Little Andrew: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7970. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 This typescript amendment lodged by my colleague Mr Parker is a very important one. We do not often debate constitutional principles in this Chamber and certainly outside of it. We understand most of us who are here our role as parliamentarians which is to pass laws and provide some scrutiny and oversight of the Government of the day when it is putting up laws and to some extent to initiate laws ourselves. But when we are faced with a proposed law such as this which takes away the scrutiny of Parliament then we have to tread and approach it extraordinarily cautiously more so when it is about the international obligations that we enter into. All of the international agreements that we enter into if they have any force either internationally or locally must come to this House for ratification. That is standard international law. So it defies explanation when we see in this legislation an agreement that admittedly we all already have entered into but an agreement that if the Government of the day wishes to amend it or wishes to agree to amend it in the international forum in which it operates should not come back to this House. There is no explanation nor could there be for that course of action. So Mr Parker’s amendment is absolutely crucial when it comes to constitutional principles and the way we operate. 
We do not have the checks and balances that many other countries—many other members of the IMF—have. We do not have a second House to keep the executive in check. We do not have court oversight—Supreme Court or Court of Appeal or High Court oversight—of the law-making functions of this Parliament. That is the Westminster way. That is the Westminster system and subject to what the current lengthy constitutional review might come up with it is unlikely that that would change. So the only check and balance that we have on the power of the executive and what it does in the name of all New Zealanders whether locally or on the international stage is what happens in this Parliament. It is the ability for parliamentarians of whatever colour of whatever origin of whatever part of the country to come together whether in this House or in the select committees to provide oversight and scrutiny of what the executive or any member of it has done or is doing or has agreed to—in this case in the very important international forum of the IMF. 
When the legislation says that the Government of the day can by Order in Council agree to register and record amendments to the important documents that make up our membership of the IMF—the fund agreement the bank agreement the text of the corporation agreement and the text of the convention—when you start getting down to that end where things in any other context and in any other forum would require ratification or validation by this Parliament then it is time to stop where we are and take a step back. For that reason Labour is saying that this is a step too far by the executive. When it comes to putting in the hands of the executive the power to make these changes—without the scrutiny and oversight of Parliament without the ability for this Parliament and members of it to debate it to come up with alternatives and to challenge unwise steps—then that is bordering on if not indeed usurping the power of this Parliament and certainly the members in it. 
So we say boldly and unequivocally that clause 4 which is amending section 10 of the International Finance Agreements Act 1961 is simply a step too far. It should not proceed at all and doing that does not compromise the real objective of this bill which is to allow the changes that have been agreed to so far to proceed and to have the approval of this Committee. But the idea that upon approving recently—when I say recently I mean in the last 5 years of course—agreed changes to the IMF statutes and the IMF texts to say that having agreed on that we should then give carte blanche power to the executive to agree to changes—