Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 17 August 2026

Right. Well, good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to a new sitting block—week, and it’s certainly going to be a very busy one for all of us. Today I’m joined by our Transport Minister, Chris Bishop, for an update on the Auckland second harbour crossing.

But look, firstly, I just want to touch on the big economic news from last week. That, of course, was that international ratings agency, S&P, upgraded its growth forecast for New Zealand. S&P now expects New Zealand’s economy to grow faster in 2026 and also in 2027 than it previously thought, due to rising domestic confidence, citing in particular the growth in business investment which S&P says is carrying growth momentum into the second half of this year. This is a really encouraging sign and it shows confidence is returning, businesses are looking ahead and the Government’s focus on rebuilding the economy is helping to create the conditions for stronger growth.

In its report, S&P highlighted global energy market uncertainty as a risk to disposable incomes, and this just reinforces our Government’s view that amid ongoing volatility in the global energy market, our response must be to maintain fiscal discipline. By keeping Government spending under control and then providing timely, targeted and temporary support with fuel prices, we can minimise the impact on inflation and interest rates. And by being financially responsible, we can also protect disposable incomes by keeping taxes low so that New Zealanders get to keep more of what they earn.

The good news on energy is that our Government’s efforts to support greater development of renewable energy and enable a backup supply of fuel are each contributing to lower wholesale electricity prices, which have fallen by around 35 percent since the 2024 peak, and that’s the equivalent to a drop of $70 a megawatt hour. This shows our "and, and, and" energy approach is working to reduce dry year risk, and also to bring down forward electricity prices, and that means a potential saving of up to $800 million a year. Our Energy Minister, Simeon Brown, has made it very clear to the gentailers that the Government expects that these savings are passed on to Kiwi households and businesses.

In other good economic news from last week, Stats New Zealand data showed visitor arrivals from Australia in the June ‘26 year hit a record high for any annual period in history. South Island airports also exceeded 1 million overseas visitor arrivals annually for the very first time in the March ‘26 year, and that has continued through to June as well. Having spent a lot of time in the South Island recently, including just last week, it’s easy to see why visitors are flocking there in such large numbers. More visitors, of course, means more spending in local cafes, restaurants, shops and tourism businesses, and that of course means more jobs, more opportunities and higher incomes for Kiwis.

Turning to today’s announcement, the Government is confirming the next steps for the second crossing over the Waitematā Harbour. Aucklanders know how much a second crossing is desperately needed. The Auckland Harbour Bridge carries around 170,000 vehicles every day, and it is absolutely critical to our economy. It underpins almost $1 billion in annual economic activity, and with this activity projected to increase to $3.9 billion by 2051.

But the Harbour Bridge has limitations, and as our most populous city grows even more populous, those limitations will only become more acute. Auckland is New Zealand’s economic engine room so we need it to be connected, we need it to be productive, and we need it to be set up for growth and prosperity. The case for a new crossing is strong, and we’re committed to delivering it. And I’ll now pass on to Chris to take you through today’s announcement in a little bit more detail.

Thanks, Prime Minister. Today’s announcement is about getting the additional Waitematā Harbour Crossing project on to the right footing. The project will be the largest and most expensive infrastructure project ever undertaken in New Zealand. It’s imperative we get it right because our fiscal position, our economic performance and our reputation as a modern, functional, first world economy depends on getting it right.

So we’ve got four major announcements today. The first is that we’ll undertake a detailed business case for an additional harbour crossing. As the PM has said, it carries around 170,000 vehicles per day and it’s critical to our economy. But the current corridor already has weight restrictions, limited public transport capacity and major renewal requirements in the year ahead. Before committing to a preferred option, we need to properly understand what should be built, what it will cost, how it will be funded and financed, and how it will be actually delivered. The detailed business case will allow us to look at those questions properly, alongside the wider Auckland transport network.

