Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 15 June 2026

All right, well, kia ora, good afternoon, everyone. Can I just start quickly by saying we welcome this morning's announcement of a deal between the US and Iran, and we also want to thank the Pakistani and Qatari leadership who have mediated the deal. Obviously, it remains an incredibly fragile situation, but this news gives us the best hope of peace since the conflict began three and a half months ago, and we now hope that the parties will seize the opportunity to resolve the tensions in the region.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has had a significant impact here in New Zealand and we all look forward to seeing safe and reliable trade resume through the strait. The impacts of the situation in the Middle East will continue to be felt for some time after the conflict ends. Our Government will continue to monitor and respond as necessary but no doubt this is welcome news and a step in the right direction.

Our economy has held up relatively well despite the situation in the Middle East and the positive outlook I think was on full display at Mystery Creek last week. For those of you who didn't get to catch Fieldays, you missed something. It was actually my fourth year, I think, in a row up there, and this year was, without doubt, the best yet. It was a privilege, really a real privilege to meet our farmers and growers who are powering New Zealand's economy. The atmosphere was extremely positive and people were full of optimism and excitement, and it's easy to see why.

Our farmers are, quite simply, the very best in the world, and with us they've got a Government that backs them to do the very best. It's not a coincidence that when the primary sector has a Government that backs them, we see food and fibre exports reaching record highs, even with new tariffs and even with the volatile situation in the Middle East. Food and fibre export revenue is forecast to reach $64.3 billion this year to the end of June. That's up 6 percent over last year, with record highs across multiple sectors. Quite simply, when our farmers do well and our growers do well, New Zealand does well, and the primary sector has had a very big part to play in growing our economy and giving it the strength amidst global volatility.

Recent events offshore have had a direct impact on New Zealand but as I said earlier, our economy has held up well, and the outlook is positive. Exports are strong. They're up 9 percent. They've grown a record $10 billion this year, and are up $20 billion since we came to Government, and we're well on track to meet our mission of doubling our exports. And for the first time in five years, New Zealand now has a trade surplus, and in April, we had a record monthly trade surplus of $2 billion in the middle of a fuel crisis. We're now getting back to a surplus a year earlier than we forecast in December and interest rates remain low, and while the full effects of the Middle East conflict on our economy are not yet known, we do anticipate that there will be some impact on inflation, interest rates, and growth.

As you know, our focus has been on maintaining fiscal discipline and making very careful choices to minimise the impact on inflation and growth. Overall, the recent budget forecasts show economic growth averaging 2.7 percent a year for the next four years. The growing economy is set to create 220,000 more jobs over that period, with wages growing faster than prices, which, of course, is the key to making life more affordable for Kiwis. The positive outlook reinforces that our economic approach is the right one. When the world is volatile and uncertain, now more than ever is the time for financial discipline. It's a time for careful choices by a responsible Government that considers not just today, not just election day, but the weeks, months, and years ahead when New Zealanders must live with the consequences. That's how we build our economic resilience to future shocks and set New Zealand up for a much more secure future. It's not the time for ill-disciplined spending sprees that must be paid for by either increasing taxes or by increasing borrowing. Our Government has a long-term plan to help

Kiwis get ahead, and we're sticking to it. And with that, I'll pass on to Nicola for some further remarks on the economy.

Thank you, Prime Minister. As I've had the occasion to observe several times in the past 12 months or so, we live in interesting times. President Trump's announcement of a peace deal is an encouraging development that has resulted in the price of Brent crude oil dropping to its lowest level since the 10th of March. Shortly after midday today, it was sitting at US $83.80 a barrel, which is down 4 percent on its Friday close following previous falls.

If that trend continues or even just holds, we can expect prices to fall at the pump here. That is obviously very good news for Kiwi households and businesses, who have experienced elevated fuel prices for some time. As of the update I received 48 hours ago, regular 91 was still up 25 percent overall since the start of the war, diesel up 58 percent overall since the start of the war, and premium 95 up 24 percent overall since the start of the war. So we want to see those prices coming back down.

