Well, look, good afternoon, everyone. It’s great to be joined this afternoon by our awesome Trade Minister, Todd McClay, who’s doing some incredible work. As you know, it’s a big sitting block with the Budget at the end of it, and that Budget will then be there to underline this Government’s clear focus on economic growth and, as you know, growth is the primary focus of us and our Government and will continue to be at the core of everything we do. We know that these are challenging times and not easy. New Zealand is still recovering from the economic damage inflicted by Labour and further global instability has made things tough for Kiwis. But despite these challenges, we are overseeing a steady economic recovery with export-led growth and business confidence increasing, and we have started to turn the corner.
So this will be a growth Budget because economic growth means Kiwis have money in their pockets and we can fund better public services, and this will also be a responsible Budget, a predictable, steady approach to economic and fiscal management so that we can support economic growth. It is ultimately businesses that grow the economy through their decisions to expand, invest and create jobs, and the Government’s role is to create the conditions for them to do that, and this includes getting the basics right, such as low and stable inflation, manageable interest rates and credible fiscal management.
Promoting global growth and trade and investment is one of the five pillars to our Going for Growth plan, and it’s absolutely essential for New Zealand to maximise its potential and New Zealanders to enjoy higher incomes and better public services. As we so often say, we can’t get rich selling to ourselves, so the Government has a clear target to double the value of New Zealand’s exports in 10 years by 2034. And in 2023, to give you a feel for it, one in four of our jobs in New Zealand—around 680,000 New Zealanders—derive their livelihoods from producing goods and services for export. And in addition to bringing in additional revenue, businesses that export also boost New Zealand’s productivity by having more exposure to more diverse competition, connecting to new markets and consumers, and also investing in research and development and innovation.
I cannot overstate how important trade and investment is to this country, and that is why both Todd as Trade Minister and myself as Prime Minister are throwing our all into doing business with the world. My recent trip to the UK is actually a prime example. It was incredibly productive and the UK relationship, I think, has new vigour. We’ve always had very strong historical ties with a similar set of values and outlook on the world, but as Prime Minister Starmer and I noted, we now have new things to propel the relationship going forward in the years ahead, in the areas of defence and security, of course, but excitingly in our bilateral trade and investment too. Our free trade agreement with the UK provides New Zealand businesses with certainty of access to this high-value market and we have enjoyed export growth of more than 20 percent in the last 12 months.
But it’s not just the UK. The EU FTA, which we implemented earlier, has just reached its first anniversary and is already showing dividends since it was put into place, having generated an additional $1.2 billion and having grown exports up 28 percent. We’re opening up new markets as well, as you know, with our signed agreements in the UAE and the GCC recently, thanks to Todd’s relentless focus on closing those deals for the betterment of our exporters, and the launch of negotiations on an Indian FTA are an important step forward too.
So trade and growth will be critical to improving our economic prospects in the coming years and so our businesses can create those jobs and lift incomes for Kiwis. I’ll now pass over to Todd to talk a little bit more about our trade agenda and prospects ahead.
Well, thank you, Prime Minister and good afternoon, everybody. It’s been a busy and important period of time for New Zealand trade and today I want to give an update on three key areas where we’re seeing growth and development: our trade growth with the EU one year after early entry into force of the free trade agreement, the first in-person free trade agreement negotiations with India, and our growing trade ties with the Gulf region.
Last week marked one year since the early entry into force of the New Zealand‒European Union free trade agreement, and the results speak for themselves. As the Prime Minister said, just in 12 months, total goods exports to the European Union from New Zealand surged by 28 percent, from $3.77 billion to $4.81 billion, and this is delivering real benefit for New Zealand exporters, particularly sheep meat exports, which grew 29 percent, worth an additional $216 million. Kiwifruit exports increased by 69 percent, worth an additional $316 million, and machinery exports were by 104 percent, which are worth an additional $173 million.
Importantly, the agreement delivers better market access, lower costs, and reduced barriers for New Zealand businesses. It’s also a strong example of our broader trade strategy, working to open up high-quality and high-value markets to double the value of exports in 10 years. We worked across the House last year to see the agreement entry into force many months earlier than had been forecast, and as an example, that meant that kiwifruit growers could take advantage of a full harvest season, adding an additional $18,000 on average for every kiwifruit grower in New Zealand.
