Yates Dianne: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Yates Dianne: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9097] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 Those who are listening at home to this debate may have lost all track of what the debate is about—it is about the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. This is a bill that amends the International Finance Agreements Act 1961 and it provides for New Zealand to become a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. 
As the bill tells us in the explanatory note the agency is one of five agencies that make up the World Bank Group. The core mission of the agency is to enhance the flow of capital and technology to developing countries for productive purposes by providing investment insurance for member countries against both sovereign and political risk. I am rather surprised at the stance of the last speaker Te Ururoa Flavell on this bill because I thought that he would have been much more philanthropic in his approach to this particular legislation. The legislation is one of those Acts that puts an international agreement into New Zealand law; it is part of our process. There has been a national interest analysis done on this legislation and I would remind people that in September 2005 there was Cabinet approval to sign this Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency convention. 
In September 2005 New Zealand signed the convention. In July 2006 the Cabinet agreed that the text of the convention and the accompanying national interest analysis which is done on all these types of agreement should be presented to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration. Now that select committee— 
Shane Jones 
: A very good committee. 
DIANNE YATES 
: Obviously Shane Jones is on the select committee. That select committee considered the national interest analysis—it considered what we were signing up to—and it reported back to the House. It said that there were no matters to bring to the House. That means that the select committee agreed with it. Now we have this bill that is adopting that convention into New Zealand law. So here we have this actual process happening. The national interest analysis is very good and it explains why we should bother doing this. 
The Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency was adopted in Washington DC in 1985 so members cannot say that we are hurrying this through in the dead of night as people often say in this House. There are already around 170 parties to this convention. As I have said New Zealand signed up in September 2005 and we are ratifying this convention through this legislation in 2007. 
In order to become a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency New Zealand must become a party to the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. As I have said this convention was established to do three things—to provide three key services. The first service is political risk insurance for foreign investments in developing countries and I am surprised that some members of this House do not agree with that. The second service is technical assistance to improve investment climates and to promote investment opportunities in developing countries and Marian Hobbs has given us very good reasons why we should be doing that. The third service is dispute mediation services to remove possible obstacles to further investment. 
I think that some of the concerns of the Green Party can be worked through with that third point. I point out that in these cases we have to be in to change things. One of the advantages given in the national interest analysis of New Zealand’s joining is that New Zealand will be able to chair an annual meeting of the World Bank Group—it is unable to chair an annual meeting of the World Bank Group unless it is a member of all five institutions in the World Bank Group. Also following the ratification of this convention New Zealand will be able to chair an annual meeting outside New Zealand—that is it could chair the meeting in Washington DC. So this bill gives us the opportunity to chair that meeting and to have more say which is really important. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: Whoopee! 
DIANNE YATES 
: I remind the Green member who is laughing that it is the same as in this House—if members are not in the House they cannot have any say. If we are not at the meeting we cannot have any say or any influence on the meeting; so we should be there. New Zealand has had tremendous influence and we punch above our weight in many of these organisations. Should we choose to entertain this opportunity it would be likely to lead to an enhancement of our reputation at the bank and to provide a valuable opportunity—and the members who have spoken before me should listen to this because it is in the national interest analysis—to advance New Zealand’s priorities in the work of the World Bank. If we are not there we do not have a say. That is a very very important paragraph— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Who else would advance our interests? 
DIANNE YATES 
: Who else would advance our interests and who else would advance the interests of many of the smaller countries in the Pacific and the countries we work with? If we are not there we cannot have our say. 
When we talk about a national interest analysis I think we should also be talking about an international responsibility analysis which is what New Zealand has. I point that out to previous speakers as it is a very very important part of this. As we have said the other reasons that the national interest analysis gives and the assessment as to why New Zealand should join the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency are based on three broad categories as Michael Cullen has reminded us including supporting the New Zealand private sector’s contribution to development goals. The New Zealand private sector has a very important role to play especially in the Pacific in this regard and in supporting multilateral organisations. Specifically by ratifying the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Convention New Zealand is strengthening its commitment towards international efforts that promote development and improve our credibility. 
We talk about our own national interest improving our credibility at the World Bank. As of October 2005 New Zealand was one of four countries still in the process of fulfilling membership requirements and it is currently the only OECD country that is not a member. As I have said this is not something we are rushing through in the dead of night. It was originally a convention adopted in Washington DC in 1985 and it has taken us a considerable amount of time to bring it into our legislation. I thank the Hon Michael Cullen for bringing this legislation which we are now debating to the House. Another advantage spelt out in the national interest analysis is New Zealand’s contribution to international efforts to promote development through facilitating foreign direct investment flows—as I have said already—enhancing New Zealand’s credibility. 
I commend the bill to the House and I urge those members who are not so interested in it or who have spoken against it tonight to read the national interest analysis—it is about 30 pages long with the actual agreement attached to it—and to realise that if New Zealand is not in we cannot have an influence. If New Zealand is not there we cannot chair the organisation at its meetings overseas. Once again I believe that this is one of those occasions when it is really important for us to be inside the tent rather than outside. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.