But I would sound a note of caution here. The situation in the Middle East is fragile and this is not the first time we've had news of a breakthrough. It is too soon to call a sustained fall in fuel prices. That is what we want to see but we accept that there could be events in the coming days and weeks that change the projections for oil prices, so we will hope for the best but continue to prepare for less favourable outcomes.

Turning now to domestic economic matters, GDP figures for the first three months of the year will be released on Thursday. Data released over the past few weeks continues to point to a recovery that was gaining traction in New Zealand prior to the Middle East conflict. Retail sales, manufacturing, wholesale trade and export volumes all lifted in the March quarter. This has led retail banks to increase their forecasts for growth in the first quarter to an average of 1 percent. Treasury also expects March quarter GDP to be close to 1 percent growth. That would be very positive, but again, we should be cautious. I'm certainly not going to call what the data will be when it's released on Thursday because recent stats and GDP updates have proven to be almost as volatile as the situation in the Middle East, and we know that the conflict also had some impact in the last part of that quarter, and also has had a much bigger impact on the second quarter of the year, where the data is likely to be less favourable.

Nevertheless, all the signs are that New Zealand, despite the global oil shock, is emerging from a protracted downturn, and that Kiwis can look forward to more jobs and higher incomes. This is positive. The forecasts are one thing and how correct everyone's forecasts are is something we will only know when we look back, but what we do know is that a falling global oil price, lower prices at the pump here, means lower inflation and more growth in our economy and those are things I know every Kiwi will welcome.

On that note, let me just say a quick word about the document I released yesterday as National Party Finance Spokesperson, which served to highlight the gap between Labour's spending commitments so far and its revenue intentions. Why does that matter? Well, because New Zealanders have worked really hard in recent years to get the economy moving in the right direction. To even get where we are, with a path to surplus, has required tough choices and discipline by many, many people, and I really don't think that we can afford to put that at risk by a party thinking that it doesn't have to explain where money for its commitments would come from.

I've seen some reporting in the past 24 hours that suggests it's unreasonable to expect Labour to say how it will fund its undertakings five months before an election, and I just remind you of where we were at as a National Party this time three years ago in quite a different context. We were clear that we thought the current Government of the day was spending too much. We were clear that we wanted to repair the books and we had announced several policies: teaching the basics brilliantly, introducing a childcare tax rebate, reducing the brightline test for rental properties, encouraging more house building, redirecting MSD funding to community providers. The fiscal implications of all of these policies were detailed. It was also the case that we were clear about our intentions.

The Labour Party has announced just two policies in detail: (1) a CGT matched by a logistically undeliverable health initiative, and (2) a dubiously costed public transport policy. Through the comments, I am still not clear whether they think that we should be spending more or spending less. That's a pretty simple question that five months out from an election, they should be able to answer. Chris Hipkins and his colleagues have led the public to believe that they will be reversing many of the difficult decisions our Government has had to make to get the books back in order. We've had to make tough choices, and Labour have taken the political privilege of opposing those choices, but have not taken the political principle of being clear about whether they would reverse them.

So we have conservatively costed the price of the commitments they have made at $21 billion over the forecast period, and on the other side of the ledger they have announced just one revenue-generating measure, capital gains tax, that it says will generate $2.8 billion. Something doesn't add up and while the Labour Party have successfully evaded questions in the past 24 hours, let's be clear, it has very tough choices ahead of it. Either it's going to back down on its promises and its rhetoric and break the commitments it has made to New Zealand voters, or it is going to propose more taxes, or it is going to borrow more, torpedo the surplus, and dial up debt. Those are the choices. They are pretty simple.

