Sitting date: 11 February 2025

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and I'd take my lineup over his every day of the week, because inflation is beat, interest rates are falling, and exports are rising fast thanks to our farmers and growers competing so well on the world stage. New Zealand had a team that spent six years wasting money; now they have a team that's actually fighting for Kiwis so they can get ahead and build a bigger, better economy with higher incomes and more jobs. That means promoting more tourism, more investment, more infrastructure, more farming, more fishing and mining, and we're doubling down on all of that so we get this economy moving.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his comment that David Seymour has not breached the Cabinet Manual given the Cabinet Manual says that Ministers must conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to their office, "are expected to act lawfully, and are seen to uphold the highest ethical and behavioural standards, including good judgment, given recent revelations that David Seymour intervened in a police murder investigation, referred a sexual abuse survivor to an ACT Party lawyer rather than to the police, and, just yesterday—potentially illegally—attempted to drive a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he therefore confident that driving a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament is a lawful activity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ultimately, that's a decision for the Speaker, and he's addressed that today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said that, of Ministers involving themselves in police matters, "This would not be tolerated under a National government I lead. New Zealanders expect Ministers to hold themselves to the highest standards."; if so, what happened to those standards?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said yesterday, I made my position clear: he wrote the letter before he was actually a Government Minister and before the Government was formed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can New Zealanders have any respect for his leadership when his own soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister called him "ill-advised" for questioning his decision to undermine the separation between politics and the judicial system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I made my position on the letter clear yesterday. He wrote it before he was in Government and before he was a Minister. This is a Government focused on economic growth.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he asked David Seymour if he has ever received political donations from Philip Polkinghorne; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, and I have nothing else to say on it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Given David Seymour has refused to answer publicly whether he has received donations from Philip Polkinghorne, and the Prime Minister is the only person who can judge whether there is a conflict of interest with regard to David Seymour's interventions in the case, why hasn't he asked him?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because the Minister was not a Minister at the time in which he sent the letter. He was an MP outside the Government and not a Minister—it's very simple.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue of whom people have received political donations from is material to conflicts of interest now, presently, regardless of whether the donation was received before they were a Minister. The receipt of a political donation from someone can cause conflict of interest. The Prime Minister is responsible for managing Cabinet conflicts of interest. If he is not asking Ministers that question, he's not doing his job.

SPEAKER: Well, I just want to make the point that the question starts to border on that interface between the Prime Minister and the leader of a party, and I think that's one that the House has wrestled—[Interruption] Yes, it does, because it happened when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition and Mr Seymour was a leader of another party. At the moment, I'd like to take advice as to where exactly that fits into the arrangement, so I'll come back to you in a few minutes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, while you consider that, Mr Speaker, you might like to consider the fact that there are Ministers in the current Government who have exempted themselves from decision-making processes concerning donors where the donor gave them the money before the last election and before they were Ministers. The Prime Minister is the Minister responsible for enforcing standards around conflicts of interest. If the Prime Minister has already decided that Ministers who received donations before they were Ministers should exempt themselves from decision making, then the question that I asked him is absolutely within order.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: The honourable Chris Hipkins.

Hon Chris Bishop: Bishop.

SPEAKER: Bishop. Yeah—you look so alike!

Hon Chris Bishop: All of Mr Hipkins' points would be true if it were the case that Mr Seymour is making a ministerial decision or, indeed, the Prime Minister is making a ministerial decision now—that is not the case. The matters being traversed in this question relate to, from memory, 2022—which, last time I looked, is well before 27 November, when Mr Seymour assumed his ministerial warrants. There is no conflict of interest to inquire about, because Mr Seymour was not a Minister at the time the things that we're traversing were discussed.

Hon Judith Collins: Speaking to the point of order, I noted that Mr Hipkins referred to Ministers and Mr Seymour receiving funding or funds from certain people. That implies that they're receiving it personally. I think the point needs to be made, doesn't it, and clarified if people are receiving funding to their parties, not to them personally. It's quite a different situation than the conflict-of-interest situation that Mr Hipkins has raised.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, Judith Collins is 100 percent wrong. There are Ministers in her Government, of which she is part, who have declared political donations, donations to their parties, and exempted themselves from ministerial decisions on the basis of those donations.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He's one of them.

Hon Member: You're one of them.

Hon Chris Bishop: Yeah, absolutely. Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Yes, I'll call you, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, that of course is correct in the way that this Government has taken the advice from the Cabinet Office—in the way that the previous Labour Government took advice from the Cabinet Office—where Ministers are careful to recuse themselves from decisions where they have a conflict of interest based upon advice. That is wholly different to what Mr Hipkins is essentially implying through his questions. Mr Seymour is a Minister in this Government, but we are not talking about an active ministerial decision where a conflict of interest may arise. We are traversing something that happened two years ago—and in relation to the particular matter—where he was the MP for Epsom. We are not talking about a ministerial decision. There is no conflict of interest.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the member is deflecting somewhat from my question, which was whether a donation was received by David Seymour in his political capacity, whether he received a political donation. He's trying to then divert that on to other things. It is a simple question as to whether a political donation was received. It's absolutely acceptable for the Prime Minister to be asked that. It's also very acceptable for the Prime Minister to be expected to know who is funding his Ministers.

