Parliament bill

India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill

Select committee · Introduced by Hon Todd McClay · National Party

Last checked
July 15, 2026 15:47
Source captured
July 15, 2026 15:47
Source
View on Parliament.nz

What this bill does

The bill passed its first reading 93–29; the vote was not unanimous. According to the Minister, high Indian tariffs and restricted quotas have limited New Zealand exporters’ access to India. The bill aims to bring the New Zealand–India free-trade agreement into force by aligning New Zealand law with its obligations. The bill enables preferential tariff treatment for qualifying Indian goods and sets systems for New Zealand exporters to obtain and use India-bound quotas for apples, kiwifruit, mānuka honey, and albumins. It also raises the consent threshold for certain Indian investments in significant New Zealand business assets.

AI-assisted summary based on the bill text and linked Hansard debates.

Latest voting result

June 25, 2026
First reading: Passed Party vote

Ayes 93 · Noes 29

  • National Party Aye · 48 votes
  • Labour Party Aye · 34 votes
  • ACT Party Aye · 11 votes
  • Green Party No · 15 votes
  • NZ First Party No · 8 votes
  • Te Pāti Māori No · 4 votes
  • Ferris, Tākuta No
  • Kapa-Kingi, Mariameno No

View the vote in Hansard

Arguments raised in Parliament

AI-assisted summary of the linked Hansard debates. Each point is grounded in the cited transcript.

Arguments for

New Zealand goods exporters will receive $43 million in tariff savings from the agreement’s first day, reducing the cost barrier to selling into India.

New Zealand exporters will gain access to India’s 1.4 billion consumers, which is claimed to diversify export markets and support export growth.

New Zealand service exporters will obtain improved access in nearly 100 additional Indian services sectors, expanding their opportunities beyond India’s existing WTO commitments.

Apple, kiwifruit, and mānuka honey exporters can use preferential Indian quota access because the bill enables new export-quota administration systems to be created by regulation.

Arguments against

New Zealand may obtain only limited economic gains because exporters will compete against countries with their own Indian FTAs, with the estimated benefit only 0.07 percent of GDP over a decade.

New Zealand exporters’ tariff benefits could be withdrawn after 15 years because India alone can judge whether New Zealand made sufficient effort toward the investment commitment.

India-specific restrictive immigration settings could damage New Zealand’s bilateral relationship and trigger retaliatory trade action, putting the agreement’s benefits at risk.

Nuance and qualifications

Core dairy products are excluded from the FTA, limiting benefits for that sector, although New Zealand secured outcomes for bulk infant formula, peptones, albumins, and re-exporting.

The FTA’s references to UNDRIP are stated not to impose obligations on New Zealand law or Government policy, despite their inclusion in the agreement.

Bill text

India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill

Version published June 22, 2026 00:00.