Unfortunately, no Government can avoid having to cut its cloth to meet the circumstances New Zealand finds itself in, in a very volatile world. That is our reality, even though we would all like to wish it away. So I continue to call Labour to come clean with the public. I think it is very cynical for them to withhold the reality of their commitments. And with that, I'll leave it there.

OK, so let's get into some questions.

Prime Minister, the NBR Rich List released today showed that the effective values of the wealthiest New Zealanders increased 26 percent year on year. The Green Party, on the back of that, released a statement saying they're going to announce the tax policy this week targeting the super rich. They called the cost of living crisis a “cost of greed” crisis. I was keen to get your response to that.

Look, I think we should be celebrating success in this country. I think, you know, people who are wealth creators and wealth generators that create jobs and opportunities for Kiwis is something that's a good thing. What we know for sure, though, is a wealth tax would just put a wrecking ball right through this economy. That is not the right message. We've seen that, you know, fail in many other countries around the world. But it's not surprising. I mean, this is a Green Party that wants to add $88 billion worth of new taxes, $44 billion more borrowing. Having used up the rainy day fund, maxed out the credit card, and getting, you know, letters from the banks about our credit rating, that's not the way forward. So, you know, the fastest way in which we see capital leave this country is the introduction of a wealth tax.

Prime Minister, a string of recent polls, most recently The Post/Freshwater poll, has the coalition ahead but National is actually behind Labour outside of the margin of error. Is that a comfortable position where you say, “Well, the coalition's coming back so it doesn’t matter where we are relative to Labour,” or would you like to see National ahead of Labour again?

Well, Henry, as I've said to you many times before and it's not going to surprise you, I don't comment on polls.

Prime Minister, the $5 billion estimate from Treasury for meeting the Paris Accord commitments, are we going to pay that or not?

Well, we ain't sending billions of dollars outside this country.

So we're not going to pay the $5 billion estimated—

Well, I think we've got a wee way to go. I mean, there is—if I look at the G7 countries, if I look at probably 15 of the 25 biggest emitters that drive 80 percent of emissions, they're quite off track with respect to delivering on their emissions commitments at Paris, and I think there's going to be some broader conversations in the coming year that the world and other countries are going to want to have. But for our purposes, we're in Paris because, actually, it would be the easiest thing for our competitor nations, and also for the large multinationals we sell to, to kick our products off the shelf and just go ask Fonterra what would happen if we didn’t do exactly that. So we will give our NDC 2030 a good go but I want to be reassuring, as I was last week and other times, to say that we are not sending billions of dollars offshore. We are not sending jobs offshore. That's why you've seen our Government back our agriculture out of the ETS. We've removed emissions pricing. We don't think there's a need for it. We want to crank up our production, and at the same time we're very confident we can deliver on the emissions front.

Our goal is Net Zero 2050, and unfortunately Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw ended up cranking up the NDC 2030 target and made it very disconnected from our own domestic track. We've got it back on track for the 2035 NDC, as you know, but we'll give it a good go, but we're not sending billions of dollars offshore.

Are you confident that the scientific rationale behind the net zero goal still holds water, you know, is still scientifically sustainable?

Yeah, we're committed to Net Zero 2050.

Whether or not you're committed to it, are you confident of the science behind it?

Yeah, I am, and as I said, we've just reviewed the methane science, for example, you saw us do that. We said we'd do that in Opposition. We did it as a Government. We revised, obviously, agricultural emissions. We feel very comfortable that agriculture is on a good pathway. We've got genuinely outstanding innovation that actually can help us increase production and also deliver on sustainability commitments.

If the Iran peace deal holds, when can Kiwis expect to be in a position where we're no longer feeling the economic impacts of that crisis?

Yeah, look, as we've been saying, even if the conflict got resolved, you know, tomorrow, we've kept saying there will be a lag effect here. It's going to take a while for the logistics to work their way through the system. Obviously, there's production that needs to be turned on in the Middle East, there's storage that needs to be delivered and managed, and then obviously ships out into our refiners. So, you know, I think it will be some time. You know, I think we've historically thought it was always in the three to four-week range we'd start to see relief from prices by the time it comes through, but it may—you know, we’re expecting in that sort of frame.

