Nash Stuart: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7816. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would like to speak to Part 2 of this bill and mainly to new section 3(3) inserted by clause 6(2) and new section 10(2)(da) inserted by clause 10(1). New section 10(2)(da) talks about schedule 8 which sets out the text of the Infrastructure Bank agreement as Mr Goff alluded to.I would like to say to Mr Tabuteau that I know he is not in agreement with this bill and he is not supporting our membership of this bank but if New Zealand First is ever in a situation where it has the power to withdraw New Zealand’s membership it can be done. There are clauses under chapter VII “Withdrawal and suspension of members” where a member can withdraw simply by delivering a notice in writing to the bank that we are gone. You get 6 months and you are still liable for all the liabilities and promises that a country has made but the bottom line is that I could not see a case where New Zealand would withdraw from such an agreement especially when you look at schedule 8 and the articles of agreement—why it is being undertaken.If you look for example at schedule 8 “Articles of Agreement of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank” one of the main ones is “to remove the financing bottlenecks faced by the individual economies in Asia and will complement the existing multilateral development banks to promote sustained and stable growth in Asia;”. So this is not saying it is an either/or—that a country applying for money from this bank has to choose between this bank and the Asian Development Bank the World Bank the IMF etc. This is just filling a gap that is perceived—well not perceived—it is acknowledged that it does exist.But when we talk about New Zealand’s membership and this is what article 3 does—approval is also given to the New Zealand Government to become a member of the Infrastructure Bank in accordance with the Infrastructure Bank agreement. There are a number of reasons why we would join this. We have talked about this before but one of the things that surprise me is that people have said that the Americans in particular have seen this as China having undue influence over the development of the region. Well the Chinese are incredibly smart as well. They understand that as citizens of the countries that are members of this bank will draw down funds to help their infrastructure move from subsistence living into consumerism the Chinese ability to service that and the Chinese economy’s ability to grow will grow along with these economies.As mentioned we are talking about Malaysia the Philippines Thailand India Viet Nam and Uzbekistan—there is massive growth potential in this region for all the countries that are investing in this bank. As I mentioned Australia is Great Britain is but the United States is not. It is one of the main ones. But there are a number of New Zealand companies that may not only be able to take advantage of the growing consumerism in these economies but also be able to take advantage of the infrastructure development as it occurs. We know that there are a number of New Zealand companies and consultancies that are world-leading experts when it comes to the development of for example geothermal energy cadastral mapping and any number of other infrastructural projects that may be required or that may come from the funding from this bank to these growing economies.The other thing also—I always agree with Mr Goff and I certainly do here—is we have got to stand for something. If New Zealand said: “We only care about ourselves. We don’t care what is going on in the rest of the world.”—and I am not talking about from an economic perspective; I am talking about a social perspective—then that would go against what I believe is a very important part of our global brand and what we actually stand for in the global market and that is for a fairer more equitable society. We do know that infrastructure projects deliver the sorts of social outcomes required to move people from subsistence right through to consumerism. We only have to look at China to see what a developing economy can achieve in the space of a very short period of time. As mentioned this is what we stand for.The economic benefits to New Zealand of membership—as one organisation used to say there are benefits in membership. I think the benefits in this agreement or in being a member of this bank far outweigh the costs. Mr Tabuteau—well not only Mr Tabuteau but a number of speakers have talked about the cost. It is only I think $156 million over 5 years—Mr Goff?Hon Phil Goff: Yes.STUART NASH: As Mr Goff pointed out it is less than we are spending on the flag referendum. So the cost to New Zealand is minimal per year—the cost to New Zealand is minimal but I think the economic benefits are absolutely substantial going forward.