Good afternoon, everyone. It’s been a sombre day following confirmation that early this morning a police officer was shot and seriously wounded in the line of duty, and that the fugitive Tom Phillips was shot dead in the same incident. Earlier today I was briefed in my office by Acting Police Commissioner Mike Pannett about the situation and as I was being briefed, the officer who was shot was being operated on in Waikato Hospital. This is a constable who was out looking after his community and what’s happened is a reminder that police put themselves on the line every time, every day they put on that uniform to keep our community safe. He, his family and colleagues are in my thoughts and the thoughts of all Kiwis.
New Zealanders’ thoughts, of course, are also with the children involved, and I know the whole country is anxiously waiting to hear that the missing children have been safely found. I doubt there is a New Zealander who has not followed to some extent the story of the abduction of the children, of whom there have been only intermittent sightings since December 2021. Social services are working with police and are on standby to support them, and this morning’s events are not how anyone would have wanted this to end, and I know that there will be many questions about it. Police are naturally devastated by what’s happened to their colleague, but right now they are out there getting on with the job of finding those missing children.
This is a police matter, various investigations are underway and you’ll fully appreciate I’m somewhat limited in what I can say, but with that I’m happy to take your questions.
Prime Minister, what was your initial reaction when you were being briefed by the Acting Commissioner, and how concerned are you for the children who are still missing?
Yeah, very concerned, like all New Zealanders are. You know, these are, you know, children out there that actually—we’re running out of daylight hours. Police have put—have surged(?)(1:50) it with a huge amount of resources into the area. They’re doing an incredible job of trying to find these children as quickly as possible. You know, that’s obviously a big concern. But also, you know, the fallen police officer as well, who is, you know, going through obviously some serious surgeries as we talk, you know, given the injuries that he’s encountered. So, you know, our thoughts are in both those spaces.
Well, look, I mean, I think there will be a series of questions to ask in due course but today just isn’t that day. Today is a day where we are, you know, thinking and praying for a fallen police colleague. We are also making sure that those children can be found as quickly and as safely as possible, and really that’s the focus of the police. And, you know, the police are out there right now doing, you know, a full-on job trying to find those children as quickly as possible.
You say that there’s a series of questions to be asked. Do you have some level of doubt over whether police handled the situation completely up to standard?
Look, again, you know, there’ll be a series of inquiries and investigations that need to, you know, that will go underway, get underway post this event. But for right now we need the police focused on everything that they’re doing, which is finding those children.
Again, those are operational matters for police. As you’ve seen, they’ve got all the resources. They’ve pulled all their teams down into the area and, you know, they’re working incredibly hard to find those kids.
Well, I think you heard Jill Rogers at 3.30 say they’ve got some general vicinity of areas that they’re exploring, but I haven’t—I can’t comment on that, I haven’t had full operational detail of any further insight.
Is there any consideration to offer some kind of reward for members of the public that may provide information towards the finding of those missing children?
Yeah, look, again, they’re operational matters for police. I’m conscious that I think there have been rewards in the past, you know, year or so offered out to the community, and again, I don’t want to get ahead of them. I’ll let them talk to those issues.
Well, this morning my team was obviously briefed just before 6 am. I found out and I was briefed also just after that time, at 6 o’clock. I met with Acting Commissioner Pannett, as I said, when I came to Wellington, and I’ve also spoken with Police Minister Mark Mitchell as well. And my office has been in constant contact with police, obviously, since the events of early this morning.
What’s your understanding of how often Mark Mitchell was being briefed?
Obviously it was a situation that had been—you know, an operation that had been underway for years. How often was the Minister of Police being briefed on this and, you know, was that ever relayed to you and at what point?
I can’t speak to that. It’s an operational issue. Obviously, this whole investigation, you know, over the last few years with police, that’s something that, you know—they’re in charge of those operational matters and, again, I’m not—I can’t give you the detail on the briefings that they may have had with the Minister or not.
Can I just clarify then? You did mention, Prime Minister, that there’d be a series of investigations or inquiries. Do you have an idea of what sort of investigations or inquiries we might expect to come out of this?
