India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading
· Full day report
First Reading Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (15:08): I move, That the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. The bill will bring the now signed New Zealand - India free-trade agreement into effect. Once implemented, the agreement will reduce tariffs on 95 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to India, with 57 percent being duty-free from day one, increasing to 82 percent when fully implemented. The NZ-India free-trade agreement is a milestone development in New Zealand’s bilateral relationship with India. This once-in-a-generation agreement gives our exporters unprecedented access to 1.4 billion people, it will help diversify New Zealand’s export markets, and it will support the goal of doubling the value of our exports over 10 years. The case for an agreement with India is clear. With a GDP of nearly $7 trillion, an average GDP growth of 8.25 percent since 2021, and a growing middle class of consumers approaching 700 million people by 2030, India represents a wealth of opportunity for New Zealand businesses looking to sell overseas, …
Read full Hansard debate
First Reading
Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (15:08): I move, That the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.
The bill will bring the now signed New Zealand - India free-trade agreement into effect. Once implemented, the agreement will reduce tariffs on 95 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to India, with 57 percent being duty-free from day one, increasing to 82 percent when fully implemented. The NZ-India free-trade agreement is a milestone development in New Zealand’s bilateral relationship with India. This once-in-a-generation agreement gives our exporters unprecedented access to 1.4 billion people, it will help diversify New Zealand’s export markets, and it will support the goal of doubling the value of our exports over 10 years.
The case for an agreement with India is clear. With a GDP of nearly $7 trillion, an average GDP growth of 8.25 percent since 2021, and a growing middle class of consumers approaching 700 million people by 2030, India represents a wealth of opportunity for New Zealand businesses looking to sell overseas, and, until now, New Zealand products have been, effectively, locked out of the Indian market due to high tariffs and restricted quotas. With our competitors like Australia, the UK, and the EU all securing their own agreements, we needed to level the playing field. We also secure some advantages for New Zealand exporters.
Through this agreement, we have achieved historic wins for many key New Zealand exports. The forestry sector will see 95 percent of its exports become tariff-free immediately. Tariffs will be removed on sheep meat and wool on day one. The kiwifruit and apple sectors gain valuable preferential quota access—well above recent average trade levels—and kiwifruit also gains preferential access outside of that quota, too. For the first time, India will grant preferential access for honey, as a 66 percent tariff on New Zealand mānuka honey will be cut to three-quarters over five years; that’s 16.5 percent. Tariffs on New Zealand wine will reduce from 150 percent to 25 percent or 50 percent depending upon the value over 10 years, with a guarantee to further reduce tariffs to match improvements granted to future FTA partners.
As a result of the FTA, New Zealand exporters will benefit from $43 million in additional tariff savings from day one of entry into force, growing to $62 million and rising with the expected growth and trade that will result from the FTA.
Consistent with their existing FTAs, including with Australia and the United Kingdom, as well as the recently concluded FTA with the European Union and domestic political sensitivity, India has excluded outcomes on core dairy products in the FTA. This is disappointing, but New Zealand has secured outcomes for bulk infant formula, peptones, and albumins, as well as an agreement to establish a tariff-free re-export programme.
Furthermore, the agreement ensures that we can engage in consultations and negotiations with India should they offer tariff concessions in dairy to comparable economies, therefore future-proofing our negotiation. Beyond market access, the FTA includes a range of other commitments to encourage increased trade in services, facilitate investment flows, and facilitate the movement of business people between our countries. We’ve secured improved access across nearly 100 additional services sectors, beyond India’s World Trade Organization commitment, with our gains future-proofed again through a most favoured nation provision, providing priority export sectors. India will establish a New Zealand Investment Desk to help New Zealand businesses succeed in India. Mobility provisions with strong safeguards support and mean access to skilled talent and opportunities in both directions.
Without an FTA with India, New Zealand goods exporters would continue to face prohibitive high tariffs, which effectively lock us out of the Indian market. The untapped potential that will be unlocked by the FTA is enormous, and many New Zealand businesses stand to make significant gains.
