Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 30 June 2025

Hey, well, kia ora, good afternoon, everybody. It’s good to see you all. As you’ll be aware, I’ve just returned from two overseas trips: the first to China, one of our most significant and longstanding relationships, and then the second to Europe, where I met with key EU leaders in Brussels and also attended the NATO summit in the Hague.

In my meetings with President Xi and Premier Li in Beijing, and then also at NATO, where I met with 15 other leaders from Europe and North America, it is clear that we face challenging global circumstances, and whether it’s the volatile economic conditions or the growing risks to regional and national security, it’s a tough time to be a small democracy. And we aren’t alone in that assessment. Last week in the Hague, NATO members committed to further lifting their defence expenditure, and that tells you all you need to know about the way that they’re seeing the risks to national and regional security in their part of the world. But this isn’t just a problem for the Euro-Atlantic. While Ukraine faces its third year of Russia’s illegal war, tensions in the South China Sea threaten regional stability, and hostilities in the Middle East disrupt global trade flows and risk pushing up prices at the petrol pump for countries worldwide.

For small trading nations like New Zealand, prosperity just isn’t possible without security—the two are inextricably linked—and we are living in a world where the rules we have relied on to underpin our security and also our prosperity are constantly pushed to their limits. It’s true that we are far away from a lot of what happens out there in the world but our distance should not be taken for immunity, and that’s why, in challenging times, we’re focused on building connections with other world leaders so that we can navigate these tricky times together as friends and partners. That’s also why we’ve recently committed to injecting an initial $12 billion into ensuring that we have a future-proofed, combat-capable defence force, a defence force that can operate seamlessly with our partners if and as we need to.

All of that being said, I’m also struck when I’m overseas by the very real advantages that we have as New Zealand as a country. Despite the choppier conditions, I’m very optimistic that we can do well for ourselves in the years ahead. Historically we’ve seen our distance from markets as a disadvantage but in today’s highly connected, digitised world, technology has nixed the tyranny of distance, and our distance from some of the world’s trouble spots makes us a highly attractive proposition and an understandable safe haven.

We can and should also make a great virtue of our size because being small doesn’t need to be a disadvantage. We can be highly connected and highly agile, moving quickly to meet challenges and to capitalise on new opportunities. If we play our cards right, have a sustained focus on our economic plan, and be a participant rather than a spectator internationally, we can position ourselves to weather international storms, create the conditions for economic growth, help Kiwi firms take on the best in the world, and importantly, continue to build a stable, prosperous and sustainable future for all New Zealanders. And that’s important because it all translates into more productivity, more jobs and higher wages, more opportunities for hard-working Kiwis to get ahead.

I know it’s been a challenging time for Kiwis and that’s why we are throwing everything at boosting our trade links so that we can progress further economic growth. China is the second largest economy in the world and with over 500 million discerning middle class consumers demanding premium goods and services from New Zealand, our visit to China unlocked over $1 billion in deals for New Zealand, including for our critical primary industries sectors, tourism and education, and also for our cosmetics products. Then we headed to Brussels, where we could celebrate the fact that since the EU FTA came into agreement just a year ago, our exports to Europe have grown by 25 percent or more than an extra $1 billion.

So there is a lot to be concerned about in the world but there is also a lot to be incredibly optimistic about too, and while it’s still tough for Kiwis, we are turning the corner and we are seeing some encouraging results starting to come through. Inflation is down from a peak of 7.5 percent—7 percent to now 2.5 percent, in part from a focus on stopping wasteful spending. As a consequence, interest rates are down. A family with a $500,000 mortgage could save around $320 per fortnight due to those lower interest costs. Wages are growing faster than the cost of living for the first time in years. Treasury expect 240,000 jobs to be created in the next four years, with the economy projected to grow at just under 3 percent. Exports are booming, with our merchandise trade deficit falling from $10 billion to just $3.8 billion in the last 12 months, and that’s great news and it’s contributing to the economy growing at 0.8 percent in the last quarter, much faster than many other Western economies.

