NZ's First National AI Strategy Released
The strategy document says NZ's use of Artificial Intelligence 'shows promise but requires acceleration,' and that the government's role includes reducing barriers, providing regulatory guidance, building capability, and ensuring responsible adoption.
The document itself was also 'written with the assistance of AI.'
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment.
Dr Collin Bjork, Senior Lecturer in Communication at Massey University, comments:
'This announcement makes plain the government's full-throated support for AI investment across all sectors (especially medical, agriculture, and education) due to its perceived economic benefits, which are almost certainly overblown, and some clearly expressed FOMO. But other than adding their voices to the AI hype train, this government announcement is a bit of a 'nothing burger' on multiple levels.
'On one level, it's a nothing burger because the government promises very little in the way of new policies or investments around AI. Instead, they largely point to existing investments and policies that were already in the works and that they believe will help with AI uptake.
'On another level, it's a nothing burger because it articulates no practical steps to ensure AI safety and ethics because the government prefers instead to take a 'light touch' that relies on existing legislation rather than new regulation. But the problem is that a chunk of our existing legislation is out of date. While other countries have passed media legislation to regulate the Silicon Valley tech giants, Aotearoa New Zealand is behind in this area. And many of these same tech giants are also the largest players in AI.
'This announcement maintains the AI status quo. And the status quo isn't good enough yet. Kiwis would benefit from coupling strategic investment with critical regulation. But we don't need the empty carbs of more AI hype.'
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Karaitiana Taiuru (Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Toa), AI and Tech Governor at Taiuru & Associates and Director at the Institute of AI Governance, comments:
'While 'Te Tiriti' does not specifically have its own headings in the strategy documents, throughout the documents are tens of references to Māori and Māori Data, tikanga, cultural considerations and actions. There are also case studies of Māori AI businesses. Overall, these all equate to the principles of Te Tiriti and offer a fair and representative consideration of Māori with AI.
'Research reflects that most big tech and many smaller NZ tech companies are adopting Tiriti and Māori views already, as are about 50% of government agencies in relation to AI and Data.
'In addition to the strategy documents, we must also consider that StatsNZ are guided by ' The Data and Statistics Act 2022 ' which has a Tiriti clause, noting that StatsNZ have an agreement with Iwi Leaders Forum Data Group for data consultation, as does the Department of Internal Affairs, and that both departments have committed millions of dollars to partnerships.
'As well as Te Tiriti, there are also many other legal instruments to protect Māori rights – it's not unusual for them to be left out of legislation or strategies, but they still exist and provide protection for Māori rights when it comes to AI and data.'
Conflicts of interest: Chair of the Kāhui Māori at the AI Forum.
Associate Professor Adrian Clark, School of Product Design, University of Canterbury, comments:
'The national AI strategy provides a sensible approach towards increasing adoption of AI in the New Zealand private sector, focusing on the application of AI technology within key economic sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, education and business rather than trying to compete with large technology companies in foundational AI. I agree with this approach in the Generative AI space, however I believe NZ can still compete internationally in non-generative AI research.
'Beyond economic initiatives, the strategy presents several NZ case studies in driving AI innovation, including some where New Zealand is uniquely positioned to be a world leader. For example, Te Hiku Media and KIWA Digital are utilising AI technology for Indigenous Language Preservation through speech recognition and media localisation respectively, and Manatū Taonga's 'Amplify' strategy highlights the importance of protecting the creative and cultural sectors from AI-related threats.
'The largest, and perhaps most significant, part of the strategy discusses barriers to AI adoption in NZ and how the government is planning to address them. These barriers include widespread concerns such as ethical and responsible use of AI and replacement of humans in the workforce, however I felt the response to these concerns would have benefited from more detail.'
Conflict of interest statement: 'I have a grant application under consideration to research AI in education.'
Dr Andrew Lensen, Senior Lecturer/Programme Director of Artificial Intelligence, Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
'As expected, the Government's AI Strategy is heavy on economic growth opportunities but worryingly light on the ethical and societal issues of AI. The Strategy takes a 'light-touch and principles-based approach', all but ruling out new legislation for managing the risks of AI. The Strategy suggests that new legislation is unnecessary, which I, and many other AI researchers, disagree with. Having 'Principles' is not nearly sufficient to reduce AI-induced harm, bias, and inequity—we need clear legislation and well-resourced enforcement mechanisms to ensure AI does not further harm New Zealanders.