I’m pleased to also confirm that the first in-person FTA negotiations between New Zealand and India will begin this week in India. This follows the Deputy Prime Minister’s successful visit to India last year, and the formal launch of negotiations by my counterpart, Minister Piyush Goyal, and myself during the Prime Minister’s very large and successful trade mission in April. India is one of the world’s fastest growing economies, with a current GDP of US$4.3 trillion, expected or forecast to grow to US$5.2 trillion by 2030. With a population of 1.4 billion people and current two-way trade of NZ$3.14 billion, there’s huge untapped potential for New Zealand exporters. These negotiations in person mark an important milestone and signal the intent of both governments to pursue a high-quality, comprehensive agreement that benefits both countries. The comprehensive FTA with India is also part of our strategy to diversify trade, expand export markets and deliver for all New Zealanders, and we’re focused on backing our exporters and attracting investment and growing the economy.
Finally, in the Middle East, following the conclusion of the GCC trade deal at the end of last year, momentum around trade and investment opportunities in that part of the world is growing. Last week I hosted Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Environment, Water and Agriculture, Minister Al-Fadley, for the 9th New Zealand‒Saudi Arabian Joint Ministerial Commission in Auckland. This is an opportunity to showcase what New Zealand has to offer from food security, agritech, clean technology and education. The Saudi Arabian delegation included 37 officials and business leaders, and a strong signal of the interest in what New Zealand brings to the table. We’re preparing to sign the New Zealand‒GCC free trade agreement, which will deliver duty-free access for 99 percent of our exports to that market over time. And Saudi Arabia is already our largest trading partner in the Gulf and this agreement will help us grow exports in agriculture, food innovation, fintech, and much more.
So, to recap, the EU deal is delivering 12 months into the agreement, India in-person negotiations are beginning, and the Middle East holds great potential for New Zealand exporters. We’re working across the Government hard for Kiwis, securing deals and backing New Zealand exporters to succeed on the world stage.
Well, thank you, Todd, and can I just say also thank you for the work that you’re doing because I know you’re on the plane a lot and, as I say, you are Trade McClay and we really appreciate what you’re doing. With that, happy to take any questions you may have.
Sticking on trade for a minute, have you seen Donald Trump’s latest social media post relating to the film industry and are you concerned about the impact it could have on New Zealand’s film industry?
I have seen it. Obviously, we need to see what the detail is, but what I’d just say to you is, having been at Weta Unleashed recently with Sir Richard Taylor, we’ve got an absolutely world-class industry. This is the best place to make movies in, period, in the world. That’s why I spent a lot of time with Bollywood actors and directors, actually, when I was in India, making the case for making more movies here, and we’ll continue to do so. So we’ll have to see the detail of what actually ultimately emerges, but obviously I’m a great advocate, great champion of that sector and that industry, and I think, you know, we want to keep making, you know, strong moves on it.
Yeah, yeah, sure. We’ll have to see what the details are. I’m just saying to you it’s a fantastic industry. It’s got amazing people. It’s got incredible technology associated with it, great jobs, and we’re going to continue to advocate very strongly for the sector.
Well, I don’t comment on every utterance of the US President. I’m focused on New Zealand and maximising the opportunities for New Zealand. And all I’m saying is that’s what I’ve been doing is, you know, in that sector, which I just think is truly world-class. You know, I’ve been advocating for it in India for that exact same reason. What would it take to get more Bollywood productions here in New Zealand, and other places as well?
How damaging would that be to your goal of economic growth? I think US productions account for about $1.5 billion to the New Zealand screen industry every single year. How would that affect our economy if he went through with those tariffs?
Well, look, I mean, as we’ve been quite upfront about, you know, it’s a pretty—you know, there’s a lot of volatility in the global economic space and the global economy at the moment. You know, we’ve advocated strongly, you know, that we don’t believe tariffs is the way to go forward. We’ll continue to do that. But importantly, there are also swings and roundabouts and opportunities that come in that environment as well. And so, you know, it’s not possible for me to say what the exact effect of that would be; I just think it’s way too early. Let’s see the detail and see what’s being proposed and what actually does get implemented.
Look, again, I’ve just seen the post on the way through, on the way down here. It’s not something that we’ve given a lot of thought to yet. All I’m focused on is making sure we grow that sector and grow that great industry.
