Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, February 16th, 2026 - 37 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
They make it very hard to think about voting for them…
Happy with the current settings for amount of workers, partners and dependents… And unknown and uncapped 'student' numbers.
Before considering the
racist rhetoricimpact on local workers, their conditions and wages, where is the talk about the infrastructure needed to house, educate and meet the health needs of this unknown number of folk.Strike 1 is proposed $33 billion of private investment in India over the next 15 years.
Strike 2 is Luxon not being bi-partisan in negotiations.
Strike 3 is redacted advice from officals on the agreement.
While "Labour firmly believed in free trade, but agreements "must not cause New Zealand harm"." What does he mean by cause New Zealand harm? Is that NZ inc.? Is that the precariat workforce?
Might be time for a rebrand of the party, starting with it's name followed closely by replacing the leader.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/586912/free-trade-agreement-with-india-must-protect-migrant-workers-labour
Oh dry up.
New Zealand has been a trading country since the 1820s and always will be. And Labour are the team that generate the smart and enduring FTA deals to enable this trade.
India is the biggest trade prize since Labour negotiated the FTA with China, signed in April 2008. And thank God we did because from the GFC onwards it was the Chinese who bought our dairy and meat exports – and it's those tax receipts that keep our public services alive now.
The next-biggest deal was also negotiated by Labour; the CPTPP. This has continued to generate benefits for New Zealand by enabling nearly 30% of goods exports to enter markets by May 2025. Particularly important for getting dairy and forestry into Japan which is a critical trade partner.
Hipkins is now the only leader protecting us from Angry Dad Peters, palpably mad Seymour, raging fools in TMP, and the SuperWets GReens who continue to deliver nothing.
Hipkins was clear in his letter to the PM that not involving Labour in the negotiation process despite public assurances tot the contrary, was shit. National have a term of deliberately breaking bipartisan agreements that would have given households and business the certainty they need to chart their lives and their investment decisions. Peters on balance is a wrecker and was shut out for precisely that reason.
National have signed us up for a deal where unless India gets its $33 billion of investment, India can reverse access to the apple, honey, and Kiwifruit sectors. This is utterly stupid.
The longer Labour hold out on this, the more it becomes an election issue. I hope it is. That's where the absence of the entire dairy export entry into India will become the most stark. But that's what you get from this National negotiating team.
absolutely Ad.
A nice slow burn on this to remind kiwis of yet another shit deal, oh and the BS that's pretty much standard MO for this coalition.
I agree Ad. As you say, what goes around comes around and the National lead government has spent three years wrecking bipartisan agreements. The politics of this screams Labour refusing to support the deal in its current form. To demand Labour support it on the grounds of a bi-partisan approach to trade when the government hasn't even bothered to show them the full deal is bullshittery of the first order. Labour should not want to be lumbered with the being the ineffectual sidekick of the neoliberal single transferable party.
Without a doubt, NZ First is going to reap a considerable racial backlash against the immigration clause, and given the highly aggressive nature of a lot of Hindutva ideology, public concern over open ended emigration from a country of 1.5 billion to a nation of just five million souls is justifiable. But Labour, as a serious party of government cannot and should not campaign on an anti-immigration platform. The lack of consultation and $33 billion of investment clause is giving them a fine reason to torpedo the deal for another reason, and politically it will blunt NZ First's racist charge. Let Luxon swing in the breeze for a bad deal done in the dark for reasons of his own over-weaning hubris.
The Indian immigration is concerning and also the meretricious ways our government is utilising both the ambitious and ordinary worker, some into indentured servitude despite warnings from immigration agencies.
The Indians have had, additional to their own great powers, the doings of the British East India Company for almost 300 years, finishing in 1874. They are clever and capable and driven and keen. I am friendly with one studying a business course and many are working in takeaways etc. India has been a world focus for centuries, and still is, maybe its time has come.
Wikipedia https:/en.wikipedia.org › wiki›Dutch East India Company – Wikipedia
The name 'Dutch East India Company' is used to make a distinction from the [British] East India Company (EIC) and other East Indian companies, such as the Danish East India Company, French East India Company,….
On the other hand Indian culture brings further complexity to what western ideas have brought. See link named – encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/untouchability-overview
We might do better under Asians than Britain that seems 'A country that lost its head'. A book 'The Tribe that Lost its Head' was written 1951 by Nicholas Monsarrat an observant writer and ex-naval man, which could be relevant to the UK we know today and its relationships with past colonies.
