International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11891] 
International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill which will amend the International Finance Agreements Act 1961 has been thoroughly considered. It has been subject to a national-interest analysis by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The bill was examined before the second reading by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which recommended that it be passed with no amendments. 
First I would like to thank the House for its support of this bill and for allowing its rapid passage. As noted in the second reading debate the International Finance Agreements Act allows New Zealand to belong to and to meet its obligations as a member of various multilateral financial institutions including the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The passage of this bill is the next step towards New Zealand becoming a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency—or MIGA—which is the final agency within the World Bank Group to which New Zealand does not belong. New Zealand first became a party to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency convention in Seoul on 6 September 2005. 
The national-interest analysis concluded that it was in New Zealand’s interest to join the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency as its services are well aligned with our broader development interests and to a lesser extent with our foreign policy interests. The analysis also noted that the assessment of whether New Zealand should join the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency was based on three broad categories: firstly supporting multilateral organisations; secondly contributing to development goals; and thirdly supporting the New Zealand private sector. 
Multilateral forums or agencies such as the World Bank are an important part of the international architecture and are an important way in which New Zealand may influence our external environment. In this way the goals of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency are aligned with New Zealand’s aid and development goals. Further the subscription to the agency is able to count towards the Government’s goal of achieving aid contribution equal to 0.35 percent of gross national income. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency provides specifically targeted insurance products which seek to mobilise private sector resources in order to help address stark development challenges such as the development of infrastructure or the creation of jobs. It also provides political and foreign risk insurance for equity investments into frontier underdeveloped markets which often may be affected by war or civil dispute. 
National has observed that this reduces the costs of capital for private sector firms aiming to invest in developing markets. But it is also about helping firms handle uncertainty and find their feet in foreign and challenging markets by leveraging off the World Bank’s knowledge of conditions on the ground. I note that the agency’s most recent guarantee has encouraged $85 million of investment into Afghanistan to improve telecommunications. 
Assuming that the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill is passed New Zealand will be required to deposit a copy of the Act with the World Bank. New Zealand will then be required to pay a subscription fee. The subscription that will be involved is the purchase of one of 513 shares at a cost of approximately US$5.5 million—10 percent is in cash and 10 percent is via a promissory note. The remaining US$4.4 million will be subject to call by the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. The fund is unlikely to be called upon as a call would require the agreement of all shareholders. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National is supporting the International Finance Agreements Bill and I want to make some general points. The Labour Government has been going on and on and we have heard the vein-popping speeches which have become so ubiquitous that television commentators now refer to them as the standard modus operandi for our Minister of Trade. I have to say to Mr Goff that if he wants to become the leader of the Labour Party he has to look a little bit more authoritative and a bit more dignified than when giving these bizarre kinds of speeches. I tell him to change tack if he wants to overthrow the boss when the time comes and that could be quite soon. 
One of the interesting things we have noticed about these vein-popping speeches—where the sweat is on his brow—is that Labour is in a state of panic because National has said that actually it does make sense to have a bipartisan foreign policy. And actually to be honest for a long time there has been a bipartisan foreign policy. The Government is deeply alarmed about this and there is reason for its alarm. Labour members will have read Colin James’ articles in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 where he says John Key is not so much the competitor of Helen Clark—and of course he is—but that he is actually the successor. 
I see Mr Shane Jones smiling because he of all people knows the truth of that and he of all people knows the opportunity it provides for his personal political ambitions. He knows that it is not really a smart idea to become the leader of a party when it is going into Opposition immediately after a Prime Minister of 9 years has resigned. A little time needs to elapse and there need to be other people to take that job in the interregnum. So he can see the desirability of all that and he understands the implications of that. There is a significant and important point I am making here. When Colin James refers to Mr Key as the successor— 
Lesley Soper 
: What’s this all about? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: This is about continuity a certain level of continuity so that other countries can get a sense of the way New Zealand approaches foreign affairs and so forth. 