Again, way too soon. We haven’t given any thought to it. We’ve just seen a post from the US President. As I said, I don’t get into the habit of commenting on everything the
President says. I’m focused on New Zealand growing all sectors with as many countries as I can, expanding trade and investment, as you’ve seen us do over the last 18 months, and we’ll continue to do so.
Just on that pivot to Bollywood that you were talking about, what sort of reaction did you get over in India when you were talking about potentially New Zealand being a bit more of a hub for those sort of movies?
Really positive. I mean, they have made movies here in New Zealand in the last 20 years or so, and my question to them was: what else would it take for you to do more productions here in New Zealand? And they’re very, very open to it. I mean, there’s a—
Well, there are—there are things that we can—you know, obviously connectivity between India and New Zealand so that you can actually move kit and people in and out of the country in a much more seamless way, which is why air connectivity and air services become so important into the future as well. But no, they’re very open to it and it’s about us actually, often, in many cases, just making the case to the influencers and to the people. And that’s why I do these meetings is because, you know, they’ve got every other country in the world telling them why they’re a great place to come and do it.
You know, they know they get well supported here. They have really talented people to be able to work with in the productions here. Many New Zealanders in that sector are very much generalists—they are able to do many things, not just have the specialists—and therefore you often end up with smaller but much more efficient crews working on those productions. So, you know, I think there’s just a lot of opportunity for New Zealand. It is an amazing sector, as you all know, and a very important sector here for this city as well.
Prime Minister, is it appropriate for a Minister to frequently use their private e-mail accounts for ministerial business, including discussing policy ideas with members of the public?
Well, look, there’ll be times under the Cabinet Manual where, you know, people— Ministers will use personal e-mail or personal phone numbers, and that may be for a number of reasons. They may have received unsolicited emails. In many cases, I’m aware Ministers in the past have had technical issues around IT and printing materials. But what’s super important is that any materials are fully retained so that under an official information request, they’re actually available.
Well, again, my office has spoken with her. I understand it’s been very few occasions. What I’d say is that she has had tech issues with printing. That’s a good example. I’m aware Ministers in the previous Government had the same—used personal emails in the same way. I’m very relaxed with the fact—
One News has two folders with hundreds of pages that includes documents and emails that she has been sending and receiving from her private e-mail. Does that sound like very limited instances?
Well, again, as I said, I’m very relaxed about it. The reality is, you know, she has— you know, she’s received unsolicited emails, she’s had printing issues, she’s had tech issues. She’s made changes subsequently, she’s got the IT support that she needs in place and I’m very comfortable with it. I think she’s doing a great job.
Well, there may well be if it’s printing purposes, if it’s—if there’s—because there’s technical reasons. As I understand it, in her case it’s actually been about printing challenges. She’s actually made the changes in the settings that she needed to, which has been good and really advisable, and I think that’s a really good thing. But I’m very relaxed about it.
Well, I’ll just say to you I think, you know, there are moments when you may well use your personal accounts for—in order for printing and for receiving unsolicited emails, right?
She’s made—she’s made subsequent changes to her processes of how to do that. She’s got the right IT support in place now. I’m really comfortable about it.
I think if you go back and look at the last administration, Chris Hipkins was an example of a Minister who used his personal accounts for printing materials that he might need as well. So that’s what I’m saying, there’s been a—there’s a history of where, occasionally—
No, on—occasionally, under the Cabinet Manual, it’s quite OK and quite acceptable that there will be moments in time where people might need to use their personal phones and emails in order for things like printing materials or IT tech support. In her case, she’s subsequently gone on and made changes which I think are advisable and are really appropriate that she’s done that, and made sure that she’s put in place some processes and changes around that.
The main directive of the Cabinet Manual is that Ministers don’t use their personal emails or mobile phone numbers, and Erica Stanford is frequently using her personal e-mail. Have you looked into it? Are you keen to look into that further? Is that appropriate?
Look, I’m super relaxed about it. I have to be honest about it. I’ve looked at the issue. Erica’s office has spoken to my office about it. She’s made the changes that she needed to make about the processes of which she engaged with unsolicited emails or—she did have printing issues, you know. That is a common thing that I’ve seen with other Ministers in previous administrations as well. Having said that, it’s advisable what she has done to put in place checks to make sure that she’s managing it better going forward. And at the end of the day, you know, this is a Minister doing a brilliant job and a great job and, you know, I’m proud of the work she did just on this weekend doing the parental portal.