There are a number of legislative and regulatory amendments that are required to align New Zealand’s domestic law with our obligations under the FTA. The bill presented to the House today makes these changes as required for New Zealand to implement its obligations under the FTA and to bring the FTA into force. The most significant changes being made are the establishment of new quota administration systems for exports of apple, kiwifruit, and mānuka honey to India. The bill enables these systems to be established via regulations, and the legislative statement summarises the key elements of the bill.
The FTA references several international instruments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), which was first included in the UK FTA and then the EU FTA. However, the inclusion of reference of UNDRIP to the India FTA do not and does not impose, and are not intended to impose, any obligation on New Zealand law or Government policy. We reaffirm the reservations that were made by the New Zealand Government to the United Nations in 2010.
The NZ-India FTA reflects the strength of the relationship between New Zealand and India and is the start of a new and exciting chapter in the New Zealand-India relationship. I would like to acknowledge all those who have worked so tirelessly to support our shared ambition. I would also like to acknowledge the Labour Party for their support of the bill. This is a significant achievement for New Zealand. It will create jobs and incomes for New Zealanders for many, many generations to come. Our negotiators, the private sector, and all those have been involved over so very, very many years should be extremely proud, and I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:14): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in support of the bill, which, as the Minister has outlined, for many of our export sectors—whether they be kiwifruit, apple and pear, honey, forestry, wine—will mean cuts to tariffs as well as access to an extremely large market, and we do welcome that. I commend the Minister for getting us to completion on the deal and no doubt building on the work that was done by my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor in the last term in terms of building that relationship with India.
We have also been clear, in terms of our position, that this isn’t an ideal deal in terms of what it excludes, and that, of course, those ideal deals are very complex and difficult to reach. But we’ve also been clear that the deal does carry some risk with it, in that New Zealand exporters need to go into their exports with India with their eyes wide open and do their own diligence in terms of the risks of tariffs being put back in 15 years’ time, and I’ll speak more to that in a moment. But we do look forward to—now in Opposition, and from November in Government—facilitating a growth in our relationship with India that goes from strength to strength.
In relation to the investment clause of the deal, on which there’s been a substantial amount of discussion, some have argued that it is aspirational; others have argued that it is a strict obligation to meet the US$20 billion investment. My view is that it is an effort clause, so the clause requires us as New Zealand to put substantial effort into meeting that target as opposed to meeting it itself. However, it is still an obligation, and the other unique thing about that particular clause is that India, at the 15-year mark, will have the unilateral ability to make a call on whether we have exerted a sufficient amount of effort to meet that clause. If not, tariffs can be returned at that stage. This is why benefits will absolutely accrue to those exporters in the meantime, and it’s not at all to take away from that, but certainly our exporters need to be aware of that.
This is an interesting process in the House that we go through when we have either an international treaty or a significant bilateral agreement alongside legislation that’s enabling it. This bill itself doesn’t cover everything that’s in the agreement. It covers, actually, very narrow provisions around the Tariff Act, for the most part, and the Overseas Investment Act. But just to reassure the public at home, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has been considering the agreement as a whole, and we have received a number of submissions on the agreement as a whole, and we’ll be reporting back on that to the House as well. Should this bill have a shortened time in front of select committee, there hasn’t been an opportunity missed for people to be able to submit.
On the issue of immigration, this is an area where I have been disappointed that there have been members in this House who have used parts of the immigration agreement, in essence, to cause division in New Zealand, and I do think that’s unfair. Having looked at the provisions myself, I’m confident that there are fair limits in terms of the skilled workers coming into New Zealand for the three-year visa, which is capped at three years and there’s a total of 5,000, and also that family members don’t have an automatic right to work when they come with someone. It’s not a visa that’s designed to attract those people. I’m also sufficiently happy that we have other mechanisms to limit the number of international students who might come into the country, with policy mechanisms that we can use. We can also choose to cap the total number of international students. So there are sufficient mechanisms in there.
Once again, I would say that there is huge opportunity for our exporters here, but, again, I would urge them to look very carefully at the provisions that do kick in at 15 years to assess their risk in the long term. In the meantime, we will certainly be working with the National Party to ensure that we’re doing our utmost in Opposition now, in Government later, to do our best to meet our obligations under the deal.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:19): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, and we do not support this bill or the New Zealand - India free-trade agreement (FTA). We have serious concerns about its environmental and climate protection, Te Tiriti obligations, labour rights clauses, and acclaimed economic benefits.
