Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 20 April 2026

Well, kia ora, good afternoon, everyone. Look, we are now into the seventh week of the Middle East conflict and the trajectory of the conflict remains unclear. The ceasefire is fragile and after briefly opening up over the weekend, the Strait of Hormuz, as you all well know, is again closed. That underscores the unpredictability and the volatility of this conflict.

New Zealand has no control over the situation and we are not party to the conflict, yet the impacts and the potential risks on our country are significant. The good news is that New Zealand continues to have sufficient levels of petrol, diesel and jet fuel, as shown in the fuel stocks update released today. We have 54 days cover of petrol, 45 days of diesel and 51 days of jet fuel. Stocks for petrol and diesel are slightly down on the last update, while jet stocks are up. All fluctuations are normal and within expectations, so we remain at phase one of our national fuel response plan. Since the last update, one ship has finished discharging fuel, three ships have entered New Zealand sovereign waters, and two additional ships are now on their way, currently in international waters. Fuel importers have reported no delayed shipments or any issues with future orders, and have given us good confidence of planned orders extending into June.

While we have good levels of fuel in New Zealand more on the way, we continue to plan ahead for the risk of a potential shortage in the future. Shoring up supply is the single most important thing that we can do to protect our economy, because a significant shortage of fuel would cost thousands of jobs and incomes. There are various pieces of work underway on shoring up supply, and we will keep the public updated as work progresses.

Overnight on Friday, I attended a meeting convened by Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron to discuss the Strait of Hormuz. The meeting brought together leaders from a quarter of the world’s states who, like us, want to see the strait reopened for the free flow of shipping as quickly as possible. I conveyed New Zealand’s position that as a trading nation, the right of freedom of navigation is critical for New Zealand, and we support all diplomatic efforts to restore that right in the Strait of Hormuz. Whether it is the Strait of Hormuz or the Strait of Gibraltar, whether the Red Sea or the Bass Strait, it’s critical to Kiwi companies and their workers and their exports that they get to market without having to pay tolls or facing undue impediments. That’s why it’s important that we work with our friends to avoid a precedent taking hold in the Middle East that ultimately might undermine the right to passage safe passage elsewhere in the world. I also used the meeting to emphasise the heavy impacts of the conflict on the Pacific region in general.

There was a clear consensus in the meeting that de-escalation remains the priority because the longer it goes on, the worse it is for the world economy. President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer made clear that France and the UK are prepared to lead a strictly defensive multinational mission in the Strait of Hormuz to provide reassurance to commercial shipping. This would only be possible under certain conditions, namely a sustainable ceasefire between the parties, for one thing, and in full conformity with international law for another.

It’s clearly in New Zealand’s interests to support efforts to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. We will continue to look for ways to do so, whether that’s through our diplomatic efforts or other means. And if we were to participate in a UK and French-led multinational mission to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, that’s something that we would decide at Cabinet before announcing anything further.

Last week, the IMF reported that it had lowered its global economic growth forecasts. Before the conflict, the IMF had predicted the global economy would grow 3.3 percent this year, and that has now been revised down to 3.1 percent, albeit all of that is heavily, heavily caveated on how long the crisis persists. And while the IMF did not have any specific forecast for New

Zealand, we know that this conflict will have an impact on our inflation and growth. Inflation will go up and growth will go down—there is no escaping that—but we cannot say by how much because all of that depends on the length and scale of the conflict and the closure of shipping routes, so our focus is on ensuring we minimise the economic impacts as much as we possibly can and avoid doing anything that makes that impact worse. That is why we are being careful to ensure that any support we provide to help with the rising cost of fuel is targeted, temporary and timely, and affordable for New Zealand.

As we look for ways to help people with the immediate pressures, we must avoid the mistakes of COVID and keep an eye on the long term to protect New Zealand’s economic future. This approach has been reinforced by the IMF, which said in its own report, “The current hostilities in the Middle East pose immediate policy trade-offs: between fighting inflation and preserving growth and between supporting those affected by the rising cost of living and rebuilding fiscal buffers.” That aligns with what we’ve been saying from day one of this fuel crisis.

Taking the approach of targeting support to people most affected by the rising cost of fuel, we have provided a temporary increase of $50 per week in Government support for low and middle-income workers with children. We’ve also provided a 30 percent increase to the mileage reimbursement rate for home and community support workers, and today we are announcing a similar measure for relief teachers.

As we navigate the fuel crisis, a top priority for us is to ensure that our schools remain open and students stay engaged in their learning. We know how incredibly damaging the COVID lockdowns were for our students and so we’re doing everything that we can to prevent a situation like that happening again. Some schools that are particularly isolated and harder to get to have reported challenges with getting relief teachers due to rising fuel costs, so to support staffing schools in rural and isolated communities, the Government has agreed to a temporary increase to relief teacher transport allowance mileage rates. Additionally, we’re increasing the conveyance allowance by 30 percent to support rural families with the increased cost of driving their children to school or to the nearest bus route.