India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill EXPLANATORY NOTE GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT This Bill is an omnibus Bill introduced in accordance with Standing Order 267(1)(a) (dealing with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy). The single broad policy is to amend New Zealand law as part of implementing the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India, signed at New Delhi on 27 April 2026 (the FTA ). This Bill is necessary to bring the FTA into force and will enable New Zealand to implement its obligations under the FTA. Although most of the obligations in the FTA are already met by New Zealand’s existing domestic legal and policy regime, the Bill sets out a number of legislative amendments and new provisions to align New Zealand’s domestic law with certain obligations in the FTA. The Bill amends the following: the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 to enable a tariff-rate quota ( TRQ ) for albumins under the FTA to be brought within the existing licence allocation system for dairy export licences; and the Overseas Investment Act 2005 and the Overseas Investment Regulation…
Read full bill text
India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill EXPLANATORY NOTE GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT This Bill is an omnibus Bill introduced in accordance with Standing Order 267(1)(a) (dealing with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy). The single broad policy is to amend New Zealand law as part of implementing the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India, signed at New Delhi on 27 April 2026 (the FTA ). This Bill is necessary to bring the FTA into force and will enable New Zealand to implement its obligations under the FTA. Although most of the obligations in the FTA are already met by New Zealand’s existing domestic legal and policy regime, the Bill sets out a number of legislative amendments and new provisions to align New Zealand’s domestic law with certain obligations in the FTA. The Bill amends the following: the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 to enable a tariff-rate quota ( TRQ ) for albumins under the FTA to be brought within the existing licence allocation system for dairy export licences; and the Overseas Investment Act 2005 and the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005 to increase from $100 million to $200 million the monetary threshold above which consent is required for investments by non-government investors from India in “significant business assets” in New Zealand; and the Tariff Act 1988 to provide a provisional transitional safeguard mechanism for imports from India; and the New Zealand Tariff to enable the application of the preferential tariff rates agreed in the FTA and to implement obligations relating to the tariff treatment of goods returned after repair or alteration; and the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to allow the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service to designate an authorised certification body to certify that goods originate in New Zealand for the purposes of the FTA; and the Customs and Excise Regulations 1996 to implement the agreed rules of origin and product specific rules of origin for goods imported from India. In addition, Part 4 of the Bill enables separate TRQ administration systems for apples, kiwifruit, and mānuka honey to be established via regulations. The intention is that Part 4 will be separated out as a separate Bill at the Committee of the Whole House stage. A copy of the FTA can be found at: 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 DEPARTMENTAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is required to prepare a disclosure statement to assist with the scrutiny of this Bill. The disclosure statement provides access to information about the policy development of the Bill and identifies any significant or unusual legislative features of the Bill. A copy of the statement can be found at http://legislation.govt.nz/disclosure.aspx?type=bill&subtype=government&year=2026&no=327 REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT A national interest analysis has been prepared that takes the place of a regulatory impact statement. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade produced the national interest analysis on 27 April 2026 to help inform the main policy decisions taken by the Government relating to the contents of this Bill. The national interest analysis was presented to the House of Representatives on 28 April 2026, in accordance with Standing Order 405(2) (presentation and referral of treaties). A copy of this national interest analysis can be found at— 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 CLAUSE BY CLAUSE ANALYSIS Clause 1 is the Title clause. Clause 2 provides for the Bill to commence on a date set by an Order in Council. If the date on which the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India (the FTA ) comes into effect is known before the Bill is passed, clause 2 will be amended accordingly. AMENDMENTS TO DAIRY INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING ACT 2001 Part 1 amends the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001. Clause 4 amends the definition of quota year in section 5(1) of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 to include the quota year for India. Clause 4 also inserts new definitions into section 5(1), and amends existing definitions, in relation to the FTA and new reserve albumin export licences. An eligible reserve albumin participant is defined as a person who is eligible to hold an albumin export licence and who,— based on their export volume history in the albumin designated market, is only entitled to receive a share of albumin export licences (not including reserve albumin export licences) that equates to a volume of less than 50 tonnes of albumins for the relevant quota year; or does not have any export volume history in the albumin designated market for that quota year. Clause 6 amends section 26AA of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 to prohibit an eligible reserve participant from transferring any reserve export licences that have been allocated to them (this prohibition has been moved from Schedule 5B). Clause 7 inserts new section 26AB , which empowers the making of regulations to reserve 10% of albumin export licences per quota year for any eligible reserve albumin participants. New section 26AB(3) sets out the matters that the Minister of Agriculture must be satisfied of before recommending that regulations be made, including that the proposal to reserve the licences is consistent with the FTA. New section 26AB also provides that certain reserve albumin export licences must not be transferred. Clauses 8 to 11 amend various sections of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 to refer to eligible reserve albumin participants. Clause 12 amends Schedule 5A to include India as a designated market for milk albumin. Clause 13 replaces Schedule 5B so that it includes rules for the allocation of reserve albumin export licences to eligible reserve albumin participants. The rules include a rule that the maximum number of reserve albumin export licences that an eligible reserve albumin participant can be allocated is the number of licences that equates to a volume of 50 tonnes of albumins in the albumin designated market. AMENDMENTS TO OVERSEAS INVESTMENT ACT 2005 AND OVERSEAS INVESTMENT REGULATIONS 2005 AMENDMENT TO OVERSEAS INVESTMENT ACT 2005 Subpart 1 of Part 2 amends the Overseas Investment Act 2005. Clause 15 amends section 61A of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to add the FTA to the list of agreements that may be implemented by regulations to be made under that section. Section 61A provides for regulations regarding alternative monetary thresholds for overseas investments in significant business assets. AMENDMENTS TO OVERSEAS INVESTMENT REGULATIONS 2005 Subpart 2 of Part 2 amends the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005 to set an alternative monetary threshold of $200 million for investments in significant business assets by individuals and enterprises from India for the purpose of providing services in New Zealand. Clauses 17 to 23 — insert references to the FTA and defined terms relating to the new alternative monetary threshold: extend the ownership and control test in regulation 86 to include an India individual as a qualifying individual for the purposes of the new alternative monetary threshold: extend the existing alternative monetary threshold for type 2, type 3, and type 5 investors, provided for in regulations 92, 94, and 96B, respectively, to include India individuals and enterprises: make other minor amendments. Clause 24 amends Schedule 1AA of the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005 to provide for transitional provisions related to the alternative monetary threshold. AMENDMENTS TO TARIFF ACT 1988, TARIFF, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ACT 2018, AND CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REGULATIONS 1996 AMENDMENTS TO TARIFF ACT 1988 Clause 26 amends the definition of free trade agreement in section 15A of the Tariff Act 1988 by adding the FTA to the list of agreements in that definition. Clause 27 amends section 15H of the Tariff Act 1988 by adding the FTA to the list of free trade agreements under which the Minister may determine that there are grounds for applying a provisional transitional safeguard measure. AMENDMENTS TO TARIFF Subpart 2 of Part 3 amends the Tariff. Clauses 29 to 31 — insert the preferential abbreviation for India into lists of preferential abbreviations in note 2 of the Tariff and the footnotes to the Tariff (which list countries whose produce or manufactured goods may enter New Zealand