Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 8 December 2025

Kia ora, good afternoon, everyone. As you know, we’re now into the last sitting block for 2025 and it’s going to be certainly a sprint finish, with some big things to get through in the next couple of weeks.

I understand that for some families, of course, it’s still very hard going, and this time of the year in particular puts a lot of pressure on the household budget. There’s no denying the economy has been in a tough spot as we recover from the era of high inflation and high interest rates, but we are starting to see more and more data coming through that is showing things are picking up as the stimulus from lower interest rates continues to flow through the economy. Westpac reported that it’s been a strong start to the holiday shopping season, with spending on Westpac cards in the three months of September up 8 percent compared to the same time last year, and notable was the increase in discretionary spending areas, particularly on clothing and furnishings, up 11 percent. This trend is backed up by ANZ, which also reports that card spending for November is almost 4 percent up compared to the same time last year, and ANZ reports that there are no spending categories that are down on a year ago.

What this suggests is that consumers are starting to feel more confident, and we expect that confidence to keep picking up as homeowners refix onto lower mortgage interest rates. We expect that around 70 percent of all fixed mortgages will refix in the next 12 months, with most of them in the next six months, which will provide some welcome relief in the household budget.

Businesses are also feeling more confident. ANZ reported that business confidence jumped nine points last month, the highest level in 11 years, and the measure of businesses’ expected own activity also rose to the highest level in more than a decade. The good news is that our annual trade balance is now back in the black after four years of large trade deficits, which is great news for Kiwi exporters. And, as you know, the tourism sector is continuing to bounce back, with tourists arriving in greater numbers and spending more. International visitor numbers for the year to September are now at 88 percent of pre-pandemic levels, and spending by international visitors was up 5.3 percent to $12.3 billion in the year ending September. All of this is to say that while we’re still in recovery mode and there is a lot more for our Government to do, the data is beginning to show that New Zealand is in a better position than it was a year ago.

As a Government, we’ve been very focused on fixing the basics in the economy, ending the wasteful Government spending to support lower inflation and lower interest rates so that we begin easing the cost of living, and we’ll continue to fix the basics, but we’re also very focused on the long term and building out our future.

Tomorrow we will unveil our new pro-growth planning system to replace the Resource Management Act. Everyone knows that the RMA is broken. It is the root cause of many of New Zealand’s economic challenges. Frankly, it has held us back for 30 years, and it’s turned us into country that says no far too often. With our Government’s new planning system, there will be less talking and filling in forms and more building and more growing. To give you a sense of how radical our changes will be, officials estimate that up to 46 percent of consent and permit applications required under the current RMA could be removed under our new planning system. Based on 2023-24 volumes, that represents between 15,000 and 22,000 consents that would no longer be needed. Of course what it means is more houses, more wind farms, more supermarkets, and more roads. Homeowners will be able to build a deck or extend their home without unnecessary costs and delays. Farmers can spend more time on the farm and less time on paperwork.

Successive Governments have tried to make changes, which have ended up being completely unworkable or merely tinkering around their margins. What we’re proposing tomorrow will be a game changer. The full details of our reforms, of course, will be unveiled by Chris Bishop and Simon Court tomorrow, but in short, they will be truly transformational for New Zealand. And with that, we’re happy to take your questions.

Just on the whole McSkimming saga, are you concerned at the way Mark Mitchell’s handled this, given his timeline of events and what he knew when keeps changing?

No. Mark’s addressed the issues. The issue’s settled for me. What I’m very focused on is that we have to remember there was a young woman at the heart of this and there was someone who undertook some pretty serious wrongdoing, and I’m interested in what we’re doing to restore trust and credibility in the police.

But you must look at the timeline that he’s given on when he knew what and had some questions, right? On November -- sorry, 14 October he was given a heads-up there was a complaint against someone who was about to become the Police Commissioner, and yet he didn’t do anything.

