INL Nov 1 2019 Digital Edition

12
NOVEMBER 1, 2019
Viewlink
Labour bearsthe pains of acoalition government
The English Fortnightly (Since November 1999)
ISSUE 426 |NOVEMBER 1, 2019
RCEP high on rhetoric
lowonpotential
The East Asia Summit,
duetobeheldlater
this week in Bangkok,
will hold the litmustest
for Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership (RCEP)
between themembers of the
Association of South EastAsian
Nations (ASEAN) and Dialogue
Partners including New
Zealand.
Regionalpacts have had their
use in Europe, Arab Gulf and
Africa.
But across-border Treaty
involving Indiahas been
challenge for this RCEP,since
2012 anddespite 27 roundsof
negotiations, there is no deal in
sight.
Optimism overstated
New Zealand has amajor
stakeinthe process since its
dairy productscan find an
entry intothe world’ssecond
largest consumer market (after
China) through the ASEAN
corridor since adirect Free
Trade Agreement has thusfar
eluded progress.
But Associate Trade &Export
Growth MinisterDamien O’Connor
was overly optimistic when
he said that thePartnership
Agreement will be signed by the
end of thisyear.
New Zealand sees this RCEP
as harmonisation of existing
agreements between ASEAN,
India, China, Japan, South Korea
and Australia.
As an agro-based economy,
India sees floodingofits
markets by foreign dairy and
agricultural products as a
serious threat. Thecountry
undoubtedly hasthe right to
protect its farming sector but
the policy runs counter to
global partnershipthatitwants.
Commerce and Industry
Minister Piyush Goyal has
already hinted that Indiamay
withdrawfrom trade talks,
saying “every interest of the
domesticindustry and people of
India hastobeprotected.”
As the Economist observed,
“AnRCEP without India would
probably make South-East
Asian countries an even
more attractive destination
for companies seeking to
relocate someproduction out of
China.Vietnam, which is also a
member of theComprehensive
and Progressive Agreement
for Trans-PacificPartnership
(CPTPP), atrade agreement
with Canada, Mexico, and
Chile, would be particularly
well-placed.”
But there is little hope, at least
as we wrote this Leader.
Parent Visa changes ripple
The decisionofImmigration
New Zealand (INZ)
to makechanges to the
Parent Visa regimehas
sent ripplesofanxiety and
anger among some members of
the Indian community.
While the reopening of
the Parent Visa Category,
suspended by theNational
Governmentin2016 comes as
arelief to many, thecapping
of numbers and the financial
components are seen as signs of
disappointment.
The changeswill come
into effect as the Category
recommencessometime next
year, probably effective March
or April 2020.
Indian Newslink has received
angry phone calls andemails.
Butadispassionate analysis
of what is in store is in order.
Firstly,itwould be wrong
to think thatthe Parent Visa
Category targets the Indian
community as suggested in
some quarters. It would have
the same pact among the
members of all communities
including those of European
origin.
Over-riding factors
Some of thechanges being
affected are thatthe total
number of visas issued during a
yearwill be capped at 1000 and
the application of asingle-tier
system instead of two.
INZ will calculate median
income as $53,040. Based on
this, aNew Zealand resident or
citizen sponsoringtheirparent
must have agross annual
income of $106,080 for one
parent, risingto$159,120 for
both parents.
Sponsors usingthe income of
both parentsshould be earning
$159,120 to apply forone
parent’svisaand earn $212,160
to sponsor bothparents.
The newregime would not
expect funds to be brought
by parents to live here. The
responsibility would be thatof
the sponsors in NewZealand.
Writetous
We wouldliketohear the
viewsofour readersifthey
consider the above decisions
are acceptable to them.
There is aneed to exercise
honestintrospection here.
Please write to us. Your
viewswill help us to developa
StrategicPaper that canbeput
out for public consultation.
Indian Newslink ispublished by Indian Newslink Limited from its offices located at
Level 1, Number 166, Harris Road, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013 and printed at Horton
Media Limited, Auckland. All material appearing here and on our web editions and
social media are the copyright of Indian Newslink and reproduction in full or part in any
medium is prohibited. Indian Newslink and its management and staff do not accept any
responsibility for the claims made in advertisements.