Second, the project will now be Crown-led with a senior responsible officer reporting directly to Ministers. As I say, it is going to be one of the largest and most complex projects we’ve ever considered. Ultimately, the Crown carries the funding levers, we carry the risk, so it needs clear accountability and responsibility. So we’ll be appointing a senior responsible officer, supported by a steering group comprised of senior leaders from Treasury, NZTA, NIFFCo, MCERT, as well as the Board Chair of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee that we’re in the process of setting up. NZTA has done really important work to get us to this point and will remain central to the project, but the Government believes there needs to be a single person with clear responsibility for driving the project forward and reporting directly to Ministers.

Thirdly, we are prepared to take another look at the Meola Reef option. The Mayor of Auckland has a strong view that Meola Reef could provide a better corridor solution. It is worth noting that option’s been considered and discounted multiple times in the past, but in the spirit of good faith and recognising the city deal that the Government has signed with Auckland, we’re prepared to have a look at it. So we will be inviting Auckland Council to help scope and procure an independent study and contribute 50 percent of its cost, to make sure serious alternatives are properly tested before a final decision is made.

Fourthly, the Government will be considering an innovative market-led proposal. We have had an approach from the private sector involving an alternative approach, which basically involves an innovative construction methodology to upgrade the existing bridge rather than building a new one. The Government doesn’t have a monopoly on good ideas, and if it works, then we should properly consider it. That’s why we set up the market-led proposal process. We want to make sure we get the decision right.

The Waitematā Harbour Crossing project will span multiple Parliaments and potentially multiple Governments, so we are intending to engage meaningfully with the Opposition and with Aucklanders before endorsing an option. It will be hugely consequential.

The next phase of work, the detailed business casework that we’re announcing today, we expect to be completed next year, and it will give us a clear idea of the options, the costs, the funding and financing, and critically how the project will be delivered. So next year we’ll be in a position to make a much more informed decision around what the next steps are from that point. As the Mayor of Auckland says, projects don’t go bad, they start bad, and we’re really determined to get the foundations of this project right from the start so we can take things in a thorough and comprehensive way and make the right decision as we go along. Thank you.

Well, thanks, Chris. And again, I think that’s the key point, is there’s been several goes and ideas around a second harbour crossing under—from different parties and past Governments, and actually to start from the settings and get it right and to do it right from the start is really what we want to do here. With that, happy to take any questions.

Is this a vote of little confidence in NZTA and their endorsed option?

I’ll let you answer.

No, not at all. They will be central to the next steps on this because they’re the ones who’ve done the investment case. I mean, basically, what happened is the last Government started an indicative business case, and you might remember that the last Government kind of making a grand pronouncement before the last election that there was going to be—well, basically in the end, three tunnels at $30 billion to $40 billion, and probably counting, let’s face it, because it was not really a worked-up plan. So the indicative business case was done then.

We came in in late ‘23, obviously, and the GPS said, "Go away and work on the next steps on that", which they’ve now done over the last couple of years. It’s been an extensive amount of work. We’ve had a barge in the harbour, for example. Previous decisions on second harbour crossing have been made on the basis of desktop studies, which I suspect will surprise people. So we’ve actually gone out there and looked at the harbour and the ground conditions and done an extensive amount of work. And they’ve done those two investment cases for a new bridge or—and a, you know, and a new tunnel, and that’s taken us to this point.

If we were to go out there today and say, "Well, we’re building a tunnel or we’re building a bridge", the next question from you would be, "For how much?" We don’t know yet. The next question after that would be, "Will you toll it?" We don’t know yet. The next question after that would be, "How are you going to deliver it?" We don’t have an answer to that question yet. And the next question after that would be, you know, "When’s it going to open?" And again, we don’t have answers to those questions. So, rather than leave those questions unanswered, to make a well-informed decision, we’re actually going to do international best practice and answer those questions before we make a decision.

The investment case didn’t have a dollar estimate put to it?

Yes it did, but—

What was it?

Well, I’m not going to—I’m not going to reveal those today.

Was it north of $15 billion and south of $20 billion?

