Explained: The secret immigration papers ministers will - and won't - talk about
Wednesday, 1 July 2026
EXPLAINER: Secret documents concerning immigration lie at the heart of the latest chapter in the coalition feud over the New Zealand and India Free Trade Agreement (FTA).
Their existence first entered the public discourse when the FTA passed its first reading in Parliament last Thursday (93 votes to 29, with National, Labour and ACT voting in favour).
As National was praising the deal as historic, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters used his speech to claim his coalition partner was quietly changing immigration settings for Indian nationals to make them more restrictive ‒ a step change from a prior attack that the FTA would allow higher immigration.
Peters based this claim on an official briefing paper and has repeatedly insisted reporters need only ask for it to see the contents themselves.
Read more:
Winston Peters says clause in India FTA contradicts NZ First’s coalition deal
PM Christopher Luxon ‘compartmentalises’ coalition dispute over India FTA
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford won’t release any details, saying that would be getting ahead of the process as she’s yet to make any final decisions.
So who’s said what? And what does it mean for the FTA?
What’s in these secret documents?
The short answer is we don’t know yet, and the slightly longer one is it depends on who you ask.
Stanford has confirmed only that she sent a number of immigration papers that covered “a range of issues” to several other ministerial offices, including Peters’.
“[These are] all process papers, where officials would say to me, ‘Hello, here are a whole lot of options. What would you like to do?’ And I give my reckons and then I send them across to other ministers to see what they think,“ she told reporters on Tuesday.
She didn’t have much more to add on the topic, saying Peters had taken the unusual route of discussing it publicly before final decisions had been made.
Peters had said in the House that National was operating in “bad faith”.
“We told the New Zealand people that it would mean open-slather immigration from India to New Zealand. 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.”
He cited “a briefing from officials” that he had seen warning more restrictive settings would impact bilateral and trade relations with India and could risk legal challenges.
Peters quoted four specific changes he labelled as “special, discriminatory, targeted restrictions just for Indians” and further claimed his coalition partners did not want the Indian government to know “for fear of their reaction”.
The claimed changes included precluding Indian citizens from counting any work experience on a temporary entry visa towards skills residency and requiring them to apply for a temporary visa from outside of the country.
Trade Minster Todd McClay has said NZ First “is wrong about this”.
“They’ve consistently failed to support important trade agreements that are in the best interests of NZ. Whilst they are free to differentiate themselves in respect of the FTA, they should stop promoting misinformation for the sake of gaining votes.”
Should this document be secret?
Stanford maintains that because these papers are still being considered and no decisions have been made, she’s prevented from speaking about their details.
Further adding to the mystery, Stanford said she’s not actually sure what Peters is talking about and hasn’t clarified this with him.
“All I can do is do my job, which is take some advice, give my initial recommendations based on what I think, and then send it out for consultation, which is what's happening.”
The Post put Peters’ claimed changes to Stanford’s office on Tuesday afternoon, but it only re-confirmed the minister was not releasing details because final decisions hadn’t been made.
“That answer means yes, doesn’t it?” Peters told The Post.
“Did she deny it? No, she didn't, she couldn't deny it, because she wouldn't be telling the truth and she's not that sort of person.”
Is it a bad look?
The dispute is the latest in a rolling maul of allegations Peters has levelled at his coalition partners over the New Zealand-India FTA.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he has ‘compartmentalised’ the pair’s fundamental differences, while Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour has stressed the importance that people “make statements based on facts”.
“I've heard an awful lot about the amount of immigration that will be allowed that just isn't true and so what I would say to all people is we'd have good relations with our friends around the world, including in India, so long as we stick to the facts,” Seymour said on Tuesday.
Trade analyst and former diplomat Stephen Jacobi said it was unusual by international standards to have a prime minister and foreign affairs minister “at such odds”.
“It's just something we'd rather not see, not only from the substantive matters to do with trade and all the rest of it, but from New Zealand's international representation and positioning,” he said.
“We want to have the best possible relations with India as an important trading partner, but more importantly, [as a] very influential and significant economy in the world.”
Jacobi didn’t think the feud would have a material impact on New Zealand’s relations with India but described it as “highly unfortunate and embarrassing”.