Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 14 July 2025

Well, kia ora, good afternoon, everyone. It’s good to see you all. It’s also good to be joined today by our Minister Penny Simmonds as well. Firstly, can I just say again a very big thank you to all of our Civil Defence and also our first responder teams that have been dealing with the Tasman floods. I was particularly proud of the response that we saw and the join-up that we saw between our local Civil Defence and also our central NEMA teams.

Before getting into today’s announcement, I also just do want to give a quick nod to the NCEA co-requisite assessment data that Education Minister Erica Stanford issued earlier today. I’m really encouraged by the improved levels of achievement, particularly in our lower-decile schools. The fact that 14 percent more students in lower-decile schools passed the numeracy assessment and 7 percent more achieved the reading standard is a great indication, and it’s good encouragement that this Government’s focus on teaching the basics well, and the targeted support that we’re providing to at-risk students across 141 schools, is having a positive impact. You know, this is a topic really dear to my heart, education, and we’ve got a long way to go to ensure that every student across New Zealand has the opportunity to succeed in school and lead the life they want, but it does show us that we’re on the right track, that we are laser-focused on doing the basics brilliantly, and we’re not taking our foot off the gas pedal when it comes to setting up our kids for their success.

Today I do want to speak about something that matters deeply to our communities, our economy and our future, and of course that is vocational education, and in particular our polytechnic sector. As you know, New Zealand’s vocational education system has been through a turbulent few years. The last Government’s Te Pūkenga reforms were intended to strengthen the system, but what we’ve seen instead is a model that’s become too centralised, too removed from local communities, and ultimately too slow to respond to regional training and employer needs. That’s not good enough for the students that are relying on practical, hands-on education to build their futures, it’s not good enough for the employers who need job-ready graduates, and it’s not good enough for the regions that rely on a strong vocational pipeline to drive growth, and that’s why we’re taking action.

So from 1 January 2026, we will return regional decision-making to 10 polytechnics. This is a critical milestone in building a system that is regionally responsive, that is locally led and is better aligned to the needs of students, industries and communities. It will mean that decisions, once again, are made closer to the people that they affect. And that’s what regional strength looks like, not decisions handed down to them from Wellington but real input from local leaders, local employers and local educators. Let me be clear: this isn’t just about structures, it’s about outcomes, better outcomes for the more than 250,000 students participating in vocational education each and every year. These changes are designed to make the system more flexible, more financially sustainable, and more relevant to the employment opportunities available in each region. To explain more about what’s happening, I want to thank but also hand over now to the Minister for Vocational Education, Penny Simmonds.

Thank you, Prime Minister. So the Government is taking the next step to fix our incredibly valuable vocational education sector. Today’s announcement is a major milestone in building a vocational education system that’s locally led, regionally responsive and future focused. From 1 January 2026 we will re-establish 10 regionally governed polytechnics, each with autonomy to respond to the unique needs of their communities and local employers.

These polytechnics are: Ara in Christchurch, EIT in Hawke’s Bay, NMIT in Nelson/Marlborough, SIT in Southland, Wintec in Hamilton, Toi Ohomai in the Bay of Plenty,

Unitec and MIT, which will stand up as a single merged entity, Otago Polytechnic, UCOL in Palmerston North, and the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand.

The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand will be the anchor polytechnic of the new federation, which includes at this stage Otago Polytechnic and UCOL. The federation will coordinate programmes and other services, including shared academic boards. It will provide a low overhead way for polytechnics to create more efficient business models than they could on their own through the use of online learning resources and programmes.

Four other polytechnics—NorthTec in Whangārei, WITT in New Plymouth, Whitireia and WelTec in the Greater Wellington region, and Tai Poutini Polytechnic on the West Coast—will remain within Te Pūkenga for now as they work toward viability. Decisions on their future governance are expected in the first half of 2026.

These changes will be enabled by legislation that is currently before Parliament and under review by the Education Workforce Select Committee. The bill is expected to pass in October. Once passed, the 10 polytechnics will begin operating independently from 1 January 2026. Te Pūkenga will remain in place for a transitional period of up to one year to manage unallocated programmes and ensure a smooth transition. The legislation also provides for mergers or closures if any polytechnic is unable to achieve long-term viability.