Jill Pettis 
: What’s this got to do with the bill? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: For the benefit of Ms Pettis we are talking about a bill that we will vote for and if she thought about it for a minute she might realise that actually Labour is voting for the bill National is voting for the bill and some other parties in Parliament are voting for the bill. What does that tell members? Does that not tell members that there is bipartisanship on this particular issue? Is that not the message that they are supposed to understand and get? Is that not the message that New Zealanders understand and get? That is I suppose the contemporary nature of 21st century politics when the raw ideological divisions that so beset New Zealand politics last century—the 20th century—where so much of the body politic was contested on sharp ideological lines— 
Hone Harawira 
: Hear hear! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That no longer applies in the 21st century. It is interesting is it not? The Maori Party member says: “Hear hear!”. The Maori Party actually wants a sharp ideological division in the 21st century as well. I say that time is passing by for those particular contests he has referred to in his various speeches. I want to make this point. South Pacific nations almost universally say: “We’re going to sign up to this bill because it assists foreign investments.” Indeed as the Minister noted it assists developing countries with foreign investment from developed countries particularly countries like New Zealand. He said: “Well the only reason they are supporting it is that it is the only deal in town.” 
Actually why is it surprising that it is the only deal in town? This is an agreement essentially sponsored by the United Nations the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. They are in fact the international institutions to which all countries sign up and they are the deal in town. There is no alternative UN. There is no alternative World Bank. There is no alternative IMF. What does the Maori Party think the alternatives are if they are not to work through the important international institutions that I and other members in the House support and have great faith in? They build stability opportunity and prosperity for New Zealand. 
So I want to put on record that National is pleased to support this bill. We see it as an important part of New Zealand playing its role in building stability in the Pacific and projecting to the outside world that as a nation we are a responsible international citizen. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I am glad to join the debate this afternoon. I do not think this debate will be quite as passionate as the previous debate on water but nevertheless it is a very important bill that I believe will be perused and discussed as we go through the afternoon. 
If I had not made the uncharacteristic interjection on Mr Mapp I wonder whether he would ever have got around to talking about the bill itself. I do agree though that New Zealand has for a long time adopted a bipartisan position on most issues around foreign affairs. But there have been many differences over the years between the Labour and National parties. On matters of defence of nuclear issues and of overseas aid there has always been a degree of difference. Certainly the Labour Party’s attitude towards some developing countries is quite different from that of the National Party when one gets down below the surface to what is in National’s policy. Some of us remember Don Brash the previous leader of the National Party whose views on nuclear issues were vastly different from those of Labour. So we have not always had total agreement on matters that fall under the umbrella of foreign affairs. 
This International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill is having its third reading. The National speaker was right when he said that there was accord between the parties on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on this bill and the committee recommended that the bill be passed. The bill amends the International Finance Agreements Act of 1961. This gives New Zealand the authority to become a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency which was established by the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency that entered into force on 12 April 1988. This bill is necessary in order for New Zealand to ratify that convention and it is time that it was done. There have been a succession of Governments both National and Labour since the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency was formed so this amendment bill and the ratification of the convention is most timely indeed. 
The committee raised a number of issues during its hearings. We learnt during the process of the advantages and disadvantages to New Zealand of the treaty entering into force. The advantages of New Zealand ratifying the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency include for example contributing to international efforts to promote development through facilitating foreign direct investment flows. That is important for New Zealand. It is also about enhancing New Zealand’s credibility and reputation at the World Bank through increasing our support of that very important organisation. It is considered that these advantages support and contribute to the reasons why New Zealand should become a party to the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. 
There is another aspect relating to our ratifying this convention—that is unless New Zealand is a member of all five institutions of the World Bank Group it is unable to chair any annual meeting of that group. That is an advantage of some significance to New Zealand and is a worthy reason why we should ratify the convention. 
The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is in essence an insurance agency. Its mandate is to encourage development and alleviate poverty by mobilising investment into developing countries and to encourage private sector development. The alleviation of poverty is a critically important issue. By ratifying the convention New Zealand’s subscription obligations towards that process will count towards our gross national income as part of our overseas aid target. The alleviation of poverty is something that Labour Governments in New Zealand have always felt very strongly about and they have put a lot of effort into it internationally. The committee did talk about the potential fiscal risks to New Zealand taxpayers by our being in the agency. But it is worth noting that any annual loss that does occur is shared between all shareholders so it limits our liability. 
The agency operates within a company structure so New Zealand and other member countries are afforded limited liability as its shareholders. Article 8(d) of the convention states:“Liability on shares shall be limited to the unpaid portion of the issue price.” So for New Zealand this will be equal to the value of 513 shares at an estimated value of roughly $9 million. But of this only around $900000 will be held by the agency with the remainder being subject to call. The committee was concerned about the potential for fraud abuse. However insurance companies manage matters such as moral hazard and adverse selection and the agency charges a premium based on risk which includes the reputation of the host Government. In extreme circumstances the agency will refuse to guarantee for political risk for instance if a loss is almost assured. 
