for so long with suppressed demand and rising costs, and they get squeezed and ultimately they end up, sadly, laying off workers. And that’s why we keep saying if you care about working New Zealanders, you’re a fiscal conservative and you run the economy well. So we know that there is a real link here between jobseeker and unemployment.

Now, having said that, what was amazing, to be honest, in the previous administration, was that co-relation between unemployment and economic growth got disconnected and you saw a situation where you actually had low levels of unemployment, high levels of job seeker. And that’s the bit that we’re trying to get back into play again.

So we know there’s work to do for us to continue to grow the economy, and we’ve broken the back, I think, of a lot of the cost of living pressures around inflation and around interest rates, and that’s why our focus now moves to economic growth and also jobs. That’s really where the opportunity is for us as we come out of this recession. But importantly we also have to put in place obligations to make sure that jobseeker and unemployment actually get co-related together.

Do you expect that this 8,000 in the September quarter is the peak of new beneficiaries coming into the system?

Well, as I’ve said, you know, you’ve got a forecast coming from us that I think has downgraded slightly from the Reserve Bank Governor last week. If I just remember to take that number, for example, we’re at 4.8, up from 4.6.

I’m talking about beneficiary numbers. So can you say that the 8,000 that we’ve seen in the September quarter is the peak, given that you say that you’re remaining optimistic about the 2030 forecast?

Well, we’re determined to deliver on 2030. We’ve still got a long way to go, obviously. There’s two parts to that, as I’m trying to say: one is the link to economic growth and the second part is the co-relation between job seeker numbers and unemployment rates. The unemployment rate is forecast to lift a little bit further before it comes down but—you know, and that’s when we start to expect jobseeker to come down.

What we’re trying to do is also make sure the system is ready. We don’t have to wait for unemployment to reach peak and then start trending down for us to be ready to do everything we can, and build the capacity and the capability in the MSD system to get people into work as more and more jobs appear as the economy gets better.

How much more challenging will it be to reach that target of 50,000 fewer people?

Yeah, no doubt about it; it’s challenging. But all the targets there are deliberately ambitious and that’s why I tried to, you know, say up front as to why we’re doing targets like this. Because we know they’re difficult, we know they’re challenging, we know they’ll bounce around from quarter to quarter, but the point is that it is forcing us to have quite high-quality conversations with CEs and Ministers as a strategy group, for example, that we run a regular session around to say: what more can we be doing around emergency housing, around jobseeker?

This is a—a consequence of those conversations is to say we actually need to make sure we’ve got more case management in place, which Louise has done an exceptionally good job of putting into place. She’s done an exceptionally good job of just making it clear about obligations. You know, if you think about, you know, we’ve now seen a 50 percent, 52 percent improvement in the number of people that are actually showing up and engaging with their case manager. As a result, they’re showing up for job interviews, they’re doing what the—90 percent who are non-compliant with their obligations are getting compliant within a month. That’s exactly what we want to see. So I think Louise is putting good management into place with MSD, but we know we’ve got more to do.

Minister Upston, is there enough mahi for our whānau and our rangatahi, particularly in the rural areas, given that Jobs for Nature is no longer going to be funded?

Yes, absolutely. And one of the things that I’m really encouraged by, if you look to the four months July through to October, we’ve actually seen 22,000 people exit jobseeker benefit into work, which is 4,100 more than a year ago. So despite the economic challenges that the Prime Minister outlined, we are seeing really strong exits into work, so I’m encouraged by that.

Particularly in the rural areas, given that Jobs for Nature won’t be funded?

Yeah. So one of the things I’m committed to is making sure that the programmes that we fund lead to good outcomes, and case management is one of them. That is why we have increased the number of people in case management from about 53,000 to 70,000, because we know it works. And we want to see more Kiwis off jobseeker benefit and in jobs, and that’s why we’re doing it.

Of that figure, how many are Māori?

About 40 percent.