No, look, he’s explained that to my satisfaction. And, as you know, 6 November he was brought into full speed around what was going on, and it was in December that he was suspended, McSkimming was suspended. Again, in May, for me personally, that’s when I found out about the objectionable material piece, and then he obviously chose to resign and then we had the RMA report. So I appreciate that we can go through the process story of who said what, when and where, but from my point of view the matter’s settled. Mark’s addressed the issues. I’m very comfortable with that. I think he’s doing an exceptionally good job, and I think him and the Police Commissioner are now cracking on and making sure this doesn ’t happen again.

Does there need to be a higher-level inquiry to clear up the competing claims?

No. What we need to do is jump to the solution that any inquiry would generate, which is to give us the strongest statutory oversight mechanism possible, which is that of an Inspector-General for Police. We have it, as you know, for intelligence. We have it, as you know, for defence. I think we need to go straight there.

It’s quite something, though, to have competing claims from a former top cop and the Police Minister. For the sake of public trust, wouldn’t a Royal Commission or something of the sort be helpful?

Well, I can tell you what the outcome of that would be. It would be a recommendation to appoint an Inspector-General. That’s as far as it goes. That’s as hard as it gets. That’s the most comprehensive statutory response we have to oversight. We’re going straight there because there’s no need for us to do a Royal Commission of Inquiry. The IPCA report was very, very straight, very, very clear. There was total failure at the top of the leadership of police. Obviously, you know, former commissioner Coster has said as much, and he’s done the right thing by resigning. Now what we have to focus on is making sure this doesn’t happen again and for that to be the case, we need the Police Commissioner to make sure we’re doing everything we can to lift standards and integrity, and we need to make sure we get the Inspector-General in place as quickly as we possibly can.

You spoke about the young woman at the centre of all of this. Given that and given that you’re saying that you want people to trust the police—that when they come forward with their stories, with their experiences, that they’re going to be trusted and that’s going to be acted on—do you feel comfortable that there are still charges against her and that no charges have been laid based on her allegations?

I can’t talk to those charges, obviously, given what’s happening there. But what I can say to you is that I think the IPCA report was crystal clear and I think that’s where our focus and attention needs to be, is actually there were massive failings at the top of the police leadership, as has been well canvassed/well covered before. Now the question is: what do we do next? And what we have to do next is make sure that we have integrity and trust restored to the police. And we need to make sure that we get the Inspector-General in role as quickly as possible to make sure we’ve got the maximum statutory oversight mechanism we can generate, and I think that’s where our focus should be going forward.

Do you think that your—or anyone’s—questions were answered about how the emails got forwarded so that they didn’t go to Ministers, and that the political side of this has actually been answered by the IPCA report?

Well, I’m very comfortable. Mark has addressed the timeline, the police have verified the issue about his emails, and for me I’m more focused on what’s the solution. Because we can talk about the process story and the beltway story as much as you like, but actually what’s most important is that this is an organisation that needs to make sure this never, ever happens again. I know the new Police Commissioner, 11 months into the job, is very focused on lifting standards and integrity. He’s done that—he’s started to replace his executive, he’s putting standards in across the place—and I’m really pleased about that progress. I don’t want 15,000 men and women of the police force who do an amazing job each and every day to be tarnished by the reputation of a few people at the top of the tree, and that’s what we’ve really got to focus on now.

How can you come up with a solution if you don’t actually know what the timeline was?

I do know what the timeline was, and I agree with the timeline.

Everyone’s saying different things. The former Prime Minister is saying one thing, Coster is saying another thing, and Mitchell is saying another thing. So how can you come up with a solution if the picture is so unclear and so murky?

Well, I don’t think it is murky. I think the reality is that Mark Mitchell—as he said, o 6 November he was told about the full extent of the issues. That ultimately led to the suspension of McSkimming immediately, the next month. There was a further case, a new case that emerged in May, which actually led to his resignation, and then there was a full report from IPCA which was surfaced in November, which we all read the week before we announced it. So, you know, he—there was—there was obviously a probity test, which is a generic, standard probity test that would have been going on. I think October. You mentioned 14 October. That would have been the PSC work for that initial—as being a potential candidate for the role that he was going for, as commissioner.

