In conversation with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Chatham House. Wonderful to see such a full room again, and, despite whatever stage we are with the various variants, it’s fantastic to have the opportunity to welcome you all here. And I think it goes without saying, looking at the great turnout we have here today, and welcome also to all of our members who are joining us online, that we are absolutely thrilled to have the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, with us this afternoon. And I was just saying, Prime Minister, that you are on a world tour and obviously, coming to us from Madrid, a very important summit meeting that you attended, along with other Prime Ministers from Asia-Pacific, or Indo-Pacific, whichever term we want to use. But wonderful that you’re stopping by London; just had a meeting I think with the Prime Minister before coming here, so I’m sure that might come up in the Q&A.

Just to remind everyone, and you, Prime Minister, this meeting is on the record, despite being at Chatham House. I always find it’s a good thing, people sometimes think they’re in that protective bubble here, but obviously – and also, as I said, welcome to our members joining us online as well. And what we’re going to do is have an opportunity to hear from the Prime Minister, we’ll then have maybe a couple of questions directly here on the stage, and then I want to invite, obviously, you here in the room, and we’ll take as many questions as we can, and ditto for those members online. You all know the system online, please put your questions into the Q&A function, but here in the room, we will use the traditional system.

Just by some extra words of introduction, Jacinda Ardern was mostly recently elected as Prime Minister of New Zealand in 2020, with the first outright majority since the introduction of proportional representation. But first elected as Prime Minister in – well, first chosen as Prime Minister in 2017, you were, maybe if I got the terminology right here in 2017, having joined parliament originally in 2008 and having served earlier in her career as a Policy Advisor to Helen Clark when she was Prime Minister. And I mention this to you all here, ‘cause you know Helen Clark is one of the Presidents, the few Presidents now, of Chatham House; took over from Sir John Major.

She has caught, I think it’s fair to say, the world’s attention, at least twice internationally. Once through her – the way she handled the appalling massacre at the Christchurch Mosque back in 2019, which led to some very important, actually international outreach, obviously a lot of domestic – it was a domestic moment that had to be handled that way, but really has left a legacy in co-ordination with other governments around the world. And we might get to it with the Christchurch call later on with Emmanuel Macron, about how one thinks about violent extremism and manages it in truly modern and creative and thoughtful ways.

And obviously, with the arrival of the COVID pandemic, that was another moment where, I think, some of the leadership that you and other leaders around the world displayed, and I will say this, not enough women leaders displayed, really stood very much as an example, that many other countries looked to for inspiration. Again, we will talk to where that’s got to, subsequently in our remarks. But right here, now, I think fittingly at Chatham House, you join us, as I said from the Madrid Summit, with a visit to Washington just last month, and a meeting with President Biden. So, I think the geopolitics for New Zealand is now so much more on your agenda as Prime Minister than maybe it was before. So, for all of those reasons, please let me say on behalf of Chatham House members, my colleagues at Chatham House, we’re thrilled to have you with us, and very much look forward to your remarks and to engage in conversation. Welcome [applause].

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

[Mother tongue – 14:01] and thank you so much for the opportunity to come and spend a little bit of time with you today. To Robin, thank you for the introduction and for the invitation. In the clarification around the rules of the game for this event, I can assure you that as I stepped in and saw the familiar faces of the New Zealand media contingent, it was quite clear to me that this would be very much on the record. What an honour it is to be back in London and to be here at Chatham House and this visit represents much for me. It represents the reopening of borders and the resumption of travel after an incredibly difficult few years for Aotearoa, New Zealand, but also the world.

It represents the chance to bring to life the UK FTA, which we concluded from a distance last year, and it’s symbolic of my own reconnection to the place I once called home. I was one of many, many New Zealanders who spent several years working in the UK as part of what we colloquially call an “OE” or an “Overseas Experience.” It was 2006, and my most immediate job in New Zealand before departing for the UK, was in one of your President’s place of work, the fantastic Helen Clark and Peter Davis, I acknowledge you here today as well. Now, that eventually led me here to a job in the Cabinet Office.

It was a brief, but memorable experience working in the Better Regulation Executive. I can assure you it’s a – that job title either ended conversation or got a few laughs, and that was established by Tony Blair. I was there for the transition in leadership to Gordon Brown and worked on projects as varied as Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s review of policing in England and Wales, through to pieces of work designed to simplify the advice government gave business on regulation.

For some of my family, it appears that my time in the UK may in fact be the high point of my career. At least you would think so from the flurry of text messages I received last week from cousins and aunties to tell me that the question, “Which world leader worked for Tony Blair appeared on The Chase?” And so, it is these streets and Whitehall and all of the excitement that comes with it, that feel very, very familiar to me, but the world that we now operate within increasingly does not.

Here at Chatham House, I note that your mission is to quote “Help governments and societies build a sustainably secure, prosperous and just world” and I’m proud to associate Aotearoa, New Zealand with that goal, but it is a goal that is increasingly under strain.

Today, I want to talk about the challenges that we all face in the current environment. But as a pragmatist, but also at heart an optimist, I want to talk about what we can do about it. After all, we are not powerless, but a concertive, collected effort is now required. It’s time to pull, on our own terms, but in the same direction. Now, this is not a concept that is new to New Zealand. As a small island nation at the bottom of the world, we have long recognised our interdependencies on one another. In fact, lessons in that principal are peppered through every generation in New Zealand.

I was born in the 1980s. My father missed my first birthday, and my mother still reminds him of this fact, because he was policing what is known in New Zealand simply as the “Springbok Tour.” Those two words capture a period in our history where families were sometimes severed in two, by those who believed that in the midst of apartheid in South Africa, we should show solidarity by cancelling the tour of their national rugby team through New Zealand. And then those on the flipside who thought politics and sport were entirely separate propositions. The tour went ahead and the protests were as significant as they were memorable, and remain a defining feature in our history.

