Well, look, kia ora and good afternoon, everybody. Before I begin, can I just congratulate Adam Pearse on an outstanding 50 and some demon bowling in the media versus parliamentary cricket team meeting—contest yesterday? Bit too soon for Chris Bishop, probably, but given his well achieved—did you get three, mate?
Three, yes.
Three. Yeah. Well done. Good effort.
Thank you. [Inaudible].
Look, let’s get into it. As you know, since coming to office, our Government has been laser focused on going for growth. All of our thinking, our decision-making and our actions are aimed at stimulating growth in the New Zealand economy because that is ultimately how we can create more jobs with higher wages, deliver better infrastructure and can continue to invest more in health and education. It’s pretty simple, really: Kiwis want a better standard of living and a stronger economy is how we deliver that for them. And when it comes to the Government’s growth agenda, the next fortnight is actually a really important one.
Later this week, Minister Bishop and myself and several other Ministers will be in Auckland for the Government’s Infrastructure Investment Summit. We will be hosting around 100 top leaders from global investment firms and also from infrastructure companies to showcase the incredible investment opportunities that New Zealand has to offer. The event has been oversubscribed and I’m very pleased to say we’ll be welcoming companies with a collective $6 trillion under investment to the summit this week. In a competitive world where for major international investors, New Zealand is just one of 195 countries all competing for their money and their ideas to invest in, this summit is an important signal that New Zealand is open for business and it is an attractive place for investment. So Ministers will be presenting a series of investment opportunities and pipelines in their respective portfolios, and I’ll hand over shortly to Minister Bishop to speak about one of these major projects as an example.
But before I do so, I just want to announce that I am travelling to India this weekend, accompanied by a significant business and community delegation. Our Government has been investing time and energy in strengthening our relationship with India and you’ve seen that through a meaningful increase in high-level engagements between our two countries. Foreign Minister Winston Peters obviously visited India last year, while Todd McClay has had multiple and many engagements with his trade counterpart. Last year it was an honour to host President Murmu here in New Zealand and I thoroughly enjoyed meeting up with Prime Minister Modi at ASEAN last year, where he then extended an invitation for me to come for a formal state visit.
With those strong foundations in place, this mission is about stepping it up a gear, and that’s because India really matters to New Zealand. With 1.45 billion people it is the most populous nation on Earth, and its economy is on track to being the third largest in the coming years. But despite India’s growth and scale it remains just our 12th largest two-way trading partner, accounting for 1.5 percent of our exports, and we need to step it up because with 445 million people in India’s middle classes, I think the economic growth opportunities obviously speak for themselves.
But there is so much more to our relationship also than just our economic ties. In an increasingly multipolar world, India is now a major geopolitical power and a significant global and regional security actor. Prime Minister Modi and I will be discussing what more we can do together to maintain peace and prosperity in our region. And it is also a great honour to have been invited to speak as the chief guest at the Raisina Dialogue, which is of course India’s premier defence and security conference.
As we all know, Kiwi Indians are hugely successful members of our society, comprising 6 percent of our total population, and achieving and contributing much to the success of New Zealand. So I see this mission as an important opportunity to further strengthen the people-to-people links between our countries, and I’m thrilled to have such a large community delegation of prominent Kiwi Indians joining us. The bottom line is quite simply that India matters to New Zealand’s future, security, prosperity and society, and that is why we want a much broader and a much deeper relationship, so the visit represents a huge opportunity for us to do that.
And with that I’ll hand over to Minister Bishop, who will provide again some more details on this particular project that will be on the table at this week’s Investment Summit.
Thank you, Prime Minister. Today I’m pleased to confirm that the Government will formally open registrations of interest for the first stage of the Northland Expressway at the New Zealand Infrastructure Investment Summit to be held later in the week. This important project will connect Northland to the Auckland region through a resilient, safe and efficient new expressway. The Northland Expressway will unlock economic growth, boost productivity and drive higher living standards for Northlanders and Aucklanders.
It’s worth reflecting on the Waikato Expressway, delivered by the last National-led Government. That project has been a game-changer for the Waikato region, and the Northland Expressway will do the same for Northland. This is a genuinely transformational project that will boost jobs and growth in an area rich with potential and link Northland to New Zealand’s biggest city. The upper North Island is the economic powerhouse of New Zealand. Northland, Auckland, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty collectively are home to 2.7 million people, or 54 percent of New Zealand’s population, and they account for 55.5 percent of GDP, so this investment is not just an investment in Northland, it’s actually an investment in the upper North Island area.