No, just acknowledging there’ll be various inquiries underway and, you know, frankly, many questions still to be answered. But for right here, right now, we need our police focused on finding those children and supporting the colleague that’s been injured.
Just a final question on that. You did call Tom Phillips in your opening a fugitive. Is it acceptable in a country like New Zealand that we would have a fugitive be in the bush for almost four years with children?
Well, again, you know, the various inquiries, as I said, will be underway, and in fairness we need the police to be focused today on finding children and caring for their colleague.
How do you think it reflects on New Zealand? It’s been international news. It’s been all over the show. How do you think something like this happening in New Zealand, what does it say about New Zealand?
Well, look, I mean, it’s a sad and absolutely tragic event. I mean, this is not what anybody wanted to happen today and I think that is, you know, a consistent feeling from everybody across New Zealand. We are used to seeing these stories from other parts of the world but not here in New Zealand and it’s certainly a very, you know, very sad and tragic day.
Again, I’m not going to comment or speculate on that. I think today is a day where we really want our police focused on finding those children and caring for their colleague.
Well, again, what I’m observing is I’m observing a police force that’s out there now, that’s been up since 2.30 this morning, you know, from top to bottom, that is doing everything it can to find children today, and that’s really what I want them focused on and that’s what I want them supported in.
The latest Taxpayers’ Union poll shows that National is still behind Labour but it has made a gain. Are you confident that you’re getting the message through to New Zealanders that the economy is showing signs of improvement? What’s your reaction to that?
Well, again, as I’ve said before, there are so many polls. I don’t comment on polls. I was elected to do a job back in 2023. There’ll be another election next year. As I said, I’m focused on what New Zealanders need to be focused on, and the message is pretty clear: it’s about the economy. As I’ve said before, we’ve inherited, you know, a huge recession, probably the worst we’ve had in 35 years. We’ve had a massive hangover with COVID thanks to poor economic management and mismanagement of the previous administration. And importantly, we’ve also been knocked around with tariffs, as have many other countries around the world.
But I think it’s also a two-speed recovery. I was in Christchurch just recently, in the last two weeks, and I can tell you in Christchurch, South Island and rural communities and the primary industry sectors, actually they’re feeling the real benefits of growth.
Even in Auckland it’s a bit mixed. There are some—there’s no doubt about it, Auckland has done it tougher with respect to manufacturing and construction, but even just in the last few weeks you’re seeing a huge intensity of activity underway in Auckland. You know, think about the $7 billion worth of infrastructure projects we’ve got going before Christmas, much of that in Auckland. Think about the projects above the CRL, ten or 12 of them, that are kicking off, the fast-track approval that we got for the wharves, the fact that someone like Halter, you know, raised $165 million, and there’s 107 vacancies in that company. The investor work that we’ve seen coming in with active investor visas. And obviously the key thing is we also still have 40 percent or just over 40 percent of New Zealanders that haven’t yet re-fixed or financed their mortgages, and when they get the benefit of those lower interest rates that’s money that goes straight into their back pocket.
Again, I just don’t—I’m focused—I was elected to do a job and I know what my job is, which is to clean up the mess, turn it around and get it heading in the right direction, and that’s what I’m focused on. And that’s—I know that’s—yeah, there’s so many different things coming. You know, that’s what my day is. That’s what I’m focused on from beginning to end.
Guys, I honestly don’t—if you seriously think I’m thinking about that stuff, when we’ve got some serious issues to deal with in New Zealand and to get this economy moving so that people actually feel there’s a more positive future for them—that’s what I’m fixated on.
There’s been a lot of speculation though, about your leadership and your future. Have you felt any need to go and speak to your backbench or talk to your caucus about how they’re feeling?
Absolutely not. We know exactly what we’re doing. We’ve got a tight team. You’ve seen me come through politics, fix up the National Party, find a way to win an election, win an election, form a coalition, focus on the New Zealand people, get the show turned around so it can realise all the great potential that’s in it.