Prime Minister, just a couple of questions around Corrections. Do you support Mark Mitchell and his comments around wanting longer sentences as a way of trying to reduce re-offending?
Well, I think there’s two things going on there. One is I would say we definitely support longer sentences. That’s why we’ve, you know, had the sentencing discount legislation come through. That’s why we’ve got three strikes coming through and the work of Paul Goldsmith in that area. But once someone is in the Corrections facility it’s important that we do everything we can to get rehabilitation services to them, and all Mark’s doing is actually trying to understand where does the rehabilitation services work, and does term of service actually, you know, play into that or not, and how would we make sure we take the opportunity to actually make sure that we get the right rehabilitation services to the prisoners involved.
That’s the work that he’s kicked off, to have a look at what are the impacts of rehabilitation and does term of—length of time in the facility actually lead to better rehabilitation outcomes with longer run services or not. So that’s all he’s doing. All he’s doing is just looking at making sure our rehabilitation services—we want them to be deployed as much as possible to remand Corrections facilities, as you’ve seen, prisoners, and also those that have been sentenced. We want to get rehabilitation services out to as much as we can.
The end result in there, if you play it out, is potentially a lot more prisoners in prison for a longer amount of time, so how much money are you prepared to throw at more prison beds and more prison expenses?
Well, we’re interested in lowering crime. So the point, as you know, is that we’re quite comfortable with longer prison sentences. We have made changes with our legislation recently to do exactly that, on the sentencing discounts that we’ve stopped. But this is about— this is a separate piece of work.
Well, you don’t—you drive it through a principle and a value, which is that if people have offended, they need to make sure they’ve got a penalty that fits their offence. And the old model of just saying the only target we’ve got on crime is reducing prisoners—we actually want to reduce crime and we’re making some good progress on that. So how many prisoners we have and how long they’re in there will be a consequence of what happens with respect to crime in New Zealand. Sorry, last question for Jo here.
RNZ has been talking to staff at Palmerston North Hospital who don’t feel safe at work. There are reports of health workers getting abused and assaulted, including a nurse being held at gunpoint and another health worker knocked unconscious. They’d like hospital security guards to be given the same powers as those in Parliament and court, in order to be able to physically restrain people. Do you support that?
Well, look, we have supported an increase of security in emergency departments, as you know. It’s one of the first actions we took when we came to Government, and Dr Shane
Reti implemented that. I’m very open to considering what more we can do to make sure our workers are safe. I’m not aware of that particular issue, but feel free to raise that with Simeon Brown.
Thank you. We’ll get to that later. But Minister McClay, just on the Trump tariffs, New Zealand had one of the best deals under the previous tariffs. That might not be the case anymore with this 100 percent on film production. What do you say to that, that New Zealand’s sort of getting a raw deal now as the tariff situation progresses?
Well, New Zealand’s not being treated worse than other countries, as we see it at the moment. It seems that the new bottom tariff rate out of the US will be 10 percent. There’s no evidence yet—although we’ll see whether or not they, through negotiation, will fall below that. There’s some early anecdotal evidence from our exporters that they are seeing increased interest from the US in products from New Zealand. Some of that could be because, you know, tariff rates elsewhere in the world have been fluctuated so US importers haven’t got the certainty that they need. But I think, as the Prime Minister has said, in everything we do, we’ve got to get as much information as we can. So, for instance, the announcement over films that you have just asked about, we’re not yet sure exactly how it will be put in place— whether it’s complete films, parts of films, just technology to add to films and so on. So once we get more information following the social media posts, we’ll be in a better position to provide that.
When the US first announced tariffs, they got the figure wrong on the reciprocal number. Have you had strengthened communication with the United States? I know you’ve been doing deals around the world, but have you been focusing on the US?
So we’ve had a lot of engagement. I expect to meet my counterpart, Jamieson Greer, in about two weeks’ time at the APEC Trade Ministers’ meeting in Korea. it will be my first opportunity to meet in person, although we have had a long Zoom call with each other. In effect, the way it has been clarified is it wasn’t the tariff rate they were speaking of, they’d just taken the imbalance in trade and applied that to the equivalent of a tariff. Irrespective of that, the lowest tariff rate put on any country was 10 percent, which is where we are. I actually think Australia had a better trade deal than we did because we haven’t got a trade deal, and they faced 10 percent as well.