We also know that the sharp rise in diesel prices is putting huge pressure on schools that run on diesel boilers, so we’re investing $37 million for 70 schools across the country to replace their diesel boilers quickly. This investment will free these schools up from their dependence on diesel, ease operational cost pressures and protect them from future price shocks.

All of these measures are consistent with our approach of delivering temporary, timely and targeted support by prioritising financial relief to those communities where fuel costs have the greatest impact. Education is a top priority for this Government and in challenging times we remain extremely committed to raising student achievement, lifting school attendance, and building the skills and the capability our economy needs for the long term. And with that, I’ll hand over to Erica to take you through more of the details of today’s announcement.

Thank you, Prime Minister, and good afternoon, everyone. Over the past few weeks, we have been focused on making sure that schools can keep operating as normally as possible during these escalating fuel cost pressures. Nothing matters more to us than making sure children are in classrooms, they are engaged in their learning, and they’re getting the education they need to secure their futures.

And I want to acknowledge, to start with, parents. At this tricky time, they have been prioritising getting their children to school. We know that attendance rates towards the end of term one were slightly higher than the same period of the week—of the same week last year, and that is fantastic. I know the issue has also been top of mind particularly for our rural and isolated schools and communities, where distance to and from school is more pronounced.

Before responding, we wanted to properly understand what was happening on the ground for schools, and I asked the Ministry of Education to either pick up the phone or go and visit every single school in the country so we could get a real-time understanding of some of the emerging pressures that were—have been arising, and at the same time I’ve also been hearing directly from principals themselves but also my rural colleagues, MPs who have been out talking to principals and their communities.

And when we put all of that together, a really clear picture emerged for us that most schools are managing very well and have already put in place response plans where required, but there are some specific pressure points, particularly for our rural and isolated schools. And there are two issues that were raised with us consistently when we went through this process: relief teacher travel and conveyancing support. So today, we’re acting directly on what schools have told us with targeted, timely and temporary support.

Firstly, those relief teacher mileage rates. Relief teachers play a really critical role in keeping classrooms running, particularly in rural and isolated schools and particularly through the winter months, but those relief teachers have choices about where they work, which schools they work in. It’s important to me to make sure that our rural and isolated schools are supported to attract the relief teachers that they need so that we can keep schools operating, students in classroom, especially over winter, and that’s why we are temporarily increasing the relief teacher transport allowance. So the car reimbursement rate will go from 37 cents to 83 cents per kilometre. Motorbike rates will go from 15 to 31 cents.

This is available from today, and the Ministry is working with the unions to make the necessary changes to the teacher employment agreements to put this into effect. It will stay in place for 12—up to 12 months, or until the MBIE measured price of 91 octane has dropped below $3 a litre for four consecutive weeks. This will make it easier for relief teachers to travel to those rural and isolated schools, and give those schools a much better chance of attracting the school—the staff they need when they need them.

While schools receive an operational grant to cover mileage costs, it was raised with us that many of our smaller schools simply don’t have room in their budgets to absorb these costs. So I don’t want our smaller schools to have to worry about where these extra funds are going to come from, so we’re going to provide a one-off payment to schools with fewer than 100 students—we refer to these as our U1 and U2 schools—a $2,500 operation grant. This will give those schools immediate support so they can focus on keeping things running rather than finding the money.

Secondly, conveyance support. This was another consistently raised issue, particularly by our rural communities, so effective today, we’re temporarily increasing the conveyance allowances by 30 percent. This will benefit around 5,000 students eligible for those conveyance allowances. It’ll help ease the pressure for some families and help make sure students can get to school. The support will again remain in place for 12 months or—the same conditions as before—if the MBIE measured price of 91 octane drops below $3 a litre for four consecutive weeks. It’s going to help ease the pressure on families and help make sure that students can get to school.

Thirdly, our reliance on diesel. The price of diesel has risen sharply and this is putting pressure on schools that run diesel boilers, and this is why our Government is investing $37 million to accelerate a work programme to replace diesel boilers in up to 70 schools. It will save around 600,000 litres of diesel per year and make those schools less exposed to future price shocks. This reduces schools’ reliance on diesel fuel, not just this winter but into the future as well.