Coalition parties have been a lot more vocal in criticising you just over the weekend, New Zealand First criticising what National’s been doing on the economy, talking about pulling out of the Paris Agreement. You’ve got a former National MP now joining New Zealand First. Is the relationship between the two parties—
I think there’s a very strong relationship, National–New Zealand First, National–Act. I think you’ve seen a Government that’s been giving you a strong and stable government in the first three-party coalition. You know, we have four-party coalitions sitting in Western Europe in an MMP system. I’m very, very proud of actually how our coalition is working. I didn’t take those remarks that way at all over the weekend.
You’re talking about how it’s OK for everyone to view their airs and air their views in public. Previous political leaders have not done that. They’ve preferred to keep things locked down. Do you think that that is what is having an impact [Inaudible]?
No. What you saw on the weekend was a New Zealand First party conference, right, and what I lead is a coalition Government. And each individual party, as we head to an election, will start to build out their election manifesto with their own ideas. You know, there are six different political parties in the system here, represented in Parliament today. That’s quite normal, that’s quite OK. But what I’m saying to you is, as a coalition Government, you know, we are very focused on actually rebuilding the economy, making sure we restore law and order, deliver better health and education. We’re very united on that and we have been right from day one. That’s what’s brought these three parties together, because that’s where our common interest really lies. And so, you know, we are focused on delivering that each and every quarter, and that’s very deliberate.
At that New Zealand First conference, though, you had a former National MP and a former Labour MP both show up. What is it about the two major parties that are turning off former MPs, that are driving them to New Zealand First?
Well, I’d just say I’m very—you have to ask the members, those people, Stuart Nash and Harete Hipango, as to why they’ve made those decisions. That’s up to them. But I wish them both very well.
Yeah, sure. But, you know, again, I’ll make it work in terms of we make coalitions work, as you’ve seen us do it with the two parties that we’ve partnered with in this Government. And we’ve enjoyed working with both of them. But for now, parties will build out their election policies as they go into the campaign next year, and that’s to be expected. It doesn’t mean that that’s Government policy.
Well, look, as you know, we’re open to it because we’ve stepped it up from 3 to 4 percent. But as I said this morning, there’s a number of considerations. You’ve got to think about what it means for base pay, what it means for pay rises. How affordable is it for small businesses? What you’d hate to see is an 8 to 10 percent pay cut for people as that’s funded. And so there’s a lot of considerations to work your way through, and frankly, you know, there’s also a lot of detail and costings, detailed costings that need to be prepared as part of election manifestos, which I’m sure will be built out in due course.
Well, that’s up to them. It’s—you know, they’re their own political party and they can—it’s their political party conference and so, you know, that’s for them to make decisions.
Oh, look, I’d just say to you, you know, I think, you know, when I look at the results that we saw over the by-election over the course of the weekend, I’d just say to you part of the conversation is there was no policy from Labour and I think that’s partly why they did so poorly.
I would expect the Opposition to be held to account for the proposals that they’re going to put forward. And again, as I said to you, you know, my challenge back on the New Zealand First proposal is, yeah, there’s a lot more detail that needs to be seen and a lot more costings that need to be delivered. But I said to you I was open for the idea of, you know, expanding it, but I’m just giving you the reality of the considerations that we had to go through as a Government even when we moved from 3 to 4 percent.
Thank you. It would probably be around $12 billion, at the very bottom end, to pay for those tax cuts that would be needed. Is that the kind of money that the books are going to have next term?
Look, again, each party’s going to have its superannuation policy as it goes into an election campaign. That’s the time for us to look at it and compare ideas and make our case to the New Zealand people. But until I see detailed costings and further details, not much I can comment on, apart from just give you my observations as I saw them. Thomas?
I’ve made it work with other—you know, as you’ve seen, we’ve put a three-party coalition together, first time in New Zealand’s history. We’ve worked very constructively together and we’ll continue to do so.
No, no, no. You know what’s going on here. This is a candidate—a person who’s not even yet confirmed as a New Zealand First candidate. You know, that’s going to be a decision, obviously, for the party and for Winston Peters. So it’s purely speculative and hypothetical.