So although this bill is not one that will attract a huge amount of attention—I know that it will not be on the front page of the newspapers—nevertheless it still is an important bill. So being a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency means that New Zealand as a member of the World Bank Group will contribute to the World Bank’s mission of poverty elimination and the achievement of the millennium development goals. The core mission of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is to enhance the flow of capital and technology to developing countries for productive purposes by providing a range of key services. This is an important bill. It will largely remain below the radar in the minds of most New Zealanders but nevertheless it is significant and I am pleased to have spoken to it this afternoon. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. It is always a great privilege to follow my colleague Dr Mapp who has put the context of the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill in the broader framework of the problems facing Labour and its desperate attempt to make foreign policy a divisive issue for New Zealanders. [ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely I say to Dr Mapp. He has provided that broader political framework and I shall make just a few brief comments on the substance of the bill as I do not think I can improve on his comments. 
This bill has gone through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and has attracted quite careful attention from the parties that have been watching its passage. It has attracted broad support. Along with a number of members of this House I was a little surprised to find when we first came across this issue that New Zealand was not already a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency given that there are 170 members and that we historically have put a lot of emphasis on multilateralism. It is the one avenue of diplomacy where New Zealand’s small size frankly does not really matter as much because ideas count as well as power. Nevertheless this lacuna existed and this bill will fix up that problem. It is part of a broader jigsaw if you like of putting in place international cooperation that for the first time will include New Zealand within its aegis. 
The second thing I would say is that this measure is a fairly low-cost solution from our country’s point of view. From memory the contingent liability is US$5.5 million and we have an immediate cash liability of 10 percent of that. So the cost of this solution is pretty modest. I would imagine it is deeply improbable that the full contingent liability—modest though it is in itself—will ever be called upon in the future largely because of the very prudent management principles underlying this agency which are reflected in the bill. 
The design is prudent. If members look at article 15 of the new schedule 7 which is in the schedule of the bill they will see that it involves careful cooperation with the host country which I think is absolutely necessary. Foreign investment remains a sensitive issue in many of these developing countries. This is not a case of the World Bank going in with its muddy boots on over the top of host country wishes. It will not operate without the express consent of the host country. 
I think the design is prudent in terms of management of risk. It has a limited risk of up to 150 percent of the capital on call and each individual project is capped at US$110 million. In a sense this is quite a modest amount of money. It indicates that we are not talking about mega projects or mega power projects; we are talking about relatively modest projects by the standards of international capital with a maximum liability of US$110 million. 
It attacks real problems as previous speakers in previous stages of this bill have pointed out. It is very very difficult for private companies—whether they are New Zealand companies or companies from other countries—seeking to put some investment opportunities before these developing countries to get private market insurance for expropriation or for breach of contract by the recipient Government. Of course this measure would not cover breach of contract by a private actor in those countries. It is very difficult if not impossible to insure against war and civil war which are quite explicitly set out in the relevant provisions of this bill. 
This is prudently designed legislation. I think New Zealand is right to get into this agency. It is fundamentally important in terms of lowering risk premium and opening up development opportunities for developing countries. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tenatatou katoa i te Whare. In 1914 Emiliano Zapata the Mexican revolutionary said: “It is not only by shooting bullets in the battlefields that tyranny is overthrown but also by hurling ideas of redemption words of freedom and terrible anathemas against the hangmen that people bring down dictators and empires.” Today we follow that tradition by opposing the latest sorry saga in a stream of international financial agreements this big brother to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment which itself was dumped 10 years ago following strong opposition from all around the country. Today we have the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency backstopped by the world’s great financial brothels: the World Bank the International Monetary Fund the International Finance Corporation and—to no one’s surprise—some rather puffed up but altogether petty and rather pretentious little pimps from right here in Aotearoa. 
Yesterday the Nats tried vainly to win the Maori Party over to this bill even going so far as to tell us that we should support it because the Greens did only to have the Greens vote six opposed to it time after time after time. The Maori Party also opposes this bill because we oppose the corporate takeover of Aotearoa in 2007 in the same way that society railed against the corporate excesses that led to the crash of 1987 and in the same way that society opposed the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in 1997. We oppose this bill because it demeans us as a nation and because it lowers our credibility to a point where Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa spokesman Murray Horton could say that New Zealand is rapidly becoming the $2 Shop of the South Pacific while all the while trying to dominate the economic sovereignty of small Island States. 