We’re not going to get into the numerical game because that could go on for all afternoon. It is in the sizeable billions of dollars, which is—

Why are you saying those questions are unanswered if you do have an investment case with some of those answers?

Because the investment case doesn’t deal with those issues. The investment case, only at a very light, high level, deals with the issues around funding, finance, delivery, governance, all of those issues. That’s the point of the further work we need to do. Best practice from the Infrastructure Commission is before you make a decision, do a detailed business case. That is exactly what we are doing. So we are following what the experts say to us to follow in terms of process.

Sorry, Jenna.

How have you spent more than—how has the Government spent more than $100 million on consultants and you still don’t know what should be built, what it will cost, how it will be funded and financed, and how it will be delivered?

Because it’s the most expensive and complicated infrastructure project ever—

In New Zealand.

—in New Zealand history, and all of those questions that we are confronting and going to deal with will feed into or will be answered by some of the work that has already been undertaken. For example, the—

What were the consultants doing?

Well—

Where’s that $100 million?

Well, we can give you the—we can give you the detailed breakdown of it, but it will be the barge in the harbour, it will be the ground condition work, it will be the looking at the particular route and the traffic modelling associated with them. Well, that includes the work that the last Government spent from 2021 onwards, so it’s just worth noting that.

We still don’t have a bridge though, do we, or a tunnel, or a decision on what one of them—

Yeah. We—

No, but Jenna, here’s—

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t—you can’t argue that we should make an evidence-led, data-driven decision that is based on international best practice for making complicated infrastructure decisions, which we are following, and at the same time say we’re just wasting a lot of money. That is—you can’t have it both ways. We are trying to do the right thing here and follow a proper process led by data.

And Jenna, I just want to say, like, I mean, like, you know, I watched—you know, I think it was Key’s Government in 2016 or so, put up a lovely A3 glossy picture of what was going to happen with the tunnel. I watched Hipkins and Wood put up another picture in 2023 with another A3 glossy picture.

You know, honestly, we know that we have done infrastructure management very, very poorly in this country. We have internalised that as a Government. That is why we’ve got an Infrastructure Commission, that’s why we’ve got the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Company in place. We know we’re in the top 10 percent of spenders, we know we’re in the bottom 10 percent in terms of delivery. We know we’re the worst in the world in terms of asset management and renewal. So we are genuinely trying to do this differently. You can’t just sit at a desk, draw some squiggles over the line, do a bit of an AI artist’s impression and say we’ve got a plan. That ain’t—that ain’t going to cut it.

So yes, there is five years’ worth of expenditure that’s been going on since 2021, some under the previous Government, some under us. That information is not desk research; it’s actually proper engineering and tech advice and a whole bunch of things that will actually inform the ultimate solution that we end up determining to go with.

But we are not—we are going to go through this in the right sequence and the right order, and that’s why Chris is exactly right to hit it with the approach that he is, which is to say, look, we want to make sure we actually do a proper detailed business case. Then we’ll determine the option. Then we actually want the chance to be able to do this in conjunction with Auckland Council. But he’s also making a serious effort to reach out to the other side politically because this thing has just bounced around, like most things in New Zealand, because we’ve managed infrastructure so abysmally. Things get turned on, turned off depending upon which Government’s come in. We can’t have that for a harbour bridge which is for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

So why don’t we try and take it the first principles, work it up properly, do it like other small, advanced countries doing serious infrastructure do. Because Chris is right, this is going to be the most expensive piece of infrastructure this country has spent. And so I just do want you to understand we are deliberately coming at this through a very, very different approach from what has happened before. But the reason it hasn’t happened before—you know, I remember there in 2016 and hearing a National Government talk about it, you know, and nothing has happened. So it’s important we do it right so we get a long-term asset for the benefit of New Zealanders.

Sorry, we’ll go to Henry.

Minister, sorry, just understanding what you were saying about it being an expensive thing to look at and needing lots of work. Given the public’s spent $100 million on this, why are you not releasing that business case?

