New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters has sharply criticised his own government, alleging that immigration rules tied to the India–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement unfairly single out Indian citizens.

He warned that such discriminatory measures could damage bilateral ties, invite legal challenges, and provoke retaliation from New Delhi.

Winston Peters, leader of New Zealand First and serving as Foreign Minister, accused the National Party-led government of making an abrupt policy shift. He claimed that immigration changes linked to the FTA “target Indians and Indians alone,” despite earlier assurances that the agreement would not create unequal treatment.

Peters argued that for six months his party had warned that the FTA could lead to uncontrolled immigration from India, but instead of balanced measures, the government had introduced restrictions that discriminate against Indian nationals.

He alleged that officials had cautioned ministers about the risks of these changes, including harm to New Zealand’s reputation as a business-friendly country and the possibility of legal challenges. 

According to Peters, internal discussions revealed that ministers were advised not to announce the changes publicly to avoid a negative reaction from India. He described this as bad faith and insisted that India had the right to be informed of such discriminatory intentions.

The reported measures include imposing a labour market and economic needs test specifically on Indian citizens, a requirement not applied to nationals of other FTA partners such as China, Thailand, or South Korea.

Indian citizens would also be barred from applying for temporary employment entry visas from within New Zealand, face restrictions in visa provisions for partners and children, and be denied the ability to count work experience gained on temporary visas towards residency requirements. Peters stressed that these rules would place Indians at a disadvantage compared to other FTA partner nationals.

He further claimed that the changes could result in strained diplomatic relations, trade retaliation, and reputational damage for New Zealand. Peters argued that if restrictions were necessary, they should be applied consistently to all FTA partners rather than singling out India.

He urged Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, the Trade Minister, and the Immigration Minister to clarify the matter publicly before the FTA legislation is passed.

The controversy comes just months after India and New Zealand signed the FTA at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi in April 2026. The agreement was signed by Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and New Zealand’s Trade Minister Todd McClay, with senior officials and business leaders present. As part of the deal, New Zealand committed to investing approximately USD 20 billion in India over the next 15 years, signalling long-term confidence in India’s growth trajectory.

Peters reiterated that his party had opposed including migration concessions in the FTA. He argued that transparency was essential and that discriminatory treatment was not consistent with New Zealand’s values.

He warned that unless the government addressed these concerns, the FTA could become a source of diplomatic friction rather than economic opportunity.

The government, however, has rejected Peters’s claims, with Trade Minister Todd McClay dismissing them as misinformation. McClay insisted that the FTA represented a “new and exciting chapter” in relations with India and would reduce tariffs on a wide range of exports, giving New Zealand unprecedented access to India’s vast market. He emphasised that the agreement was designed to strengthen ties, not weaken them.

The debate highlights growing tensions within New Zealand’s coalition government, with Peters’s party positioning itself against aspects of the FTA. The issue of immigration rules has now become a flashpoint, raising questions about transparency, fairness, and the future of New Zealand’s relationship with India.

ANI