NZ First on China FTA, Ministers outside cabinet and National

Winston has said that he and NZ First do not agree with the NZ / China Free Trade Agreement because it does not offer New Zealand enough. Apparently because New Zealand began to remove tariffs in the 80s, according to Peters, the:

"China FTA did not go far enough to address a $3.6 billion trade deficit".

What?

If I am correctly following Peters, his logic is an FTA with China that reduces tariffs over time is bad because New Zealand unilaterally removed tariffs two decades ago. An agreement that reduces the existing imbalance is bad (and presumably should not have been signed) because it does not do it go far enough... But if Peter's had his way, the imbalance would not be reduced at all.

Perhaps Peters does not want the China FTA and wants NZ to impose its own tariffs? That would address the imbalance, but wouldn't benefit NZ.

And isn't it ridiculous that the Minister responsible for foreign affairs can even condemn the FTA? Its like the Minister for Justice saying that the rule of law does not require clarity, as "the law of common sense" will apply.

Seriously though, having a portfolio like foreign affairs outside cabinet is insane. The New Zealand political system works because of the constitutional conventions like collective cabinet responsibility. Collective cabinet responsibility is important because it gives the public and those dealing with the government comfort that they can rely on decisions of cabinet without a rouge minister causing havoc and undermining the decision in their own portfolio (over which the Minister has control and can really only be stopped if he/she is removed as minister).

It is particularly bad for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is in charge of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade, which negotiates FTAs and advises on trade policy, to disagree with a free trade agreement. How can any other country (cough USA cough) take Peters seriously when he is trying to convince them to enter a free trade agreement with New Zealand, knowing he is a protectionist? and how can foreign business take him seriously when they know he must really harbour secret mercantilist attitudes? (and on another aside, foreign business hardly needs any more reason to be wary of NZ, Auckland International Airport is enough).

Finally, Key saying that National may leave Peters in place is disappointing (fortunately it was only a 'we will negotiate with small parties in good faith and that might mean Winston could conceivably possibly stay Foreign Minister'). National needs to step up the campaigning on offering a fresh new government (and Peters ain't all that fresh), that isn't willing to give anything to stay in power. It needs to engage with the minor parties, but shouldn't sell its soul for government. It would be interesting to see the situation with National getting the biggest share of votes, not giving Peters a portfolio, Peters propping up Labour and New Zealand firmly rejecting MMP. It might mean another electoral reform referendum in 2011.