And where this work can be undertaken immediately, it will be. We’ve identified about 20 schools where relatively simple alternative situations like—solutions like heat pumps can be done relatively quickly, and we can have this done by the end of the year. For more moderately sized schools or schools with a greater reliance on diesel, this may take longer as we have to replace the diesel boilers with alternative central systems, including infrastructure changes to their pipes and potentially even transformer upgrades. There are a handful of very large schools where this work will take longer due to their size and the complexity of the infrastructure. But all of the work, including those really big, tricky schools, will be completed by the end of 2028.

Finally, strengthening the rural teaching workforce. In addition to these immediate fuel-related measures, we’re also focused on the longer-term picture, making sure rural and isolated schools have the teachers that they need. So alongside these immediate measures, we’re also focused on that longer-term picture, making sure that they have the teachers they need.

In July last year, we introduced Go Rural, an isolated placement fund initiative that contributes to the costs that student teachers face when they’re taking up placements in rural and isolated schools. So up to 123 teachers were able—in their final year of study were able to be eligible for a payment of $4,000. It was incredibly popular and oversubscribed, and today I can announce that we’re increasing Go Rural by another 87 places per year so more training teachers can get experience in rural schools.

We also strengthened the teacher bonding scheme in September last year, making the $40,000 bondage package more attractive for teachers to work in rural and hard-to-staff schools. Again, incredibly popular and oversubscribed. So, to further support our rural and isolated schools, we’re increasing the teacher bonding scheme by another 50 places a year, and over time this means that more teachers will choose to work in rural and isolated schools and create more stability for those communities.

So, taken together, this is a practical and targeted package that reflects exactly what we’ve been hearing from schools on the ground. It’s focused on keeping them open, keeping students in classroom, engaged in their learning through this difficult time. We have taken time to understand what’s actually happening on the ground, school by school, and this response is built directly from that.

We’ll keep working really closely with schools. We will keep monitoring what’s happening. We’ll keep responding in a measured and targeted way where more support may be needed, because no matter what’s happening a world away in the Middle East, our focus here in New

Zealand is very clear: it’s on Kiwi kids, making sure that they’re in school, engaged in the learning, and supported to succeed. Thank you very much.

Well, thank you, Erica. Can I suggest we take some questions now around the announcement and then we can get to other issues of the day?

Any consideration in terms of changing fuel-related absences so that they don’t necessarily have to be unjustified?

Not at this stage, and I spoke to Minister Seymour about this issue last week. At the moment, we’re not seeing any changes to attendance patterns. We will monitor it daily and, if necessary, Minister Seymour will take further steps, but at this point in time it’s not something that we’re considering.

Minister, some specialist teachers and teaching support staff are also relying on their cars to sort of get between schools. Are they included in the mileage increase, or was there any consideration to including them alongside relief teachers?

There’s two separate things at play here. There is the teacher relief rate, which is those relief teachers, helping them get to school. There’s also a rate that we pay for teachers and other staff to drive between schools. That rate is already 83 cents, so we’re just matching this rate with that rate to make it consistent across the board.

No consideration to any extra support for those particular teachers that are relying on their cars?

Not at this stage. But what we will do is, as I’ve said, continue to talk to schools every week to see which issues are popping up, and we can respond on a case-by-case basis, or even further supports if things change. The Ministry are in the middle of a phased plan at the moment, and I’ll have more to say in the Budget as well.

On the boiler upgrades, just step us through how that happens. Do schools go out and procure that boiler upgrade themselves? Could they go do that today, now, knowing the money’s coming, or is that all centrally run, Ministry of Education?

This is something that the Ministry of Education run.

Do you have a timeline on when those boilers would actually be in place?

Obviously, it’s faster than it was going to be otherwise, but will they be able to deal with this winter?

For 20 schools, we’ll have them done by the end of the year. Other schools—bigger schools, as I said—have got slightly trickier situations with infrastructure that has to be changed. That will take into next year, and then there’s some really big schools which will take us through to 2028. But as I said earlier, we will work with individual schools to make sure that if they are struggling with their own balance sheets and their own budgets, that we will help. We will step in and support them.

Minister, why draw the line at schools with 100 or fewer students?

It’s the size of their budget. Little wee schools, U1 and U2 schools with either less than 50 or less than 100 students, have a much smaller operational grant and they’re just at—they have more difficulty in soaking up some of these extra costs, whereas bigger schools with bigger ops grants have—it’ll be easier, slightly easier for them to accommodate that. But again, where they are running into difficulty, we will be working with them to make sure that—if more support is needed, we’ll provide that.

If you’re a school with 120 or 130 and you feel as though you’ve got the same pressures, would there be support available?