I want to acknowledge the many individuals and organisations who have made submissions on the legislation. Your feedback has been instrumental in shaping a better way forward. On the path ahead, industry will have a greater say, communities will regain local control, and students will benefit from institutions that are agile and connected to their future employers. This is about rebuilding a system that delivers for students, for employers, and for the future of New Zealand. Thank you, and now I’ll hand back to the Prime Minister.

Well, thank you, Penny. It’s certainly a good day for communities getting back their polytechnics, as we had said before the election.

Before we get into questions, I still want to cover off a few questions. The first is, given the vacancy in the Tāmaki Makaurau seat has now been gazetted, I’ve set a date of 6 September for that by-election.

This week the House will observe the second reading of the RMA Bill 2, the second reading of the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, as well as the second reading and the committee stage of the UAE Bill, which once passed will give effect to the trade agreement that we signed with the UAE at the beginning of the year.

I’m in Wellington until Wednesday, Northland on Thursday and Auckland on Friday. And with that, we’re happy to take your questions. We’ll answer first around the polytechnic reforms and then we’ll go to general issues.

Minister Simmonds, could you explain why there was no consultation with Māori around this new proposal despite recommendations by MoE that you do so?

There has been consultation with Māori. I’ve been in contact, engagement with the Iwi Leaders Education Group and in fact met with them again this morning, prior to the announcement. So there has been engagement, there’s been engagement across communities generally, and in a number of instances iwi have been very involved. For example, in the Northland area there is a very strong community group that are working closely with me and TEC that involves iwi leaders, as well as local business and industry leaders.

Then why are we hearing more and more from those rōpū Māori that you have not consulted with them, those that are at the front line?

Well, certainly the Iwi Leaders Group, I have been in constant engagement with them, and so I’m also working with communities across the country. That includes iwi.

Claudette, we’ve had two questions already.

What about the removal of the Te Tiriti reference from that and the dilution of Māori representation? They would have raised that with you. What did you say to them?

So my answer to that was that we are putting in place establishment committees and those establishment committees will need to engage with their community, which of course will include iwi engagement.

Righto, we’re going to Jason. Thank you, Jason.

You’re welcome. Are you able to just outline why—there were 16 before, then Labour wanted it to be just one big, broad Te Pūkenga that’s across everything. Why 10? How did you settle on that number?

Well, 10 are the ones that have that financial pathway to viability. The other four that are left have got some work to do. They’ve got some unique challenges that we need to address over the next six or eight months.

That’s incredibly cryptic. What do you mean by “unique challenges”?

Well, they are unique to them. For example, WITT in New Plymouth is very small, as is Tai Poutini on the West Coast, very small. In Northland, in Whangārei, they need to shift their campus. They’re on a campus that’s much too big. So they are challenges that are unique to them and their communities.

One of the things they’ve been struggling with, the whole sector, for a long time is the financials. They have been in the red for decades, potentially. Have you got a plan to sort that or how has that changed with the structure?

Some have—some have been financially viable, but over the last year we put in place financial advisors to work out a pathway to viability. That is work that should have occurred at least five years ago. It’s been occurring over the last year, and that has been setting these institutions up to be financially viable.

Sorry, could I go to Jamie?

You say the legislation allows for some of the polytechnics to be merged or closed. Do you anticipate that any of those four remaining polytechnics will have to be closed if they don’t reach their viability?

I don’t want to pre-empt the work that’s being done there. I think there are bespoke community solutions for each of them and they may involve mergers, but they are bespoke community solutions and I think it’s really important that we work with the community to work out what is going to work for them.

Sorry, I’ll go to Jamie and then I’ll come to Craig.

How much time will you give them before they would have to close or merge?

The decision will be made in the middle of next year. Can I just say that the provision is what’s really important, and so ensuring that provision remains, in whatever form, is the important part.

Will the Government have to stump up more money to ensure that the polytechnics have enough capital to stand on their own?

There is a recapitalisation programme as part of it and, as you know, there’s some reserves sitting in Te Pūkenga that—a number of polytechnics went in with reserves so part of that financial work was about the recapitalisation. But also I have secured an additional $20 million taken, out of TEC, re—

Prioritised.

