Feedback on the New Zealand–India Free Trade Agreement
The deadline for providing feedback on the India FTA is 11.59pm tonight (Sunday 17 May).
We understand many people wish to provide feedback, but with limited time and a lot of conflicting or confusing reporting, there’s uncertainty around how best to be heard.
Despite the purported benefits, there are a wide range of reasons to oppose this deal. We have covered many of the reasons in RCR interviews, in our RCR Bites emails and on our Blog.
In order to make it easy for you to express your concerns, we have summarised the main reasons to oppose the India FTA and outlined them below as well as providing a template. This information will be useful even after the submission deadline, as you can use it when talking to friends, family and raising awareness online.
The strongest submissions will be those written in your own words, reflecting your own concerns, experiences, industry knowledge, or values as a New Zealander.
Providing even very brief feedback is worthwhile.
You will need to visit the NZ Parliament website and either upload your feedback as a word doc or PDF or type directly into the official form. (https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/54SCFADT_SCF_ECD96E4C-4BD9-4244-978C-08DEA4D2595B/international-treaty-examination-of-the-free-trade-agreement)
Criticisms and concerns that have been raised regarding the agreement:
The following are among the major criticisms and concerns that have been raised by commentators, analysts, industry participants and members of the public regarding the New Zealand–India Free Trade Agreement.
Many appear substantial enough to warrant scrutiny before ratification. In several areas, there also appears to be significant disagreement regarding the likely long-term effects of the agreement.
The following sections summarise some of the key concerns that have been raised.
Immigration
Concerns have been raised that the immigration and mobility provisions in the agreement may significantly reduce New Zealand’s future ability to control student numbers, labour market settings and long-term migration pathways, while creating obligations that go further than those adopted by other comparable countries.
Market Access
Concerns have been raised that the agreement does not provide genuinely reciprocal market access, and that New Zealand appears to be opening its market far more broadly than India while receiving limited access in many key sectors important to the New Zealand economy.
Manufacturing
Concerns have been raised that the agreement could further weaken New Zealand’s manufacturing base by exposing local industry to increased low-cost imports while limiting New Zealand’s future ability to use tariffs, quotas or buy-local policies to protect or rebuild domestic manufacturing capability.
Foreign Direct Investment
Concerns have been raised about the agreement’s investment provisions, including the commitment to promote US$20 billion in investment into India and the inclusion of “rebalancing” or remedial measures if targets are not met, particularly at a time when New Zealand itself faces major infrastructure, housing and investment needs.
Labour Market Pressure
Concerns have been raised that the agreement could place additional pressure on New Zealand wages and entry-level employment opportunities by expanding long-term work pathways while limiting the future ability of governments to restore labour market tests, prioritise local workers or tighten immigration settings if required.
Sovereignty
Concerns have been raised that the agreement extends beyond trade into broader sovereignty, regulatory and international policy areas, including climate obligations, international frameworks and CBDC cooperation, without sufficient public debate or democratic mandate.
Dairy & Horticulture
Concerns have been raised that New Zealand is giving broad concessions and assistance to develop Indian industries while receiving limited access in many key agricultural sectors, including dairy, which is excluded from the agreement.
Comparison to the China Free Trade Agreement
Concerns have been raised that, compared with previous agreements such as the China FTA, New Zealand appears to be making significantly larger concessions on immigration, investment and policy flexibility while receiving more limited trade access and relatively modest projected economic gains in return.
Suggested Template:
I am concerned about…
I am concerned that the New Zealand–India Free Trade Agreement creates significant long-term commitments around immigration, labour mobility, investment, market access and broader policy settings that have not received sufficient public scrutiny.
In particular, I am concerned that the agreement may reduce New Zealand’s future ability to control immigration and labour market settings, expose local manufacturing and industry to increased low-cost competition, require major outward investment commitments, provide limited reciprocal access in key export sectors, and extend beyond trade into broader sovereignty and regulatory areas.
I am also concerned that, compared with previous agreements such as the China FTA, New Zealand appears to be making significantly larger concessions while receiving relatively modest projected economic gains in return.
I recommend that:
I recommend that the agreement not be ratified in its current form.
[Or write your own recommendation.]
Further Information:
If you wish to provide more details, you could choose to include some or all of the information contained in our introduction or from the following more detailed information.