SPEAKER: I think there are a number of points on both sides that are of interest in a case like this. I'd refer members to Speaker's ruling 180/1, and I'll read these words, but I'm also not particularly reaffirming this today; I just want to take a bit of time given the points that have been raised. The bit that I would call attention to is; "although the Prime Minister is not answerable for statements or actions taken purely in a non-ministerial capacity, such as those taken as a party leader, or in a personal capacity, the Prime Minister can be asked about how such actions or statements may, or may not affect his view of a Minister's judgment, and his confidence in a Minister." So, the questions were along those lines. I think that where we get to a bit of trouble is the specifics of the question, and that's what I want to have a bit of a think about over the next 24 hours.

Hon Judith Collins: Speaking to the point of order. Mr Hipkins has done it again. He has actually slurred all the Ministers by saying the House is entitled to know who is funding his Ministers. Now actually, we're funded by the taxpayer, just like everybody in this House. We are not funded by particular people, and I think it is quite wrong for him to get away with implying otherwise.

SPEAKER: Yes, and in the grand scheme of things, I probably didn't pick that up, but I think it might be worth just—Mr Hipkins, it might be worth withdrawing that part of your—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I think it was very clear from the context of all of the issues I've raised I was referring to political donations. Very happy to clarify that.

Hon David Seymour: It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to just stand up and say that there's been no such donation to me, but I'm not going to do that. I would urge all members of the House to think very carefully about the implications of every member declaring every possible donation, or not, at every point of questioning. If you really want to go there, then we could have a very different type of politics.

SPEAKER: Hold on. That was supposed to be a point of order, not a statement. I think we'll move now to—have you got further supplementaries?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: To the Prime Minister, why hasn't he demanded a resignation letter from David Seymour, particularly given that David Seymour himself said in 2023 that Ministers interfering in judicial decisions should be "prepared to resign the post if the Prime Minister thinks that's in the best interests of New Zealand"?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don't know how to make it any clearer to the member, but what I've said before, which is the Minister wrote the letter while he was an MP, before he was a Minister, before he was in this Government. I'm just reminded of the words of the Canadian songstress Alanis Morissette who said, "isn't it ironic", because let me give you four names: Michael Wood, Meka Whaitiri, Stuart Nash, and how about Kiri Allan? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That's enough. Thank you. We'll go into a period of silence now while we have question No. 2.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That includes everyone on the Labour front bench.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, and in particular our action to unlock growth in regional New Zealand. Whether it's farming, fishing, mining, or forestry our Government backs our primary industries to lift incomes and create opportunities in regional New Zealand. That's why it was actually really great to see the Tairāwhiti mill is set to reopen in the coming months under new owners, adding value and creating quality jobs in our regional economy. It's that kind of investment that we need to see a lot—a lot—more across New Zealand and that's why it's been so disappointing to see members opposite come out against everything that we're doing to unlock growth and power up this economy in regional New Zealand.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that his Government's main purpose is to serve the wealthy at the expense of tangata w'enua and ordinary New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will his "golden visas" improve the lives of ordinary New Zealanders when there is no expectation that the profits earned will be invested back into our communities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because investment into businesses helps them grow, which enables them to pay higher wages and incomes and offer more jobs, which in turn get spent in the economy, which actually drives more economic growth.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What incentive do overseas investors have to look after our environment when they are only required to stay in Aotearoa for 21 days every three years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Before the last Labour Government made some very restrictive changes to the active investor visa, this was a country that benefited by $2.2 billion from investment coming from these people into New Zealand. Under the changes of the "no" Government of Labour—the one that ran the economy into the ground—there was $70 million raised over 13 projects in a two-year period. We want the $2.2 billion, and the $1.7 billion that followed once those investors got comfortable in this country. So we welcome investment to this country. It's necessary for regular New Zealanders, everyday Kiwis, to be able to get ahead—because capital matters.

Hon Chris Bishop: Would the Prime Minister encourage some of the recipients of these investor visas to philanthropically donate funds to encourage the Māori Party to take Economics 101 courses at regular universities?

SPEAKER: No, sorry, we're not having those questions. You do that again, that'll be goodbye.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister whether the essence of the Te Pāti Māori questions remind him of the relationship between Te Pāti Māori and the Waipareira Trust's so-called charitable donations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what it does remind me of—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. That's a matter that's currently under very significant police investigation; it won't be brought up in the House.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that our justice system treats wealthy people better than it treats poor people?

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that our name suppression laws can be abused by the wealthy and people in power?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, we have a justice system that we want to make sure the public have great confidence in. That's what we keep perfecting.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Should an upcoming election ever be used as an excuse to grant or extend name suppression?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I'm not clear where the member's going with their line of questioning. What I'd say very clearly is that this is a Government that's about restoring law and order. We're doing great job doing exactly that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just a moment. I just want to make it clear that questions that seek to, effectively, question a decision by a court are not appropriate in this House.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why does the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands have to consult the New Zealand Government before a visit to China, but the New Zealand Government doesn't have to consult Māori when they try to rewrite Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the first leg of the question, it's important, given the 2001 joint declaration that Helen Clark signed with the previous Cook Islands Prime Minister, that, actually, we do expect amongst our friends and particularly Realm countries that we actually have transparency and consultation on major issues around defence, security, and foreign affairs. [Interruption] The Cook Islands is a great country, we love the Cook Islands people, but we need to make sure we have transparency, and we'll work our way through that issue.

