Tabuteau Fletcher: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6605. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak against the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill as it gives rise to the implementation and our membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I would just like to take the first part of my speech as an opportunity to reply to some statements from the Minister of Finance and Mr Bennett in particular. They used the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank as examples of operations running well. Actually what we are seeing here today and are debating today arises from the very fact that China has said for decades that the Asian Development Bank and the World Trade Organization do not operate well. They do not operate well and therefore China has decided to not necessarily opt out but to create its own infrastructure bank and the reasons for that are myriad and complicated. But it just goes to show that what is held up on that side of the House as examples of what is good from the debate itself from the issues arising from this very legislation are actually bad examples.The Minister spoke of how wonderful this will be and how it will encourage regional growth in our area. He specifically spoke of Indonesia and then he listed off a few other countries in the region as being powerhouses of growth in about 20 to 25 years. I would put it to this House that that Minister who is the Minister of Finance and who is in charge of this economy should be speaking to this House about plans to make New Zealand the powerhouse of growth in the Asia-Pacific region. He should be talking about how the Government is developing plans to grow New Zealand not relying on other countries neighbours reasonably close by. Instead he goes on and talks about relying on others growing. Yes Minister of Finance your plan is working: sell off New Zealand fund other countries’ growth and let New Zealanders pick up the crumbs! It just makes no sense whatsoever.If New Zealanders were not already suffering if our regions were not already missing out if our exports were not actually declining if real unemployment in New Zealand was not actually on the increase and if money used to buy into this club was not in fact sourced from broken promises given by Prime Minister John Key New Zealand First would actually welcome a discussion on China’s initiative. For example one of the questions New Zealand First would ask is what kind of aid does a—Hon Member: A brilliant speech!FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —developing Asia actually need—Mr Ross?Members of this House will know that developing countries with weak institutions and poor governance are often far bigger obstacles to growth than an actual lack of funds. New Zealand First would point out that a project will often look good on paper; practical implementation on the other hand is often a frustrating and sobering experience. Costs provided to investment bank projects historically far exceed initial estimates and planners bidding for funds often woefully underestimate the skills and funds needed to ensure maintenance and repairs of these big infrastructure projects. But there was no discussion. Actually instead the details of the Government’s participation in this investment fund came to the select committee after the fact. All decisions had been made in relation to our participation in the infrastructure bank itself.New Zealand First stands to oppose this legislation. There are two significant reasons for this. Firstly and perhaps most important is the fact—as I mentioned very briefly—that the Prime Minister promised in his 2011 election campaign that the money from State asset sales would be for New Zealand hospitals and schools. Money from the assets sales went into the Future Investment Fund launched in 2011 but the Government is now using it to pay a $140 million contribution to pay an infrastructure investment bank off of New Zealand shores.Alastair Scott: Oh “offshore”. That’s a scary word: “offshore”.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Mr Key means to look New Zealanders in the eye—along with some of those National backbenchers—to look your constituents in the eye and talk to them about your broken promises and explain how he was unable to answer questions in the House bizarrely insisting that this was an asset for New Zealand. This is so far from his election promise. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Take a breath.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: This is so far from his promise. Many who were opposed to the sales including New Zealand First were told that this fund would be spent on hospitals schools and infrastructure. We were told it would be spent on paying off this Government’s debt. We were told it would be spent on investing in Christchurch.There will be hospitals schools and roads built but not in New Zealand and that is the reality of this investment. This Government has agreed to put $140 million up front into the investment bank. It has agreed to more than half a billion dollars being set aside to be on call. And actually as the New Zealand dollar devalues and because these discussions were had in United States dollars our commitment actually grows and grows day by day. So we are talking perhaps around a $145 million commitment today and perhaps the $561 million on call is over and beyond $600 million now. This is a vast sum of money that could be used to invest in New Zealand infrastructure—into cell towers roads schools hospitals or rail. We could set up provincial New Zealand for growth when the recovery kicks in. New Zealand First insists that infrastructure development just like charity actually should begin at home.New Zealand First stands to oppose as I said on two main grounds. The second reason for this opposition arises from the actual history of infrastructure banks as spoken to by both sides of the House. Infrastructure and development banks as I mentioned to Mr English—for example the Asian Development Bank and the World Trade Organization—are actual examples of China’s ongoing discontent with those banks. Here we are today—I say it again—debating this legislation because those infrastructure banks do not work for all of their members. I put it to this House that although New Zealand has been quick on the uptake and part of developing the rules and obligations of this bank which I commend the reality is that we are a small member with very few shares. Our commitment although I contend it is huge as far as the New Zealand economy is concerned is tiny in comparison with other countries’ contributions. So although we are acknowledged as an early starter and an early player in this the reality is that we will not have the say that the members on the other side of the House have spoken to. We will be just as frustrated as China was in its own relationship with previous development banks as the future unfolds.There are actually several issues with the legislation itself but it looks like discussions around the House will have it that this will come to select committee despite New Zealand First’s opposition to this bill and I will take the opportunity to raise opposition to particular parts—for example article 56 of schedule 8—in those conversations. Thank you.