This makes no sense. National is the most pro-dairy of the lot. My understanding is that dairy had a snowball’s chance of being included; it’s a lazy attack line but can be used to make National squirm.
The New Zealand government chose to go for the expedient no-dairy FTA deal because they could get it done in one term. It is now a "deal" that is highly one sided in India's favour.
India get to keep protecting their tens of millions of farmers with one cow. We get pretty much zip one our major exports. There is also zero chance India will open up dairy for anyone else.
Even DCANZ agreed there was no sugar-coating how bad this was for NZ.
Since when are international trade deals symmetrical? A small economy negotiating with a large trading partner or trading bloc will get different things from trade agreements, even when scale is factored in. You seem to imply that this deal gives little or no favour to NZ because India appears to do well out of it. This is zero-sum instead of win-win thinking, but both are simplistic.
Correct. Even the recent ‘mother of all deals’ with the EU that NZ now apparently has to beat to the post doesn’t contain dairy.
https://theconversation.com/what-the-mother-of-all-deals-between-india-and-the-eu-means-for-global-trade-274515 [note the framing around dairy though]
That’s lazy rhetoric from DCANZ and of the same low level as Winston Peters’ demagoguery. What they’re implying that if there’s little or nothing in it form them then it must be ‘bad’ for the country. This is illogical and misleading but I’m sure those lobbyists find a welcome ear in the Beehive.
We need to export and we need foreign reserves of US$ to import stuff and maintain a standard of living that will be politically acceptable to our domestic population. But individual trade agreements should be scrutinised to see where, and to whom, the benefits and losses flow. It is not enough to say that a deal is 'good for New Zealand', because 'New Zealand' in this sense of a unitary, economic entity with a single, undivided interest does not exist.
Therefore, I have a blanket suspicion that this government is very likely to make deals that primarily advantage their own social class and their donor community, while making the lives of other NZers harder. Their lack of commitment to bipartisan processes just makes this suspicion deeper.
I think it's fair to retain some doubt about Labour's willingness to apply this scrutiny of trade agreements with sufficient commitment to a particular set of broadly left-wing values – such as the reduction of domestic economic inequality. But I don't think they should be written off as useless on this score.
To say "must not cause New Zealand harm" is a fair enough statement. Three points about political statements. Too much detail is less newsworthy and can be filled out later in further releases. Secondly, detail allows critics to get very picky over minor details that may be seen to be faulty and the original story is lost in the resultant furore. Thirdly, in this case, a group within NZ that was not mentioned in the list of those possibly harmed by a free trade agreement with India could justifiably cry out "What about us?"
And not so applicable in this case; fourthly, early policy releases in election cycles can mean all of the above but also good policy publicity can be negated by adoption by other parties of the particular policy in part or in whole.
Instead, examine what free trade agreements that have been concluded, both by Labour and National. What were they like with regard to "harming New Zealand?"
I don't know the answer to that, but would probably be a better source for debate. How did we get on for housing, health, education, infrastructure then? Would the same issues then arise now?
Putting the blame on immigrants for taking housing, and stretching health and education resources means that the finger gets pointed in the wrong direction. It should be pointed at those responsible for providing those resources to New Zealanders already living here.
I also have a problem with blaming immigrants. When my English ancestors came to North Canterbury, there was a meeting held by those locals who had been there for a generation. We're talking the 1870s here. The already settled immigrants called the newcomers 'the sweepings of the gutters of Europe" amongst other things no doubt. "No Irish need apply" sort of thing.
No need to fuel that fire.
"No need to fuel that fire."
There is no blame on the immigrants from me.
What I am wanting to know is where is the framing from the left. If we are gonna label those that have legitimate concerns 'racist' or anti migrant, then it's just handing votes to Winston. We must learn from the UK example over Brexit or risk giving Peters, Farrage's influence.
As the arguments above show, there is no talking to the precariat nor addressing their concerns, it's all free trade, globalist langauge. In the cost of living stresses folk face day to day, it might as well be Latin.
I think there’s a fair bit of scaremongering going on.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360931690/heres-everything-we-know-dont-know-or-dont-know-if-we-know-about-india-fta
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/indonz/584400/unpacking-the-details-of-new-zealand-s-free-trade-deal-with-india [same text was reported in NZ Herald]
Is this really a threat to the precariat?