But there is a lot more for us to do and against a challenging global backdrop, I just think that New Zealand’s future looks bright. It all comes down to having a good long-term economic plan to drive growth, to create jobs, and to lift wages to help hardworking Kiwis get ahead.

Before we get into any questions, just running through my movements this week: I’m in Wellington today and tomorrow before visiting the Manawatū on Wednesday, and then Christchurch on Thursday, Auckland on Friday. I’m happy to take your questions.

Will you be going to the Takutai Moana Tarsh Kent tangi?

I won’t be, but I know we’ve had really good representation from National Party MPs—I know Te Pati Māori has acknowledged that support as well—and so we’ll have representation there but it won’t be me.

On that topic, have you had a chance to consider a date for the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election?

No, I’m not going to look at that. I really want this week to be about Tarsh and her family and whānau and, as you can understand, we’ll look at that after the tangi but I want to make that to be the focus this week.

In your preamble you mentioned the rules that New Zealand relies on. With that in mind, why hasn’t New Zealand condemned the US strikes on Iran?

Well, we’ve noted that they have—at the time they said that they were consistent with the UN Charter. We noted they were very specific, targeted at three nuclear facilities, as you know. I think the bigger issue is what comes next in the—you know, what really matters is what happens in the next few days and the next few weeks, and our call is the same, which is we want diplomacy and dialogue. We are a long way away from that action, we’re not going to be one of the actors that’s going to change the course of things there, but we continue to put our voice to the need for dialogue and diplomacy at this time.

Does Donald Trump actually deserve some credit for achieving a ceasefire?

Well, the point is you’ve got to deal with what you’ve got to deal with, and right now we’ve got an opportunity to make sure that a region that has had a huge amount of conflict in it that’s caused huge amounts of catastrophe and suffering for people, that there is an opportunity (1) to get a ceasefire in place with Israel and Gaza, (2) to make sure we have a ceasefire in place between Iran and Israel. And the answer is not more military action, the answer needs to be a political solution here developed through diplomacy and dialogue.

How much credit does Donald Trump deserve for getting to the position that it is in right now?

Well, I mean, from our point of view in New Zealand, from my point of view as Prime Minister, you know, as I said, we’re a long way away from the Middle East conflicts, but what we want to see is a Middle East where Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon. We want to see a Middle East where Israel is not occupying Gaza. We want to see a Middle East where Hamas has released hostages. And that’s why I’m saying the answer is not more military action in general for that region.

[Inaudible] how much credit does Donald Trump deserve for getting to the position that we’re in now?

Well, that’s for commentators to make. All I’m saying is I deal with where we are today, and we’ve got an opportunity today for the parties to get round and have a proper dialogue in order to get a political solution in place. Sitting from where we sit in New Zealand, that’s all that we can continue to exhort and encourage parties to do.

Part of Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine was they considered it partly a pre-emptive strike because Ukraine was building up military power which they felt could threaten Russia in the future. In the light of recent events, do we still think the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal?

Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, and that’s why we keep calling for an immediate 31-day ceasefire on land, sea, and air, because, you know, Russia started that illegal war. They can stop it immediately. We think that’s the right thing to do as well is to have a ceasefire. Where you’ve got tens of thousands of people being killed in Ukraine—it’s going into its fourth year and you know, we stand with Ukraine. That’s why you’ve seen us back it with more support, with more defence personnel, training staff. And obviously I had a good meeting with President Zelensky when I was in NATO as well, just reassuring him that he stands for the values that are important to us as New Zealanders and we stand with him.

But if Russia considered that a pre-emptive strike, which it does, what makes that obviously illegal when the US’s pre-emptive strike was possibly legal in our view?

Well, as I said, you know, we note that the US had a very targeted strike on three nuclear facilities. We note that they say that they’re consistent with the UN Charter and international law. But the real opportunity now is to actually do something about that and actually do something in the situation, before it deteriorates and there’s even more pain and suffering in that region.

So it might have been legitimate for Russia to do more targeted attacks on Ukraine?

No, no. Russia’s law in Ukraine is utterly illegal, it disrespects nation sovereignty, it disrespects international law and democratic ideals, and that’s why we’re standing with Ukraine. I see them as two different things.

