Jones Shane: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8127. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora. 
John Hayes 
: A man who supports a capital gains tax. Ha ha! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Actually I must elaborate on what my colleague David Parker was saying. He is actually not talking about excessively increasing taxes. He is talking about distributing in a more even-handed fashion the sources in the economy out of which a Government draws the revenue to meet the current appetites that we are seeing from that side of the House. I mistakenly thought that this would be a Government that actually would put into practice a lot of the rhetoric it spouted earlier in the time I was in Government as a Minister but in actual fact it has been tardy it has been profligate and it is slowly being caught out. But that is another matter. 
I am disappointed and I really do want to hear from my colleagues in the Green Party as to why they could not possibly support this piece of legislation the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. I recently went to Sri Lanka as a parliamentarian. I encountered there the guy from the IMF. No one should underestimate the work. I cannot account for why they did not send a National parliamentarian but I was prepared to bear the burden and go over there on our behalf. However it was a timely reminder of the work that the IMF managers analysts etc. do on the ground as they are working in Sri Lanka with a country that has had a dreadful civil war. Also it depends on the actual capital that the IMF has access to. 
What does the IMF actually do? What it does is—generally using very complicated models of multiple regression etc. and using econometric models—it tries to rebalance and refoot the economy. I do not want to get too dense and technical because I know on that side of the House there is an audience with limited capacity to follow such narratives unlike Mr Mallard. For my colleagues in the Green Party I respect the fact that they are very strong on social development and very strong on equity and if ever there is a case where we should stand staunch to ensure that the ills of a civil war and ethnic strife do not re-emerge given that we have got so many Sri Lankans coming to New Zealand in the medical profession etc. Sri Lanka represents an example of where the IMF is delivering very practical work. So it is beyond cavil that we should support this bill. 
My colleague has delivered to the House that we are disappointed that this will not actually come to the legislature but will disappear down into the corridors of the executive—not unlike I suspect that story that is untold about the Skycity casino. But given I have got my own report coming out in a week or two I shall just taihoa on saying much more about that report until such time as my report comes out. And no doubt I will be for a very ephemeral moment in the firing gun but we will cross that bridge when we get to it—when we get to it. It is highly unlikely that I will get many missiles from members over there given that I remember what was actually happening when they were bringing me their applications when I was the Minister but that is in the past. 
The bill does not immediately require New Zealand to step up with further capital—no. What it does is it provides an opportunity to reform the way in which participants exercise their influence. Do we actually believe in the role of the IMF? Of course we do. As I said from the Sri Lankan experience more recently I have seen personally how the IMF is doing a difficult task. Wherever it goes the elected Governments are cross with it. But that is a healthy level of tension. We the donors to such an organisation have every right to require it when it moves into these countries where the transparency is not flash and where the economy is in a state of gross imbalance to ensure that we can rely upon the professionalism of such an organisation that has our support. It is only 18 months until there may very well be a Government comprising some minority parties and us. I have no doubt in my mind that the stance that we take into the future will see New Zealand continuing to support such an institution so I am actually interested to learn why our friends from the Green Party—whether or not it is because Mr Kennedy Graham got sort of hoha with Labour and forgot to elaborate the reasons. These things happen. I have been known to get hoha with Labour myself but that is another matter. I have actually had the Greens hoha with me. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh no! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well actually I will say “members of Labour”. Often the kaumatua for Wainuiomata has taken a dim view of certain things I have said. Enough said—it is lost in translation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hang on hang on. Mid-point of career not kaumatua. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: He said the man is not a kaumatua and he will challenge anyone to a bike race etc. Well I kind of know what bike races do to sensitive parts of the anatomy so I will taihoa on that. I will stay with golden oldie— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh harden up. Harden up. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I will taihoa on that. I will go to golden oldie rugby. 
The other thing that I would like to say is that the IMF has over the years attracted a great deal of negative attention. It has been attacked and in some cases demonised for going into difficult areas. One has only to look at the experience of Latin America and I am sure the member for Wairarapa could have gone on at length in a flatulent manner and regaled us with tales—regaled us with tales—about how he has played a role in saving those countries from themselves. But the IMF is an institution that a number of New Zealanders have continued to work in. Very very significantly placed bureaucrats from our own country have gone on and have indeed taken a representative role on the executive board. So we should not quibble and we should not shirk from ensuring that our overall commitment to the IMF is adequately covered and more important that as one of the key OECD countries we show ongoing support. 
We know that the Americans with their 16 17 or 18 percent voting rights still have virtually a veto right. But we have also seen the fashions change in that great economy. It is only 10 years ago that so many of its legislators themselves seemed to be locked into a pattern of demonising and stigmatising such international bodies. But for us in New Zealand it comes as part of the obligation to be a good global citizen. We do not have the breadth of defence capacity. We do not have—partly through the errors of the current Government—the depth of capital. We rely on international markets. We rely on international agreements. A small country of 4.5 million people with aspirations to maintain a high-quality OECD lifestyle has no option but to stand as a key participant in such institutions. This particular bill does not commit us to anything that we are not already comfortable with. Indeed it is just an iteration of what we did several years ago. 
But it is a timely reminder at a time when New Zealand is seeking to secure other internationally recognised positions. Indeed the Minister of Trade is hoping to follow the footsteps of Mike Moore. Well I would encourage him to develop physical robustness if he is going to emulate the full deeds of Mike Moore. That shows that if we are seen as being dependable and robust contributors to something such as the IMF then the credentials that other personalities will wear on our behalf as we seek to secure positions not for them personally but for our nation State through their person are clear. That is a very fine thing and it is a very aspirational goal which I am sure the majority of parliamentarians are committed to. I am pretty sure that the Green Party itself shares that level of commitment although it probably has a less charitable view than I do about the virtues of free trade. 
I look forward to learning more as to when the proposed multiparty trade agreement drawing close with the United States of America us and our Asian neighbours comes to pass but that is a debate that no doubt we will fully resolve after the 2014 election. And by that time we will be over there on the Government benches and my occasional fellow travellers in the rugby team etc. will be over here. That is just the ebb and flow of democracy and a number of those members I am sure will go. I am not suggesting that we should be casual about how we regard our roles and our contributions of a fiscal nature to such organisations but we should be regarded as solid citizens and that is why this side of the House supports in an unfettered fashion the passage of this bill.