1. Immigration
- Uncapped student visas. Numerical caps like Canada's or Australia's national caps would breach the agreement. 47% of Indian students who complete study in New Zealand transition to permanent residence, the highest rate of any nationality.
- Specific visa pathways include quotas for Indian chefs, yoga instructors, music teachers, and traditional medicine practitioners.
- 11 immigration channels for Indians, only three are capped. Eight others are uncapped and some include pathways to residency.
- Indian companies can bring in unlimited workers labelled “Specialists”. No cap, labour market test, or wage floor.
- Every other Five Eyes nation is tightening immigration, cutting student visas and slowing residence pathways. New Zealand locks the gates open via FTA.
- 1,000 working holiday visas a year for young Indians coming to New Zealand. Zero for young New Zealanders.
- Australia and the UK signed FTAs with India and kept the policy levers to control numerical caps on Indian student admissions. New Zealand signed them away.
2. Unfair Market Access
- India phases out tariffs on New Zealand over 10 years and permanently excludes 30% of tariff lines, while New Zealand lifts 100% of tariff lines immediately. Huge market access disparities emerge.
- India protected its dairy, beef, vehicles, electronics, tea, coffee, sugar, gold, jewellery, medical devices and plastics. New Zealand kept tariffs on absolutely nothing. Kiwi factory workers, textile and clothing makers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device producers and steel firms all face heavy Indian competition on day one.
- A large number of New Zealand’s main exports are specifically excluded, including dairy and beef, which are two of the largest categories by value.
- India can slap “anti-dumping” tariffs back on our exports if it claims New Zealand is selling too cheaply. India runs more of these cases than any country in the world, and the deal gives New Zealand no way to dispute.
- New Zealand opened every services sector to Indian companies except for a short reservation list. India kept every services sector out of the FTA, except a short list to be included.
3. Manufacturing
- New Zealand manufacturers are forced to compete with cheaper labour in India under the FTA with zero market protection.
- Roughly $389 million in additional industrial imports from India by 2036, concentrated in manufacturing, clothing, textiles and metals, while industrial employment in New Zealand falls in the same window.
- Any tariff, quota or buy-NZ-made rule on industrial goods would breach the agreement. The standard policy tools other countries use to rebuild domestic manufacturing are surrendered.
4. Foreign Direct Investment Clause
- US$20 billion of New Zealand investment to India within 15 years.
- The agreement includes a rebalancing clause allowing India to reimpose or raise tariffs if New Zealand fails to meet its commitment to promote US$20 billion in private-sector investment over 15 years.
- US$20 billion redirected to India is US$20 billion not flowing into New Zealand businesses, infrastructure or housing.
5. Labour Market Pressure
- Indian student visa holders work 20 hours a week during study and stay on under locked-in 2, 3 and 4 year post-study work visas. They compete for entry-level New Zealand jobs while Kiwi graduates leave for Australia.
- New Zealand wages become structurally lowered when New Zealand workers compete with Indian workers who have a far lower standard of living in the same labour market.
- New Zealand is banned from requiring employers to advertise jobs to Kiwis before hiring Indian workers under the main channels.
- A future government cannot put back labour market tests or caps on the various visa channels.
6. Sovereignty
- Climate-related trade conditions impose regulatory burdens on New Zealand exporters while providing no guarantee that India, one of the world's largest emitters, will meet equivalent obligations.
- More than 30 international frameworks are written into the FTA across the intellectual property, sustainable development and cultural trade chapters, including UNDRIP, the Paris Agreement, the UN 2030 Agenda, the Convention on Biological Diversity and ILO declarations. New Zealanders never voted on any of this.
- The FTA includes retail CBDC implementation as a bilateral cooperation objective.
7. Dairy and Horticulture
- Core dairy is permanently excluded.
- All meat except sheep meat, which India doesn’t produce, is permanently excluded.
- New Zealand must commercialise India’s apple, kiwifruit, apiculture and honey industries by assisting India’s plant variety rights regime, sharing packhouse and cold-chain expertise, establishing research and authentication centres in India, and much more.
- India can suspend market access in any of these industries if India judges New Zealand has underdelivered. This support does not count towards the US$20 billion investment.
- Most honey and wine are excluded. Only premium-priced mānuka honey and wine get tariff reductions.