SPEAKER: I'm sure that all of the commentary coming from some parts of the House is very exciting for the people making that commentary, but not much good for the rest of us, so please button it back a bit.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Last month, Statistics New Zealand reported annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation of 2.2 percent for the December quarter. That was the same rate as the September quarter and well within the Reserve Bank's target range of 1 percent to 3 percent. I feel for those New Zealanders who are hurting from the period of rampant inflation across 2021, 2022, and 2023, when prices were at times rising more than 7 percent a year and when the real value of people's wages and people's savings were being eroded. The current Government—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: This is a very long answer to a patsy question.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —cannot remake that history—it happened—but we can assure people of our commitment to responsible spending and price stability.

Sam Uffindell: Why is price stability important?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Having low, stable, and predictable inflation helps people and businesses make better decisions around spending, savings, borrowing, and investment. It means price rises don't get out of control, and that helps the economy to grow. As I've said many times, a growing economy means more jobs, higher wage growth, and a better standard of living for New Zealanders. Inflation also leads to arbitrary redistribution of resources, often away from those with the lowest incomes. That is why price stability is so important, and why we must avoid the rampant and unpredictable inflation of the recent past.

SPEAKER: Well, "concise" is a good word for people to consider when answering questions.

Sam Uffindell: How are wages growing in relation to prices?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Statistics New Zealand has also recently released information on wages. As I said, annual CPI inflation in the December quarter was 2.2 percent. In the same period, according to the quarterly employment survey, wages rose 4.2 percent. Now, everyone's circumstances are different, of course, and many people are still doing it tough. But it is true that with inflation now under control, on average, wages are now rising faster than prices.

Sam Uffindell: What is happening to mortgage interest costs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, mortgage rates are falling now that inflation is back within the target band and that is starting to flow through to people's back pockets because half of mortgage lending is either floating or is fixed for six months or less. Infometrics has estimated that by the end of this year, households will have another $45 million to spend every week due to lower mortgage interest costs. Now, that is good news for families who in recent years have suffered both a cost of living crisis and the high interest rates required to bring it under control.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and particularly our action to go for growth. We know that better days lie ahead, we know that inflation is down, that interest rates are falling, and that confidence is steadily coming back. Our farmers and our growers are powering up our regions, and our exports are growing fast. We know there's a lot more to do to ensure that economic growth takes flight and that Kiwis get ahead. That's why fast-track applications are now open and it's why we're making New Zealand a much more attractive place for investors to make quality investments here. It's why we're holding an investor summit to be able to bring this money to New Zealand so that it helps everyday Kiwis. And, sure, we're going to keep making these changes and keep our economy moving because, actually, that's how Kiwis get ahead.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What responsibility does he take for the fact that 13,000 jobs in the building and construction sector have been lost during the time he has been Prime Minister, particularly given industry statements that his Government's decision to slash house building, pause or cancel major infrastructure projects, and cut Government investment are to blame?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'll just say to that member: I don't think he understands economics, you know? That member is like the arsonist that lit the fire and now criticises the fire brigade for putting it out, right? It's all a bit convenient just to forget recent history. What happened? Inflation went up because spending went up. Inflation went up; interest rates went up. He put the economy into recession and the consequences was unemployment. If he cared about working people, he would have managed the economy well, but he didn't.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It's clearly working for him! [Interruption] Supplementary—

SPEAKER: Just hold on. All right, we're quiet now. Away you go.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How will his Government find the skilled workers needed for major infrastructure projects when they finally work out what they actually want to build, given that many of those 13,000 skilled workers who lost their jobs have already left the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, they've left the country to go to sectors that that member doesn't support. Think about mining in Australia, for example. But what I'd say is that the Infrastructure Commission's latest pipeline actually had, I think, $148 billion worth of work. We have $33 billion in the transport Government policy statement over the next three years. So we are getting the economy moving. We're going to build infrastructure, not just talk about it—like Auckland light rail and harbour crossings and a bunch of other kumbaya and mush from the muppets on the other side.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think the fact that 70,000 New Zealanders have left the country since he became Prime Minister—equivalent to the population of Napier—is one of the reasons over half the country think that things are heading in the wrong direction?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you the recipe of tax more, borrow more, spend more, put the economy into recession which, actually, that member was responsible for after six years of economic mismanagement and illiteracy—but we are working and doing everything we can to make sure we build out a great future for our kids and our grandkids. And that means modern, reliable infrastructure. So do you want to support fast track or not? Tax relief for working New Zealanders—but you didn't support that. You didn't support cancer drugs. You're not supporting New Zealand at all.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If New Zealand is back on track, why are company liquidations in the building and construction sector up 41 percent, up 55 percent in hospitality, and a whopping 79 percent in transport, all under his watch; or will he now admit that under his leadership, the country's being derailed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ha, ha! Oh my goodness! What I'd just say to that member is we know that it's a tough time for New Zealanders. We know that they're going through economic pain—thank you, Labour! Thank you, Labour, for running the economy into the ditch! But don't worry, we're fixing it. We're pulling it out. We're going for economic growth.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What's Nicola Willis more likely to replace this year: the Interislander ferries or him as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'm incredibly proud of a great Minister of Finance and an awesome Minister for Economic Growth because we actually have some green shoots appearing in this economy. We have inflation down. We have interest rates down. We have confidence up. We had exports in December up 17 percent—that's brilliant news. We've got some of our farming sector starting to come back very strongly. So we care about where this country's going. We don't just go trash it and then criticise. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Can I just say to those who might be viewing or listening who are thinking of writing to me to explain that I need to do something about the level of barracking going on in this House: when questions like that are asked, naturally there's going to be the sort of response that you might even get in some kind of family squabble.