Managing Director &Publisher: Jacob Mannothra; Editor &General Manager: Venkat
Raman; Production Manager: Mahes Perera; Financial Controller: Uma Venkatram CA;
Phone: (09) 5336377 Email: info@indiannewslink.co.nz; Websites: www.indiannewslink.
co.nz; www.inliba.com; www.inlisa.com
PeterDunne
There mustbeconsternation
within the upper ranks
of the Labour Party at
the performance of some
of the Ministers in thecoalition
government.
Everytime the government looks
likemaking somepositiveprogress,
one or otherofthese errant Ministers
can be relied upon to upsetthe
applecart.
No soonerhad thePrime Minister
returned from her latest overseas
trip where shewas lauded once
more by the internationalmedia,
and followedthatupbyhonouring
her promisetomeet‘Tonight Show’
hostStephen ColbertatAuckland
Airport and showhim around
the City whenhearrivedhere
to film afew programmes, than
serial offendersMinisters Jones and
Lees-Gallowaywereuptotheir old
tricks.
Sadlook of déjà vu
Both forced the Prime Minister
to abandon the warm smiles and
adopt the grim countenanceonce
again as she hadtofirstexplain
thendefend their behaviour. It all
had asad look of déjàvuabout it.
In the Jones’instance her
defence was predictable:she
“absolutely” would nothaveused,
letalone allow herself to have been
photographed, using an automatic
weapon of the type nowbanned
in NewZealand,and she urged
the Minister to read again those
provisions of the Cabinet Manual
relating to acceptable standards of
Ministerial behaviour.
Andthatwas it –asithas been
on so manyother occasions in the
last two years–nocensure,no
discipline, just the usual wet bus
ticketslap.
So toowith thedifferent case
of Lees-Galloway. What seems,
on the faceofit, to be another
judgement-lacking useofhis Ministerial
discretiononanimmigration
residency case, has been given the
Prime Minister’sfull support as
perfectly appropriate.
Judgement foundwanting
It maywellbevalid –given
the person’sprotected migrant
status –but in the absence of any
explanation, however generalised,
by the Minister of the background,
it just looks like another case of his
judgementbeing found wanting,
and his ineptitude overlooked
again. The upshot is that any
political benefittohave emerged
from the PrimeMinister’s recent
international sorties has been
quickly forgotten.
Of course,the Prime Minister’s
Inreference to Michael Woods’
response to my article, Iam
delighted to seethathehas
now resorted to personal
attacks against me andmyfirm,
as personal attacksare generallya
good indication thatcriticism has
hit its mark.
Whilst Mr Woodsrefersto
membersofthe Indiancommunity
having already approachedhim
about the issue of partnership
visas,his response doesbetray a
significant lackofunderstanding
of the issue, andperhaps thathe
should examine the issues in alittle
more detail.
colleagueswillpoint out that in the
instance of Jones, as aNew Zealand
FirstMinister,the Prime Minister
cannot move to discipline, demote
or even dismiss him without the
backing of the Deputy Prime Minister,the
Leader of NewZealand
First. Theyare righttodoso–and
the reality is that Jones andhis New
Zealand First colleagues will exploit
that to the hilt as away of differentiating
themselves within the
Coalition.Thatisunderstandable
too,but it is arguablyanexcuse that
is starting to wear alittle thin.
The Lees-Gallowaysituationis
different. He is aLabourMP, so
the Prime Ministercan discipline,
demote or even dismisshim, as
she sees fit, without reference to
otherparties. That she has done
noneofthose things now, or at the
earliertimeofthe Soubrek case is
acommentary on her leadership
style,and the perceived lack of
talent in the remainingnon-Ministerial
ranks of theLabour Caucus to
replace him.
Counting fortunes
Whereall this begins to matter
alittlemoreisthatweare coming
to the stageofthe electoral cycle
wherevoters start to focus less
on the government’sspecific
individual actions, and more on
what the government’soverall
impact–positiveornegative –has
beenonthemand their families.
Quitesimply,with just on ayear to
go until thenext GeneralElection,
they arebeginning to weighup
whether the governmentisworth
re-election. In the end, it will be the
perennial question,“is this as good
as it gets, or is there more to come?”
that determines anygovernment’s
fate.
This government is, by virtue of
its composition, unusual, andthereforesomewhatmoredifficult
to categorise
in terms of its performance.
