National And New Zealand First At Odds Again Over India Free Trade Agreement

Russell
Palmer Political reporter

Analysis –
National and New Zealand First are again at odds over the
India trade deal, this time over what a briefing says about
migration, but they do agree it will remain secret – for
now.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters performed
something of a rhetorical reversal in Parliament on Thursday
during the first reading of the legislation giving
effect to the India Free Trade Agreement signed earlier
this year in New Delhi.

Having previously
warned against the perils of the “bad deal” being “far
too generous” to India particularly on immigration, his
speech on Thursday accused National of covertly restricting
it.

Peters told Parliament his coalition partners were
planning “special, discriminatory, targeted restrictions
just for Indians” but were trying to keep it
secret.

“We told the New Zealand people that [the
deal] would mean open-slather immigration from India to New
Zealand. But the National Party has just changed its course
– no doubt due to poor polling – and they have done so
covertly.

“Their officials have even discussed the
importance of not announcing these changes for the fear of
the Indian reaction. This is bad faith.”

It was an
argument – coming from the Foreign Minister, too – that
hinged on the reputational hit New Zealand could take from
imposing discriminatory immigration restrictions on Indians
compared to other nations that had lowered trade
barriers.

But asked on Morning Report to
produce the evidence – a briefing he was reading from in
Parliament – he said he was “not going to be caught like
that”.

“That would be… acting outside Cabinet
rules”.

NZ First rejected RNZ’s requests for the
document to be provided, saying it would need to come from
National.

Peters argued raising the matter in
Parliament was not a breach because: “this discussion
yesterday was about what’s in the documents”.

“How can
you possibly in a first-world democracy that’s been going
since 1854 have a debate when the details are being kept
from the people in the Parliament itself?” he said.

“I
saw the Labour Party spokesperson got up yesterday having no
idea what she was talking about – not quite her fault at all
– I saw the ACT Party member speaking who had no idea what
she was talking about – not her fault at all.”

Peters
indicated his staff had received the documents the previous
week, on perhaps Thursday or Friday.

But it remained
unclear who provided them and how.

Peters’ reference
to Cabinet confidentiality rules suggest that what he
referred to in Parliament as “a briefing from officials and
consequent decisions made by the Minister of Immigration” is
a Cabinet paper.

The response from Trade Minister Todd
McClay was strong repudiation, saying not only was Peters
wrong, he was “promoting misinformation for the sake of
getting votes”.

If McClay was right, provision of the
document would surely clear the matter up. It would seem to
be in his interests to provide it – but requests for it from
National ministers have so far come up
short.

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford’s office
rebuffed requests for comment, saying McClay was the
spokesperson on the matter and the request for the document
to be provided would be lodged under the Official
Information Act.

While OIA requests technically can be
provided earlier than the statutory 20-working-day
timeframe, that’s rare in practice, and if the document is
as sensitive as Peters has suggested it may not be provided
at all.

Alternatively it could represent
yet-to-be-announced government policy, but that would surely
fall afoul of the Cabinet confidentiality rules and
therefore prevent Peters’ comments in the House,
particularly given the FTA retains the ability for the
government to change migration settings.

The interview
revealed Peters had yet to speak to National leader and
coalition partner Prime Minister Christopher Luxon about the
matter, the elder statesman saying Luxon “felt free to
attack me yesterday on the very matter”.

The pettiness
of that stance does little to repudiate National campaign
chair Simeon Brown’s characterisation
of their smaller partners as squabbling children, but
the bigger party engaging in the same kind of tit-for-tat
ends up making them looking more like a bullying older
sibling than the parent.

With neither party being
willing to produce proof that what they’re saying is right
it is hard for the public to judge the merits of either
argument.

The situation mirrors the confusion that
reigned over Peters’ previous initial criticism of the trade
deal as the full text remained hidden from public view for
months (as is normal for trade deals).

“I’ve had
enough of this duplicity for the last six months,” Peters
bemoaned on Morning Report.

The average voter may well
have had enough of it too, to say nothing of the
four-and-a-half months of campaigning yet to
come.

© Scoop Media