A mere four years later and New Zealand found itself in the height of debate and protest activity centred on nuclear weapons, as the Pacific was used as a site for testing. The Rainbow Warrior, a protest vessel used by Greenpeace, was bombed in Auckland Harbour, killing a Photographer. New Zealand went on to declare itself proudly nuclear free, with legislation to support that status in 1987. By the time I reached high school in the 1990s, there was a new debate on the agenda. There’s a hole in ozone layer and it’s sat above us in New Zealand. It was the result of an increasing use of chlorofluorocarbons, a product frequently used in the likes of aerosols, and one that was literally making us burn.

And now the next generation in New Zealand, barely since, will be derived from a pandemic, war, and a rapidly warming Earth. But the message is the same, we are, and have always been, inextricably linked to the actions of others. As a small island trading nation, we’ve always known this, and borne the brunt of that principle and the consequence of that, is a very particular approach to foreign policy. We are fiercely independent, but we also look outwards. We activity seek relationships with those who share our values, whilst never losing sight of the importance of dialogue with those who don’t. And then central to these themes in our mind, is the increasing importance of our multilateral institutions, but these too have been challenged.

The war in Ukraine has thrown much into disarray, our sense of peace and stability, the maintenance of a rules-based order, the principle of territorial sovereignty, and that is why it is a conflict that impacts deeply on Europe, but also on all of us.

Now, is a time when we needed the United Nations to be able to move swiftly in condemnation of what was a blatant disregard for established international principles, but it could not. New Zealand’s principle of taking a multilateral approach to foreign policy, extends to the way in which we enact sanctions. For this reason, we do not, or did not, have an autonomous sanctions regime until Russia’s war.

We moved swifty to enact a targeted regime of sanctions and condemnation of the war. We have provided both non-lethal aid, through the NATO Trust Fund, and lethal aid, working alongside the UK. We have sent our C-130 and a logistical team to support the movement of aid in Europe, and we presently have members of the New Zealand Army here in the UK, training the Ukrainian Army in specialised light artillery use.

The fact that the much of New Zealand’s assistance has been delivered with, or indeed in the United Kingdom, speaks to our commonality of outlook, our bedrock of trust, and the ease we find in working together. It also recognises the significant leadership that the United Kingdom has played in supporting Ukraine to defend itself, which I do want to acknowledge. Some may ask though, what a war in Europe has to do with a small Pacific nation? The answer is everything. It is a direct afront to us all, which is why autonomous sanctions regime or not, we must continue to seek reform of the United Nations to ensure it maintains it ability to move, react and respond swiftly, to issues of such global magnitude and importance.

I make the same argument for the need for us to work collectively on the tools of both the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization. By their nature, for instance, pandemics require global responses, that’s why New Zealand is actively engaged in negotiations at the World Health Organization, on a new legal instrument to ensure we are better prepared to respond to the next pandemic. Of course, a piece of work that Helen Clark triggered as part of her report to the WHO on the COVID-19 pandemic.

We must work together with speed and ambition to improve the resilience of our global health system. It is in all of our interests to co-operate to provide equitable access to pandemic tools, like vaccines, testing and therapeutics in a timely way. On WTO reform, I was heartened that members of the World Trade Organization were able to agree a suite of emergency response measures, including a TRIPS waiver on COVID vaccines, and I would again like to acknowledge the role that the UK has played in that outcome. But we must take the spirit of consensus and action, to reform and strengthen the WTO itself, and see through the commitment from Ministers to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024.

But it’s not just trade institutions that must remain responsive to the current challenges and environments, so too must our trade instruments themselves. New Zealand is a trading nation. You may know us for our wine, diary and beef, and if you don’t, you should, but we are increasingly known for our digital services and even our activity in space. It’s in our interests to expand or trading relationships, and in the UK recently we have. In fact, an important part of my visit here has been to celebrate the gold standard Free Trade Agreement we have signed with the United Kingdom.

But these relationships are not just about boosting our economies. When too many doors are closing on free trade, when public confidence in the impact of free trade is low, when supply chain issues are on the rise, free trade agreements, like the one we’ve finalised with the UK, they can stand out like a beacon. They show us that protection is not inevitable. They set high precedents for subsequent agreements. They show that trade can work harder across society, whether in championing small or medium enterprises, or the participation of indigenous people, and woman and trade. They show that global challenges, such as biodiversity and climate change, can not only be amplified in trade agreements, they can be used to strengthen expectations and bring us closer to our shared goals.

I would note here, that yesterday, New Zealand signed up to – agreed, in principle, to the New Zealand EU FTA, which embeds the Paris Agreement within it, and allows for a dispute resolution process if either party fails to follow through on those commitments. Ultimately, trade agreements of this nature can show what is possible, when progressive and open societies work together and are building blocks for larger agreements.

In trade there is no more salient agreement than in the “Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, possibly one of the worst named trade agreements in the word, but one of the most significant, making up 13.5% of global GDP, which currently provides access to markets with a combined population of 480 million people. With this in mind, New Zealand sees CPTPP’s objectives as more important than ever. With CPTPP membership well-placed to help drive post-COVID-19 trade recovery, through open and inclusive trade and we, of course, also warmly welcome the UK’s progress towards accession. To have the world’s fifth largest economy, a country committed to the rule of law, and to an ambitious trade policy join, would make a strong contribution to the CPTPP, and the continued prosperity of the region.

Here I want to add a little extra emphasis on that last statement: the prosperity of the region. New Zealand is a Pacific nation, with a strong connection to our wider Indo-Pacific region. In recent times, there has been a growing interest in the Pacific. That interest is understandable. While nations like New Zealand, I would like to think, have had a fairly predictable approach to foreign policy, the foreign policy position of some of the significant members of our wider region, has changed. The order that has brought the region prosperity over the past 80 years, is contested. The rule of law is challenged in the South China Sea where we’re seeing the construction of artificial islands, militarisation and actions that pose risks to the freedom of navigation and overflight, which are at odds with UNCLOS.

Overlying this, is the impact of COVID-19, posing great challenges for governments and confining the space they have to manage the region’s growing challenges. These things are now sharply true for the Pacific.

