Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 22 June 2026

All right. Well, good afternoon, everyone. I just need to let you know today that we do have a hard finish of 4.30 pm, so we’ll get straight into it.

Today we do mark another significant step in our Government’s mission to grow international trade and to strengthen New Zealand exports. It was less than three years ago that I committed to getting an FTA done with India, signed in our first term of Government. Two months ago, as you know, we signed that FTA in New Delhi, and today that legislation is being introduced to the Parliament with the first reading to be set for Thursday.

It’s an enormous opportunity for a five-million-person country like New Zealand to actually be able to access the most populous country on Earth with 1.5 billion customers and one of the biggest economies in the world at what will be NZ$12 trillion. This trade deal eliminates, as you know, or significantly reduces tariffs on 95 percent of Kiwi exports to India, including sheep meat, wool, wood, seafood, apples, kiwifruit and wine. That’s giving our exporters access to the world’s most popular country and supercharging earnings back here to New Zealand.

I think a very illustrative example of why we’ve done this is that, you know, New Zealand used to have 90 percent market share of lamb and sheep meat exports into India. Australia secured zero tariffs through its Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement, and now is an opportunity for us to actually bring—and we fell to 10 percent market share. It’s an opportunity for us to reclaim that market share and obviously bring that extra export income home.

Our FTA does also include ‘most favoured nation’ clauses and, for example, that will actually benefit our wine and some services exports as the India‒EU FTA has slightly better terms on those sectors so we will receive those too, provided our FTA enters to force before the Europeans’. Further, one in four Kiwi jobs depend on trade and the Indian FTA is even more important in times of global volatility and uncertainty to diversify our markets and also our relationships. The Indian FTE frankly means more of those jobs and more money in people’s pockets.

Securing the deal, as you know, has been a key part of National’s ambition to double the value of our exports by 2034. The most recent data shows that we are outpacing that big stretch goal. The good news is that last year we had record growth in exports of $12 billion, up from $102 billion to $114 billion, and that means that exports have grown $20 billion since we came to Government. The good news is the growth is broad-based. Our goods exports are up 18 percent over that period, services are up 27 percent, tourism 119 percent, and international education over 60 percent. And while goods and services exports to China were up 13 percent, and the US was up 15 percent in spite of the tariffs, we’re also increasingly diversifying our markets with exports to Australia up 20 percent, Europe 57 percent, UK 42 percent, the GCC 34, and even India without an FTA is already up 72 percent.

This means for the first time in five years, New Zealand has a trade surplus. We are exporting more to the world than we are importing into New Zealand. In April, New Zealand achieved a monthly trade surplus of almost $2 billion and that’s the highest in well over a decade, and in the middle of the fuel crisis. I think it’s a clear proof point that our economic recovery is going well despite everything else going on the world.

As you know, the GDP result of 0.8 percent for the March quarter is another proof point of the growing strength of our economy. The result represents the highest quarterly growth since September 2023. This quarterly growth rate is almost three times faster than Australia, twice as fast as the US, and twice the recent Treasury budget forecasts. Growth in the previous quarter was also upgraded to 0.5 percent, meaning the economy has grown 2.1 percent in nine months. Again, encouragingly, there was growth in many sectors including manufacturing, business services, retail and accommodation, wholesale trade and exports, all job-rich sectors. Business investment was up almost 4 percent and suggests our investment boost is going well.

However, we’re not naive, as we’ve said before, about what’s ahead. Global conditions remain volatile and uncertain and we’ve certainly been upfront that the next quarter won’t look as good—but you don’t build an economy on one quarter, you build it on the fundamentals, and our fundamentals are going in the right direction. And that’s why it was so good to see Treasury forecasts off the back of the Budget suggesting a 2.7 percent average growth rate and 220,000 new jobs being created over the next four years, and wages growing faster than prices.

Our focus is on getting those economic fundamentals right for the long term and that’s why our Government has made changes to strengthen KiwiSaver. As you know, we lifted the contribution rates from 3 percent to 3.5 percent on the 1st of April this year. They’ll lift by another half a percent to 4 percent on the 1st of April 2028.

