"... NZ First leader Winston Peters described it as a "low-quality deal" and was withholding his support.
His party exercised the agree to disagree provision of its coalition arrangements when Cabinet approval for the deal was sought last week, and made it clear that it would vote against enabling legislation if and when it was introduced to Parliament."
#LillianHanly, 2025
Well isn't that interesting. They can "agree to disagree" on a trade treaty, but not the RSB 馃
Got to love how news media report extensively the party political drama surrounding these trade treaties, but never seem to report the details of them. What's been offered or given up by each side, and why? Surely those are the most important details of the story.
(1/2)
The closest we get in this article is this from ACT trade spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar;
"Two-way trade between New Zealand and India already totals more than $3 billion each year. This agreement has the potential to grow this figure significantly, freeing trade and reducing barriers making it easier for businesses on both sides to sell and invest."
What "barriers" are we talking about? What might the consequences be of lifting them?
(2/2)
India is famously protective of their country.
For IKEA to get permission to open a store in India they had to source >30% of their products from within India. They spent years bringing up production domestically to ensure they could meet it.
When IKEA opened their store in T膩maki Makaurau did we demand the same? Or did we just let them buy productive farms and turn them into forests without sufficient fire protections?