There will be. I just wanted to note, though, to remember that on average, the rate that schools pay out for mileage is less than $1,000 a year. In 80 percent of schools it’s less than $1,000 a year, so it’s not a huge amount, but for a very small school with a very small budget that can be a significant amount. But we’re expecting schools with bigger balance sheets and bigger ops grants, it will be easier to accommodate that. But we’re not talking huge amounts a year. Of course, what we’ve factored in is about a 50 percent uptick in teachers claiming mileage, which we’ve put into these figures, but it’s still not a huge amount. But it is significant for those small schools. We want them to—

Sorry, Maiki, we’ll go to Jenna and we’ll come back to you.

The rate for businesses to claim back for mileage is—the IRD has set that at $1.17 per kilometre for petrol. Why are you making it temporarily not even close to that for teachers?

Look, this is something that we will pick up through where it usually gets talked about, which is through collective bargaining. At the moment, this is just temporary targeted support to make sure that we’re matching those rates with other teachers, up to 83 cents, and it also matches—

The health and care—

—with the health, yes, the carer support payments.

Yes. So, Jenna—

[Inaudible] and petrol and—

So essentially what we’re doing is saying, look, we’re matching the same dollar per kilometre rate that’s existed for health and community workers that we announced, you know, with Simeon a week or so ago. And we’ve also said, particularly with health and community support workers, we know there’s actually some serious work to do about what is the right level of mileage. In fact, that’s work that’s been kicked around from the last Government and hasn’t really been resolved for some time, back to 2022 or 2021 from memory.

So we will—we’ve got two things in play. One is we want to lift the rates immediately. In the case of health and community workers, it’s about 30 percent. We’ve aligned relief teachers to that same amount. We know with health and community support workers in particular there’s a bigger piece of work that has to happen, but Erica’s right: this is stuff that’s negotiated, ultimately, through collective bargaining.

A follow-up from Adam’s question, Minister. A number of kura kaupapa Māori, their school roles are less than 150 and they have a lot of students who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. So did you not give consideration to even take it up to 150?

As I said earlier, we’ll work with them on a case-by-case basis. They do have larger budgets if they’re over 100 students. They already, remember, also receive extra payments in their operational grant when they are a lower decile school, so they’ll already have some of that support built into their budgets. But we will absolutely work with them on a case-by-case basis where they are experiencing difficulties and make sure that support is provided.

The point is that it does put the onus on those individual schools to engage with the Ministry and plead their case, and they aren’t as large as the schools that have thousands of students and those bigger budgets.

We have relationship advisors all around the country who have been phoning every single school, so it won’t be on—necessarily on the school to pick up the phone, although I’m sure they’re more than capable of doing that. But we have relationship advisors who are going into schools, who are picking up the phone regularly to make sure we know what’s happening and where we can provide more support. So I don’t see a situation where a school will feel, you know, that they haven’t—they haven’t had really good communication.

And, Maiki, can I just say, you know, from day one, you know, I’ve been really impressed, you know, in our regular meetings with the Ministry and the Minister. They’ve done an exceptionally good job of actually reaching out to all 2,500 schools across the country to ascertain what their needs are. I actually don’t think it’ll be the case of having to plead your case. I think there’s already engagement that’s really been very proactive and got out early and quickly, and the same thing’s started to happen with ECEs as well. So, you know, genuinely, that’s very much the focus and the model that started from day one as we organised the group.

Another thing that schools will be dealing with as well is flooding, time and time again in recent months, even years—property all over the place, but schools will be dealing with that too. What conversations did Cabinet have today, in light of the severe weather events that keep hitting the country, about what extra immediate support you can give communities who are struggling with these ongoing weather events and the effects that they are having?

Yeah, look, I mean we’ve had the cyclone last weekend. As I said, we were well organised. New Zealanders stepped up and got themselves organised, their own households and families, which was excellent. Over the course of this weekend we’ve seen hyper, hyper local, you know, localised thunderstorms. You would have seen Taumarunui and Ōhura obviously were the most impacted yesterday. You would have seen today we’ve got a state of emergency here in Wellington. Again, our advice to everybody is to be ready. Be prepared. Make sure you have your supplies, you know, evacuation pathways sorted. Make sure you’re listening to the weather advice and obviously official advice as well.

But, you know, this is a Government that I think has got much, much better at responding to these weather events. We are very joined up between how NEMA coordinates and the local Civil Defence organisations on the ground. The connection between the Minister and the mayors, even myself and the Minister and the mayors, is actually very, very tight, and actually our teams, I think, are working very well together. So, you know, where we see—we first and foremost have to deal with the response, and then obviously it’s about the recovery and where we see there’s need, obviously we’ve been helping out where we can.

But you’re right, a lot of it is the response, and probably most people would feel like the bulk of the work and the effort is responding and being reactive, as opposed to being proactive. So what decisions has your Government taken or are you discussing about taking in terms of short, medium, long term, to make sure that people are better protected and these severe weather events are not going to impact communities and cause people to have their homes flooded time and time again like they currently are?

