Jones Shane: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9099] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
Tenatatou katoa. Firstly to you Mr Deputy Speaker tena koe. Recently you and I had the pleasure of gracing the screens of television sets around Aotearoa as the descendants of the Dalmatian gumdiggers and of our Maori mothers and grandmothers. So as we would say in our Croatian language: mojepoštovanjedobrovece.  
I now go on to discuss this bill. In the unlikely event that people in this House think I am just the chairman of the Maori caucus committee of the Labour Party I say that I stand as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which considered the background material to the bill. I want to unmask some of the problems that lie behind the narratives and rhetoric that have been served up by my whanaunga Te Ururoa Flavell and our friends from the “Greenie” party. I want to dive into the role that private enterprise and investors play in regenerating and rejuvenating the economies of the less developed countries. 
Without that capital mobilisation without people taking risks and seeking profit in very tumultuous circumstances it is not possible for us to imagine that those economies will grow and develop. People are attracted to take risks in those less developed economies and for us to become a party to this particular institution the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency will improve the prospects of success. It is a bleak day when the analysis underlying this bill or the exclusive source of advice for the Maori Party should come from that old sparring partner of mine Jane Kelsey. Jane Kelsey does not believe in capitalism and she does not believe in economic growth. She constantly looks at the future in terms of a rear-vision mirror. So it is with a great deal of sadness that I say that Te Ururoa Flavell’s comments are reflective of a deep flaw in how the Maori Party approaches economic development. It sees a taniwha lurking everywhere. 
All risks involve danger. All risks reward those who seek adventure but that is a double-edged sword. If we want to see growth and if we want to see less reliance on our country by our near neighbours in Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa—the Pacific—then the role of institutions like the one that we are affirming this evening is going to be very valuable in terms of growing those economies. People will not go there unless nations like ours are prepared to cover off some of the risks when investors go in at a fragile—or should I say a very vulnerable—stage in a country’s development. In the case of parties that supposedly represent equity and that supposedly represent the interests of the downtrodden—or the citizens of the emerging economies who are trapped in “Strugglers’ Gully” and trying to create a greater sense of economic independence—I think it is an abject failure on the part of those parties that they do not come in behind this agency and support the relatively modest contribution that the Crown on our behalf will be making to it. 
Two examples in recent times come to mind: the money that we have provided in respect of the terrible floods in Fiji and the money that was applied in terms of tsunami relief—about half a million dollars as I recall it—in the Solomon Islands. 
Why these two groups are unwilling to allow us to take our rightful position in the line of international citizens under the cloak of our nationality beggars belief. We cannot continue to hold our heads proud and attract the attention of other leading nations in either the OECD or the wider world community unless we are prepared to commit to building a more prosperous world through investing in developing nations and upholding organisations and bilateral relationships. That process requires us to make a commitment. Why should we not make that commitment? Why should we expect small possibly ill-informed investors who are willing however to go into those troubled nations and to go into environments and economies that suffer substantial handicaps not to look to the more prosperous nations of the world to hedge—to take some of the responsibility for—the risk? 
You see underlying what we have heard earlier this evening from Mr Flavell is I think a mistaken belief that I hear all too often even from that very close whanaunga of mine Hone Harawira that somehow all the answers lie simply in the formation of Governments in those countries. Yes we must support the emergence of representative democracies in those countries and we should always both provide assistance and lay down boundaries as to the costs if the institution of representative democracy is trivialised. However those democracies and those emerging Governments need assistance in order to grow not only civil society but also the scope and the depth of the economy. 
We have a very wide range of skills talents and experiences. Not only do we lead the work in relation to our agricultural enterprises etc. but our people—our human capital endowment—are widely respected all around the world. Indeed with Mr Wolfowitz’s momentary fall from grace—permanent perhaps—who do we hear is looked upon to steer the World Bank through this period of turbulence and a rather rocky transition? It is none other than a Treasury-trained—perish the thought—economist in the World Bank. So that is an example of how at different levels we in our small nation with a broad vision are willing to provide both talent and an example of what can be done. If we do not stand shoulder to shoulder and uphold our obligations as good international citizens then how can we expect to enjoy attract and sustain either people’s esteem or admiration for what we have sought to do as an example to our near neighbours? 
So it was with a great deal of disappointment that I heard what I think was a very facile and disappointing analysis. It was almost informed by a conspiracy that always lurks at the centre of the contributions made by our friends from the Maori Party. It is as if progress is impossible because at the kernel of progress lies self-destruction. That is the stuff of a conspiracy. Unfortunately it infects a lot of the dialogue and contributions of Maori Party members to matters of a domestic nature. However I will speak more about that at a later date. 
As the chair of the committee— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Which committee? 
SHANE JONES 
: The Finance and Expenditure Committee—and I must say from time to time we see Mr Hide there and the frisson actually improves and increases when he is there. We have not seen much of that for a while but he is welcome back there at any time given that we have agreed today to hold a select committee inquiry into monetary policy. We did that despite the fact that Mr English—breaking the rules of the select committee—raced out without the permission of the select committee and unilaterally announced that he was not going to support it. He was prepared to support—for want of a better expression—anti-smacking but he would not support a consensus on anti-inflation. But I have no doubt that once the experts and the legions of people who have already been in contact with us come to the fore and provide their evidence to the committee as to what can be done in relation to the interaction between monetary policy the establishment and implementation of fiscal policy and other broader economic considerations despite Mr English saying that he does not want the National Party to either acquiesce to or endorse the inquiry the National members will be vigorous participants. That is how it works. As the Maori say: “Kei runga te korero kei raro te rahurahu.”—the lips say one thing; however the thoughts are elsewhere and God knows what the hands are doing. 
However we did deal with the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill at our committee and I join with earlier speakers on the Government side of the House in commending this bill which enables us to show the credentials we obviously have in international citizenship. Kia ora tatou.