Willis Nicola; Woods MeganNICOLA WILLIS (National): My first question relates to the claim that the Minister has repeatedly made that the funding for the purchase of land at Ihumātao would come out of the Land for Housing Programme appropriated in the 2020 Budget. We know that Treasury gave advice in a pre-Cabinet briefing to Minister Robertson on 14 December 2020 saying they did not recommend purchasing the Ihumātao land through the Land for Housing Programme as it was at odds with the programme's intent operating model and scopes of related appropriations. My question Minister is when did the Minister first receive advice that the proposed purchase of Ihumātao land did not fit within the scope of the Land for Housing Programme as appropriated in the 2020 Budget? I hope that the Minister will furnish an answer to that question because it's very important. When she stated on 17 December 2020 in a press release to the New Zealand public—she claimed that the land was being purchased from Fletcher's for $29.9 million under the Land for Housing Programme. My question is: at that time was she aware that officials were advising she could not use that appropriation for that purpose? It looks like we're going to have a frustrating session tonight. My next question to the Minister is: why did the Government reject advice from the Treasury that the most appropriate vote for a new purchase of land at Ihumātao was in fact Vote Māori Development and not Vote Housing? Finally finishing these questions on Ihumātao—and I do want to note that this is a matter of significant public interest—the Auditor-General has reported that what actually happened with the final purchase of Ihumātao was that the ministry signed a sale and purchase agreement without the lawful authority it needed from Parliament and I think it would be good if the Minister would furnish answers to these reasonable questions. So my final question on Ihumātao is: did she as stated by the Auditor-General agree to the establishment of a new appropriation that was not contained in Budget 2020 specifically for the sole purchase of land at Ihumātao? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): It is my pleasure to take a call around the questions that the member Nicola Willis has raised around Ihumātao. I think what all members of this House will know is that two members of this House wrote to the Auditor-General asking whether or not appropriate steps were taken. The Auditor-General found that what was done was in fact within the spirit of the appropriation. What there had been had been some technical breaches of the way that that was done. The letter from the Auditor-General clearly outlines that. What occurred was that the briefing that was given to the Minister of Finance and myself—what it did was it failed to have a recommendation around the setting up of the new appropriation. Now this is not an unheard-of occurrence. In fact it happened 71 times under the previous Government and it is so common that there is in fact a process established in this House of Parliament to deal with it. There is a bill that is passed every Budget that tidies up these technical amendments as was done to tidy up the 71 times that it occurred in only a five-year period—Nicola Willis: You knew about it—you knew. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —actually under the previous Government and it turns—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you Madam Chairperson. I think one of the things that the member is raising about whether or not there were concerns that were put that were aired by Treasury and indeed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development—because that is the appropriation that we are here debating. So what we do know is that in December 2020 ahead of the Cabinet decision to purchase the land through the Land for Housing Programme Treasury raised concerns about both the scope of the KiwiBuild housing appropriation and the purpose and intent of the Land for Housing Programme in the context of the acquisition. Treasury's concerns on the appropriation scope were addressed through the establishment of a new appropriation and I think that is one of the things where the member is getting confused. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development didn't agree that the acquisition was outside of the scope of the programme's purpose and intent but none the less before the complaint was even laid with the Auditor-General there was advice being sought on setting up a new appropriation. There simply was a recommendation missing from a briefing to the Minister of Finance and myself and that will be tidied up in much the same way as the 71 times the previous Government committed such a similar technical breach. That will be tidied up on Budget day next week.