—prioritised out of TEC, to ensure that the strategic provision that we really need that isn’t viable at the moment stays. So, for example, in Northland or on the East Coast, where we’ve got high numbers of unemployed, we need to have that provision there but it’s not viable at the moment. In some other industry areas, such as forestry and agriculture, we know the funding system doesn’t support the low numbers you need to have to be safe. So we’re going to have that two-year period where we can look at the funding system but we’ve got that $20 million to safeguard that provision.

Just coming back to Jason’s question, the four polytechs that are still with Te Pūkenga, is the thought that they’ll eventually be folded into the federation? Is that most likely?

Look, I think they will need federation support, yes, and in what form they go into the federation is what we’re working through over the next few months.

Sorry, Brent.

What do you say to the industry groups that appeared at the select committee last week, who said they weren’t going to have enough influence on industry training under this reform and that there was a real risk the Government’s reform would not deliver?

Look, I was somewhat surprised by that because I’ve been in regular contact with Business New Zealand and also with the civil contractors. Let me make it very clear: the industry skills boards will set the standards for industry training, will develop the qualifications, will endorse programmes that lead to those qualifications, and will have the quality assurance moderation to ensure consistency. So they will have those roles. They will also have an advisory role to TEC in terms of what should be funded, and they will also be looking at their workforce demands over the coming years. So they are going to be front and centre of industry training to ensure that those undertaking industry training are getting the skills that industry needs.

Te Pūkenga’s latest annual report showed that it was in surplus, so what’s the need for this big change?

The reason they’re in surplus is because that duplication of bureaucracy in that head office is gone. So they’ve been stripping back head office over the last year/18 months and that’s enabled a surplus, and so they have been taking away what essentially was the centralised model.

How could Northland, for example, survive without a Unitec there? I mean they’re looking at a pretty dismal future without a Unitec, right?

Northland?

Without a polytech, sorry.

Oh, absolutely. It’s really important for a place like Northland that there is vocational provision and that’s why I’m working really closely with a community group there that includes industry, local government, iwi, to ensure that we can get the campus set up that is fit for purpose and that we can get the provision, because they have the highest number of needs—young people under 25, not in employment, education and training. We must have a pathway into employment for those young people.

Sorry, I’ll go to Thomas Coughlan and then I’ll come back to you, Tom.

Have you had any advice on the number of jobs this will affect? You might shed some but also creating/recreating distinct polytechs, one would think, would create some duplication in terms of jobs as well.

Look, there will be jobs as the, particularly the international student numbers grow and domestic student numbers grow again. So the numbers that have been leaving the sector at the moment have been where there haven’t been programmes that have got enough students in them to be viable, but we expect there will be growth again because unfortunately the polytech sector hasn’t regained the international students as fast as the other sectors have. Now, when they have this autonomy, I expect that growth to really pick up, and that’s what gives them the extra support for additional staff.

Those administrative jobs, are they part of a federation aspect—at the federal level, for want of a better term—or are they devolved to the individual polytechnics?

So they will be devolved to the individual polytechnics, except in a federation they will have the opportunity to be able to pick up on some of that administration. And you can imagine if one of the smaller polytechnics hasn’t got the capacity for payroll then the federation anchor, Open Poly, could provide that service to them at a cost basis.

The reason Te Pūkenga’s in surplus is that you’ve removed the duplication. These reforms seem to recreate the duplication that has led to that surplus.

No, no they don’t, no. The federation—the main purpose of the federation is to support the smaller polytechnics that don’t have the capacity themselves, particularly around the online learning. That is where they will gain benefit. They’ll get a wider portfolio of programmes available to the region and they will get additional support, if they need it, in the areas like academic board or payroll or HR.

Sorry, we’ll go to Tom Day and then we’ll come back to Luke.

Minister, just building on Jamie’s line of questioning, are you able to provide a guarantee for us that all of those polytechnics will be operational in two years’ time?

Well, that’s what is going to be their responsibility. They will have a board, they will have a council that will be appointed from the community, and that will be the responsibility of that council and the management of those organisations to absolutely ensure they stick with the financial pathway that has been put in front of them, and that they ensure that they run a sustainable business.

That’s not quite a yes though, Minister. Are you able to give a clear, cast-iron guarantee?

I can tell you that they have had a business case done that gives them a pathway to financial viability if they stick to it.