Can you explain how the US’s pre-emptive strike is different from what Russia saw as being a pre-emptive strike?

Well, they’re complete—I mean, Russia is—it’s an illegal, immoral war that Russia launched on a—a big country on a small country. We have sovereignty of national borders. We have international rules-based system, international law, that we expect Russia to uphold. They haven’t done it. It’s been an illegal war for the whole period of time.

The point is—you can argue the technical definitions as much as you like, but the point is you have to deal with how are we going to improve things in the next few days, the next few weeks, the next few months to stop the huge amount of suffering that people are experiencing both in the Middle East and also in Ukraine. And the answer in both cases is that we need a ceasefire in place so that we can actually get round the table, the parties can get round the table, urged by the regional actors that are influential in those regions, to actually make sure that dialogue and diplomacy come through and political solutions are delivered. That’s what’s going to answer, not more military action as we’re seeing.

Do you support the Deputy Prime Minister’s attacks on rangatira Māori and their criticisms because they dared to criticise the Regulatory Standards Bill?

Well, look, politics is robust. I don’t need to get in the middle of refereeing a debate between academics and politicians.

Do you support the use of Parliamentary Services to put those ads on social media attacking rangatira Māori?

Well, look, it’s a robust political debate, you know, around the bill, and people can have their voice on it as they go through the bill process and the development of the bill through the select committee process. But, look, there’s a lot more important things for me to focus on, frankly, than refereeing a debate between politicians and academics.

The situation in the Tasman region looks to be worse than some people may have thought, and we’ve got more rain coming later in the week. Have you had any advice on how significant the economic impact will be, and what are you doing for that situation?

Yeah, I mean, the first thing I’d say has been a very difficult time for Kiwis in the region. I also want to—you know, our thoughts are very much with the man and his family who lost his life and, you know, that’s a pretty tragic circumstance and I want them to know that our thoughts are with them.

The reality is that we still have another weather front that’s coming through right now and so we need to make sure that everyone is safe. I was very impressed by the response over the weekend. I’ve spoken with Minister Mitchell on Friday and also on Saturday, who was actually on the ground down there as well, and we’ll continue to look at—you know, once we get the assessment together—as to what other support is needed. Obviously, we’ve done practical things like releasing the mayoral relief fund, as you would expect. But as there’s another front coming through, I want people focused on preparing for that, and we’ll deal with the issues that may arise afterwards, once we’ve got a clear assessment. But it’s really about the response right now. We’ll worry about the recovery after this.

So since returning from NATO and the new commitments made to defence spending there, has it made you have a think about New Zealand’s goal to get to 2 percent over the next decade or so, and whether it might be a bit on the stingy side?

No, I think it’s entirely appropriate for New Zealand. We’re doubling the level of defence support, as you know. Here, that’s a big step up. We’ve had a big degradation of our defence forces and services over a number of years. It’s important, and it’s going to take us some time to recruit the personnel to actually support the capital investment that’s coming.

I’d just say the European situation is quite challenging one. It’s quite an existential threat, frankly, to Europe, when they look at the pressure that they’re under with Ukraine and the threat of Russia there, and so, you know, that has focused the minds of all the NATO countries in particular. It was good to see them unify around that challenge or that threat and actually decide collectively to lift their defence capability. In my conversations with the EU and also with individual leaders was—the increase in spending is admirable. The question is: how do we make sure that it doesn’t just translate into higher prices in the defence industry and more inflation? How do we get efficiency out of that collective spend?

And you would have seen in our joint statement following my meeting with Ursula von der Leyen that we were open to being part of any security procurement, which gives opportunity to New Zealand firms to input into the European defence build but equally for us to benefit from some of those procurements as well. So it’s good to see people lifting their defence spends— it’s clearly just a commentary on where everyone is at—but it’s important we get efficiency out of those investments as well.

That’s been one of your key takeaways, that as New Zealand spends a significant amount more on defence kit, that actually we squeeze some value out of it?