At this week’s investment summit we will be opening expressions of interest for the first stage of the project, which is Warkworth to Te Hana. This includes a 26-kilometre-long, four-lane road built to expressway standard, connected to the new Pūhoi to Warkworth Expressway. The indicative design includes an 850-metre-long twin-bore tunnel in the Dome Valley, and three interchanges located at Warkworth, Wellsford and Te Hana. As I said, expressions of interest will formally open later this week. It is a big opportunity for New Zealand’s infrastructure sector, as well as for international investors, and it’s part of the pipeline of transport projects that I’ll be talking about during my transport showcase section at the summit.
We expect the PPP contract to be finalised by the middle of next year, with detailed design and construction to begin in late 2026. A completion date for the project will be confirmed following procurement, but it’s expected to be around 2034. The project is expected to make use of the Fast Track Approvals Act, as well as the Public Works Act changes for critical infrastructure that Chris Penk and I announced yesterday. Over to you, PM.
Thank you, Chris. This week in the House we’ll be considering further stages of both the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Reform Amendment Bill, and Wednesday will be a Members’ Day. I’m in Wellington until tomorrow night and then back to Auckland to gear up for the Infrastructure Investment Summit. On Saturday morning I’ll be in Christchurch for March 15th commemorations and then flying out to India that evening. With that, we’ll have—open it up for any questions.
Prime Minister, [Inaudible].
Well, look, I’m relaxed about Andrew Bayly taking some time out. It was a pretty significant and big decision that he made to resign, and it’s important that he has some time to clear his head. He’ll be back here next week doing his electorate work, as we would expect him to.
Did you personally sign off on that leave?
Yes, yes. I think it’s appropriate that after a big decision like that, that he’s allowed some time out to clear his head. It’s not the thing that I would be doing, going to base camp, it’s not—I might choose to do it in a different way. But the bottom line is: look, each to their own, and it’s important that he has some time to clear his head, and that’s entirely appropriate.
Why are you polling so poorly?
Look, I mean, we’ve got—you know, it’s a tough time for Kiwis. Polls are bouncing around a lot. Our job is to focus on what New Zealanders want, and that is all about us fixing the economy and making sure we get money into Kiwis’ back pockets. And I can tell you, don’t give it a lot of thought. I’m here each and every day, making sure that we’re actually growing the economy. That’s why we’re doing the infrastructure summit, that’s why we’re going to India. Those are the things that are actually going to power up the economy and get Kiwis more cash in their pockets.
They’re not bouncing around that much though, are they?
Sorry?
There’s a trend of Labour overtaking you.
Well, I’d just say to you: look, I don’t—I never have obsessed too much on polls, as you know, when we’ve talked about them in the past, and it’s the same position. I’m here to do a job and the job is to turn New Zealand around. The job is to get our economy sorted. It is to restore law and order and to deliver better health and service—health and education, and that’s what we’re focused on. So I think me talking about myself and polls isn’t particularly helpful. I think what’s actually really important is getting into the work and fixing things and getting things sorted for Kiwis.
Sorry, we’ll go to Jason.
Just on India, Prime Minister, you’ve said in the New Zealand First‒National coalition agreement your plan is to, or your agreement is to prioritise a free trade agreement with India. Are you able to let us know up to this point what have been the sticking points— because you’ve been trying, or the Government has been trying for decades now to get something across the line—and how you plan to overcome those hurdles?
Well, I’ll just clarify I don’t think the Government has been trying for decades. I’m the first Prime Minister to go to India in a very, very, very long time. I’d just say to you, the last Government, with Chris Hipkins and Nanaia Mahuta and Damien O’Connor, basically wrote off doing any business in India, and as a result, our two-way trade declined over that period to just over $2 billion. When you think about a population the size of China, and our China trade is at $38 billion, there’s a huge opportunity for us, obviously, in India. We’re not going to give up on that.
That’s why we have worked very assiduously to build back the relationships and to establish those relationships, as I said, with the President, with the Prime Minister, with the Trade Minister, with the Defence Ministers, to make sure that we can actually build back that rapport and that relationship. We need—we have—we want to have a broad and deep relationship with India. That does encompass security and defence aspects. It also encompasses trade and economic aspects, and certainly it also does the people-to-people links as well. So, you know, for us, when you’re looking at a country and an economy that’s going to be the third biggest in the world, it’s the biggest country on Earth, it is an increasingly geopolitical player— the trading opportunities with rapidly rising middle classes—we have to be in there.