Just on that job availability, do you truly believe there are jobs out there? Because we have spoken to someone today who’s been looking for a job for nine months, a former truck driver. They say they simply can’t find a job. They’ve had one interview in the last four months. So are there jobs out there for people?

There are, and I accept it is really challenging. So when you’re at this part of the economic cycle, finding employment is tough. But as I said, I’m really encouraged by the fact that we’ve seen 22,000 people exit the jobseeker benefit into work in the four-month period July through October, 4,100 more than a year ago. So what we are doing is working, but I won’t say for a moment that it’s not tough for those that are out there looking for work and I’d encourage them to keep taking those steps.

How many people now, as either a number or a percentage, are in the red level of the Traffic Light system?

One percent.

One percent?

One percent, and as the Prime Minister was saying, 90 percent comply with their obligations within a month. And I’ve been with frontline MSD in the last week and what they’re saying is it’s really obvious that job seekers now know what are the steps they have to take, and they’ve had multiple examples when someone’s gone to orange—and that’s only 0.6 percent—they’ve gone on the phone straight away to say: what do I need to do? What do I need to do to get back in green? What are the steps I need to take? So it’s also meant that the responsibility is back on the job seeker for doing the things that they need to do, really commonsense steps to help improve their chances to get a job.

And that 1 percent figure, is that more than you had anticipated? Is it about on line? Are you happy with that level at the moment?

It’s actually lower than I thought we might see. So if you look at it the other way, 98 percent, over 98 percent are complying with their obligations and they’re at green.

Which is great.

So that’s great news.

What we’re trying to address there, Jason, just so we’re clear, is that for decades, if you go back and track unemployment and you track jobseeker, there was very good co-relation between those numbers. And then in the last administration you saw a massive disconnect where those two things didn’t stay co-related, and they should have, and part of that was because of some of the settings that I think we got wrong.

That’s why we’ve put the obligation settings in place. When you have a 52 percent improvement in people actually showing up for interviews and case management engagement, that’s fantastic. That’s exactly what we want to do. All we’re expecting people to do is to deliver on their obligations, which is quite simple: show up to your case management, get your resume together, and show up for a job interview. They’re not rocket science, but just do those basics. And so that’s why the obligation framework’s in place, to make sure that people understand that, because their fellow Kiwi, through their taxes, is paying for that and wants to support them in that transition.

They don’t—you know, then we have to do—you know, we’re saying jobs are difficult and we know that there’s higher levels of unemployment than we’ve experienced. You know, we were at 3.2, we’re now at 4.8. I’d just say in the last few decades 4.8 is still, you know, pretty low levels of unemployment, but we’ve still got a little bit more where we expect it to rise a little bit to 5.2. But we’re doing everything we can now to get growth and jobs moving in the right place. Jo?

Louise, those rural, isolated communities where we’ve seen mill closures and stuff, for example, and there really aren’t other options—what is the expectation there around people having to move before, say, disciplinary proceedings kick in?

Yeah, so the point I want to make is the sanctions aren’t applied if you can’t find a job.

Correct.

They apply if you’re not taking steps to find a job. And that’s a really important distinction, particularly when we do know it is challenging out there, and—

Is that within a geographical location as well, though? Because is the expectation that you look for work outside of your town, for example?

If appropriate. And, look, I know—I know very well how hard it affects rural communities, and that’s why the early response team at MSD are doing a fantastic job where there are those big closures. And if you look at WPI, for example, they’ve seen a really strong success so far in people being able to relocate, in some cases, for positions. But that really intensive work they do with those that are potentially being made unemployed, to help them connect to jobs faster, is important.

Just to be clear though, there wouldn’t be any disciplinary measures for people who can’t find work within the community that they already live in because of work closures?

Well, there is also assistance to help them relocate to where a job is available, so—

So there is a point where the expectation is that you move?