Again, we’ll have more to say about that very shortly. It’s not a surprise that I’ve said that I want to expand the major events funding. I think it’s really important that we are competitive, that we’re able to attract major events to New Zealand. I think it’s really important for economic activity, economic development, regional economic development. So we’ll have more to say about that very shortly.
Look, I think, you know, there’s obviously been conversation about the absence of dialogue partners being present in the PIF this year. You know, we advocated very strongly, as you know, through Minister Peters and our own position, which is to keep the status quo. The dialogue partners being there is actually a good opportunity to engage with them, particularly on development opportunities across the Pacific.
Having said all of that, you know, there is very good unity within the Pacific Island Forum and so it’s a chance for us to think a little bit more about how the organisation matures and also how it actually can engage those dialogue partners in a constructive way, because there’s been a lot of them that’s come into the Pacific Islands in recent years. And so I think it’s just about the maturing of PIF, the continued unity of it, and the centrality of PIF, really, for our part of the world.
I’ll be engaging with all members, you know, frankly, over that period of time and while I’m there for the two days, and also we’ll be making the case that we’d love to host PIF in 2027 here in New Zealand as well.
No, not at this stage, but it’ll be—the great thing about PIF is that there’s a full day of just leaders only without officials, without advisors around, and as a result that’s a really great way to build relationships and to have conversations with leaders as you need to.
Oh, look, again, you know, that will—we’ll have a good engagement. Our officials are working, you know, through the risk areas that we see in those documents. That’s ongoing work. But I’m sure we’ll have a very civil and constructive engagement.
You’ve often talked about the New Zealand economy being a two-speed economy, what we see in the cities versus what we see in the regions, but what we’re seeing in Nelson at the moment—we have seen a number of jobs on the line, Sealord announcing that there could be closure of its factory. What do you have to say about that? That’s an economy that relies on the primary industries. What do you have to say about what we’re seeing there?
Yeah, look, incredibly difficult time for people that are impacted in those organisations, no doubt about it. Across New Zealand what you’ve seen is some companies have had fantastic years and they’ve done incredibly well. Other businesses have not done well and there are two examples, as you’ve just highlighted.
The challenge is then—the next question that you’ll ask me is, “Why won’t the Government do something about it?” and the reality is that the Government can’t bail out every failing business across New Zealand. That’s not what Kiwis would reasonably expect because it’s ultimately not free. You know, Kiwis end up having to pay for that by us expanding further our debt, which has already gone up three times under the last administration and is costing us $10 billion a year just in interest payments, so, you know, that’s not a free ticket or a free cheque to write as well.
So our job is to make sure that we create the conditions for growth and then businesses can create those opportunities and so even if companies are struggling and failing, that there are opportunities in other parts of the economy. As I said, I can think about Halter, for example, in Auckland. That is an agritech business that has raised a huge amount of capital and has a number of vacant jobs at the moment. Those are the kinds of things that we’ve got to work hard at to make sure that we create the conditions for growth, but the growth is actually created by the businesses themselves.
Can you not do anything to change the conditions on the ground for these kinds of businesses in the regions? You had Shane Jones on the weekend warning of rust belts being created in New Zealand if the Government did not make more positive intervention for regional New Zealand. Is there nothing you can do to change [Inaudible]?
Well, we have a $1.2 billion regional infrastructure fund which Minister Jones is responsible for deploying across the regions for exactly that purpose. And so there is plenty of, you know, capital put aside to make sure that we are strengthening our regions as much as we possibly can.
The other thing that we can do is make it easier for people to get permission to do things. You know, we’ve seen a number of business ventures in the south, deep south, for example, turned down, whether it’s wind or whether it’s been aquaculture projects, where everyone said no and nobody’s said yes. Well, we can change those regulatory settings, as we have been doing with RMA reform. We’re doing some pretty big things in this Government. We’re doing serious RMA reform, which no one has touched. We’re doing serious educational reform, which no one has touched. We’re actually making sure that we crank up foreign investment and investment in general and understand the impact that that has on jobs, and obviously we’re having a big effort on trade as well.
