Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 25 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6215. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that New Zealanders have first priority for jobs in the Canterbury rebuild? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 On 9 October nearly 3 weeks ago Minister Bennett and I announced the new Canterbury Skills and Employment Hub a one-stop shop for employers to list vacancies and recruit from Work and Income or various trade training centres or where needed labour from overseas. Soon employers will be required to engage with the hub to ensure that no Kiwis are available or are in training before being able to recruit workers from overseas. This balanced approach will ensure that Kiwis will have first priority for jobs in the rebuild but the reality is that the scale of the Canterbury rebuild will require some migrant workers. 
Jami 
-Lee Ross 
: What reports has he seen on approaches to ensuring New Zealanders have priority for jobs in the Canterbury rebuild? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Interestingly I have seen a report about 2 weeks ago after our announcement of a vague proposal to limit foreign workers available for the rebuild. Such an approach would significantly impact on the rebuild. It would affect families and businesses in Canterbury and slow the overall economic growth. Such a move would deter migrants coming to Canterbury and the rest of New Zealand and that would overall impact on the $1.9 billion per year that migrants contribute to the wider economy. This of course was a stupid proposal— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is enough. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: If the Minister’s claims that New Zealanders will be favoured for jobs in Christchurch are true why are there so many advertisements circulating in Ireland the UK and Asia for workers in Christchurch? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: As I have said and I alluded to it in the answer to those two previous questions the rebuild is on such a significant scale that we will require some migrant workers. 
Darien Fenton 
: If the Government is doing everything possible to ensure New Zealanders have first priority for jobs in the Christchurch rebuild why is it estimated that half of the 30000 workers needed for the rebuild will be brought in from overseas? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Well we are doing everything possible so that Kiwis come first for our jobs in New Zealand and as I have said the scale of this rebuild—some $20 billion over the next few years—will require some migrant workers. I have just made the point that if Labour wants to close down migrants from coming in to New Zealand that is a detriment to our $1.9 billion a year. It is a shameful policy. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Given that the impact of the recession has been disproportionately higher for Maori and in some cases unemployment figures have been triple the national average what has the Minister done to ensure that priority is given to Maori in the Christchurch rebuild? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I am aware that NgaiTahu are playing a significant role in the overall rebuild of Canterbury and the Government has invested $43 million into extra trade training places in Canterbury. Of course the Canterbury Skills and Employment Hub which we are going to introduce in the next few weeks will help every New Zealander including Maori. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: What reports has he seen on the need for foreign labour for the rebuild of Canterbury? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I have seen a number of reports on the need for foreign labour in the rebuild. One shows that as many as 30000 extra workers in total will be needed and even with Kiwis fully engaged a significant number will be needed from overseas. Another report describes a dismal desperate and half-cocked plan to limit the number of foreign workers involved in the rebuild and the wider economy. This plan is described as “blithely ignoring the economic realities to pick up a few redneck votes.” and of course that came from— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Ministers should not be attributing to other parties policies that are not remotely the responsibility of Ministers. It is a pattern that is getting—[ 
Interruption 
] I know members use the report as a means of doing this but the problem with it is that rarely is the description of the policy that accurate. That is the difficulty and it leads to disorder. And where—[ 
Interruption 
] The member should not be interjecting when I am on my feet but where members ask questions that are provocative Ministers get plenty of opportunity. For questions from their own colleagues to then describe policies in a way that may not be accurate and attribute them to other parties is not fair. That is not fair.