Just on [Inaudible], Prime Minister, sorry, Anthony Albanese was asked at a press conference today about the world leaders that had congratulated him. He unfortunately left New Zealand off the list initially. In that conversation, were you not speaking slowly enough and simply enough for the Prime Minister to understand?
Can I just tell you, in that conversation I reckon he was still in his pyjamas, as I said to him, and I reckon he had a very hoarse voice so it was very early in the morning of the night after, the day after. But, look, he’s a good friend. I mean, obviously you know he and I knew each other before I came to politics as well and we’ve got a good personal relationship and chemistry, and we talked about, you know, a little bit about the election and then into how we can continue to do the good work of Australia and New Zealand out there on the world stage together.
On Lake Alice, there’s court action at the moment saying that the redress system is breaching international law and also that $150,000 isn’t enough. Have you got a response to those survivors?
Look, what I’ll just say to you, I acknowledge Mr Richards’ decision to seek a judicial review. I’m in a position where it’s inappropriate for me to comment on those individual circumstances or cases.
Just for a colleague, on the international investigation last week revealing how Chinese authorities targeted families of Chinese dissidents and Uyghur advocates in New Zealand after they spoke out, were you briefed on that situation and do you have any concerns following that?
Sorry, just going back to those Budget documents that were sent to a Gmail, are you comfortable that it was only that one case? Are there any other ones that you are concerned about?
Look, all I’m just saying to you is that the Cabinet Manual says there—you know, we want Ministers to be able to use their work devices and obviously e-mail and phones, but there will be on occasion reasons for why they need to use their personal ones. As I said, in the past it’s been because of printing issues. In Erica’s position that’s largely been, as I understand, what it’s been about. There’s also unsolicited emails that we get through personal e-mail accounts, and that’s—she’s put in place now processes to make sure that actually that’s all handled properly and everything’s directed through her account.
Yeah, look, I’m really comfortable with where—what—the changes that Erica’s made. Completely advisable. But I’m just saying to you, you know, I’m very relaxed about it, yeah.
On the CPTPP and EU kind of idea, what’s the latest on that? Have you had any further talks with leaders and how much of this is firming up into a real plan, versus sort of at a blue sky thinking stage?
Well, look, I mean, I’ve spoken to many different leaders. I spoke to Mark Carney again yesterday as well, and I spoke to Lawrence Wong, obviously around their elections, but on this issue in general. All we’re—all I was saying there was that, you know, in a world where what we’ve got—you know, you think about the US trade bloc. It’s about 13 percent of global trade, from memory. You know, you’ve got the CPTPP and you’ve got EU, probably 30 percent plus of global trade. You know, what we want to make sure is that we have people reaffirm the trading rules so that when there are disputes between countries, we want to make sure that they are following and compliant with those rules, you know. We don’t need tit-for-tat tariffs between different trading blocs, for example, emerging.
So that’s the nature of the conversation that we’ve been having with leaders. And, you know, I think—you know, and whether it’s been ASEAN leaders or whether it’s been CPTPP leaders or EU leaders, it’s just been making sure that we all understand that we want to maintain the trading system and we want to make sure that we continue to operate within it, and that where there are disputes and mechanisms, that they’re used properly.
So in terms of the outcomes that you’re looking for here, is it just—on those leader-to-leader conversations—making sure everyone’s still on the same page, or is there something more that you had expected or are expecting to come out of this in terms of some sort of formal understanding?
My immediate focus is to make sure that everyone’s staying cool, calm and collected through it, everybody’s making sure that we reaffirm the trading-based system so that we actually don’t get blocs going to war with each other as a consequence of the instability in the tariff situation globally, and just reassuring and making sure that everyone’s reassured around that. I spoke, as I said, to the Irish Prime Minister. I spoke to Keir Starmer about it. I spoke to Ursula von der Leyen and other leaders as well about it, and I think there’s very good alignment across the system to make sure that that doesn’t break down.
