Woodhouse Michael: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 20 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18109. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): On Sunday I had the unusual experience of sitting in the classroom that I occupied at St Patrick’s School in South Dunedin when I was an 8-year-old. I was there with my own 8-year-old. Of course it was a somewhat nostalgic experience where I recalled the 30 or so classmates who were there. They had a particular feature in common. They were all but onePākehā and one of them was a Māori. But on Sunday the similar number of kids who were in this former classroom—it is now a community hall—came from all over the world. They were from Viet Nam the UK Malaysia the Philippines Samoa Tonga China and possibly many other countries that I do not recall—Kiwis every one of them. They had different food preferences—we had a pot-luck lunch—and obviously there were slight differences in clothing but they were Kiwis. My and Amanda’s daughterswill grow up in a country that I think is much more diverse much more colourful much more tolerant and ultimately more enjoyable.So it is incredibly disappointing for me to listen to the discourse that has been going on after an oblique reference in the Budget documents to a Treasury comment that net migration was strongly positive from people in this House unfortunately but also in the media who are describing that as some kind of migration explosion. Even more so I think that members of the New Zealand First Party—and I see Denis O’Rourke who is one of the perpetrators—have engaged in some disgraceful comments and speeches in this House and have taken the opportunity to talk about the “they” and say that there is somehow a peril at work in New Zealand and that it needs to be stopped because they are taking our jobs and they are taking our houses. I think that that is really disappointing and disgraceful.But actually the people whom I am most disappointed in are Labour members because their leader has engaged in a very subtle dog-whistle to a small coterie of New Zealanders for whom the xenophobic message will still resonate. And it was subtle. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Interjections will be rare and reasonable.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: He said that Labour supports migration; it just needs to somehow control it although Phil Twyford overreached by saying that a net inflow of no more than 5000 to 10000 was the goal. Well because Kiwis are not leaving that must have caused members like Kris Faafoi and Raymond Huo and even Ms Lole-Taylor to have some serious disquiet because what that would mean in practice is no more family reunification no more partnerships and no more students coming to study at our universities for years at a time.I am not sure who it is who is the economic development spokesman for Labour at the moment but that person must be worried as well because skilled migration is very important. The Canterbury MPs must be worried if that sort of policy is adopted because they know that their region needs to be rebuilt.Poto Williams is right. We do need to put our Kiwis at the front of the queue for those jobs.Denis O’Rourke: Nobody objects to proper—Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept the comment that you made about interjections being rare and reasonable but I can no longer hear myself think with those interjections.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes I am going to uphold that. This is a robust debate and interjections are permissible but continuously and incessantly calling out is not acceptable and the member will desist from that.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that that would really worry the Canterbury MPs because we know that although the important thing is to get as many Kiwis working on the rebuild as we can there is no doubt that in order for that to be effective and to create the great city that it can be again we will need to rely on foreign migrant labour as we already are.So the dog-whistle is really unfortunate it is inappropriate and it is unbecoming of this House particularly when the net migration story had nothing to do with migrants. It had everything to do with Kiwis coming home and not leaving. Prime Minister Key when Leader of the Opposition  stood in Westpac Stadium which was a very good metaphor for the number of New Zealanders leaving under Labour and said: “We’ll bring them home.” Now the number of people—Hon Phil Goff: Oh come on! Immigration increased in the first 5 years of the National Government. That’s true.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will come to that Mr Goff. I will come to that Mr Goff.Hon Phil Goff: Immigration to Australia increased every year for the first 5 years.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will come to that. You have made the point. They started in the Westpac Stadium now the number of people leaving this country would fit into the Back Bencher Pub and Cafe  and by the end of this year you could probably fit them into a phone booth in Molesworth Street. They have stopped leaving; they are coming home.I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good rant by Mr Goff. Here is what I will tell him about the Residence Programme. In 2005-06 under Labour the number of resident visas granted exceeded 50000. Well last year it was under 40000. There was a gross 20 percent reduction in the number of resident visas that were granted and here is why. A migration policy is a demand-driven policy—Hon Phil Goff: What was the figure for 2012?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I still cannot hear myself think Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a demand-driven policy. It is self-correcting in the medium term. If we have fewer New Zealanders leaving and more New Zealanders coming home then the demand for those skills will be reduced and therefore the number of migrants coming in will drop. And that is exactly what has happened albeit that I note that there has been an increase in the number of working holidaymakers and in the number of students now after a reduction. But I absolutely reject this idea of a migration explosion that has dominated the media over the last few days. It is very unbecoming of members in New Zealand First like Mr O’Rourke and Mr Williams to create that dog-whistle to that small group of disaffected New Zealanders who think that it is a problem.Let us talk about housing. I know and I can tell you that in Central Otago we are short of horticulture workers. Well the whole Labour caucus should go to Alexandra  because those members would be the best cherry pickers I have ever heard of. They are cherry-picking all of the worst bits about housing. Let me tell the House about housing affordability under Labour and I am not talking about the last Labour Government. I used to work at the National Bank and in the 1980s when the fourth Labour Government was in power I was issuing mortgages. The A mortgage was 17.5 percent. The B mortgage was 21.5 percent. Those were the majority of mortgages that we gave out. Why would people take mortgages at 21.5 percent? Because they were confident that house price inflation under Labour would continue to exceed the cost of the borrowing. That is exactly what we had in the 1980s we had it in the 2000s and we will have it again if that party ever comes close to the Treasury benches. You cannot wish interest rates down. It is simply not possible. What keeps interest rates lower for longer are prudent spending and responsible fiscal management. And no pie-in-the-sky monetary policy that wishes interest rates down and takes away the choices of New Zealanders to decide whether they want to save spend or invest in KiwiSaver is going to do that.Yes there is a housing affordability issue. It is an issue that was 30 percent better under this Government than it was when Labour was in power. Members opposite can cherry-pick all the data they like because a recent report for Treasury on the issue of migration and its effects on New Zealand’s economy in saying that there were positive effects of net migration said that yes housing affordability is an issue but the predominant reason for house price inflation is supply side inelasticity. That is a pointy-headed way of saying that we do not have enough houses and we need to build more. Again I say to Labour that one could wish 100000 houses into existence but that does not make it happen. What makes it happen is freeing up land and reducing the burden of resource compliance development levies and yes the building costs. Members opposite can criticise the $3500 saving all they like but it is stacks on the mill. It is one issue at a time.This was a Budget that delivered very very good policies that will keep interest rates lower for longer control spending increase the value of the services that our Government agencies provide to members of the public help rebuild Canterbury improve our education and improve our health. And it was all done on a reasonably modest increase in the vote. I think that that is what New Zealanders are looking for. That is what this Government had to do that is what it continues to do and that is what it will do. I look forward to debating any one of those issues on the hustings in the next few months. This is a really good Budget and I commend it.