The expectation is that you engage with your case manager—you can’t just not take the call—and actually meet with them. You actually have to have a resume prepared. That’s your job to make sure that comes together. We’re putting career support and other things in place to help you do that. And then thirdly, you’ve got to show up for interviews. Now, whether the interviews are in your region or outside of your region, you’re doing everything you can to find a job, and that’s what we’re trying to make sure. You’re not getting penalised here for not getting a job; you’re getting penalised here for not doing your job, which is to look for a job, and to be doing every—your job is in fact to do everything you can to find a job and that’s what the Traffic Light system is designed to do.

But will you be penalised, though, if you’re not looking for a job outside your region?

Well, that will be up to individuals, but we would expect people to be wanting to take a job and to do everything they can to get themselves into work and connected with work again.

People can’t exactly up—

Sorry, Maiki.

Do you have a bit of an overview at the moment of where those big closures have been—a lot of them obviously are in rural areas—of what sort of a percentage of those workers have actually found more work?

Yeah, so I don’t have the figures on the WPI one but the Alliance in Timaru, they’ve had really good success in some of those workers relocating to other meatworks in the South Island and, as I said, there is assistance available to help them do that. They had a really successful job fair. So for some people it will mean retraining. It might mean going into a slightly different role. But that’s why those early response teams that MSD have on the ground, working with other employers, working with the sector, working with those job seekers—because the reality is they want to get back in work and quickly, which is why we are providing assistance to them.

But are beneficiaries punished if they do not move for work?

Well, I think that would be a conversation that they would have with their case manager.

Is it your expectation that they’d be punished if they refuse to move for work?

No. As I said, they’re not being punished if they can’t find a job. It’s about the commonsense steps that they need to take. And look, for some people, they’ll have a house, they’ll have kids in school, there’ll be a whole bunch of life circumstances they have to deal with, and MSD take that into consideration. For those that are affected this is a massive life shock, and it’s really important that the team are working with individuals and their individual circumstances to support them on the next step.

So it sounds like if MSD believes they can move for work and they choose not to, they could be punished?

I’m not saying that, I’m saying—and as I’ve outlined today, we’re taking a very individual approach—

Case by case.

—to job seekers, case by case, depending on their circumstances, and it’s providing assistance that is unique to them. That might be very different from someone else who’s in the same—come out of the same organisation.

There’s always been a group that have been sort of hardened, that have been hard to get off the benefit. What is your perception—or whether you have any stats, I don’t know— around what that split is now, because obviously unemployment has gone up and obviously numbers have gone up? What is the number or percentage of the sort of hardened, probably going to be really difficult to move off, versus those who actively do want to find more work, do you know?

So I can give you a breakdown of those that have been on for longer durations, but I’ll give you an example from Southland last week. Of the total in Southland that were on the jobseeker benefit, 50 percent had come on in the last year. So it is really important that we look differently at the job seekers that have come on to jobseeker benefit, to connect them with employment as quickly as possible, and that’s why this really intensive work is important. So we don’t want to see benefit dependency increase, which is unfortunately what happened under the last Government, which is why we’ve got a far more active system, far more individualised, so that we can provide the support and individual needs rather than just a blanket approach.

And Jo, the only thing I’ve got to say to add to that was it’s really interesting because by virtue of these nine better public service targets, we’re making some improvements in terms of better management, you know, as you’re seeing around emergency housing, for example, and some of the other pieces. But when you start to think about kids that aren’t attending school, families that are in emergency housing, families that are long-term unemployed, we’re getting to a common cohort across all our social services that actually, through our social investment model, we’re having to—we need to innovate more strongly to try things differently, to get different outcomes for and with those people.

And so that’s the—it’s—I’m just trying to give you an insight into the nature of the conversations we’re actually having, say, in these strategy sessions where, you know, Andrew Coster, our new head of social investment, Nicola Willis leading that agenda with our social services Ministers, we’re starting to get to what—you know, that cohort that often has got more complex, more challenged needs. Yes, we can work our way through a lot of it through good management and better process, but equally now we’re getting into some of that conversation.

Sorry, you just touched on this briefly before, Louise, but obviously the longer people spend on the benefit, the harder it is to get people off as well. So how concerned are you with the fact that we are going to see unemployment still go up and we’re going to see more people have to go on to jobseeker benefit for some time? How concerned are you that as that stretches out, as that becomes consistent, that it is actually going to be harder at the other end too?

