O'Rourke Denis: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Sitting date: 28 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9063. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his statement of 12 March 2013 “… last year we made changes to give priority to migrants who can make a real contribution to New Zealand which we expect to lead to significant savings for the taxpayer …”? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Given that the new parent category now prioritises migrants with $500000 settlement funds how are they making a real contribution when they are adding to the Auckland housing bubble? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I will need to check with the Minister of Housing but as I understand it everybody needs shelter and a house not just Chinese people. But I do note that the BNZ-REINZ Residential Market Survey released recently “found no evidence of Chinese buyers snapping up large numbers of Auckland properties despite reports to the contrary.” 
Denis O’Rourke 
: How can there be significant savings for the taxpayer considering the impact of parent category migrants on New Zealand’s stressed health care system when 50 percent of all health care spending is spent on the elderly over 65-year-olds? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: The savings mentioned in the question on 12 March refers to savings in social development costs not health costs. Under the previous policy setting some 24 percent of parent category visa holders were in receipt of emergency benefits. The changes the Government has announced but not yet implemented will have when fully implemented savings of up to $34 million a year. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: How can there be significant savings for the taxpayer when parent migrants of only 10 years’ residence without any requirement to work are entitled to full New Zealand superannuation at age 65? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: As New Zealand residents those people are entitled to the same superannuation benefits as all New Zealanders—and I stress that that is all New Zealanders whether or not they have worked during their working lives. That includes being in New Zealand for 10 years including 5 years over the age of 55. I do not see any inequity in that and I think that is fair for those who can call themselves New Zealand residents. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was specifically about how there could be savings when that was the case. The Minister did not even address that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He went on to say there are probably no savings in the position of superannuation because they are treated the same as all other New Zealanders after 10 years. That question was addressed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you check the  
Hansard 
 you will see that he most certainly did not give the answer you gave. He gave an explanation that said they were entitled to the same as anybody else who had lived in New Zealand all their life and did not work but he did not say that there were no savings. You cannot just go and make it up as you please. 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I am happy to elaborate on the answer if it will aid the member. The costs mentioned exclude New Zealand superannuation and therefore by inference the savings cannot come from that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is this a point of order or a reply? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a response to a point of order. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Does the Minister agree with a comment on www.skykiwi.com the largest Chinese website in New Zealand which says: “A fat pension for foreigners? Isn’t the New Zealand Government being rather stupid? Sounds rather stupid. The New Zealand pension system provides foreigners with the same entitlement as its own citizens.”? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I seek leave to table a translation of the article from www.skykiwi.com the largest Chinese website in New Zealand from which the quotation in my last question was drawn. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is something that is obviously not widely available. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is still a Standing Order that says that points of order are heard in silence—certainly there is a Speaker’s ruling. I think there were about 15 National Party MPs interjecting during that point of order and I wonder whether you might draw their attention to the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has himself very adequately and very helpfully drawn all members to a correct Standing Order that points of order will be heard in silence. I would be grateful if that would be adhered to by every member in the House. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Given that the parent category now prioritises $500000 settlement funds or a guaranteed lifetime minimum annual income of at least $27000 or about $40000 for a couple why are these people getting the same New Zealand superannuation aged care and health care entitlements as Kiwi taxpayers who have worked here all their lives? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: The short answer is they are not until they become eligible under the New Zealand superannuation guidelines which means that they need to be in this country for at least 5 years and probably 10 or more.