Why were the petrol companies so quick to put up prices, but so slow to bring them down?

We have the Commerce Commission monitoring that very closely, and in fact they've been issuing regular reports which are available on their website to demonstrate the results of that monitoring. And what they say is that the petrol companies price in how much it will take them to replace the fuel in their storage tanks that they then supply to New Zealanders, and that that is reflected in the price you pay at the pump. As I say, with the global price of oil coming down, we expect to see prices falling at the pump.

Have you got anyone, like, specifically monitoring it today?

Yes.

Yes, from day one.

We have specifically commissioned the Commerce Commission to monitor that. I receive a daily report from my officials at the Ministry for Business about what is happening at the pump on pricing. This is something that we are watching very carefully. It's great that the people of the Middle East are experiencing better prospects. I'm pretty focused on what it means for Kiwis at the pump.

What recourse is there if prices don't fall in line with your expectations?

Well, I think we’ve been—well, to any oil executive listening to this press conference, we're pretty clear we expect them to do the right thing, and we've got the Commerce Commission, we've been having it monitored from day one. Frankly, we've actually been—you know, we're very comfortable with what the oil companies have been doing. We haven't seen any evidence of any gouging, any of those sorts of issues that have been observed in other places. So we've had a good relationship with the oil importers. We expect that to continue. We understand when prices go up, they need to raise them, but also when prices come down, they need to lower them too.

Prime Minister, you just mentioned before the sort of three to four-week lag. Can you and maybe the Minister of Finance just give us a bit of a sense, a bit of an update on the advice you're getting around what the lags might be? Like, if this is the end of conflict and things start freeing up, how long are we now expecting that it might—

Yeah, I think you've probably gauged from both Nicola and my comments, and also from Winston Peters this morning as well, is that, you know, we welcome this development but we do acknowledge that it's very fragile. You know, we've been here before, right? I appreciate this is slightly different with the signing of the MOU and we really do hope it kicks on to the resolution of the fundamental issues that are driving the tension in the region, and so that's the real opportunity that this presents.

But we are, you know, hoping for the best and planning for the worst, as we've always said, and we'll continue to do that. We'd sooner be, you know, really super prepared, as we are around fuel supply, around if we need any extra support measures should the conflict, you know, break open again and cause rupture. But, you know, within the—if you think about the crude oil volume that's produced out of the Middle East, it's about 20 percent of the world's crude oil—the US is number one, they're number two—and essentially half of it has already found ways to reroute over the pipeline. Probably a quarter of it has actually been infilled by other suppliers, and actually the last quarter has been a trade-off between what—the US has ramped up production and China has ramped down imports because it's got high stocks of its own. So that's how the world has sort of got through pretty well.

So, for us, it's just—you know, it’s going to be the rebuilding of some of the key infrastructure in the region. There's going to be real challenges around storage, you know, around actually how much. You can get the production up and running but you've got to have tanks in the region and around the world to put the storage into, and boats, and then you've got to get it out to our refiners. The refiners may have to make some alterations again to mixes as they deal with sweet versus sour—sour versus sweet crudes again, and then obviously down to us.

So we don't see any risk in our supply scenarios, as I've been saying for a long time, but there will just be—you know, there's going to be a series of adjustments as a new supply chain emerges, and whether it goes back to how it was, or something new and different, we'll see.

Can you give a bit of an update—I don't know whether Minister Peters did that at Cabinet today—around the Pacific and their supplies, and what both New Zealand and Australia are doing to help with that? And also, Nicola, maybe any conversations you've had with contacts in Singapore, etc., about how they might be helping out the Pacific area as well.

Yeah, look—

Yeah.

Sorry.

You go ahead.