Question No. 5—Infrastructure

5. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent milestones have been reached in the new fast-track consenting scheme?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Well, I'm proud to tell the House that, as of last Friday, the coalition Government's fast-track approvals scheme is officially open for business. I want to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones, who did so much of the heavy lifting with us on this very important job. People are now able to apply into the approvals scheme if their proposed projects have significant regional or national benefits. We can at last get moving on growing our economy and sorting out our infrastructure deficit, housing crisis, and energy shortage, and I encourage all members to go to this following great website: www.fasttrack.govt.nz.

Catherine Wedd: What level of interest has the fast-track approvals scheme seen so far?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: A huge amount. I'm advised, literally thousands of people have visited since Friday and there have been more than 10,000 page views. Expressions of interest for potential expert panel members have also been received, and if anyone is interested in being part of that, they should contact the Environmental Protection Authority. I can also confirm that applications for both substantive projects and referrals are under way, and officials are working through these. Members can expect updates regularly in this House, in accordance with the Act. When I go around the country over the last few months, the level of interest in utilising fast track is truly unparalleled and I'm looking forward to getting on with those projects around the country.

Catherine Wedd: What other milestones have been reached so far in the new fast-track approvals scheme?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Last week, we announced that retired Environment Court Judge Jane Borthwick has been appointed as the fast-track panel convener, Helen Atkins and Jennifer Caldwell as associate conveners. These expert panel conveners will be tasked with approving or declining projects, alongside the panels that they will appoint; they'll be able to request reports from relevant agencies. All three of these panel convenors have vast experience in resource management law.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the fast-track approvals scheme so important for New Zealand's economic growth?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, fast track is about enabling major investments in growth, in renewable energy, transport, aquaculture, housing, aquaculture, and mining. We are a country blessed with abundant natural resources and plenty of land. We are bigger than the United Kingdom—they have 70 million people; we have 5 million people. It's time that we cut through the red and green tape that's made it hard to take advantage of our abundant natural resources and start going for growth, because only growth provides the living standards and the incomes that New Zealanders need and deserve to get ahead in life.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether this matter is so transactional and so transformative that the Labour Party has actually accessed the website over a thousand times?

SPEAKER: No—that'll do.

Hon Chris Bishop: Well, far be it for me to comment but—

SPEAKER: No, no, no, sit down—sit down.

Hon Chris Bishop: Are you sure?

SPEAKER: Yeah, absolutely certain.

Hon Chris Bishop: Why not? I'll give it a go!

SPEAKER: I'll tell you what: it's either sit down or walk out. You choose. Question No. 6—can I welcome back to the House, the Hon Marama Davidson.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And thank you, Mr Speaker, for supporting leave for treatments. My question is to the Prime Minister. E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

[Does he stand by all his statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes. And I also just want to join with all of us across Parliament and welcome the member back to Parliament, and we wish you very well with your recovery.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you. Why didn't he just attend the Government pōwhiri in Waitangi on 5 February and then travel to Ōnuku Marae, like other members of his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I had a series of engagements on the 5th, including with Ngāi Tahu leadership, to discuss how we work together to advance the interests of Māori.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, "There was a lot in Justin Tipa's speech that I fully agree with. I thought the principles of what he talked about I could fully identify with."; if so, how does he identify with Justin Tipa's statement, "A National Party that fails to take leadership on matters of fundamental importance to the identity of our nation is not worthy of its own name."?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question: yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, "Despite tension, despite frustration, we still show up and actually engage in a process, in a conversation, on this day."; if so, why does he keep avoiding significant events like the Treaty principles bill first reading, the arrival of the hīkoi to Parliament, and Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question: yes. I thoroughly enjoyed my time at Ōnuku Marae. We had a very productive and constructive set of conversations.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, "Part of the history of modern New Zealand has been our struggle to understand the intentions and expectations of those who signed the Treaty."; if so, how does he respond to Te Aroha Rountree, president of the Methodist Church of New Zealand, who said, "Tangata whenua do not struggle to understand the expectations of our tūpuna. Our tūpuna intended and expected for their partner, the Crown, to act in good faith in their dealings with Māori."?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question: yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he still stand by his statement, "Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown."?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Question No. 7—Housing

7. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he agree with Chris Bishop, National spokesperson for Housing's statement on 27 September 2022 that "We will build enough state and social houses so that there is no social housing waitlist"; if so, is the Government on track to eliminate the social housing waitlist?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Yes, I often agree with myself. The goal of any Government, as indeed it is of this Government, should be to reduce the social housing wait-list as much as possible. One way to reduce the wait-list is to build more State and social houses. That's why, in Budget 2024, we allocated $140 million to fund 1,500 new places to June 2027. Kāinga Ora will also be delivering an additional 2,650 housing places to June 2026. There are also many other ways to reduce the housing wait-list, including increasing land supply, making it easier for councils to fund and finance infrastructure, reducing consenting costs, increasing housing supply, increasing competition in the market for building materials, and removing red tape. Around half of the applicants on the social housing wait-list—listen up, because I don't think members know this—are living in private housing, so anything we can do to make rents or housing more affordable puts downward pressure on the wait-list. In response to the second part of the question, we are on track. Since we came to Government, the social housing wait-list has declined by around 5,000 households. This is great progress. If it was the case that simply handing billions of dollars to Kāinga Ora was a way to reduce the wait-list, we would have seen better results over the last six years. Despite record debt by Kāinga Ora and billions of dollars given to the organisation, the social housing wait-list quadrupled.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he consider stopping the expansion of the State housing stock and reducing funding to community housing providers to only 750 social houses a year to be in line with the pledge to "build enough state and social houses so that there is no social housing waitlist"?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member's question is completely factually inaccurate. We have funded more social houses than the last Government did. For example, the Kāinga Ora and social housing build programme stopped as per the settings left by the last Government's Budget in May 2023. There were no social housing places funded beyond June 2025. It was a fiscal cliff bequeathed to us by the last Government. So the member's assertion that we have reduced social housing funding is, in fact, completely inaccurate. The truth is the opposite: we have increased it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Outside of Kāinga Ora and community housing providers, how many social houses has the private sector built over the last 10 years?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as the member knows, the private sector does not typically build social houses—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You just said they were the answer!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, of course, building houses and improving the affordability of housing is part of the answer. Members need to understand the way the housing market works, which is that, when rents are high and people can't afford the private rental market, they end up in social housing. So all the things the Government is doing around freeing up land and making it easier for builders to build will help our housing market at every section, from first-home buyers, from people moving houses, from people in social housing, from people who might otherwise need a social house. We are focused on using every lever at our disposal in the housing market to improve affordability. Part of that—part of that—is supporting Kāinga Ora and the community housing sector to build more social and affordable houses; very important.

Hon Nicola Willis: Has the number of New Zealanders waiting on the State house waiting list increased or decreased since the Government was elected, and how does that compare to what happened to the State house waiting list under the last Government? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, that's just too much. Calm it down. I'm going to have to do something because otherwise I'm going to upset myself, but no.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Simple numbers. The wait-list—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute—hang on. We'll just go into complete silence and then we'll see where it goes from there. Away you go.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Simple numbers. The wait-list has declined by around 5,000 since the Government came to office. That compares to an increase of around 20,000 under the last Government. Let me make this point: 50 percent of people on the social housing wait-list need a one-bedroom house. Kāinga Ora's stock: 12 percent of the houses owned by the Government are one-bedroom units. We are really focused on gearing up the system to build simple, low-cost, affordable social houses for people in need.

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: Could the Minister explain whether the people in emergency housing has gone up or down since this new Government was elected?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the things—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Wait on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the things that this Government is very proud of is that over the last 14 months or so around 1,900 children in emergency housing motels have been moved into social and affordable housing. It's a totemic achievement, and the Government is very proud of the fact that there are thousands of children now living in social houses who were previously living in cold, dark, dank motels. That is the legacy bequeathed to us by the outgoing Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. For the umpteenth time, it is allowed in this House to interject. But what's coming from over there is a disorganised rabble, all shouting at the same time—and from the backbench as well—over their own colleagues. No one can hear a thing on this side of the House, let alone the rest of the debating chamber.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry, are you speaking to the point of order?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I absolutely object to Winston Peters describing us as disorganised; we're very organised on this side of the House.

SPEAKER: Well, it's not something for which I'm going to ask him to apologise and withdraw, but the level of—it's not interjection; it's just barracking and it just sounds terrible. I get letters and letters about it—or emails, whatever. People need to ask themselves: "How am I presenting myself to the public of New Zealand while sitting inside the House of Representatives?" Rare and reasonable—fair enough. But not the constant barrage, which, actually, in the case of the last question, started before he'd even begun his answer.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider that the State house waiting list would be longer or shorter if 100,000 KiwiBuild houses had been delivered?