I want to start by discussing the nature of the bill. Actually, even before that, as previous speakers have said, we have considered the agreement under international treaty examination rules. However, first I want to point out that, under best practice, particularly when we’re looking at paragraph 7.133 of the Cabinet Manual, the select committee should be given 15 sitting days to consider the agreement. Indeed, when we had the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, that timeframe was extended to consider the gravity of the agreement we were looking at. However, I would like to point out that the select committee has only 11 sitting days to consider this agreement, despite the fact it is a 1,400-page agreement. That, again, is one of the aspects where we see this Government fundamentally undermining the democratic process of Aotearoa New Zealand.
On to the deal itself, firstly, when we look at the nature of the deal, the negotiation was driven by a political deadline, set by the current Government, to conclude an agreement with India during this parliamentary term. This is “negotiation no-no 101”, and the political imperative gave India massive leverage to set its own terms and to determine the outcomes. It is also unfortunate that, when we saw the politicking of the deal, we had certain political parties grandstanding and misrepresenting parts of the bill, which has fuelled racist attacks towards various communities. For example, we’ve seen race baiting open the door to broader racist attacks on local and future migrant Indian communities, while misinformation on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has further perpetuated anti - Te Tiriti and anti-Māori sentiments. Such distractions have displaced the debate that the committee should be having, which is on the content of the deal.
When we look at the economics of the deal, we are concerned with the tangible benefits of this deal. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s national interest analysis states that the economic benefit are only likely to be 0.07 percent of GDP, or $401 million, in a decade, relative to a non-free-trade agreement baseline. While Aotearoa New Zealand will see some of these tariffs, not all of them will be available on day one. Most of them will be available over time. Exporters will be competing in a market with many other countries that India has negotiated FTAs with, and we’ve heard that from the Minister, which includes the EU, the UK, the UAE, Australia, and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
The other issue that we have is, obviously, the promotional investment clause, where the explicit wording of the investment commitment is US$20 billion, or NZ$34 billion, over 15 years. It has been difficult to discern whose narrative is accurate in this case: that of Aotearoa New Zealand or the Indian Government. New Zealand is obliged to promote foreign direct investment by New Zealand investors, but India has said it will establish a dedicated investment desk to assist those New Zealand investors. We have also heard that the precise amount is not binding, while India has referred to some of the conditions in the agreement as a binding pledge where only India has access to a disputes settlement process.
To put it into an investment context, in 2025 the total foreign investment from Aotearoa New Zealand was around $1.5 billion, and the average foreign investment over the last decade was minus $28 million. Still, if India determines that New Zealand has not fulfilled its commitment, it may take proportionate remedial measures to rebalance the concession—for example, by removing some of the cuts to the tariffs.
It is also worth noting that this FTA wording differs from the EFTA—the European Free Trade Association—agreement, where a footnote linked achieving the investment target to an Indian GDP growth rate of 9.5 percent, but if it’s anticipated that India’s GDP growth rate continues to decline, the EFTA will have a justification to reduce its commitment. There is no such apparent leeway in the wording of footnote 2 in chapter 9 of the New Zealand - India FTA.
Finally, I just want to mention that, although we didn’t hear a report-back time, I am expecting the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to take the full six months to consider this bill, and the Green Party will look forward to this in the select committee.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (15:24): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party is very pleased to support this bill that is to implement our free-trade agreement between New Zealand and India. I must say that this is one of the most significant achievements for New Zealand in many, many years. We know that this hasn’t been achieved overnight. There has been a lot of effort that has gone into it—a lot of effort, persistence, and diplomacy from successive Governments, and, of course, businesses and officials as well, those people who actually believed that, yes, we could achieve this.
I also want to say that this is not the first time we have attempted to get this agreement done. We remember, in 2010, negotiations were started, but then they stalled after many, many rounds of talks. Then, after we formed the Government, the Government took a delegation to India last year, where it was announced that negotiations had been launched for a comprehensive agreement between New Zealand and India. That was just in March last year, and then, in December last year, the agreement was concluded. I must say that that was remarkably fast. For that, I want to acknowledge our Minister the Hon Todd McClay for his work. I know he has been working really hard behind the scenes. He has been to India many, many times to ensure that we are able to conclude this agreement and also to ensure that we are able to implement this agreement in this term, so that our businesses are able to take advantage of this.