China, our number one trading partner, a country we’ve had diplomatic relations with since the 1970s, has become increasingly assertive in our region. Let me be clear though, the relationships between China and others in the Pacific region is not new. China has been a partner in aid and development projects in our region for many years, and it would be wrong for us to callout their mere presence, when we welcome engagement on the Pacific region’s terms from others. But it’s the nature of these engagements that matter, ensuring that the region can determine its own priorities. That the Pacific, and indeed the Pacific Island Forum, as the primary organising body, it’s a place for discussing and determining regional security needs. That our collective political systems remains sovereign, and that we all have the ability to speak freely on matters that concern us, free from coercion.

These are principles that in New Zealand, we are country neutral on. They will hold true, no matter who turns their mind to our region, but they should not be confused with a desire for isolation; we cannot afford that. Our engagement with a range of partners must continue, but under the banner of principles we can all agree on, and with an absolute focus on peace, stability, transparency and dialogue.

And so, just as we welcome the UKs accession to CPTPP, we’ve strongly welcomed its wider tilt to the Indo-Pacific. Of course, you never left it, but your deliberate effort to increase your presence across the domains of diplomacy, defence, development and trade, is welcome. And we look forward to an ever-deepening relationship in the South Pacific context.

The United Kingdom’s historic connections and longstanding relationships in aid and development, are all important, as the region seeks to become more resilient against the challenges it faces. And while it might be the fact that our region is contested, that focusing – and focusing the minds of our European and American partners, that cannot be the basis of relationships in the region. They must be on their own terms and priorities, and in the Pacific, there is no greater priority than climate change.

Climate change is a significant long-term security and development issue for Pacific Island countries and territories, that threatens aspects of their way of life and puts their very existence at risk. It is already causing irreversible loss and damage. The UKs leadership on climate change shown at last year’s COP, and the way in which this is demonstrated in your climate finance, matters enormously to our region, given the small islands and low-lying coastlines in mainland Asia. Effective climate finance can make a difference and of course, we want to work with the UK, in ensuring that some of the efforts that you’re putting into climate finance, equally can be seen to benefit the Pacific Island region as well.

And so, I finish where I began, and that is with our connection. When it comes to our two countries, that connection is literal. Kiwis come here to experience life in a country that feels both warmly familiar, but also interestingly different. I know that thousands of young Britons who go to New Zealand every year get to enjoy the same thing, perhaps with a dose more sunshine. That experience, finding comfort and familiarity, while navigating small differences, also captures our experiences as two nations. We are separated by difference. We differ in scale, landscape, cultural nuance in our richly multicultural but quite different population bases, and of course in the length of our vowels. Yet, family, bonds of friendship, sport, deep historical connections, an unyielding attachment to democracy and the rule of law, all help collapse the distance and the difference.

And so now, more than ever, we need to pull in the same direction. We must work together on the reform agendas that strengthen our must valuable multilateral institutions, to ensure their relevance in these troubled times. We must push for trade that exemplifies the values of progressive liberal democracies and show our populations that these agendas can serve their needs, in a way that protectionism can’t. We must build and maintain relationships, understand the priorities of others, but speak out openly on our own. And in time of heated diplomacy, we must act on fact, not assumption. Between us we must pull, on our own terms, in the same direction.

New Zealand has long recognised the need for such an approach. My hope ultimately is that the next generation see fewer examples that underscore just how dangerously linked we are. To instead see how positively linked we are. That through collective efforts we can resolve some of the most fraught challenges of our time, I remain, forever, the optimist [mother tongue – 32:55] [applause].

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I’m keeping an eye on time ‘cause I’m conscious we’ve only got you for an hour, which means for another 35 minutes or so. We have lots of questions coming in online and I am sure we have many in the room. Just to remind you, please stay in your seats, stay seated, wait for the microphone boom. Yes, are we microphone booming? Yeah, we are – to come to you and it’ll sound fine, you don’t have to do more than that. Thank you for a – it is a pivotal and a historical time. You had to cover both the geopolitics of the world, remind us of the absolutely critical challenge that climate change poses to the region, your country, not just to the world.

But you used one phrase twice, so I’m just going to take the power of the Chair for one question. Twice I heard you say that “New Zealand needs to pull on our own terms, but in the same direction as our allies,” and I’m just wondering if you could just say a couple of words about what “on our own terms means,” ‘cause that’s the bit I was looking for in that. New Zealand has a history of a very different approach to nuclear weapons, is that an “our own terms?” Certainly, the Five Eyes relationship is – certain countries, including this country, or the government of the UK, has suggested a more robust position for Five Eyes. Do you see them as being a little bit sceptical? I’m just wondering, could you lay out for us a couple of things that “our own terms” would be maybe different from some of the allied countries that you’ve just been spending time with in Madrid.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

You know, for me that was simply an articulation of what has been a consistent foreign policy principle for New Zealand for decades, regardless of political persuasion. I think New Zealand has benefited from a very consistent and stable approach to foreign policy, and that includes a strong focus on our independence. But not just our independence, there are values that sit around that, to help guide those independent decisions that we will make. And the lens we use for any foreign policy issue that emerges, any conflict or contested point in a foreign policy domain, will first and foremost be, you know, that multilateral approach, working within those institutions, therefore ensuring those institutions themselves are strong and agile, is of critical importance to New Zealand. Hence, the reference to the WHO, the WTO and UN reform.

We see those institutions as creating stability, but also giving equal voice to nations like New Zealand, who otherwise, you know, could, or may suffer from the consequences of otherwise being a geographically isolated and small nation. So, that’s the first pointer on why it’s so important for us to have those strong institutions.

Then there’s the value that we lean into around ensuring that regardless of the fact that we are geographically isolated, and have a relatively small population, relative to others, that that does not determine the belief that we feel to contribute to those issues of concern to the world. And so that’s why you’ll hear us speak very openly and loudly on issues like nuclear non-proliferation and prohibition. We draw on our own experience, having been a Pacific Island nation and bearing the scars of testing in our region during the period I referred in the 1980s, and that’s led us to take a very principled position and continue to be an advocate, based on a strong principle of the fact that these weapons will lead to our mutual destruction.