Minister, you talk about making sure that there is provision of training, particularly in more challenged areas, the COAST and up north. As a general proposition, is it the case that this sector is too capital-heavy, too much land, too many buildings, and just too much cost on that side of it?

Absolutely, and over $100 million of excess assets have been identified for sale, so you’re absolutely right. And in the case of NorthTec particularly, they have a very large campus. They need to get into a smaller, right-sized campus. So yes, there’s over $100 million of assets that will be realised over the next couple of years.

So as part of that process—and I guess the 10 new entities plus whatever happens with the smaller ones—is part of that around thinking about how much of this can be remote learning, for instance, rather than having campuses and workshops and that sort of stuff?

Or blended learning, a mix of online and some on campus. So, absolutely. And, look, that’s happening across the world, that the bricks and mortar are much less important than the content, the course content, and the delivery of that will be through, often, blended.

What would success look like in five years’ time for you?

Success would look like: right across the country, young people particularly but generally the population has access to really good vocational training, whether it is online or on campus or blended. But right across the country, that access is there and they are learning the skills that are needed for industry, for industry to be able to grow our economy.

And would that be like a shrunken physical footprint, a wider digital one and more international students?

I would expect it would be all of those things, yes.

What’s the process for selling that $100 million worth of excess property, and will you return the proceeds of that back to the centre or are they going to the polytechs themselves?

That goes back to the polytechnics. So there’s a process that they have to go through but yes, the intention is that that will go back to the polytechnics and it will help with their recapitalisation.

Prime Minister—

Do you imagine that the types of courses that were available before this and the staff numbers will remain relatively the same after this de-merger?

Sorry, was that to me or the Prime Minister?

No, it was to you.

To you, Minister.

That was to me. Sorry. Look, they are changing, they’ve been changing over the last year and they change every year. For example, down in central Otago they were running a home brewing course for two or three people. That’s gone. So you would expect that kind of evolution will happen as programmes run through their life cycle and others come into being, whether it’s IT security or AI or something like that. So there is always going to be evolution.

Yeah, less home brew, more AI would be good, yeah.

But in terms of the reforms, do you anticipate that those actual reforms are going to have an impact on staff numbers and courses? Because we’ve UCOL coming out and saying that they’re going to have to cut courses and staff numbers to save money. Do you see that having an impact on other—

It will, because you should only be running a programme that is financially viable and so if you haven’t got the numbers in it—unless it is something that leads into another viable course or is strategically really important, and those we are going to top up. So it’s about making those business decisions about what programmes are viable.

Prime Minister, Stuff has reported on two New Zealanders who have travelled to India recently for healthcare. Do you accept that this is evidence that the health system is failing to meet some people’s basic needs?

Well look, I mean I think everybody understands we inherited quite a botched healthcare system, but I’m incredibly proud of the investment that we put in. You know, we put $17 billion extra in last year, put another 7 percent increase in funding. We’ve hired, I think, 2,100 extra nurses, 600 more doctors in Health New Zealand. We’ve set really clear targets. Actually, just as I was coming down I see that our immunisation targets continue to improve, which is good. We’ve seen some encouraging signs that we’ve stabilised some of the waitlists and starting to improve on some of those as well. So we know we’ve got a lot of work to do on health but, you know, we have an outstanding public healthcare—people in our system. We have—we’re leveraging the private hospital capacity, as you know, as well, and we make no apologies for that because we want to get outcomes for people, but we’ve got work to do to make sure Health New Zealand’s a high performing organisation.

Are you comfortable with Simeon Brown’s vision to funnel as many elective surgeries as possible into the private sector?

Yes, I absolutely am, because I saw some remarks over the weekend talking about a US-style healthcare system. There is nothing further from the truth of what’s going on in New Zealand. We came—we left Government, the National Party last time, with 1,000 people on the waitlist for elective surgeries. We came back to Government six years later with 28,000 New Zealanders on a waitlist, waiting longer than four months to get their first surgeries, elective surgeries. That is utterly unacceptable.

I don’t care where the hell the service gets done, whether it’s in a public hospital or a private hospital. The vast majority will get done in a public hospital, but actually when you’re lying on your back trying to get a knee replacement, a hip replacement or a cataract, and it’s your mum or dad that have been suffering for the last year and a half or so waiting to get on to those surgeries, I don’t care where it’s done. And the patient’s not paying for it, the Government’s paying for it and contracted, as you know, with 60 different private providers to get through that waitlist, because what matters here is outcomes and patients getting the support that they need and people getting out of a life of suffering.