Sorry, the Regulatory Standards Bill? Again, that will come forward, as you know, as a piece of legislation to make sure that we, you know, are putting that through. But our intention is to make sure that we’ve got a very sensible piece of legislation that leads to a better-quality piece of regulations being—and legislation being developed into the future. That’s the point and purpose of that bill.
Your Government, your Cabinet has signed off on changes since it’s been before the select committee. When you did that with the fast-track bill, you came out and publicly announced what those changes were. Are you going to do the same thing with the Regulatory—
Well, again, you know, we’ve gone through a process where we’ve had select committee feedback. As a Cabinet we’ll make a decision, and then when the legislation is changed and is brought into the House, that’s when we’ll talk about any changes or tweaks that we’ve made.
Well, it’s going to be coming into the House so, you know, that’s the point that it logically makes sense for us to talk about it, in much the same way we talked about changes that we made constantly to the fast-track legislation, and we’ll continue to do so going forward as well.
No, not always. We had a lot of amendments and things that were happening as the bill went through the House as well on fast-track, as it will be on here.
On the $8.4 billion figure in the Treasury paper last week, that was on top of, I think, a forecast $19 billion in cuts. At what point do you start to think we need to stop cutting to get to fiscal sustainability and start taxing? That $8.4 billion figure, on top of $19 billion in cuts, is quite a big one.
Well, again, what you’re seeing there with the release of the OIA and those papers is actually that was the combined wishlist of every Government agency and what it would like to spend money on. We are a responsible Government and of course we said no to a number of things. That’s what you would expect us to do. We have to make those trade-offs as a result of that.
What we’re focused on is making sure spending gets into the programmes that are working, and we’re very comfortable re-prioritising and making savings and making sure we get value for money for that spend and that it’s deployed to the frontline services. You’ve seen that, for example, in healthcare expenditure. You’ve seen that with respect to learning coordinators, you know, across—and education in general. You’ve seen it with respect to defence. So we’ll continue the work of re-prioritisation and savings. That should just be daily, ongoing practice of Government. But equally our focus is also on growing the economy faster.
There was a Treasury paper that you guys got last year, and it was released earlier this year, that said that you wouldn’t be able to maintain existing health and education services if you were to pursue that 30 percent of GDP spending target, that something would have to give eventually and it would be service quality or service coverage. Do you just think Treasury’s wrong on that and that we’ll be able to get to the end of the decade, you’ll reduce spending but public services will be broadly the same quality and quantity as they are now?
No, we think we can get much more efficiency in our public services and better-quality delivery as well. And so that is just relentless daily practice of continuous improvement and getting better, and making sure that every dollar is deployed in the optimal way. And just because it’s previously been spent in one way doesn’t mean that it gets the same return or bang for that buck, and so we’ll keep doing that. It’s a different way of thinking than how maybe previous Governments have run, but it’s the way that we should be thinking because it’s taxpayers’ money.
By the end of the decade you’ll be able to spend less as a share of the economy on these public services but the coverage will be the same as it is now or better, and the quality will be the same as it is now or better?
It’s as simple as making sure every dollar we spend is appropriately designed to get a return, and it’s equally determinant upon us wanting to grow this economy and to accelerate growth in the economy. And the consequence of those two things will be what we end up with.
Back on regional economy issues, when Jones talks about managerialism over intervention, which is broadly seen as a commentary on the way you manage politics compared to what he wants, and you talk about the regional infrastructure fund, are you basically saying to him, “Actually you have the tools, mate, get on with it”?
No, I’m just saying to you we’ve got a $1.2 billion regional infrastructure fund that’s designed and has been used, and will continue to be deployed across regions where we need to see strengthening happening. A lot of it we can change around regulatory settings to make it easier to get things done and to start, you know, for business to get on with things. But equally, you know, we’ve got $1.2 billion we’ve put into a regional infrastructure fund for that reason.
Look, we already have a citizens’ oath when you become a citizen in New Zealand. I would just say I think our immigrants have added a tremendous amount to New Zealand. I think New Zealand is a much better place—economically, culturally, socially—because of it. We have avoided—we have had a smart immigration policy. It is very strongly linked to our economic agenda about bringing in skilled people that we need to make our economy work. I think that’s why, under successive Governments, the social licence for immigration has actually been very strong in New Zealand. We don’t have the situation that we observe internationally in the UK, Western Europe and the US with large influxes of illegal immigration and refugees, and I think, you know, we have managed it well and consistently over a number of years.