Previous multi-party governments
have had more coherence –either
the centre-left, and the centre; or,
the centre-right, the right,and the
centre working together.
This government brings together
the left,the centre-left and the
centre-right,meaning immediately
that the compromises neededfor
its survivalweregreaterthan those
within anyofits predecessors
underMMP.
Prime Minister hamstrung
So, the fact that the Prime Minister
is effectively hamstrung over
the performanceofNew Zealand
FirstMinisters should come as no
surprise –itwas virtuallyguaranteedthis
would be the casefromthe
daythe government wasformed.
Nor shoulditbeany surprise
that the Greens have beensteadily
pushedtoone side –again,itwas
inevitable that therewould be
acontest amongstthe smaller
The real issue
The INZ declines acknowledge
that the relationships are genuine.
So the issueisnot, as claimed
by Mr Woods, aboutINZ needing
to determine if the relationship is
genuine at all. Theyhave accepted
that it is genuine, but havedeclined
the visas because the sponsor has
chosen to returntoNew Zealand to
work, rather thanwait in India for
the partner’s visa to be processed.
Further, blaming the issue on the
applicationbacklog andstaff shortages
doesn’tanswerthe question
about whyINZ have suddenly,after
decadesofacknowledgingthe cultural
aspects of Indian marriages,
have suddenly decided to no longer
recognise thisparticularcultural
practice.
One suspects thatonce the
backlog has been cleared,with
parties for the major party’sprime
attention, andthat New Zealand
Firstwould playmuch harder ball
when it came to that.
While these relationships and
tensions were all known from the
outset,whatwas not fullyknown
was howtheywould playout when
it came to deciding policy.
The fear thatsome expressed
then that it would mean that
New Zealand First would havean
effective veto on policy hasproven
largelytobecorrect, meaning that
Labour governs at the pleasure of
New Zealand First, ratherthanwith
its support.
It is doubtful that voterswanted
or anticipatedthataPartywithjust
7% of the partyvote would callall
the shotsthisway.
Weighing the Coalition Government
Now,whenitcomes to deciding
whether the coalitiongovernment
merits re-election nextyear, all
thesefactors will come more
strongly into play than specific
policies.
In assessing the government’s
overallperformance,voters will be
deciding whether the increasing
perceptionthatnot alot seems
to have happened underthis
government (remember this was
supposed to be the yearofdelivery)
is because its verycomposition is a
blockonprogress, which needs to
be rectified,orwhether the issues
it says it is dealing with arereally
so complex that they cannotbe
resolved in one three year term.
The recentwidespread
protests here and abroad against
aperceived lack of commitment
to addressingclimate change,and
the results of the some of the local
elections here last week,showthat
voters are becoming increasingly
impatient with politicians who appear
eithertobeblocking necessary
action, or to be moving at tooslowa
rate.Nor aretheyafraidofmaking
radical political change,ifthey
think that is required.
If, as seemsmoreand more likely,
what we have nowisasgoodasitis
likely to get under thisgovernment,
the next yearislikely to be avery
painful onefor it.
It maylearn thehardand bitter
waythatmoreofthe same is no
longer awinningelectoralformula,
no matterhow warmly,empathetically
and positivelyitispromoted.
Just askthe former Mayor of
Wellington.
Peter Dunne wasaMinisterof
the Crown under theLabour and
National-led governments from
November 1999 to September
2017. He founded the UnitedFuture
Party but wound it up when
retired from Parliament. Mr
Dunne lives in Wellington.
Lawyer responds to MP’s take onimmigration
Alastair McClymont
mass declines, the Minister intends
to thentakecredit for clearing up
the backlog.
Its allverywell forMrWoods to
claim to be working on the problem,
but howdoesthathelpthe
peopledeclined today, or yesterday
or last week? What solution is he
offering them? Or is itthat they
don’t countfor empathyastheyare
not the righttype of New Zealander
deserving of compassion?
Alastair McClymontisan
Immigration Law Specialist
at McClymont &Associates,
Barrister &Solicitors based in
Auckland. Labour MP and Chief
Whip of theParliamentaryLabour
Party Caucus had exercised
his RightofReply in ourOctober
15, 2019print and webeditions.
The above is Mr McClymont’s
response.