And so yes, it’s hard work. Yes, it’s been a lot of effort to put in to get us to this point. But when you get invited by the Prime Minister of India to come on a state visit, that’s a big deal. And from there, we look forward to further conversations while we’re up there.
The Key Government tried to get an agreement with India. The last Government did try, granted they didn’t have much success. But they all came up against—
I think Nanaia Mahuta said they’ve given up.
They’ve all came up against various different sticking points, such as dairy and other areas. How do you plan to overcome those hurdles?
Well, look, I think it’s a bit premature for us to speculate before we’re in the middle of a negotiation, and we certainly aren’t going to negotiate through—
It’s in your coalition agreement with New Zealand First.
Sure.
Surely you have a plan, going into India, about how you’re going to overcome some of these hurdles?
We do have a plan, and that’s what we started 16 months ago by actually building back that relationship. We now are in India on a state visit, and we will look forward to the conversations about how we deepen up trade and our subsequent conversations while we’re there. But we are determined to make sure that New Zealand businesses have an opportunity to participate in what will be the third biggest economy in the world going forward.
And yes, there will be aspects that will be hard. You know—you know, it’s well—widely known, you know, dairy is a sensitive area for India. India understands it’s an important area and a sector for us. But equally, today the Australians have an agreement and a deeper trading relationship which means that actually there’s a 30 percent tariff on our lamb and not on the Australian lamb. The same happens with wine. The same happens with apples. So there’s a huge opportunity, and we don’t have the luxury just to say, like the last Labour Government did, "It’s all too hard so let’s not bother". We actually disagree with that.
[Inaudible]
Sorry, Thomas?
When exactly did you grant Andrew Bayly’s request for leave, to not be here for parliamentary sitting [Inaudible]?
At the time when he resigned, around that era and that week that followed after that.
And why not wait? Why could he not wait until a recess?
Well, I just would suggest to you that as a constituent MP, we actually get really busy in our recess weeks. We actually are working there as well. We’re not on a break. We may not be here in Wellington, in Parliament, but we actually are working really hard. I’ve got 45 constituent MPs that do work incredibly hard in their recess period, as I do as well.
So you’re happy for MPs to take personal time during sitting blocks?
Well, look, I think in the circumstances—just take a step back. You know, we had an individual who had made a really significant and big and emotional decision for him, right, quite rightly, and I back him for the decision that he made. I think it’s not unreasonable to allow him some time off to actually clear his head. He’s chosen to go overseas and do what he does to—what he needs to do to clear his head. That’s acceptable. He’s back here next week, working in his electorate in Port Waikato.
What’s your view on the idea of having a register for MPs’ attendance?
It’s not something I’ve thought about. What I want to make sure is that all of my team are working incredibly hard, and he worked incredibly hard as a Minister on his portfolios. It’s incredibly disappointing, a significant decision that he made. And I think if you look at other Governments where there’s been people who have come out of the Ministry, they might need a change of—or a beat of time just to process it and to clear their head. I think they’re entitled to that and I actually think it’s good leadership to actually enable people to do that.
One of the issues that has been plaguing the Government is the school lunch programme. Are you prepared to tolerate more exploding lunches and second-degree burns to kids, or are you at the point now where you are actually considering the contract with Compass and whether perhaps they are meeting their obligations under that contract?
What we saw last week was utterly unacceptable. I was pleased to see David Seymour take really swift and fast action on that. He reached out to the family. He’s spoken with them. He’s taken immediate action to suspend those type of meals, as you well know. And he’s got a real—you know, he’s working his way through the issues to make sure that what we contracted for is actually what is being delivered. So, look, I—you know, that was a— it was a terrible incident, you know, a really unfortunate one, something that—you know, you’ve just got a huge heart for a parent sitting there while their child’s been burnt through an exploding lunch like that. But I think, you know, in fairness, the Minister took pretty rapid response to a) engage with the family, but more importantly, to actually suspend those types of food lunches.