SPEAKER: No, I think we'll leave that one.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is it his intention to reduce the social housing wait-list not by building houses but instead, as front-line providers have stated is the actual case with emergency housing numbers, by manipulating the numbers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, that's not the intention. We will build more social houses. I'll tell you one thing we have done is really try to get to grips with the way in which the register interacts with people who are actually building the houses. To give the House a simple example: when we came into Government, the way in which the Ministry of Social Development's (MSD) list was communicated to Kāinga Ora and the community housing providers—they basically had to provide people, one by one, to the community housing providers in an incredibly inefficient, time-consuming process that sucked up enormous amounts of energy. There have been a whole bunch of operational improvements to the way the register operates so that it's easier for people on the register to communicate—or easier for MSD to communicate—with Kāinga Ora and the community housing providers. Simple operational things like that have made a difference in the operation and housing of people off the register.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with Andrew Crisp, chief executive of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, who said that "both the register and people that apply does not represent effectively … severe housing deprivation"; and, if so, how can he stand in this House and celebrate numbers going down when he knows, from front-line providers and his own ministry, the need is actually growing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Two points. Firstly, he's not the chief executive; he's left. Secondly, he is right. The register is imperfect, and I think members opposite who've been Ministers of Housing before would acknowledge that. The register is an imperfect measure of housing need. There's no doubt about that. There are people in housing need who aren't on the register, and it's quite possibly the case that there are people on the register who haven't been checked up on in the last few months or years who don't necessarily need to be on the register, for example. In fact, the last Government commissioned a report by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet into the social housing register and the way in which it operates. It was done by Grant Robertson's implementation unit and the report is available online. I encourage the member to go and read it because it's a pretty sorry tale of how the register operates. I'm not pretending that it's a perfect measure of housing need, but it's what we have, and it's what we have now, and we're comparing who's on the register now in the same way that the last Government did, and we'll continue to do that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Can he assure the House that no Kāinga Ora houses or land will be sold to any donors to either of the three Government parties?

SPEAKER: I don't think that's a reasonable question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes or no?

SPEAKER: No, it's not a reasonable question for the Minister to answer. That would imply that the Minister is aware of how other parties are funded. That's not a reasonable question, nor is it in the bounds of ministerial responsibility. Question No. 8—

Hon Chris Bishop: I still want to address it, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. I've said it's out.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has she made about attracting more global investment to New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): I was delighted to announce alongside the Prime Minister, the Minister for Economic Growth, and the Minister for Trade and Investment that this Government is modernising visa settings to incentivise migrants to invest in New Zealand. We have revamped and simplified the rules so we can attract a much broader range of migrants to share their connections, their invaluable expertise, their knowledge and skills, and invest in our businesses. By attracting foreign investment this Government will boost economic growth, create more jobs, and foster long-term partnerships to help us ensure a prosperous future for all Kiwis.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will these changes attract more investment to New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: From 1 April, this Government will introduce two new investment categories under the Active Investor Plus visa to encourage foreign investors to contribute to New Zealand's economy. The Growth category focuses on high-risk investments like Kiwi startups, with a minimum of $5 million for three years, while the Balanced category targets lower-risk investments requiring $10 million over five years. By simplifying requirements and removing barriers like the English language test, we will encourage a broader range of investors to contribute capital, expertise, and networks to turbocharge our economic growth.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How do these improvements help to grow New Zealand business and communities?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: New Zealand is back open for business and back open for investment. Investors will not only bring capital but also valuable international networks, expertise, and new technologies. These contributions will help businesses grow, create jobs, provide young people with opportunities to develop new skills. We are a Government that is saying yes to growth, yes to opportunity, yes to a more prosperous future for all New Zealanders, because when we attract international investment, we are investing in our futures: better jobs and stronger communities.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What feedback has she seen?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I received overwhelmingly positive feedback. David Cooper from Malcolm Pacific said the offshore market was ready for our changes and the timing "couldn't be better". Immigration lawyer Mark Williams said, "We welcome the changes announced yesterday by the Prime Minister. … We believe the new … settings will create significant investment [and] interest" to dramatically increase the amount of foreign direct investment as a result. And the cherry on the top, former Labour Minister for Economic Development Stuart Nash, who launched the visa in 2022, coming out to congratulate us, to say, "We got a couple of things wrong, I admit that" but this Government has "done a really good job on this."

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

[Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree that his Government's decision to cut funding for school lunches by up to 75 percent per child has reduced the quality of those lunches?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think what's important is that we actually are expanding access for 10,000 more kids, and the money saved is actually going into delivering better resources in education and healthcare.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government's choice to stop contracts with local providers and procure school lunches from a large corporation has cost approximately 2,000 local jobs in communities, as well as a reduction in the quality of this food?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'm excited about is that any savings made are being redirected to our kids so they get a better education and they get better healthcare.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware of how many of these lower-quality lunches [moves three school meal packs into a line on her desk] procured by his Government are now ending up in landfill as a result of them being inedible?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, since when in Standing Orders is a member allowed to bring their lunch to Parliament, let alone having taken it from a schoolchild? Since when?

