Chris Hipkins writes to Christopher Luxon setting out conditions for supporting India FTA, warns of ‘significant risks’
Sunday, 15 February 2026
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has written to the Prime Minister setting out the conditions by which Labour may support the Indian trade deal - and complaining that the Government has treated its support as a “fait accompli”.
Hipkins noted that the Government had not yet formally requested Labour’s support and said there were “significant risks” implicit in the deal.
The Government need the support of Labour or the Green Party to pass the deal in Parliament, as NZ First have engaged the ‘agree-to-disagree’ provision in the coalition agreement and will not be voting for it.
Read More:
India FTA: Hipkins says National came to Labour far too late as visa questions mount
India trade deal opening up a Pandora’s Box of prejudice - will our leaders close it?
NZ First leader Winston Peters argues the free trade agreement (FTA) gives away too much on immigration while gaining too little on market access.
Trade Minister Todd McClay has focused his attention on Labour and has suggested several times that its support would not be difficult, suggesting it was the same kind of “high quality” trade deal Labour had always supported in the past.
But Hipkins, in a letter dated Friday and released to media on Sunday, told Christopher Luxon his party should have been involved earlier, and was still to be formally asked for its support.
“I am writing to express the New Zealand Labour Party's concern that we have not yet received a formal request to support the Free Trade Agreement with India negotiated by your government, and that Labour was only provided with a complete text of the agreement more than a month after it was concluded,” Hipkins wrote.
“Your decision not to involve Labour at any point in the negotiation process - without consultation, despite your public assurances to the contrary - and the expectation that Labour would unconditionally support the agreement once presented with it as a fait accompli, falls short of best practice and is not in the spirit of bipartisanship.”
He asked for a complete and unredacted record of all advice the Government had received on the deal and a series of assurances or changes in relation to the deal.
This included:
An increase in the number of immigration compliance officers to guard against migrant exploitation.
Agreement to strengthen the modern slavery bill Labour and National have already agreed to.
Action to “decouple” work visas from individual employers to reduce the potential for abuse.
In a statement released alongisde the letter, Hipkins said the deal had “significant risks” alongside potential upside.
“While the proposed agreement offers some trading opportunities, there appears to be significant risks in the way it is to be implemented in New Zealand, including sending $33 billion of private sector investment to India - a figure which is unrealistic when compared with past trade agreements.”
Hipkins said that Labour did not have a problem with the 1667 increase in generic work visas if those provisions were introduced, but did express some concern about the changes to student visas.
McClay has told media that while the deal would stop New Zealand being able to cap Indian student visa numbers specifically, it would not stop a future Government lowering overall student visa numbers. Hipkins said this did not add up as any reduction would surely be seen by India as a breach.
Hipkins also expressed some discontent with the investment provision, noting that it promised more investment from New Zealand to India than New Zealand had managed for the more comprehensive China deal.
McClay, appearing on Q+A on Sunday morning, said he had not had a chance to look closely at the letter but would do so early this week.
He suggested that the Government were keen to guard against migrant exploitation and would look at any proposals closely.
“If there is something that makes sense to do, that is not going to just be spending money without an outcome - we see that sometimes from previous governments - that, of course, we will work through,” McClay said.
He expressed some wariness about releasing unredacted advice however, saying this “sounded like a fishing expedition”.
McClay said Labour had full access to officials and he had several phonecalls with Labour representatives.
He defended not involving Labour earlier in the deal, saying Governments needed some freedom to negotiate, and expressed confidence in getting Labour over the line.
“Where I start is the trade has always been bipartisan for New Zealand, at least between the two larger parties. We may not agree on everything, we may disagree sometimes, particularly in election year, it's political, but overall, the two parties agree that trade is good for New Zealand.”