Yeah, I think, you know, there’s opportunities, as we said, with a big investment spend like we have in New Zealand, for us to build our own nascent defence industry. We have some companies that are already doing deals with, say, the British Ministry of Defence and other parts of the world. But also, you know, when there’s—when Europe wants to come together and do more joint procurement, their challenge has been that while they may have similar platforms in defence, they’ve often used different missiles, for example, on different assets or different vessels—vehicles. And, you know, that’s the sort of stuff where you can harmonise that to get the benefits of it, so you’re not just having a defence industry make a lot of money because of increasing spend and you actually are not therefore building additional capabilities. So I think, you know, the lift in spending is good. The question is: how do you get maximum bang for buck for all that spending that’s happening around the world?

On the coward punch, could you just outline to us what sort of message it is that you’re sending with that new piece of legislation or those updated laws?

Yeah, look, I mean you’ve seen it today with respect to our first responder legislation but also with the coward punch as well. You know, that’s pretty—exactly what it is. It’s actually a pretty disgusting sort of act and it should result in higher penalties, and so it is eight years for intending to cause injury, I think it’s 15 years for actually causing grievous bodily harm, and it’s life imprisonment for causing death. I mean, you know, those are serious assaults that actually cause lifelong brain injuries or, at worst, death, as we’ve seen.

So, you know, what you’re seeing across this Government is we said we would restore law and order. We’re going after gangs because it’s about going after violent crime. We’ve come through and you’ve started to see some good progress on serious youth offending coming down, which has been good. But we’ve also said the third leg was to make sure we had tougher sentences in place and so there’s been a raft of stepping that up across the system, whether it’s been capping the discounts that judges can give, which took effect on Sunday, the first responder, extra punishments, the coward punch—they’re all practical, common-sense things that I think the regular New Zealanders watching this conversation will say, that’s good stuff.

Are you worried about a culmination of all of that increasing the prison population? There has been some commentary about that. Is that something that you’re losing much sleep over?

No, I’m not losing any sleep over it because frankly the prison population will be what it will be. What’s more important to me is that dangerous people are out of the community with a chance to rehabilitate, and that’s why I’m pleased with the work that Corrections has been doing to step up rehabilitation programmes as well. But I make no apologies. We are not—the tail’s not wagging the dog here like it did under the previous administration, which said the only target it had on crime was to lower the prison population. Well, our answer is we want to lower crime and that’s what we’re doing, and you’re starting to see some good improvements on violent crime, youth offending, police officers out there, ram raids down. We’re making some progress on that and people are feeling safer out there. There’s more to do, but that’s why we want to be tough on sentencing as well.

Have you been briefed or have you received any information on the Canadian Government’s decision to ban Hikvision from operating in the country?

I’ve just read the media reports today that you would have seen as well. Obviously we take our advice from the Government agencies who do their own assessments on national security risks but also the relevancy of different technologies, and we’ll let them make those calls.

Prime Minister, section 127 in the education legislation and the Treaty clause within it—why not just remove that clause instead of going through a long and arduous review?

Well, I mean there’s three things going on there. The first is that the most important thing, and the most important thing to all of us in this room and across viewers watching, is the future for our kids. And, you know, there is no way our kids are going to have a great future if they don’t get a great education, and there’s no way this country can grow its economy without doing so. The first thing and the most important thing—and it might sound odd to have to say this—is that we need those boards to have a number one priority on advancing academic achievement and also making sure kids are in attendance at school. So that’s job number one.

The point in the discussion that I’ve observed over section 127 while I’ve been away—pretty straightforward. We’ve got a whole set of questions around Treaty obligations and the implications within a series of education regulations and other bits of legislation. We’ve got a broader piece of work, which you know, about wanting to have very specific Treaty clauses rather than general open-ended ones, so everyone has maximum clarity about how a piece of legislation is to be operationalised. And as a result, Paul Goldsmith will look at that work, including this work in this Education Act.

The third thing I’d say is there’s a chance for people to submit through the select committee process if they feel strongly one way or another on all of this, as always, and those things will be considered as well.

The Act Party says that it argued to remove this clause straightaway, but it had to settle for this review as part of some sort of coalition negotiation. Was it National that pushed back on that proposal from Act? How did that play out?

