Mallard Trevor: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7978. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. It is not that I am a polite old gentleman but I thought Lianne Dalziel was going to take the call before me but apparently she wants to listen to her learned colleague first. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: And if she can’t she’ll listen to you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Thank you. I think I will be voting with my colleagues opposite at the Government Administration Committee tomorrow to get a decent chair. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We’ve got the best chair we’ve ever had on that committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh that is not true. I used to chair it years ago. 
I would just like to make a point in relation to the overall approach to the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill before I drive down into the detail of schedule 2 which of course amends schedule 1—not schedule 1 of this bill but schedule 1 of the 1961 legislation the International Finance Agreements Act. I would just like to ask a question of my Green colleagues. Why are they opposed to making an international financial organisation more transparent and more accountable? I cannot see why having an organisation that is shifting the balance of power away from the domination of the United States and into Asia and being fairer on countries around the world is getting opposition from the Green Party. To me it just does not seem logical. If Green members really believe that the IMF should be abolished then it is relatively easy to draft an amendment to this bill that would take out the entire schedule of the 1961 Act and would thereby take out our membership of the IMF. 
Mr Chair I have been listening carefully—you know I think members are allowed to say that they have not always been in the Chamber themselves. I have not always been in the Chamber for this debate. I have been here for a reasonable proportion—too much you might say—but I have been listening to it and I am yet to hear a call from a Green member to explain why they are opposed to the IMF becoming more democratic. As I say if they are totally opposed to the IMF then they should move an amendment to the legislation that makes their position clear. It is not hard to do. It could be drafted in 10 seconds to make it work but it appears that we are having silence on the substance but votes being cast without any sort of reasoning and I would genuinely like to understand from people I want to work with in the future— 
Hon John Banks 
: They don’t understand. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no people just about always have a reason for doing something and I would like to try to understand what that reason is. But I think for that to occur there has to be a call. 
I go back to schedule 2 and with a tiny bit of criticism of my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe. I think he did not focus on the fact that schedule 2 amends schedule 1—and that is schedule 1 of the International Finance Agreements Act 1961. What we see actually in looking at it is a difference in parliamentary drafting style since 1961. In 1961 it was called the First Schedule and now it is called schedule 1. I would like an assurance from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Immigration that notwithstanding that difference in drafting style we are talking about amendments to the First Schedule even though we are calling it schedule 1 because the naming is different. Even if there was a debate about it I do not think it would get to the Supreme Court. I think that most of us know what we are talking about but to use the wonderful language of Hekia Parata the Minister of Education I would like a “belt and braces” approach to this and to get an assurance that our trousers are not going to fall down because we say “schedule 1” and not the “First Schedule”. So we would like to be getting an assurance in the preliminary part of this particular clause in the legislation—and we are referring of course to clause 6 which brings in schedule 1 amended in the manner set out in schedule 2. 
What happens here is that it sets up the fact that “the Executive Board shall consist of twenty Executive Directors [who are] elected by the members with the Managing Director as chairman.” There is not a high level of understanding in the Committee and I am trying to assist the new member for Hamilton West with his understanding in this particular area because what we do have here are executive directors who represent either a country or a group of countries. But when they vote they have an uneven number of votes. It is not like they are on a board and they all stick their hands up and you count the votes and you know the group with the most hands up wins. In this particular case—Darien Fenton will remember this approach—it is a card vote. It is effectively a card vote and it would probably remind me of a Labour Party conference where some people stick their— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: In the old days. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no we still have cards at the Labour Party conference. If you are representing the Labour electorate committee you have two on there or each of the MPs gets one. Darien Fenton always had 50 on her card and about 75 more in her pocket when she was exercising the votes. That is the sort of approach that you have on the Executive Board of the IMF where people do not carry equal votes. It is not democratic in the sense of one man or one woman a vote. Just looking in here it appears that as far as the executive directors in this particular section there is the possibility contemplated of there being a woman executive director. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How many are there currently? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have no idea. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Have a guess. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have my doubts whether there are any but I must say that there are some pretty competent people who have gone from the New Zealand Treasury including women to work in this area. I think it is fair to say that there are not currently women in my understanding at the executive director level. 
The executive directors are to be elected every 2 years. I think it is fair to say that there has been over a period of time a degree of dissatisfaction with the performance of some of the executive directors. Some of them have worked very hard but others have regarded it as a bit of a sinecure. What having the 2-yearly elections I think is designed to do is ensure that there is less of sinecure in those arrangements. What it does do is give the board of governors which for those people who missed my earlier contribution is generally a group of the Finance Ministers or Treasurers or their equivalents from— 
Hon John Banks 
: I wonder what the US really thinks about this Trevor. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry? 
Hon John Banks 
: I wonder what the US really think about these changes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the US is probably accepting of the changes. If it were not—in reply to the interjection of the Hon John Banks—accepting of the changes they almost certainly would not be happening. But I think it is also fair to say that the United States has not been in the forefront of the promotion of the modernisation and the shift of power from itself to Asia as far as this venerable institution is concerned. I think it is fair to say that it has probably over a period of time been relatively cautious in the area. As I say it will lose some of its power. 
I think in new section 3(i) we do get to the point that my colleague the member for Christchurch Central has been interjecting about for— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I used to be the member for Christchurch Central. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh Christchurch East. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I probably will be again as a result of the boundary changes but you know never mind. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the member—do they have a member? Oh Nicky Wagner. Is Nicky Wagner the member for— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Yes but she is going to lose it because of the schools. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Clause 6. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: OK the member who is the member for Christchurch East but will probably beat Nicky Wagner interjected. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No no. The boundary changes will— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No well just leave it at “the member for Christchurch East who will probably beat Nicky Wagner”. What is wrong with saying that? Is that accurate? Is that accurate? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Absolutely. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is accurate. That member interjected and asked: “What about the possibility of a woman being an executive director?”. I think it is fair to say that in new section 3(b) to new section 3(d) of Article XII that is expressed I think in gender-neutral terms. But when we get down to new section 3(i)— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh: “his”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is right. As with the previous section we do not appear to contemplate the possibility of a woman being an executive director. Or are we saying that if there is a woman executive director they cannot have an alternate? Again I would be interested in the view of the Minister in the chair the Minister of Immigration on this because it appears to give only male executive directors the power to appoint alternates—whether in fact that is the case or whether there is an overriding clause hidden away somewhere in the legislation. Although I think it is pretty unusual in 1961 legislation. I do not think it would say in all cases “his” means “her”—and remembering that this is not for interpretation in the end by the New Zealand system; it is for interpretation within the IMF. I think there is a definite issue to be sorted out. 
I would be interested in the Greens’ position on that. Would Green members like to take a call and tell us whether a woman executive director should have rights equal to the men? I think they should but if people are opposed to—and maybe that is the reason. Maybe I have stumbled on the reason why the Greens are opposed to this. It is because hidden away in it there are some sexist clauses. If that was the reason for voting against it it would be a not totally unreasonable reason for doing it. But I would just like to hear them say it rather than— 
Holly Walker 
: Carry on. More. More. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: You are prepared to take a call and tell us? That is very good. I think I have got about another 7 minutes and you can have it. 
It is slightly unusual here because schedule 2 which is amending schedule 1 does go over quite a number of areas and does pretty substantive updating. But on the basis that the Greens have indicated that they want to clarify their position I am happy to sit down and if necessary to follow them afterwards.