- Kiwifruit reduced tariff quota represents 2.5% of New Zealand kiwifruit exports by year 6. India never becomes a major market.
8. How This Stacks Up Against China’s FTA
- China: 98% of tariffs are duty-free today. India: 30% of India FTA lines never reach zero tariffs.
- China: Dairy is tariff-free. India: Dairy is completely excluded from the FTA
- China: No investment, no clawback. India: US$20 billion into India or benefits clawed back.
- China: All specialised worker visas capped at 1,800 total. India: 11 visa channels, only three capped, the other eight uncapped, including the Specialist channel which has no Chinese equivalent.
- China: 3 years negotiating time. India: The substantive negotiating round was 9 months across 5 formal rounds (March–December 2025). Discussions had been dormant from February 2015 until the round restarted under National’s first-term political commitment to sign, giving Indian officials huge negotiating leverage.
For all of the above, the Government's own commissioned modelling projects an annual GDP gain of approximately $382 million by 2036. That is smaller than what the New Zealand government currently borrows in a fortnight.
General References:
RCR Blog Posts:
https://rcr.media/blog/the-nz-india-free-trade-agreement-analysed/
RCR Interviews:
https://rcr.media/episodes/john-alcock-aliquid-melius-director-cbdcs-in-the-india-fta/
https://rcr.media/episodes/john-mclean-lawyer-citizen-blogger-undrip-in-the-india-fta/
Official Government Documents:
Text of the NZ-India FTA: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements-concluded-but-not-in-force/new-zealand-india-free-trade-agreement/text-of-the-agreement
Other resources: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements-concluded-but-not-in-force/new-zealand-india-free-trade-agreement/resources
References To The Further Information:
Immigration
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 8K (Schedule of Specific Commitments on Temporary Movement of Natural Persons – New Zealand). Defines the Business Visitors, Intra-Corporate Transferees (Executives, Managers, Specialists), Installers and Servicers, Contractual Services Suppliers, Independent Professionals and Family Entry channels. Specialist definition at Annex 8K Section B.
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 8L (Temporary Employment Entry). Section A 600 cap for iconic Indian occupations (100 yoga, 250 chefs, 50 music teachers, 200 AYUSH practitioners). Section B 4,400 cap for skills-shortage occupations (1,000 IT, 1,000 engineering, 700 construction, 500 teachers, 900 health).
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 8F (Students Mobility and Post-Study Work Visas). Bans numerical limits on Indian student admissions. Locks in 2, 3 and 4-year post-study work visas.
- NZ-India FTA, Side Letter on Work and Holiday Visa. 1,000 inbound to NZ per year. India's reciprocal commitment is contingent on India implementing such a scheme with any country.
- NZ-India FTA, Article 8C.3.4(a) and (b). Bans numerical caps and labour market tests on most channels.
- MBIE, “Life After Study At A Glance.” 47 percent of Indian student visa holders transition to permanent residence, the highest rate of any nationality.
- National Interest Analysis (A.15A) Section 4.7.2. MFAT itself acknowledges potential for an increase in immigration fraud and asylum claims under the new visa channels.
- For the Five Eyes immigration tightening claim:
- Canada: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) study permit caps for 2024 (485,000) and 2025 (437,000); Spousal Open Work Permit restrictions effective 21 January 2025.
- United Kingdom: Home Office Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 590 (2024); House of Commons Library briefings CBP-9920 and CBP-10267; UK Government Immigration White Paper, May 2025 (proposed extension of Indefinite Leave to Remain qualifying period from 5 to 10 years).
- Australia: Department of Home Affairs National Planning Level cap of 270,000 new international student commencements for 2025; Genuine Student test (replaced Genuine Temporary Entrant requirement in March 2024).
- United States: White House Proclamation of 19 September 2025 (US$100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions); US Department of Homeland Security press release 27 August 2025.
Unfair market access
- NZ-India FTA, Appendix 2A-2 (New Zealand Schedule of Tariff Commitments). Every line at zero on entry into force.
- NZ-India FTA, Appendix 2A-1 (India Schedule of Tariff Commitments). 30 percent of tariff lines permanently excluded by line count.
- National Interest Analysis Section 4.1.2. MFAT's own admission that “30 percent of India's tariff lines were excluded from tariff liberalisation.”