That outsourcing often costs more in the private sector than it does in the public sector.

But not always, not always. There’s a lot of private hospitals that are well set up for routine operations like knee replacements, hip replacements, cataracts replacements, all of those things. They can do them at speed, at scale. That’s why the Government, under previous Governments as well as our Government, is contracting with private health providers. But at the end of the day, when you’re lying on a hospital bed looking up at the ceiling, you’re very grateful, you don’t care where it’s been done in a public system or a private system.

But make no doubt we are investing in our public system like never before. One out of every five dollars in Government spending is going into healthcare. We are hiring workforces of doctors and nurses like we’ve never done before. We’ve got clarity on targets so that everyone is ruthlessly focused about what their job is to do in the healthcare system today around the healthcare targets. And we’ve got work to do to make Health New Zealand high-performing and that’s what we’re doing.

It’s the Local Government New Zealand conference this week. You’ve talked about rate capping as being something the Government’s looking at. Do you think that when that rate capping comes in, an appropriate cap might be 6 percent? Do you think you could get rates down—

I’m not going to preordain what the number will be. My message to local Government has been consistent since we came to power, which is that we expect you to treat ratepayer money like it’s your own, we expect you to do the must-do stuff, not the nice-to-do stuff, and we expect to get a return on that investment for your ratepayers.

The average this year is 8.39 percent. Do you think you could get it down to close to 6 percent when inflation is at [Inaudible]?

Again, I’m not going to preordain that outcome. I know you might want a number from me but I’m just saying to you we’re not preordaining that. We’re not going to get ahead of that work.

Just some indication of where you hope the policy might get rates to.

We’ll deal with that when we announce it, as I’ve said. We’re not going to get ahead of that announcement.

You’re amalgamating councils into a more unitary authority, so would the regional councils become the basis for more unitary councils?

Look, I mean there’s been—you know, we know we’ve got a major piece of work coming forward with the RMA 3 work, as we call it. That does genuinely bring into question the role of regional councils. Can you elevate some of the work that they do into national bodies? Can you actually defer some of it down into local unitary bodies? That’s going to be a legitimate, obvious question that’s going to need to be asked as we go through the RMA reforms.

Do you intend to ask that question in the next few months, talking about whether or not 70 councils—unitary, regional, territorial—you could amalgamate them down into, you know, 16, 20 councils?

Well, no, again, the issue for amalgamation will be a different issue. That’s got to come from local communities. And there’s a number of councils, as you know, that have talked about the possibility of amalgamating. Councils are getting experience of working together on their Three Waters proposals but also on their city and regional deal plans and proposals to Government. That’s a good thing. The more that they can work together, the more that they can share back offices, the more that they can see synergies by working together. That’s a good thing.

But what I’m talking about is specifically with the RMA reforms that are coming, which we’ll have a view of in the middle of this year, pretty soon, and we hope to have in Parliament by the end of this year, the first reading. You know, that legitimately brings into question, as I said a few weeks ago, about what’s the role of regional councils going forward.

Prime Minister, are you able to run us through the rationale if it is still indeed National’s plan to not run a candidate in Tāmaki Makaurau?

Yeah, look, I mean across the Māori seats we’ve typically not run candidates. Where we have, it’s all been about a party vote campaign in general elections, as you well know, and, you know, that’s what our focus has been. So, you know, we don’t see a need for us to run a candidate in Tāmaki Makaurau, given it’s a by-election result where a candidate’s been selected. As I understand it, there’s, I think, three parties that are suggesting they might run at the moment, from what I’ve seen in reports. Obviously, we’ve announced today the date, which is 6 September. Nominations I think are on the 5th of July. But I think the real interesting thing there is going to be: is it going to be a real fight or is it going to be a pillow fight between Labour and Te Pāti Māori? Just as an observer of that.

I’m sorry, what do you mean by that?

Well, I think, you know, I felt sorry for Peeni Henare. I thought he was thrown under the bus by Chris Hipkins at the general election. I thought they should have challenged that result. His leader should have done that. They want to work with Te Pāti Māori, ultimately, in a Government, and frankly they’ve got a lot of the similar policies, so it’s going to be interesting to see how they play it.