No, what I believe it was about was—as I think about the Singaporean election, where the popular vote went up, when I think about the Australian election and the Canadian election, there were some different dynamics in each of those elections, obviously, but for me what it really is about is people wanting to endorse incumbent governments that actually have strong economic management in very uncertain times, and actually that’s what I think our Government’s done very well. We’ve been very focused from day one. You’ve heard me say it. Rebuild the economy to lower the cost of living. That’s what our task has been about, and actually we’ve got commercially literate, economically literate leadership in place in New Zealand in a very difficult and challenging time. So I think that’s really about strong economic management. Now, when you see the parties that have lost, it’s because they’ve been focused on things that actually haven’t mattered to the population. You’ve got to be able to be focused, you know, ruthlessly on lowering the cost of living. That’s what people care about.
Can you break that down in the Australian example? Are you saying that the left-leaning Labour Party are the strong economic managers, and the right-leaning, broad-church Liberal Party are not?
Well, I’m not commenting on the individual elections. I’m just saying to you when I look at, you could argue, a centre-right Government in Singapore that increased its vote because it’s got strong economic management in very uncertain times, which you heard Prime Minister Wong talk to—likewise, you see what’s happened in the UK, where a Conservative Government didn’t focus on the economics and manage the economy well. I think of Liz Truss and the damage that was done to the Conservative Party there. So I’m just saying it’s too simplistic to go, “It’s a centre-left or centre-right argument”. It’s actually about incumbent governments that have strong economic management. When the public’s feeling anxiety about global uncertainty, they want to know that there’s great leadership in place that can navigate them through that.
[Inaudible] the losers in those election results had been distracted by other things, so is it fair to say that the Libs in Australia were distracted by other things—
Well, no, all I’m saying to you is, as a leader of a political party in a coalition Government here in New Zealand, it’s very important that we are focused on the things that New Zealanders care about, and we are. And the number one thing that they care about, and you hear all the time, is about the economy and cost of living. That is the number one concern. That’s why it’s been—you know, you get sick of me talking about it, I know you guys do, but that’s why I’ve been banging on about the economy from day one, because that’s the thing that makes the single biggest difference to the people out there. That’s what they care about. And so all you’re seeing with those election results and those three over the last week is essentially, you know, the public, quite rightly, want their politicians focused on delivering for them and making their life better. And we do that by focusing on the economy, getting more money into their back pocket.
Prime Minister, Toitū Te Tiriti rōpū have been granted an urgent hearing in front of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Regulations Standards Bill. How concerned are you that the claimants—there’s 12,000 claimants to be heard in that claim.
Well, we’ll have more to say about the Regulatory Standards Bill. As you know, it’s on our quarterly action plan and we’ll talk about that in due course, but it would be premature for me to talk about that.
Well, again, we’ll go through a process about—you know, the objective of that Bill is to make sure we make better regulation in New Zealand. That’s what that’s about. And so, you know, let’s let that play out and go through the normal process, where I’m sure there’ll be submissions and feedback on the Bill as it goes through a select committee process. But it’s a bit too premature to jump to that conclusion.
No, we’re committed to delivering a Regulatory Standards Bill into law here in New Zealand, but we’ve got a process to work through. The Bill is about making sure this is—you know, that Governments make good regulation and that we make better rules and better laws and better—and do that policy development in a much better way. And so, you know, we need to let that Bill go through the process as it normally would, exactly as Fast Track did, as other Bills that we’ve gone through as a Government. We’ve worked our way through it.
Prime Minister, just back to Mark’s questions around chatting to world leaders around trade and stability there, have you had a chance to talk to Winston Peters further about this and your Government’s strategy, how you’re going to—
I think what you’re all misunderstanding is that there are four Ministers that have been working really closely together from day one, and we come together as a small group— in fact, we’re meeting again this week—and that is myself, obviously, as Prime Minister, Winston, obviously, as Foreign Minister, Judith as Defence Minister and Todd as Trade Minister. And in all of these conversations, which obviously have overlapping areas, we work really, really closely together. So we have conversations all the time on all of these issues and we’ll continue to do so. So we’re very aligned on what we’re trying to achieve. We’re trying to lift the intensity, the urgency and the relevancy of New Zealand with our partners, with the benefit of expanding defence and security, making sure that we can drive trade and investment, and making sure we have good standing with—and good reputation with all partners.