But look, the bottom line is we can argue about that, but I trust Mark Mitchell. He’s doing an exceptionally good job. I trust the commissioner. They both understand the challenge that they’ve got before them to restore trust and confidence and integrity in the police force. They’re taking that very seriously. And we as a Government have gone straight to the end game and said, "Righto, let’s pull the biggest trigger we can", which is actually to make sure that we put an Inspector-General on police. And, you know, I think that’s the right thing to do. Now we’ve got to crack on and get it done and get it sorted.

Do you trust Chris Hipkins? He says he—

Well, look, I mean, those are issues for him to talk through. I wasn’t present for that conversation. All I’m just saying to you is, you know, I trust my Minister and our Police Commissioner to get on with the job to restore integrity and trust within the police.

In your previous response, you said this was a beltway story. Does that undermine the seriousness of this? This is about public trust in police but also in your Ministers. The IPCA report really only looked at police leadership, it didn’t look at ministerial actions. Isn’t that what warrants a wider inquiry, to look at—

No, what warrants focus is actually: how do we get an Inspector-General into the IPCA and with the IPCA as quickly as possible?

Don’t you think it’s worth building up the public’s trust in your Ministers after this?

I think there’s high public trust in Mark Mitchell as a Minister. When someone’s taken 38,000 less victims of serious violent crime and 16 percent lowering of youth crime, and toughened up our sentencing laws, and backed the police around gangs and all sorts of things—I trust Mark completely. He’s an excellent Minister. He’s done an outstanding job as Police Minister, inheriting a hell of a mess, and he and the Police Commissioner are working well together in getting things sorted.

So, Prime Minister, just to be clear, you are categorically confident, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Police Minister’s version of events is correct?

Yes.

Did your view on Andrew Coster change after that interview?

No, my view changed when I read the full report. And I read that report and it was clear to me that there was some appalling behaviour that took place and some bad judgement, frankly, around not answering questions that should have been asked as a CEO or as a leader of an organisation. So, for me, you know, the IPCA report is crystal clear. There was total failure at the top of the leadership of the police and that was self-evident in the report.

I think all New Zealanders were shocked by the report—I know we were as Ministers and as a Government—but, importantly, it’s about what you do with it, and we are focused on fixing it and we have to fix it because that’s the thing that rebuilds the trust and confidence in the police. Again, there are 15,000 incredible men and women associated with the police who are doing amazing work each and every day and they don’t deserve to be tarnished by the behaviour of a few, and that’s why we’ve moved quickly in the way that we have.

What is the harm of doing another inquiry, just to get rid of all of this murkiness? If trust in the police is what you’re all about, what’s the harm in doing another inquiry?

Well, you’ve already seen a Police Commissioner move and replace the executive team. You’ve seen us front it, really upfront, and be very public about it. There’s been a very good explanation of events from the Police Minister.

There are different versions of events from lots of different people.

Well, no, there hasn’t been.

Well, there has, though.

I mean there has.

But what would you say?

From three different people. There’s Coster, there’s Mitchell, and there’s Hipkins, all saying different things.

Well, you’d have to talk to Hipkins about his own comments and his engagement with Coster.

[Inaudible] why an inquiry would be ideal?

I’ve seen, you know, he’s come out very strongly over the weekend and denied that, in the same way that Mark has. They both have basically had the same approach, "That’s not our"—that’s not their recollection of events at all, and I think we have to trust them with that.

But for me, it’s much more important that we focus on making sure this doesn’t happen again. I’m proud of the way that we have taken this incredibly seriously. We’ve been really up front and direct about it, we’ve put sunlight all over it to make sure it’s disinfected, and we’ve also made sure that we actually put a solution in place, which is the strongest form of oversight mechanism we can—we can generate. And so, you know, we’re moving. We’ve got to do that because we’ve got to rebuild and restore trust at the top.