Yes, we wanted to get this agreement with India, but this time we also saw that India was interested in New Zealand too. We had many, many high-profile visits from India. We recently had India’s President visit New Zealand. We had India’s Foreign Minister, and just towards the end of last year, we had a visit from India’s commerce and industry Minister Piyush Goyal. Then came the historic moment in New Delhi, and it was really great to be part of the delegation where this agreement was signed. I want to thank the Indian Government for hosting us there for the signing ceremony, and I also want to thank Minister Piyush Goyal for hosting MPs, those who were part of the delegation, for a private lunch. I also want to acknowledge our High Commissioners on both sides, because they did put in a lot of effort to ensure that we were able to come to the stage where we have this bill before us.
We know that the election is coming up, so there are some voices who are trying to turn this very important national conversation, very important conversation about economic partnership between New Zealand and India, into immigration and fear. What I say is this: do we want to have a debate that is based on facts or a debate that is driven by fear? I’m sure that New Zealanders want to have a debate that is based on fact.
Finally, I also want to say this: Shane Jones described this FTA as a “butter chicken tsunami.” This is not the first time that Shane Jones has tried to insult the Indian community, but this time, when he described the free-trade agreement as a “butter chicken tsunami”, he didn’t only insult the Indian community, the migrant community; he also insulted each and every person who was involved in this whole process—all the diplomats, all the officials, all the negotiators. He insulted each and every one of those people, and he has also insulted all those businesses, those who are really looking forward to the implementation of this free-trade agreement, because they want to bring in more revenue and support our economic growth.
This agreement is about giving our businesses access to a country which is home to around 1.4 billion people. We are a country of only 5 million people. Imagine getting access to 1.4 billion people, the opportunities that this agreement is going to open up for our businesses. This is going to bring so many opportunities in terms of jobs, and this agreement is also going to bring so many opportunities to ensure people are able to earn more. This is good not only for the current generation but for our future generations as well, for the overall prosperity of our country. We know that there are so many countries around the world who are competing fiercely to progress their relationship with India, because India is, we know, one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. We have this relationship here, and we must value it. Thank you.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (15:29): On 22 December last year, the India free-trade agreement (FTA) was announced, and we immediately said we opposed it. We always felt that there should be no immigration provisions in the FTA at all. This is, after all, a trade agreement, not a migration pact, but National and ACT felt otherwise.
The FTA allows various new categories of Indian migration. 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. 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.
We’ve recently received the evidence in the form of a briefing from officials and the consequent decisions made by the Minister of Immigration that immigration policy settings are being made more restrictive in a way which targets India and India alone. I cannot believe the last member doesn’t know this and is out there supporting it. Officials have alerted the Minister of Immigration that creating, and I quote, “more restrictive settings for India than for other partners will have impacts on our bilateral and trade relations with India and, potentially, on New Zealand’s reputation as a place to do business”. The briefing further notes, “In some instances, such measures may be open to challenge on legal grounds, including the potential for proportionate retaliatory action, potentially impacting on trade between New Zealand and India.” Did the Labour Party spokesperson know that when she got up and made her speech today?
The measures that are being put in place to make immigration settings more effective are not being made for all of New Zealand’s FTA partners, not for China or for South Korea or for Thailand—just for India. These are special, discriminatory, targeted restrictions just for Indians, which our coalition partners don’t want the Indian Government to know about just yet, presumably for fear of their reaction. This is a scope of these restrictions. Again, to quote first: “agreed to not provide the partners and children of Indian TEE visa holders work rights or a domestic student visitor visa and not provide long-term visitor visas”; (2) “work experience in New Zealand on the TEE visa will not be considered skilled work for the purposes of an application for New Zealand residents”; (3) “will not allow Indian TEE visa holders to be able to count time spent in New Zealand towards any work experience requirements across all skilled residents categories”; (4) “Applications are required to apply for a TEE visa from outside New Zealand, and this only applies to Indian nationals, not all FTA countries.”