So the NZTA will be releasing a summary of the two options that they have looked at, the bridge and the tunnel, in the coming days and weeks. So they’ll be—the public will get a chance to see exactly what they’ve looked at and the different—you know, the specifications of the route and how many lanes and how they will look. So that’s an important part of the public conversation over the next year or so, and part of the conversation with the Council and the Opposition around that. So that’ll come out in the next—

Would that not include a cost estimate? Because you said that you weren’t going to be able to answer on the cost estimate.

We’ll, look, we’ll consider that, but there are—you know, as we’ve had this conversation before, there are some commercial—

Sensitivities.

—sensitivities around that. We’ll have a look at that. So I’m not committing to that today, but we’ll have a look at that to the extent we can within the bounds of commercial confidentiality.

But I also want to—I also want to be quite clear about that, because if you think about the way that, you know, Chris and I have approached the Northland Expressway, you’ve had a public-private partnership come through there with quite a different model and quite a different approach. Actually, being commercially smart about how we do those negotiations so that we get the best value for money—and I think people will acknowledge that was a very good deal in terms of what we’ve achieved and how we’ve gone about it with really great partners to do that. I just think it is important.

I mean, we can chuck numbers out there, but honestly, when it’s plus or minus billions of dollars, what’s the point? I’m just of the view that we’re going to do a commercial deal, we are going to do this properly and we’re going to do it right so that we get an outcome. Otherwise, we’re just in the classic behaviour we’ve been in, which is we have lots of discussion, lots of debate, lots of AI-generated pictures, and we kid ourselves and we’re actually—you know, it’s fake activity, nothing’s happening, and we’ve got to get it done.

Sorry, Prime Minister, just in your answer just prior, you did say "bridge" and the business case for the harbour—

Well, sorry, no, don’t—

Was that a slip of the tongue?

We have—we’re agnostic as to whether it’s a bridge or a tunnel. We’re not even having that conversation, because it’s important to get the right—there’ll be lots of people with their reckons, there’ll be lots of people with lots of ideas about that, which we’ll gratefully receive and digest, but the upshot is that we’re not starting there with an assumption that it’s a bridge or a tunnel. We’re saying let’s go back, let’s look and understand the lay of the land, let’s literally get on board the Council, let’s get on board as many of our bipartisan friends across the aisle as we possibly can and take them with us, because we know this will be a long run project over multiple years, potentially multiple Governments, and we want to get that right. Tom?

Minister Bishop, just to clarify on something that you said earlier. So at the present time you’re not ruling out tolling either the bridge or the tunnel, whatever option you choose?

It’s going to be subject to—that’ll be part of the discussions around a detailed business case over the next year or so and that’s exactly what the detailed business case will be looking at.

Funding and financing.

And you’ll see that the funding and financing piece is really important, because if we just go—went out there today and said, "Oh, hey, yeah, we’re building a bridge or we’re building a new tunnel", unsurprisingly people would say, "Well, that’s multiple billions of dollars, how are you going to pay for it?" And what you build depends on how much it costs, and how you fund and finance that factors into the decision we need to make next year. So as I say, like, we don’t want to get ahead of that process. There’s been some work done already, but there’s a lot more further work to do.

Just on the subject of the costings—Thomas made a reference—there was the 2025 report which talked about that the cost of the tunnel, just for the contractor, will be about, at the upper end, about $7.5 billion. Can you provide, I guess, a description between where the tunnel might sit cost-wise, because they said that will be more expensive, versus what the bridge might cost? What’s the range?

I’m reluctant to get into that because it depends on the assumptions. I mean, it depends on some of the—it’s not just about the tunnel. The tunnel itself you can build, I mean, you can build tunnels. Sydney’s building one right now, I visited it a couple of weeks ago, or a couple of months ago. The lead up work on the motorway network to and from the tunnel is part of that. Likewise with a bridge. If you build a bridge next to the existing bridge there’s a lot of work required at either end which is complicated and expensive, particularly from a consenting point of view, because you’ve got—you’re dealing with the coastal marine environment. So all of those—so as I say, some work on that has already been done, that’s the reason we know about it, but there’s a lot more further work to do.