 Yesterday I made the point that the Maori Party is not opposed to development per se but that we are opposed to development and investment that strips indigenous people of their right to control their own future. We see that in how this Government has allowed us to become trapped in a stranglehold of binding obligations that are part and parcel of these international financial instruments. I quote the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which recently stated: “The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency has a unique comparative advantage that neither private companies nor the New Zealand Government can match because of the unique relationship the World Bank maintains with the host Governments of developing countries.”—and we know what that is; it is a case of: “Either you take it or we pull your loans.” The committee goes on: “This means that there are few alternatives to MIGA’s products for New Zealand firms.” What that means is that the agency is locking us into a smothering monopoly run not by us but by the World Bank. 
Although the text of the bill is paved with the pretence of concern about struggling regional economies and the gap between the rich and the poor it is also blatantly clear that this bill is intended to surrender another mark of our sovereignty to the big-money boys. 
Me te mihi ano hoki ki a koutou e oku whanaunga itera taha i te meana koutou tenei taha o takukorero. 
[ 
Acknowledgments to you as well relations of mine on that side because this part of my address is yours. 
] 
But then I guess that giving away the economic and political sovereignty of the nation is just par for the course for a Government that is today leading the charge against a document designed to support the sovereignty of the world’s indigenous peoples. Today is the day on which the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be voted on at the United Nations General Assembly. Today is the day when this Government including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Dover Samuels Mita Ririnui and Shane Jones will formally oppose that declaration—a document that has taken 24 years of scrutiny and sacrifice by indigenous people the world over to bring it to this point. Today—as we consider this bill—is the day when New Zealand’s great myth of racial harmony will be cruelly and finally exposed for all the world to see. Today—as we consider this bill—is also the day when indigenous peoples the world over will wonder how a country so strong on human rights for children can be so cold on human rights for its own tangata whenua. 
Today—as we consider this bill—is a day of great shame for those Maori MPs who would sacrifice not only the nation’s sovereignty through this Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency bill but also their people’s hopes and dreams so that they might retain their precious seats on the Treasury benches. In speaking to this bill I note this: I will retain forever my whanaungatanga to those Labour Maori MPs who today have forsaken their people but I will also lose forever a measure of my respect for them because of the damage they have done to their people’s hopes and dreams. 
I understand that the word “hypocrisy” is heavily frowned on in this Chamber and that one may not use it to describe the actions of another member of Parliament so I will not use it. But the duplicitous dealings that characterise this Government’s actions the double-standards by which this Government gives corporate rights greater status than the rights of Maori people and the acts of self-deception as practised by this Government and evidenced by the granting of rights to overseas investors to benefit from privileges that ordinary New Zealanders are denied are a slight on our nation and a stain on what little credibility this country ever had in terms of race relations. This bill calls on New Zealand to insure commercial enterprises that have no loyalty whatsoever to New Zealand. This bill calls on New Zealand to insure risky capitalist ventures whose sole motive is profit. This bill does nothing for our sovereignty. 
Yesterday I said that the Maori Party was opposed to this bill. I missed a bit. I apologise for my error and I clarify our position here. Today I can confirm that the Maori Party absolutely totally completely and utterly supports the vote at the United Nations to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Today I can also confirm that the Maori Party is equally absolutely totally completely and utterly opposed to this bill and will be opposing it with the votes it has by virtue of its holding the majority of the seats allocated to the indigenous people of Aotearoa. Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I say to the people of New Zealand that the member who has just resumed his seat Hone Harawira is a man of absolutely muddled thinking. How can we possibly say that this International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill which is supportive of economic development in our small Pacific neighbours will impact on our sovereignty? For goodness’ sake! He is a man of totally muddled thinking. 
This Government has had the past 8 years to pass this legislation. It has fiddled and fiddled its time away and it is in the twilight of its stay on the Treasury benches. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Shane’s happy about that! 
JOHN HAYES 
: I realise that Shane Jones is particularly happy about that because the departure of his party from the Treasury benches will create a very interesting opportunity for him. 
We should be looking at our Australian neighbours. They have had this legislation in place now for the better part of 8 years and it has been helping Australian companies to get into areas of political risk. Any Australian company doing business in Fiji whose business was upset recently by the restoration of martial law there would be covered under the policies that are available under this convention. How does that in any way impinge on one’s sovereignty? 