We know—officials have warned—that bringing in stricter requirements specifically targeting India could adversely affect the bilateral relationship with India, be subject to legal challenge, and provide grounds for possible proportionate retaliatory action from India, but that’s precisely what National plans to do. The way that National and ACT intend to implement the FTA is putting the purported benefits of the FTA at risk before they are even realised. Doesn’t Labour understand what we’re talking about here? Even worse, we have seen evidence, over the past few weeks, of New Zealand officials actively discussing the importance of not publicly announcing these changes in fear of the Indian reaction. We know all of these things, but the Government and the people of India do not.
This is our concern as Foreign Minister, because they are potentially damaging to our reputation as a country that is transparent in dealings and one whose word can be relied upon. National, ACT, and Labour must explain to the Indian Government in what respect New Zealand tends to treat an Indian citizen coming here under the FTA—maybe a chef or traditional Indian health practitioner or an ITA specialist—worse than we treat Chinese, Thais, Koreans, or other nationals coming here under New Zealand FTAs. It must explain why these restrictions will apply to India and India alone and not to all New Zealand FTA partners. We look forward to the Prime Minister and the trade and immigration Ministers clarifying these matters publicly with urgency so as to avoid any potential trade retaliation, legal action, or reputational damage.
And I ask the Labour Party: before you made your speech, did you get all the information? Did you find out what’s going on right here, right now? What’s the latest thing? Well, the ACT member got up to her feet; did she know what she was talking about? Does she know what’s happening to the Indians?
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Yes, I do.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no, you don’t. You’ve never seen this paper. You have clearly never seen this paper and other papers as well. The disgraceful thing about that is the arrogance to think that you’re going to speak on regardless just because you happen to be part of an arrangement which was made in nine months flat. This was speciously rapid in its conclusion, and it has this effect: we give everything up on day one, and they give up concessions sometime in the future or maybe never. Those are the facts there. The sooner that New Zealanders know what’s going on, the better.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:34): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. Today, I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to oppose this bill and the India free-trade agreement (FTA). Our position is simple: Māori were not included, Māori were not invited, and Māori were not allowed to co-design this agreement. When tangata whenua are shut out, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is breached. This is not just our view. It is a clear finding of Ngā Toki Whakarururanga, the Tiriti-based body created through a mediation agreement with the Crown. Their role, agreed to by the Crown, is to ensure that Māori have genuine and meaningful influence over free-trade negotiations. Yet they’ve said that they are deeply disappointed that the Crown rejected the co-designed Tiriti protections and, instead, kept the same flawed Treaty clause used since 2001. Ngā Toki Whakarururanga also reported that the Indian Government refused to share negotiation text with Māori or even with the Crown. That meant Māori could not carry out a full Te Tiriti assessment. It meant partnership was impossible. It meant transparency was denied.
The interim assessment is clear: tangata whenua were excluded, mātauranga Māori is not protected, and the final agreement contains only weak and unenforceable references to indigenous rights. We also note that Cabinet chose not to attach Ngā Toki Whakarururanga’s assessment to the national interest analysis. Parliament was denied independent scrutiny of whether this agreement meets the Te Tiriti obligations. That alone should concern every single member of this House.
We have also listened to Māori in the export sector. The Federation of Māori Authorities, representing the largest network of Māori land owners, supports trade but has real reservations. Their chairs said plainly that dairy where Māori hold major assets was “always going to be sidestepped” and that the gains in this agreement are narrow and sector specific. Even the iwi chairs who are deeply involved in economic policy have shown little enthusiasm. The data tells the same story. Māori exports make up only 5.6 percent of national exports. Māori collectives, however, own around half of all agriculture, forestry, and fishing assets, yet the biggest Māori sectors, like dairy, receive little benefit here, and many of the tariff gains will not be realised for seven years or more.
Te Pāti Māori asks: who actually benefits? Where are Māori in this deal? Why were Māori not at the table from the absolute start? Let me be very clear: Te Pāti Māori is not opposed to trade, we are not opposed to working with India, we are not opposed to economic opportunity, but we are opposed to being shut out. We are opposed to agreements that treat Te Tiriti as an afterthought. We are opposed to a process where Māori expertise—legal, cultural, economic—is ignored until the deal is already done.