free of duty in defined circumstances); and insert a reference to India, and an abbreviation of its name, into the list of preferential countries and preferential abbreviations in note 3 of the Tariff. This allows preferential Tariff rates to be applied to goods imported from India. Clause 32 inserts into Part II of the Tariff a concession for goods re-entered into New Zealand after repair or alteration in India. AMENDMENTS TO CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ACT 2018 Clause 34 amends section 435 of the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to add references to the FTA and India. That section allows the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service to designate an authorised certification body to certify that goods originate in New Zealand for the purposes of a free trade agreement. The amendments allow an authorised certification body to be designated in respect of India. AMENDMENT TO CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REGULATIONS 1996 Clause 36 inserts new regulation 51ZZP into the Customs and Excise Regulations 1996. New regulation 51ZZP prescribes when goods are treated as the produce or manufacture of India for the purposes of the Customs and Excise Act 2018 and the Tariff Act 1988. INDIA EXPORT QUOTAS (APPLES, KIWIFRUIT, AND MĀNUKA HONEY) PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Clause 37 provides that the purpose of Part 4 is to establish a framework for quota management systems for apples, kiwifruit, and mānuka honey. Clause 38 is the interpretation clause for Part 4 . Clause 39 provides that the transitional, savings, and related provisions in Schedule 3 apply in relation to Part 4 . Clause 40 provides that Part 4 binds the Crown. QUOTA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Clause 41 provides that the quota manager for each specified product (apples, kiwifruit, or mānuka honey) is either the quota manager named in regulations or, if there are no regulations, the Ministry. Clause 42 requires each quota manager to operate a quota management system and to issue export certificates. Clause 43 provides that regulations must establish a quota management system for each specified product under the FTA. A quota management system must set out the methodology for the quota manager to allocate shares of the quota under the FTA (the allocation methodology ). This clause also specifies what the allocation methodology must include. Clause 44 provides that regulations must establish a review process for decisions relating to quota allocations (other than decisions made by the Ministry in its role as quota manager). Clause 45 provides that a quota holder is only permitted to transfer or return all or part of their quota allocation in accordance with a process set out in regulations. Clause 46 sets out the minimum notification requirements for a quota manager. Clause 47 requires quota managers to provide information relating to quota allocations and export certificates to the relevant authority in India. EXPORTING SPECIFIED PRODUCTS UNDER QUOTA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Clause 48 provides that a person is permitted to export a specified product to India under a quota management system only if they have a quota allocation and export certification for the specified product, and the export is carried out in accordance with the export certificate and any other requirements set in the quota management system. Clause 49 provides that regulations must be made that provide a system for quota managers to issue export certificates, and sets out minimum requirements for those regulations. Clause 50 provides that a quota manager may cancel, suspend, or refuse to issue an export certificate in certain circumstances. Clause 51 provides that a person may seek a review of a quota manager’s decision to cancel, suspend, or refuse to issue an export certificate. The quota manager must appoint a reviewer, who must consider the matter and determine whether to confirm or withdraw the decision being reviewed. Clause 52 provides that a person may appeal a reviewer’s determination in the High Court. GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 53 provides that a quota manager may require quota holders and applicants for quota allocations to provide information for certain purposes. Clause 54 authorises the Ministry, quota managers, and the New Zealand Customs Service to share information, including commercially sensitive information, for certain purposes. Clause 55 requires each quota manager (other than the Ministry) and any other person involved in making related decisions to manage any conflicts of interest in accordance with a management process. Clause 55 also sets out what the process must include, and provides that regulations may specify additional technical or operational requirements. Clause 56 provides that a quota manager may audit a quota holder in accordance with an audit process prescribed in regulations. Clause 57 provides that the Minister may commission an audit of a quota manager. Clause 58 requires a quota manager or quota holder that is being audited to provide records, documents, or other information for the purposes of the audit. Clause 59 provides various offences under Part 4 , and the maximum fines for those offences. Clause 60 provides that, for an offence under clause 59(1)(a) to (c) , the prosecution is not required to prove the defendant’s intent. Clause 61 provides a defence for any proceedings for an offence under clause 59 , and the process that the defendant must follow to rely on the defence. Clause 62 provides that a search warrant can be issued in certain circumstances. Clause 63 provides that the Ministry or a quota manager may authorise individuals to execute search warrants. Clause 64 protects an authorised person from civil or criminal liability when exercising a power under Part 4 . Clause 65 provides that regulations may set a fee, or authorise quota managers to set a fee, to recover quota managers’ costs. Clause 66 provides that regulations may set a levy, or authorise quota managers to set a levy, to fund the costs associated with co-operation activities under the FTA. Clause 67 provides that a quota manager may refuse to perform or exercise a function, power, or duty until a fee or levy is paid. Clause 68 provides that a quota manager can recover any unpaid fee or levy as a debt due. Clause 69 authorises the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to make regulations under Part 4 . Clause 70 provides that neither the Crown nor a quota manager is liable for any loss or damage that is beyond their control. Clause 71 sets out how a quota manager may give a written notice or an authorisation. Clause 72 provides that clause 73 amends the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999. Clause 73 amends regulation 33 of the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 to specify that a function of the New Zealand Kiwifruit Board is to be a quota manager under Part 4 , if it is appointed to do so. The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Act 2026 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on a single date set by Order in Council. An Order in Council made under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 3 Principal Act This Part amends the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001. 4 Section 5 amended (Interpretation) In section 5(1), definition of eligible participant , paragraph (b), after reserve export licences , insert and reserve albumin export licences . In section 5(1), definition of export licence , after reserve export licence , insert and a reserve albumin export licence . In section 5(1), definition of quota year , paragraph (a), before the European Union , insert India, . In section 5(1), definition of total export volume history , replace eligible participants and eligible reserve participants with eligible participants, eligible reserve participants, and eligible reserve albumin participants . In section 5(1), insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: albumin designated market means the tariff quota for albumins of New Zealand origin, as provided for in the TRQ on Albumins, paragraph 5, Section B, Annex 2A of the India FTA, including any amendment or any successor to that annex albumin export licence means an export licence for the albumin designated market albumin reserve portion means the portion of available albumin export licences that have been reserved under regulations made under section 26AB eligible reserve albumin participant , in relation to the allocation of reserve albumin export licences, means a person who— a is eligible to hold an albumin export licence; and b based on their export volume history, is one of the following: i a person who does not fall within the definition of eligible participant for the albumin designated market because they do not meet the criteria set out in paragraph (b) of that definition: ii an eligible participant who is only entitled to receive a share of albumin export licences (not including reserve albumin export licences) that equates to a volume of less than 50 tonnes of albumins for the quota year that the participant is applying for India FTA means the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India, done at New Delhi on 27 April 2026 reserve albumin export licence means an albumin export licence that has been reserved under regulations made under section 26AB 5 Cross-heading above section 24 replaced Replace the cross-heading above section 24 with: Export licences 6 Section 26AA amended (Reserve export licences) After section 26AA(3), insert: 3A An eligible reserve participant who is allocated reserve export licences under clause 4(1)(b) or 5(1) of Schedule 5B must not transfer those reserve export licences under section 28A . 