'The AI Strategy does not mention The Treaty of Waitangi—not even once. Māori face unique risks from AI, with most modern AI systems being sourced from overseas Western contexts, which have been designed with Western values in mind. Consider, for example, a healthcare AI system sourced from the USA—how can there be no guidance in the AI Strategy about the need to validate and refine such systems for the unique demographics of our society?
'This AI Strategy sets a dangerous path forward for New Zealand, with an attitude of economic growth above social good.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
19 minutes ago
- Newsroom
Who Benefits: The power of the farm lobby, part one
Who Benefits is a year-long project tracking and disclosing lobbying and influence, starting with the agriculture sector. The project is supported financially by a grant from The Integrity Institute. Newsroom has developed the subject areas, will be led by what we uncover and retains full editorial control. If you know where influence is being brought to bear, email us in confidence at: trublenzOIA@ Part two of Who Benefits, published on Friday, zeroes in on the freshwater policy under fire from the agricultural lobby: Te Mana o Te Wai. When Christopher Luxon wanted to declare an end to Labour's 'war on farming' he joined lobby group Federated Farmers on a three-stop tour. 'There is nothing more important to New Zealand than the rural sector,' the Prime Minister told the 800-strong crowd at Mystery Creek, in Waikato, last November, flanked on stage by huge 'Restoring Farmer Confidence' signs. A story in Farmers Weekly – written by Federated Farmers itself – carried comments from Te Aroha dairy farmer Carla De Wet. 'It's pretty impressive to find out the Government has already achieved nine of the 12 things Federated Farmers asked for before the election.' De Wet added: 'I think it's bloody awesome to have ticked off so many things in such a short period of time. That just goes to show how influential that farming voice really is.' (In a circular moment, the lobby group's 2023 election policy document was called 'Restoring Farmer Confidence'.) It was Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford who said the 'nine out of 12' line at Mystery Creek. Luxon thought it was so good, though, he repeated it the next day on The Country radio show. 'The other three are still in motion,' the Prime Minister said. Radio show host Jamie Mackay asked if the Federated Farmers-organised tour – to Waikato, Canterbury and Southland – was like preaching to the choir. (For some, it would have confirmed the old adage Federated Farmers is the National Party in gumboots.) Luxon, the National Party leader, said he wanted farmers to know the Government backed them and would work with them. 'That's how it should be. You should have government and industry as adult-to-adult partners working together on the challenges but also the huge opportunities we've got.' The question is, though, where do politicians draw the line? Political parties are elected on a mandate but discrete partnerships can benefit some groups over others. They can even override the broader public interest. Close relationships also raise questions over influence by vested interests, access to power, and, crucially, who benefits. 'Too complex, too expensive' One of Federated Farmers' 12 policy pre-election demands was 'fix our unworkable freshwater rules'. In May this year, the Government proposed an overhaul of freshwater management which has provoked fierce criticism from environmental groups, Māori and others. (Submissions on the proposals close on Sunday.) Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, of National, said the Government wanted to 'restore balance' in freshwater policy, while Act's Andrew Hoggard – the associate environment minister and a former president of Federated Farmers – said existing rules were too complex, too expensive and often ignored 'practical realities'. Absent from the press statement was Environment Minister Penny Simmonds. The economy was front and centre. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, left, with the Prime Minister at Fieldays this year. Photo: Christopher Luxon/Facebook A discussion document covering the proposals opened with this line from Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop: 'This Government is committed to enabling primary sector growth as a key driver of both the New Zealand export sector and prosperity in the wider economy.' The Government is in a hurry to increase economic activity. But there are concerns freshwater protections will be bulldozed to boost exports when many waterways already have poor quality, principally because of intensive farming. In many cases degraded rivers, streams and lakes are still deteriorating. Problems with groundwater can affect drinking water, as shown by problems experienced in Gore. (Strengthening drinking water protections in planning and law was done after the Havelock North campylobacteriosis outbreak that made thousands sick and led to four deaths.) If ministers opt for the more extreme options in the freshwater policy overhaul it may encourage more intensive farming, opponents say, and worsen pollution of waterways. Today's political leaders face the same conundrum their predecessors did over decades: If they don't