Sorry, just to follow up, I understand that you obviously meet regularly and that you’re on the same page there at a high level, but it was the Foreign Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister who raised specifically how you were doing that and whether the steps were being discussed.
On Lake Alice, the Attorney-General is named as a defendant on that case. I understand you can’t speak about the substance of the case, but has Judith Collins either recused herself or have you asked her to put in place any kind of management around response to the state abuse—
Again, I’m not going to go into detail with that now. Suffice to say that there’s an issue before the courts. We’ll let that complainant go through that process and we will manage any conflicts that are a result of that.
Prime Minister, with the respect to the CCCFA reform, the Government’s making the choice to retrospectively legislate, which is unusual. Aren’t you running the risk of looking as if the Government is favouring the Australian banks over New Zealand borrowers by doing so? What’s the rationale?
Look, again, I would encourage you to talk to Scott Simpson about the CCCFA because it’s quite a technical question and I think in fairness, as the Minister—
No, I’m well aware of the Cabinet position, but what I’m saying to you is I also hold my Ministers accountable and I expect them to answer technical questions. If you want—
Well, no, we’re quite comfortable with it in this process. As I said, we passed this through the Cabinet. We discussed it. The CCCFA was a total dog’s breakfast from the previous administration, designed to clamp down on predatory lending and ended up actually squeezing a whole bunch of liquidity for people trying to access funding for mortgages. Getting asked how much you’re spending on Netflix, how much coffee you’re having, what sort of pet food you use; all of that stuff is not what it’s about.
[Inaudible] is retrospective legislation which would effectively kill off a piece of class action which has been underway for six years or so, and which starts with legislation which was effectively put in place by [Inaudible]—
The only benefactors of what Peter is talking about are the two Australian banks. Why, in the climate and given all of the rhetoric that has been going on around clamping down on banks, would the Government want to put themselves in a position where the banks get off scot-free?
Well, again, you know, we’re fixing the CCCFA, given the mess that it created, and we’ve made that decision as a Cabinet. If you want to direct technical questions, can I just suggest you talk to Scott Simpson about it?
It’s a very simple question. From a Government that has taken a very strong position on things like supermarkets, banks—you’ve made these inquiries and investigations— you have a situation in front of you where two Australian-owned banks who make significant, billion-dollar profits are the only people that are going to benefit from this retrospective legislation. Why would your Government want to take that position?
No, we’re fixing legislation because of liquidity challenges, where regular people couldn’t get mortgages for their housing because something that was designed to deal with predatory lending has ended up creating, you know, an unintended or intended consequence or unintended consequence. So there’s a lot more going on in the legislation reset than just what you’re talking about.
The people who brought this class action might be facing their own liquidity challenges, and your retrospective legislation is effectively allowing hundreds of millions of dollars of money that they’re owed to go to Australian—
But as a principle of natural justice and the rule of law, shouldn’t Cabinet have a position on the rightness of retrospectively legislating hundreds of millions of dollars away that people are owed in New Zealand?
Look, we’ve had our Cabinet conversation, this decision we’ve made and we’re comfortable with it. If you want to ask technical questions, go to Scott Simpson. OK, team—
Just back to Erica Stanford again, you’ve dismissed most of it as a printing issue, but if she was discussing policy ideas with members of the public from a personal e-mail account, do you not see that as problematic?
What is problematic is when materials from personal e-mail accounts are not retained for official information purposes. That is the problem. And so, in this case, as I—you know, all those materials—I’m not aware of any materials not having been retained and any official information requests that actually ask for those emails, they’ve been provided, as I understand it.
Well, there is unsolicited e-mail correspondence that happens from, you know, relationships that she will have through—that come through a private e-mail account. Again, she’s now put in place mechanisms to make sure that actually that is managed more appropriately going forward. I think that is appropriate. She’s got technical fixes that actually help support that. That’s a good thing. OK.
On Sir Brian Roche taking over the teachers’ negotiations, do you think he’ll do a better job than the Ministry would, and do you want to see him do collective negotiations more throughout the public service?
Yeah, I’m just saying to you—no, I’m just saying to you it’s quite appropriate through the Cabinet Manual that actually people may use their personal e-mail accounts and phone numbers for conversations, but those materials have to be retained. They have been retained. They are available for official information requests. That’s the important thing here. OK. All right, guys. Thanks so much.