Dalziel Lianne: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7983. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 My colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard has raised a number of points but he made a point earlier on about his absence from the Chamber which of course one would not normally refer to. But I wanted to explain why I too had been absent from the Chamber at the commencement of this debate when the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. The reason was that I wanted to see the end of the John Campbell programme that was on television because it related to some matters affecting my electorate and that of the Hon Ruth Dyson with regard to a financial matter. So I think it is relevant to some extent because the issues that were being raised actually transgress international financial understandings and actually obligations around property ownership—that if a Government is compulsorily acquiring property there is an obligation to pay fair compensation. In this particular instance we have examples of the owners of land being offered by the Government— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! The member should come back to clause 7. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —a mere 50 percent of their rating valuation. It was a really important issue for both my electorate and Ruth Dyson’s electorate so I thought it was important to tell the Committee why I was not here on the dot of 7.30 p.m. 
The concern that I have got about the repeal of the International Finance Agreements Amendment Act 1975 follows on a lot from what my colleague had to say. I have not heard an explanation from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Immigration as to why this particular amendment Act is being repealed because of course the legislation itself actually sets out in legislation the financial support fund of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development—the OECD to which we would refer. When I look at the objectives of the fund they are: “(a) to encourage and assist members to: (i) avoid unilateral measures which would restrict international trade or other current account transactions or which would artificially stimulate visible and current invisible exports and (ii) follow appropriate domestic and international economic policies including adequate balance-of-payments policies and co-operative policies to promote increased production and conservation of energy; (b) to serve for a limited period in view of current economic conditions to supplement in exceptional cases other sources of credit to which members encountering serious economic difficulties have had recourse; and (c) to ensure that the risks on loans by the Fund to members are shared equitably among all members in proportion to their quotas and subject to the limits of their quotas however the loans are financed.” It states: “All decisions under this Agreement shall be guided by these objectives.” 
What is not clear to me is whether this still stands with the repeal of the entire International Finance Agreement Amendment Act and I think that may have been one of the points that my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard was traversing in his contribution to this. If it is not the case then what is the case? I mean how has this been dealt with—in another way? It does seem to me that the two questions are inextricably linked because if we are to pass the legislation tonight—and of course we do actually have to pass this legislation. We do not really have any particular issue with not passing it because you know the reality is that the amendments that we have passed already through this Committee stage do not empower developing countries as much as some have claimed. The 85 percent rule which we have already addressed is required now and all we are doing is updating the relevant legislation. But that does not seem to be clear on the face of it when we come to the repeal of the International Finance Agreements Amendment Act 1975. In fact the issue seems to be quite unclear and I think it would assist the Committee if the Minister could in fact address that particular issue. 
Obviously because this fund has been an important element of the relationship that we have had with a number of other jurisdictions with whom we have a relationship in establishing and supporting this fund I would like to know how the Government has addressed this particular issue in order for us to feel confident that the Minister is able to address all these issues.