In a post on X on Thursday, Peters accused the government of making an "abrupt change of course" by introducing immigration measures that, according to him, "target Indians and Indians alone."
"For six months, we have been warning that the India-New Zealand FTA would, under current policy settings, mean open slather immigration from India to New Zealand," Peters said.
He further claimed that government officials had warned ministers that the proposed changes could adversely affect New Zealand's bilateral relationship with India, damage the country's reputation as a destination for business, and expose the government to legal challenges or retaliatory action from New Delhi.
"Officials have warned Ministers that these changes could have impacts on our bilateral relationship with India and our reputation as a place to do business, and be open to legal challenge or retaliation from India. We have also seen evidence of officials discussing the importance of these changes not being publicly announced for fear of the Indian reaction," Peters stated.
Peters alleged that the immigration changes approved by New Zealand's Immigration Minister include the introduction of a labour market and economic needs test for Indian citizens that does not apply to citizens of other relevant FTA partner countries. He also claimed that Indian citizens would be prevented from applying for temporary employment entry visas while already in New Zealand and would receive different treatment concerning their partners and children.
He further alleged that Indian nationals would face additional restrictions in counting work experience gained on temporary employment entry visas toward eligibility for permanent residency, unlike citizens of certain other FTA partner countries, including China, Thailand, and South Korea.
"The Indian Government has the right to know about National's intention to treat Indian citizens in a discriminatory manner relative to citizens of other FTA partners, such as China, Thailand, or South Korea," Peters said.
The New Zealand First leader stated that his party had opposed the inclusion of migration concessions in the India-New Zealand FTA. However, he argued that if such commitments had been negotiated, the government should be transparent with India regarding the manner in which they would be implemented.
Why NZFirst is against the Indian FTA:
— Winston Peters (@winstonpeters) June 27, 2026
1. Unprecedented immigration settings including uncapped student numbers with working rights and 5000 visa holders entering NZ who can bring in families which increases that number to 20,000+ at any one time. This is in addition to other…
"We suggest that if additional restrictions are applied to Indians travelling to New Zealand under this FTA, the only consistent and principled step would be to apply these restrictions to citizens of all FTA partners," he said.
Peters urged Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, the Trade Minister, and the Immigration Minister to publicly clarify the government's position before the legislation implementing the Free Trade Agreement is passed. He warned that the reported policy changes could lead to trade retaliation, legal disputes, and reputational damage for New Zealand.
"There must be equitable treatment for citizens of all countries coming into New Zealand under our various FTAs. Discriminatory treatment is not the New Zealand way," Peters said.
The controversy comes months after India and New Zealand signed the India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi in April this year. The agreement was formally signed by Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and New Zealand Minister for Trade and Investment Todd McClay in the presence of senior government officials, business leaders, and industry stakeholders from both countries.
The allegations have brought renewed attention to the implementation of the India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, with concerns being raised over the reported immigration measures, their potential diplomatic implications, and the future of bilateral trade and economic relations between the two nations.
About The Author
Comment List