Speaking as the National Party leader, the policy announced yesterday builds on that further to strengthen KiwiSaver and grow New Zealand’s financial nest eggs. Under our policy, everyone in work will be required to contribute to KiwiSaver or an equivalent retirement savings scheme from 1 July 2028. The contribution will be set at the default rate, meaning that by 2032, employers and employees must each contribute 6 percent, for a combined rate of about 12 percent to match Australia.

We’ll also be enrolling every child and every baby into KiwiSaver at birth and contributing a $1,500 Baby Boost payment to kickstart their savings. And just to give you a sense of that, at a 7 percent compound growth rate, $1,500 kickstart turns into $120,000 on retirement, and that’s before or excluding any contributions an individual may make.

As you know, we’re also supporting mums and dads to continue building their KiwiSaver while on paid parental leave by fixing what we see as unfairness in the system, and so National will provide a Government contribution to a parent’s KiwiSaver while they’re on paid parental leave, even if the parent isn’t contributing themselves. And we’ll also ensure that savers at the other end of their working lives don’t lose out either, and means that more Kiwis are working beyond 65 and what they should be able to keep building their savings, so we will require employers to maintain matching KiwiSaver contributions for employees over 65.

I’ll now hand over for Nicola to say a little bit more about the reaction to the increase in KiwiSaver rates that took place on 1 April this year.

Thank you, Prime Minister. As you’ve mentioned, just over 11 weeks ago, the default rate for KiwiSaver contributions increased from 3 to 3.5 percent. Those contributions will go up another half percent in 2028 to 4 percent. Once that occurs, not only will workers be putting an extra 1 percent of their salaries into their KiwiSaver accounts, so will their employers. That will make a big difference.

Let’s take an 18 year old earning the minimum wage as an example, and let’s assume their career follows a typical path. That means their pay will increase over time as they gain skills and experience. Presently, that 18 year old might earn just under $50,000 a year. Under the old 3 percent contribution rate, she or he could have expected to have a KiwiSaver balance of about $740,000 by the age of 65. Under the new settings, that same person can expect to have a KiwiSaver balance of about $930,000. That’s $190,000 more. Of course, actual amounts will depend on how well their KiwiSaver accounts perform, whether they use their balances for a deposit on a first house, and whether they spend time out of the workforce. But the lesson is clear: regularly investing relatively small additional amounts makes a huge difference over time.

The decision to increase the default KiwiSaver contribution rate was made at last year’s Budget. At the time, we weren’t entirely sure how people would react. New Zealand of course has been through a protracted downturn and many people are still doing it tough. In recognition of that, we allowed people to opt out of the increased rate if they chose.

We’ve been keenly interested in how many people would choose to exercise that option, so I was delighted to be able to report at the weekend that the answer to that question is very few. Of the 1.8 million New Zealanders paying into KiwiSaver through their wages or salaries, 99.5 percent have opted to continue contributions at the increased rate. Put another way, just half a percent or 9,300 people have opted not to increase their contributions. I think that says a lot about Kiwis’ priorities. Even while financial conditions are tough, the vast majority are choosing to take the opportunity to save for a better financial future.

What this tells us is that New Zealanders value future financial security and that New Zealanders understand and recognise the benefits of having their savings matched by their employers. It also suggests Kiwis are ready for a bold and ambitious approach to retirement savings, which is exactly what was announced by the National Party yesterday. Back to you, Prime Minister.

Thanks, Nicola. With that, let’s get into some questions. Henry.

Minister, on the changes you’ve already made to KiwiSaver thresholds, have you seen any advice that suggests that people have been taking a total remuneration approach to that, employers, so paying people and maybe not giving them as much of a pay rise as they would because they’re giving more to their KiwiSaver, or just not giving them a pay rise at all?

I haven’t received advice about that.

Have you heard that from the employer lobbying sector at all, or are they feeling confident on this?

I can’t recall having received any advice on that.

My understanding is that you are considering looking at those full rem packages, though. Can you speak to some detail about that?

