Robertson Grant: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7755. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It gives me pleasure to join the outbreak of violent agreement across the House on this bill. I certainly do support New Zealand’s involvement in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee obviously had the onerous task of wading its way through the public’s voluminous submissions on this matter and has managed to bring it back to the House in one piece and it is to be thanked for that.As other speakers have noted what the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank essentially offers for New Zealand is the opportunity to be at the table when big infrastructure decisions are being made in our region—and this is our region. Certainly in the early days of the process of establishing this bank there was and has been criticism of the World Bank. Others might say that the World Bank and others who lend into the IMF and others who lend into the region should be undertaking this work and ask why you would need an additional investment bank in the region. Certainly when the bank was first being suggested there was a lot of talk from some very large friends of ours involved in the World Bank that perhaps we did not need this kind of investment bank. But I think having a bank based out of Asia that is specifically focused on the core infrastructure needs—and Mr Mitchell mentioned one of those in his speech—in the region no doubt to my mind will be best served by having a bank that is based in the region and which has as its contributors the leading economies of that region.That was the first hurdle I think to get past in terms of whether or not this was justified. I note in the select committee’s earlier report that it did on the national interest analysis that it asked about the attitude of the World Bank to this and was told that the World Bank was—I think the phrase used was—“pleased”. I find that a little difficult to believe to be honest with you. I do not think it was probably pleased but I think it probably has accepted that this is now going to happen and that New Zealand should continue to be both a player in the World Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.So having got over that first hurdle there are really three areas of value I think to New Zealand here. The first is the one that has been covered by all of the speakers which is the importance economically of the Asian region to New Zealand. This is unquestioned. This is not just about China where we have been able to make huge strides under the free-trade agreement negotiated by my colleague Mr Goff but also in the emerging economies in that region. I am thinking here particularly about countries like Viet Nam where there is a huge opportunity for New Zealand to be involved. Mr Mitchell I understand is off to observe an election in Myanmar very shortly—there is a country with infrastructure deficits caused by what has happened in the governing of that country in recent years and where a bank like this could have a big say but where there are huge trading opportunities for New Zealand as democracy grows in Myanmar.Chris Bishop: That’s right. Viet Nam’s part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Bishop is a big fan of democracy I know that. And so there is the opportunity for New Zealand to be there to be supporting the growth of these countries that will become large economic players in the Asian region to sit alongside China and those with which we already have very good relationships.The second factor is around connectivity to those markets. How do we ensure that we know what is happening that we are involved in the decision making around the regional structures? And there are a large number of those Asian regional structures that New Zealand is either an observer at or has participated in. This adds another level to that. The bank will be making some pretty significant decisions about how economic growth works in the Asian region and New Zealand is able to be at the table albeit with a modest contribution but a contribution that is relative to our GDP and the entire membership of the bank.The third reason which is related to that is that question about the ability to influence. This should not be understated in terms of New Zealand’s involvement in the bank: our willingness to be there right at the beginning. So we have had the “four firsts” but this was important for New Zealand to be there right at the beginning and be a part of how the bank was established.I note that when we look at some of the concerns and issues that New Zealand raised early on in the process it was New Zealand officials and negotiators who were able during those discussions to talk about what kind of governance mechanisms should be used. In fact New Zealand pushed for open transparent and merit-based appointments to the board of the bank. That phrase “open transparent and merit-based appointments to organisations” is one the Government might like to consider in a wider context with some of its other boards that it appoints people to but the fact that New Zealand was pushing for this and succeeded in getting that process shows how useful it is for us to be at the table at an early stage.Related to that Mr Goff mentioned the inclusion of the safeguards around environment social and procurement matters for the bank. This is actually very significant and again builds on something that New Zealand has pioneered in trade negotiations which is that alongside those negotiations we actually have meaningful environmental and labour standards and standards that support good governance. These were not always part of trade agreements and they were forced through particularly under the last Labour Government to say that we are not going to sit down in these trade negotiations and pretend that the economic activity takes place somehow or other independently of environmental and social considerations.So the draft environmental and social framework for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is actually a comprehensive document in terms of the topics that it covers. Under the environmental areas that the bank has to take into account in terms of infrastructure we have got biodiversity critical habitats natural habitats protected areas climate change—a precautionary approach—and pollution prevention. These are actually very important ideas about what is important in future investments and they are now a core part of what the bank has to take into consideration in those investments. That is in large part because New Zealand has been part of pushing for those. Similarly in social coverage there are gender-specific impacts of investments and cultural impacts of investments. In terms of working conditions: health and safety child labour forced labour and minimum labour standards.So these are now part of what the bank has to consider when it is making its infrastructure investments. They are there in part because New Zealand was successful in pushing them. And just to give a further example New Zealand was successful in having the word “sustainable” added before “economic development”. That would not have happened if we were not at the table and I acknowledge that this has happened under this Government’s watch. I think it builds on the kind of approach that we have tried to take with our broader trade and economic investment ideas.I do not have an awful lot more to add than that other than to endorse the fact that the bill is a good piece of legislation. Perhaps in the Committee stage of the bill when we come to it—because we need to find something to talk about when we get to that—we can discuss the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s decision to delete clause 9(1) of the bill which was the decision that the committee made to get rid of the part that said that the articles of agreement for the bank would have force of law in New Zealand. I cannot see why they would be needed and I suspect that is the point—they do not actually apply to New Zealand and therefore there is no need to give them force of law. So it is probably a sensible decision all round. It is interesting to note that a decision was taken not to give them force of law in New Zealand given other agreements we might discuss in this House in the coming weeks. So with that I commend the bill to the House.