Smith Nick: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2011. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is good to hear the sensible contributions that have been made in this debate about amendments to the International Finance Agreements Act because one of the biggest challenges that New Zealand currently faces is how we protect our citizens and our country in incredibly challenging financial times. So often in the debates in this Parliament there are all sorts of sideshows going on but actually that is the core challenge for New Zealand.  
As other members have noted the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill puts into place a number of agreements that were made in 2008 and 2010 by the governors of the International Monetary Fund and allows the New Zealand Parliament to effectively ratify those and modernise those IMF structures. Some of the major changes are the recognition that economies like China and Korea have become so much bigger global players and that they need to step up both in the governance and in the financial contributions to international institutions like the IMF to match their contribution globally in 2012 rather than from when the IMF structures were put together in the late 1950s and the early 1960s.  
The part that is a bit missing though from the debate and the contradiction is that I hear Opposition members recognising the need for an international monetary fund recognising the challenges that there are globally and recognising the changes that have occurred globally around the growth of Korea and China and yet in so many of the policy positions that they adopt they take an introverted anti - global trade perspective which actually contradicts— 
Tracey Martin 
: That would be pro - New Zealand. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —the very reality that goes with this bill. Now I hear this interjection that somehow that is being pro - New Zealand. Members on this side of the House would say that for a small trading nation being pro-trade is being pro - New Zealand and that is where we find that some of the very insular almost North Korean perspective that we get from a party like New Zealand First is actually quite a risk to jobs and prosperity for New Zealand.  
I also find it interesting that in debating this International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill there is a recognition that countries have got themselves in a very serious financial pickle by spending money they do not have. In fact the IMF and the provisions that we are putting forward in the Parliament are actually to try to protect the world economy from some of those reckless policies and it is proper for us to provide those protections. The contradiction though is that in every single week that has occurred this year we have seen new spending commitments coming from parties opposite at a time when New Zealand is running substantial deficits.  
I hear the New Zealand First members interjecting and I would simply say to them well it is promises like those over the last adjournment when they promised superannuitants a 10 percent reduction on their power bills a policy that over a period of 5 years would cost $450 million. I say that that is just financially reckless when we are debating a bill of this sort and it would actually just add to the financial instability. That recklessness is equally so in the contributions I have heard from Labour. In every single debate that comes up Labour members want to spend more. They are being financially reckless and actually that reinforces the need for New Zealand to be part of the stabilising mechanisms that are provided by the International Monetary Fund. I simply hope that New Zealand adopts responsible fiscal policies of the sort that are promoted by this Key Government so that we do not have to call on the resources of the IMF one day to bail us out from the sorts of policies that I see being promoted by members opposite.  
I think this debate is a healthy debate. It reminds New Zealand of the need for sound international trading mechanisms and institutions and of the importance of New Zealand taking a rational conservative and responsible fiscal policy because that is the very best hope of being able to secure the bright future that this Government has campaigned on and continues to work towards with legislation such as this bill.