act now, how much more costly will the clean-up be in 10, 20 or 30 years? Dairy giant Fonterra made an after-tax net profit of $1.17 billion in the 2024 financial year. Photo: David Williams The proposals weren't magicked out of thin air, of course. Ministries for the Environment and Primary Industries met selected groups between October last year and February to float ideas and gather feedback on changes to the national policy statement for freshwater management (NPS-FM) and associated environmental standards. Concern is now being raised about the structure and nature of that pre-consultation, and what emerged in the discussion document. Figures provided to public health researcher Marnie Prickett and Newsroom show agricultural groups were consulted in dedicated meetings more often, and for more hours, than local government, central government agencies, and environmental non-government organisations combined. 'I'm concerned at the amount of time that these agencies have spent with the agricultural sector, given that the agricultural sector is one of the biggest polluters of our freshwater resources,' says Prickett, a research fellow at the University of Otago, Wellington's department of public health – and a member of advocacy group Choose Clean Water. Consultation with the primary sector spanned 34.5 hours over 24 meetings, while 18 dedicated meetings were held with agencies, councils and environmental non-government organisations. Over the pre-consultation period there were also an estimated 12 regular inter-agency meetings – held fortnightly for 30 minutes – taking the total to 31 hours. (The most consulted sector in the target consultation was Iwi/Māori. More on that in part two.) There's also a skew in ministerial time. A diary search of key ministers for official meetings, video conferences, events, and functions (including in other portfolios) spanning this parliamentary term shows 98 meetings with Federated Farmers, Beef + Lamb, Dairy NZ, and eight with environmental groups EDS, Forest & Bird and Greenpeace. Obviously, that list excludes ministerial meetings with other groups such as the Meat Industry Association, Dairy Companies Association of NZ, Horticulture NZ, Irrigation NZ, and Fish & Game. Prickett says agricultural groups have a commercial interest in limiting regulation. 'I'm concerned that that means the Government is not operating in the public interest but rather prioritising polluting commercial interests.' The country can have productive agriculture, she says, but within environmental limits. Prickett is concerned that diluting freshwater protections would lead to dramatically more degradation, and make it harder to reverse existing problems. Removing these protections would, she says, be similar to decisions favouring the tobacco industry over the public interest. 'The issue is imbalance' Marie Doole, a researcher of environmental strategy and regulation, says lobbying is an important part of democracy, and regulated parties should be consulted on changes affecting them. 'Here, though, the issue is the imbalance,' she says. 'One of the red flags of excessive influence [is] targeted engagement focused mainly on vested interests.' About the time the targeted freshwater consultation started, Victoria University of Wellington's Policy Quarterly magazine published an article 'Navigating murky waters – characterising capture in environmental regulatory systems'. Doole was its lead author. She tells Newsroom skewed consultations favour parties with greater resources and deeper pockets as they're the most invested in moulding a favourable regulatory environment. Christopher Luxon on the 'Restoring Farmer Confidence Tour' with Federated Farmers in the Waikato. Photo: Christopher Luxon/Facebook 'Government's job is to moderate influence, and they do that by fair and balanced consultation and engagement. If they're not doing it, they're not doing the job.' Environmental Defence Society attended pre-consultation meetings with the environment ministry. Chief executive Gary Taylor defends officials, saying they did a good job 'subject to the directions that they've received from ministers'. He identifies various issues – such as who sets environmental limits, 'simplifying' wetlands and fish passage provisions, 'enabling' commercial vegetable growing – that, in his opinion, shouldn't have made the final cut. 'It's fair to say the Government does seem to be unduly influenced overall by the agricultural sector,' Taylor says. 'This Government is a farmers' government, and they are in there all the time. They're in there with Hoggard, they're in there with Bishop, and in spite of several requests, we're halfway through the term and we've yet to have a dedicated meeting with Bishop, who's driving all this. 'On the basis of my experience with successive governments over many years, that's an extraordinary failing, and a deeply troubling asymmetry of influence.' In response to a Newsroom request under the Official Information Act, Jane Chirnside, the Ministry for Primary Industries' director of resources and rural communities, says the agency led targeted engagement with the primary sector over proposed changes to the national policy statement. 'We met with individuals in their capacity as farmers and/or members of local catchment groups, to understand at a practical level the impact that the NPS-FM has at farm and catchment scale. 