6. Question No. 6—HousingHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 6—Housing6. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: On what date if any did he seek Cabinet committee approval for the structure and makeup of the review into Kāinga Ora?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): On Wednesday 13 December 2023 the Cabinet 100-Day Plan Committee considered the paper establishing the Kāinga Ora (KO) review. The committee agreed to establish an independent review of Kāinga Ora under section 132 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 conducted by three independent members appointed by the responsible Ministers—the Minister of Finance and me the Minister of Housing. The committee also noted the proposed terms of reference of that review and authorised responsible Ministers to consult with Kāinga Ora on them. This decision was confirmed by Cabinet on Monday 18 December 2023 and announced the same day.Hon Kieran McAnulty: When he sought Cabinet committee approval to have the power to appoint the reviewers of Kāinga Ora did he inform the committee that he had already agreed to appoint Sir Bill English on 29 November 2023?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes it was discussed that Sir Bill English would be involved in the review.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I seek leave to table a response to an Official Information Act request received on 23 May 2023 which is not publicly available containing text messages exchanged between the housing Minister and Sir Bill English between 29 November 2023 and 22 April 2024.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why then was this information not included in the Cabinet paper knowing it would eventually be proactively released given that the text message exchange where he agreed to appoint Sir Bill English would not be proactively released?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the member is dreaming up a conspiracy here that doesn't exist. It is a matter of public record. I released this Official Information Act request with texts between myself and Sir Bill because well there's no conspiracy here. As I've said publicly Ministers engage in discussions around people who might do reviews or expert advisory groups with people who might do those all the time. It's not like Cabinet makes a decision to appoint people to do reviews and then they find out that they've been appointed after the appointment happens without any discussion around it. That's not how it works. There is a range of discussions and involvement and engagement around that. I talked to Sir Bill English about being involved in the Kāinga Ora review. Ministers then took a paper to Cabinet seeking authority to conduct a review—again no surprise there because the National Party campaigned on that in the 2023 election. The Cabinet committee authorised that. It was confirmed by Cabinet and then pursuant to the Crown Entities Act Ministers then appointed the reviewers. That's literally all there is to it. The member is dreaming up a conspiracy that doesn't exist.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker instead of accusing members of dreaming up conspiracies it would be best for the order of the House if Ministers actually addressed the question. The question itself was actually pretty straightforward—a simple question as to why a piece of information that the Minister has said to the House that they discussed was not included in the Cabinet paper that was proposing the thing they were discussing. That's straightforward.Hon Chris Bishop: I'm happy to answer the question.SPEAKER: Except that he did answer that discussions had been taking place among Ministers. You want to make a point of order?Hon Chris Bishop: Well I'm happy to answer the question. Not every Cabinet paper includes every piece of information. The relevant decision that the Cabinet committee sought—subsequently confirmed by Cabinet—was for responsible Ministers to make appointments. That authority was granted. Responsible Ministers then went on to make the appointments and that is literally all there is to it.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Did he inform Cabinet that he had advised Sir Bill English the review should have no involvement from KO"?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We don't talk about what happens in Cabinet but in relation to that specific issue that the member raises my comment to Sir Bill was about the fact that the review was intended to be independent of Kāinga Ora—as in it wouldn't be Kāinga Ora reviewing itself; it would be a genuinely independent review done by independent reviewers. Clearly I expected the review to engage with Kāinga Ora which they did as I've said on multiple occasions.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order! Thank you Mr Speaker. I've got a bit of an issue here where yesterday I asked the Minister quite clearly if at any point he advised Sir Bill English that there'd be no involvement of Kāinga Ora. The Minister answered no. Now in response to the question I've just asked he's gone on to explain yes he did say that but this is what he meant. If a Minister has answered a question incorrectly they are required to correct that at the first possible opportunity and that would have been before question time not as part of an answer to a supplementary question.SPEAKER: Yeah look there are around about 50-odd questions a day. I can't remember the answers to all of them but I will make some effort to find out what the difference between the two positions is. But can I also say that if the member feels there is an issue then he has another course of action that he can take in that regard?Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why did he inform Cabinet that the board of Kāinga Ora was "broadly comfortable with the review recommendations" when the board sent the review panel a 14-page letter outlining the factual inaccuracies they identified in the report?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Because that was based on the advice that I received from officials. It is perhaps unsurprising that a board that has been the subject of a damning independent review does not agree with those findings.Hon Nicola Willis: Did he consider whether there was any precedent for the Government appointing former senior Ministers to important public sector roles?SPEAKER: Yeah I think we'll just let that one go through the keeper. Thanks very much.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No Mr Speaker that's an important question.SPEAKER: No. Well it might well be for you to answer but it's not an important question for the House because it doesn't deal with the actions of the current Government. So have you got another supplementary?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Point of order! Mr Speaker the line of questioning yesterday and today and other public commentary including by the Leader of the Opposition is around the appointment of a former Prime Minister to an independent review into a Government agency. Clearly it is relevant therefore to consider past actions of other Governments as a precedent basis regarding senior Ministers.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No he's got no responsibility for them.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well it is a matter of responsibility because I follow past precedent and practice by past Governments. It's well within order Mr Speaker to be asked about those precedents.SPEAKER: Well it would be asking you for an opinion and that would be kind of interesting but not within the ambit of your ministerial responsibility.Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the former chair of Kāinga Ora was a former Labour Party senior Minister?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes indeed I can. Vui Mark Gosche was a Cabinet Minister under the Helen Clark Government and I also have a range of other senior Ministers who've been appointed to public roles: Steve Maharey; Michael Cullen; Ruth Dyson; I'm not sure we'd call Louisa Wall particularly senior but she was appointed the Pacific gender equality ambassador by Nanaia Mahuta; Annette King; Trevor Mallard; Phil Goff. The list goes on.SPEAKER: Good. I think everyone got the message there."