But the new Police Commissioner, over 11 months, has had a big drive around integrity and standards. You’ve seen that, whether it’s at the police college. You’ve seen it, whether it’s at— with respect to his own executive with the response to this event here. The IPCA report I thought was crystal clear, a very good report, very well written. We had a discussion. We could go to a different type of inquiry but we’d end up getting to the outcome and we felt it was better we get to the outcome, rather than wait four or five years to get an actual solution in place. That’s not going to—we can do better than that.

So are you saying that Andrew Coster was lying?

Well, I’m just saying I back—I back Mark Mitchell. I trust him. You know, he’s been very straight up with me about the time frames. He’s been—more importantly, the way that he’s made—you know, how he’s felt about this issue has been pretty self-evident, I think, for everybody to see. He cares deeply about the police force and making sure it hits the highest possible standards, and he and the commissioner, I think, are doing a good job of doing exactly that.

So is Andrew Coster lying?

Well, I don’t—I can’t speak to him, you’d have to ask him. But all I’m saying to you is—

[Inaudible]

Sure. Well, I’ve made a decision that I’m backing my Police Minister because I think his account is the right one, yeah.

Why would Andrew Coster put this information out there?

I don’t—you’d have to ask him. I mean, all I’m just saying to you is when I look at the time plan, I’m comfortable with the time plan, and what I’m more interested in is, frankly, the young woman at the heart of this. What I’m more interested in is the someone who actually, you know, did a lot of serious wrongdoing, and more importantly how we stop that from happening going forward. And that means the ongoing work of the commissioner to lift standards and it means us getting the Inspector-General into the IPCA as quickly as possible.

What do you think of Coster’s decision to take the payout and then immediately do this interview? Is it dishonest? Is it cowardly?

Well, look, I don’t have a view on it. It’s not—you’d have to ask him. I mean, my view very clearly as Prime Minister is to make sure that we are fixing a problem and we’re making sure that we face up to it, we bring it out with all of its ugliness, deal with it, and then we put a solution in place that makes it so it doesn’t happen again. And that’s what I’ve got in mind.

He’s just taken a whole lot of taxpayers’ money and the first thing he’s done with it is pick up the phone to TVNZ and do an interview casting aspersions on members of two Governments, without any evidence for them.

Well, again, that’s a question you’d have to put to him.

You said the focus should be on the young woman at the centre of this. She wants an independent inquiry.

Well, again, what I’m saying is that she has been let down badly by the police executive. The IPCA report was crystal clear around that, and we have called that out and we have talked about it and shared everything about that report with everyone, because I think it’s important everybody does know and I think when you’ve got cultural issues like we’ve seen, that you expose it with maximum sunlight, and that’s, you know, how I want to do things, how we do things and how a leader should do things.

So, in my mind, what we have to focus on now is making sure we lift the standards in police and the integrity, and I think you’ve got a Police Commissioner who’s very committed doing that. And equally you’ve got Inspector-General, which is the strongest statutory mechanism, as I keep saying, which was not an easy—which was a decision that—we know that is what the final outcome of any Royal Commission of Inquiry or any alternative would be, but it’s important that we deal with that issue and get straight to that and beef up the IPCA with the Inspector-General.

You just said that, you know, there were cultural issues in there. That’s something that the IPCA also found. Can you elaborate on what you mean by cultural issues?

Well, I think we all read the report, and I think it’s pretty clear there were failures of leadership at the top, and leadership sets the culture. And it may have been, you know, where questions weren’t asked and there was assumptive information, but the point is actually the buck stops with you as the leader, and it’s important that you actually confront that and deal with that. And that’s the question. There was a culture of groupthink, there was a question of not believing the young woman, there was a whole bunch of issues which are self-evident in the report. So now the question is: how do you make sure that you improve the culture going forward, that there is high integrity, high accountability, high transparency, high levels of standards, but equally you also have put an oversight mechanism in place that gives a lot of freedom to go roaming to ask questions about processes like this in the future?