'We used existing MPI networks to identify participants and tried to get representatives across regions and farm types, who had an interest in freshwater management, or were involved in catchment groups.' Ministers intervened to add options Prickett, of University of Otago, says a straight line can be drawn between what agricultural groups have asked for and what's in the public discussion document. A November 14 letter to ministers McClay, Hoggard, and Simmonds, written by Federated Farmers vice president and freshwater spokesperson Colin Hurst, said national bottom lines for water quality were, in some areas, 'unachievable', because of, for example, climate change, naturally occurring processes, population growth, land use, and legacy effects. 'Our recommendation is that national direction focus on what outcomes regional councils should seek to achieve, but that targets and timeframes are set at the catchment level, by regional councils, based on the social, economic, environmental and cultural needs of the local community.' In March, after targeted consultation had finished, ministers Bishop, McClay, and Hoggard stepped in to ensure local decision-making would appear in the discussion document. The intervention was recorded in an interim Regulatory Impact Statement – in which officials assess the effects of policy changes. Associate Environment Minister and former president of Federated Farmers Andrew Hoggard says existing rules are too complex, too expensive and often ignore 'practical realities'. Photo: Supplied The additional option was councils should be given flexibility to deviate from national bottom lines when achieving them 'has a high social, cultural or economic cost'. An interim Regulatory Impact Statement (there were several) said giving councils this flexibility 'will address key concerns, including those raised in the Beef + Lamb NZ report about natural variation, and the need to vary by region'. (Prickett, the public health researcher, says talk of local decision-making is, to her, shorthand for decisions made or influenced by polluting commercial interests.) At the March 4 meeting, officials were also directed to add other options to the discussion document: removing Te Mana o Te Wai (a decision-making hierarchy putting the health of water and ecosystems first), or considering a name change; and scrapping the 190kg per hectare cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. Hurst's letter from November told ministers there should be 'no hierarchy of obligations' – a direct assault on Te Mana o te Wai – and asked for a refreshed NPS to balance environmental values with cultural, social and economic purposes. The South Island's biggest irrigation company, Central Plains Water, writing on December 2, three days after its consultation meeting, said many of the problems arising from the national policy statement stemmed from 'how Te Mana o te Wai is framed'. The hierarchy needs 'replacing in its entirety'. The company supported locals deciding if water quality and quantity should be maintained or improved, with the caveat: 'It is based on clear direction set in a NPS'. Directions on nutrient management 'do not need further strengthening', the company said. However, officials noted there would also be an increased risk of 'debate and litigation'. Another passage of the regulatory impact statement quoted a Beef + Lamb report. 'There is also concern from the primary sector that it is not possible to meet water quality bottom lines within the timeframes anticipated to be set, and 'trying to meet them will decimate farming and rural communities'.' (Doole, the independent researcher, says an explosion in catchment groups and community volunteering over the past 10 years suggests people in rural and urban environments are far more aware of their environmental impact. She struggles to reconcile that awareness with ardent advocacy to deregulate with farmers, and a 'weird binary of farmers versus environmentalists' which just feels 'exhausting and boring'.) Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy gave expert opinion evidence in the Ngāi Tahu trial on the extent to which freshwater in the takiwā is degraded, and the causes. Photo: Supplied Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy, a senior research fellow at Victoria University of Wellington's school of geography, environment and earth sciences, shared his submission to the consultation with Newsroom. The submission said councils already had flexibility to deviate from bottom lines – something noted on the environment ministry's website. Joy added there was already an 'out-clause' for waterways affected by naturally occurring processes. There was, he wrote, no justification for not applying national bottom lines. Attempts to weaken freshwater regulation were being disguised, Joy said, by using words and phrases such as 'rebalancing', 'providing flexibility' and 'simplifying'. 