Trade Minister Todd McClay says Winston Peters is wrong to claim that new visa rules linked to a trade deal with India will unfairly target Indian workers.

The disagreement came into public view on 5 July 2026, when Peters — who is NZ First leader and also handles Foreign Affairs — quoted from a government briefing he said warned that the rules might not follow the trade agreement. Peters made four specific points: that Indian citizens would face extra checks other countries don't have; that they couldn't apply for a temporary work visa while already in New Zealand, unlike people from other countries; that their families would be treated differently; and that time on a temporary visa wouldn't count toward permanent residency the way it does for citizens from other trade agreement countries.

McClay responded by saying New Zealand would follow all parts of the trade deal. He confirmed the government is creating a new visa type just for India, but said he couldn't go into detail because ministers were still deciding on it. He pointed out that the deal also includes an unlimited visa channel for specialists from India that has no extra work checks.

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said the real problem was how Peters handled this. Coalition governments usually sort out disagreements quietly in cabinet meetings, not by leaking official papers to the news before a decision is made. Her comment suggests National sees Peters' move as breaking the rules of how the government is supposed to work together, rather than as a real policy argument.

The core issue here is that the document at the centre of the row remains secret. Peters says it shows officials were worried about breaking the agreement. McClay says there's nothing to worry about. But because neither side will release the actual briefing, it's impossible to check which one is right.

What complicates things further is McClay's own admission that no final decisions have been made yet. That means the exact rules Peters described might not be what actually gets approved in the end.

Peters' position makes political sense on its face. NZ First gets a lot of voter support from people concerned about immigration numbers, and India is already one of New Zealand's biggest sources of workers. The party has reason to look like it's keeping an eye on this deal. Whether Peters' specific complaints hold up when you read the actual trade agreement text is a different question — and one we can't properly answer while the document stays under wraps.

The broader context is that New Zealand made firm promises in the India trade deal about how Indian workers would be treated. If the new rules impose conditions on Indian citizens that don't apply to workers from other countries with similar deals, it could technically lead to a dispute. McClay's statement that New Zealand will meet its obligations is clear and direct, but until the final rules are published alongside the agreement's own promises, no one outside government can check whether Peters raised something genuine or not.

McClay used the occasion to announce a National Party plan to focus trade talks on seven countries — shifting the conversation back to the government's trade plans rather than the coalition disagreement.