I've spoken to all the Pacific leaders and actually we've got a good visibility over their fuel supply. Their own importers are providing fuel into the region. In Nicola and my conversations with refiners in Singapore, they're very cognisant of the fact that while these countries may be small, the damage that can be done by not having supply is really important, and they've internalised that, I think, very well. And so we have said to all the Pacific nations, as we did—you know, we discussed it in Australia, again, with Albanese, Prime Minister Albanese last weekend that we're there to help, but there is no real pressing need or ask of us at this point in time.

So you haven’t had any indication from any countries that they're getting near sort of lights out or they're having to cut back on transport or anything like that?

No, I mean there’s—no, I mean it's really—a lot of them actually source out of Fiji, which is the sort of regional hub for the other—for Samoa and Tonga and others. You know, and we've just got open channels, so if there's anything that is needed and we can help, we definitely will do that.

Just going back to what Sean was asking about before, and you've talked about wanting to give 2030 a good go around climate emissions, obviously you've been at the Fieldays last week and there's been a lot of chat from yourself and from others about the tech that has been developed around helping aid in achieving those goals. What are you being told is the roadblock to doing things faster? Like, are tech companies kind of—

With respect to emissions, Jo?

—not getting what they need in—yes, sorry, in regards to meeting 2030 targets and reducing emissions. What is the roadblock to being able to get to 2030 successfully or meet our targets successfully? If we've got, you know, entrepreneurs in New Zealand who are doing great things when it comes to technology in that area, what is the roadblock for them to do it faster, I guess?

Well, there's two things I'd say. One is, you know, since we've come to Government, we've made sure the AgriZero projects are not just ideas, they're actually proper projects. We meet with the team, I personally meet with the team to actually make sure the innovation is coming through. By the end of this year, I think the intention is to have one of the bolus solutions out there, which will have quite a big impact on methane reduction, for example, out of cows. Our job is to make sure that we provide the tools to the farmers, and then it's up to them whether they want to use them or not.

But in the macro and in the round, when we look at agriculture, we see real innovation projects that are coming to market, you know, that are quite well-developed. They're beyond the idea phase, they're into the feasibility and then into the commercialisation, and as I said, we hope to have our first one of the 16 or 17 projects we've got in that funnel in market by the end of the year. But they actually are in a place where—and that's why we haven't felt a need to put agricultural pricing in place. That's why we haven't felt a need to put them into the ETS or do anything silly like that or shut down 30 percent of farms as was proposed under Labour.

And I'm also trying to send a message pretty clearly, which is we're focused on growth and we ain't shutting down any farms in this country, or we're not moving any production offshore or sending any dollar offshore if it puts—you know, of New Zealanders' money in order to—we’ll give the target a good go but I'm just being really clear about it: we're prioritising growth, it's not emissions. Same thing on energy. You know, all the conversation's been about 100 percent renewable, and, you know, any oil and gas, and all the drama that's followed and eschewed from a lovely bumper sticker but no thought-through policy. We want energy independence. That is our goal, not climate for the sake of climate.

Minister, there's been a couple of polls following the Budget and it hasn't shown a significant increase in support for National. Would you expect to see more of a bump following the Budget?

I didn't put the Budget together thinking about what it would do for next week's poll. I was thinking about New Zealand's future.

How have New Zealanders responded, do you think, to the Budget?

I think we should all give New Zealanders credit that they understand that there is no forest of magic money trees and that the Government does face constrained choices and circumstances. And New Zealanders expect their Government to be prudent about debt, prudent about borrowing, prudent about the position we put our country in for the future. And I've genuinely had quite positive and spontaneous feedback from people who claim not to be National Party voters, saying, “Look, I get it. Someone has to take responsibility. Thank you for taking responsibility.”

On the prudence matter, when do you expect to be able to announce what's happening with the RONS, the major transport pipeline? The Infrastructure Commission's report is, I think, two or three months old now. You'll had to respond at some point soon. Is there going to be a Government response where you say, “Sorry, this road's not happening in the foreseeable?”