SPEAKER: It may well raise a question [Interruption]. I'm speaking: it may well raise a question about where they came from but generally the use of aids when it comes to making a point is not approved in the House, so I'm sure that the member won't make too much use of those items in front of her.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Shall I repeat the question, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, you didn't start it.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I'll repeat the question: is the Prime Minister aware of how many of these lower-quality lunches procured by his Government are now ending up in landfill as a result of them being inedible for our kids?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just encourage the member to direct the question at the relevant Minister.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister—will the Prime Minister [Interruption]—

SPEAKER: No, hang on, just wait. It's your colleagues who are making all the noise.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister, then, commit to eating the same lunches that he is forcing on our school children, like one of these three that I have brought for each of the leaders of his Government, and, if not, is there one standard of acceptable food for parliamentarians and another for our children?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well I'm more worried about which children are missing out on those lunches that you've nicked them from.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people delivering the healthy school lunch programme, the School Lunch Collective, are highly qualified and skilled in delivering food, unlike Chlöe Swarbrick, and, if he knew that, would he be surprised to hear feedback that we've received such as, quote, "Received our first lunches from the new lunch programme today and the students and staff were very impressed! Lunches arrived on time and they were nice and hot and students said they were filling and had flavour."?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I appreciate what the Minister is doing to make sure that we deliver better healthy lunch programmes and also free up cash that can be spent on education and getting our kids educated. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister's—

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on. Just wait, and then I'll give you the nod. Now we can go.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Prime Minister's stated obsession with growth always going to come at the cost of our children's wellbeing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It's because of our children's wellbeing we want growth; that's actually how they access higher-paying jobs, more jobs, higher incomes, be able to afford the things that they want to do, and live the dreams that they have.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that, yesterday, the school lunch programme achieved 100 percent on-time delivery in every region, with two exceptions, where, in one case, 95 percent delivery was achieved, and, in the other case, 92 percent on-time delivery was achieved?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I wasn't, but that sounds fantastic.

Question No. 10—Biosecurity

10. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcement has he made in his portfolio?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Last month, I released a media statement highlighting just how important our strong border and wider biosecurity system is for New Zealand. In January, Germany confirmed an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle for the first time in 40 years. The risk to New Zealand is low, but we take it very seriously because of how devastating this disease would be for our primary sector and for the New Zealand economy. Biosecurity New Zealand staff are being increasingly vigilant at the border to make sure we keep it out. It has been a busy summer for Biosecurity New Zealand. While most of us were enjoying a Christmas break, staff rapidly stood up an incursion response in Auckland when a single oriental fruit fly was detected in a trap. This comes on top of the ongoing response against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) at a poultry farm in Otago. This shows that biosecurity doesn't take a holiday.

Mark Cameron: What updates can he give on the current incursion responses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Rapid action on behalf of the farmer and Biosecurity New Zealand to stand up a response and restrict movements is paying off in Otago. Tracing has not detected any HPAI-infected chickens beyond the farm where the disease originated. Given we have now had enough time to move through two incubation periods, our focus has shifted onto decontamination of the affected property to avoid any reinfection. The fruit fly response is still ongoing, with surveillance traps being checked each week. So far, there have been no more detections. Movement controls remain in place and Biosecurity New Zealand staff have reported positive engagement with the public.

Mark Cameron: Why is this work important?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: New Zealand's robust biosecurity system and the relative freedom from pests and disease that it protects is a massive part in our farmers' competitive advantage. It underpins a $53 billion export industry, showcased at lunchtime by those lovely, lovely lamb chops that many of us partook in for National Lamb Day.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Wasn't me!

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, you should have got some. Well, I'll happily eat that tomorrow. HPAI and fruit fly are severe threats to the poultry and horticultural industries. Doing all we can to keep them out and acting quickly and decisively to eradicate them if they are found supports those industries and New Zealand's standard of living. I want to thank all the members of the public who've worked with us during biosecurity incursions and have had to stand in those annoying but necessary biosecurity lines at the airport. This work is vital to our economic prosperity.

Mark Cameron: What other work is happening to strengthen our biosecurity system?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Our system is already very good, but the Biosecurity Act hasn't been updated in quite some time and we have some work to do to make sure that it's as fit for purpose as possible in this modern day and age. We consulted the public at the end of last year and we'll be working through options in the coming months. I'm also focused on signing an FMD, or foot-and-mouth disease, operational agreement with the livestock industry. This will lock in the detail for how cost-sharing and shared decision making will ever work if we have to respond. This work is critical for the economic success of this country.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Immigration: What projections, if any, has she seen on the amount of money expected to be invested through each category of her Active Investor Plus visa for the next three years, and what is the projected cost of these new residents using the public health system over the same three years?

SPEAKER: I'm advised that this answer may be slightly longer than the usually long answers for this topic, but it is a question that has quite some detail in it.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): To the first part of the question, we looked at the previously successful Investor 1 and 2 visas. In 2019, 217 applications were approved and $1.1 billion was invested into New Zealand. I've been advised that there are already over 50 investors who are ready to apply on 1 April. This represents a minimum of $250 million to grow our economy and bring in highly valued skills, expertise, and networks to help our businesses grow. In response to the second part of the question, we have not done modelling on health costs, for the same reasons the previous Government didn't do modelling when they introduced the visa in 2022: because it is a very small number of multimillionaire investors who are all required to meet the rigorous acceptable standards of health for a resident class visa. I'm also advised that under Investor 1 and 2 in 2019, the average age of people who applied for this visa was 36, hardly in the range of having to worry about modelling health costs.

Hon Phil Twyford: Did she share with Cabinet the Australian Productivity Commission report that found their investor visa was costing Australia more in health than it was bringing in?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: What I did do was chat with my officials about why the Australian system was not successful. Firstly, it targeted $15 million, which was far too much for the market, which is why nobody applied for that end of the visa. The second part as to why the visa was not successful—and I think the Australians would be first to admit that they did not do a good enough job at tracking the money, which is why they closed down, in my understanding, that visa, but nothing to do with the reasons that the member has articulated.

