Tabuteau Fletcher: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7809. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I too would like to acknowledge those officials who undertook that early participation in negotiations in this agreement. I give them credit for the fantastic work that they did. That does not actually preclude our continuing opposition to this legislation.Part 1 enables our participation in this infrastructure bank. Many of the speakers including the Minister have spoken of one of the benefits being the ability to influence economic factors and connectivity to the market. The arguments given are: increased economic development in the Asia region—we have heard that repeatedly; supported increased economic integration—that it augments New Zealand’s existing relationships. Let us take a reality check here and just stop and look at what the officials actually provided this Committee in terms of information. The reality is that there is nothing in this legislation and nothing in the appendices attached to it schedule 8 that says—it actually specifically says that there will be no investment in New Zealand. New Zealanders will not seek for investment to be undertaken in New Zealand under this legislation nor it specifically says will the investment bank itself actually invest in New Zealand.The question was then asked as to what the benefit is to New Zealand of signing up to this financial agreement. We have heard a lot of lovely intangibles but the reality is—and this is the reality—Government officials never undertook a financial impact statement or an analysis of the benefit of this financial agreement with New Zealand because from the outset they established that there would be no or negligible financial benefit to the New Zealand economy. Those were the Government’s own official words. That is the reality of this situation that this Committee is in today. That is the reality of the contribution being given here. It sounds lovely when you hear the words from some of the members today about the impact on New Zealand but that is not the reality. The officials themselves have said so.New Zealand First has questioned the economic impact from the outset. The argument has also been around influence but we would also point out that China for example will trade with New Zealand without a free-trade agreement. In fact trade with China was growing exponentially before a free-trade agreement because China wanted what we had. It wanted our commodities and it was prepared to come and negotiate and work with New Zealanders to do that. Businesses and New Zealand will continue to build relationships with China and the ASEAN communities. We have as Mr Goff so rightly pointed out these free-trade agreements with the Republic of Korea with China and agreements with the ASEAN community. That will not stop because this Government for example would go before them and say: “Look we’re willing to help you write this infrastructure financial agreement because we think we have something to contribute but we actually can’t afford to give you the money.” I think that would have been fair and reasonable and we would not have broken friendships or undermined our relationships if we had said honestly: “Look we’re up to $80 billion to $100 billion worth of Government debt. We’ve sold assets. We’re supposed to be paying for our own hospitals our own schools and investing in our own community. Look the reality is that we can’t contribute that minuscule sum to make this work for you.”The other issue I have and it is actually a question for the Minister in the chair Craig Foss—if I can find my notes—is around our participation and our level of influence. I think it was the Hon Mr Parker who said that we have a 0.64 percentage of share in this bank. He is bang on. My calculation was 0.66 percent; it was even more generous. But if you go into the appendices—I ask the question specifically of the Minister in the chair. Our participation on the board is dependent on those rules and one of those rules says—schedule B of schedule 8 clause 2(a)—that we have to have 6 percent share in this bank in order to be a participative member.