'There is, however, no recognition of the fact that water quality has been declining for many decades, thus the regulations they are wanting to weaken are already not strong enough.' A 2020 state of the environment report said more than 90 percent of rivers in urban, pastoral, and exotic forest areas have water quality below recommended guidelines, 76 percent of native fish were threatened with, or at risk of, extinction, and 90 percent of wetlands had been drained. Prickett, the University of Otago researcher, says rebalancing Te Mana o Te Wai would continue the primacy of polluting commercial interests over freshwater policy, which has been happening for decades and has led to declines of water quality and quantity. This degradation, she says, suggests freshwater protections have never been good enough. This despite numerous surveys showing high public concern over freshwater – that they want to be able to swim and fish in rivers and lakes, and drink high-quality water from their taps. National direction policy flood The freshwater overhaul that landed in May was part of a torrent of consultation over national direction unleashed by the coalition Government. Changes are proposed to 12 existing instruments and four new ones, with a focus on freshwater, infrastructure and development, and the primary sector. Environmental lobby group Greenpeace Aotearoa accused the Government of stripping freshwater protections to bolster corporate profits, while Federated Farmers suggested the Government had to pause freshwater rules. What are farmer groups saying now, particularly about their influence on political parties, and accusations of undue influence over that of the public interest? Hurst, of Federated Farmers, says it's 'entirely appropriate' for the Government to engage regularly with farmers and the wider primary sector, 'particularly when you consider the potential impact and cost of these rules'. Farming rules should be practical, affordable and fair, he says. 'We also want to make sure any regulation will actually be effective and achieve better environmental outcomes. 'It's important we get these rules right, particularly when you consider the huge economic contribution of agriculture for the country.' DairyNZ's David Burger, the general manager of farm solutions and policy, says it engages constructively with the government of the day on matters affecting dairy farmers 'and appreciates that other groups do the same'. Kate Acland, the chair of Beef + Lamb NZ, says farming impacts on freshwater need to be managed but there were significant issues 'and massive implications' under the previous government's approach. 'It's critical that ministers and officials first understand the issues, but also critical that they spend time with the sector to ensure rules are practical and workable.' Acland notes anyone can make a submission on the consultation, which will go through parliamentary processes, including a select committee. Ministers respond Newsroom asks ministers McClay, Hoggard, Bishop, Simmonds, and Associate Agriculture Minister Nicola Grigg for comment. Bishop responds, but he's silent on ministerial meetings and the influence of agriculture. We'll quote his comments in full – the reason for which will soon be apparent. 'The current public consultation on freshwater national direction, which runs for eight weeks closing on 27 July, has been shaped by feedback received from a wide range of groups during the targeted engagement phase.' (Prickett points out this selected group didn't include non-polluting commercial interests like the tourism industry.) Bishop continues: 'During targeted engagement, some groups sought to discuss specific matters of interest or asked to continue discussions at additional meetings. 'Officials from the Ministry for the Environment accommodated these requests wherever possible, and the number and duration of meetings varied as a result. 'All submissions received during the public consultation period will be considered, along with feedback from the ongoing engagement, before progressing any freshwater national direction changes. 'Note that there will also be a second phase of public submissions later this year, when exposure drafts will be released for further consultation.' (Exposure drafts are the raw wording of legislation, released to identify potential problems before it's introduced to Parliament. This seems like a concession by the Government to environmental groups.) A day after Bishop's comments were sent, the Ministry for the Environment provided Newsroom with this statement, attributed to Nik Andic, the manager of freshwater natural environment policy: 'The current public consultation on freshwater national direction, which runs for 8 weeks and closes on 27 July, has been shaped by the feedback we received from a wide range of groups during targeted engagement. 'During targeted engagement, some groups sought to discuss specific matters of interest or asked to continue discussions at additional meetings. Officials from the Ministry for the Environment accommodated these requests wherever possible, and the number and duration of meetings varied as a result. 'We will consider all submissions received during the public consultation period, along with feedback from ongoing engagement, before providing advice to ministers on any freshwater national direction changes. 'Note that there will also be a second phase of public consultation on freshwater national direction changes later this year, when exposure drafts are released.' Farming groups' influence on Government policy might be a concern but at least the public can be assured the minister and ministry are singing from the same hymn sheet.