Yes. Look, we recognise—speaking as National Party finance spokesperson—that the changes that we’ve proposed to KiwiSaver, making it universal from July 2028 and increasing contributions over time, have potential implications for existing employment agreements, some of which will have been struck on a total remuneration approach but which wouldn’t have envisaged the increased contribution rate to 4 percent and higher over time, and which wouldn’t have envisaged the compulsion of KiwiSaver. So those two changes do have potential implications for those existing contracts and we recognise that these are issues that we would need to work through in Government, and we want to do that in a very consultative way, working with employers and employees, and we recognise that legislative change may be required. So, while yesterday’s announcement didn’t specifically propose an approach on total remuneration, we do recognise that these policy changes have implications for it.

There have been some comments—there’s a interview playing now on Checkpoint—from the Salvation Army around people on low incomes aren’t able to think about tomorrow because today is hard enough, and if people struggling today to meet the basics we can’t expect them to save for tomorrow. What sort of feedback or advice have you had on those who are on the lowest incomes and how they might actually deal with these sorts of policy changes?

Yeah, look, there’s no doubt it may be difficult for some people who currently aren’t making those contributions to start making them, but as I said yesterday, it’s a hell of a lot tougher not having a retirement pool or sufficient savings in retirement. What’s been encouraging, as Nicola said, is that actually people have been opting for the higher contribution rate and they haven’t been going back down to the 3 percent on the 3.5 percent that we’ve just gone through.

I would just say also that, you know, when you think about the example, the worked example we just talked about now of an 18 year old on a minimum wage making that contribution and what that means, an extra $190,000 more for them by the time they get to retirement, that’s a very good thing.

But we will also, you know, create hardship exemptions, as you know, and, you know, people can suspend their contributions if there is significant financial hardship. And that is for things like, you know, not meeting minimum living expenses, not being able to pay a mortgage, dealing with medical treatment, funeral costs, palliative care, those kinds of normal provisions that we’ve had there. So I fully—you know, I get it, you know. We’ve got high levels of contribution already from working New Zealanders, I appreciate, but this is the best thing that we can do.

When I look at New Zealand’s savings rates relative to where I’ve lived in the past, in Australia, Canada and the US, you know, we know that actually we’ve got very low levels of savings and investment—in fact probably the lowest in the OECD—and we have for decades, and one of the things that we have to do is think more boldly about this issue and we have to set the country up for a better future. And this is why we have to be able to move now to compulsion around KiwiSaver and lift contribution rates and do the other things that we’ve talked about, about PPL and also around the baby bonus and the over-65s.

There are other jurisdictions that you often point to, like Singapore and Australia, who are doing more in this space. For example, in Singapore, under a certain amount of money that you make in a month, the employee doesn’t have to contribute but the employer still does, for example, and then there’s the 12 percent rate in Australia for employers as well. I mean, are you looking at any of these other options as ways to boost savings for employees?

No, we’re looking at New Zealand as a country that’s three times poorer per person than Singapore, a country that’s half as wealthy as the Irish, per person, a country that’s 35 percent—you know, a Australia/NSW person is 30 percent to 35 percent wealthier than the average Kiwi. We’re working within the confines of what we can afford.

My point is that when you look at those countries—and I was thinking about Australia, Canada, US in particular, where I have lived and worked in the past—they have much higher levels of savings rates. They’ve all coalesced, more or less, with different systems, around the 12 percent in some form or another. And that’s why I feel very confident and I think that’s why you’ve seen good support from people on all sides of the political spectrum, irrespective whether they support me or the National Party or our Government, actually getting on board and saying these are sensible things. They’re next-level things that we need to do in order to strengthen and build our KiwiSaver.

Tom. Sorry, I’ll just go to Tom, I’ll come back to Jenna.

If it’s on the same lines, go to Jenna.

OK. That’s very magnanimous of you.

To Jo’s original question about the total remuneration packages, is there anything a Government can actually do to legislate around that? What options are on the table?

Because a company just decides how much they have to hire a person, right?

Well, there have in the past been discussions about whether a total remuneration approach should be allowed going forward, and that is something that the Government could legislate against. So the question that we want to explore more broadly is: if you were to decide that you couldn’t take that approach in future, what would the transition arrangements be for those who have already struck an employment agreement on the basis that those kinds of arrangements are currently permitted? So we do want to work through that.