Well, it’s just—I mean there’s a series of conversations that happen in Cabinet and Cabinet committees. But the bigger point here is that you know that that’s an issue that we want to deal with as a Government, about having specific, relevant clauses so that there’s clarity for folk. We want to deal with that in a comprehensive and coordinated way and that’s why we think, you know, Minister Goldsmith leading that work on behalf of the whole Government—versus actually touching it in every single piece of legislation every time we make a change. We’d sooner comprehensively deal with it in one go and through a proper process, so that’s the approach that we’ve taken as a Government and I support that.

I think, you know, we just want to get really clear about—you know, we’re in a situation, just so we’re—you know, and I know I go on about this a lot, and I do it because I really want people to understand it. When half our kids arrive at high school not at the standard they need to be at on reading, that’s a problem. When 80 percent arrive at high school not at the standard they need to be at on mathematics, that’s the problem. So I’m interested in getting our kids to school, teaching them maths and teaching them to read. And if that’s the only three things we can manage to do, that’s what we should be doing right now, because that’s going to give the platform and the foundation for our kids to learn and to do well into the future. So that’s the priority, was to make sure that the boards understand: that is your job. There is nothing more important than that. Nothing trumps that in my view. So we’ll deal with the other issues in that manner.

Prime Minister—

I haven’t heard from you. How are you, mate?

I’m very good.

Good to see you.

The Australian Government, when it introduced coward punch laws, funded an ad campaign to raise awareness about the dangers of coward punches. Is that something that your Government would consider doing, creating an ad campaign?

Look, I’m sorry, I’m just not knowing whether that’s what we will do or won’t do. I think the point is most Kiwis understand it’s a pretty heinous act and it’s a pretty gutless act as well, and so I think they know what it means. But that will be a decision for the Minister and for the team.

Would you consider it in any way? Would you consider any idea of ad campaign to raise any awareness?

What I’m interested in is just making sure we get the legislation in place so that people can be punished and deal with the sentence they’ve got to deal with for doing such a cowardly act.

Prime Minister, in respect to education—

Hey, guys—

In respect to the education question that you had asked earlier—

Just for this—sorry, just for this to work—

—and around the Treaty then, Māori would say that the Crown is breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi because the children are failing, because they are hungry, because there is no housing. That is very clear the Crown is breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Why is the Crown not clear on that?

So, Claudette, in fairness, for a press conference to work we need to take turns, right? That’s how it works. And so I will come back and answer your question in a minute and you can ask the question again.

I’m sorry, Prime Minister, but on that, why then do pātai Māori have to take a back seat? I’m just the same as every other journalist here—

You are.

—and I would like to know, Prime Minister, why it is that this Government and the Crown are not clear on their responsibility—

Claudette, I’m really happy—would you like to listen to my reply?

—[Inaudible] failure to honour to Treaty. The reason that they are hungry is the breach of Treaty, and housing, breach of Treaty. Please answer. Please respond.

So, Claudette, I will, but I’ve already answered a question of you. I’m very happy to come back to that question, but in fairness to your colleagues we need to make sure that everyone gets an opportunity to ask a question.

[Inaudible]

So Thomas hasn’t asked a question yet. You have. I’ll come back to your question, rest assured. I’ll take your questions all day long. Thomas, can we go to you?

The Government said it would announce changes to the FamilyBoost tax credit after the issue around the number of people getting it. It said it would announce those changes by the end of June. Today’s the last day of June. Where is that work at?

Yeah, we’ll have something to say about that very shortly. But you’re right, you know, as you—as you well know, the modelling that we had intended and the uptake of it hasn’t been taken up in the way that we thought it would do, and so we want to make sure that those funds actually do get out to low and middle-income working New Zealanders so we are revisiting that policy. Nicola will have more to say about it very shortly.

Can you give us some more detail? What “very shortly” is it? Very shortly “very shortly”? Has a decision been made?

A decision has been made and then she’ll communicate it very shortly.

On the military-style academies, can you just explain to what extent they were put in to curb youth offending and re-offending?

Yeah, look, I mean, well, we were in a situation where we had youth offending going through the roof. We had ram raids, as you know, waking up most days, being committed by serious young offenders. We’ve done a number of things to push back quite strongly on that.