Well, you’ve seen that. I mean we’ve actually announced an Associate Minister for Emergency Management with a particular focus on recovery because while we’ve got better at response, we also want to lift our ability to get better at the recovery phase as well. That’s Chris Penk’s work. He’s taken a number of things to Cabinet to say orders in council, things that we’ve learned from past weather events, that we actually need to be able to have that flexibility to move much quicker as we move through. You’ve seen us actually activate local states of emergency much sooner, much earlier, so people have much more advance warning.

But we’ve got resilience built into everything that we’re doing. Think about our roading budgets. We’ve put a billion dollars into—

Roads [Inaudible].

Sure, but, you know, we can’t fix everything immediately. But we’re putting a billion dollars, you know, more in that first Budget into resilience. You’ve seen us put $200 million into flood protections. You know, we’ve had a number of examples where those investments actually saved further flooding—

Are you putting enough money into this and taking it seriously enough?

Well, I’ll tell you what wasn’t the right way to go about. It was what Labour did, which was to put a $6 billion Resilience Fund which had no criteria, wasn’t integrated into what it does as a bloodstream of Government, and ended up just being a debt facility to crank into over time. We’ve put it into the bloodstream of everything that we’re doing around roading, around building out flood protections in other things.

How many billions in your Government so far have gone into flood protection work?

$200 million we’ve put into flood protection over the course of our Government so far.

$200 million in how many years?

In the two and—two and a bit years since we’ve been in Government. OK, any other questions?

Do you think that’s good enough?

Well, Jo, I’m just saying to you we’re building resilience into it, because having a pie in the sky $6 billion Resilience Fund that’s just more debt cranked into New Zealand with no criteria, and from a Government that previously spent money like nothing and very badly, as we saw through COVID, is unacceptable to us. You know, we actually are managing this, you know, the budgets and the finances and the spending well. We’re very attuned to the fact we need to increase resilience, we understand the events of weather events on us, and we’re making those investments. Hawke’s Bay freeway, for example, connecting Napier to Hastings: infinitely much more resilient road works than what was there previously.

Is it time for some communities to simply move?

Well, again, we’ve got to have a bigger conversation. I’ve met recently with the boards of the Australasian insurance companies to talk about how we can, through our national adaptation framework, do some proper thinking and work around that. We have a national flood plan that will surface before the end of the year. That will be the first time we’ll have a comprehensive picture of where our flood risks actually sit, and we’ll be able to share that with all the—all the stakeholders that are involved, whether it be local government, central Government, homeowners, obviously insurers and some banks as well.

Minister Stanford, have any of your colleagues contacted you about the leadership?

No.

Have you had any conversations with any of your caucus colleagues about whether or not Christopher Luxon should stay on as Prime Minister?

No. I’ve been very focused on making sure we’re raising achievement, closing the equity gap.

Do you think he’s doing a good enough job?

I think he’s doing an—

Sorry, guys, hang on.

Are you—

Sorry, just before we—I’m happy to get those questions.

Do you want to—

Do you want to—has anyone else got any questions on the fuel or the—

Can I just ask about the FTA? You’ve got the signing date in a week. Labour’s saying that you’re playing politics with it and that it will be recklessly irresponsible.

On the Indian FTA?

No, we’re following normal process that we do with all previous FTAs that we’ve signed. You agree an FTA. You then agree the legal text, which you sign, and once it’s signed, that enables you to bring it into Parliament for public and party examination.

Equally, we also have most favoured nation clauses in the FTA that we’ve negotiated. The Europeans followed after us, and it’s important we have that signing so that we can get tens of millions of dollars available to our exporters once it comes into effect.

So there is ongoing conversation with Labour. We’ve had 20-plus interactions, whether it’s been meetings, letters, meetings with officials, meetings with Ministers, to make sure that we answer the technical questions that they have. We’ll continue that process—in fact, I think there’s been another meeting this afternoon that’s been taking place—and we’re making ourselves and Ministers’ officials available to deal with technical questions.

But be under no illusion: the Indian FTA is a tremendous opportunity for New Zealand. I just think trade is bipartisan, it’s not political, and we’re going to do everything we can to work in good faith with Labour so they understand how powerful and how exciting this deal actually is.

Prime Minister, on the FTA, Shane Jones said—and I’ll quote him directly. In an interview last week, he said, quote, “I’m never going to agree with a butter chicken tsunami coming to New Zealand.” What do you make of those comments?