It is going to be a difficult decision for whatever Government confronts that decision. Hopefully, it’s our one, but it’ll be a difficult decision and the public deserve a serious look at it, done by serious people working on the best evidence they’ve got, because the country will have to live with the decision for the next 50 to 100 years, and so we are intending to take it seriously as serious politicians.

And Tom, that’s the point I want everyone to register: we’re focusing on getting the right solution and then we’ll deal with the implications of funding and financing after that, because that has been the problem is that we’ve been in a circle and not been able to lay down the tunnel or bridge or whatever it is. So let’s just, you know, let’s just sequence our way through it very—in a very organised, very methodical kind of way to get to a quality decision. Jo Moir.

On that sequencing and detailed analysis, can I just quote to you, Chris Bishop, what it actually says in your press release? “In October 2024, we”, as in your Government, “set out the Government’s expectations for the project and requested NZTA undertake detailed analysis of the highest performing bridge and tunnel options.” Fast forward nearly two years to May 2026, they provide a business case and the response to that is, actually they haven’t done any detailed analysis, actually we don’t know the answers and we need to—

No.

No.

—basically start again. What—

No, no, no, that is—

What did you ask them to do, and did you fail to ask them to do what was needed to be done?

No, no, no, no, no. The New Zealand Transport Agency is a delivery agency. We asked them to, as the press release quotes and I’ve got it here, “detailed analysis of the highest performing bridge and tunnel options for the Waitematā Harbour Crossing project”. They have done that. The board has considered both those proposals and their preference is a tunnel. They have considered that as a board, and it’s now gone to the Government.

The New Zealand Transport Agency, with the greatest respect to them, are not experts in funding and financing, nor are they experts in project governance delivery of a megaproject of this magnitude. They are good at building four-lane roads, and they are good at building— doing bridge replacements, good at running the network, all of those different things, but they are not the experts in the highly complicated and complex governance structures, management structures, and the funding and financing options to deliver this. That’s why we’ve taken it inhouse into the Crown, using Treasury, using NIFFCo, using MCERT—

[Inaudible].

—using some outside expertise as well. All of those issues have to be bottomed out over the next year or so. We’ve made a lot of progress in the last two years; there’s more work to do.

Was there any consideration during that two-year process to actually simultaneously doing some work around the financing and how you might actually do that? Because there’s only so many options on the table, right, and there could have been a group of people that were working simultaneously with NZTA on how that might look. Instead, we’re two years down the track and none of those questions have been answered.

So there has been a—there has been some initial work on some of those questions, but what has become clear in the last few months is that a lot further work is required. And I think, as the Prime Minister has said, it would be really easy for us as politicians and as Ministers in Government to jump immediately to what the right solution is going to be, and then you will inevitably, on behalf of the public, and many members of the public will have a whole range of complicated questions and issues that we need to work through.

So we are taking this in the right way, we are following best practice as to how to set these projects up, and we’ll go forward. And I get that people want immediate answers, but the simple truth of these things is immediate answers right now and immediate decisions potentially leads to enormous pain for Governments down the track, and I don’t want to put my successors in this job in that position.

And, sorry, Jo, the only thing I’d add to what Chris is saying is that also remember, you know, we had our Infrastructure Investment Summit. We’ve had a number of projects fall out of that. You know, last week we had the Christchurch Men’s Prison, you know, start up as a PPP with Plenary. You know, we’ve also had the Northern Expressway, you know, kicked off as well. We’ve also—there will be people, now that we’ve said to the world we’re open for business, we’re open to be creative in funding and financing options, that will come to the table, I suspect, with their own what we call market-led proposals or ideas as well. And we need to make sure that the process is embracing of all of that.

