Seymour David: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7990. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. May I just chime in in support of what the previous member Clayton Cosgrove said—that our international reputation does matter people do watch what happens in this Chamber and charity does begin at home. And the member may very well take those words on board: charity does begin at home. And as the Speaker said just yesterday it is not just what happens in this Chamber that people watch but what happens outside this Chamber. And I may remind the member that the proper place for debate in this Parliament is within this Chamber and the select committee rooms not out there on the tiles harassing the Prime Minister as his member did.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Talk to the bill.DAVID SEYMOUR: I am addressing the bill and the debate on the bill.This bill is a positive step for New Zealand. And to those who oppose it I say there is a very simple thought experiment into which we can enter and it is this. There are a number of jurisdictions around the world of similar size to New Zealand and I would say that for instance Denmark is one of those British Columbia in Canada is one of those and Colorado in the United States is one of those. All of those jurisdictions of 4 million or 5 million people are deeply integrated with the rest of the region that they are part of: with the United States on the part of Colorado with the European Union on the part of Denmark and with Canada and the wider North America Free Trade Agreement area in the case of British Columbia.To say that we do not have interest beyond our borders that it is somehow an abrogation of our sovereignty to be involved in institutions such as this bank is to close yourself off from reality in a way that none of those jurisdictions would have done. Public policy must be politically sustainable if it is to endure and achieve its purposes. And it is interesting to reflect by extension on some of the political views on this bill and in particular on the one exception party that opposes the bill which is in this case New Zealand First. New Zealand First is a party traditionally opposed to foreign investment in New Zealand. Their argument is that large profits are taken out of New Zealand when foreigners invest here. Quid pro quo one may have thought that they would be in favour of New Zealanders investing overseas so that we can make such large profits from those other jurisdictions.But it gets more interesting. It is also a party that is typically interested in the Government taxing taxpayers to fund a lot of enterprises and infrastructure and quid pro quo you may have thought that the best possible policy for New Zealand First would be to support a policy where New Zealanders are taxed by the New Zealand Government to provide capital for investments that may become profitable and make a return in foreign countries. One may have thought that this was the ideal policy for the New Zealand First Party but of course what I have just done is laid out a coherent and logical series of premises and conclusions and that is a process completely alien to the New Zealand First Party.This matters for this particular bill and this particular initiative because public policies if they are to be sustainable must be politically accepted and New Zealand First claims that it may one day have the balance of power in this House. It is critical for this policy and our reputation abroad and our interests in having solid high-quality infrastructure developed outside of our borders in our region of influence—which any of those other jurisdictions I mentioned would view as important—that such an incoherent party whose only true point of reference is a resentment of outsiders and a resentment of foreigners who come here such as telling them to go home does not hold the balance of power in this House so that this policy can remain sustainable. Not only will that help in this particular policy but I dare say it would also increase the average IQ of this House. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.