[Inaudible] about whether they are fulfilling the contract, so what is the threshold for you? If there are more instances of what we saw last week and other issues that have taken place over recent weeks and months, would that be enough for you to reconsider that contract? Can you just lay out for the public what the threshold is that you would reconsider—
Well, as I said before, David Seymour is responsible and accountable for working through and making sure we’re getting what we have contracted for.
Has he communicated with you [Inaudible]—
Yes, he—yes, he and I have talked many times on the issue, and what I’d say to you is he’s working his way through those issues and he needs some time to be able to do that. He’s making some progress. There are clearly issues where food is not up to scratch, as we have said before, and he’s got to make sure that the contractor is held to account to make sure they’re delivering what we contracted for.
He’s talked about term 2 being the point that he would expect things to have changed. Are you willing for what we have seen up until this point—including the exploding lunches, the burnings, the halal meals not being met, all that—are you OK with that continuing up until that deadline that David Seymour—
No, I want it resolved as quickly as possible. You know, we want to make sure that we’ve got a competent, good school lunch programme to support kids who don’t have lunches so they can learn. That is the reason and motivation for what we’re doing. We’ve got some— we’ve got some challenges, as you know, about the food not being up to standard or scratch. The contracts need to be enforced, and what the obligations have been, and actually delivered. And David’s working his way, I think, through those issues really well with that supplier and that contractor. We expect it to improve. We need it to improve.
If you want it sorted before term 2, which is the deadline that David’s given himself—
Yeah.
—then I come back to my original question. What will the threshold be for you to reconsider that contract with Compass? Is it more of the same? What is the threshold?
Well, we want to make sure that we’re getting the proportion of meals that we have contracted for in specification delivered by the contractor. That is—that is what the job is about. We are getting—many cases, we are actually getting good, on time and in full performance and delivery. But in some cases we’re not, and David is hunting those issues down and there will be root causes as to what’s causing those issues or those—the poor quality of food or whatever the—or delivery of issues—delivery of food. He’s working his way through those issues. I agree with him, the second term is good. We’ve had three conversations in the last week around it, and I’ve got every confidence he is on top of those issues. He is working his way through them. They are challenging but he can—he will work that through with the contractor.
Just lastly, on the coalition of the willing [Inaudible], has New Zealand been asked by the UK to join the coalition of the willing? Because they did ask Australia over the weekend.
Not formally that I’m aware of, no, but as I have said before, we are very open to participating in maintaining a peace once we are clear about what that peace plan looks like. But I’d just say to you also, as a small country with limited resources at the end of the world, in the complete opposite direction from Ukraine, we are not going to be the ones that are going to negotiate peace in Ukraine. But what we can do is stand with Ukraine and stand up for the values that they’re fighting for, which are the values that we believe in, as I’ve said before.
I’m proud of the investment that we’ve made into the Ukraine Relief Fund. I’m proud of the 100 troops that we’ve got working with the UK soldiers, training Ukrainian soldiers, and I’m proud of the fact that we’ve leveraged sanctions and—against individuals and entities out of Russia and we’ve continued to crank that up big time, as you saw on the third anniversary of this illogical and illegal war.
Prime Minister, last Thursday in Cromwell you said the entire country was grateful they didn’t have Chris Hipkins as their Prime Minister anymore, yet the poll today shows they prefer Chris Hipkins as Prime Minister. What is going wrong for you and your ability to appeal to the public?
Well, I’d just say to you that New Zealanders are expecting this Government and they voted for this Government to fix the economy. And when you’ve gone through a period of time of extended inflation, where the cost of living has been out of control, where life is tough and getting through from shop to shop is incredibly difficult for people in each of their weekly expenses that they have to incur, that is a real, real challenge. And I’m not—
[Inaudible]
Sure. But what New Zealanders expect me to do is to focus on the economy. They expect me to focus and fix this thing, and that’s what we’re working so incredibly hard to do.
Isn’t this an F grade at that? They’re expecting this of you, but you’re not achieving it.
Well, New Zealanders are going to have an opportunity in 2026 to make a decision around Chris Hipkins or myself and our respective governments, and what I’m—what my job is to make sure is that New Zealanders can see that they are better off under my Government, and that’s why we’re working incredibly hard to actually fix the economy. That’s why we’re talking about going to India, that’s why we’re doing [Inaudible], that’s why we’re doing infrastructure summits—so we can get more money ultimately into people’s back pockets.