Prime Minister, BMI, which is one of the companies in the Fitch Group, the ratings agency, have upgraded the Government’s political risk index score, saying that there is increased political risk in New Zealand. They say that New Zealand politics has become increasingly volatile and they’ve laid some of that blame at fractures within the coalition and rumours around your leadership. Are you worried that international economists are now concerned about the Government’s stability?

No.

Well, they clearly are, to be putting out this statement, and you’re just laughing it off. Shouldn’t you—

Well, I’m just saying no. I’m just saying no. I think you’ve got a coalition Government that you can see has led New Zealand out of a tough recession, the toughest it’s been in 35 years, a country that was the second-biggest-spending economy in the Western world proportionately with respect to COVID, a massive COVID hangover, a coalition that has actually been incredibly functional. I could go point you to a number of Western European economies with an MMP environment, with three or four-party coalition governments that have fallen over very, very quickly and not been very robust. I think ours has been incredibly strong and stable and continues to be so.

Surely that must be—will you make any entreaties to international economics firms, given that they are increasingly worried about the Government’s stability? Is there a reputational issue here?

Well, I’d just say to you we are very comfortable about the strength and stability of this Government. And I think any reasonable, right-minded person, just looking at the situation of a three-party coalition Government that has functioned very well to provide strong and stable leadership to New Zealand, has been very united around what we’re trying to achieve economically, what we want to do in the law and order space, what we’ve been doing in education and healthcare—I think you can self-evidently see that.

And I just would say to you—you know, let’s take Netherlands. You know, Netherlands went to an election not long after us, two months after us. It took 300 days or whatever to negotiate a coalition agreement, a four-party coalition in power in an MMP environment for 11 months, fell over, back into an election, now back into a coalition agreement process for a number of months. So, you know, we’ve got a very strong, stable Government, and I’m very proud of actually what we’ve delivered. And I think the New Zealand public see that as well and I think, you know, they see that actually the bloc of our Government and our parties and our Government is very strong.

What do you put it down to then, the gap between the perception that has led to this downgrade or this—

Sorry, it hasn’t been a downgrade, be clear about that.

Sorry, the change in the risk perception. The difference between that and what you say is the reality—why is there a mismatch there?

Well, I’m just saying to you, look at the—go look at political countries all around the world and ask the question. You know, I can think of a number of countries. I’m just saying to you I dismiss it completely. We have a strong, stable Government that has delivered for New Zealand, that has actually led New Zealand—is leading New Zealand out of a recession and has actually been very united around what we’re doing on an economic sense.

Yes, it’s a three-party coalition with three parties that have differences. That’s no different from Western European economies. Go look at Finland, go look at Netherlands, go look at, you know, Austria, others that you may—Germany, wherever you want to go. You know, we’ve got strong, stable Government and I’m actually proud of what we’re delivering, and I think New Zealanders can see that. New Zealanders that I talk to are pretty clear that they think the economy is strengthening. They think this Government has done a good job of leading people through a very difficult time.

We inherited a Government—you know, if I’m a—if I’m a credit ratings agency, as you’ve seen them say publicly in their formal reports, you know, in the last couple of months in response to our financial statements, is that, you know, their real worry is that we go back to, you know, spend more, tax more, borrow more, and the damage that was done. You know, how do you run up $120 billion worth of debt extra? I’m sure you people were really prosecuting that really hard over that period of time, but, you know, that would be something that a financial credit agency would be incredibly concerned about.

Have you read the Herald’s "Nation of Debt" series, where we prosecute debt every year?

No. It’s good that you do. That’s what I’m saying. It’s good. Yeah, it’s great that you do that. You should do that because, you know, you can’t just go into a recession and run up $120 billion worth of debt, have a $66 billion Treasury report came out saying, "Hey, listen", and Hipkins doesn’t even front for an inquiry to ask about what the hell happened there.