There is one simple way that this agreement could—and I emphasise the word “could”—cross the line for our support, and that is this: honour the mediation agreement, restore the co-design Tiriti protections, give Ngā Toki Whakarururanga real influence, not symbolic consultation, and ensure that any future FTAs include enforceable protection for mātauranga Māori, for indigenous knowledge, and for Māori data sovereignty. Do that, and we may just stand by you on this issue, but, today, we absolutely will not and cannot. This bill does not meet the standard of partnership, it does not meet the standard of transparency, and it does not meet the standard of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Therefore, it does not receive the support nor the commendation of Te Pāti Māori.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (15:39): For me, there are three really key questions we have to address when it comes to this bill. The first is a really simple question—will it be good for New Zealand? I think the answer to that, when you look at it objectively, fairly, and reasonably, is yes.
There are significant and substantial tariff reductions for New Zealand exporters under this bill, and other members have talked at length about what those are. Take mānuka honey: India will cut the tariff by three-quarters from 66 percent to 16.5 percent over five years for honey certified by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and priced at or above US$30 per kilogram, and at the same tariff rate for a volume of 200 tonnes for mānuka honey priced between $20 and $30. This is the first time India has granted preferential access for honey, and it provides a significant opportunity for growth. Take wine: the 150 percent tariff—massive—on wine, one of our biggest exports to India, cut 75 percent to 100 percent on entry; further reduced to 25 percent or 50 percent, based on import price over 10 years from entry into force.
This is a good deal for New Zealand, there is no doubt about that. It will be good for New Zealand. And the second question is, is it a good deal for New Zealand? You just have to look at the facts. There are arrangements made, through this deal, that have applied, that have never been done by India before, and that means it is undoubtedly a good deal for New Zealand.
The third question, I think, is slightly more of an existential one, which is, does the deal align with New Zealand’s long-term future? Here, we just need to look at the context with which this deal has been signed and is coming before the Parliament. India is one of the world’s largest economies now, and that will only increase. We’re talking about 1.4 billion people. There’s 5 million of us and there’s 1.4 billion people. It’s our eleventh-largest trading partner—11th—and 1.8 percent of our exports go to India. For goods, it is just 1.1 percent of our exports. It’s actually outside our top 20 export markets. This, with a country that has a close relationship with New Zealand—a friendly, collegial relationship—and a country that is democratic, the world’s biggest democracy, that supports the rule of law.
Hon Chris Penk: Second-best cricket team.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Second-best cricket team in the world, as the Hon Chris Penk says.
It’s interesting, I was in India in March on a sports delegation with Ross Taylor and whole range of other luminaries, and it was interesting because one of the points the Indians make is cricket is obviously extremely important for them—as it’s important to me, and it’s important to this Government, but one of the points that was made to me by many people in India was, “Don’t let the relationship between New Zealand and India just be defined by cricket.”, because it was so much more than that. Developing in rugby, in hockey, and in a whole range of other sports—it’s not just about sports; it’s about Indian culture, the Indian diaspora in New Zealand, the very vibrant Indian communities. I use the word “communities” in its pluralistic sense, deliberately, because there are many people from different cultures and different religions and different backgrounds who live in India now, and who may have moved to New Zealand now. Many members of the House, I think, will be familiar with the vibrant Indian communities in their electorates in their communities. It’s not just about cricket; it’s about so much more than that, and the opportunity for New Zealand to forge a close partnership with this democratic country in the middle of one of the fastest-growing regions in the world is immense.
It’s actually about slightly more than trade. The trade agreements and the benefits to New Zealand exporters are big, but it’s about more than that, and I think all parties in the Parliament, I hope, support closer ties with India.
The final point I’d make is, historically, trade deals have sometimes been a bit controversial, and people have said the benefits won’t necessarily accrue in the same way that people think they will. Well, people said that about China. Before the China free-trade agreement (FTA) was signed, we exported $2 billion a year of goods to China. For the year ending September 2024, our exports totalled $22.82 billion overall, and they’re now 25 percent of New Zealand’s exports by value. China, in 2008, has been a boon for this New Zealand economy. I think we’ll look back, in 2040, and say the same thing about the India FTA.
REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (15:45): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and take a call on this bill—the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill—and it is a big deal. I think the question we have to ask, and what I want to explore is, is it a good deal? We need to make sure of that, and it hasn’t been straightforward through this process. We know what it does deliver. It delivers real tariff cuts, and it delivers market access for New Zealand. But there are also some risks, and some potentially serious risks in here, and one of those—the biggest—is the $33 billion investment commitment. We’ve heard that variously talked about as being aspirational when the Minister for Trade and Investment’s referred to it, but we’ve also heard about potential claw-back measures, which is quite different language with quite a different meaning.
Earlier, my colleague, Vanushi Walters, in her contribution to the House, spoke about the effort clause—the ability, potentially, for one party to demonstrate that the other hadn’t exerted the effort required to meet that goal, and then the impacts on our apple exporters, our kiwifruit exporters, our mānuka honey exporters, and the market access that this agreement purports to provide and whether those could be taken away again. The further concern is around the migrants who come here: the risk that workers and students could be exploited while they’re in New Zealand, and the very real scenario that we do need to protect these people.
So very real questions that need to be thoroughly explored through the select committee process, and I think what we need to see is a shift in the way that this process has gone. Because if you look at the timeline and the various public and then private conversations, and the requests on multiple occasions for additional information for clarification about points for Labour to be able to get a good understanding of what was in this and what wasn’t, it is a frustrating process that ran through the end of January, through February, through March, right through to the end of April, when, finally, there was enough clarification gained for Labour to be able to support it through to this first reading.
The other thing I think that’s important to note is that we have a long history in the Labour Party of negotiating very good trade agreements, some of which have been referenced in contributions to the House this afternoon. There were some wins that Labour got in this trade agreement for all of New Zealand, the first of those being the expansion of a Labour Inspectorate at the next Budget. That’s funding for at least 14 additional staff in the Labour Inspectorate, focused on migrant worker exploitation and serious and complex immigration offending. That is so, so very important, and if we hadn’t been able to gain an understanding or enough of an understanding of the bill to be able to get in that clause and that protection for migrant worker exploitation, who knows what may have happened.
Further to that, we also were able to get in faster visa changes: commitments, both written and verbal, to speed up the processing of variation of conditions for those visa holders who are seeking to change employer. That’s a really, really important piece to get in there as well, so that people aren’t trapped, and so that people can transition through to an employer, or a new employer, if there are issues where they are.
Additionally, we were able to progress the Modern Slavery Bill. The Government has committed now to prioritising the Modern Slavery Bill, ensuring that it passes its first reading before the election on 7 November, with a commitment to further resourcing community law to provide legal advice. Those are some very, very important—goodness me, what’s the word? It’s a Thursday.
Hon Phil Twyford: Commitments.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: Commitments—that’s the word. Thank you, Member Twyford. There were some very important commitments that we were able to gain. But the outstanding questions really remain about the aspirational versus the claw back measure. Those two things are very, very different. Also, we look forward to seeing that information that was redacted and curated. Thank you.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (15:50): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call here on the first reading of the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.
Now, with the way this process works, in terms of the merging of the first reading and also the debate on the treaty examination process, I just thought I’d take a moment to cover off what we heard through the select committee. It was my honour to chair the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee through our consideration of this treaty examination process. We heard from 1,800 submitters through that process, which is much higher than normal for a treaty examination; normally, they receive a pretty modest number of submitters, but, in this case, there was a lot more interest, obviously. It’s seen some profile in the media that led to a number of those submissions coming through, as well. Quite clearly, from all of the industry groups that presented to the committee, we heard strong support—strong support for the reduction or elimination of tariffs, for the increased market access through tariff-rate quotas, for example, and general strong optimism for the potential opportunity that this agreement presents for those respective industries.
Now, coming from the Waikato, as I do, I will have to touch on, of course, the fact that we didn’t quite get the dairy access that we would have liked. That is always a difficult challenge for free-trade negotiations, from New Zealand’s perspective, in terms of gaining that access into other markets. But that aside, there was nothing from the dairy industry’s perspective—and we heard this from the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand—that would prevent them endorsing the agreement in terms of the support it provides.