Well, look, I appreciate NZ First has its own position on the Indian FTA. They are, frankly, wrong. They were wrong to oppose the China FTA, they’re wrong to oppose the Indian FTA. This is about a country of 5 million people doing a deal with a country of 1.5 billion, the third biggest economy in the world, one of the fastest growing economies in the world. That creates huge opportunity for people that I would have thought New Zealand First would have cared about, you know, foresters, aquaculture, our farmers, our horticulturists. This is a great deal. It’s a very good deal for New Zealand. You’ve seen businesses come out—over 100 of them, I think—and support it over the course of the last week. That’s really, you know, encouraging that they actually can see the value in this deal. So, you know, with all respect, Shane, Winston, myself will strongly disagree with that. I think they are dead wrong on it, and I think—

Are those comments racist, Prime Minister?

Oh, I don’t know, but I’m just saying they want to—the immigration story that they are, you know, scaremongering around is absolutely false. And we have taken them through the data. We have taken them through the details of that deal. We’ll continue to do so because we would love them to, you know, rethink their position. But I appreciate they’ve got a pretty hard no against anything around free trade agreements. I just think that makes New Zealand poorer, and I actually think out there in regional New Zealand, where those jobs are—talk to the kiwifruit, talk to the wine guys. We had 90 percent share of lamb going into India. We have 8 percent today because the Australians have an FTA and we don’t. Well, that just makes Kiwis poorer here at home. So, with all respect, we love them but we disagree with that one very strongly.

You don’t know if “butter chicken tsunami” is racist?

It doesn’t sound right. I mean, I’m just saying to you it’s alarmist and is actually unhelpful language because actually what this is about is an opportunity for New Zealand, and I just think we need to elevate and actually think about what has been achieved here. There are no other 5-million-people countries that I can think of that have an FTA deal with India. India doesn’t really need New Zealand, if we’re really honest about it, but actually we know that we can do something together and we’ve found a way to do something together. It’s a really important thing. If we really want to create jobs and higher-paying jobs and more incomes for New Zealanders, this is how we do it. One in four of our jobs are tied to trade, exporting firms that trade—pay their workers higher wages. So this is a good deal for New Zealand and it shouldn’t be politicised. Trade should be bipartisan.

Hang on, sorry, guys. Audrey, did you have a question?

Jamie’s got one.

Jamie did.

Are the comments from Shane Jones racist, Minister Stanford?

Look, they’re not helpful.

It’s colourful language from Shane Jones.

Is that good enough?

Guys, you can call it racist, you know, it—the colourful language from Shane Jones. We’re used to Shane Jones doing lots of oratorial flourishes, as he’s prone to do, but the bottom line for me is he’s wrong. There is not going to be an influx of immigration. This deal is well thought through. Through the Minister of Immigration has been very straight up with Labour and other parties about what it actually is about. And I think, you know, rather than politicising it and playing politics with it, let’s have a grown up conversation about does New Zealand want this deal or not, because in five, 10, 15 years, looking back on this, I’m telling you this thing will have contributed a lot to our economy. And so we can play political games all day long but the answer is actually get in behind. Back it. Trade should be bipartisan. It shouldn’t be political. It’s as simple as that.

Can I ask you about the 1News Verium poll, Prime Minister?

Yes.

Your approval rating since you took over as leader of the National Party, and even through your time as Prime Minister, has dropped consistently. Now it’s at its lowest point. Why do you think that is?

Look, I’m just—I appreciate I’m not going to be the person that everyone wants to go to a beer with, but they know that I’m actually leading a Government that is a great custodian of this—of this economy, and in difficult and tough times that’s what’s needed now, strong economic management and stable coalition Government, and that’s what we’re delivering.

Who are the five moaning MPs in your party?

I was just commenting on reports from the media.

You said there were five that you could think of that were moaning or frustrated.

Well, I think you led with four and another one had another source. I think you were talking about four or five sources.

So who are the five?

I don’t know, I’m just—I’m just reacting to the comments you made.

To be clear, were you talking about five MPs or five sources?

Sorry, guys, my—

Because the story you were talking about cited three National Party sources and then you’ve suggested to our esteemed colleague, Mike Hosking, five people who are disgruntled. Were they MPs? Are they staffers? What are you referring to?

My comment was just in reaction to your media reporting quoting a number of sources that you said you had. That’s as much as it is.

You said you could—you could work out who the five people were.

No, I didn’t. I said—I’m just reacting to the sources that you had, I’m just passing a comment on that.

Mike Hosking asked for a number and he suggested three, and almost simultaneously you said five. You volunteered that number. So who are they?

Guys, there’s nothing in the number per se. I’m just saying you made—you wrote media reports saying you had four sources and another one wrote they had another source. I just thought there’s three, four, five people. I’m just reacting to your comments in the media.

Can you confidently make that judgment, that there is only a handful of people who aren’t—you know, who are—

I am confident I have the full support of my caucus, as I’ve said before. Yeah.

