Hayes John: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11735. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill on behalf of the National Party and to say that we will have no amendments to make. To be really fair and straightforward to my colleague from the Maori Party I think this is actually a very minor piece of legislation reflected in the fact that the convention was established in April of 1988 and already 170 countries have signed up to it. One wonders why it has taken us so long. 
What the bill does is provide 20 years of insurance cover thereby reducing the risk for people engaged in investment projects where there is going to be a cash flow depending on a revenue stream or some sort of productive process. The sorts of things it protects against are the inability to transfer local currency into foreign currency the expropriation of assets by the host Government the host Government breaching a contract and also against a war or civil disturbance. 
I have checked around on the Internet and I can report to the House that there is only one project in our area of greatest interest the South Pacific that is covered at the moment by this scheme. That is the Lihir gold mine in Papua New Guinea. I would also report to the House that there are about eight other gold mines in Papua New Guinea that do not seem to need this cover. 
We support this bill because it supports the flow of foreign direct investment into developing countries and it is low cost. New Zealand’s participation in this would cost about US$5.5 million but we have to front up with only 10 percent in cash and 10 percent in promissory notes so the remaining US$4.4 million would be subject to call and we were given an assurance by Treasury in the select committee that that happening is most unlikely. 
I would like to take issue with Dr Cullen’s comments recorded in  
Hansard 
 when he introduced the bill. He said that this bill was going to contribute to: “poverty elimination and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.” Well I would like to say that I do not agree with the Minister. The Minister and his leader and their United Nations friends are much better at making slogans mantras and goals than actually meeting them. I would just like to remind the House of Prime Minister Kirk who in 1974 managed to get our aid contribution up to 0.55 percent of gross national income. This Government’s sorry record is 0.27 percent. Successive Labour Governments have had an opportunity to make a serious contribution if they had wanted to but they have not delivered on Mr Kirk’s achievement. If the Labour Government really believes the mantra of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals then I think that it has got to look at this in the context that these mantras are supposed to turn slogans into bankable pledges complete with a number and date. 
The United Nations Millennium Development Goals resolve to cut the rate at which mothers die in childbirth by three-quarters by the year 2015; they are going to make the number of people without safe water drop by half; they are going to cut infant mortality by a third. These goals sound really good but there is no data in most countries on which to make any sort of reasonable or measurable comparison to measure progress in this context. 
I noticed that the World Bank used the goals in June this year when it was pitching for an infusion of $32 billion from richer member countries. Pascal Lamy head of the World Trade Organization invoked them in early July this year when he was making a plea to save the Doha round. 
When we look at these goals we see they aim to generate a buzz about the duties the Government might otherwise overlook. After all Ministers in our immediate neighbourhood have a lot on their plate. They have to fend off rivals they have to put down insurgencies and they have to distribute the baubles of office. To me they seem to be much less focused on saving mothers from eclampsia or young children dying from malaria or their own citizens from catching HIV/AIDS . 
I would just like to say to Mr Cullen that poor and developing countries collect no reliable numbers on deaths from malaria or deaths in childbirth. The goals are supposed to be everybody’s responsibility which invariably means they become nobody’s responsibility. I say to Mr Cullen that I think the poor are going to blame the rich for not coming up with enough money and the rich are going to blame the poor for not deserving more money. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals envisage some kind of nationwide nannying—well known to this Government—that only an accountable domestic Government can deliver upon not distant donors. Distant donors cannot sustain them. 
In supporting this bill I want to make the point that National members do it on the grounds of support for encouraging foreign direct investment particularly in the developing world. We do it on the grounds of supporting the World Bank and we do it on the grounds of supporting the 170 countries that have already signed up to support the convention. We also do it because a very small amount of taxpayer money is required—about US$1 million. However we do not support this bill on the grounds of its contribution to poverty eradication. Developing countries have to make their own way out of poverty by their own efforts which is the only way any country—including our own—can ever do it. To Minister Cullen I would say that the only way to make poverty history is to understand how history is made.