Well, there will be a Government response to the Infrastructure Commission's recommendations, a detailed Government response to that, and what you have seen us do on a budget-by-budget basis is commit capital funding to roads that we think it is prudent to commit to. Under way we have the Hawke's Bay Expressway, the Ōtaki to Levin Road of National Significance. We have procurement underway for the Pūhoi to—sorry, Warkworth to Te Hana Road Northland Expressway, and in this Budget we provided additional funds to the Land Transport Fund to allow the Cambridge to Piarere Road of National Significance to go ahead. I think we've always been upfront that allowing that pipeline of roads to continue will require capital investment from future budgets, and we're being very careful as a Government to sequence those projects according to their deliverability and their priority. We never said we'd build them all at once.

On reinstating pay equity, can the Labour Party reveal that number without giving away a negotiating hand?

Yes. Thank you so much for the question because I really want to clear this up. What the Government has kept confidential is how much funding we have retained in our forecasts for the pay equity regime that remains in place. That is to protect the confidentiality of bargaining and to ensure that we don't give away our bargaining position.

To be clear, there is a pay equity regime in New Zealand law and you have a Government that has committed funds to meeting future pay equity settlements, which we expect will occur. This is a fact often forgotten in the Labour Party's talking points. What we have put in the costings that I released to you is Treasury's view of what the difference is between how much money we've put in the budget and how much it would cost to reinstate the previously gold-plated pay equity regime that went far beyond the pay equity regime that now exists in law. So that number is not confidential. That number is public. Treasury have released it to Labour through written questions, through Official Information Act requests, and have put it in public documents. Those numbers are not confidential. They are on the record. That number represents the gap between what our Government is funding today for the current pay equity regime, and what it would cost to reinstate the previous regime.

So the question for Labour is: are you committed to the previous regime, and if so, why won't you acknowledge it will cost that much? Or are what you're saying actually that we were right, that the last regime needed to change because it was way too expensive and unsustainable for a country in our fiscal circumstances?

I think Barbara Edmonds did commit to reinstatement of the scheme.

Well, she knows how much it costs, Treasury have told her.

Do you view that—but she is questioning the numbers. Do you view that as questioning the credibility of the Treasury?

I view it as weasel words because all she's doing is acknowledging that the number is eye-watering. I agree with her and she is wishing it to be smaller. So did I. I didn't go into Government hoping that I would have to change the pay equity legislation. But when I saw how big those figures were, I tested them, I prodded them, I talked to Treasury about them, and they were adamant that that was the cost. That is the cost. That cost is why we made changes to the regime. And so Barbara Edmonds essentially is saying, “Oh, those numbers look really high to me.” Well, they are. I agree.

It is a contingency, though, right? Like, it's not a bottom line of what you have to spend.

Well, this is another really interesting point, and bear with me because again, I'm going to be technical about it. The way that Treasury worked it when the last Government was there was that they didn't fund pay equity from operating allowances. Instead, what they did was they forecast how much they expected future settlements to cost and which settlements they thought would occur at about which time, and then they put it in their overall forecasts for Crown expenditure.

So when I came in, of course, I said, “Well, what if I question those forecasts and say that I don't agree or that they're different?” and Treasury were very clear, “Minister, if you did that, you would be impinging on our independent forecasting function. Regardless of your view, we would independently forecast it at this cost, and we would put it in your books accordingly.” And that's how Treasury forecasts work. If the Minister of the day says, “Well, I don't like the numbers,” Treasury, through the Chief Accountant, through its adherence to global standards, will get to call the shots, and Barbara Edmonds might not like that but that's the way it works in New Zealand.

If she commits to reinstating the scheme in full and says during the election campaign it's going to cost less, she will get into Government and Treasury will tell her about it?