- NZ-India FTA, Article 5.11. Strips Chapter 19 dispute settlement on anti-dumping, countervailing and global safeguards.
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 8I (NZ Schedule of Non-Conforming Measures). NZ's negative-list reservation list.
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 8H (India Schedule of Specific Commitments). India's positive-list schedule and full public-sector lockout.
- WTO anti-dumping initiation statistics. WTO anti-dumping initiation statistics. India is the world's top cumulative user of anti-dumping investigations since 1995, with around 854 initiations against 700 by the United States. WTO Appellate Body non-functional since 11 December 2019.
Manufacturing
- Economic Impact Assessment of the NZ-India FTA, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research (commissioned by MFAT, February 2026), Figure 6. Industrial production-worker employment falls 0.07 percent by 2036.
- Motu EIA, Table E3. 2036 import surge from India by sector: clothing +$119m (62.8% growth), other manufacturing +$179m, textiles +$59m, metals and metal products +$32m.
- NZ-India FTA, Chapter 9 (Investment Promotion and Cooperation). Government commitment to promote NZ investment into India.
- Stats NZ. Textile, leather, clothing and footwear manufacturing (ANZSIC C13) employment data showing the sector's existing exposure.
Foreign Direct Investment clause
- NZ-India FTA, Article 9.2. The US$20 billion FDI promotion commitment over 15 years.
- NZ-India FTA, Article 9.10. Permits India to apply “proportionate remedial measures” rebalancing tariff concessions if NZ underdelivers.
- NZ-India FTA, Article 9.11. Strips Chapter 9 from Chapter 19 dispute settlement. NZ has no panel route to challenge an Indian determination.
- Motu EIA, Appendix B6. Investment modelled generically as a fixed share of GDP. The US$20 billion FDI commitment is not separately netted in the headline GDP figure.
Labour market pressure
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 8F, paragraphs 2, 4 and 5. Uncapped Indian student admissions; locked-in 2, 3 and 4-year post-study work visas.
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 8K, Section B. Intra-Corporate Transferee (including Specialist) definition. Salary is “paid entirely by” the employing enterprise. No NZ wage parity, no minimum wage threshold specified.
- NZ-India FTA, Article 8C.3.4(b). Ban on labour market tests for most channels.
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 8L, Section B paragraph 3. Status-quo lock at the five-year review. Caps cannot be reduced unilaterally.
- National Interest Analysis Section 4.7.2. MFAT acknowledges practical challenges enforcing CSS wage parity because CSS workers “will be paid by their home employer in India.”
- Motu EIA Section 4.4.1 and Figure 6. Industrial production-worker employment falls 0.07 percent by 2036.
Sovereignty
- NZ-India FTA, Chapter 12 (Trade and Sustainable Development). Affirms Paris Agreement and ILO conventions. Article 12.14 strips the chapter from dispute settlement.
- NZ-India FTA, Chapter 13 (Cultural, Trade, Traditional Knowledge and Economic Cooperation). Article 13.2.2(a) affirms UNDRIP. Article 13.6 strips the chapter from dispute settlement.
- NZ-India FTA, Article 8A.8. Bars NZ from requiring financial data to be located in NZ for cross-border financial services suppliers.
- NZ-India FTA, Article 8A.11 paragraph 4. Commits NZ to collaborate on payment system integration with India's instant payments network.
- NZ-India FTA, Article 8A.14(j). Commits the parties to study, design and implement central bank digital currencies.
Dairy and Horticulture
- NZ-India FTA, Appendix 2A-1 (India tariff schedule). Permanent exclusion of HS 0401 to 0406 (raw dairy). Permanent exclusion of HS 0201 and 0202 (beef). Permanent exclusion of most processed fruit and vegetable products.
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 14A (Agriculture Cooperation and Technical Assistance Thematic Areas). Apple Action Plan, Apiculture and Honey Cooperation Action Plan. Paragraph 5 binds NZ to support India's plant variety rights regime. Paragraph 5(c) binds NZ to share packhouse and cold-chain expertise. The honey plan establishes a Centre of Excellence in India for honey research, testing and productivity.
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 2B paragraph 9. Permits India to suspend the apple, kiwifruit and mānuka honey TRQs in whole or in part if it determines NZ has underdelivered.
