This should be a moment when the coalition Government presents a united front to one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies. Instead, coalition tensions have become entangled with the politics of the India agreement itself.
Ten days ago, Foreign Minister Winston Peters, claiming to be speaking as New Zealand First leader, escalated matters by publicly questioning aspects of the immigration settings associated with the FTA.
He alleged the Government was preparing discriminatory treatment for Indian citizens, citing official advice and arguing New Zealand risked creating immigration pathways that differed from those offered to other FTA partners.
Those close to the negotiations are plainly frustrated.
Privately, they argue Peters has been making claims that bear little resemblance to the official advice he may well have received wearing his Foreign Minister hat.
Worse, they say, these interventions have been amplified across social media into an ugly anti-Indian narrative that neither reflects the spirit of the trade agreement nor serves New Zealand’s national interest.
There are concerns that selective references to internal advice have triggered a wave of Official Information Act requests, complicating efforts to protect confidential exchanges with New Delhi at precisely the wrong moment.
National Party campaign chairman Simeon Brown has attempted to play down the festering coalition strains, likening National to “Mum and Dad” trying to manage two unruly children – David Seymour’s Act and Peters’ New Zealand First.
“Energy spent refereeing siblings instead of building the family’s future,” was how Brown described it at National’s recent election conference.
That explanation is convenient, but it misses the point.
Managing coalition partners is not an unfortunate distraction from the main game of governing.
Peters, again wearing that NZ First hat, earlier flagged the potential for Indians coming to New Zealand under the FTA’s temporary visa openings to take advantage of more liberal existing settings, resulting in what his deputy Shane Jones inelegantly referred to as “the butter chicken tsunami”.
Put plainly, what Immigration Minister Erica Stanford is now endeavouring to do is to make sure the spirit of the trade agreement is adhered to and to plug any potential loopholes so that those coming to New Zealand on the FTA pathway do return home. Those coming on the existing pathway won’t be affected.
Peters should be applauding Stanford’s action as it directly addresses his complaint. But he won’t let go. Instead, he has raised the temperature.
The Peters who is reputed to be a renowned Foreign Minister will be well aware of the impact this could have on the bilateral relationship.
It could have been addressed in a simple communication with India’s sophisticated External Relations Minister S. Jaishankar as a clarification of the intent of the agreement. But no.
His repeated suggestion that India is somehow receiving treatment inconsistent with what has become New Zealand’s China standard also needs careful analysis.
Some elements of the India agreement differ from the 2008 China agreement. But Trade Minister Todd McClay says that reflects what each negotiating partner was prepared to offer, not any deliberate shift in New Zealand’s foreign policy.
China’s agreement with New Zealand eliminated tariffs across most goods, ultimately opened comprehensive access for dairy exports and delivered extensive education and skilled-mobility provisions. It became the foundation of New Zealand’s modern export success.
India’s agreement is considerably narrower. New Zealand has secured phased tariff reductions for products including apples, wine, forestry and selected horticultural exports.
Dairy remains tightly protected, with access largely confined to ingredients used by Indian manufacturers producing exports. Mobility provisions are materially more constrained than those secured with China.
India has historically been among the world’s most protectionist major economies. Securing commercially meaningful access has required years of negotiation and considerable political capital on both sides.
The agreement should therefore be understood for what it is – an important platform for future expansion rather than the finished product.
It has always been about ensuring New Zealand has strong commercial relationships with both major powers.
That is why Modi’s visit matters.
Coalition politics may be inevitable in an election year.
But allowing them to overshadow one of New Zealand’s most consequential diplomatic opportunities would be a mistake.
Peters will be in Japan and Singapore during Modi’s visit, returning only after the Indian Prime Minister has departed.
This damaging performance can’t be allowed to continue.
If National is true to Brown’s characterisation as the “parent” in the room, the Prime Minister should call a family conference, iron out the differences, present a united front and move on.
Anything else is sub-par.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.