But what would the actual function of changing that legislation be? You can’t force companies to set aside more to pay people. It might not be called total remuneration but companies [Inaudible]—

It simply goes to the way that a company advertises a role and its remuneration. At the moment they’re able to advertise a role with KiwiSaver included, which is a total remuneration approach, or in other instances they advertise the salary with KiwiSaver on top. And so, going forward, there could be more specific rules around how a company communicates the remuneration available to an employee for a particular role.

Prime Minister, in a speech to the National Party membership over the weekend, your campaign chair, Simeon Brown, likened the party’s coalition partners to children. He called them a distraction. Mr Peters then decided to fire back on X. Do you think that, you know, as we get into election time and these, I guess, attacks back and forth are stepped up, that you can actually still keep the coalition together and keep things going?

Yeah, look, absolutely. I think, you know, we have found common ground in Government amongst three parties in a three-party coalition Government. We have delivered strong and stable government to New Zealand where many people didn’t think we would or could and, you know, we’ll continue governing well until Election Day.

But also we’re five months out from an election and we’re going to make the case very, very strongly as a National Party leader as to why we think actually anything other than a National Party vote is actually putting the economic recovery at risk, and I think we’ve been very clear about that. We have a lot of people out there that think we’re going to win and therefore they can actually vote strategically by helping—thinking they’re helping us by voting for another party. That’s not the case. It’s as simple as a two-tick blue campaign, and that’s what Simeon was making the point to our members about over the weekend.

You obviously had a Cabinet meeting today. Did those comments, you know, come up? Did David Seymour and Winston Peters feel like, you know, that you were, I guess, pulling them into this bracketed camp instead of being able to kind of work together, you know, strategically?

We have a very conciliatory relationship. It’s—you know, we just get on with the business that we need to, but also we acknowledge we are different parties and we have different approaches. And so, as I said to you, it’s not a surprise in a National Party conference that we are making it crystal clear for people, you are not helping us by strategically voting or giving your vote to anyone other than National. I want to be on the other side of an election with as many National Party Ministers as possible, dealing with unknown Ministers from other parties. You know, it’s as simple as that. So, you know, welcome to MMP. You know, we’re in a mature MMP environment. This happens in western Europe, it happens in other parts of the world, and we’re making the case very strongly—but don’t confuse the fact that we can continue to govern with great stability, as we have done, while also making the case for our political parties as we go into an election period.

Prime Minister, on the baby bonus funds, would you consider changing the default funds for those KiwiSavers? Obviously, the current default funds are balanced funds, which might make sense because you might buy a house in two years and you want to keep it balanced. Babies won’t be able to use their KiwiSaver for at least 18 years so it may probably make sense for them to be in aggressive funds. Most people [Inaudible]—

Yes.

Correct. That’s why everyone’s in growth funds.

You would put all of them in growth funds, in aggressive funds?

Yes.

Yes, correct. It’s a baby bonus of a $1,500 kickstart to back you into KiwiSaver and it’s invested in a growth, an aggressive growth fund, deliberately so. When you actually are young and you can ride out a cycle, being in an aggressive growth fund, where there potentially is greater returns, is a much better use of that funds.

Do you think there’s scope to actually look at changing that default fund in general for more KiwiSaver users?

We haven’t talked about that. Just with respect to this, you know, baby bonus and where those monies go, we definitely want those in aggressive growth funds.

On the hardship, who will decide what level of hardship takes you out of contributing to KiwiSaver, under your plan?

It’s the same as current.

Well, at the moment the arrangements are that people apply to their KiwiSaver fund provider, who works through that according to the statutory tests, and we’re proposing to continue that arrangement. The statutory tests at the moment from IRD define significant financial hardship around not being able to meet minimum living expenses, not being able to pay a mortgage, needing to modify your home to meet special needs, needing to pay for medical treatment for yourself or a dependent family member, having a serious illness, needing to pay funeral costs, or palliative care.

Are you confident that the funds are able to handle what could be quite an increase in payload [Inaudible]?

They’ll also be having a significant increase in the amount of funds under management so proportionately we think that this is a task that they can handle— although, again, we want this to work, so we recognise that in Government we would want to consult with the fund providers to make sure that those arrangements work as well as possible, and that we provide the correct guidance and support from Government to ensure that they work in practice.