Who do you think is going to win?

I don’t know. I mean I would have expected Labour to give it a good go, but let’s see.

What do you mean by “they should have challenged it”?

Oh, I just meant my comments at the time on the general election result, given how close that was. I thought it was actually important to actually formally trigger the proper challenge that you would have needed to have done. I just don’t think there was enough done to fight back on that.

There was a review, though.

Might have been a review. I’m just saying as a leader of a political party there’s other options that are available to you to do formal challenges, and I would have gone a bit further, frankly.

Prime Minister, you said that in principle the Government won’t be able to keep bailing people out in this way when it comes to weather events. What exactly does that mean, and might that send a terrifying message to the insurance industry, who will feel like the Government isn’t backing those [Inaudible]?

No. This is an ongoing conversation that’s been happening over a number of years now with the serious weather events that we’ve been experiencing. And, you know, what we’re saying is this is an issue that’s going to be here for different governments of different colours and different political hues, it’s going to be over multiple generations, and that actually with the increasing weather events that we’re experiencing, we actually have to think about a climate adaptation framework. And that means, you know, actually who does—who does actually pay for the damage that happens after these events? Is it the insurers? Is it the bank? Is it the local landowners? Is it local government? Is it central Government? And so that’s something we’ve talked a lot about over the last few years.

We’ve done a few things. One is to make sure that we’re trying to work in a bipartisan way with a multi-party support around that framework because it’s not a political issue, it genuinely is a New Zealand issue that we’re going to have to deal with. And I’ve spoken to other leaders around the world about this issue as well and no one’s any further ahead of us or got any ideas because they’re all wrestling with the same challenge, as you would have seen with floods in Texas just in the last week and other events around the world. So that’s what—we’ve really got to continue to crack that thinking and that code.

But the second thing is also, you know, we’re building more resilient infrastructure, and it’s really important when we think about doing a freeway from Auckland to Northland that we actually build that in the most resilient way we possibly can, acknowledging that we are on shaky isles many, many times. So that’s where we get to.

On Tasman, do you have an update on whether you might provide some support for them or what’s the latest?

Look, I’ve spoken to both mayors, with Mayor Nick Smith and also Tim King, and actually had very good conversations with them. We’ve all been very focused. I know Mark Mitchell’s done an exceptionally good job of linking NEMA central resources, and also the mayors have done a brilliant job activating their local Civil Defence and we’ve worked, I think, very seamlessly together. It’s been a very good response in a very difficult situation. You know, Tim was telling me, you know, that I think they’ve had half their average rainfall in the space of two weeks. You know, it’s quite profound.

Obviously, where we are right now is there’s still a local state of emergency in place in Nelson, in that region. A lot of the impact is being felt with farmers in particular. Obviously there’s been a lot of rain and a lot of land that’s absorbed a lot of water and that’s created a lot of surface flooding, and so there’s been some damages to specific properties, particularly in horticulture, particularly in hops, apples, but also a little bit in forestry as well. So at the moment we’ll come out of the response phase, then we’ll have an assessment of what other support may or may not be needed and how that may happen between central and local government, but that’s a conversation for later. At this point we’ve got very pragmatic, very practical mayors that are doing the right thing by their people and their community, and we’ve got good connection from a central Government point of view.

Claudette, I’ll come back to you in a minute but I just want to make sure—Laura?

Prime Minister, just related to Zane’s question, has that got anything to do with why ODESC has met or been convened, the recent weather events?

Yeah, look, they’re just—they’re looking—they’ve been convened to do, I think, essentially an after action review, as I understand, on the major weather events. It’s just happened just as I was coming down to see you just now. So I’m sure you can ask the officials and they’ll tell you, but it’s about the recent weather events.

And how common is that after a significant weather event, for ODESC to—

Well, we’re trying to drive from—you know, when I talked to Mark Mitchell about taking on the assignment of emergency management—you know, you’ve seen us deal with, you know, I think about two events. You know, if I talk about the Dunedin/Otago floods, a similar event happened five or six, 10 years ago, and we had exactly the same event happening and we had a much better response this time. I think about the fire on the Port Hills, you know. It happened five years earlier than the last time we most recently had the fires. We had a fantastic response there. So we’re getting better and better at responding to these incidences, sadly.