How can you say you have the full support of your caucus, and then in the next breath say that there are five disgruntled MPs?

Well, I’m just saying to you I’ve got the support of my caucus. Guys, you know, look, you can talk about this as much as you’re like.

So there’s full support, unanimous support, and then there’s not. So do you have the unanimous support—

Well, I have the support of my caucus. I talk to backbenchers all the time. I’m confident I have the support of my caucus. That’s all I’m going to say.

Have you considered doing some kind of confirmatory vote tomorrow so that you can come out to all of us in the media and say, “Look, we just got—I just got unanimous backing”? Why not?

Again, we’ll have some pretty good conversations in our caucus, as we always do, and what we talk about in caucus, you know, stays in caucus. But I’d just say to you I have the support of my caucus.

You said you were going to discuss party discipline in your caucus tomorrow. Will you attempt to muzzle the MPs that are speaking to media?

Guys, we don’t talk about what happens in our caucus. I was just being straight up with you to say I’m sure we’ll have a conversation about this, given the media interest that has been sparked over the last few days.

Will there be consequences for MPs that leak to the media?

Again, we have a pretty good culture that we’ve built in the National Party over the last two and a half years, as you’ve seen, as we’ve rebuilt and unified our party. We will have a good conversation in caucus but again don’t talk about what happens there.

On the substance of the Stuart Smith matter, you’ve said that you are not aware of it. Did Stuart Smith not contact you and ask for a meeting?

I’m not aware of it, and I’ve also spent all Tuesday with him last week, as I said, and it wasn’t raised with me.

Sorry to be nitpicky about this. Who then did Stuart Smith get in contact with, and is someone not passing on information to you?

I’m just saying to you I’m not aware of the letter, and I’m also—the fact that I spent all day Tuesday in North Canterbury with Stuart.

What letter?

Well, you said—you said there’s a—you said there’s a letter.

No, I’m just asking—

You said he wanted to talk to me about it.

Stuart Smith was trying to get in touch with you. Did he not get in contact with you?

He didn’t get in touch with me. He’s not—

Did he get in contact with your office?

He hasn’t reached out to me. There has been no engagement with Stuart Smith from my office or with him. I’m just saying to you I spent all Tuesday with him.

Is the story wrong?

Yes. I’ve got no—

The story’s wrong?

I’m not aware that Stuart has wanted to reach out and talk to me. I then spent Tuesday with Stuart last week—

You haven’t said the story’s wrong to this point.

I spent all of Tuesday with Stuart last week and it wasn’t raised at all.

Have you reached out to him?

I was with him on Tuesday for the whole day.

No, since the report came out on Friday, did you reach out to Stuart Smith?

Your reporting on Friday?

Since the report came out on Friday saying that Stuart Smith had attempted to contact you, you obviously didn’t know that he tried to do that—

No.

—did you take the opportunity to then call him and say, “Hey, what’s going on?”

No, I haven’t talked to him directly but I’ve spent—

Why not?

Well, I spent time with him last Tuesday so if there was any issues that he had, he would have raised them with me there. Guys, I talk to my backbenchers all the time. I was with a number of them over the course of the weekend at a number of events. I reassure you I have the confidence of my caucus, period.

So there’s a media report that comes out that your chief whip has been ghosted by you, and that isn’t enough to trigger you to call the chief whip and say, “What’s happening?”

Because I said no, I’m not aware of the chief whip having reached out to me. The chief whip has my full confidence, as I said this morning. I’m very confident in the role that Stuart’s doing in the job. If he wanted to talk to me about it, he would reach to me. He—also, I was with him all day Tuesday and it wasn’t raised at all.

Are you deliberately not asking him about it so that you don’t have to know?

No, not at all. Just that I’m not aware that he’s asked me about that, I’m just saying to you—and I spent all day Tuesday with him. I was, you know, talking with him all through the course of the day. It wasn’t raised with me. If it was, if there was something he wanted to raise with me, he would. We have that kind of relationship.

Did anyone from your office get in contact with him?

Well, I’m sure my office has spoken to him today or in the last few days about upcoming caucus meetings that we’ve got, as per normal.

So you still haven’t, through your office, been able to figure out the genesis of that story?

Well, one is it’s not that import—I’m just saying to you I’m not aware of that letter.

It’s not that important that he was trying to tell you that—

Guys, look, honestly—

—the support in your caucus was waning?

Do you seriously think this is what Kiwis are wanting to talk about today? I know it’s a big deal for you but out there we have a Wellington state of emergency.

New Zealanders care about the leadership of the party.

Well—

Sure.

—it’s a big deal to New Zealanders if the National Party caucus is talking about whether or not their leader is fit to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand, with respect.

