New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has issued a strong and unusually blunt criticism of the recently finalised India–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, describing it as “neither free nor fair” and warning that it represents a poor bargain for New Zealand. In a detailed statement shared on social media, Peters said his party, New Zealand First, was “regrettably opposed” to the deal, arguing that it concedes too much on sensitive areas such as immigration and investment while failing to secure meaningful benefits for New Zealand’s core export sectors, particularly dairy.
Peters said the agreement would be extremely difficult to justify to rural communities and farming families, who form the backbone of New Zealand’s export economy. He argued that while the deal opens New Zealand’s market widely, it does not adequately address long-standing barriers faced by New Zealand products in India. In his view, the imbalance makes the agreement fundamentally flawed and unfair to New Zealand producers, especially dairy farmers.
The criticism comes even as the governments of India and New Zealand have hailed the conclusion of the FTA as a landmark achievement. Both sides have said the pact has the potential to double bilateral trade within five years. According to official statements from Wellington, the agreement will eliminate or reduce tariffs on around 95 per cent of New Zealand’s exports to India, with more than half becoming duty-free immediately. In return, Indian goods are set to receive duty-free access to the New Zealand market, while New Zealand has committed to investing approximately $20 billion in India over the next 15 years.
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has defended the agreement, saying it delivers broad and significant gains. He has emphasised India’s economic scale and rapid growth, arguing that deeper trade ties will generate jobs, boost exports and drive economic expansion for New Zealand. The deal also fulfils a key election promise made by Luxon’s National Party in 2022 to finalise a free trade agreement with India during its first term in office.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has echoed this optimism from the Indian side, describing the agreement as a historic milestone achieved in just nine months of negotiations. Modi said the FTA lays the foundation for doubling bilateral trade over the next five years and welcomed large-scale New Zealand investment across multiple sectors. He also highlighted the benefits for innovators, entrepreneurs, farmers, MSMEs, students and young people, while noting that cooperation between the two countries is expanding in areas such as education, culture and sports.
Despite these endorsements, Peters has sharply questioned both the speed and substance of the negotiations. He said New Zealand First had repeatedly urged its coalition partners not to rush into what he called a low-quality agreement, arguing that the government should have used the full parliamentary term to negotiate better outcomes. According to Peters, those warnings were ignored in favour of securing a quick deal, even if it meant compromising New Zealand’s long-term interests.
A major point of contention for New Zealand First is the exclusion of core dairy products from the agreement. Peters noted that while New Zealand is opening its market fully to Indian goods, India has chosen not to reduce high tariff barriers on New Zealand’s most valuable dairy exports. He pointed out that this would be the first trade agreement New Zealand has signed that excludes key products such as milk, cheese and butter. In the year ending November 2025, exports of these products were worth around $24 billion, accounting for roughly 30 per cent of the country’s total goods exports.
The Indian government has defended this position by saying the agreement excludes market access for dairy and several other sensitive items to protect domestic farmers and industry. These exclusions also cover products such as coffee, sugar, edible oils, spices, rubber and various milk derivatives. Currently, two-way trade between India and New Zealand stands at about $1.81 billion, a relatively modest figure compared with India’s overall goods trade, which exceeds $1 trillion annually.
Immigration-related provisions in the agreement have drawn particularly strong criticism from Peters. He argued that the deal makes significant concessions that are unrelated to trade and instead focus on facilitating the movement of people from India to New Zealand. On a per capita basis, he said, New Zealand has offered far greater labour market access than countries like Australia or the United Kingdom did in their trade agreements with India.
Peters warned that these provisions are especially risky given New Zealand’s current economic conditions, with rising unemployment and many citizens facing financial pressure. He also expressed concern about a proposed employment visa specifically for Indian nationals, suggesting it could significantly increase migration interest at a time when the labour market is already under strain.
In addition, Peters raised objections to expanded work rights for Indian students during and after their studies, arguing that such measures could limit the ability of future governments to adjust immigration settings in response to changing economic conditions. He said these commitments could effectively tie the hands of policymakers over the long term.
Despite his firm opposition to the agreement, Peters stressed that his criticism should not be interpreted as hostility toward India or its leadership. He said New Zealand First remains deeply committed to strengthening the India–New Zealand relationship, which he described as strategically important. Peters noted that India was among the first countries he visited as foreign minister and said his ministry has since devoted increased resources to building ties with New Delhi.
He also expressed personal respect for India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, saying his party’s objections had been communicated clearly and transparently. Peters emphasised that the disagreement reflects differences within New Zealand’s coalition government rather than any criticism of India or its negotiators, underscoring that the debate is fundamentally about domestic priorities and national interest.