So when do you expect those polls to turn around? When do you think people are going to realise—
Well, as I’ve said to you before, I’m waking up each and every day, coming to work to make sure that I’m doing and getting my team working on the things that Kiwis care about. When they see progress, as they have started to see in law and order—I think you’ve seen some good progress. We’ve got a big job to do on health.
That progress isn’t translating [Inaudible].
Sure, but we have a lot of work ahead of us to do, as you know. And so we’ve come through a very tough time. There are some green shoots that we are really encouraged about on the economy. Think about the growth in exports, manufacturing, services, what we’re seeing in the agricultural economy just in the last month, in the last, you know, four to six weeks. So we know there’s a lot more for us to do. But ultimately, New Zealanders are going to judge me at the election in 2026 as to whether we have delivered for them on rebuilding the economy, as I said, restoring law and order, delivering better health and education. That’s the work that we’re focused on. And so, you know, I appreciate there’ll be polls. They bounce around. There’s lots of them, there’s lots of different ones. I get all that. But they don’t want me talking about myself, they want me talking about them and focused on them. And so it’s head down, tail up, working as we have done each and every day to make sure we improve the joint and realise the great potential that sits in this awesome country.
On the investment summit, Prime Minister, you’ve talked a bit about the Northland Expressway. Can you shed light on any other projects that you would like to see international investors funding?
Yeah, I’ll let Chris talk to that.
Well, as I’ve said previously, the summit is not just about the short-term investment propositions or opportunities, it’s about a long-term pipeline, and what you’ll see at the summit is Ministers—myself, Nicola Willis, Erica Stanford, Simeon Brown, Mark Mitchell, a whole range of—
Shane Jones.
—Shane Jones, a whole range of other Ministers—looking out over the medium to long term at the investment opportunities that there are in New Zealand. Now, clearly in the transport space we’ve got a long-term pipeline of roads of national significance, but also public transport projects that often tend to get forgotten about that we are interested in as well, and clearly there is a long-term pipeline across a whole range of parts of the economy.
So the summit is partly about propositions that will be on the table in the next couple of years or so, but it’s also about signalling to the rest of the world that New Zealand is serious about infrastructure investment, that we are a place where they can do business, that we are fast-tracking infrastructure investment in other regional projects, that we are liberalising our foreign investment laws so that it’s easier to bring capital into New Zealand, that we’re amending the Public Works Act so that some of the road blockages that have been in place in the past are done away with, and that generally we are a liberal Western country with the rule of law, private property rights, the sanctity of contract, with enormous natural resources, and all of those things mean that we are a great place for international investors to deploy their capital. And that’s what we’ll be talking about on Thursday and Friday.
How much is that summit going to cost taxpayers?
It’s just over $1,000,000 and it’s coming from within our baselines. But I’d just say to you, you know, if we can just take a step back a little bit and think about what we’re actually trying to achieve here, right, which is that New Zealand for many decades has actually had a real difficulty in attracting capital to New Zealand. We know that capital—we’ve been capital-thin, and as a result Kiwis are working incredibly hard but we haven’t been able to lift our collective standard of living.
One of the things we have to do is obviously more trade, but the other part is obviously more inbound investment. We know there’s a world awash with cash and we frankly just haven’t been getting our fair share of those sovereign wealth funds, those pension funds. And we’ve now got a Government that’s very open and wanting to work with private capital to get our infrastructure deficit closed, to actually get investments into some emerging sectors, and also to work with iwi as a third objective to make sure that we can do that.
So, in that context, you know, I’d just say to you New Zealand is actually a really great safe haven. If you think about a world that’s incredibly volatile, getting more uncertain and more complex, New Zealand’s a good place for that investment to come to. And so what we’re wanting to say is: look, New Zealand is bang smack in the middle of the Indo-Pacific, we have abundant natural resources, we have great social and democratic institutions, we’ve got incredible people. So why wouldn’t you want to invest here?
This is just the beginning, because I want us to get into a habit where we actually are welcoming of capital 365 days a year. And so we have people that are already committed to coming to New Zealand post the summit to do study tours, to look at investable opportunities for them that they’re interested in. Other sovereign wealth funds, for example. So, you know, it’s the beginning of a way in which we should just be, because when we’re at the bottom of the OECD, being one of the few countries that’s not very good at welcoming capital to a country—we need that capital because it drives our businesses, it puts higher incomes together and puts more money in people’s back pocket.