7 New section 26AB inserted (Reserve albumin export licences) After section 26AA, insert: 26AB Reserve albumin export licences 1 For the purposes of this section, the definition of albumin export licence in section 5 does not include a reserve albumin export licence. 2 The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations that reserve 10% of albumin export licences per quota year for any eligible reserve albumin participants. 3 Before making a recommendation under subsection (2) , the Minister must be satisfied that— a there is demand for reserve albumin export licences from eligible reserve albumin participants; and b there is evidence that eligible reserve albumin participants will be able to use those reserve albumin export licences; and c the proposal to reserve the albumin export licences is consistent with— i the India FTA; and ii the purpose in section 21(1) ; and d consultation has been undertaken with holders of albumin export licences to ascertain— i the potential impact that reserving albumin export licences will have on their business; and ii their views on the creation of an albumin reserve portion. 4 An eligible reserve albumin participant who is allocated reserve albumin export licences under clause 4(1)(c) or 6(1) of Schedule 5B must not transfer those reserve albumin export licences under section 28A . 5 Regulations made under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 8 Section 27 amended (Quota compliance programmes) In section 27(1), replace eligible participants and eligible reserve participants with eligible participants, eligible reserve participants, and eligible reserve albumin participants . 9 Section 29G amended (Power to require information) In section 29G(1), after eligible reserve participant, , insert eligible reserve albumin participant, . Replace section 29G(3) with: 3 An eligible participant, eligible reserve participant, eligible reserve albumin participant, or employee or agent of a participant may not refuse to answer a question under subsection (1) on the ground that the answer would be likely to incriminate the eligible participant, eligible reserve participant, or eligible reserve albumin participant. In section 29G(4), replace eligible participant or eligible reserve participant with eligible participant, eligible reserve participant, or eligible reserve albumin participant in each place. 10 Section 29H amended (Power to audit export volume history) In section 29H(1), replace eligible participant or eligible reserve participant with eligible participant, eligible reserve participant, or eligible reserve albumin participant . 11 Section 42 amended (Disclosure of information) In section 42(2)(b), replace eligible participant or eligible reserve participant with eligible participant, eligible reserve participant, or eligible reserve albumin participant . 12 Schedule 5A amended In Schedule 5A, insert as the final item: The following table is small in size and has 3 columns. This table amends Schedule 5A of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 and should be read with that table to provide understanding of the context. India FTA tariff quota India Milk albumin, including concentrates of 2 or more whey proteins Destined for import into India under the tariff quota for albumins of New Zealand origin, as provided for in the TRQ on Albumins, paragraph 5, Section B, Annex 2A of the India FTA, including any amendment or any successor to that annex. 13 Schedule 5B replaced Replace Schedule 5B with the Schedule 5B set out in Schedule 1 of this Act. 14 Principal Act This subpart amends the Overseas Investment Act 2005. 15 Section 61A amended (Regulations regarding alternative monetary thresholds for overseas investments in significant business assets) After section 61A(1)(k), insert: l the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India, done at New Delhi on 27 April 2026. 16 Principal regulations This subpart amends the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005. 17 Regulation 84 amended (Introduction to Part 5) After regulation 84(3)(i), insert: j the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India, done at New Delhi on 27 April 2026 (the India FTA ). 18 Regulation 85 amended (Definitions) In regulation 85(1), insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: India branch means a branch of an enterprise if the branch— a is located in the India territory; and b is carrying out business activities in the India territory India enterprise means an enterprise that is constituted or organised under the law of India India individual means a natural person who— a is a national of India; or b has the right of permanent residence in India as defined by subparagraph (ii) of the definition of natural person of a Party in Article 8.1(i) of the India FTA India territory means the territory of India as defined by Article 1.2(q)(i) of the India FTA In regulation 85(1A), after Hong Kong CEP , , insert India FTA , . 19 Regulation 86 amended (Definition of ownership and control test) In regulation 86(2)(b), replace or a Hong Kong individual with a Hong Kong individual, or an India individual . In regulation 86(2)(c) and (da), replace or a UAE individual with a UAE individual, or an India individual . 20 Regulation 88 amended (Introduction to subpart 2 and interaction between regulations in Part 5) After regulation 88(2)(i), insert: j Article 8.2 of the India FTA. 21 Regulation 92 amended (Definition of type 2 investor) In regulation 92(1)(a)(i), replace or a Hong Kong individual : with , a Hong Kong individual, or an India individual: . In regulation 92(1)(a)(ii), replace or a Hong Kong enterprise with , a Hong Kong enterprise, or an India enterprise . In regulation 92(1)(a)(ii)(A) and (iii)(A), replace or the Hong Kong area ; with , the Hong Kong area, or the India territory; . In regulation 92(1)(a)(iii), replace or a Hong Kong branch with , a Hong Kong branch, or an India branch . In regulation 92(3), definition of commercial presence , after Hong Kong area , insert or the India territory . 22 Regulation 94 amended (Definition of type 3 investor) In regulation 94(1)(a)(i), replace or a UAE individual with a UAE individual, or an India individual . In regulation 94(1)(a)(ii), replace or a UAE enterprise with a UAE enterprise, or an India enterprise . In regulation 94(1)(a)(ii)(A) and (iii)(A), replace or the UAE territory with the UAE territory, or the India territory . In regulation 94(1)(a)(iii), replace or a UAE branch with a UAE branch, or an India branch . 23 Regulation 96B amended (Definition of type 5 investor) In regulation 96B(1)(a)(i), replace or a UAE individual with a UAE individual, or an India individual . In regulation 96B(1)(a)(ii), replace or a UAE enterprise with a UAE enterprise, or an India enterprise . In regulation 96B(1)(a)(ii)(A) and (iii)(A), replace or the UAE territory with the UAE territory, or the India territory . In regulation 96B(1)(a)(iii), replace or a UAE branch with a UAE branch, or an India branch . 24 Schedule 1AA amended In Schedule 1AA,— a insert the Part set out in Schedule 2 of this Act as the last Part; and b make all necessary consequential amendments. 25 Principal Act This subpart amends the Tariff Act 1988. 26 Section 15A amended (Interpretation) In section 15A, definition of free trade agreement , after paragraph (j), insert: k the India FTA In section 15A, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: India FTA means the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India, done at New Delhi on 27 April 2026 27 Section 15H amended (Provisional transitional safeguard measure) In section 15H(1)(b)(ii), replace or the EU FTA with the EU FTA, or the India FTA . 28 Principal legislation This subpart, in accordance with section 9F(1) of the Tariff Act 1988, amends the Tariff. 29 Note 2 amended In the notes to the Tariff, note 2, penultimate paragraph, after HK, , insert IN, . 30 Note 3 amended In the notes to the Tariff, note 3, after the item relating to Hong Kong, China, insert: The following table is small in size. This table is an amendment to the Tariff, note 3 and should be read with note 3 to provide understanding of the context. India IN 31 Footnotes amended In the Tariff, in each footnote, after HK, , insert IN, . 32 Part II Concessions amended In the Tariff, Part II Concessions, table, in the item relating to Concession Reference Number 66, after subsection (8), insert: The following table is small in size and has 4 columns. This table is an amendment to the Tariff, Part II Concessions and should be read with this table to provide understanding of the context. 9 Goods re-entered after repair or alteration— a in the territory of India; and b in accordance with Article 2.13 of the IN FTA. Free In the Tariff, Part II Concessions, table, in the item relating to Concession Reference Number 66, replace the item relating to DEFINITIONS with: The following table is small in size and has 4 columns. This table is an amendment to the Tariff, Part II Concessions and should be read with this table to provide understanding of the context. DEFINITIONS In this concession— EU FTA means the Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the European Union, done at Brussels on 9 July 2023: IN FTA means the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India, done at New Delhi on 27 April 2026: UAE CEPA means the New Zealand–United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, done at Abu Dhabi on 14 January 2025. 33 Principal Act This subpart amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018. 34 Section 435 amended (Certificates of origin) After section 435(6)(d), insert: e the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India, done at New Delhi on 27 April 2026 (the India FTA ). After section 435(7)(d), insert: e in relation to the India FTA, India. 35 Principal regulations This subpart amends the Customs and Excise Regulations 1996. 