I think the military-style academies have been actually a good initiative. It’s one of several things that we’re trying to do. We obviously said we’d put in place a pilot. There were some really good learnings, from my take, in the residential component in particular, and there was, you know, some challenges, as we had expected, in terms of the community transition. We will digest all of that. We’ve got an opportunity with the legislation coming through to think about how we may flex or extend the residential period, make that transition back into the community—what more can we do about that? But we are dealing with some of New Zealand’s most, you know, challenging young people, but I don’t think we should give up on them and I think, you know, we will continue to perfect the military-style academies in subsequent rounds.

Talking about giving up on them, one of the youths has just been kicked out of the pilot because they’ve faced a court appearance. Are you aware of that and what’s your reaction to that?

Well, all I’d just say to you is they are difficult, you know, and challenged young people. We are doing and giving them every opportunity to actually change their lives and to put it on a different trajectory than where it’s heading. If they choose not to take that opportunity that’s ultimately on them, but we are going to give them every opportunity to choose a better pathway. And so we’ll keep perfecting the military-style academies to see how we can make them work better and to have more impact, to make a more powerful intervention in these young people’s lives, to set them on a much better pathway.

A lot of focus has been on the level of re-offending across the pilot. It hasn’t been confirmed in the statement but if the person has faced a court appearance there may be some re-offending there. If the pilot was set up to address youth offending, yet we’re still unaware as to how many of these young people have re-offended, how can we assess or how can the public assess the validity of this?

Yeah, there’s an ongoing assessment taking place, and particularly as we shape into legislation, where we want to be able to think about what more we may do differently through legislation. So I’ll let the Minister own that and talk to that in particular but I’d just say, you know, we don’t expect that everyone coming through the programme is not going to re-offend. What we’re looking for here is to say we’re looking for every opportunity.

And it’s really interesting, I went and visited the facility and had probably an hour and a half with those young people, the initial young people that were involved in it, and it was really interesting. They were being invested in by really great staff and people that cared about them and actually were giving them a shot and actually helping them in ways that I don’t think they’d received help before. All we can do is try and impart to them that there is a different way of being, there’s a better way of being, and we should use that programme to try and do exactly that, while also acknowledging that we need them off the streets in order to keep the rest of the community safe. I’m pleased and proud that we’ve followed through and we’ve done it. As I said, it was a pilot. There’ll be ongoing learnings, and we’ve got to keep making sure we build that into what we do going forward.

ACC appears to have agreed some quite tough targets with the Government to reduce spending and social rehabilitation and move thousands of people out of the long-term claims pool. Does it really have the discretion to do that or is this, as Labour claims, basically the Government telling ACC to stop doing its job?

No, no, no. We just expect it to do a better job of rehabilitation and getting people back into work. And there have been different times in history, if you go back through the history of ACC, where it’s been, you know, incredibly well led and managed, and as a result it’s ended up actually delivering good outcomes where it’s actually been able to turn people through the system, get them rehabilitated, get them back into work. And we just want to make sure that—you know, we expect all agencies, frankly, to deliver and perform, and it’s no different for ACC. So it’s—just know that we’re expecting performance.

Are you happy that the Government’s also suggesting that public confidence, trust and confidence in the claims system at ACC can fall from 61 percent to 57 percent? Is that an acknowledgement that I guess we’re going to see ACC perform worse in the eyes of the public?

No, I just—I’m just saying to you, you know, our conversations with CEs across the whole of Government is we expect them all to perform. We expect them to be thinking of themselves as large service organisations that have customers called the public of New Zealand. We expect them to manage their finances and manage within the resources that they’re given. And, you know, in ACC I know it’s a difficult job but, you know, we’ve got a lot of people on ACC. It’s a unique setup that we have here in New Zealand. We want to make sure that that organisation is doing everything it can to get people rehabilitated and set up for a future back at work.

How much trouble is it in financially? We were talking about the reserves deficit going to $17 billion by June 2027. How concerned should we be by that?