Hon Phil Twyford: Does she agree with venture capital investor Andy Hamilton, who said, "what I know from investor migrants is they're inherently risk-averse and conservative and if they're able to just put their money in a passive investment, they will. And I think that misses the opportunity for us to leverage that money for the good of New Zealand."?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, what I can say of the 50 people who have already put in interest with some of the lawyers and immigration agents that I've spoken to is that the vast majority of those are invested in the higher-risk growth category. What I would also say to that member is that, yes, there are many migrant investors around the world who have a lower risk profile to start with, but we know from evidence that that changes over time, and if we want to grow the number of people in New Zealand who are prepared to invest in our companies over time, then we have to have different settings for different risk profiles. The fact that the member doesn't understand that shows why we've only had 30 applications in the last three years who've been approved in principle.

Hon Phil Twyford: Will she require these investors, once resident and able to use New Zealand services like health, to be NZ tax residents and, therefore, pay income tax in New Zealand, rather than overseas?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Once again, the member misses the point. These people are multimillionaire investors with tens of millions of dollars in venture capital funds to invest in New Zealand businesses to help grow our economy. Now, if the member is so hung up on health costs, the question has to be put by the public to that member why on earth they approved 212,000 resident visas under RV21 with almost no health requirements at all, even though they were warned by their officials that it would have a huge impact on our health system. But here the previous Minister is worried about 219 multimillionaires. I think he's barking up the wrong tree.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that, when you go from a $2.2 billion successful policy down to a lousy $70 million, it might be time to change policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I think that the Deputy Prime Minister has hit the nail on the head. In the last almost three years, 31 applicants were approved in principle, with a total of $70 million invested, compared to $2.2 billion in the two years prior to 2020. We had a golden goose that was absolutely destroyed by the previous Government and that was replaced with a lame duck, and this Government is making sure we're bringing back settings that will invest in New Zealand businesses to help grow our economy, create more jobs, and more prosperous economies.

Hon Phil Twyford: Why do wealthy people applying for her investor visa not need to meet English language requirements but hard-working migrants on other visas do?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, can I just say that the member really does need to do his homework in Opposition. Most migrants coming into this country on work visas do not need to pass an English language test. The only reason they might do is if they are lower-skilled migrants who are potentially going to be exploited. And this is to protect them. Multimillion-dollar investors coming into New Zealand are not required to speak English, for two reasons: firstly, it's insulting that we ask them to sit a high school test to show that they can speak English when they're worth millions of dollars—frankly, it doesn't really say, "Welcome to New Zealand"—and secondly, in the words of Michelle Dickinson, or "Nanogirl" as we know her very well, actually we have people in our businesses who speak Mandarin; we don't need them to speak English. We just need them here to help grow our businesses, and the member should do well to understand that. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just take your time, Mr Twyford. The House appears to be in no hurry today, so take your time until it's quiet.

Hon Phil Twyford: Why was she able to deliver a new visa for wealthy foreigners in quick time but she won't even start work on the parent visa that National promised in the election campaign until the middle of this year?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, once again, the member has his facts wrong; it seems to be a trend. We've already started work on the visa, and I look to announce that visa later this year.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about Māori housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Hurō, e te Māngai! [Hurray, Mr Speaker!] Last week I announced that $200 million in funding will be used to accelerate the delivery of 400 affordable rentals by Māori housing providers in areas of high need. Housing need for Māori is well documented and partnering with land-owning entities to deliver affordable rentals is a win, win, win—whānau, communities, and the Government. This mahi will also tautoko whānau to focus on other important matters like getting tamariki off to kura and acquiring structured literacy and numeracy skills. Kia ora.

David MacLeod: How many homes has this Government approved through the Māori housing programme at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Since coming into administration in November 2023, including this recent announcement, this Government has enabled the delivery of around a thousand homes for whānau to be built across the country through the Māori housing programme. The delivery of these homes will complement the delivery of 1,500 social housing homes by community housing providers by the end of June 2027 and many Kāinga Ora homes by the end of June 2026, as announced in Budget 2024.

David MacLeod: When and where will these homes be delivered?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: These 1,000 homes are intended to be delivered by Māori housing providers by end of June 2027. In terms of where: the developments are focused but not exclusive to high-needs priority rohe against the backdrop of severe housing deprivation and acute shortage of quality affordable rental homes. Priority regions include Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tairāwhiti, and the mighty Waikato.

David MacLeod: How does this impact on Government priorities for housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We know from the 2021 housing economic survey that around half of Māori households spend more than 30 percent of their disposable income on housing costs and more than a third spend more than 50 percent. Māori are overrepresented in the cohort of whānau struggling to get into warm, safe, and affordable homes. These Māori housing projects will go some way towards addressing that inequality of opportunity. This mahi sits within the Going for Housing Growth renaissance, led by the indomitable "Manu Pīhopa"—Minister Bishop—and the "Manu Pūtea"—Minister Willis.

© Scoop Media