There’s still the long-term issue of what are we going to do about adapting to them, but I want to make sure our system is mitigating as much of that risk and doing a very good job in response. And that’s why I’m particularly interested in my conversations with the mayors when I go and visit the regions. You know, Mark and I are in constant contact. You’ll notice that Mark

Mitchell gets on a plane and gets to an event before a weather event is called, so that he’s connected to the mayors. That’s very deliberate to make sure that we’ve got crisis management and emergency management really, really schmick, and I want it really, really, very, very well done.

Just on the Regulatory Standards Bill, could you explain your understanding of the coalition commitment? Is the commitment to pass a version of the Regulatory Standards Bill and potentially one that has changed or been improved through the select committee process, or is the commitment between National and Act to pass the bill as it was initially drafted?

We’re passing the Regulatory Standards Bill. You know, we believe in the idea of a Regulatory Standards Bill to make sure we improve the quality and the transparency of law-making. We think it’s got huge benefits to improving productivity in New Zealand, so we’re really united on that aim across the whole of Government. But what we’re also acknowledging is, look, this is genuinely a complex piece of legislation and you do want—the devil will be in the detail.

It’s very reminiscent, to be honest, of our fast track legislation. You might remember we had a very clear focus on introducing fast track but, you know, we needed to make sure that we had all those fishhooks and all those processes, you know, really joined up. We’re going through the same process on the oil and gas ban, which we’ll have more to say about shortly. So we’re just making sure through that process that if the bill can be further improved, that we would be silly not to take those improvements so that in execution it functions in the way that we want it to function, which is to make sure that actually we build better laws and make better regulation.

Sorry, let’s go behind you and then I’ll come back to you.

Sorry, back to Tasman. At the time, Air New Zealand flights surged to about $200 to $300 to get into the Nelson region from Wellington. Do you think that’s appropriate for a 30-minute flight into an area that’s getting hammered by weather?

My general experience—I’ll leave that for Air New Zealand to respond to and—but, you know, my desire would be that when we’ve got a national emergency and a national crisis on, that’s not the time for any price escalation.

Can I also ask, do you think merging the transport, environment and HUD ministries is a good idea?

It’s not something we’ve discussed as a Government.

Prime Minister, there are concerns and comment by Māori that the Crown negotiator for Ngāti Whakaue, there could be a conflict of interest there with the Crown between the coalition Government and your lead Crown negotiator. What response do you have to Ngati Whakaue and those that are looking at the Crown negotiators and the appointment of that negotiator?

I’m not aware of that particular issue or been briefed on it. If you want more information I’d just encourage you to talk to the relevant Minister on it, Tama Potaka and Paul Goldsmith.

Do you not know who the lead negotiator is?

Not the specifics of that particular case. I’ve met with other negotiators, particularly Ngāpuhi in particular, recently.

Well, the lead negotiator is the Minister of Finance, her father.

Sorry, I’m not going to get into an individual case. I’m just saying to you I haven’t been briefed on it. Feel free to direct it—

Do you think you should have been notified, given—

No, I’m quite comfortable with the Minister for Treaty Negotiations, Paul Goldsmith, answering that question.

Just this issue about Ray Chung and the mayoral election. You would have seen the comments that he made through an e-mail a couple of years ago. Can I just get your general reaction to that and just the tenor of the race down here in Wellington? You spent quite a bit of your time down here.

Yeah, look, I just first and foremost think, you know, that was unacceptable content in that e-mail. You know, really, really pretty vile and unacceptable stuff. Ultimately, as to who the good people of Wellington choose to vote for, that’s up to them. I’ll just say to everyone going to local government elections, you kind of get what you deserve. If you’re not prepared to get good candidates in races, if you’re not prepared to show up and actually vote—local government turnout is often at 35 percent—you know, you get kind of—if you don’t want to vote, well, you know, then you don’t get to have a say on it. So that’s up to the local people. I don’t comment on local body politics, as you know, government election races, local election races, because actually I think it’s up to local people to make those calls.

So you have no perspective on whether he should stand down or not from the election?

I’d just say to you, I think the e-mail was entirely inappropriate and utterly unacceptable, but ultimately it’s up to the fine people of Wellington, who I’m sure will work through who they would like to represent them in that race.