As for the Green Party’s opposition to this bill it is something I just fail to understand. The Green Party members came to the select committee and debated the issues and they were supportive of the issues. They did not in any way declare a contrary position or disagreement with the cross-party support that we were trying to put in place yet they come into the House now and oppose this legislation. The next thing they will be doing is making Ahmed Zaoui a list candidate—high up on their list—and they will be doing it to advertise their name to put their name in the public domain. At least that is nothing to do with sovereignty but it is all about trying to grab a headline which is really all that the Greens are about. 
 We need to think about the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency in the context of our economy and the economies that are important to us around the world. I do not buy into the Labour mantra that supporting this convention will assist poverty eradication. In my view that is total meaningless nonsense. This will do nothing to contribute to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals of halving the number of women who die in childbirth of decreasing by a third the number of people who do not have access to water or of increasing incomes. That is total drivel. Everything that the Labour Government and the Minister have said when the bill was introduced and this evening—presenting the mantra that the convention is in accordance with our aid agency’s goals and with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals—is just arrant nonsense and totally meaningless because those goals will never be measured and they will never ever come to anything whatever. 
The reason that members should support this bill and the reason why I rise with my colleagues Dr Mapp and Mr Groser to support it is that it will help New Zealand businesses. The same party that is promoting this bill had a principle back in the 1980s that we must move away from socialising businesses’ losses. So what did Labour do? It got rid of the Export Guarantee Office and it got rid of all the supports for businesses that had been covered as a taxpayer expense. As I have pointed out to this House before in the mid-1990s the Iranian Government through its own State-owned banks defaulted to 14 New Zealand companies on $100 million of letters of credit. If we had been a member of this scheme then the cover could have kept those New Zealand companies out of difficulty. We have moved to a situation where the Government is offering no principled approach to the issue. Members will remember that Labour removed the support that existed back in the 1980s. It was removed by Roger Douglas and Mike Moore. Now we are coming back—the worm seems to have turned full circle—to a point where this Government is saying it wants to socialise businesses’ losses again but to do it on an international scale and to do it through this convention. 
I happen to think that this measure is a good business opportunity. Going into the scheme will cost us a maximum of US$1 million. Sure there is some risk that down the track we would have to meet up to another US$4 million if there was a run on the company providing this support. But the upside of making this investment of US$1 million is that it will help small to medium sized businesses in New Zealand—those businesses with fewer than 300 members those businesses with less than US$15 million worth of assets and those businesses with less than US$15 million worth of annual income. It will help them for a period of 3 years to try to establish themselves. 
But if we think about the context of Fiji where democratic government has been removed and replaced with martial law we realise that had we been a member of this convention 12 months ago any New Zealand companies operating there could have insured themselves against that risk. They would not be suffering the financial losses that they are having at the moment. Because countries that operate under this convention and seek insurance cover also have to be members of it the same opportunity would apply to companies doing business in Papua New Guinea which is often perceived by our companies as a difficult and high-risk market. It would also operate in Samoa where there are lower risks. It would operate in the Federated States of Micronesia in Palau and in Indonesia. 
I do not support what we are doing in the sense of the mantra that the Government provides to us; we are supportive of the legislation just because we can see real benefits for individual New Zealand companies and for the Pacific economies on our boundary. With those words I give our full support to this bill. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
A kia ora anotatou e te Whare iteneiahiahi. Te mahi tuatahi me mihi au ki te kapu. Ae teneikapuwhai mana ahakoangakapua o te raruraru e tauana ki rungai a ia nau mai hoki mai ki waengatonuitenei Whare i roto o Aotearoa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to us of the House this afternoon. The first thing for me to do is to acknowledge the cup. Yes indeed this prestigious cup despite its being shrouded by problems that have landed upon it I welcome you upon your return to the inner chamber of this Parliament House of New Zealand. 
] 
Before I launch off and offer some lucid thoughts in contrast to the drivel I heard from my whanaunga from up north and that very vague sort of recitation of a half-baked career I heard from the member for Wairarapa I will acknowledge the presence of the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup which has been brought back to Aotearoa. It sits unfortunately under a cloud of some discontent controversy and tumult inspired by a half-baked campaign from Mr Power. Let us hope that our national team brings home the real Rugby World Cup and that we retain both of them in 2011. 