- NZ-India FTA, Annex 7C (Wine, Whisky and Other Distilled Spirits). Confirms the 150 percent tariff stays on wine below US$5 per 750ml CIF; phased reductions for premium wine.
- NZ-India FTA, Side Letter on Dairy. The only forward-looking dairy concession.
- Stats NZ goods export statistics. Dairy approximately 30 percent of NZ goods exports.
How this stacks up against China's FTA
- NZ-China FTA (signed 2008, Upgrade Protocol 2022). Full text and MFAT overview at mfat.govt.nz.
- NZ-China FTA Chapter 11 (Investment), Chapter 16 (Dispute Settlement), Annex 11 (Mode 4 Specialised Workers).
- NZ-China Working Holiday Arrangement. Reciprocal 1,000 places each way.
- NZ-China FTA dairy tariff phase-out completed 1 January 2024.
- NZ-China FTA beef country-specific safeguard volume mechanism, growing toward 206,000 tonnes per year.
- MFAT NZ-China FTA Tariff Outcomes summary.
Our Contributor
Free trade originally meant to trade one thing for another thing. By reducing trade barriers in exchange for more people is not the true meaning of free trade.
I think we have given away far too much control of our goods. We could run out of food here in Nz. I feel we have been sold out. No more Indian Immigration, they are very tribal, I worked with a lot of Indian girls in a resthome, they do not like to be told how to treat our elderly.
The entire India Free Trade Agreement needs to be renegotiated.
There are too many fish-hooks that do not favour New Zealand's best interests.
As it stands, it's biased in favour of India's well-being and economic interests.
Renegotiate the entire India Free Trade Agreement.
New Zealand does not benefit in anyway as it stands.
To the New Zealand Government,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Free Trade Agreement with India.
New Zealanders are repeatedly told that these agreements will deliver prosperity, yet ordinary citizens continue to see local industries undermined, wages pressured downward, infrastructure stretched, and housing affordability worsen while multinational corporations and large exporters benefit disproportionately.
India is an enormous and rapidly expanding economy with vastly different labour costs, environmental standards, population pressures, and market conditions compared with New Zealand. Entering into an FTA without rigorous protections risks exposing New Zealand businesses, workers, farmers, and consumers to unfair competitive pressures that many simply cannot survive.
There are also serious concerns regarding immigration, labour exploitation, and the long-term impact on social cohesion and public services. Trade agreements cannot be treated in isolation from their wider economic and demographic consequences. New Zealand citizens deserve transparency about the real costs, not just optimistic economic modelling.
Furthermore, India has a well-documented history of protecting its own domestic industries while expecting greater access abroad. New Zealand must not enter into an agreement where market access is unequal or where our sovereignty and regulatory independence are weakened in favour of foreign commercial interests.
Before progressing any further, the Government should:
* Release all negotiation details for full public scrutiny.
* Conduct independent economic impact assessments.
* Guarantee protections for local industries and workers.
* Ensure that no provisions undermine New Zealand’s ability to control immigration, employment standards, environmental protections, or foreign ownership.
New Zealand’s future should not be traded away through agreements negotiated behind closed doors and sold to the public with vague promises of growth. Trade policy must serve the people of New Zealand first — not international political ambitions or corporate interests.
I urge the Government to reject any agreement that compromises the economic security, sovereignty, and social stability of New Zealand.
I’m concerned about all these imbalances in this publicly undiscussed agreement . No transparency here much .
I think this has been a rushed Job and appears very one sided. This is even worse than I thought. I think India benefits more than we do. There is niot one point that has been identified that makes me feel comfortable. I recommend that does not get ratified in it's current form.
The issue, in my view, began before the COVID-19 pandemic, when New Zealand welcomed large numbers of international students, including many from countries such as India. I have no issue with individuals themselves; my concern is with the policies implemented by successive governments, whether Labour or National, as there appeared to be little difference in approach.
Many international students came to New Zealand to study and train in professional fields such as accounting and other skilled careers. However, many students were led to believe by both government and non-government organisations that they would be able to secure employment in their chosen profession after arriving in New Zealand. In reality, many were unable to find work in the fields they had trained for.
Most students had taken out substantial loans to study abroad, and much of the income they earned in New Zealand went towards repaying these debts rather than contributing significantly to the local economy. In many cases, their families could not afford the financial burden associated with these loans.