Do you know Ray Chung?

No, I don’t.

Is he sort of adjacent to the National Party at all? I mean—

Not that I—

—he’s sort of a fellow traveller on the right.

I’ve never met him. I don’t remember meeting him. I wouldn’t be able to tell you who he is or point out who he is.

Prime Minister, how are you leaning when it comes to potentially breaking up the gentailers?

Look, our major problem in energy and our major focus right now is that we got left an unholy mess because of the oil and gas ban, and our focus is at the moment on making sure that we deal with the supply issue that we’ve got, which is an absence of gas. We are quite uniquely the only country I know of in the world that is making the transition from domestic gas to international coal, and I wouldn’t think that was a good idea. So we have to do everything we can to make sure that we open up domestic pools of gas. We’re doing everything that we possibly can to make sure that we open up fast-track and actually double the amount of renewable electricity we can generate in this country, and we want to get things done by getting rid of red tape. And so I just say to the Opposition parties, get on board and support it, because actually it’s low and middle-income New Zealanders suffer when we don’t have affordable, abundant electricity in this country.

In terms of supply, how long would it take to get gas online if you did find any gas?

Well, as you know, we’ve got to repeal the bill first and foremost. You’ve heard us say in the Budget that we’re setting aside $200 million to co-invest with potential investors in gas exploration, but given the chilling effect and the sovereign risk that has taken place with the oil and gas ban that’s taken place.

This is not a short-term solution, is it? This is going to potentially be years [Inaudible]—

Well, this is the consequence of just bumper-sticker politics, when you—it’s all very expedient and lovely to say you’re going to have an oil and gas ban and then not think through the second and third-order consequences, and that is high wholesale electricity prices and businesspeople going out of businesses and people losing their jobs. And that’s why we’re doing everything we can to increase supply of renewables, and you’ve seen a lot of it in the fast track, you know, legislation. I think there’s a 30 percent increase if all those projects come off just in renewable generation. We’re doing everything to make things permissible activities, get the red tape and the planning moving quickly in renewables. But we also acknowledge we’re going to need gas for the foreseeable future, but gas is half as bad as coal and we’re going in the other direction at the moment.

In terms of energy issues, what are the short-term solutions or processes that a Government can go through? Those sound like all long-term things.

Well, no, again, our thing is to actually—we’re focused—our number one job is to make sure that we end this and repeal this oil and gas ban, which has been an absolutely stupid move for New Zealand and has put gas security at risk across this country. We’re doing everything we can, as you’ve seen, with fast-track legislation to get renewable projects built. You’ve seen a number of solar. You’ve seen a number of wind projects. We’re doing everything to explore what more we can get out of geothermal. We’re doing—we’ve got a full-court press on doubling the amount of renewables. Those are the things that we’re focused on right now.

Prime Minister—

Last question, Tom Day.

I’ve got two on two different topics.

Okay. Two-for-one deal.

First on the floods, the people of Nelson and the Tasman area, they’re crying out for a solution when it comes to forestry slash. Is there anything that the Government is working on that you’re able to share?

Look, I mean, you know that we’ve had a series of actions of slash coming out of, you know, the North Island weather events in particular. With respect to, you know, Tasman, slash has—in this case, yes, there’ll be an element of it, but not a—it’s not the predominant reason. We’ve got some of the challenges that we’ve got around river flows and flooding that’s taken place. So, you know, I’m just—you know, having spoken to the Mayor, I’m just aware of an emerging issue around in that second incident there was a lot of wind that came through and a lot of our forest, you know, some of our forested land fell over down there. So we’ll continue to implement the programme that we put in place at the North Island weather events, yeah.

The second question is regarding China. Over the weekend the US asked Australia if it would kind of reveal what would happen in the hypothetical scenario of if China was to attack Taiwan and what the position would be. Have you been contacted by the US to explain what your position would be in that scenario?

Not that I’m aware of, and I don’t comment on hypotheticals. Okay, thank you, team.

Have you been staying away from buses today, after reading Audrey Young’s piece?

Yeah, I’m busy, mate—at work, at the desk, head down, tail up, trying to get this country sorted and turned around. That’s what we’re focused on. Alright, thanks team, see you.

Thank you.