You don’t always have to be grandstanding or shouting to get the attention of Parliament: sometimes you just have to be sitting there quietly minding your own business. On Tuesday afternoon that was exactly what New Zealand First’s Taieri list MP Mark Patterson was doing, as the first Question Time since the long recess ground its way to its conclusion. All the questions anyone pays attention to — to the Prime Minister or Finance Minister asking if they stood by their statements and actions — had been asked and answered, and MPs were getting themselves ready for a rapid exit. It would be fair to say that expectations were low when Waitaki National MP Miles Anderson rose to ask what looked like an innocuous Question 10 to Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClayabout recent reports he had seen about enhancing New Zealand’s international trade? This was obviously drafted to give National another chance to salute its advocacy for, and securing of, a free trade agreement with India, and McClayhappily set out the likely benefits to accrue when tariffs fall. But wait, there was more. Anderson followed up by asking what other reports the minister might have seen, which gave McClay the chance to spruik the Future of Investment and Trade Partnership ministerial meeting held in Auckland the previous weekend, which he immodestly termed ‘‘one of the most successful and largest trade gatherings New Zealand has held in 20 years.’’ Not satisfied with that, Anderson then asked what other progress the government was making on enhancing New Zealand’s international trade, to be given chapter and verse on the essential supplies agreement recently signed between New Zealand and Singapore. So far, so soporific, but this double act had a punchline lying in wait. ‘‘What other reports has he seen on efforts to enhance New Zealand’s international trade?,’’ Anderson asked, in all innocence. ‘‘Well, I’ve seen a very pleasing report that associate Minister of Agriculture Mark Patterson has recently visited India to champion the New Zealand wool industry,’’ McClay exclaimed, with great exuberance. ‘‘I strongly endorse Minister Patterson’s statement that India is a key market for Kiwi wool growers and exporters and that there is strong potential for further growth.’’ Patterson was indeed in India the previous week and had indeed been pushing the wool is wonderful message — a trip which McClay, who is Minister of Agriculture, would have signed off on both at his own level, and as part of Cabinet. But there was a wrinkle in what was otherwise a routine trade promotion visit, as both men well knew: Patterson’s party has invoked the agree to disagree provisions of its coalition agreement with National and is voting against ratification of National’s shining jewel. McClay was not going to let this political opportunity go by, but he put the slipper rather than the boot in. ‘‘The New Zealand India free-trade agreement will unlock further value for our wool sector by immediately eliminating tariffs, as well as supporting deeper trade connections, and, as Mr Patterson says, there is strong potential for further growth,’’ he added. ‘‘The Indian textile apparel sector is the world’s third-largest, and a New Zealand India FTA means that New Zealand wool growers will benefit from preferential access from day one.’’ Act New Zealand leader David Seymour, on the other hand, had no compunction about taking a swing at Patterson, asking: ‘‘Has the minister heard any reports that promoting the India free trade agreement has made Mark Patterson a bit of a black sheep in the New Zealand First caucus?’’, a question ruled out of order, to much laughter, by Speaker Brownlee. Labour leader Chris Hipkins — who is providing the votes so that the FTA will pass — was more than pleased to join the pile-on, by immediately raising a point of order: ‘‘Previous Speakers’ rulings have been very clear that the government can’t use patsy questions to attack the Opposition, but there’s nothing to say the government can’t use patsy questions to attack its own ministers,’’ he pointed out to further laughter. In reply Seymour claimed that he had not in fact been attacking Patterson — which was likely true, but his real target, NZ First leader Winston Peters, was conveniently overseas and not there to be needled. [Missing Credit] And with that Parliament moved on, but the issue remains a live one. Patterson is not naive and had been well aware that the timing of his visit to India would occasion some comment. He posted on Facebook on the day of his arrival — when he was lucky enough to snare an unscheduled meeting with the third-highest ranked politician in India, its Speaker Om Birla — that he had noted some ‘‘blatant politicking’’ about his visit and NZ First’s position on the FTA. ‘‘It is well documented that it is not the trade element of the deal we are opposed to. Under the FTA wool will benefit by having no tariffs down from 2.75%. Useful but not a game changer in itself. We have much higher ambition for lifting the value of wool to New Zealand farmers. Opening doors for our commercial sector is my role and today we made a strong start.’’ That work continued the next day when the event Patterson was there to attend, the three-day Bharat Tex Textile Expo, opened in New Delhi. And let us be in no doubt, Bharat Tex is a big deal. More than 7000 buyers, 130,000 trade visitors and 20,000+ textile products and exhibitions spread across 1.6 million sq ft. When not selling, more than 350 speakers were addressing attendees and discussing ideas. As in happens, New Zealand’s second-largest export market for wool is, wait for it, India. Growing its textile sector is something Prime Minister Narendra Modi has taken a personal interest in, saying that he wants to triple its size. Not unnaturally, Patterson wants New Zealand to help India along that path, selling as much Kiwi wool to them as he can in the process. And should he succeed in that aim, a bit of laughter at his expense in the House is likely a small price to pay. — mike.houlahan@odt.co.nz