But also, if I were to add, a new element to just where we see it as important of always feeling that we can speak on our own terms, because I think we are increasingly seeing issues in the international context that are emerging in a very rapid pace, politics moves so quickly now, foreign policy moves so quickly now. Often the institutions we’ve relied on and are instruments, aren’t always fit for purpose. So, an emerging element I can see of foreign policy generally, but in New Zealand that we’re leaning into, is the establishment of instruments that will help respond, and allow us to build still a collective approach to challenges. And hence, the Christchurch call’s relevance. I might, though, pause there and allow you to ask a second question before I take us down that rabbit hole.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

And I do want to – maybe one of the questions here will be on that, and I think I really do want to hear about your Christchurch call. But let me just ask you, I mean, having just come from the NATO Summit, I mean, the first time, yes, that we’ve had Prime Ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Japan and…

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

It would be remiss of me. Yes, you’re correct, absolutely, on that.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

So, I’m just wondering if that, you know, in a way, that is bringing you a bit more into a mainstream, you might say, alliance approach, and do you have any misgivings, concerns about that New Zealand is going to end up just becoming a small player in a bigger system that even though Joe Biden is leading?

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Absolutely not. I do not hold that concern. You’re absolutely right, this was the first time that NATO had invited a collection of its Asia-Pacific partners, represented by obviously, Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. It was not, however, the first time that a New Zealand Prime Minister had attended a summit. Helen Clark attended in, I believe, 2007 or 2008, I may be incorrect, roughly in the period – and part of a wider meeting that was also attended at the time by Australia and Finland on Afghanistan.

Now that for me is a really good illustration of an example of where New Zealand has identified that there was an issue in the world at that time, that required a response and a contribution from New Zealand. In the same way that we have on Ukraine, because it fundamentally challenged our view on the international rules-based order and then we’ve gone out into the world and looked for those likeminded partners and those ways that we can work alongside others in order to deliver a response that has impact.

And so, two examples within Ukraine, you can see us working with the UK, but also with NATO on non-lethal aid. And the ability and the chance to go and attend the summit was a chance to articulate our solidarity, but also my contribution also leaned very heavily into the fact that at this particular waypoint in our history, we must also be clear and ensure that the legacy of the war in Ukraine does not lead us to an increased arms race globally. Because in New Zealand certainly, and I know in others, and interestingly, I imagine that those who have directly experienced the effects of nuclear weapons would likely hold the view that greater proliferation would be a devasting consequence of this war. So, it was a chance for us to call upon NATO members, as we come into the period where we work towards a non-proliferation treaty meeting in August, I believe, or later in the year, that we seek again meaningful outcomes and commitment to that treaty.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Wonderful. No, thank you for answering that question, and I’m sure we might come back to that with other ones here. So, what I’ll do first is take two or three, I mean, there will be so many that I feel that rather one at time will be a little unfair. So, I’m going to take two or three and then a couple online and come back. I’m just looking at the back of the room.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Based on the number of the hands, I’ll shorten my answers, that might be helpful.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Yeah, I’m going to, sort of, go to the back, right at the back and there’s, yeah, a couple of questions at the back. Yeah, please, James, I’ll start with you as you have caught my eye, actually. Yeah, so I was worried about the boom. Yeah, let’s do the – let’s give the BBC a first shot, I think it’s fair, go on.

James Mellor

James Mellor at the BBC.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Oh gosh.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Thank you very much indeed. It’s on the record, I warn you.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

No, no, no, it’s fine. It’s meet the press. Yes, hello down the back there.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

We give them one or two at the beginning.

James Mellor

The British Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, says “There’s a direct read across from Ukraine to Taiwan and that the West should get in early to defend Taiwan to deter any future aggression against it.” What lesson do you learn from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to the West’s future attitude to, and policy towards, China?

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

So, you added China at the end there. Yes, exactly.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

The first point for me is diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy until it’s proven that it has failed. Dialogue and diplomacy incredibly important, but equally, it is – you know, I think the message we want the world to take from the illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, is that there will be a response. That, you know, that the community, and I won’t just say the West here, because it would be wrong for this war to be characterised as West versus others, or democracy versus autocracy, because I could come to my wider concerns for that characterisation, but ultimately, what’s important is that it’s defined by those who react. And those who react need to be broad-based, to send the message that the rules-based order will be defended.

Even if our multilateral institutions aren’t as nimble, as agile and responsive as we like, demonstrating that you get a broad-based response, and it including, of course, those sanctions, but also the support of Ukraine, should be done on their own terms. But of course we hope that the moral consequence of that response is a lesson to anyone who considers, or may look for an opportunity to undermine that order.

Coming then to what we can reflect specifically in the Indo-Pacific region, here I would be loathed to assume any particular trajectory. Let’s continue to make sure that we’re using diplomacy at every turn to try and prevent conflict in our region, or any other region, because if there’s one lesson from the war in Ukraine, it’s that wars are devastating and never the answer. Let that be the lesson of Ukraine, and make sure that we try and use every diplomatic channel we have to prevent any such repeat, anywhere else in the world.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Thank you. There’s one more. So the gentleman, and maybe it’s a gentleman, somebody with a green – yes, there. Those two there. Yeah, watch out for the booms, they’re going wave it – have an accident, but it’ll be fine. Yeah.

Hani Fadayel

Hello Prime Minister Ardern.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Hello.

Hani Fadayel

Hani Fadayel, former Adviser, British Parliament and former student of Richard Hadlee in cricket.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Oh wow.

Hani Fadayel

It was great to see two icons on British television together, you were on Lorraine this morning. My question is, the attacks in New Zealand…

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

This is the other reason my family now think I can just quit politics as well. The Chase and Lorraine.