1600+ per year plus their partners and dependents will put a downward pressure on wages and conditions in an already dormant job market. If, as the article asserts, we need yoga instructors and cooks to be imported, then local employers are even less inclined to train or upskill employees.
It will be firther mana to the landlord class, keeping housing costs as a sizeable chunk of a wage.
This is without taking into account the uncapped, unknown number of 'students' allowed.
The cheek of Hipkins wanting tight controls on this when, under his watch, we had 40 welders living in a 3 bedroom house.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350477031/advocate-says-migrants-living-at-overcrowded-south-auckland-house-urgently-need-jobs-not-food
I don't understand how you don't see this as a threat to the precariat.
What’s your hunch, do you think Labour will support it?
I think they will.
From the Stuff link in my earlier comment. And at the bottom of that article:
What’s your definition of ‘precariat’?
Do you really rule out anything Hipkins (and, by extension, Labour?) says because of those 40 welders?
Labour has set out its conditions in its letter to National before it will consider supporting any deal with India. I think it’s way too early to make a call on which way they’ll go. The point isn’t whether the deal lives or dies but how it’ll live or die and a hasty No from Labour kills off this great opportunity to do some good hard politics that might be good for Labour but also good for the country, in the long run, unless you prefer the ‘politics’ of Winston Peters.
Good political thinking above. We have always tried to think things through – I think, but still haven't done well as a result. I am now reading old book on 17th century Europe. How did they cope then? Perhaps we only do things on whim for a while, and then some other takes centre stage, pretentious, and demanding – money has been constant, and wars.
This is summary of book: The 17th century is presented here not as a disconnected series of petty wars and intrigues, but as a living and interesting past in which many old prejudices were abandoned and many modern problems foreshadowed. The author frequently discards the conventional method, and indicates the influence of thought and speculation upon political problems.
Wellington Water a template for the public-private neolib way foisted on us?
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=177827
February 16, 2026 1 comment
A resignation after years of issues by Michelle Warshawsky
Agree with Ad, Sanc, Incog and Grey above re the discussion on the India trade deal.
But what I am really enjoying is Hipkins taking it to Luxon. Not just on this issue but on others such as the awful LNG proposal.
I'm not a Hipkins fan but he is doing a good job of differentiating Labour from the Nats. People need good obvious reasons to vote Labour or they may say "they are all the same and maybe Luxon deserves one more go".
I think Hipkins and Labour are doing quite well here.
They inject much-need context and nuance and talk like mature politicians with vision (without going into much detail) and this way they set up a nice contrast with National; NZ First is neutralised, for now, and ACT doesn’t even get a mention. At the same time, Labour leaves the door open to reject the deal in full or in part because of lack of assurances and/or lack of information. This is good politics.
Here’s a link to Labour’s letter: https://www.labour.org.nz/news/release-india-fta-must-be-for-the-good-of-new-zealand/
Absolutely so BG. Hear, hear.
Quid pro quo, no stupid gas plant signed fta,
ffs
/
Eddie Clark
@dreddieclark.bsky.social
Holding a flimsy umbrella against the weather to protect pork barrel funding for foreign sporting organizations while the country drowns and is flattened by wind and being sycophantically praised for it by your own team really should be a symbol of this govt's priorities but let's see how it's read.
https://bsky.app/profile/dreddieclark.bsky.social/post/3mewnfkl5mc2a
LOL!
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/16-02-2026/one-man-one-instinct-one-umbrella-when-everything-changed-for-christopher-luxon
Leadership without accountability is just organised corruption.
Heavily bastardised from Saint Augustine.
Oh, but he would do that, he’s a lefty.
No-one has mentioned Nancy Lu's paean of praise. I sometimes get mixed up between paean and peon. But Nancy's lilting lines are so poetic and I feel school poetry come to mind. "I wandered lonely as a cloud, Impressed by yellow daffodils' or something.
Disgusting that RNZ news people would choose to put up on our country's news system an item about missing person in South Australia. No doubt because they could get an image showing blonde curly hair. What lightweights and empty heads so called news publishers can be. They decide to have upsetting stuff dished up to us, we ghouls who get activated about some people's difficulties, but can't be concerned about Palestine etc.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/586981/sa-police-return-to-oak-park-station-in-gus-lamont-missing-person-investigation
IMO RNZ never recovered from the Key govt appointing Griffin as chair to go through the joint.
Lightweights like Ryan and Mora allowed alot of crap to be broadcast unchallenged and effectively flushing the breakfast slots for ex TVNZ personalities.