Prime Minister, on that note on debt, what do you make of the fact that the Taxpayers’ Union are launching a campaign against your Finance Minister which makes the point that you haven’t got that debt down, you’ve actually extended it since coming into Government?

I haven’t seen it.

The Taxpayers’ Union, it’s widely reported, are launching a campaign against your Finance Minister—

So it’s widely reported, or they have launched one?

Are launching.

"Are launching." I haven’t seen it.

You were making this argument about debt. What do you make of the fact that debt has gone up under your Government? Is that all just a hangover, or is there some more trimming that needs to go on?

Well, I’d just be more troubled if the Taxpayers’ Union is wanting to back the Labour Party in its radical economic agenda of tax more, spend more, borrow more. But I haven’t seen it.

We’re in an MMP environment so there aren’t actually just two options here, are there? It’s not just support you guys or support Labour, right? Are you—

Well, sorry, I haven’t seen what you’re talking about. I don’t know what you’re referencing.

Why is debt going up under your Government?

Well, as we’ve said, there’s three ways that we can deal with it. We can carry on increasing spending, tax, and borrowing, which is what the last lot did, which caused so much of our economic pain and suffering that we’ve all been going through for the last few years. Alternatively, you can throw the car into heavy reverse and go into deep, hard austerity. We’ve chosen to say, "No, what we’re going to do is actually make sure we’ve got strong, good fiscal management". It’s going to be a day-in, day-out, year-in, year-out process, as you would have seen under the previous Key‒English Government in 2010. I think, you know, core Crown expenditure was 34 percent of GDP. Over a period of time, they ran it down to 28 percent. We’re doing exactly the same thing.

But let’s be clear, we have also put money—you know, $44 billion worth of savings—and also continue to make sure we support New Zealanders: 2,100 more doctors, 900 more Corrections officers, 600 more, you know, doctors, 2,100 more nurses. We’ve made some serious investments. $750 million in learning support and education. So we have to do a balanced approach and that’s what—I’m proud of what we’re doing.

The [Inaudible] fiscal plan said that the surplus would arrive in 2027. It’s now not forecast, under that same measure, until the next decade. Isn’t that a failure, though, on the debt side of things?

Well, we’ll have more to say about that with HYEFU in due course, but all I’m just saying to you is that this is a Government that is actually saying: look, hard austerity is not the way forward. If we carried on with the drunken sailor routine of the Labour Party, which—they frankly haven’t learnt anything. I mean, you’ve heard Hipkins say he wants to increase spending, he actually wants to lift the inflation target, he wants to borrow more money, he wants to tax more, and by the time you throw the Greens and Te Pāti Māori into that ungodly mess, you’re going to have a real problem. So, you know, we know it’s a radical economic agenda that just hurts and damages New Zealand. That’s what we’ve been cleaning up.

You promised at the election that in 2027 there’d be a surplus, an even larger surplus than what Labour promised, and now it’s not even within the forecast period, the surplus.

Well, again, let’s see. We’ll have HYEFU. It’s coming out shortly. Sorry, I’ll just go to Tom. Sorry, can I go to Tom and then I’ll come back to you?

Back on the economy, ASB has just put out its economic report today. It does forecast a raise in confidence for the economic outlook over the next year. What’s your response to that?

It’s all positive. It’s what Kiwis are telling me, which is that they are seeing the economy strengthened. My wish is that I want Kiwis to feel it. It’s good that they feel like it’s turning the corner. It’s good that they feel the economy is strengthening. It’s good that we’ve got data. There’s a number of data that I gave you at the beginning. Obviously, I’ve seen that report as well, but I want Kiwis to feel it and I want more New Zealanders to feel it, and that’s what I’m focused on doing over the coming year.

Have you made a decision yet about whether you’ll attend Waitangi next year?

No, no, I haven’t yet.

Are you going to make a decision and announce it this year, like you did last?