36 New regulation 51ZZP and cross-heading inserted After regulation 51ZZO, insert: Provisions relating to India 51ZZP Originating goods 1 Particular goods are treated for the purposes of the Act and the Tariff Act 1988 as being the produce or manufacture of India if the goods meet all applicable requirements set out in the following provisions of the India FTA: a Chapter 3 (Rules of Origin); and b Annex 3A (Product Specific Rules of Origin); and c Annex 3B (Certificate of Origin Template); and d Annex 3C (Origin Declaration Template). 2 In this regulation, India FTA means the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India, done at New Delhi on 27 April 2026. 37 Purpose The purpose of this Part is to implement New Zealand’s obligations under the FTA by establishing a framework for a quota management system for each of the following: a apples: b kiwifruit: c mānuka honey. 38 Interpretation In this Part , unless the context otherwise requires,— apples — a means any fruit of any species of the genus Malus ; and b includes any variety of a species of the genus Malus export certificate means an export certificate— a required by section 48 to export a specified product to India under a quota management system; and b issued by a quota manager in accordance with regulations required by section 49 FTA means the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of India done at New Delhi on 27 April 2026 India means the Republic of India kiwifruit means the fruit of a kiwifruit vine kiwifruit vine means a plant of the genus Actinidia mānuka honey means honey that has been certified by the Ministry as being mānuka honey Ministry means the Ministry for Primary Industries quota allocation means a share of a quota for a specified product that the quota manager has, in accordance with the relevant quota management system, allocated to an exporter quota holder means an exporter of a specified product to whom the quota manager has granted a quota allocation under a quota management system quota management system means a quota management system that— a is established by regulations made under section 69 ; and b is operated by a quota manager quota manager has the meaning set out in section 41 quota year means,— a for the year in which this Part comes into force, the period starting on the day on which the FTA enters into force and ending on 31 December of that year; and b for each subsequent year, the period starting on 1 January and ending on 31 December of that year specified product means one of the following products: a apples: b kiwifruit: c mānuka honey. 39 Transitional, savings, and related provisions The transitional, savings, and related provisions (if any) set out in Schedule 3 have effect, for this Part , according to their terms. 40 Part binds the Crown This Part binds the Crown. 41 Quota manager for each specified product The quota manager for a specified product is— a the organisation named in regulations made under section 69 as being the quota manager for the specified product; or b if no organisation has been named in regulations for the specified product, the Ministry. 42 Quota manager must operate quota management system Each quota manager must— a operate a quota management system for the purpose of allocating and operating the quota under the FTA for the relevant specified product; and b in accordance with regulations required by section 49 , issue export certificates. 43 Regulations must establish quota management system Regulations made under section 69 must establish a quota management system for 1 or more specified products under the FTA. Regulations that establish a quota management system for a specified product must specify the following: a how the quota manager allocates the quota to exporters of the specified product who apply for a share of the quota (the allocation methodology ): b the process for applicants to apply for a quota allocation of the specified product for a quota year: c the notification requirements that apply to the quota manager ( see section 46 ): d any other technical and administrative requirements for operating the quota management system. The allocation methodology must— a specify which exporters are eligible to apply for a quota allocation for a quota year; and b be an independent and transparent process for the quota manager to allocate the quota to applicants; and c be an annual process for the allocation of the quota for the specified product in a quota year; and d comply with the requirements set out in Annex 2A of the FTA. 44 Review of quota allocation decisions Regulations made under section 69 must establish a process by which an applicant for a quota allocation may seek a review of 1 or more of the following decisions made by the quota manager under the quota management system: a a decision not to grant a quota allocation to the applicant: b a decision as to the amount of the quota allocated to the applicant. However, regulations made to establish a process by which an applicant may seek a review of a quota manager’s decision must not establish a process— a to review a decision of the Ministry in its capacity as a quota manager; or b to review the allocation methodology that the quota manager used to make the decision to be reviewed. 45 Transfer or return of quota allocation A quota holder must not transfer or return all or part of their quota allocation except as provided in regulations made under section 69 . Regulations made under section 69 may specify the following: a a process for a quota holder to transfer all or part of their quota allocation for a specified product to an exporter who is eligible to apply for a quota allocation of that specified product: b a process for a quota holder to return any unused portion of their quota allocation during a quota year to the quota manager for reallocation: c if a process for returning unused quota allocation is specified, a process for the quota manager to reallocate the returned portion of the quota allocation to 1 or more other applicants. 46 Quota manager’s notification requirements A quota manager must provide notice in the Gazette and on the quota manager’s internet site of the following matters for the purposes of exporters applying for quota allocations: a the first and last days on which an applicant may apply for a quota allocation: b where and how an applicant makes an application: c the information that an applicant must include with their application: d any criteria that an applicant must ensure that their application complies with: e any procedural requirements that an applicant must comply with: f any other matters required by regulations made under section 69 . A quota manager must notify an applicant for a quota allocation of the following matters in relation to quota allocations: a the quota manager’s decisions regarding whether it grants a quota allocation to the applicant: b if the applicant’s application is successful, the amount of the quota that the quota manager has allocated to the applicant: c the applicant’s rights, if any, to seek a review of the quota manager’s decisions described in paragraphs (a) and (b) ( see section 44 ): d the latest date by which the applicant may seek a review of the quota manager’s decisions: e any other matters required by regulations made under section 69 . A quota manager must give the notice under subsection (2) in writing as soon as practicable after deciding the quota allocations. 47 Quota managers must provide information to India authority For the purpose of fulfilling New Zealand’s obligations under the FTA, a quota manager must provide the India authority with information relating to quota allocations and export certificates under this Part . A quota manager must provide the information— a in a format agreed with the India authority; and b quarterly or as otherwise agreed between the quota manager and the India authority. In this section, India authority means the entity nominated by India to receive the information provided by quota managers under this section. 48 Requirements to export under quota management system A person must not export a specified product to India under a quota management system unless— a the person has a quota allocation granted by the quota manager for the specified product; and b the person has an export certificate issued by the quota manager for the specified product; and c the export complies with— i the requirements stated in the export certificate; and ii any other applicable requirements of the quota management system. 49 Export certificates Regulations made under section 69 must provide for a system by which a quota manager issues an export certificate. The system must provide for the quota manager to issue an export certificate to a quota holder only in respect of the specified product that the quota holder exports under a quota allocation granted by the quota manager under this Part . Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must, at a minimum, specify— a how a quota holder may apply for an export certificate; and b the information that a quota holder must provide to the quota manager in an application for an export certification; and c the information that an export certificate must contain; and d the date by which the quota manager must— i issue an export certificate; or ii refuse to issue an export certificate. A quota manager must issue an export certificate to a quota holder who applies for an export certificate only if— a the quota manager has granted the applicant a quota allocation for the relevant specified product; and b the applicant has a sufficient quota allocation available for the quota year; and c the applicant has complied with the prescribed requirements for making an application for an export certificate. Subsection (4) is subject to section 50 . 