I spoke earlier about the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill and I do not propose to repeat a great deal of what I said earlier. This bill enables us to burnish and deepen our credentials in relation to how we are intervening in less developed countries and in those nation States that require our assistance. 
There is one thing the member for Wairarapa said that I actually agree with. There is if not an arc of instability a range of troubles lying not too far from our borders in the Pacific and it is our obligation in Aotearoa to ensure that we are developing the best remedies for that. One of the best remedies is to grow the size of the economies in those islands. New Zealand businesses are unwilling or afraid to put too much capital at risk if there is no prospect of their either recovering their assets or collecting on their receivables. By joining the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency we improve the prospects of our businesses extending in that direction. 
Of course my whanaunga Hone Harawira seems to connect this measure with the failed attempt of Mugabe and his supporters of Gaddafi and his supporters to assume the mantle to talk for Maori rights and the Treaty on behalf of the people of Aotearoa at the United Nations. Let us leave the United Nations to those nation States that are suffering collapse so that they can learn so that they can resume the journey of knowledge that will take them back to 1648 when the Peace of Westphalia created the first notion of a nation State. Let us leave the United Nations for handling those sorts of problems. I ask whether one single person in Aotearoa believes that by associating with Mugabe and associating with Libya our race relations and the endeavour we are putting together as a people driven by a common purpose—to create a more prosperous stable and harmonious Aotearoa—will be advanced one iota. Who believes that we will be advanced one iota by an association with that half-baked idea? 
It has taken 24 years to arrive at some indigenous rights accord that is meaningless vague impractical and completely incapable of being implemented. It has very little application here unless we are capable of deepening the sense of shared responsibility in our own country. I know of not a single New Zealander who treats his or her country with pride who would be pleased to have the United Nations lecture us. So the less I hear from the United Nations and the less I hear from the people who hope to vote to impose that accord on us—an accord that has absolutely no application to how people here live their ordinary daily lives—the better I will feel. I accept that it is an instrument of exaggeration and that it will be a device used to confuse our people throughout the marae that somehow this measure represents a diminution of the country’s sovereignty or a diminution of Maori rights. That shows just how far the Maori Party has got to go to connect with the hard relevant and real issues that confront Maori families every day—not these flights of fancy wandering around with Marsh Arabs and whoever else bedevils the United Nations. 
Let us come back to this contribution that our country is making. Not only will we put a small amount of capital into the putea so to speak but most important the bill reminds us that we cannot have a civil society in a failed nation State situation without a growing economy—and economies cannot grow as islands unto themselves. So if this legislation allows us either through Government agencies or private investment to deepen and improve infrastructure and enables people to take commercial risks in a situation that is politically diabolical then we should celebrate that. 
That is a better option than the inhabitants and members of those societies thinking that Aotearoa will be a soft touch for them. In the light of the problems for example that ravage Fiji’s economy if the people there are foolish enough to believe that 4.2 million people in Aotearoa will welcome them with open arms they are wrong. We would rather see people develop their own countries. We will play a constructive role but we will not have them rely on the belief that they can come here and sustain their own countries through remittances etc. So I say to the opponents of this bill that it has nothing to do with overwhelming those countries’ sovereignty. It has nothing to do with undermining their capacity. Many of those failed nation States those small Pacific Islands have already undermined themselves. 
This is an attempt for us to take a place of pride—small though our contribution might be—to ensure that our Pacific Island neighbours grow large and prosperous. They may even—perish the thought—emulate the girth of the last speaker John Hayes. He is a man who in a career that took him to far and distant climes demonstrated that the wines of New Zealand not only could be taken to distant areas—into dusty irrelevant and boring rooms—but also could be consumed. The man comes back into the House to demonstrate that he indeed had a long varied—I could not say “rich”—and obviously enjoyable career if his physical shape is an indication of the high level of living that his career afforded him. 
I join my colleagues on this side of the House—and Jill Pettis—in commending this bill to go forward. I remind listeners not to listen to a single thing that came from the member for Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira who said that the United Nations’ decision was somehow an advance on race relations and an elevation of Maori aspiration. No let us leave the United Nations to those nation States that are warring with each other whether they be Kurds or whether they be from Darfur or Zimbabwe. Leave the United Nations to them. Let us bring our take of Maori and Pakeha in Aotearoa on to our own maraes—and this is the highest legislative marae in the country—and we will find our own solutions in our own country. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 44; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.