New Zealand Foreign Minister and leader of the right-wing New Zealand First party, Winston Peters, has accused the ruling National Party of quietly modifying immigration provisions under the recently signed India–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to introduce stricter measures aimed specifically at Indian nationals. The agreement, signed in April, is currently awaiting formal ratification by the New Zealand Parliament.
Peters alleged that the National Party had not informed the Indian government about these proposed changes and claimed officials had warned ministers that such measures could harm relations with New Delhi.
Although Peters’s New Zealand First party is part of the three-party coalition government led by the National Party, he has openly challenged the handling of the FTA. Peters previously served as Deputy Prime Minister until May 2025 under a coalition-sharing arrangement.
Speaking during the first reading of the FTA legislation on June 25, Peters alleged that the government had secretly reversed course after initially agreeing to migration-related concessions with India. He said his claims were based on a confidential briefing prepared for Immigration Minister Erica Stanford, though he declined to release the document publicly, citing Cabinet confidentiality requirements.
In a statement posted on X, Peters said, “We have recently discovered that there has been an abrupt change of course – with changes being made to immigration settings which target Indians and Indians alone.”
The dispute has emerged as coalition partners increasingly clash over immigration policy ahead of New Zealand’s general election in November.
Peters further claimed that immigration officials had warned ministers that the proposed changes could damage New Zealand’s bilateral relationship with India, harm its international reputation, and expose the country to legal challenges or possible retaliation from India.
According to Peters, officials also discussed the need to avoid publicly announcing the changes because of concerns about how India might react.
His latest accusations represent a notable shift from his earlier position on the FTA. While he had previously opposed the agreement on the grounds that it could trigger large-scale immigration from India, he is now alleging that the government is quietly moving in the opposite direction by introducing restrictions aimed solely at Indian citizens.
During his parliamentary speech, Peters said the briefing indicated that immigration policies were being tightened in a manner that affected India exclusively. He alleged that Minister Stanford had approved measures that would place Indian citizens at a disadvantage compared to nationals from other countries that have similar trade agreements with New Zealand.
Peters claimed the proposed changes would require only Indian applicants to satisfy labour market or economic needs tests, prevent them from applying for temporary employment visas while already in New Zealand, impose additional restrictions on family members, and stop temporary work experience from counting toward residency eligibility.
He argued that the Indian government deserved transparency regarding any move to treat Indian citizens differently from nationals of countries such as China, Thailand, or South Korea.
Although New Zealand First originally opposed migration concessions in the FTA, Peters said that if stricter rules were to be imposed on Indians, then the same restrictions should apply equally to citizens of all countries covered by New Zealand’s FTAs.
The National Party has strongly denied the allegations. Trade Minister Todd McClay dismissed Peters’s claims as inaccurate and accused him of spreading misinformation for political gain.
The FTA legislation passed its first parliamentary reading by 93 votes to 29, receiving support from the National Party, coalition partner ACT, and the opposition Labour Party. New Zealand First and several smaller parties voted against it.
Defending the agreement, McClay described it as a transformative deal that would provide New Zealand exporters with greater access to India’s 1.4 billion consumers, diversify export markets, and help boost exports over the next decade. He also called it the beginning of a new chapter in New Zealand–India relations.
Despite basing his allegations on what he described as an official government briefing, Peters has refused to release the document publicly. During an interview with RNZ, he said doing so would violate Cabinet rules.
He later argued that meaningful democratic debate was impossible if Parliament and the public were denied access to information about the alleged policy changes.
RNZ reported that New Zealand First declined requests to release the briefing, while Immigration Minister Stanford’s office directed inquiries through the Official Information Act process.
The dispute has highlighted growing tensions within the governing coalition, with Peters accusing the National Party of concealing policy decisions and National leaders insisting that his allegations are politically motivated.
Peters has called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Trade Minister Todd McClay, and Immigration Minister Erica Stanford to publicly explain the proposed immigration settings before Parliament completes consideration of the FTA.
The India–New Zealand FTA itself allows Indian nationals to work temporarily in New Zealand to help address labour shortages while explicitly excluding any automatic pathway to permanent residency.
Under the agreement, New Zealand would issue approximately 1,667 three-year Temporary Employment Entry visas each year to Indian citizens, with a maximum of 5,000 visa holders at any given time. Most visas are allocated to occupations on the Green List, including healthcare, education, engineering, and information technology. Around 200 visas are reserved for professions such as yoga instructors, chefs, musicians, and Ayurvedic practitioners.
The visas are non-renewable, require both qualifications and job offers, and do not automatically lead to permanent residency.
The agreement also establishes 1,000 annual Working Holiday visas for young Indians, expands student work opportunities and post-study visa rights, and simplifies temporary entry arrangements for contractual service providers.
The New Zealand government maintains that these measures are intended solely to address short-term workforce shortages and do not represent a broader change in immigration policy.
Whether the National Party is actually considering amendments to these immigration provisions remains uncertain. Peters has not released the evidence supporting his claims, while government ministers continue to reject the allegations as misinformation.
The debate is unfolding against a backdrop of growing public discussion around immigration in New Zealand, particularly regarding migrants from India and South Asia. RNZ, citing police hate-crime data, reported that people of South Asian origin have experienced the highest number of reported racist incidents in recent years.
Immigration has also become a contentious political issue. Following the signing of the FTA, New Zealand First deputy leader Shane Jones criticised the prospect of increased migration from India, while Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown faced criticism over remarks directed at an Indian RNZ staff member.
With a general election scheduled for November, immigration has once again become a politically sensitive topic. Although polling suggests it is not among the top concerns for most voters, surveys indicate that supporters of New Zealand First are among the least supportive of immigration compared with voters of other major parties.
As political disagreements intensify ahead of the election, the controversy also has implications for India and the future of the landmark trade agreement. For that reason, calls for greater transparency around any proposed immigration changes continue to grow.