Sorry, Henry, can I just say—can I just say, I mean, I think, you know, why this is quite exciting is—I know it’s a big shift, right? I mean, we’ve got KiwiSaver. It’s the most trusted brand in the country. We’re actually working out what builds on top of the foundation of what has been built to set the country up for a better future.

But I think what’s interesting is, again, having lived overseas, and many of you have done the same thing, it’s interesting when you go to Australia, as I did, and then I go into America, actually over lunchtime people are discussing their 401Ks and how those funds are invested. The financial literacy and the maturity about financial literacy has historically been much more advanced in those markets because you’ve got such a big part of your wealth tied up in building out your superannuation fund, essentially, or your KiwiSaver equivalent.

So, you know, that’s what we’re trying to do here is—that’s what I want, I want people to be— and because you’re invested, you’re in those conversations and your financial literacy has improved. We’ve even seen it in the last two years here in New Zealand, you know, with the advent of folk like Sharesies and others, where there’s actually much more financial literacy that’s growing.

And that’s why I want to put it alongside education, you know, financial literacy in our education system, as I said yesterday, so we don’t just have the theory of it. But imagine a situation where kids are coming in and putting balances, you know, weekly allowances into their KiwiSaver account rather than in the old days I used to put it into a passbook, you know, with the local savings bank. That’s the kind of thing that we’re trying to shift here in terms of mentality about investment because it’s something for you and your future.

What was your reaction to some of the comments from Brian Tamaki recently directed at several ethnic communities?

Oh, look, I’ve got no time for Brian Tamaki at all. You know, our ethnic communities have come to this country, have left everything behind: their language, their family, their communities. They come here, they work damn hard. They take one, two, three jobs to get a deposit for a business or a house. And I am a huge supporter and admirer of our migrant Kiwis—immigrant Kiwis that come to New Zealand. They’ve chosen to come here because they think they can build a better future. So, frankly, I’m not interested in anything Brian Tamaki says.

Part of those comments were or included attacks on the India FTA. How do you feel about that FTA being a vehicle for that kind of rhetoric?

Well, I just don’t listen to Brian Tamaki, for God’s sake. I mean, do we think he’s got anything useful to contribute to that debate? Absolutely not, in my view. So no disrespect, but I don’t take advice from people—I don’t take—I don’t take offence from people who I don’t take advice from. It’s as simple as that.

Back on KiwiSaver, why the change of heart from National? Because Tracy McLellan had a bill in that would mean employers would not longer able to adopt a total remuneration model, National MPs voted for that while in Opposition to go to Select Committee but then Andrew Bayley signalled that it wasn’t gonna continue any further.

Well, just as I just said, we recognise that there’s considerable complexity to this issue and we didn’t at the time think a Member’s bill was the best way to work it through. With the changes we’re proposing to KiwiSaver, this is going to be more of an issue, so we do want to deal with it in a consultative way. We want to consult widely with employers and with employees to make sure that transitional arrangements are appropriate, and I think that that requires more than a Member’s bill process would have been able to accommodate.

OK, we’ll go to Sam and Mark. We’ve got four minutes left, team.

I’ll defer to Mark first.

Just on the Tamaki comments, Minister Mark Mitchell said that Police were assessing those remarks against the Human Rights Act. Tamaki was calling for the, quote, “purge” from New Zealand of various groups. If it’s found that those comments do not violate the Human Rights Act, is that something you’d look to patch up, or you’d go, “That’s fine, that’s how it is”?

Well, I think, you know, it’s on all of us not to listen to Brian Tamaki or give him any airtime, frankly. You know, they are mad views. We’re not interested. I genuinely have got nothing—you know, I’m not interested in anything he says about this. I think what they say is offensive. I think it’s repulsive. I think it’s disrespectful to the immigrant community that’s come here that are—you know, that are now Kiwis that are working incredibly hard.

So, you know, we’ll let the Minister go through the process but, you know, at the end of the day I’m just saying to you, you know, why are we getting bounced around by some, you know, joker giving his remarks and his reactions to stuff? I do not care, you know. I do not care.

Should it be unlawful in your view, those remarks in particular?