Well, that’s why we look at, you know, what—with an individual need assessment, what is the barrier that that individual faces and how do we support them? Is it mental health counselling? Is it driver licensing? Is it that we need to get them literacy and numeracy training? So rather than stand back and do nothing, first of all is really look at: what is that individual need? A case manager to work with them and a job plan, because we are committed. It’s every single person, one job at a time, and that’s why this individualised approach is really important.

Prime Minister, can I get your response to the Supreme Court judgment out today regarding the Marine Area and Coastal Act case?

Yeah, look, what I’d say about that is obviously it’s pretty new. It’s just come out. We’ll take some time to digest it and Paul Goldsmith will have more to say about it.

But do you agree personally with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Act?

Well, as you know, I mean, we’ve—all we’ve wanted to do is ensure that the Act is actually what Parliament—you know, the practice is what Parliament intended when the law was passed in 2011. Again, as you can appreciate, it’s a pretty new ruling. We need to digest it and Paul Goldsmith will say more about it.

Is your Government going to continue to pursue that amendment bill?

Again, what I’ll just say is that the ruling has only just come out and we need time to digest it, and Paul Goldsmith, who’s leading our MACA legislation, will have more to say about it.

But you must have known ahead of this that it could either go one way or the other. You would have had a response either way. I mean it’s a valid question. Are you still going ahead with the amendments? You would have known that this was a possibility and you would have game-planned this out.

Yeah, we’ve just received the report. As you know, there was an appeal filed. We got a response within 10 days from the Supreme Court overturning what looks like the Court of Appeal decision, but in fairness, you know, we need time to go through it and we’ll work out next steps from there.

Prime Minister, the International Criminal Court a couple of weeks ago issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant. If either of them came to New Zealand, would we enforce those warrants?

Yes. We support the ICC and as I’ve said to you all along, those are matters before the court, but we believe in the international rules-based system. We support the ICC and we’d be obligated to do so.

Just on a slightly different topic, is the Government still planning to clarify and deliver the redress for the Royal Commission into abuse in state care before the end of the year?

We’re working—it won’t be before the end of this year, as we said at the announcement of the apology. I think you might have been away, Mark, at that time. But what we’re doing is we’re working very, very hard to make sure that we get a redress system in place. We understand the urgency. We understand the needs of those survivors. I think, you know, the Government’s moving at great pace. Erica Stanford’s doing a great job of leading us through it. It’s difficult, you know, as I’ve said—3,000 pages, six, you know, six years in the making, 138 recommendations—but we know the redress system is a major focus for us.

Just on that, have you ruled out gang members being part of redress?

Again, all of those conversations are ongoing as to exactly how the redress system will be developed, and we won’t be talking about it until we’re ready to talk about it.

There was a story on RNZ this morning about Ministers talking at a meeting about lowering expectations for survivors. What’s your read on that?

Well, I don’t comment on Cabinet conversations.

I’m not sure it was a Cabinet meeting, actually.

Sorry?

I’m not sure it was a Cabinet meeting.

A Cabinet committee meeting, wasn’t it?

Yeah, but they were OIA’d and they were sent out, so the information’s out there in the public. So should survivors have their expectations low for redress?

All I’d say to you is we are going—we are working incredibly hard on what is a very complex set of issues to make sure that we can develop a redress system that, while it may not meet the needs and expectations of each and every individual—I know that’s the reality of it. We as a Government are looking for a system response to it and we’re working incredibly hard. There’s a lot of issues to work through, there’s a lot of complexity to work through, and each and every case is different and I acknowledge that. And as we’ve seen in areas like Treaty settlements, people have different views as to whether it’s too much, too little. That’ll be revealed in due course, but we’re not going to negotiate that or talk about that through media.

Sorry, Claire. Sorry, I’ll come to you, Sean.

