India-NZ FTA: HCI Bhushan & Winston Peters at odds over US$20b investment
New Zealand’s proposed free trade agreement (FTA) with India has sparked debate over a US$20 billion ($33b) investment target, raising questions over whether it is a legally binding commitment or simply an aspirational goal.
Outgoing Indian High Commissioner to New Zealand Neeta Bhushan described it as “something to aspire towards,” while New Zealand ministers have said it as a target to encourage private sector investment, The New Zealand Herald has reported.
“It’s not easy to calculate, to be honest, on a monthly or even a yearly basis, what is the investment going into various parts of India,” the High Commissioner told The New Zealand Herald.
NZ First leader Winston Peters cautioned that certain clauses on the investment could have consequences if the goal is not met. The disagreement has become a focal point in discussions over the FTA’s potential economic and trade impacts.
Speaking to The New Zealand Herald, Bhushan reiterated that the investment is “something to aspire towards.” The Herald report also noted that she does not anticipate any issues for New Zealand if the US$20b ($33b) target is not met. Bhushan also acknowledged that the FTA includes a “review” clause, according to the Herald.
NZ First leader and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters, a vocal opponent of the FTA, said he is concerned that the investment represents a firm commitment for New Zealand, with potential consequences if it is not met. When told about the High Commissioner’s comments, Peters said, “Yeah, well she might say that, but she’s not a trained lawyer, I am,” The New Zealand Herald quoted Peters as saying.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Trade Minister Todd McClay have characterised the investment as an ambitious or aspirational target. McClay described it as a commitment to “promote investment,” rather than a direct promise that the Government would guarantee a specific level of private sector investment.
A summary from New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade describes the FTA as a “commitment for New Zealand to promote investment into India with the aim of increasing private sector investment by $20b over 15 years.” In contrast, Indian government documents state New Zealand has “committed to facilitating US$20b in investment into India over 15 years” and include a “rebalancing clause” allowing India to “take remedial measures should delivery on investment be below commitment levels.”
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has also raised concerns that India could restore tariffs on trade with New Zealand if the full investment is not achieved. However, in an interview with The New Zealand Herald, Bhushan clarified, “Any agreement which comes into force has clauses for review. That is, of course, there, but I don’t see any such problem, frankly,” the Herald quoted Bhushan as saying.
She added that it was a “mutually beneficial agreement” for India and New Zealand.
Peters stood by his position, citing the Indian statement that New Zealand “have to facilitate” the investment. “That means we have to front up with it. Facilitation means in a legal contract completion of it, helping to complete it. It’s not a ‘good in principle’ ... It’s a hard commitment,” the Herald quoted Peters as saying.
The Herald also reported on the “excellent rapport” Bhushan shared with Peters during her tenure in New Zealand.
Bhushan told the Herald that she had enjoyed her engagements with Peters.
“It’s been outstanding, excellent rapport with him. I have had the chance to meet him several times during my tenure and he has always helped us and supported us and supported the relationship between India and New Zealand,” the Herald quoted Bhushan as saying.
New Zealand’s proposed free trade agreement (FTA) with India has sparked debate over a US$20 billion ($33b) investment target, raising questions over whether it is a legally binding commitment or simply an aspirational goal.
Outgoing Indian High Commissioner to New Zealand Neeta Bhushan described...
New Zealand’s proposed free trade agreement (FTA) with India has sparked debate over a US$20 billion ($33b) investment target, raising questions over whether it is a legally binding commitment or simply an aspirational goal.
Outgoing Indian High Commissioner to New Zealand Neeta Bhushan described it as “something to aspire towards,” while New Zealand ministers have said it as a target to encourage private sector investment, The New Zealand Herald has reported.
“It’s not easy to calculate, to be honest, on a monthly or even a yearly basis, what is the investment going into various parts of India,” the High Commissioner told The New Zealand Herald.
NZ First leader Winston Peters cautioned that certain clauses on the investment could have consequences if the goal is not met. The disagreement has become a focal point in discussions over the FTA’s potential economic and trade impacts.
Speaking to The New Zealand Herald, Bhushan reiterated that the investment is “something to aspire towards.” The Herald report also noted that she does not anticipate any issues for New Zealand if the US$20b ($33b) target is not met. Bhushan also acknowledged that the FTA includes a “review” clause, according to the Herald.
NZ First leader and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters, a vocal opponent of the FTA, said he is concerned that the investment represents a firm commitment for New Zealand, with potential consequences if it is not met. When told about the High Commissioner’s comments, Peters said, “Yeah, well she might say that, but she’s not a trained lawyer, I am,” The New Zealand Herald quoted Peters as saying.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Trade Minister Todd McClay have characterised the investment as an ambitious or aspirational target. McClay described it as a commitment to “promote investment,” rather than a direct promise that the Government would guarantee a specific level of private sector investment.
A summary from New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade describes the FTA as a “commitment for New Zealand to promote investment into India with the aim of increasing private sector investment by $20b over 15 years.” In contrast, Indian government documents state New Zealand has “committed to facilitating US$20b in investment into India over 15 years” and include a “rebalancing clause” allowing India to “take remedial measures should delivery on investment be below commitment levels.”
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has also raised concerns that India could restore tariffs on trade with New Zealand if the full investment is not achieved. However, in an interview with The New Zealand Herald, Bhushan clarified, “Any agreement which comes into force has clauses for review. That is, of course, there, but I don’t see any such problem, frankly,” the Herald quoted Bhushan as saying.
She added that it was a “mutually beneficial agreement” for India and New Zealand.
Peters stood by his position, citing the Indian statement that New Zealand “have to facilitate” the investment. “That means we have to front up with it. Facilitation means in a legal contract completion of it, helping to complete it. It’s not a ‘good in principle’ ... It’s a hard commitment,” the Herald quoted Peters as saying.
The Herald also reported on the “excellent rapport” Bhushan shared with Peters during her tenure in New Zealand.
Bhushan told the Herald that she had enjoyed her engagements with Peters.
“It’s been outstanding, excellent rapport with him. I have had the chance to meet him several times during my tenure and he has always helped us and supported us and supported the relationship between India and New Zealand,” the Herald quoted Bhushan as saying.
Related Posts
ISSUE
Leave a Comment