Winston Peters says the free trade agreement risks a surge in migration, but his coalition partner says he is simply wrong, writes Catherine McGregor in today’s excerpt from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

Peters picks a new fight

Winston Peters has chosen the free trade agreement with India as his next political battlefield, and he is fighting it loudly – and publicly – from inside government. The NZ First leader and foreign affairs minister has rejected the deal outright, accusing his coalition partners of downplaying its migration consequences and turning what should be a trade agreement into what he calls a “free migration deal”. In a statement on Thursday morning, Peters pointed to Indian government statements describing the agreement as offering “unprecedented” mobility for Indian professionals and students, and asked why New Zealand had been “more generous on migration with India than in any other FTA”.

“There has been a lot of talk about Indian FTA and not much comprehension about what the consequences are for New Zealand,” Peters said, arguing that voters were not being told the full story. In the Herald (paywalled), Audrey Young says Peters’ comments “go a lot further than just a disagreement over a point of view. They suggest NZ First’s coalition partners are being deceitful, and there is clear disagreement about the facts.”

What the agreement actually allows

At the centre of the argument is a set of visa commitments that sit alongside the trade deal. According to material released by MFAT, New Zealand has agreed to allow 1667 Indian nationals per year to apply for three-year temporary employment entry visas, capped at no more than 5000 people in the country at any one time. Young notes that all but 200 of those visas are for occupations already on Immigration New Zealand’s skills shortage list, with the remainder reserved for “iconic” Indian professions such as chef, musician and ayurveda practitioner .

Peters’ most eye-catching claim – that 5000 visa holders could translate into 20,000 people once spouses and children are included – hinges on existing immigration rules rather than anything written into the FTA. Trade minister Todd McClay said he accepted that workers on visas longer than a year can currently bring family members, but insisted this was not a concession made to India. There was “nothing new in this,” he told the Herald’s Jamie Ensor (paywalled). Indian workers wouldn’t have “any greater right than anyone else who’s a skilled worker coming into the country from any country”.

The agreement also includes a working holiday scheme capped at 1000 places and enhanced post-study rights for Indian students. However it makes no change to the uncapped nature of all international student visas – a point that appears to have been misunderstood by both Peters and Indian officials promoting the deal.

Politics and pushback

NZ First has long campaigned against high migration, and Peters’ framing of the deal taps directly into public anxieties about cost-of-living pressures and the soft labour market. “Our serious concern is that migration to New Zealand, across the board, is too high, especially given tough economic times,” he said.

National’s response to Peters’ concerns has been unusually blunt, with prime minister Christopher Luxon saying this week​ that Peters was “wrong” about the China FTA and “he’s wrong on this one too”. Former ambassador Carl Worker went much further, saying it was “shameful” for a foreign minister to “[take] the domestic messaging of a friendly partner government aimed at promoting support for a positive cooperative project with New Zealand, and [use] it back against that government”.

Labour holds the numbers

With NZ First invoking its agree-to-disagree provision, the fate of the agreement now rests with Labour. Trade legislation will need to pass Parliament, and National cannot do that alone. Labour leader Chris Hipkins says his party is “broadly supportive” of the deal, but wants clarity on how migrant workers will be protected from exploitation, reports The Post’s Harriet Laughton.

Labour trade spokesperson Damien O’Connor has been more direct, describing the agreement as “probably the best deal that we can get”, given the tight timeframe. If Labour ultimately votes it through, Peters will have lost the argument – but succeeded in again dragging migration back to the centre of New Zealand’s political debate.