Prime Minister, have you heard any briefings on the avian flu?

Yes, I was made aware of that yesterday afternoon. Essentially on Friday night, you know, MPI were made aware that avian flu was here. It is the H7 variant. As you know, it’s a mutation of the current avian flu we already have in New Zealand, but you would have had a briefing from Minister Hoggard and MPI on it with the high pathogen piece. And what I’m pleased about is the rapid response from MPI. I’m also really pleased with the engagement that MPI had with the farmer, who was also someone who understood the risk really well and has worked incredibly well with MPI. So, you know, what we see is that there’s strict controls in place to restrict, you know, movement of birds. There are no further reports actually of any avian flu beyond the one farm that we’re focused on right now. There are no food safety concerns, and importantly agencies, I think, at this stage have responded very well.

Have you had any modelling done on how much it might cost to control it if there was an outbreak?

Well, I just want to be clear because there is what’s called H5 avian flu, which you all know is the one that we are all concerned about. That’s sitting in the wild bird populations and, you know, is the thing that MPI and the agencies have been preparing for, and the sector as well. That is not what we’re talking about here. What we’re talking about is a strand of avian flu in New Zealand that has mutated and become a high pathogen variant of it, and that is what we’re now managing.

Obviously, the long-term planning around H5 avian flu is something that we really are concerned about and we’re watching. It’s going to be transmitted into New Zealand through wild birds, largely, probably, through Antarctica. And so, you know, we’ve had MPI working very, very well, I think, in preparing for that, but at this stage that’s not present in New Zealand. What is present is the H7 variant, and a mutation of that is what we’ve seen with the poultry today.

Prime Minister, is the Government likely to review the decision not to grant Candace Owens a working visa to New Zealand?

Yeah, we have a legal framework, as I understand it, with Immigration New Zealand where if an application is rejected in Australia, it’s essentially rejected here. I know Minister Stanford’s taken advice on that and I’ll let her go through that.

And when are we likely to find a decision?

I’m not sure on the timing. I just know the Minister’s asked for advice on that.

Just on the ferries, it’s coming up close to the deadline for that decision.

Yes.

Are you going to meet the deadline to have an announcement for us?

Yes, we will.

What is the deadline?

We said we’d have an answer before the end of this year.

OK. No actual date?

December 11th is my understanding, Prime Minister.

Don’t you worry, we’ll have you an answer and we’ll have a ferry solution.

Just vaguely nautical related, we haven’t really seen—well, actually very nautical related—I don’t think we’ve had a response from you on the report about the Manawanui sinking. What’s your reaction to the report, how all that went down?

Yeah, look, I mean you saw, I thought, a very good debrief from the Chief of Navy and also from Minister Collins last week. As it was identified from this report, clearly, you know, 100 percent laid at the error of human error. There’s obviously more work to do in the first quarter of next year to work out next steps and some more detail around that. But, you know, I think the Court of Inquiry process is a really robust, very rigorous one that we can trust completely. You know, it’s a very high standard of investigation, and good on the Navy and the Minister for fronting that and being upfront to say it is human error that led to the sinking of the Manawanui.

Were you a bit embarrassed reading that?

Well, look, I mean, I’m more important—it’s more important we’re transparent and we get the facts out. And, you know, what I have to say is what is a very unfortunate accident, yes, caused by human error—what I have been impressed on is the response from our teams subsequent to that. To give you a feel for it, you know, we’ve now—you know, we’ve got great monitoring happening in the oceans around whether there’s pollutants in there, and we’re pretty relaxed there. What we’re now focused on is actually getting the uplift of that fuel out of the Manawanui, which actually the salver’s on its way and we hope to start that process mid-December, working incredibly hard. Hopefully have it off before the end of the year if not around that period of time, and then I’ll feel really good about it because we will have de-risked a lot of the environmental impact and threat that sits there.