50 Quota manager may cancel, suspend, or refuse to issue export certificate A quota manager may, if satisfied that 1 or more of the circumstances set out in subsection (2) exist,— a cancel or suspend a person’s export certificate; or b refuse to issue an export certificate to a person. The circumstances are as follows: a the person has exported the relevant specified product to India under the quota management system, but— i without a quota allocation for the specified product; or ii in excess of their quota allocation for the specified product; or iii without an export certificate for the specified product: b the person fails to provide information to the quota manager when required to do so under section 53 : c the person fails to pay any fee payable under section 65 by the required date: d the person knowingly gives false or misleading information when required or requested to provide information under this Part . If the quota manager cancels, suspends, or refuses to issue an export certificate under subsection (1) , the quota manager must, by written notice, inform the person of the following: a that the quota manager has decided to take the action specified in the notice; and b the reasons for the quota manager taking the action specified in the notice; and c the person’s right to seek a review of the quota manager’s decision; and d that, if the person wishes to seek a review, they must do so within 10 working days after the date of the notice of the quota manager’s decision. 51 Review of decision to cancel, suspend, or refuse to issue export certificate If a quota manager decides to cancel or suspend a person’s export certificate, or to refuse to issue an export certificate to a person, the person may seek a review of the quota manager’s decision. A person who seeks a review of the quota manager’s decision must do so— a by written notice to the quota manager; and b within 10 working days after the date of the quota manager’s notice to the person under section 50(3) . If a person seeks a review, the quota manager must appoint a person or body to review the quota manager’s decision (the reviewer ). A reviewer must— a not have been involved in making the decision being reviewed; and b having reviewed the decision, determine whether to confirm or withdraw the decision being reviewed; and c within the prescribed time frame (if any), give the person who sought the review written notice of the reviewer’s determination. The written notice of a reviewer’s determination must specify the reasons for the determination. The quota manager must, as soon as practicable after receiving a reviewer’s determination, give full effect to the determination (which may include, for example, issuing or reissuing an export certificate or reversing the suspension of an export certificate). 52 Appeal against review decision A person who is dissatisfied with a decision of a reviewer under section 51 may, within 20 working days after the reviewer gives notice of their determination, appeal to the High Court against the determination. 53 Quota manager may gather information A quota manager may require the following parties to provide information to the quota manager: a a quota holder: b an applicant for a quota allocation. A quota manager may require the information only for 1 or more of the following purposes: a assessing applications for quota allocations: b determining whether to grant quota allocations: c administering the quota management system: d monitoring and enforcing compliance with— i this Part : ii regulations made under this Part : iii the relevant parts of the FTA. 54 Information sharing The following parties (the parties ) may share information with each other for the purposes of this Part : a the Ministry (whether in its capacity as a quota manager or otherwise): b each quota manager: c the New Zealand Customs Service. Without limiting subsection (1) , the parties may share information for the following purposes: a complying with this Part : b enforcing compliance with this Part : c providing advice to the Minister for the purposes of the Minister considering whether New Zealand is fulfilling its obligations under the FTA. The parties must ensure that appropriate protections are or will be in place to maintain the confidentiality of information shared under this section. The parties may share commercially sensitive information with each other under this section. Information shared under subsection (1) must not include any personal information unless the information relates to a sole trader who applies for a quota allocation. 55 Quota manager must manage conflicts of interest This section applies to the following parties (the parties ): a a quota manager, other than the Ministry: b any other person who is involved in making decisions relating to quota allocation, export certificates, compliance with this Part , or enforcement under this Part . Each of the parties must— a have a process for managing its conflicts of interest; and b manage its conflicts of interest in accordance with the process. The process must require the relevant party to— a identify any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that arise from the party’s governance, ownership, staffing, or operational arrangements; and b take reasonable steps to avoid, mitigate, or manage those conflicts of interest; and c ensure that those conflicts of interest do not adversely affect the integrity, independence, or transparency of the party’s decisions under this Part . Regulations made under section 69 may specify additional technical or operational requirements that a party must include in its process under subsection (2) . 56 Quota manager may audit quota holder A quota manager may audit a quota holder’s compliance with the following: a this Part : b regulations made under this Part : c relevant obligations under the FTA. When auditing a quota holder, the quota manager must follow a process prescribed in regulations made under section 69 . 57 Minister may commission audit of quota manager The Minister may commission an audit of a quota manager’s compliance with the following: a this Part : b regulations made under this Part : c relevant obligations under the FTA. When commissioning an audit of a quota manager, the Minister must follow a process prescribed in regulations made under section 69 . The Minister may commission an audit of a quota manager only— a in the year starting on the third anniversary of the date on which this section comes into force; and b in the year starting on the sixth anniversary of the date on which this section comes into force; and c in every fifth year after the year described in paragraph (b) . 58 Requirement to provide information for audit purposes If a quota holder or a quota manager is being audited under section 56 or 57 , it must provide the auditor with records, documents, or other information that the auditor reasonably requires for the purposes of the audit. 59 Offences A person commits an offence if the person— a exports a specified product to India under the quota management system without a quota allocation for the specified product; or b exports a specified product to India under the quota management system in excess of their quota allocation for the specified product; or c exports a specified product to India under the quota management system without an export certificate for the specified product; or d with intent to deceive, gives false or misleading information, or makes a material omission, when required or requested to provide information under this Part . A person who commits an offence— a against subsection (1)(a) to (c) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $200,000: b against subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000. 60 Strict liability In any proceedings for an offence under section 59(1)(a) to (c) , it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit the offence. 61 Defence available It is a defence in any proceedings for an offence under section 59 if the defendant proves that— a the contravention was due to an event or a cause beyond the defendant’s control, including, but not limited to,— i a natural disaster; or ii mechanical or equipment failure; or iii sabotage; and b the defendant took all reasonable steps to prevent the contravention. A defendant is not entitled to rely on any event or cause referred to in subsection (1)(a) as part of a defence under this section unless— a they have served on the prosecutor notice in writing identifying the event or cause relied on; and b the notice is served no later than 10 working days before the date on which the hearing of the proceedings commences. Subsection (2) does not apply if the defendant has leave of the court to rely on the event or cause. 62 Powers of inspection to investigate offence An issuing officer (as defined in section 3(1) of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012) may issue a search warrant to an authorised person, or a constable, authorising them— a to search— i any place where a specified product is held or is likely to be held (including any place that is not a place of business); or ii any place where documents relating to a specified product are held or are likely to be held (including any place that is not a place of business); or iii any vehicle, aircraft, or ship; and b to copy any document, or part of a document, relating to a specified product found at that place, vehicle, aircraft, or ship; and c to seize any computer system or other data storage device in order to access any document, or part of a document, relating to a specified product that may be stored on that device. An issuing officer may issue the search warrant if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that— a an offence against this Part has been, is being, or is intended to be committed; and b there is evidential material in relation to the offence on or in the place, vehicle, aircraft, or ship. 63 Authorised persons The Ministry or a quota manager may authorise suitably qualified and trained individuals to execute a search warrant issued under section 62 . An authorisation must— a be made in writing; and b state that it is made under this section; and c set out the following: i the name of the individual: ii the purposes for which the authorisation is given: iii the duration of the authorisation (which may be until it is revoked). 