So, I think, on balance, we’ve heard plenty of good reasons why we need to do this. This will be a great opportunity. It will provide massive growth potential for New Zealand exporters, and will contribute to our target to grow the value of exports, double the value of exports over 10 years. Indeed, I look forward to the next stage, the select committee stage, where the committee will be working as efficiently as possible to carry out the appropriate assessment of this piece of legislation to give effect to the free-trade agreement, such that we can get it in place in time for that most favoured nation clause to come into effect where possible. So, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (15:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora, namaste, and I’m really honoured to contribute to the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Labour will support this bill to select committee because we believe in free trade. India is far too important a trading partner for us. India is one of our fastest-growing major economies in the world, so deepening our relationship with India is good trade policy, it is also sound economic policy, and a long-term investment in Aotearoa New Zealand’s future.
But I also want to be clear: supporting this bill today is not a blank cheque. As my colleague and former trade Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor has outlined previously, there are some serious and legitimate questions about how this agreement will be implemented, especially around the investment provisions, protections for migrant workers, international students, and ensuring that New Zealand businesses fully understand both the opportunities and their obligations in this free-trade agreement.
Much of this debate has been focused on tariffs, exports, and market access. These are all important; however, I want to discuss something that is, I think, equally as important: the people behind these trading relationships. Trade agreements may be signed by Governments but they are built by people. The relationship between New Zealand and India did not begin just with this agreement; it has been built steadily over many, many decades by our Indian diaspora; New Zealand businesses, educators, researchers, diplomats, and Kiwis; and they have been supported by successive Governments across the political spectrum.
Now, as Labour’s spokesperson for ethnic communities, I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of our Indian New Zealanders, who are one of the fastest-growing communities in our country. They number just over 400,000, now, in Aotearoa. Indian Kiwis are doctors caring for our families, they’re nurses supporting our health system; they’re teachers educating our young people; and they’re professionals who are driving innovation across so many sectors in Aotearoa. They are also business owners, exporters, retailers, and entrepreneurs who are creating thousands and thousands of jobs and contributing to our economic growth in every region in New Zealand.
More broadly, ethnic communities contributed just over $87 billion to our GDP in 2023, and that figure is around about a quarter of our GDP for that year. That figure represents real people; it represents real businesses—real contributions made to New Zealand’s prosperity. Indian-owned businesses are a vital part of that story. They strengthen international connections, expand our export opportunities, and deepen our commercial ties between our two countries.
Trade in the 21st century is about far more than goods crossing our borders; it is about innovation, education, technology, research, professional services, and cultural exchange. At its heart, it is about people. Our people are, often, New Zealand’s first trade ambassadors. Long before the Governments actually sit down to negotiate the agreements like this one that’s been signed, it is our people who are building those trusting relationships across our two countries.
I want to now quote from some of our businesses who are in strong support of this agreement. Zespri’s CEO has stated that this agreement unlocks one of the world’s largest markets, because, as many of the speakers that have spoken before said, 1.4 billion is indeed a very, very large market. Another: New Zealand Apples & Pears—and I quote—“[This deal] includes a world-first reduction on apples and pears to India.” And the final quote from one of our large exporters, from New Zealand Forest Owners Association—I quote—“[This] marks an important step forward for forest growers, wood processors, exporters and regional commodities.”
As we strengthen our relationship with India, we must also protect our migrant workers from exploitation. We should ensure that international students receive high-quality education and fair treatment, and support our businesses to succeed. Also, we should ensure that the benefits of trade are shared wisely because it is not just the success in terms of tariffs that we should be looking at; we should also be looking at whether the businesses are growing, jobs are created, and whether all of those long-term benefits benefit all New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (15:57): I genuinely believe that this is a once-in-a-generation moment, when we bringing in something as big and as significant as the Indian free-trade agreement. Just think about it for a minute: for every single New Zealander, there are 80 Indian, what they class as, middle class—there are 80 people for every single Kiwi. Within five years, that Indian middle class grows to 700 million; that’s about 120 for every Kiwi. We are a nation that makes money, that gets ahead by selling stuff to the world. That means that, within five years, there are 120 extra customers for every single New Zealander.
To hear parties, like New Zealand First and the Greens, putting ideology ahead of progress is really disappointing, because whether they are motivated by benefits or by superannuation or whatever they want to pay people more, you get that money by selling stuff to the world. This is our opportunity. This is really important. I commend this bill and the trade agreement to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 93
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11.
Noes 29
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.