Well, I mean, there have been periods in time where it’s been in deficit and it sort of rolls through, as you know, through cycles, so—but, you know, that is one area where we want to see improved performance. Another similar intervention, different in nature, was KO, which was heading to a $20 billion plus, you know, debt and liability. Obviously, the way ACC is treated is differently in a financial accounting sense, but we expect performance out of our Crown agencies and we make no apologies for that.

Just with the Cook Islands 60th anniversary that’s weeks away, has New Zealand received an invitation to attend or will there be any representation from yourself or Ministers at the celebration?

Yeah, look, that’s being worked through. I don’t have an answer for you today on that. Obviously, it’s an important event for the Cook Islands. As to who represents New Zealand at that event, that’s still to be worked through.

And just on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being Arctic and 10 being blazing hot, how would you rate the current relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands?

Oh, look, I wouldn’t use those sort of scales. As you know, we’ve got a real difference with the Cook Islands Government. You know, it’s a real difference.

So you can’t confirm that you’ll attend the celebrations?

No, not—no, I’m not—we can’t confirm who’s attending at this point. We will in due course, but I can’t tell you today who it is or who it isn’t going to be. But what I can say is it’s well known we have great appreciation for the Cook Islands people. We have an issue with the Cook Islands Government on a lack of transparency on something that we think we have a constitutional obligation to deal with under our free association constitutional arrangements, and so, you know, we need to be reassured that any risks are going to be well managed around those agreements that the Cook Islands has been doing with other countries. You know, that’s because of the obligations that we have constitutionally under the free association arrangements that we have with the Cooks. And so if the Cook Islands wants to become fully independent that’s ultimately a decision for them, but it should be taken to the Cook Islands people to ask for that in referendum. But equally, you know, our officials are working through and understand the work that they have ahead of them.

Right, I’ve got to go to Claudette. Claudette, sorry. I’ll come back to you, Jamie, I’ll just go to Claudette.

Can I just say for a minute, it’s good to have you back.

It’s nice to be back, Claudette, and I appreciate you saying that.

The pātai was—

Yes.

—why is the Government and the Crown not clear on the points, the kōrero, that rangatira Māori make that the reason why our Māori children are failing at kura is because the Crown breaches the Treaty of Waitangi, the reason why our whānau are hungry is because of the Crown’s breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Why remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from these documents and from the clauses, remove the clause, when it’s very clear to te ao Māori? Why is it not clear to the coalition Government and to the Crown?

Well, it is. I just reject the characterisation of the question, which is that, you know, we fully understand the Crown obligations around the Treaty of Waitangi. All we’re asking for is we want maximum clarity around that. I don’t want a board focused on—I want them focused on academic achievement and getting kids to school. That’s really important, Māori or non-Māori. So I want to be clear about the hierarchy, and as a result, ultimately you’ve also got to be clear about the Treaty obligations and what the expectations are across the system on that too.

But, you know, we understand the obligations we have as a Crown, but there are many cases where we have legislation with very generic, open-ended clauses sitting there and it’s unclear as to what that actually means in the context of the legislation that the clause is in. And so that’s not good enough because you want clarity for Māori, you want clarity for the Crown, and you want clarity for others that are involved in that legislation. So I think that’s not unreasonable for us to be asking for specific versus general clauses.

Are the issues between the New Zealand Government and the Cook Islands Government having any effect or influence over how we might be represented at that anniversary event? Is it a barrier to, for example, yourself or Winston Peters going over?

Look, I mean, we’ve got some serious conversations to have and we want to make as much progress as we can between—you know, as fast as we can. But ultimately it’s also up to the Cook Islands. They know what they need to deliver, which is about us being reassured around the risks associated with some of those agreements and our officials will work through that. We just genuinely haven’t made a decision yet as to who will represent us there. But, you know, I’m just also being straight up about it, as I have right from the beginning of the year, to say: look, you know, we love the Cook Islands people. They’re fantastic Kiwi citizens. They make a great—you know, they’ve made New Zealand a much better place. We’re very much with the people of the Cook Islands. We have an issue with the Government around not being transparent about something under the 2001 joint declaration. It’s pretty crystal clear, and we expect that transparency to be there.