Hani Fadayel

The far-right attack on the mosque in New Zealand, your response to it, what’s the best – what’s the core approach for any government, any country to prevent such attacks, whatever extremist it is, and post such attacks, what’s the core approach? Because, the whole world saw you in action, and were touched by it, I certainly was. Thank you.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

And thank you for your question.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

And maybe the Christchurch call, you could come into, I think, on this here.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Yeah, I will. Do you know, what’s the lessons? You know, to be honest, we’re still trying to learn them. The one thing I can tell you is that, part of the grief for New Zealand, of course, and you saw that outpouring of grief, because New Zealanders were so devasted that something like that could happen to members of our community, in such a peaceful and reverent setting. I mean, these were individuals who were at the call to prayer, in a place that they should have been safe and so, there was a grief process that was very much focused on our Muslim community and showing that solidarity and support. But also, a grief process around the fact that that could happen or had happened. And so, it caused, naturally and rightfully, a period of introspection. How could this have happened to us?

Now, some might say, well, the individual who committed this heinous terrorist attack was an Australian citizen, who chose to relocate to New Zealand, and to target our communities because they identified that we were a place where we celebrated and nurtured diversity. And some might then say, that that means that we don’t require that period of reflection, but that would be wrong, and that would not acknowledge that prior to that period, our Muslim communities, as have other communities who may identify as particular religious or ethnic communities, have experienced racism and discrimination in our society, and they have.

So, I think the harder, long-term response that is required does sit around the space of social cohesion. And we have been very focused in ensuring that as part of the response, we had a long Royal Commission process, that part of response is not to just take a securitised approach to these issues, but think about what is it that causes our young people to seek, or to become radicalised in our communities? What causes them to feel so excluded from our societies, or so fearful, that they may end up in this space? And that’s something that we, and others, are grappling with, but we believe we need to understand New Zealand’s context better. We’ve set up a research centre of excellence within our university network, to try and make sure that we do have an understanding of our own context.

But alongside that, one of the significant lessons for us, in that deep – trying to build a deeper understanding of how we came to be where we were, was the Royal Commission interviewed the terrorist. Now, many people will take different views on whether or not that was something that should have happened, but actually, what it provided for us, was some revealing insights into how this individual became radicalised. And of his own admission – many will have seen that he engaged on chat forums, and built a community in the likes of 4chan and 8chan, but actually, his own – by his own admission, he believed himself to have been radicalised on YouTube. And, of course, subsequently determined that in order to build his own infamy, and to try and promote his actions to others, he carefully planned and broadcast on Facebook, the shooting of, and deaths, of 51 individuals.

I remember the aftermath of March 15, there was a lot of pressure on us as a government to meet with various social media platforms, to immediately address the fact that this was not just livestreamed, it was then prolific. It went everywhere. And just to give you a little sense of how it went everywhere, it would have only been a few hours after the attack, that I was transferring to a plane to get to Wellington, to try and meet with our officials in the response stage. And I do my own social media, we’re a small country, I jumped online to send a message about what was happening and to try and just give people as much information, as much as we had at that time. And then opening one of my social media apps, the video of the terrorist committing these heinous crimes, flashed up onto my phone and auto-played. So, I know that thousands and indeed millions, will have viewed that video because of how it spread.

So, we decided deliberately that it wasn’t just of interest to us to ensure that that video was removed from the internet and these services, we wanted to create a situation where it did not happen again in the future, and that meant stepping further than just into a crisis response. We have, subsequently, created something called, through this, the “Christchurch call,” a crisis response protocol. It’s kind of like a civil defence mechanism now. So, if there is any online livestreamed activity that sits in the realm of being violent, extremist or terrorist, it triggers an automatic response. So, companies immediately work together, they have a hash repository, where they share that information to immediately take down, and ensure that we don’t have the proliferation of such an attack. So, that is completely different than what happened in New Zealand.

But I think the real gamechanger will be the work that we do on content creation and algorithmic outcomes. Now, we do not have a consistent approach globally on what responsible algorithms mean. Like, we have increasingly a generation that spends and more time online, and are unable to necessarily determine their own content. It is being curated, in real time, sometimes by choices made by the user, but sometimes not, and whether or not you’re concerned about disinformation or young people accessing, you know, content around suicidal ideation, or violent extreme, whatever the banner, we need to ensure that we have greater transparency around content creation and algorithmic outcomes. And so, this is where the Christchurch call is bringing NGOs, civil society, companies and government to the table to try and ensure that this work is done. So, these are the legacies of March 15, but I hope the ultimate simple legacy, is simply empathy, kindness, understanding and love. That’s it in its most simple form [applause].

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

I’m going to take a question from the lady in the front here, and maybe here, and then I’m going to go to some online. Please, yeah.

Catherine West

Lovely to meet you Jacinda. Catherine West, the Shadow Minister for the Asia-Pacific for the UK Parliament.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Ah, fantastic to meet you.

Catherine West

Lovely to see you. I know that New Zealand is very well known for its race relations and the positive role that government policy tries to promote between indigenous people within New Zealand, and in general, also a welcoming place for refugees.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Yes.

Catherine West

At the moment in the UK, we’re struggling with how we balance our refugee policy between the Ukrainian refuges and refuges from Afghanistan. And there is a perception that it’s much easier to be a refuge if you come from Ukraine. So, I’m wondering how you get the balance right, within the New Zealand context, bearing in mind that because of the lengthy COVID, you probably haven’t launched your programme completely yet? But how – what values are you using so that refuge policy is considered to be fair, particularly for receiving Western countries?

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

A great question, and I can only reflect on our own experience, of course, and one of the significant differences will be, of course, that we don’t make a, you know – our policy and the work that we do on refuges and migrants is not necessary determined by ease of access, because it’s not easy to access New Zealand from anywhere. You know, for our refugee quota, you know, a big – a significant debate in New Zealand has been whether or not we’ve been pulling our weight, a fair question to raise. You know, relative to other countries, the number of refuges that we were hosting in New Zealand, on an annual basis, was low. So, when we came into office, we doubled the quota, but we’ve also made sure that we’ve tried to roll it out in such a way that we maintain a very high standard, and New Zealand’s immigration team has been recognised for the fact that we put a lot of effort into ensuring supported settlement. Because in our minds, what’s – it’s not just important that we give people a home, it’s important that it’s a home and that we work very hard to ensure that people are well supported. And we have work to do in that area. We know, for instance, that once many settle, they still find employment access difficult, and that probably says a little bit about the work that we need to do with employers, and others, but this is where I want to ensure it’s not just the number, it’s the quality.