64 Protection of authorised persons An authorised person who does any act or omits to do any act in exercising a power conferred on them under this Part is not under any civil or criminal liability in respect of the act or omission. Subsection (1) applies unless the person has acted, or omitted to act, in bad faith or without reasonable cause. 65 Regulations may provide for fees to recover quota managers' costs Regulations made under section 69 may do either or both of the following: a set a fee payable to the relevant quota manager by either or both of the following: i applicants for a quota allocation: ii quota holders: b authorise a quota manager to set a fee that is payable to the quota manager by either or both of the following: i applicants for a quota allocation: ii quota holders. Any regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) must specify— a that the quota manager must set the fee by notice in writing; and b the matters in relation to which the quota manager may set the fee; and c a methodology that the quota manager must follow to set the fee; and d a maximum level at which the quota manager may set the fee; and e a transparent fee-setting process that must include a requirement for the quota manager— i to follow the process when setting fees; and ii to consult applicants for a quota allocation and quota holders before setting the fee; and iii to notify payers of the fee being imposed; and f the accounting and reporting requirements that the quota manager must comply with in relation to— i the revenue received from the fee; and ii the expenditure of the revenue received from the fee. Fees set under subsection (1) must be solely for the purpose of recovering the costs of administering the quota management system, including— a the cost of granting quota allocations; and b the cost of issuing export certificates; and c the cost of monitoring compliance with this Part and relevant obligations under the FTA; and d any other costs associated with administering the quota management system. Fees set under subsection (1) must— a be fair and reasonable; and b provide sufficient funding for the quota manager to perform its function as a quota manager. Any regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may authorise the quota manager to refund or waive, in whole or in part, and on any conditions that may be prescribed, payment of a fee payable by any person or class of persons. If regulations authorise the quota manager to refund or waive a fee,— a the instrument granting the refund or waiver is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements), unless it applies only to 1 or more named persons; and b the regulations must contain a statement to that effect. Before recommending regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) , the Minister must be satisfied that,— a in the case of regulations for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) , the recommended fees— i will provide sufficient funding for the quota manager to perform its function as a quota manager; and ii the recommended fees are consistent with the FTA; and b in the case of regulations for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) or (b) , there has been adequate consultation with any quota holders and potential applicants for quota allocations and export certificates. If regulations for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) authorise a quota manager to set a fee, the notice setting the fee is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 66 Regulations may provide for levies to fund co-operation activities under FTA Regulations made under section 69 may— a set a levy that is payable to the relevant quota manager by quota holders for the purpose of funding— i the cost of performing functions required by, or associated with, co-operation activities under the FTA; and ii the administrative costs associated with, or required by, co-operation activities under the FTA; and iii the quota manager’s costs associated with administering the levy; or b authorise a quota manager to set a levy that is payable to the quota manager by quota holders for the purpose of recovering the costs described in paragraph (a) . Any regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) must specify— a that the quota manager must set the levy by notice in writing; and b the matters in relation to which the quota manager may set the levy; and c a methodology that the quota manager must follow to set the levy; and d a maximum level at which the quota manager may set the levy; and e a process that the quota manager must follow to set the levy, which process must— i be transparent; and ii require the quota manager, before setting the levy, to consult the Ministry and any person in New Zealand who is responsible for performing a co-operation activity; and iii require the quota manager to notify payers of the levy being imposed; and f the accounting and reporting requirements that the quota manager must comply with in relation to— i the revenue received from the levy; and ii the expenditure of the revenue received from the levy. A levy set under this section must be set at a level that is no greater than is required to cover the costs described in subsection (1)(a) . Any regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may authorise the quota manager to refund or waive, in whole or in part, and on any conditions that may be prescribed, payment of a levy payable by any person or class of persons. If regulations authorise the quota manager to refund or waive a levy,— a the instrument granting the refund or waiver is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements), unless it applies only to 1 or more named persons; and b the regulations must contain a statement to that effect. Before recommending regulations for the purposes of this section, the Minister must be satisfied that— a there has been adequate consultation with quota holders and potential levy payers; and b the recommended levies are consistent with the FTA. In this section, co-operation activities means co-operation activities required under,— a in relation to apples, paragraph 3(g) of Section B of Annex 2A of the FTA: b in relation to kiwifruit, paragraph 4(g) of Section B of Annex 2A of the FTA: c in relation to mānuka honey, paragraph 6(h) of Section B of Annex 2A of the FTA. If regulations for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) authorise a quota manager to set a levy, the notice setting the levy is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 67 Quota manager may refuse to act if fee or levy not paid A quota manager may refuse to perform or exercise a function, power, or duty until (as applicable)— a a fee prescribed in regulations made for the purposes of section 65(1)(a) is paid; or b a fee set by the quota manager under regulations made for the purposes of section 65(1)(b) is paid; or c a levy prescribed in regulations made for the purposes of section 66(1)(a) is paid; or d a levy set by the quota manager under regulations made for the purposes of section 66(1)(b) is paid. 68 Fees and levies recoverable as debt due A quota manager may recover in any court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due any fee or levy that is payable to it under regulations made for the purposes of section 65 or 66 (as applicable). 69 Regulations The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations for all or any of the following purposes: a providing for anything this Part says may or must be provided for by regulations: b providing for anything incidental that is necessary for carrying out, or giving full effect to, this Part . Before making a recommendation under subsection (1) for regulations to name a quota manager for a specified product ( see section 41(a) ), the Minister must consult stakeholders that the Minister considers to be relevant. Regulations made under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 70 Exclusion of liability Neither the Crown nor a quota manager is liable to any person for any loss or damage arising from any matter that is beyond the Crown’s or the quota manager’s control. Matters that are beyond the control of the Crown or a quota manager include, without limitation,— a a decision made by India that relates to access to India of a specified product: b a reduction in the value of quota allocations, however caused. 71 Notices and authorisations A quota manager may give a person a written notice or an authorisation under this Part by— a delivering or leaving it at the person’s last known home or work address; or b emailing it to the person at their last known personal or work email address. 72 Principal regulations Section 73 amends the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999. 73 Regulation 33 amended (Functions) After regulation 33(1)(d), insert: e to be a quota manager for kiwifruit under Part 4 of the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Act 2026 , if appointed to that role by regulations made under section 69 of that Act. 1 Schedule 5B of Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 replaced 5B ss 26(3), 27 Rules for allocation of export licences to multiple participants for designated markets in Schedule 5A 1 Notification of application dates 1 The Minister must provide notice in the Gazette of the dates on which applications for export licences for a quota year will open and close. 