The agenda shows it’s almost entirely National Party Ministers speaking. Why are there so few Opposition voices or voices from other interested parties?
No.
I disagree completely. I think one of the things we’re really proud about is that we’ve got Ministers who have pipelines—and this is what this is about, is that if you’re a long-term investor and you’ve got 195 countries that you can invest in, we need to be able to give people a showcase of: here’s the pipeline of activity. So Simeon Brown, he’s got $6.3 billion worth of health infrastructure that he’ll be showcasing to these investors so they can see what’s coming down the pipe, so they’ve actually got some good long-term, medium-term perspective.
But we also have invited, for example, Barbara Edmonds, who actually will speak at the conference as well. And I think that’s a really—a great thing for both—for us to take a bipartisan approach, and Chris has done a great job of reaching out across the aisle to make sure that we actually can get an Opposition perspective in there so that actually, an investor can actually look at the long run of New Zealand say, well, actually, you know, this is going to be a consistent policy about investment going forward.
You mentioned there was—did you say $6 trillion?
$6 trillion under management, yeah.
And 100 people. Could you give us a sense of who it is that’s coming, a couple of names? You said sovereign wealth funds. Could they be various different Government representatives?
Yeah, there’s a combination of—
I’ve released the names.
There is the—in the press release that came out earlier, you’ll see some list of the names of companies that are coming. And it’s a mixture of sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and also infrastructure companies, and there’s also obviously New Zealand capital as well. You think about some of the iwi organisations. We’re going to have a great session with iwi leaders that I spoke to before Christmas—talking with again tonight—who are really excited about the opportunities for partnering with international investors on critical infrastructure. Think about what Tainui have done with the inland port in the Waikato region, for example. So there’s huge opportunity for iwi, huge opportunities for our private sectors. But most importantly, in a world where we have such an infrastructure deficit in New Zealand, we have a choice: we can sit there and keep banging on and talking about the Northland Expressway as we have done for now decades, or we can actually choose to chunk it down into three bits and say: righto, let’s get going with something as a result. Let’s start doing some stuff. And, you know, with the Northland Expressway, that’s a good example of what we’re talking about. So, you know, this is about us pulling forward the investment so that New Zealanders can get the benefit of it.
I was meant to hold this up before.
It’s a lovely—it’s a lovely chart, Chris.
Look at that. I was meant to hold it up before.
Does it sit on your fridge tonight?
Yeah, it certainly will be, Prime Minister.
Jeremy’s work.
Prime Minister, with Te Pou Matakana/Whānau Ora commissioning, up to 600 people will be losing their jobs. Through Te Pūtahitanga, around 300 to 400 people will be losing their jobs, and around 100 people from the commissioning agency from Pasifika. So that’s around 1,000 people will be losing their jobs. Is there any guarantee that the new funding agencies or commissioners will be picking up that slack, or will we be seeing a huge spike in unemployment amongst Māori?
No. This is an operational decision for TPK, but it’s entirely appropriate that we look at the commissioning agencies. The providers may well start to work with new—
The question was around employment and unemployment. Is it appropriate then that we see that many people potentially unemployed as a result?
What’s entirely appropriate is that we focus on delivering outcomes for the communities, rather than worrying about who actually is the existing or current commissioners.
Is it appropriate that we see that many people potentially unemployed?
Well, I just would—I dispute what you’re actually asking in the question. The providers, they may be wired into existing commissioning agencies today. Those commissioning agencies will change and it’s entirely appropriate that they do—you know, that’s a good call. I support that—but obviously those providers can connect back into those commissioning agencies, so I just don’t want to jump to the conclusion that you’ve made in the question.
You’re saying that there is an expectation that they will pick up [Inaudible]?
There’s an expectation that they deliver for the communities, and that’s why I’m not particularly obsessed on individual commissioning agencies.
What are your thoughts on the Green Party calling for visa-free travel to be extended to visitors from the Pacific Island nations?
Oh look, I mean we’ve got a number of visa and immigration considerations at the moment. Our major focus this year, frankly, has been about clearing up the accredited investor—the accredited employment visa. Obviously, a big focus has also been around active investor visas. So we continue to look at these issues, but immigration has to be very strongly linked to our economic agenda and also to our infrastructure development.
But do you agree that visa-free travel should be extended to visitors from Pacific Island nations, yes or no?
