Woodhouse Michael: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: General Debate[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10018. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): That speech by Jacinda Ardern would have had much more credibility about work and job growth if it came from a member of a party that actually supported job growth. Labour opposes every single thing that the Government is doing and the largest single thing it has done is signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. I thought that party believed in jobs and growth believed in trade—a small open nation wanting to trade with the rest of the world—but no. In opposition Labour opposes. At least we have got to give it credit for that. It is certainly good at opposing because it opposes every good thing that is going on.If that member really wanted to talk about the future of work let us talk about the future of jobs under a framework that did not have New Zealand in the TTP. It is a pretty scary scenario. Let us take this: in Japan at the moment there is New Zealand lamb and Australian lamb. Both attract a 35.5 percent tariff into that country. If Australia joined the TPP agreement over time its tariff would be reduced and then eliminated.Hon David Cunliffe: What a static analysis.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is an absolutely accurate analysis that brings home the folly of the Labour Party’s opposition to the TPP agreement because in a future that had Australia in and New Zealand out New Zealand lamb would be 38.5 percent more expensive for the Tokyo shopper. Which lamb is going to be bought? It is a pretty simple mathematical equation and any party that purports to support jobs for our young and for our young Māori in freezing works and on farms but cannot support the TPP agreement has no credibility on this subject.One of the other discussions that has been going on over the last few months is whether the strong positive net migration that we have right now is a good thing or a bad thing. One of the sad parts about that discussion is that certain people including some in this House confuse migration with immigration and immigration with residency. They are not the same thing. When Labour left office for every Kiwi arriving home to New Zealand there were 2½ Kiwis leaving for the long term. Now for every Kiwi who is leaving one is coming home. That is a sign of strength. It is a sign of and a contribution to positive net migration but it is a sign of success not failure.The overseas workers coming in are also a sign of success because we have a growing economy and we are struggling to fill the jobs that are available. I accept that there is a mismatch. We have a hard core of unemployed and the Minister for Social Development and I are working extremely hard with employers to make sure that those people are at the front of the queue for jobs. But there is no doubt that if we want to rebuild Canterbury if we want to support the horticulture and viticulture sector which is growing gangbusters—even in the dairy sector we still rely on labour—we are going to need smart immigration policy to do that. I challenge those members on the other side to go to employers and convince them that it is easy to recruit an overseas worker because it is not. There is no evidence that this policy is suppressing wages. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned a particular member once. He has just continued right throughout question time and now throughout the general debate. Reasonable interjections throughout a robust debate I will accept but a continual barrage like the one that I am getting will leave me no choice but to be asking the member to leave.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There is no question that there is a concern about the labour-market effects of migration policy but we need to be very careful not to be the xenophobic ranters that some people are on the other side. Good migration policy contributes very strongly to this economy and a strong economy contributes to good immigration policy. It is a feeding cycle. But the question of how many people are coming and gaining residence is a confusing one. If you listen to the rants on the other side you would think there are these floods of overseas people coming in and gaining residence. Nothing could be further from the truth. The highest residencies granted in this country were 10 years ago when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Minister of Foreign Affairs in a Labour-led Government. That number of residencies dropped 20 percent and is now recovering from that historic low. It is hard to believe given the rants that we hear from the other side: 52000 residencies were granted at that time. It dropped to 42000; it is going up to 47000. Good economies strong economies need good immigration policy.