So, you know, am I confident we can work our way through it? Yes, we can. But I’m just being straight, as I am in most of my relationships with different leaders around the world, that where we have differences, we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about them and be upfront about it, you know, in a public/private sense, and talk about it in a rational way. And so we’ve got some differences here and we’ve got to work our way through them.

It sounds like you’re saying if the difference isn’t resolved, you or, say, Winston Peters won’t be turning up to that event. Is that fair?

I’m not going to—I’m not saying—as I said earlier, sort of, like, there needs to be— I’m not sure who’s representing us at this point in time. We haven’t made that decision. There’s a number of options around that. There’s obviously scheduling options too that have to be considered. Equally, we know it’s important for the Cook Islands, it’s important for New Zealand and we need to have representation there. I’m just also acknowledging that we also have a major difference that needs to get resolved, and the sooner it’s resolved, the better.

Another topic. Up north in Warkworth, oyster farmers are calling for compensation or some sort of financial support given Watercare’s dumping of sewage in the water. Is that on your radar? Is that something the Government could get involved with?

Not something I’ve been briefed on or aware of. I presume that’s a dispute between Watercare and the fishing industry, as it is, as it should be.

For financial support, though, is that something the Government would look at?

Not something that I’ve been briefed on at all. Ultimately, it’s a decision for them to work through, first and foremost.

Just on sentencing reforms, just to clarify, the Ministry of Justice modelling thought it would increase the prison population by about 1,350 over the next decade and cost up to $152.7 million. So you’re comfortable with this, despite it also suggesting those figures could be undercooked because some factors weren’t baked in? You’re comfortable with those high numbers?

What I’m comfortable with is lowering crime, and so whatever the prison population is will be a mathematical outcome of that. And so you cannot have it the other way, which it was, and I appreciate for some of you that may be the way you think about it, but, you know, lowering the prison population for the sake of lowering the prison population is not the way through here. We need to lower crime and that then lowers the prison population, and that’s what we expect and that’s what we’re trying to do.

Given that uncertainty, how can the public be sure that there won’t be an unmanageable prison population and that the costs won’t blow out?

Well, I mean, those are things that we’ll deal with in subsequent budgets. As you’ve seen, there’s been a big investment in Waikeria Prison for a start. We’ve got a—you know, we’ve talked about a public-private partnership to upgrade the men’s prison in Christchurch. You’re seeing significant investment going into Corrections, both in the physical infrastructure but also in the rehabilitation of prisoners as well, and that’s a good thing. OK, last question.

IRD did their long-term briefings insight last week, published it, and they modelled increasing GST to 18 percent and using the proceeds to basically lower income taxes, particularly on lower-income earners. Is that something your Government would look at all, increasing GST and using the proceeds—

Not something we’re considering at the moment at all. Our job is to—I don’t think taxing the New Zealand people is the way forward. I think what we’ve got to do is grow the economy. And, you know, what I’m saying is we know we’re been through a difficult time, probably the closest recession we’ve had since 1991. We’re now turned the corner, we’re seeing some really good signs. When you see the 0.8 percent quarterly growth and then when you see the improvement in the merchandise deficit in the way that we’ve seen just in 12 months and its export-led recovery, that’s all really promising good signs. Obviously that’s the way in which we get the economy growing. That’s the way we get higher wages. That’s the way we get more money into Kiwis’ back pockets. Jason, last question.

We’ve got 123 bright-eyed and bushy-tailed youth MPs that are coming to Parliament this week, plus a few youth press gallery members. What advice have you got for them?

Oh, look, just really enjoy the experience. You know, democracy is a really precious and cool thing, and we want young people to get engaged in politics. You may not like the system—you may feel overwhelmed by what’s happening in the world and frustrated with politics—but, actually, we need young people in the system, reforming it, changing it, engaging with it, and I’m looking forward to spending some time with those fine young people tomorrow. But I just love the fact that they want to—they’re engaged and they care, and they want to participate. And that’s what it’s really about, because we need the next generation to continue to move New Zealand forward and the world forward. OK, thanks, team. Have a good week.

See you.