On the specific question on Afghanistan and Ukraine, actually, we have been asked, are we being fair-minded in the way that we’re approaching these two horrific conflicts? Here, I would say, that actually for Afghanistan, the difference between the two, of course, was that we’ve moved – everyone had to move incredibly quickly in their response, in the period of mass evacuation of those who were at direct risk in Afghanistan. So, we created a system to allow those who had connection to New Zealand, and who were at risk during that transition period with the Taliban, to bring those individuals out into New Zealand.

We then had an additional number, who had not connection, but we considered to be at risk, who were human rights advocates, you know, who worked as Judges, those from the LGBTQ+ community. Separately, on Ukraine, there we’ve recognised that actually, many will choose to shelter in region, in the hope that they can go home. So, there we took a slightly different approach because our view was that most people wouldn’t want to temporarily travel across the world and feel isolated from the region. So, there we created a visa category for family and community mem – family members of our Ukrainian community to bring out their family, so they can give host and shelter.

Two different approaches, but I hope equally based on values of playing the most appropriate role we can, as quickly as we can, and in a responsive way, and ensuring that we don’t have anything that could be seen to be “who is easier?”

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

I’m going to take a couple of quick online questions, so we’ve got a lot of people online as well and I think they’re big topics that need to be addressed. I’m going to see if we can get them live. Emmerich Comrie, if I’ve pronounced the name correct, are you there? And if you are, can you ask your question?

Emmerich Comrie

Thank you very much for your presentation. Can you hear me?

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Yes, we can, perfectly.

Emmerich Comrie

Thank you.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

You’re like the voice of God.

Emmerich Comrie

I wasn’t really a specific subject. Will the future on the form of NATO, be a solution to the strategies that Pacific Ocean is now facing, and I’m thinking to the environment, human health issues and safety issues.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

“Would a structure like NATO be a solution to the challenges the Pacific Ocean is now facing?” He then added some things that weren’t pure defence at the end, which weren’t in his question online, but…

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Yeah, so, obviously, NATO is determining its own strategic interests with its members and, of course, I don’t think that for a moment there’s a suggestion that they will move away from essentially what is held in the title. And I don’t get any sense that this is NATO, of course, seeking to expand their membership in that manner into the wider region.

For me, what the invitation from those within the Asia-Pacific represented is actually what has we’ve always – we increasingly know to be true, the war in Europe affects those in the Indo-Pacific and border regions. So, any potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific would have an impact on Europe. We are increasingly interconnected, and the responses that we take to conflict, actually need to be global in order for them to be effectual.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

But I think the question was, does your region need something like a NATO?

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Ah, our region does not need militarisation to be safe. And so, in fact, one of the arguments that we’ve made all the way through, in fact, is that we want peace and stability in our region and some would argue that greater militarisation takes us further from that goal.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

But it is militarising your region, so, you may not want it, but it’s happening.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

No, indeed, and that does not mean that we can simply cede the point and go home, and particularly in the Pacific region one of the arguments that we have made is that where there are needs, where there are needs that it should be from within region that we respond to those needs. And so, here a simple example would be the Pacific Island Forum, through the Biketawa Declaration, we’ve already established, in our view, that where there are those security needs, it should be from within the Pacific that we respond to them. And that’s one of the reasons we’ve been concerned around some of the more recent discussions in our region.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Thank you very much. Different question, also online, Duff Mitchell, please. Duff, if you’re there, come on, on.

Duff Mitchell

Gooday, I am speaking to you from Canada, can you hear me?

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Yeah, perfectly.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Yes.

Duff Mitchell

Okay, my question is, how can climate change become a global priority once again, in face of the energy security issues resulting from Russia’s war on Ukraine?

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Oh.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Easy question.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Yes. Of course, you know, it’s really, they’ll be far better placed than me to talk about the long-term consequences of the war in Ukraine on the energy profile of Europe. But what we’re seeing, obviously, in many cases, is a very rapid transition away from fossil fuels because it’s demonstrated the vulnerability that exists from the dependency on such fuels.

In New Zealand, equally, we see those impacts, the fact that, you know, just like everywhere else, fuel prices are incredibly high and that has a devastating impact on those who have little alternative and fewer choices.

You asked though, how do we make it a priority? It is fair to say that when you see the impacts of that dependency, that brings into stark relief the need for a transition. But what also brings into stark relief the need for a transition, is when you have, in one year, five severe weather events on the East coast of your country. Or, you visit the West coast of the South Island and visit a couple whose home has been devasted by floods, not once, but twice, in less than 24 months. Or, when you see a report that says the entirety of, you know, an area, like South Dunedin in New Zealand is potentially going to be inundated through coastal encroachment.

That brings into stark relief the impacts of climate change. And those are just some examples from New Zealand, but in the Pacific, I’ve visited Pacific islands where they’ve got burial grounds where they’re having to rebury their loved ones because of coastal erosion, or children who now wade through water to get to school. And the injustice of it, is that these are nations who have the least ability to determine an alternate future, because their climate impact as nations is so small, but they are the most affected. So, by the Pacific telling those stories and demonstrating what are priorities for them, I mean, nothing brings into starker relief than having to consider the entire future of your nation. By sharing those stories, I hope that alongside those other consequences, makes it feel immediate and real, because it is.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Thank you very much. Right, waiting patiently the lady here in front. Then I’m going to go to lady there, just sweep, moving around the room, that’s what I’m using as my explanation. She’s there with the white jacket, yeah.