And that’s why I think this is of a complexity and a scale that’s going to be the biggest infrastructure project New Zealand’s ever done. We need to take it out of the realm of NZTA, have it directly plugged in through the SRO, into Cabinet and into Government, and we will look forward to the best solution. And I think that’s been quite exciting, you know, we’ve actually got connections now and relationships with people who build out heavy infrastructure like bridges all around the world, and that’s knowledge that we want to tap into as well, as well as obviously potentially capital.

Sorry, I’ll go to Jo and then come to Thomas, yeah.

Can I just put up the counter to what you were saying there before, Chris Bishop, which is that the public will demand answers and all the rest of it. The public might almost— also say it’s been two years, plus however many years before that in terms of previous Governments. Are you comfortable that you have spent the last two and a half years well when it comes to the work that you could have been doing on this?

I’m really comfortable and confident that NZTA has significantly advanced the work for an additional harbour crossing, and they can give you chapter and verse about what they know now that they didn’t know three years ago and didn’t know ten years before that. As I say, for the first time, they actually sent a barge into Auckland Harbour to look at the ground conditions to work out what is actually buildable. It is quite astonishing that—

[Inaudible] research.

—successive Governments, including past National Governments, have made pronouncements about what will be built based on desktop studies. We’re actually dealing with rock, and the ocean, and the ground—

PM And sediment.

—and sediment. Like, you know, we now know a lot more about what is deliverable, and the alignment and all of these sort of things, but they can give you chapter and verse about it. So we’ve made a lot of progress, but this project will take, you know, anywhere between five, eight, nine, possibly longer to build. I mean, we’ve got to get it right from the start, and that’s what we’re focused on.

Okay, Thomas.

In terms of—obviously you can’t release the summary now, but can you give us a sense of how much NZTA preferred the tunnel option to the bridge option? Is it vastly preferred or is it marginal?

I’ll let them—you can direct that to NZTA. The board, and it’s probably not appropriate I speak to it, the board endorsed the tunnel. There are benefits and costs to each of the two options that the board looked at. Tunnels are, obviously, complicated and expensive, but to be honest, in the environment we’re dealing with in Auckland, so are bridges. And I’ve sort of alluded to some of the challenges around consenting and the marine coastal environment and the linkages to and from the connection. So I’ll—but I’ll let them speak to it.

Secondly—

Thomas, yeah.

In terms of dealing with the funding and financing second, isn’t one avenue that you might, and in fact probably going to go down, is that the existing bridge and the new crossing will be the entry and exit points of the congestion zone, in which case the funding and financing is actually going to be a significant driver of the final decision that you make?

Yes, that’s exactly right. So there’s three things happening, all of which need to factor into the detailed business case, which is why we’re not making a decision about what we’re building today. One of them is time of use pricing, which is now legislated for and Auckland Council is advancing. So that will potentially, depending on its design, influence the detailed business case, and the Government will be working with the Council around that in the coming months.

Second is we’re having a 30-year integrated Auckland Regional Transport Plan, which has flown out—followed the transport governance reforms we legislated for earlier this year. So there is going to be a 30-year plan jointly developed between the Government and Auckland around the future of Auckland transport in a integrated way. That’s a new thing, hasn’t happened before, so it needs to flow into that as well.

The other thing that’s happened, which hasn’t been released publicly yet but I’ll be releasing later in the week, is the Auckland Motorway Plan, which is NZTA’s plan for the future of the Auckland motorways over the next 20 to 30 years as well. That in itself will feed into the Auckland Regional Transport Plan as well.

So my overall point is there’s a lot happening here and it would be really easy to get ahead of all of those things by announcing a decision today. We’re not doing that. We’re going to do the detailed business case at the same time as all those plans are developed and make a decision.

Okay. We’re going to take three more questions. Adam?

This Meola Reef option study, how much is that going to cost, do you think? And if you say it’s been discounted multiple times, we’ve checked it out, it’s no good, is this just about keeping Mayor Wayne Brown happy?