2 The Gazette notice under subclause (1) must also specify the applicable Tariff headings that must be used for that quota year when submitting export volume history under clause 2 . 2 Application requirements 1 Each eligible participant must submit their export volume history for each designated market for which they are seeking an export licence, including if they are also seeking either or both of the following: a any reserve export licences as an eligible reserve participant: b any reserve albumin export licences as an eligible reserve albumin participant. 2 The eligible participant must submit the history to the chief executive (or a person authorised by the chief executive) by statutory declaration (as set out in Schedule 5C ). 3 Each eligible reserve participant who does not have any export volume history (and therefore has not submitted any data under subclause (1) ) must submit a statutory declaration in accordance with subclause (2) , confirming that they do not have any export volume history in each designated market for which they are seeking a reserve export licence. 4 Each eligible reserve albumin participant who does not have any export volume history (and therefore has not submitted any data under subclause (1) ) must submit a statutory declaration in accordance with subclause (2) , confirming that they do not have any export volume history in the albumin designated market. 5 If an eligible participant, eligible reserve participant, or eligible reserve albumin participant relies on an agent (for example, a freight forwarder or consolidator) to export their products, the following statutory declarations must also be submitted in accordance with subclause (2) : a a statutory declaration by the participant confirming their business relationship with the agent; and b a statutory declaration by the agent, or by each agent if there is more than 1,— i confirming their business relationship with the participant; and ii confirming that the data being submitted by the participant under subclause (1) accurately records what the agent exported for the participant. 3 Specific Tariff headings for certain designated markets 1 The following specific Tariff headings must be used for the purposes of calculating export volume history and total export volume history before allocating export licences to the following designated markets: a for the Japan prepared edible fat market, the Minister must use Tariff heading 0405: b for the European Union dairy processed agricultural products and high protein whey market, the Minister must use Tariff heading 0404. 2 If a Tariff heading published under clause 1(2) conflicts with the Tariff headings listed in this clause, the Tariff headings in this clause prevail. 4 Allocations 1 Subject to this clause and clauses 5 and 6 (as applicable), the Minister must allocate export licences for each designated market listed in Schedule 5A ,— a excluding any reserve export licences and reserve albumin export licences, proportionately to eligible participants based on their percentage of the total export volume history, as submitted under clause 2(1) , up to the maximum number each participant has applied for or is eligible for; and b if a portion of export licences have been reserved under regulations made under section 26AA , to eligible reserve participants up to the maximum number each participant has applied for or is eligible for; and c if a portion of albumin export licences have been reserved under regulations made under section 26AB , to eligible reserve albumin participants up to the maximum number each participant has applied for or is eligible for. 2 Unless section 27A applies, the maximum number of export licences that the Minister can allocate to an eligible reserve participant is the number that equates to a volume of 200 tonnes of the product in a designated market, whether that is— a through a combination of allocations under subclause (1)(a) and (b) ; or b allocations made only under subclause (1)(b) . Example Under subclause 2(a) , if an eligible participant is eligible for export licences to export 30 tonnes of the relevant product based on their export volume history, then they may also be allocated (as an eligible reserve participant) further export licences from the reserve portion up to an additional 170 tonnes of the product so that their total export licences equate up to 200 tonnes of the relevant product. 3 Unless section 27A applies, the maximum number of albumin export licences that the Minister can allocate to an eligible reserve albumin participant is the number that equates to a volume of 50 tonnes of albumins in the albumin designated market, whether that is— a through a combination of allocations under subclause (1)(a) and (c) ; or b allocations made only under subclause (1)(c) . Example Under subclause (3)(a) , if an eligible participant is eligible for albumin export licences to export 30 tonnes of albumins based on their export volume history, then they may also be allocated (as an eligible reserve albumin participant) further albumin export licences from the albumin reserve portion up to an additional 20 tonnes of albumins so that their total albumin export licences equates up to 50 tonnes of albumins. 4 Export licences may only be used for products for which the dairy components are derived only from New Zealand origin milk. 5 The Minister must allocate export licences— a for a period of 1 quota year; and b before the commencement of that quota year. 5 Excess or shortfall in reserve export licences applications 1 If applications for reserve export licences exceed the number of export licences available under the reserve portion, the Minister must allocate the reserve export licences equally between the eligible reserve participants, up to the maximum number each participant has applied for or is eligible for. Example There are 100 reserve export licences available for allocation. Three people apply for 20 reserve export licences each and 7 people apply for 7 reserve export licences each. That is a total of 109 reserve export licences applied for, which exceeds the number available. An even split would give each participant 10 reserve export licences. However, because 7 people have applied for only 7 reserve export licences, that means they can only be allocated 7 licences each (using 49 of the 100 reserve export licences available). This leaves 51 reserve export licences, which are then split equally between the other 3 participants. Those 3 participants would receive 17 reserve export licences each. Although they had applied for 20 reserve export licences each, there are not enough reserve export licences to meet the full number they applied for. 2 If there are excess reserve export licences after the Minister has allocated the reserve export licences under clause 4(1)(b) , the Minister must allocate the excess reserve export licences proportionately to eligible participants as though the excess were being allocated under clause 4(1)(a) . 6 Excess or shortfall in reserve albumin export licences applications 1 If applications for reserve albumin export licences exceed the number of albumin export licences available under the reserve albumin portion, the Minister must allocate the reserve albumin export licences equally between the eligible reserve albumin participants, up to the maximum number each participant has applied for or is eligible for. Example There are 100 reserve albumin export licences available for allocation. Three people apply for 20 reserve albumin export licences each and 7 people apply for 7 reserve albumin export licences each. That is a total of 109 reserve albumin export licences applied for, which exceeds the number available. An even split would give each participant 10 reserve albumin export licences. However, because 7 people have applied for only 7 reserve albumin export licences, that means they can only be allocated 7 licences each (using 49 of the 100 reserve albumin export licences available). This leaves 51 reserve albumin export licences, which are then split equally between the other 3 participants. Those 3 participants would receive 17 reserve albumin export licences each. Although they had applied for 20 reserve albumin export licences each, there are not enough reserve albumin export licences to meet the full number they applied for. 2 If there are excess reserve albumin export licences after the Minister has allocated the reserve albumin export licences under clause 4(1)(c) , the Minister must allocate excess reserve albumin export licences proportionately to eligible participants as though the excess were being allocated under clause 4(1)(a) . 7 Notification of allocations The Minister must ensure that all allocations of export licences are notified in the Gazette . 5B Rules for allocation of export licences to multiple participants for designated markets in Schedule 5A 2 New Part 15 inserted into Schedule 1AA of Overseas Investment Regulations 2005 15 Provisions relating to India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Act 2026 33 Application The amendments made by the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Act 2026 apply only to the acquisition of rights or interests in securities or of other property, or the establishment of any business, after the commencement of that Act. 34 No refunds No person is entitled to a refund of any fee or charge paid to the regulator for a matter under Schedule 2 on the ground that the amendments made by the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Act 2026 mean that the matter is no longer relevant (for example, that a consent that had been applied for is no longer required). 3 Transitional, savings, and related provisions for Part 4 There are no transitional, savings, or related provisions relating to this Part as enacted.

Hansard

June 25, 2026

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.

Documents and supporting material