Sure. Her first day in Government will be a massive fight with Treasury and a massive undermining of their credibility, and ultimately, in my experience, the forecasters always win.

Minister, what do you think it says about the economy that that contingency has to be so large? Does that suggest that there are a large group of female-orientated workers who are making less than they should be?

No, Henry. It suggests that the previous pay equity regime which New Zealand had in place was completely out of step with every other pay equity regime in the world, and was not operating as it had been intended to. It was taking unrealistic comparatives. It was taking workforces that by many people's expectations weren't actually female-dominated. It was looking at issues which were not caused by gender inequity but by other issues.

We now have in law a pay equity regime that in many people's judgment is still one of the better pay equity regimes in the world, which ensures that if women have been systematically underpaid as a consequence of their gender, they can make a claim and there will be funding available to support that claim being paid. So, actually, all the size of those numbers show is how unwieldy the previous regime had become, how far it had diverted from the original intent, which was to ensure that where women was being systematically underpaid for reasons of gender, that there was recourse. We've retained that. And so the simplistic debate that Labour have had, that it's either you're for pay equity or you're against it, that has never been the debate. We have in law under our Government a pay equity regime that we are funding in our Budget. What Labour is saying is they want to revert to the previous gold-plated scheme that had become fiscally uncontrollable.

Are you comfortable with, on things like conditions, people like home support care workers having to use their own vehicles, while fisheries officers get to use cars provided by the Government? Is there any reason why that should be the case?

The reality in a modern economy is that we have hardworking people in all sorts of occupations who face a range of different working conditions and who bargain for pay increases and changes in their working conditions, either through the union or individually. And there are many workers in New Zealand who would put their hand up—some are in female-dominated workforces, some are not—and they would say, “Well, actually, when I go to have a bargain for a pay rise this year, I deserve a lot more.” That is the case and I accept that. That is separate from then saying, “And the cause of this is gender discrimination.”

Can I just check, is it still your intention for the Gene Technology Bill legislation to be put forward this term? It’s in the coalition agreements with both Act and New Zealand First.

No, what we've said a wee while ago is we want to get more consultation on it. We actually want to move very conservatively through it. We thought we got some good feedback. We think there's more that we should get and so we want to take more time to get it right.

Will that effectively become an election issue? Because if you haven't managed to get agreement at the Cabinet table, presumably there's three different positions there, roughly, is there?

No, we actually just want to get broader feedback and generally more consultation. That's why we've asked MBIE to put it in to—and to do exactly that, get more consultation.

What exactly are you after? What are the areas where you want to hear more?

Well, we heard some—a series of concerns through the select committee process. We want to make sure we're moving conservatively in this space. We're following 40-plus countries that have got similar legislation. We’ve got—we want to be very conservative about how we go about doing it, and so we just generally want to get more feedback and more consultation. I think that's a good thing to do. I don't think that's a bad thing to do.

On the care and support workers, why should they have to bargain to get a car to do a job when MPs don't?

Well, I mean, we have—we have different bargaining situations. I'd say on the MP entitlement stuff, which, you know, I know you've been talking about over the last couple of weeks, you know, we have an independent Remuneration Authority that makes those determinations as to what the terms and conditions of MPs should be.

Self-drive cars?

Well, I'm just saying to you we have an independent Remuneration Authority that makes those terms and conditions.

Does the rem authority decide on self-drive cars?

Well, there's—partly by the rem committee, partly by the Speaker, partly by my office as well. Those are decisions that happen by virtue of things.

And what about the rate that you get paid back for mileage? Because that's $1.20, but you're giving care and support workers $0.85 a kilometre.

Yeah, sure. Look, Jenna, I get it, but the point is we leave that to—you know, terms and conditions for MPs, as I've said consistently, if you want us to get involved in setting that, that's not good.