Patricia

Thank you very much, my name is Patricia. I’m Mexican representative of the Royal College of Defence Studies, and my question is actually a follow-up of the response that you just gave on climate change. Taking into consideration the differentiated and effects I think we’ll have in populations worldwide, for instance in the Pacific, but I can also speak for my country, what would you think that global leaders should be pushing further in the agenda, to build up resilience? Thank you.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Do you want to think on that one, and I’ll get the other question in, ‘cause I just…?

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

I can answer this straightaway.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Right, go in there, go in there.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Primarily, I mean, building resilience, we’re having this debate back in New Zealand at the moment. Well, not a debate, we’re doing two pieces of work at the moment, of course, because for climate response, it’s not just about mitigation, it’s also about having the discussion about adaptation. And one of the issues I note in the Pacific is, you know, loads have conversations about adaptation and things like, will entire islands need to relocate, because that almost in a way for some of our neighbours, I’ve heard them say, but that almost cedes the point. And they don’t want developed nations, in particular, to lose sight of the obligation to mitigate, and so they’ve not been quick to move to the adaptation question, because they’ve wanted to ensure that we keep the pressure up on mitigation. And so that for me is where we do need to let the Pacific and those nations directly seeing those consequences, to come to us with any potential adaptation plans they need on their own terms.

But in terms of building resilience, a just transition is so incredibly important, and if I can give you a quick example. In New Zealand, of course, we have been a fossil fuels producer. We have a region in New Zealand that a significant part of the local economy was oil and gas exploration, and when we first came into office, we put a ban on the future permitting of offshore oil and gas exploration in that region. But also came in with a team and said, let’s work together on what the future regional economy looks like in this area, so that we don’t see what is after – what tends to be, literally so, in the oil and gas industry, low-income earners and those communities who are already bearing the brunt of disparities, equally hit. So, just preparing, and this is where again, in the political argument, acting now saves what will be jarring and devastating consequences later if we are not prepared. So, that’s very much a focus for us.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Thank you. Lady there, yeah. Yeah, we’ve gotcha.

Latika Bourke

G’day, Prime Minister Ardern. Latika Bourke from the Sydney Morning Herald. Just liked your answer about diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy, until it’s failed. Why did it fail with Putin? Why would it work in your view with Xi, and what are you going to do if and when he invades Taiwan?

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

I am not the person to give commentary on the trajectory that led up to the invasion of Ukraine, and so, I won’t venture the ins and outs of the period that led up that point. But what I will continue to push for, is that we never just simply make an assumption that nothing can be done, and that there isn’t a role for us all to play in upholding the rules-based order and asserting how important it is to each of us. Demonstrating the way will respond when it’s challenged and maintaining dialogue, so that we don’t naturally just make an assumption and a lead to nations, not naming names, being completely isolated. Because in a way, then you create an inevitability, so that is why a New Zealand perspective is dialogue, dialogue, dialogue, but also, speak up when you see things that obviously sit outside of your expectations.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

I’m going to apologise for this, I going to do it with my eyes shut, I’m taking two more questions, which I’ve seen go up and I’m going to go the middle of the room, and I’m going to take one online, it might mean we go over five minutes, if you’re alright, Prime Minister. Right, the gentleman right in the middle at back, please keep your hand up, sir. Yeah, right at the back and then I’m going to do one down here at the front, where at least one of my Chatham House colleagues gets a question. So, no, we’re going to you.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

But if you give me a pen, you can take a bunch of questions and I’ll try and take…

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Alright, let’s see how many we can get in. Yeah, that gentleman there in the middle.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

I’ll take…

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Yeah, gentleman in the middle, he’s got his hand up, he’s looking at you.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Take you fanc – no, I want the fancy one, Ben.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Alright. We’ll get to them.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Sir, can I get your…?

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Not that one.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

No, I want your pen.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Oh, the pen? Oh, I thought…

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Yeah, yeah. No, thank you. Thank you very much.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Sorry, I’m so [applause] – pass to the military when you need real help [applause]. Okay, right.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

New Zealand Defence Force, always here to serve.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

It’s a new form of warfare. The pen is mightier than the sword, as they say, yeah, right. Please, yeah. It’s live, the microphone’s above you, just speak away.

Member

Oh yeah. There seems to be a large exodus of young New Zealanders leaving the country, especially to Australia, is this because…?

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Is there?

Member

Is this because of the policy balance is wrong, or what do you see the reason for it?

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Let’s take the gentleman there, yeah. Oh, come down here.

Roland Donahue

Yeah, Ronald Donahue, Institute Member. Prime Minister, welcome to Chatham House. I have a question on trade. The Financial Times ran a headline this week that Britain has experienced its worst trading performance on record in Q1. In light of your interests in trade, which I share, I wonder if you’ve got any advice for the Prime Minister in this country in forging new trading relationships around the world, how to better balance that with the heavily compromised trading relations he now enjoys with the European Union? And, I say finally, because if the sum of Britain’s is falling, the sum of global trade is falling, and we all believe in trade.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Right, question there. My colleague David Lawrence from Chatham House, and I’m going to introduce you, there you go.

David Lawrence

Thanks very much. New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the US, the Nordics, to some extent France and to some extent Canada, all have progressive, somewhat moderate governments, what is it about our current era that calls for centre-left progressivism? Why is the UK missing out on that, in your opinion? And what should the UK Labour Party do to learn from the rest of you?

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Ooh, right, yeah [applause]. Question, here. Yeah, just there.

Karla Adam

Hi, Karla Adam from The Washington Post. I have a question on abortion. How important…?

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

It’s wide ranging, isn’t it?

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

This is what happens, the last questions always end up as the – you’ll learn the lesson. Well, you should do, you should know that.

Karla Adam

I’ve seen you recently condemned Roe v Wade, so I wanted to ask about that. But on a related note, how important do you think it is for countries around the world, where abortion is allowed to fully decriminalise it the way you did in 2020?

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Right, and I’m hoping – we’re going to have a good go. I’m hoping that Anita Punwani can ask her question live. Anita, we’ve been trying to get through to you, so you can ask your question live.