Well, that’s something that hasn’t come to Cabinet and so, you know, it may well do, but I’m just saying to you—what I’m saying to you is that, you know, there’s an oath for citizenship for New Zealanders. I’d say the vast majority of our immigrants are incredibly proud of being here. The fact that they’ve left their homelands, their language, their culture, their friends, their family, their loved ones, come to New Zealand to make a better life for themselves, their family and their community, is a pretty inspiring example.
Well, I wouldn’t read into that. I haven’t seen something come—we haven’t had a discussion and nothing’s come to Cabinet so until something does, I’ll respond to it then.
Well, I’m just saying to you we already have an oath of citizenship and, you know, that’s not something that’s come to us for consideration or discussion as a Cabinet.
Doesn’t this go to the point that Auckland businesses were making, that the Government is wasting a lot of time on things that aren’t actually that important? When you’ve got—
Oh, I disagree. I disagree completely. This is a Government—we spend most of our time talking about: how do we get $7 billion worth of infrastructure started before Christmas? How can we accelerate renewals and maintenance programs across the business—you know, across Government? How do we actually do educational reform that actually sets our kids up to a great future? RMA reform. Those are where the big focus of time is spent discussing these things.
Great. But you’ve got the Internal Affairs Ministers working on a value statement that you’ve basically said is not going to be a goer at Cabinet, so isn’t that a waste of everyone’s time?
I’d just say to you the vast—what this Government works on is the core priorities of growing our economy, restoring law and order, better health and education. That’s where most of the time is spent. That’s where [Inaudible]. Okay, last question. Sorry, Jamie?
You’ve just spoken extensively about getting value for the dollar in the public service. The public service is now working on something that you clearly don’t support. How does that work?
Well, again, Ministers will build up—will do work on things that then are taken to Cabinet and then there is a Cabinet conversation, a Cabinet decision that’s made. That’s a normal process. That’s quite acceptable to do that. Ministers will take advice on a range of issues. It doesn’t mean that it always becomes, you know, Government policy or Government law as a result of that.
Is that the time you would expect to see a policy then, when it comes to Cabinet? You wouldn’t have a policy discussion before then to make sure that resources were being used in the most efficient way?
Yeah, we—there are—on the big topics of how we grow our economy, how we restore law and order, deliver better health and education. There’s obviously work that goes on on big policy items. On smaller things, that’s when, you know, Ministers will actually bring proposals forward through Cabinet committees as per normal. OK team, thanks so much.
Sorry, last question, Lloyd, then we’ve got to go. Sorry, mate?
Can I get your thoughts on the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election? Firstly, your thoughts on the outcome and secondly, Te Pāti Māori sort of had some questionable behaviour over the course of that by-election. Do you think Labour needs to make a decision and tell the public whether or not they would work in Government with Te Pāti Māori?
Look, I mean, those are decisions for them, but I’d just say I was a bit surprised by the result. I think I’d said to you all that I thought Labour would, you know, have a stonking win and they didn’t. It was 2-1 in favour of Te Pāti Māori. The fact that the Labour machine managed to raise 3,000 votes out of potentially 60,000-plus voters registered in that area, in that electorate, you know, speaks volumes, I think. I thought it was a bit unusual—I’ll be personal about it—that I thought Chris Hipkins wasn’t there on Saturday night with Peeni Henare, supporting him and his team.
But equally, you know, they don’t—haven’t had any policies and so, you know, there’s nothing compelling to say to New Zealanders what they’re going to do differently apart from tax more, spend more, borrow more. And I think the takeaway from that by-election result is that Te Pāti Māori will have huge influence on the Labour Party, and when you think about Chris Hipkins sitting down with Marama or Chloe and Rawiri and Debbie, you know, that’s going to be quite an interesting set of conversations around a Cabinet table if that was ever to happen. Alright, thanks team, appreciate it.