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Dropping Livestock Numbers Dominate Red Meat Sector Event
New Zealand red meat exports earned an extra $1.2 billion this year, due to good livestock pricing and tighter supplies. But the country's $10 billion red meat sector has raised the alarm that it was struggling to get the numbers of livestock through the meat works it needed to feed hungry international consumers. More than 300 red meat producers, processors and marketers gathered in Ōtautahi for the Red Meat Sector Conference on Tuesday. While import tariffs into key market the United States and subdued consumer demand in China were top of the agenda, the surity of livestock supply underpinned the sector's concerns for a resilient future. The latest figures from StatsNZ showed the national sheep flock and deer herd were continuing to decline. Industry group Beef and Lamb New Zealand's chairperson Kate Acland told the event, carbon farming on productive land under the Emissions Trading Scheme was driving the significant reduction in livestock numbers. "New Zealand currently faces over-capacity in the processing industry," she said. "We have more plants and more processing lines than we have livestock to sustain them efficiently and it risks getting worse. "The drop in stock numbers represents a lost opportunity. We owe it to farmers to face this challenge head on." She said greater collaboration among competing companies was a sensible strategic approach. "If we want a future-fit industry, we need to be bold about optimising capacity and about how we collaborate," she said. "The fall in stock numbers is particularly frustrating because at a time when there's strong demand globally and high export prices, our processors have not been able to capitalise on this. "Our exports would have been hundreds of millions higher if the supply had been there." The conference came during a time when the country's only farmer-owned red meat co-operative Alliance Group was preparing a case of private investment for its farmer-shareholders to vote on in the coming months. Alliance announced the decision to shut its historic Smithfield meat plant in Timaru in October, amid dropping livestock numbers, particularly breeding ewes, with 600 people losing their jobs. Farmers were getting record prices for beef, however they were driven in part by good demand amid tighter supplies. Furthermore, New Zealand imported a near-record volume of beef from Australia in June, as processors worked to secure greater volumes to match meat plant capacity. Meanwhile, Todd McClay, Minister for Agriculture and Trade and Investment, said the Government was working to "get Wellington out of farming" to enable primary sector growth, and bring value back to the farmgate. "We want to reduce regulation and cost on farm," he said. "I reckon it's a great time to be a farmer in New Zealand at the moment. "As there are challenges fronting up around the world, geopolitics, tariffs, protectionism, and so on, the world still needs high quality, safe food. "And you don't get higher quality of safer food anywhere in the world with a wonderful carbon footprint story to tell." He said the government invested in the $8 million Taste Pure Natire campaign with industry to strengthen red meat's position in China, to drive better returns for farmers and processors. StatsNZ figures showing sheep numbers dropped three percent in 2024 to 23.6 million sheep, while deer numbers dropped 4 percent between 2023 and 2024 to 709,000. However, the beef boom has kept stock numbers relatively stable rising one percent in the last year to 3.7 million beef cattle.
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Affordable Homes To Address Te Kūiti Housing Shortage
Associate Minister of Housing Mā te hononga ka whai kaha. Te Kūiti whānau will enjoy greater access to modern affordable rental housing thanks to an Iwi-led partnership backed by the Government, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. The Government has approved in principle $17million into a partnership with Ngāti Maniapoto that will build 40 affordable rental homes with infrastructure in Te Kūiti, giving effect to the Crown's Treaty of Waitangi settlement commitment with the iwi. The Iwi will also contribute a significant portion to the development including $11million - representing 50 percent of the housing supply costs - and the land. 'This is an area of high housing need. With over a third of Te Kūiti residents renting, the limited availability of rental properties makes it difficult for whānau to secure stable housing,' Mr Potaka says. 'We're taking action to help address this shortage, which will also help local businesses because employers can struggle to attract and retain staff due to the lack of affordable housing. This mahi can mean a world of difference for whānau in small rural communities that need stable employment and incomes. 'The development, named Te Kirikiri, will feature affordable rentals of a mixed typology to meet the diverse needs of kaumātua and young whānau, consisting of 20 two-bedroom accessible homes for kaumātua, 13 three-bedroom homes and7 four-bedroom homes. 'Work is scheduled to begin next month and will take about two years to complete. 'Te Kirikiri will incorporate tikanga Māori and kaupapa-led design principles, and include the use of wetlands, native grasses, trees, and shrubs to create safe, communal spaces for whānau to enjoy. 'These affordable rentals will support Ngāti Maniapoto's ambition to place 200 whānau in safe, secure, high-quality and affordable homes by 2030.' The Government investment is part of a $200 million commitment announced earlier this year that will accelerate Māori housing projects across the country and enable the delivery of 400 affordable rentals in high-need areas by the end of June 2027.
