Mapp Wayne: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11813] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on this part. It is really the core of the agreement and refers essentially to the principal schedule new schedule 7 which sets out the agreement which is the convention itself. It sets out the calls that each country has to make in terms of share capital and it sets out the membership. The membership is in two lists if you will—category 1 and category 2. The category 1 nations are essentially what we would call the developed nations ranging from Australia Austria Belgium etc. right through to the United States. They have a total shareholding of 59000 shares. New Zealand’s share of that is 513 so it is slightly under 1 percent. It is a very small level of shareholding in this instance and we have to subscribe to approximately $5 million. But as Mr Groser has said we in fact pay only 10 percent of that in any event. 
The category 2 States are the developing countries. Clearly it is a much longer list and its total share capital is 100000 shares. So the developing States have almost 60 percent more shareholding than the developed nations and I suppose to some extent that reflects the allocation of wealth around the world. It is not even and it is not intended to be even. The developed countries have a weighted voting system reflecting the fact that they are the major investors. But I want to emphasise this point: it is nevertheless a minority. 
The reason I emphasise that point is that I am making it to the Maori Party and I do that quite deliberately. It was the only party that voted against this agreement. It was the only party that raised its voice to vote against Part 1. The Maori Party is always saying that it is there to protect the interests of developing nations. It talks about the importance of various UN conventions that do that. We have to ask ourselves the simple question: why therefore would one vote against an agreement that has been put in place to assist developing countries and moreover gives the developing countries the majority of the votes by a substantial margin? 
Do members know what the Maori Party will do? It will revert to its ideological stance and simply cast a reflexive vote against. I can understand that of a party that has just arrived in this Parliament. I recall seeing the Green Party always operating like that. These days the Green Party takes a somewhat more sophisticated view of things and it does a more careful evaluation of what it will do in terms of its votes. The Greens still vote like a left-wing party; I do not doubt that. But I do say to the Maori Party not to take just a reflexive approach on these things but to analyse the issue. Surely it is significant that almost every nation in the world—indeed the vast majority of the Pasifika nations as was clearly pointed out by Mr John Hayes—is a member of this convention. The Pasifika nations which I presume the Maori Party has a certain camaraderie with have said this is an agreement that is good for them because it will assist them to get development capital. Surely that is a good thing and is the pathway to growth and development. 
I say to political parties that when they are elected to this Parliament one of their responsibilities is to look more broadly. I know that takes a little bit of time and so forth. I have seen the Green Party go through this evolution. I would hope the Maori Party does not just vote reflexively on this and takes note that the Pasifika nations have seen the merit in and the value of this agreement. That is clearly indicated in the membership of this convention. Thank you.