Recall how Bradbury got turfed from the Panel, not a fan of his but that's not the point. The intolerance to non aligned views was there for all to see from RNZ management.
It's still doing some good stuff but there's insufficient challenge to the BS narrative from Seymour/Peters/Luxon. Probably because it doesn't want it's budget slashed again.
They can’t win, can they? Either they report the news, e.g., the BS narrative from Seymour/Peters/Luxon, factually & timely, or they provide critical analysis & opinion, or they do a bit of both. They will never please all sides because that’s the current state: picking a side and waging war on the other side. I think that RNZ is okay but Newsroom is much better. However, they fill quite different media niches.
This article, currently on The Daily Blog, is a warning to anybody invested in stock markets, and especially tech bubble companies. Sell while you can.
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/bubble-bubble-toil-and-trouble/
@ Incognito 2.1.1.1
"What’s your definition of ‘precariat’?"
A social class that, despite working, has job insecurity, relatively low wages and poor conditions.
All made worse by expensive housing, casualisation of labour and the growth of the gig economy.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Mac 1.
How do these concerns get framed by the left politically?
Because just calling someone racist doesn’t cut it.
I haven't been following the issues with trade agreements with India. But I agree with the general premise that there is an inherent conflict between FTAs and citizen wellbeing, because of how neoliberalism relies on the existence of the precariat.
Also agree that liberals, including the left, have created a situation where we can't talk about immigration settings without people being accused of racism or nimbyism. Those accusations are now a tool to suppress debate by some of the people who believe that cultural diversity is good and necessary (it is) and either don't see any issues with fast and big change, population growth, and/or are proponents of open borders for philosophical reasons.
Very few on the left are willing to have that conversation in the context of climate change, carrying capacity of land (ecology and physics), or the transition of our economies to circular, resilient and meaningfully sustainable.
we're probably better placed on TS to have those conversations, although some of those barriers still exist.
The other important issue is the rising awareness that neoliberal economies have no solution to the retirement bulge, and that this sits alongside rising regressive populism (and fascism), and there is increasing talk of how to 'incentivise' women to have more babies.
That's tied up with populists realising that if their anti-immigration agenda succeeded, there'd be no cheap labour, and at a time when birthrates are falling, they've realised they need women to step it up to produce future white workers.
Both sides are mental imo, the left because it pays lip services to the ecological and climate crises and resists meaningful transition, relying on hope of tech saving us. And the right because it's ok with fascism by and large.
anyone arguing that FTAs are Good hasn't bothered to understand the IPCC reports or anything most climate scientists are now saying. It's like people still think the next 20 years are going to be stable. But I guess let's trade while we can.
Thanks.
I think that’s a good definition.
Are you asking in the context of the India FTA? In that case, I’ll reject the premise, as I don’t see the FTA as a threat to the NZ precariat, based on the very little we know about the proposed deal. It becomes a bit like the pig-fucker or wife-beater accusation, IMO.
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that this is how the Left (??) is dealing with the India FTA or with Winston Peters or in general? FWIW, in general, cheap lazy superficial labels that are often used as pejoratives and often with a wrong meaning and/or in the wrong context, don’t suit constructive debate in good faith. That said, racism and racist sentiments/biases are highly prevalent and we shouldn’t ignore that but pointing to it generally doesn’t make for a strong main argument, IMO.
@Incognito @ 10.2
"How do these concerns get framed by the left politically?"
I mean in the broader context. How does Labour justify running record migration during it's time in office to working class folk (it's former base) and the wider precariat.
'Poor old capitalists didn't want to train staff so we sub-contracted some for them.'
Okay, now I think we’re getting closer.
As an aside, I think it’s misleading to suggest that Labour = the political Left.
When did Labour run record migration? Do they always run record migration?
Briefly, I think that Labour walks & talks the line between immediate capacity (and capability) shortfalls, and immigration as a short-term ‘solution’. For example, and you’ll like this, I think there’s little point building more healthcare facilities such as (expensive) hospitals if there’s insufficient labour force numbers (e.g., nurses, doctors, specialist, surgeons, radiologists, medical equipment engineers, IT specialists, etc.) to provide quality healthcare at capacity.
Explain to the working class and precariat that they cannot have adequate access to (publicly funded) healthcare because of staff shortages.
BTW, training capacity often is also limited in NZ, depending on its ‘uniqueness’, among other factors.