Well, the bigger thing is actually let’s use our judgment and not listen and give those remarks airtime. Why don’t we do that, collectively as politicians and media? Why don’t we just do that?

Back on KiwiSaver, there are some citizens of other countries living in New Zealand who would face higher taxation in their home countries, particularly Americans, if they were forced into the KiwiSaver, so they’ve all been advised by accountants not to enter KiwiSaver because it’s taxed in America as well. Would there be any likely exemptions for foreign nationals who have citizenship here from compulsion?

What we’ve said is that people will be required to be part of a KiwiSaver scheme or an equivalent scheme, with equivalence defined as employer and employee contributions and the same/similar rules around withdrawal of funds. So there will be choices about the sorts of funds that people take part in.

But ultimately the issue that you’re raising is an issue to do with America’s tax rules and we as a sovereign Government can’t change America’s tax rules. We do have double tax agreements in place and we seek to work very fairly with Americans who come here with their talent and their capital, but ultimately the tax treatment is an issue for the US rather than us.

Could you exempt US nationals from the compulsion, though?

Well, that’s not something we’ve considered.

Prime Minister, David Seymour said last week the Government was actively considering designating the Revolutionary Guards in Iran as a terrorist organisation.

Well, it’s not—

He said the final call was with you.

Correct.

Where is that at?

That’s still ongoing work. The decision to designate terrorist organisations is a decision for the Prime Minister to take, under advice, and that advice is still being built.

Why is it taking so long? I mean you first sought advice in August, I think, last year, after the Australian Government made that designation. What’s the complexity there?

Just taking time, and we’ll let that advice come through and I’ll make that decision in due course.

Is there any update on whether Prime Minister Modi is going to pay us a visit?

I am not a position to confirm or deny his arrival to New Zealand or his visit to this part of the world. I hope—I’ve extended to him an offer to come, as you well know. It would be fantastic if you could come, but there’s nothing official.

Tom. Sorry, I’ll go to Tom and I’ll come back.

Minister Willis, just back on KiwiSaver, obviously you’ve announced a series of incentives, etc., as part of getting into KiwiSaver, over the weekend. In the May 2025 Budget, you decided to halve the Government’s contribution. Why did you feel like the incentives you announced over the weekend are a better idea than the Government’s contribution that had been there at $520 or so?

Well, they’re all a good idea. When we made that change we also increased default contributions, meaning that the changes we made as a Government will increase people’s KiwiSaver balances, and that was the commitment we made at the time. And National’s positions that we announced at the weekend are utterly consistent with that objective, which is to say: how do we get more Kiwis saving their own nest egg? How do we make the KiwiSaver system fairer so that there isn’t a motherhood penalty? How do we get more young New Zealanders growing their own wealth and their own financial literacy with that baby boost? And how do we make sure older New Zealanders aren’t penalised by having their employer contributions cut off after the age of 65? And so I think there’s been a very clear trajectory both from our Government and the National Party, which is KiwiSaver works and we want more people to benefit from it so they have more financial security, better opportunities to buy their own home, and a better nest egg at retirement.

OK, we’ve got time for one question. Has anyone had any? Adam, do you want to talk about the hurricanes or something, sadly?

I’m going to defer to my colleague.

Prime Minister, can I just ask if you received the statement from the father of the young autistic Māori girl who was mistakenly sedated last year [Inaudible]—

I’ve just seen that statement. I just want to say upfront, you know, as a human being, as a dad, as Prime Minister, I’m really sorry about what’s happened there because I can only imagine what that family has gone through in what was an absolutely horrific set of circumstances. I’ve spoken to Minister Doocey about it. I know that he’s looking at the response that the family has come back through, through public channels, and he will respond with that in due course.

But, you know, there is no—I think we were all quite heartbroken about that story when we first heard about that, and I acknowledge Ministers Doocey and Brown putting it into process to make sure we get a review and actually get visibility and put sunlight on what actually happened there. But, you know, all I can say is just as a human being to that family, we’re incredibly sorry about that.

The request that they have made in that statement—

Sorry?

Would you give a compensation to that family?

Again, Minister Doocey will give due consideration to all of those issues in due course. OK, team, thanks so much. Appreciate your time. Thank you.