This should be a moment when the coalition Government presents a united front to one of the world\u2019s fastest-growing major economies. Instead, coalition tensions have become entangled with the politics of the India agreement itself.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Those close to the negotiations are plainly frustrated.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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\u2019s national interest. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
National Party campaign chairman Simeon Brown has attempted to play down the festering coalition strains, likening National to \u201cMum and Dad\u201d trying to manage two unruly children \u2013 David Seymour\u2019s Act and Peters\u2019 New Zealand First.<\/p>\n
\u201cEnergy spent refereeing siblings instead of building the family\u2019s future,\u201d was how Brown described it at National\u2019s recent election conference.<\/p>\n
That explanation is convenient, but it misses the point.<\/p>\n
Managing coalition partners is not an unfortunate distraction from the main game of governing.<\/p>\n
Peters, again wearing that NZ First hat, earlier flagged the potential for Indians coming to New Zealand under the FTA\u2019s temporary visa openings to take advantage of more liberal existing settings, resulting in what his deputy Shane Jones inelegantly referred to as \u201cthe butter chicken tsunami\u201d.<\/p>\n
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\u2019t be affected.<\/p>\n
Peters should be applauding Stanford\u2019s action as it directly addresses his complaint. But he won\u2019t let go. Instead, he has raised the temperature. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
It could have been addressed in a simple communication with India\u2019s sophisticated External Relations Minister S. Jaishankar as a clarification of the intent of the agreement. But no.<\/p>\n
His repeated suggestion that India is somehow receiving treatment inconsistent with what has become New Zealand\u2019s China standard also needs careful analysis.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s foreign policy.<\/p>\n
China\u2019s 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\u2019s modern export success.<\/p>\n
India\u2019s agreement is considerably narrower. New Zealand has secured phased tariff reductions for products including apples, wine, forestry and selected horticultural exports. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
India has historically been among the world\u2019s most protectionist major economies. Securing commercially meaningful access has required years of negotiation and considerable political capital on both sides. <\/p>\n
The agreement should therefore be understood for what it is \u2013 an important platform for future expansion rather than the finished product.<\/p>\n
It has always been about ensuring New Zealand has strong commercial relationships with both major powers.<\/p>\n
That is why Modi\u2019s visit matters.<\/p>\n
Coalition politics may be inevitable in an election year.<\/p>\n
But allowing them to overshadow one of New Zealand\u2019s most consequential diplomatic opportunities would be a mistake.<\/p>\n
Peters will be in Japan and Singapore during Modi\u2019s visit, returning only after the Indian Prime Minister has departed.<\/p>\n
This damaging performance can\u2019t be allowed to continue.<\/p>\n
If National is true to Brown\u2019s characterisation as the \u201cparent\u201d in the room, the Prime Minister should call a family conference, iron out the differences, present a united front and move on.<\/p>\n
Anything else is sub-par.<\/p>\n