And that is not happening. Our caucus is united behind me as the leader. I’ve said that to you ad nauseam over the last few days, I’ll continue to say that. I have the full support of my caucus, period.

Prime Minister, you mentioned a letter. What—

I just—I said he hasn’t reached out to me to talk to me about anything. That’s what I—you know.

You mentioned a letter, so has someone written a letter that Stuart Smith was going to pass on to you?

No. No, I’m just saying to you I thought, you know, if he’s wanting to talk to me, he’d either do it through an email or he would put through a call or whatever. But I’m just say to you there is no—I haven’t—I’m not aware that Stuart has wanted to talk to me about anything. I’ve been speaking with him on Tuesday. I was with him the whole day in North Canterbury, travelling around the place together. We have a good relationship. If there was anything he wanted to raise with me, he would. I’m sure my office has spoken to him but it’ll be more around our caucus agenda coming up tomorrow, and the bills we want to discuss and talk through, as per normal.

And Stuart hasn’t been in touch with you since all of that reporting to say, “This is false”?

I just said to you I was with him all day and Tuesday last week.

So, since Friday, has Stuart Smith been in contact with you—

I haven’t spoken to Stuart over the course of the weekend—

—to say what has been reported is false?

—no, I haven’t spoken to—

So it’s true?

Well, he hasn’t reached out to talk to me at all over the course of the weekend.

OK, so if it was false, he would have reached out to talk to you and say, “Hey, this is not correct”, wouldn’t he?

Well, I don’t think we need to. The bottom line is he hasn’t—he hasn’t reached out. I don’t know how to be any clearer to you guys. I know you want to get some sort of scoop or insight here but I’m just saying to you, look, he hasn’t reached out to me. If he would, we have a good relationship, he would get hold of me. I was with him all day in Tuesday in North Canterbury. I have a very direct relationship with lots of my backbenchers and everyone in my caucus. They know that they can feel—to come and talk to me about anything they want to. I meet with them in small groups, I meet with them one on one, informally, through events, through meetings, whatever. There’s been huge opportunity for him. If he wanted to raise something with me, he could have, and he hasn’t. It’s as simple as that.

Prime Minister, last week you told Mike Hosking—Mike Hosking asked if a commercial fuel deal would be announced with a week. You said yes. That day you also said that we’d have more news on that within a week. It’s now a week. There’s nothing there.

Yeah, look, we have ongoing conversations right now.

Is it going to happen within this week or are you [Inaudible]—

Again, we’re having ongoing conversations. As you know, there’s a lot of commercial complexity in it. In fairness, I need to let those complete and finish, and as soon as we have something there, we’ll talk to you about that.

Are you confident that you will be the National Party leader after caucus tomorrow? Will you still be the Prime Minister?

Absolutely.

Just on Shane Jones’s comments, is it ever acceptable to say Kiwis—Indians who want to come to New Zealand to help contribute to our economic growth, contribute to our society, to call them “butter chickens”? Is that not—

No, that’s not acceptable.

How is it not racist?

Well, sorry, I haven’t seen the full context of what his remarks have been.

[Inaudible] context?

Well, no, but you’re reporting his statement to me and, in fairness, I haven’t seen what he said. What I’d say to you is that our Indian community has made a tremendous contribution to New Zealand. They’ve left their home, their culture, their friends, their family, they’ve come here, they’ve worked incredibly hard, taken one, two or three jobs in order to get a deposit for a house or for a business. They are an outstanding role model for the rest of New Zealanders to follow because they have ambition, they have aspiration, and they work really hard.

And I celebrate the Indian community. I’m very proud of the Indian Kiwi community that’s here. I’m typically at many different events over the course of any given weekend with them, acknowledging them, thanking them and celebrating the fact that they have made New Zealand a much better place. And diversity is a good thing for New Zealand. New Zealand is an infinitely better place—economically, socially, culturally—because of the contribution of immigrants to this country.

We have a sensible and smart immigration policy. Erica has done a very good job of tightening our settings so that we’re making sure that we’re getting high-skilled people coming here to New Zealand to do the jobs that we have shortages around. We have done a lot of things to make sure that there are rights and responsibilities embedded in our immigration system. So I’m proud of what we’ve achieved and I’m proud of our immigrant communities, and I don’t think language like that is helpful at all.

But one of your senior Ministers is referring to them as “a tsunami of butter chicken”.

And I just said to you that’s not—that’s a gross misrepresentation of actually what the Indian FTA is all about, and I don’t think that dumbing it down to language like that is helpful at all, and I think they’re plain wrong on not supporting the Indian FTA and I’ve just made my comments about it being inappropriate language. OK, team, thank you so much.