Cosgrove Clayton: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7812. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I like other members of the Labour Party—we are supporting this piece of legislation. But I do want to touch on a couple of comments that Mr Tabuteau made—and Mr Nash dealt with some of them. In essence the argument for opposing this seems to be that there is no hope of any monetary investment in New Zealand from this institution which as Mr Nash has pointed out is quite right. We are a developed country we are not a developing country and the moneys that will flow from this bank—its purpose is to fill the gap in the infrastructure and development in the Asian region.But that does not mean that there is nothing in it for New Zealand. What is in it for New Zealand if you look quite clearly—as colleagues outlined the membership of this organisation—is that we do have influence we do have connectivity. We have been right at the base and at the foundation of the genesis of this bank to put in place good governance rules and transparency. And as these funds are invested in Asian developing economies what is in it for New Zealand I think is self-evident. As these economies develop their infrastructure as they grow—at its brutal best or simplest—the buying power for goods and services of these nations will increase. They will look to countries like New Zealand to engage in commercial arrangements. We will be a recipient I am sure as other developed countries are of much of the work. And that is in terms of the growth of our economy the investment and the jobs and all the ancillary benefits that flow from that as we are party to other countries as their respective economies develop and grow.The more access that we can get to an economy that is growing and prospering the better it is for our nation. So I see this as part of a tradition that New Zealander has had for many many years. We are members of the UN the Asian Development Bank the IMF the World Bank the World Trade Organization (WTO)and one could argue and it is true that both our monetary contribution as others have said and our voting contribution or proportion are very modest. That again is not an excuse for us not being around the table. One could argue that in every international institution—the ILO the World Intellectual Property Organization and the others that I have mentioned—we have always had a modest role to play and a modest say. A good friend of mine whom some of you will know Mike Moore was fond of saying that New Zealand is—what is it—less than 1 percent of the world’s population; some would argue we have 90 percent of the world’s opinions from time to time.Of course our contribution and our voting muscle at these international institutions are modest but you have to argue that if you look at our seat around the Security Council the positions that we have had within the WTO and within the Commonwealth—the whole host of international institutions—to use the old cliché we have punched well above our weight. We have had influence. As the Minister Mr English said we have been looked to on many many occasions as the honest broker as the country that does not have an axe to grind that can go in between countries in economic dispute or whatever and do the deal. Those relationships are priceless. Mr Goff saidquite rightly as the guy who negotiated the China free-trade agreement that before you can do business in China and in a number of these Asian economies you have to build that relationship. We may be small. Our contribution in monetary terms may be small and our voting rights may be extremely small but we still are respected and we are around the table and we are participating. That is where New Zealand in part gets a massive payoff.I just come back to the original point. This bank its purpose is to target that gap in infrastructure investment within the Asian region. If that gap is plugged if there is access to capital in developing countries those countries grow their economies grow they reach out across the world for goods and services and expertise—and we have an advantage being one part of this institution but we have an advantage because of having the reputation as world-class providers of many goods and services—they will reach out to us and other countries. That is the investment. If you are looking for the investment in New Zealand that is part of a massive payoff—being there being part of it being reached out to and providing those resources that in turn grow our own economy.So I think with respect that it is slightly simplistic to say: “Well we’re investing $126 million initially with a commitment to $504 million going forward but because the bank’s not going to flick a bit of money to New Zealand therefore we should not be part of it.” If that was the case we would never have been a part of the Asian Development Bank or the IMF or the World Bank or other institutions because the likelihood of us receiving capital is as Mr Nash said extremely low. We have good institutions. We have mature capital markets. We can fight our own battle economically. So I think you have got to look at this in its widest possible context.Again as others have pointed out there is always the counter question: what is the cost of not being there? What is the cost of not being around the table part of a growing international institution with Asia the fastest-growing region in the world? You could look to the China free-trade agreement easily and say: what if that had not been in place in terms of the relationships with China? What if we had not participated in the Asian Development Bank and those others—we have ultimate directors there—what would have been the cost to New Zealand? The cost would have been relationships. The cost would have been those tangible—and I would argue they are very very tangible—benefits of goods and services and access to markets. That is a huge cost. So the Labour Party does support this piece of legislation. It is part of New Zealand’s international tradition to be a plank owner a foundation member of these great international institutions.I think we can look back and I do commend those who negotiated this—being in on the ground floor has allowed us to have our say on transparency to have our say on the structure and to have our say on the governorship. As others have pointed out Europeans and others look to this institution with respect. They would not do so if those fundamental arrangements were not in place. And actually by being a memberof this institution—again although we are a small nation we have a massive reputation—I would argue it also gives some credibility and integrity to it. People would ask if New Zealand and others in the region were not there: “What are we doing? What is our purpose?”. So I commend the bill to the Committee.I think it is sad that there was not a heck of a lot of public notice taken of it at the select committee but it is a very very important building block as New Zealand continues to play its part as a respected and mature developed nation throughout the world given that we can contribute our expertise. We do not know everything but we could contribute that expertise. We can continue to act as an honest broker and navigate countries through intricate and complicated procedures. This builds on that tradition.