Well, it’s not—it’s not a priority for us right now. It’s not something that we—you know, we’ll continue to consider it, but for right now I can tell you what’s most important is that we get investors into the country, so the work on active investors has been important. What’s much more important is that we make sure that we get the workers that we need for the gaps that we’ve got in our workforce and for our economy. So it’s not on our agenda at this point.
What do you say to people who look at those Whānau Ora commissioning agency decisions and make an assumption that it’s a political hit job, given the links that John Tamihere has to those agencies?
Well, it’s not. It’s entirely appropriate after 10 years that TPK makes an operational decision to change its commissioning agencies. It’s not about an individual commissioning agency or frankly John Tamihere, it’s actually about making sure that those agencies deliver through their providers for the communities and we get the improved outcomes that we want to see in social services in general.
It’s a big shift though, isn’t it, to move—
And that’s a good thing.
—such large organisations to a relatively new organisation and a new model, essentially?
Yeah, and it’s quite good always to question what you’re doing and whether there’s more that you could or should be doing, and doing things differently in order to get better outcomes. And so I think in this case, things like making sure that, you know, the revision(?)(28.49)—you know, the changeover of commissioning agencies is entirely appropriate.
Is this the end of Whānau Ora?
No, absolutely not. We want Whānau Ora and we want social investment to be at the heart of what we’re doing in our social services policy. It’s very simple for us. It’s about improving economic productivity and our economic policies. It’s about social investment and Whānau Ora and our social investment, our social services delivery. And that’s really what we’re focused on. So it’s not—it’s wrong to say that. I’ve seen some of the comments over recent—in the last 24 hours suggesting that, and there’s nothing further from the truth.
But it is appropriate that it’s OK to make an operational decision to change the commissioning agency, because what actually matters here is the results and the services delivered in the community, not actually about an individual person or organisation.
Can you guarantee that the $155 million will be spent on front line and not spent on infrastructure development for the new, incoming commissioners?
In terms of Whānau Ora? Yeah, we want Whanau Ora to be powered up and actually to do really well.
The $155 million though. A couple of those new, incoming commissioners have not got the same type of infrastructure as the previous commissioners, so—
Sure, and that’s a decision for—
Can you guarantee that the $155 million will be spent front line and not on infrastructure development?
What I can guarantee you is that TPK—it’s their decision, they’re the leaders, it’s an operational decision—have made sure that whoever they’re replacing the current commissioning agencies with are well set up for and actually will do a better job. That’s all I care about.
Are you rewarding Andrew Bayly’s bad behaviour with a holiday here?
No, no. Look, I think—I think if you just take a step back and actually think about an individual who made a pretty big decision, a pretty significant decision—
He manhandled a staff member.
Sure. But for him to be able to—for him to be able to take some time out to clear his head, that’s entirely appropriate. He’s back here next week, he’s working hard in his electorate, and I think if he takes some time out to have a beat to process what has happened for him, that’s entirely appropriate.
[Inaudible] the staff member. Andrew Bayly had a long holiday over summer. When you took office, you said that the summer holidays should be shortened because you wanted MPs to be getting back to work earlier. Andrew Bayly had a long summer holiday. He’s now off on another two-week holiday. Meanwhile, the staff member’s probably [Inaudible].
Yeah. I could think of a number of similar situations, even in my short time here in Parliament, that have happened on lots of different political parties, and I think what we’re suggesting here, where Andrew takes some time out to clear his head for a short period of time, is entirely appropriate. And what I want—you know, he’ll be back here next week, he’ll be back in Port Waikato and that’ll be a good thing.
Did you know that he was going to Mount Everest when you granted him leave?
He suggested, I think, that he might be going overseas for a break, and I said that’d be fine. But I don’t—how he chooses to use his time is ultimately a decision for him and I think others may choose—it’s not something I’d want to do, to be honest with you. I’m not sure, Chris, you might want—
No.
No, probably not want to do it either, or many of you here. But if he wants to do that and that’s the way that he processes and that’s the way he clears his head, good on him.
Was the staff member who had the hand laid on them during that incident the same person who made the complaint?
Again, there was no formal complaint. There were concerns that were raised, just so we’re clear.
Were they raised by the person who was involved in the incident between Andrew Bayly and the staff [Inaudible]—
Yeah, look, as I said before, I’m not going into the detail. We’ve talked about— Andrew Bayly has detailed the situation through his statements and we’ve got nothing further to add.
