Winston Peters’ theories on the India FTA, explained

Wednesday, 8 July 2026

This week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon may be welcoming his highest profile international visitor, but it is domestic tensions that are high.

India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, will visit Auckland for one night - a fleeting trip that trails on the heels of the New Zealand-India Free Trade Agreement’s signing in April.

But still, the coalition partners are squabbling about it.

Foreign minister and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters does not support the deal - a position he made clear when the government was courting support from parties earlier this year.

He called it “a disgraceful sell-out of our country’s future” and “a free migration deal”.

The latter referred to a new temporary employment entry (TEE) visa negotiated under the agreement, which will allow eligible Indian citizens working in 13 skilled occupations to work in New Zealand for three years.

Now, Peters has done something else. He is accusing the government of trying to hide upcoming immigration restrictions for Indian nationals ahead of Modi’s visit.

Confused?

There’s been a lot going on, so here’s an explanation of what’s been happening.

Peters’ claims

First up, the foreign minister’s most recent takes on the free trade agreement (FTA).

Most of Peters’ comments have centred around a document, seen in his capacity as a Cabinet minister, which he claims shows Immigration Minister Erica Stanford has approved changes to immigration rights for Indian citizens.

Peters first mentioned the document when speaking on the first reading of the bill that will introduce the India FTA as law in New Zealand.

He said officials warned ministers the changes would be 'more restrictive in a way which targets India and India alone', and that they could impact relations with the country and New Zealand's reputation.

“For the last six months, we have raised concerns about what the commitments under the FTA would mean under existing immigration policy settings as applied for all other New Zealand FTAs. We told the New Zealand people that it would mean open-slather immigration from India to New Zealand,” he said.

“But the National Party has just changed its course—no doubt due to poor polling—and they have done so covertly. Their officials have even discussed the importance of not announcing these changes for the fear of the Indian reaction. This is bad faith.”

The changes, according to Peters, include the following “special” and “discriminatory” restrictions that would only apply to Indian migrants:

– partners and children of TEE visa holders would not be afforded work rights, domestic student visitor visas or long-term visitor visas;

– work experience in New Zealand on the TEE visa would not count towards ‘skilled work’ or other work experience requirements for the purposes of applying for residency;

– applicants would need to apply for TEE visas from outside New Zealand.

Wait, what? Didn’t Winston want less immigration from India?

You’d be forgiven for being confused here.

Yes, a mere few months ago Peters and his NZ First colleagues were campaigning against the FTA because it would lead to too much immigration, they said.

Peters’s deputy, Shane Jones, was criticised for saying it would lead to a “butter chicken tsunami” coming to New Zealand.

Things quietened down after Labour promised to support passing the deal into law - until now.

Peters has caused plenty of confusion with his switch in position, which could be seen as another attempt to undermine the deal ahead of Modi’s visit.

But according to Peters, it’s about his role as foreign minister.

“It's a matter of fidelity that we have to deal with here. I'm not going to talk to the Indian foreign minister and have him say that I misled him,” he told reporters last week.

The government’s response

The document Peters has referred to is not publicly available - and Stanford has not provided it the media.

Instead, both she and trade minister Todd McClay have been reluctant to engage in conversation about Peters’ claims.

McClay accused him of “promoting misinformation” while Stanford said she is confused by his position, but will not discuss immigration settings until final decisions have been made.

This leaves the current situation a little murky - but a look back to McClay’s comments from earlier this year shows the changes Peters is concerned about were actually already public.

McClay appeared before the foreign affairs select committee in January, where he addressed several concerns about the immigration settings offered in the deal.

“In this agreement, we have agreed a temporary work permit for 1670 Indian nationals from a number of categories drawn from the Green List,” he said.

The ‘Green List’ is a list of jobs that New Zealand has skills shortages for.

The visas would last for three years and would be capped at a maximum of 5000 at any point in time, he said.

McClay went on to explain that the TEE visa will have much the same requirements as the skilled work visas New Zealand already offers - including English proficiency, a job offer from an accredited employer and evidence of financial support.

But they would afford slightly different immigration rights, he said.

For a start, there’s the requirement to return home at the end of the three years.

“They have no right for extension under the FTA,” McClay said in January.

That differs to other green list visa holders, who become eligible for residency either immediately or after 24 months of work, depending on their job and other criteria.

There’s also no right for TEE visa holders to bring their families, he said.

Asked on Monday if he stood by these statement, McClay said Stanford is still working through the detail.

“What we will do is honour the obligations committee we've made in the FTA,” he said. “The TEE is a special visa being created just for Indians. They don't have a right to [bring family with them], but it does reserve the ability of the future government to make decisions, and everything we do with the trade agreement is … ultimately to reserve the policy space for future governments to adjust.”

Asked if this proves Peters right - even if it was already public - McClay said it did not.

“What it does is honours our obligation as negotiated in the free trading agreement,” he said.

“We take those obligations as negotiated with India very seriously, and both sides will be going through how to best enact their commitments.”