Graham Kennedy: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7984. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to address the issue of clause 7 of the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill which repeals the International Finance Agreements Amendment Act 1975. I do so because I was interested in listening to the comments from the Hon Trevor Mallard about this particular clause that he could not see where the financing methodology would be in the bill if this clause goes ahead and the 1975 Act is repealed. He mentioned the issue of prepayments whether people would be treated differently or the same and whether this was picked up in the current draft legislation. We agree. We often agree with the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
His other point was I think pertaining to the loans issue that it needed to be made clear as to whether there would be a set of conditions and whether it would be a transfer of decision making to the board of the IMF. We agree with that too. So there is a lot—a lot—in addressing clause 7 that we would no doubt agree with the Hon Trevor Mallard on. There is a lot that we generally agree with the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Labour Party on but not on the overall nature of the bill. 
I am sorry Mr Chairman that I was unable to be here earlier as well. I was not watching  
Campbell Live 
; I was actually discussing this issue and broader issues with the Governor of the Reserve Bank. So I come reinforced with new ammunition on this in opposing this bill. 
Let me explain why we do oppose the bill. Mr Mallard mentioned at one stage that the bill is generally in favour of greater international transparency on economic and financial issues—that is true and we agree with that too—and he could not quite work out I think he said the reasons why the Greens will vote against it. Let me explain. It was his own close colleague the Hon Shane Jones who actually did note or offer his own view that the debate on this bill is actually a debate over Thatcherism and Reaganomics that has come to influence the IMF—[ 
Interruption 
] I am quoting—I am quoting. I am quoting a member of the Labour Party. He said that the debate is over Thatcherism and Reaganomics that it has come to influence the IMF and that it is essentially revolving around monetarism. I am not sure whether Mr Mallard agrees with that or not but that is what Mr Jones said. That is the nub of this issue as we see it so we do agree with yet another colleague in the Labour Party. The debate is over the nature of the IMF. 
Where we diverge—where we diverge—from the Labour Party on this is that having agreed that the debate is about monetarism we would seek to engage the world in reforming the IMF from that theory in various ways whereas Labour is disposed to support the bill notwithstanding. We have for some time called for the fundamental democratic reform of the IMF and this bill essentially invites us to comment on the requirements for the reform of the IMF. Let me give you three examples Mr Chairman if I may and through you my colleagues. The first is the stated intent of the reforms: to move towards a more democratic and equal representation model. There is some critique of the reforms that they are not fulfilling that goal in terms of the number of directors who are on the board. The US would hold 16.5 percent of total votes and the group of 77 would account for 41 percent—120 nations having 41 percent. Secondly the agreement would also change the voting allocation. There is a 6 percent increase shift in the vote for the dynamic emerging economies like Brazil Russia India and China—2.4 percent of this shift comes from the other developing nations losing their voting share. What kind of reform is that? The question can be attributed not just to the Government members but to the members of the Labour Party as well. Thirdly where there is inadequate reform of an organisation a party has a choice to make. You can support the bill while criticising the bill because it does not go far enough and then support it or you can say that the bill does not go far enough in reforming the organisation and that because of that you will oppose the bill. The Green Party is taking the latter approach. 
We will continue to oppose the bill notwithstanding the report back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee notwithstanding the debate on the second reading and notwithstanding anything that has been said in this Committee stage as well. A young emerging party stands by its principles. Those apprehensive of and facing the imminent onslaught of sclerosis fail to do so. 
Clause 7 agreed to.