Do you think that it makes a difference as to whether the person who was part of the incident that took place felt uncomfortable or not, or whether somebody else in the room who witnessed it felt uncomfortable?
I’m comfortable that the individuals affected have had support from ministerial services and again, I’ve got nothing further to add.
Did Cabinet today sign off the defence capability plan?
We’re not—don’t talk about what happens in Cabinet, but it’s weeks away and you’ll hear about it very shortly.
Do you believe the Government should get involved with the way the Reserve Bank regulates banks?
Look, I mean, we’ve got clear statutory—you know, there’s clear statutory requirements for the Minister of Finance that she can influence certain things. Again, we’ve got to respect the independence of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. We’ll continue to do so.
You didn’t say in the House the other week whether there was an active investigation into Andrew Bayly. Is there an active investigation?
No. No.
Why didn’t you say that?
Well, there isn’t. You know, there isn’t. That’s the reality of it.
Has it wrapped up in the meantime? When did the investigation into him stop?
Again, I’m not getting into the detail, but there is no ongoing or active investigation.
Why [Inaudible] get into the detail of that?
Because I’m not going to because what’s been said has been said.
Are there unfair barriers to entry for visitors from Pacific Island nations? Do you think there are unfair barriers?
Well, I mean, we would love to facilitate—you know, we’ll continue to look at how we can facilitate travel for the Pacific, you know, obviously, a lot of our family and friends. We continue to look at visa settings for different groups of tourists that we have across the system as well. But for Immigration New Zealand, the way that we operate as a Government is we get really clear on our priorities, and our priority has been to fix the accredited visa programme, which was a real problem. Our next priority has been sorting out active investors. We’ve talked a lot about family boost visas for immigrant community, and we continue to look at an issue like that, but it’s not currently on our work plan.
So the visa-free travel for Pacific Island nation residents won’t happen in your term?
No, no, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying it’s not—you know, it’s something that we continue to consider but for right now it’s not a priority for us, in light of the other priorities that we need to focus the system on and focus Immigration New Zealand on.
Okay, last question, then we’ve got to go.
Thank you. Last week in the House you also said that if children don’t eat lunch, then they end up on welfare. Could you just explain—
What I’m saying to you, the reason is—we have a school lunch programme is to make sure that—there are kids that actually come to school that don’t have any lunch, and when they’re hungry, we know the evidence says that they don’t learn. If they don’t learn, they don’t get to realise the potential that they have in their life and they don’t get opportunities that they have if they’re not as well educated. It’s a pretty straight—you know, and that’s our view. So we want to make sure that every kid, if they come to school without any food, they actually get a chance to have a free school lunch. As a result, that means that they can learn. That means that they can get better educated, better qualified, they’ve got a better opportunity and higher incomes, and have a better future as a result.
You said they end up on welfare.
They can do, yeah. They can end up not realising their full potential.
So students who don’t eat lunch end up on welfare?
No, I didn’t say that, I said—I said—I said the reality is they don’t realise their full potential. And it’s really important that we do have a lunch programme for kids that are arriving at school without lunch so that they can learn so they can realise their potential. We don’t want them consigned off to welfare and a lifetime of welfare. That’s not what we want for people. We want people off welfare and into work, being able to create opportunity for themselves and their families. So that’s why it’s important that we do have a lunch programme but it’s also important that, you know, parents have a responsibility to provide lunches where they can too.
Do you regret the lunches decision? Hearing a Prime Minister apologise about exploding lunches is quite something, I think.
Yeah, it’s not acceptable. It’s not acceptable and it is incredibly distressing. That’s why David Seymour is working incredibly hard through it.
Do you regret the initial decision that was made to shake it up a bit though, given where we are now?
No, no. I think, you know, we need to be able to find a system that can actually deliver school lunches at scale across New Zealand. We can do so more efficiently than what the last Government did. We can do so in a way that generates savings that are then ploughed straight back into health and education of our children, and that’s all a good thing. We’ve got some challenges right now. I’m confident the Minister will work his way through it and as I said last week, parents are more than welcome to provide a marmite sandwich and an apple.
[Inaudible] the savings going back into the education budget?
Well, that’s what—that’s what we’re—we’re increasing our spending, as you’ve seen, in health by $17 billion, and we’re increasing—we increased, as you saw in the last Budget, our spending in education too. It’s important to us. OK, thanks team, appreciate it. Take care.