Anita Punwani

Yes, hello, hello.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Fire away.

Anita Punwani

Will the time come where the fact that you are a female leader no longer be a talking point?

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

I think it’s the right one to end on [applause].

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

A great question. I’ll start from the end and progressively move my way up and strategically skip questions I don’t want to answer.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Yeah, no, no. I took a list as well.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

They were great. So, on the question of “Will there be a time when it no longer warrants comment that I’m a female leader?” Yes, because I believe increasingly that is already the case in New Zealand. I’m the third female Prime Minister and when I hear stories, which I’ve heard on more than one occasion, of mothers who will come and often say to me, “Do you know, I had a conversation with my daughter the other day about Prime Ministers, where my daughter met a boy who wanted to be Prime Minister and she immediately raised the question whether or not boys were allowed to be Prime Minister.” And so, you know, in my mind, it is only a matter of time elsewhere, but in New Zealand, we are well on that trajectory. Doesn’t mean that there is no – that there won’t be, you know, issues that are described as sexist or gendered based. Look, that’s probably a longer road to hoe, but I do believe that we absolutely are making progress. Yeah.

Second question on my condemnation of Roe v Wade. Do you know, actually, probably the way that I would characterise it is the combination of the loss of a woman’s right to choose. And I’ve said this before, both in New Zealand and in other places where I’ve been asked the question. You know, I grew up in what would be characterised as probably a relatively conservative faith, but I’ve actually long grappled with the idea that just because you may hold a conservative position on an issue, whether or not that then gives you the right or the inclination to then remove another person’s ability to determine their own position, particularly when that position is whether they can determine their own health decisions. And abortion is a health issue, it is not a criminal justice issue, which is why we decriminalised and made sure that that is the way we treat it in New Zealand. And our approach is also grounded in the right of a woman to choose, and so for me it’s a very simple concept. So, that’s the position that we hold, and I think it’s broadly supported by many, many New Zealanders as well.

On the issue of progressive governments, I haven’t undertaken any particular analysis, but I might use your question as an opportunity to share something that I’ve been thinking about for a time. I feel as though, regardless of the political persuasion of any particular incumbent right now, there is an increasing polarisation in our societies. Where perhaps we have situations where our citizens may not feel, for whatever reason, that their views are being well-reflected, or responded to in politics and that may increasingly lead to fractured or more radical political manifestations. And I’m interested in what the response to that needs to be, because it is – and regardless of your political persuasion, it’s in no-one’s interests for people to lose their trust and faith in institutions or in democracy. And so, I think we need to keep a constant check on whether or not our democracies are meeting the expectation of our public. In the same way that political parties need to keep a check on whether their policies are responding to the needs of their people.

And here I’m going to put in a small plug, you know, in New Zealand I do think our system of government, MMP, gives a place for people to voice their perspective and views. You’ve got the two major parties, centre left, centre right, but then you’ve got political parties on either side as well. It gives people a place to put their vote, and they can ensure that they have a chance to pick who their local representative is, and also the political party, I think it’s created a parliament that looks and feels like New Zealand. And now it doesn’t mean that we won’t have times and places where there will be dissent and disagreement, we need to foster that too. But unless we feel like our democracies reflect our people and our decisions do too, I think we’ll continue to see the response to that, which will be devastating.

On trade, I’m loathed to ever give anyone else advice, it is hard enough to govern your own country, without having other people come in and give their reckons, and so I won’t do that. But what I will say is that, you know, and the same as I commented in my opening remarks, whether or not it’s the FTA with New Zealand, Australia or seeking accession to the CPTPP, it’s seeking to enter into, and here I might do a plug for also the ACCTS agreement. We have agreement, a trade instrument in New Zealand, helped author on climate-based trade, to try and keep the free flow of climate related goods and technology.

Here, I would encourage the UK, as it is, to reach into these trade instruments, because increasingly, they are the way that we will create greater resilience in our regions. We have a number of economies, where actually, the trading options and economic ties are squarely in one direction, because the options and opportunities don’t exist elsewhere. And that means that we have vulnerability and a lack of resilience. So, the more that the UK does that, and we encourage likewise the United States, to enter our economic architecture, I think the better off we’ll all be.

And the final question, the exodus, so, I wouldn’t describe – I mean, New Zealand has a very unique relationship with Australia, where our people move between our two countries, longstanding. We have a unique relationship with the UK, where we have a working holiday visa scheme, which allows our young people to move between our two countries, and I was a benefactor of that. We have never feared the movement of our young people, because in our minds, it gives a level of experience that we ultimately benefit from. So, I took home everything that I learnt here. I have a great affinity and love of your nation as result of my time here. And in fact, I consider that people-to-people contact to be good for diplomacy, good for international relations, good for New Zealand, so, I’ll never discourage a young person from taking those experiences.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Thank you very much for those comments. Thanks for taking so many questions, and you can tell by, not just the amount of people here, but the intensity and variety of the questions, what’s going on. One of the questions we didn’t get to, from I think it was Nina Jeffs, was about whether democracies can rebuild trust and that that was one of her big worries. In a way I felt that, as you were answering the questions, you were in the process of showing, I think, that that is part of what you believe your mission is. And I think, Nina, you know, you got the answer to your question in one of the answers, Prime Minister, that you provided. And I think when you said that you are doing things on your own terms, you were talking about foreign policy, and clearly, New Zealand, under your leadership, and your predecessors, is also trying to do that business of rebuilding trust under your own terms as well. And you can tell by the presence here, people are watching very closely, and I might add, with admiration.

I do want to say a shoutout and thanks to the High Commissioner, Bede Corry. We were working on this visit for a little while and I’m glad we got it together. It’s a long way to come, even via Madrid, but you can tell by our members are thrilled that you did. Thank you very much for answering so many questions.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Thank you.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Thank you for being here.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Thank you.

Sir Robin Niblett DPhil

Round of applause [applause]. And stay in your seats [applause].