As a result, many students moved into lower-skilled or unrelated sectors of employment, particularly within the hospitality industry. This increased competition in industries that were already under pressure and, in some cases, contributed to an oversupply of workers. Similar concerns have also been raised in sectors such as retirement and aged care facilities, where many New Zealand workers feel they can no longer remain in the industry due to low wages and changing employment conditions.
I have personally witnessed situations that raised serious concerns:
A major catering company in New Zealand allegedly offered a Chinese worker residency in exchange for accepting a lower hourly rate of pay. This raises important questions about fairness and how local workers are expected to compete under such conditions.
Prior to COVID-19, I worked full-time for an employment agency for more than 10 years. One day I received a phone call informing me that I was no longer required. No explanation was provided. I later discovered that many other local workers had also been dismissed. Approximately six months later, I learned that the same company had brought in around 50 migrant workers from Latin America to work for the agency.
When I contacted immigration authorities and other government agencies to ask how such practices were allowed to occur, there appeared to be little interest in investigating the matter or explaining the process.
I also contacted politicians regarding the issue, but there seemed to be little willingness to examine how a company could lay off local workers and then recruit large numbers of migrant workers from overseas.
In my opinion, there needs to be stronger protection for the local workforce. We now have young New Zealanders leaving high school and struggling to find employment opportunities. Many people feel that jobs are increasingly being filled by migrant workers rather than local New Zealanders, regardless of race or background.
The important question is: what protections has the government put in place to ensure fair opportunities and job security for working New Zealanders?
When I lived in England, it was my understanding that obtaining residency required living and working there for a much longer period, often around 10 years. This is why I question how, in New Zealand, some pathways to residency appear to allow people working in sectors such as aged care or caregiving to gain residency in a significantly shorter timeframe, sometimes around three years or possibly less.
Once residency is granted, migrants may also have opportunities to sponsor family members, including parents, to join them in New Zealand. In addition, New Zealand residency can provide future access to opportunities in Australia through the long-standing arrangements between the two countries.
My concern is whether New Zealand’s immigration and residency policies are being managed carefully enough, particularly in relation to workforce needs, housing, infrastructure, and long-term economic impacts. I also wonder whether Australia may eventually reconsider or tighten aspects of its arrangements with New Zealand if it believes immigration controls here are too relaxed.
These concerns are not directed at individual migrants, but rather at government policy and the need to ensure there are proper safeguards, thorough background checks, and balanced immigration settings that protect opportunities and security for New Zealand citizens and long-term residents.
I believe many New Zealanders are concerned about whether the current system adequately balances the need for skilled workers with the protection of local employment opportunities, public services, and long-term national interests.
I am concerned that the New Zealand–India Free Trade Agreement creates significant long-term commitments around immigration, labour mobility, investment, market access and broader policy settings that have not received sufficient public scrutiny.
In particular, I am concerned that the agreement may reduce New Zealand’s future ability to control immigration and labour market settings, expose local manufacturing and industry to increased low-cost competition, require major outward investment commitments, provide limited reciprocal access in key export sectors, and extend beyond trade into broader sovereignty and regulatory areas.
I am also concerned that, compared with previous agreements such as the China FTA, New Zealand appears to be making significantly larger concessions while receiving relatively modest projected economic gains in return.
I recommend that:
I recommend that the agreement not be ratified in its current form.
Need more dicussion, New Zealand should not be disadvantaged.
The India FTA will kill NZ industries and kiwi communities.
New Zealand should experiece no disadavantages from this agreement, I oppose this agreement.
I would prefer that this deal was delaed for a while so it can be scrutinised thourghly so NZ could get a better deal than what has been agreed on at this stage.
A most disturbing and shocking agreement that will most probably have a devastating effect on most aspects of New Zealand life and business. I am unable to see why any Kiwi patriot would sign up to such an agreement and place us in such a precarious position.
Hi,
Unfortunately I did not get to this email in enough time to email my concerns about the India FTA. However what about if a referendum was held about it. If a referendum is held and the government dismisses it then the government are going to be seen to pushing aside the thoughts of those that are electing them. This is something that Labour would have a field day with would cause ructions with NZ First.
Brgds
Mark
Dreadful negotiation, hand over passports for who knows how many immigrants, tie us to the Paris Climate hoax, cement indigenous rights, why not just become a state of India?