Look, we did a city deal, as you well know. We said this is something we would explore. We’re capping the expenditure at $1 million. It’ll be shared 50:50 between Government and Council. We’ll do one final, definitive view, given there’s some strong views sitting within the Council about the viability of that option. We’ll get a fact base, and then we’ll either rule it in or rule it out pretty heavily and pretty quickly.

Are you comfortable with $500,000, presuming the Council comes to the table with—

Yeah, look, I am. Because I just—guys, when we’re talking about billions of dollars and when we’re talking about the most expensive infrastructure project New Zealand will have ever undertaken, a massive, massive infrastructure—that’s going to impact already 170,000 vehicle movements today and up to $4 billion of GDP. You know, that is a massive investment.

So it’s right, yes, it is, yeah, $500,000 each, but that is to really make sure that we have done due diligence properly, that everyone’s aligned. And part of the reason why this project has fallen down so many times before is because someone in this office generates a picture, like Wood or, you know, Hipkins and—or Key, you know, whoever it was before, and, you know, there’s been no conversation. So we need to partner with Auckland Council. We also need to do everything we can to reach out to the other—to the opposition parties as well, because I want as much bipartisanship on this. And therefore I need a clean process and a good process to say, "OK, let’s all travel together to get through it", because that’s the only way we can deliver it. Otherwise, we’re going to be making the mistakes we’ve made so many times before.

Is that just about keeping Mayor Wayne Brown happy, this Meola Reef study?

No, it’s a sign of good faith, which is we signed that deal, it’s got to mean something, right? And he’s been really clear that he’s the Mayor of Auckland—

It’s important to him.

—and he’s got a view, and I don’t necessarily agree with that view, but it’s—

Is announcing this 80 days before an election—

Hang on, Sean. Hang on, I’ll go Jenna, then I’ll come back to Sean.

Will you commit the $3.5-odd million needed to save the waka that’s about 500 years old, that’s currently under sand in the Chatham Islands, given that the Māori Land Court has ruled that it’s the Crown’s obligation to care for it?

Yeah, look, I’m sorry, I just haven’t—I’m not briefed on the subject. I’m happy to pick it up with Paul Goldsmith. He’s over there today, actually, so feel free to ask him.

Is the timing of this announcement, when you want to have a bipartisan approach— we’ve got an election on 7 November. That’s hardly the best time to be going to your political opponents and saying, "Hey, let’s get together around the table on this".

Well, I met with Tangi Utikere this morning and I briefed the Greens on it, and they’ve had briefings along the way. The alternative is that we not make a decision, at which point you’d all be saying, "Why haven’t you made a decision on the second harbour crossing when you said you would make one by mid-2026?" There’s no perfect time to do these things. The public expect us to take this project seriously and responsibly and we’re doing that.

Irrespective of the election.

I met with Tangi this morning, the Labour Party’s been briefed, they’re happy to have any other briefings they possibly need on this. This is not party-political, we’re not politicising it. It would have been easy to stand up and announce we’re building a bridge or a tunnel, and then, you know, that would have—you know, everyone would have gone, "Oh, that’s very exciting". But we’re not doing that, we’re announcing a detailed business case, which I get people will find quite boring.

They’re not nearly as excited about the detailed business case.

I know.

I know you’re disappointed about that.

But it’s amazing what happens when you do the right thing.

Yeah. We’re going to get one last question. Sorry, mate.

Prime Minister, can you explain the upgrades at all in the—or the pitch that you’ve got regarding the existing harbour crossing upgrades and how that kind of came about?

Sorry, the—

There’s an—you’re looking at an existing—upgrades to the existing harbour— Auckland Harbour Bridge?

Yeah, sure, that’s what we call renewals and maintenance and just to make sure that we know it’s got some challenges, and we know it’s already got some restrictions on it as it currently stands. We’ve got to, obviously, continue to make sure it’s well-maintained and it’s renewed as best we possibly can while we simultaneously also continue to work on the new option as well. OK, team, we’re going to stop it there.