I have to say, having watched some of the reports, you know, in the last 24 hours about former Members and some of those entitlements, you know, I think I've asked my office to get more advice on that because it's a very complex area that has actually built up over many decades, the terms and conditions. And I've actually asked them to go out and actually seek some further advice in order to give us some more clarity and understanding of how we've got to where we've got to on some of these issues.

Just to answer the question, why would MPs need to be paid back more per kilometre than relief teachers and care and support workers?

Jenna, those are things that are set by bodies that make those determinations, not us that makes those determinations.

[Inaudible].

Sure. But I have to say there’s got to be a—I've got to find a way to make a system work, and that system is best left to an independent Remuneration Authority to make those determinations.

That's the independent rate and it's based off the IRD rate, which they issue for everyone. Then why not match that for care and support workers and relief teachers?

Well, we have a review of that going on. We announced that when we talked about lifting the mileage rates 30 percent with respect to the fuel crisis, because there are anomalies that have been built up over a period of time. We announced at that time we have a full review going on looking at those entitlements as well.

The review of perks you were just talking about, what you asked your office to look at, was that specifically on former MPs, former Prime Ministers, those perks, or are you talking about the wider system of MP [Inaudible]?

It was in response to reading those stories over the weekend that I've actually asked my office to go back and actually help us understand how have we ended up where we are. And, you know, I think a lot of the—and I'm, you know, I’m up for a conversation about it because I honestly think it's a very complex system, right, and it has built up over decades. Someone like me who's been here five years or whatever, you come in and, you know, the terms are obviously different and the terms and conditions have been different and set differently at different times. So, in fairness, I'm not trying to predicate an outcome or presuppose an outcome, but I just want to understand and have more understanding and more clarity about how have some of these things—how have some of these things been arrived at.

[Inaudible]?

No, not at this point. I've just asked for advice to say, “Can you give me some clarity and some understanding about it?” OK, sorry, who hasn't had a question?

Regardless of where the system settings are, the system settings, is the situation that Jenna just described between MPs and key workers, do you think that is fair?

And I've answered that question by saying when we announced the 30 percent increase to mileage rates during the fuel crisis, we said that we would kick off also a review of those mileage rates, given some of the anomalies that happen, not just between MP rates or support workers rates, but other workers across the system as well.

Just going back to the rich list, given unemployment rates were at a 10-year high in December, youth unemployment rates have continued to increase, we've got over 100,000 people who are housing-deprived, and our child poverty rates haven't dropped, are you comfortable with the fact that the number of billionaires in this country has increased in a year?

Well, what I'm not comfortable with is the proposal that a wealth tax is the answer, that somehow a wealth tax is going to be the way in which we get this economy moving and growing and get wages growing faster than prices. You know, that is not the way forward for this country, and you just go look at the examples of wealth taxes around the world where they've been implemented. You get massive amounts of capital flight. The wealth generators and the entrepreneurs that take the risk to build businesses and employ people to create jobs and incomes for folk end up exiting the capital out of those countries. So that's just not the right answer for New Zealand. Absolutely. Last question.

Just trying to clarify on the perks question, are we talking about former Prime Ministers and MPs or are you talking about a wider look at things like MP Super schemes, allowances that they get for housing? What are we talking about?

The advice I've asked for is in pertaining to the stories about past entitlements. Having read the articles on the weekend, I just simply asked my office to say, “Can you give me some advice so that we've got a better understanding and more clarity?” It's a very, very complex system as you've all identified and we all understand. It's built up over many decades. I want to understand it and that's the advice that I've asked for, so that we have some more clarity around that.

What's your understanding of how many New Zealanders are leaving for Australia at the moment, and also how many are coming back?

Yeah, we got new numbers through on Friday and as a result, in the last year we've had a 7 percent return of Kiwis coming home and a 5 percent decrease in Kiwis leaving, which has been really encouraging. You know, it's really good news.

What do you make of Matthew Heaton being made editor of The Post?

It's a decision for The Post. Awesome, thanks team. All right, have a good day. See you later.