Probably in the new year. I haven’t thought about it yet. I mean, I really did enjoy going out across the country. You know, I went to Ngāi Tahu last year, where the Treaty was signed. I thought that was actually a really—something I’d always wanted to do. So I haven’t really made a decision on it yet.

When did Chris Hipkins say he wanted to raise the inflation target?

To 2.5 percent, if you remember, was where they thought they would lift it, Barbara Edmonds and him, just about, I think, eight weeks ago.

Barbara Edmonds said she was interested in discussing that idea, that concept.

Yeah. Not a good idea to be discussing, no, because basically you’re lifting inflation for everybody and you’re saying—

You said Chris Hipkins wanted to raise it, so I’m just trying to—

Sorry?

You said Chris Hipkins wanted to raise that target.

Well, Barbara Edmonds is in the Labour Party and Chris Hipkins is the head of the Labour Party, and they’ve said that they are up for a 2.5 percent mid-point inflation target. Chris Hipkins has said, "Yes, we want to spend more", he’s already said we’d borrow more—

I’m trying to understand when he’s said he wanted to raise the inflation target. That’s quite different—

—and we’ve already seen they want to tax more, so it’s just spend more, tax more, borrow more, right?

On RMA reform, are you expecting to put some kind of compensation scheme in there for regulatory takings, as they say? Is that going to be included—

Look, it will all be revealed tomorrow. But, you know, again, no Government in the last 30 years has taken on the RMA. It’s a serious reform. That will be a hallmark of this Government’s first term.

The last Government reformed the RMA.

No, not in the way we’re talking about. We want a radical simplification with 46 percent less consents coming through. We’re going to radically simplify it because it needs to be radically simplified. It’s got out of hand.

Obviously, there’s a possibility you’re a one-term Government. Are you hopeful that you can get Labour on board so that this RMA reform is lasting—

Look, like everything, we reach out to the other side. You know, we did it on PPPs but there was quite a mixed position from Barbara Edmonds and Kieran McAnulty and Chris Hipkins. We’ve done it on education but there was no response from Willow-Jean Prime. We’ll continue to reach out to the other side to see, because I do think that bipartisanship is important. But, you know, let’s be clear. We’re prioritising economic growth. We’re going to have a pro-growth planning system. That’s why the accompanying piece of it is reform of local government, as you’ve seen us announce last week as well, and those two things actually free it up so that we actually don’t spend all this amount of money just in consenting processes that don’t need—that don’t go anywhere and waste a huge amount of time and money.

Do you expect them to support it at this point, or is that not clear yet?

Well, it’ll be up to them. I mean it’ll be up to them. But, you know, again, we are very focused on, look, we need radical RMA reform. I mean this is the single biggest thing that has been holding this country back. We have wrapped ourselves up in endless red tape, green tape, and we’ve got to actually make sure that we have regulations that are smart, simple, and that we can actually get things done and built in this country. I mean, we’ve all experienced it, you know, everything is hard to do, and it doesn’t need to be so.

Is this the soonest that RMA reform could have come, given you had to get rid of what was already done at the start—

Well, as you know, when we came to Government, we knocked on the head of the former Labour RMA reform, which was a 10-year implementation process and pretty hopeless, and then what we put in place was the fast track provisions to put the defibrillators on the system to speed it up. When you see two wharfs at the Auckland port being generated in 55 days, something that would have taken five years, then we know we’re on the right pathway. You’ve seen a number of fast track projects continue to come through. I think we’ll probably be about nine by the time we hit Christmas. And most importantly, the third phase has been— as we’ve said, is the overhaul, and that’s what these two Bills will do as we bring them to the Parliament.

Is there room to move on those Bills to get that broad bipartisan support, or is the offer you’re putting on the table tomorrow the final offer, “That’s the RMA”?

Well, we go through a select committee process, a full select committee process. That’s obviously the chance where we want to make sure we improve it, and of course we’ll listen really closely to all and every feedback in order to do that. OK, team, thanks so much. Have a good day. See you.