8. Question No. 8—HousingNICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 8—Housing8. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: Does she have confidence that Kāinga Ora is effectively exercising its obligations as a public sector entity including delivering value for taxpayers' money?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing) (remote): Yes I have confidence Kāinga Ora is effectively exercising its obligations as a public service entity. I stand by this Government's actions to tackle the national housing crisis including through the establishment of Kāinga Ora. I'm proud that Kāinga Ora has delivered over 9000 warm dry public-housing places since 2017 including building more than 7000 brand-new-build public homes. This Government is building more homes than any Government since the 1970s. I'm also proud that through this build programme Kāinga Ora has supported over 500 apprentices. Our Government believes it's the role of the State to invest to provide public and affordable housing particularly during a national housing crisis. I do acknowledge that not every decision Kāinga Ora has made has met my expectations of a public service entity and I will continue to hold Kāinga Ora's chair and board accountable as is appropriate. I will be receiving regular reporting from the Kāinga Ora chair and board who are fully committed to meeting this expectation.Nicola Willis: Does she stand by her statement that on 3 August last year she made it clear to Kāinga Ora that it did not meet my expectations of Public Service neutrality" in relation to its decision to publish a taxpayer-funded ad about a political candidate; and if she was clear then why did the chief executive in an email some months later tell staff he would stand behind the judgment call to publish that article?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes I do stand by that statement. I previously tabled in the House an email that my office sent on my behalf to Kāinga Ora on 3 August making it clear that I was not satisfied with material that I had seen in an Official Information Act request. In terms of the email that the member is referring to which was sent at 9.54 a.m. on 11 November this was before I subsequently spoke to the chief executive at 12.30 on 11 November followed by a phone call to the chair and then to the Public Service Commissioner. I do think the member is a bit confused about the sequence of events and I would like to draw that member's attention to paragraph 34 of the Public Service Commissioner who makes it clear that in the course of undertaking his investigation the email that she is referring to of 11 November was indeed used in that investigation.Nicola Willis: Why does she continue to have confidence in the chief executive of Kāinga Ora when he so clearly as per that email paid very little heed to her expectations of him; and when did she first learn of the email I read in Parliament yesterday?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question I think that I covered that off in answering a previous supplementary and I think if the member carefully reads through the report also in paragraph 34 of the Public Service Commissioner's report he notes that the chief executive was not adequately briefed on some of the material that is part of the findings of the Public Service Commissioner not only of a culture of minimisation but of too much devolving of responsibility in what has been rectified in there. The email as I said was sent at 9.54 a.m. That was prior to my conversation with the chief executive at 12.30 of that same day. So I think the member is incorrect to say that he sent that email after having communication with me. In regard to when I first became aware of the email of 11 November that's when I reviewed it in an Official Information Act request. It was sent to the member asking the question.Nicola Willis: Is she confident she can trust that Kāinga Ora's chief executive will exercise better judgment over the $8.3 billion borrowing facility her Government has granted Kāinga Ora than it did over this matter and what makes her think he takes her seriously now when he so clearly ignored her earlier warnings in August?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I reject the premise of the member's question. As I've outlined in previous answers to supplementaries the chain of events the member is trying to put together simply do not stack up when the facts are considered in terms of time lines. In terms of why I have confidence in Kāinga Ora to deliver value for money to this Government in terms of its build programme I just need look at the evidence. If I have a look at the value that Kāinga Ora is giving the New Zealand taxpayer under our Government compared to what the much smaller Housing New Zealand was under the previous Government—if I have a look at the head count of staff per cost of construction we can see that for the total annual residential construction spend by Kāinga Ora in 2017-18 it was 3.7 staff per $100 million. In 2021 that was down to 0.9 staff member per $1 million spend. This is not even taking account for the far expanded functions that Kāinga Ora had from the sell-off housing agency that Housing New Zealand had become under the previous National Government. So I look at the evidence in front of me and that's why I have confidence.Nicola Willis: Will she join me in asking that the Public Service Commission reopen its investigation into these matters given the email I tabled in Parliament yesterday was first requested in November under the Official Information Act and was not released until more than three months later—strangely on the day the Public Service investigation was published—and does she think this conduct meets the standard expected of a public sector entity in meeting its statutory obligations?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No I won't be joining with that member in calling for the investigation to be reopened because I encourage that member to read the memo that the Public Service Commissioner produced last week. I direct the member to paragraph 34. There are three bullet points in that. It's the third bullet point and it's sub bullet point 5. The final sentence of that clearly reads "In associated email correspondence on 11 November the chief executive indicated support for the judgement call to publish. He later clarified the agency would likely exercise its judgement differently in the future." So I won't be joining that member because the Public Service Commissioner has already looked at the email."