Clark David: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7968. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on clause 4 of the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. I wish to speak of course to Mr Parker’s amendment and to take up his position—or his concern at least—on the Greens’ position on this. I want really to just raise the question and invite a contribution from the Green Party because this is an important issue. The debate we are having it seems to me is about some really big economic issues that are affecting the world. The way in which the IMF provides advice and who takes it is stuff that has been canvassed in the Committee stage as well as how we as a country respond to that advice. We talked about whether a capital gains tax is useful or not; I did in a previous contribution. Mr Hayes interjected that he thought it was not. And the debate has gone on. The National Party notably has not contributed much to this debate either and I find that concerning. 
I am enjoying I guess at the same time the contributions of my colleagues. David Cunliffe and David Parker have both explained why this legislation is important but also why clause 4 should be taken out of the legislation because it fails to allow in the future for proper parliamentary scrutiny of changes. David Parker briefly covered those times when the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund have been amended. I actually have in front of me the schedule of all of the significant changes in the history of the IMF that might fall under that. In 1968 we see that the articles of agreement were repealed. It was not then until 1976 that the articles of agreement were updated again. That is an 8-year gap. Only once in 8 years did our Parliament get to debate the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund. 
Those articles of agreement stayed in place from 1976 to 1992 and it was not then until 1992 I imagine that this Parliament debated again whether they should be changed where New Zealand stood on international aid and development aid how the world’s economy should be encouraged or not in line with IMF advice where New Zealand stood what New Zealand’s contribution should be and whether we were in agreement with the expectations on us for contributions for helping stressed or developing countries to improve their economies to stabilise them and to make sure they were growing in a sustainable fashion. And then after 1992 the next time the articles of agreement came up was in 1998. So there was a 6-year gap. That is two terms of Parliament—and for some of these it is longer—where these issues have not been debated. So once again from 1998 we are now through to 2013. That is a huge gap. That is a huge period of time that has elapsed when we did not have the opportunity to discuss these articles of agreement and how Parliament should handle them and now we are proposing to not have this debate at all. It certainly cannot be said that this debate happens too often so I am concerned that parties in this Parliament are not taking the opportunity when the last time they had it was in 1998. 
We are talking about $1.8 billion of New Zealand funds and it seems to me that when the National Party contribution to this debate is limited to Mr Hayes’ insights around the capital gains tax that is not a full debate on the issue—with all due respect to Mr Hayes. And when we do not hear anything from the Greens about international economic issues in a debate that we have not had since 1998—in fact if I am right that presumably means the Greens have not contributed to this debate ever—we do not know where they stand on this other than that they oppose it in general. Perhaps if they were uncomfortable with the removal of this parliamentary scrutiny they could have moved an amendment the same as my colleague Mr Parker has moved to say that they think these issues should be debated in Parliament because they are important issues which affect significant amounts of money but also because this is a matter of principle. 
This is a matter of principle as to whether New Zealand chooses to participate in the economic efforts to underpin the world economy and whether it chooses to do that in a timely fashion—this legislation I will remind the Committee is being rushed through now because it was not looking like being ready in time and suddenly it has come back on the Order Paper to get it pushed through Parliament—or whether New Zealand is going to drag its heels. Where New Zealand sits in the international community it seems to me is an important point to be debating. I hope that the challenge that I have issued will be taken up by members opposite and hopefully also by the Green Party to outline their positions in respect of this bill in respect of taxpayers’ money—the $1.8 billion that New Zealand commits to world development—and whether for the Green Party it thinks that supporting developed countries out of poverty is a priority or not. Is that the point of principle that is being debated here? The National Party it seems to me does generally support these things. We have supported it in a bilateral fashion but we differ here of course on whether these things should be passed by Order in Council or whether they should receive the full parliamentary scrutiny. 
So Mr Parker’s amendment would make sure that Parliament did debate these issues when they come up every 13 years or every 20 years or every 6 years—I think that is the shortest gap. It would make sure that we do have that debate. I think that it therefore is a very important amendment and I would urge all members of this Committee to support it. I urge those members of the National Party opposite to examine their consciences to see whether they really believe that parliamentary scrutiny should be applied to this legislation or whether they are comfortable with a backroom deal being done on economic matters where the world is concerned. I suspect that if members opposite do examine their consciences they may realise that the way this legislation is worded could be improved by simply adopting Mr Parker’s amendment that we remove clause 4 from the legislation and simply bring this debate back to the House when it next comes up. That may be in 10 years’ time; it may be in 15 years’ time. Then we will see what spread we have in Parliament and what the different parties represented here think on these issues. As I made the point the Greens were not here to have a debate the last time these issues were debated. They did not exist as a political party in the parliamentary realm— 
Holly Walker 
: Jeanette and Rod were here. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: Elected in what year? 
Holly Walker 
: 1997. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: In 1997 the Greens were first represented? 
Holly Walker 
: Jeanette and Rod were both in here. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: We shall examine the  
Hansard  
to see what the contributions were there and whether the Greens have updated their thinking since then. I think it is an important thing to be debating in this Chamber. This is a huge commitment from New Zealand. It is a matter of principle and it is a large amount of money so it is worthy of the time of this House even if we by and large agree on the principles and even if across the House we agree on the principles of engaging in the IMF’s business and the principle of supporting and stabilising the world’s economy. 
So with that I recommend Mr Parker’s amendment to the Committee and urge all members to examine their consciences to participate in this debate and to make sure that we have some robust legislation that enables the proper scrutiny of these matters in our House in years to come.