Then we’ll work our way through the next set of issues around what happens with respect to fishing bans in Samoa, also with respect to ultimately what happens with the hull itself, and those are questions that we just are working our way through very sequentially, dealing and focusing the system on what it needs to focus on. I had a good chat with Prime Minister Fiamē on the weekend again about that. And, you know, the way that Samoa and New Zealand have been working together in what has been a very unfortunate accident, and very well, I think is very impressive.

Did the question of compensation come up in that conversation?

I raised it and talked about, you know, that I’m aware of the concerns of folk who have raised compensation. It’s been talked about, obviously, amongst the media. But for right now, what we’ve agreed on is: look, our focus is on uplifting that fuel out of that ship. It’s really important, particularly as we head into hurricane season in January/February. Then we’ll have conversations around the fishing ban, and making sure we’ve got science and evidence that says that it’s the Samoan Government-imposed fishing ban around that area that’s impacted a few villages in the south. We need to make sure that we’ve got good evidence about that, that everyone’s comfortable with that, and then we’ll talk obviously about compensation concerns that people may have and then the future of the hull, whether it’s turned into a tourism/diving experience or other things. We’ll work that way through. But, you know, what I’m pleased about is—unfortunate accident, yes, caused by human error. Good Court of Inquiry process about it. Now we work our way through those issues really, in a very focused way.

Prime Minister, can you see the New Zealand Government delivering a formal apology to the villages affected but also Samoa for the Manawanui incident?

Well, look, I mean my conversations right from the get-go and my regular conversations with Prime Minister Fiamē has been, you know, that we are sorry for what has been an unfortunate accident. You know, we now have worked our way through it together and, as I said, we will pick up those issues once we’re confident we’ve uplifted all the fuel and we’ve minimised and de-risked the risk of an environmental catastrophe, which is not what we want to see. And so that’s our major focus for now. Those issues we will park and we’ll explore later on.

Just on AUKUS and Labour putting the big "no" sign up over the weekend, what does that mean for sort of the preference around bipartisanship when it comes to that?

Well, I can just say a few things. One is it is really important that we continue to explore whether or not New Zealand would participate in AUKUS Pillar 2. It’s important that we explore it as to whether we would proceed or not based off our own national interests. And so, you know, the rather ironic thing is that 12 months ago, that was something that Chris Hipkins was advocating for, and all we’ve done is continue the work that he kicked off in October 2021 under the Labour Government. So, you know, it was a bit—you know, to be honest, it was a bit sad, to be honest, to hear that party and politics has been placed ahead of country, when we’ve actually worked incredibly hard. And I know I did the same thing in Opposition is that on foreign policy issues, where the position has been exactly the same as the previous administration, we actually should have good alignment in that. And so I think it’s pretty disappointing to see bipartisanship breaking down on foreign policy because people are putting party and politics ahead of country.

Do you think this might ultimately go the way of TPP?

Well, I think if you called it "the progressive and comprehensive AUKUS Pillar 2", maybe you’d find a future Labour Government may gladly implement it.

Minister Upston, do you have insights into MSD’s engagement with the Pacific community and how many Pacific people are actually getting jobs? Has there been an uptake?

So I don’t have that data in front of me, but I do know, in terms of the jobseeker target, we’ve got a big push in South Auckland, particularly with young people, and making sure that we are funding programmes that we know work for young Pasifika so that they don’t get stuck on the jobseeker benefit.

Can you just give a list of the programmes that you’re looking to fund to target Pacific unemployment?

Yeah, so the case management is a big one. And the phone-based case management we’ve rolled out in the first instance to young people, so that we can identify what are the challenges or barriers they have. Flexi-wage continues to be a well-supported programme, as is Mana in Mahi and initiatives like that.

And how confident are you in these programmes? We see one in four young Pacific people are unemployed.

Yeah, so we do know that Māori and Pasifika are disproportionately represented on the jobseeker numbers, and when the labour market gets tighter it is harder for them, which is why we are not sitting back and waiting until the economy turns the corner. We’re working intensively with young people now, with individual solutions based on their needs.

Great. OK, well, thank you, everybody. Appreciate your time. Thanks for your time. Have a good week.