Labour is demanding the Government hand over unredacted advice from officials on its India trade agreement, and to meet a series of conditions before the party will back the deal — as Chris Hipkins accused the PM of presenting him with a "fait accompli".
The potential election-year standoff over the landmark agreement has kicked into gear as Hipkins writes to Christopher Luxon over his party's support for enabling legislation.
In a letter dated February 13, the Labour leader told Luxon the party had not received a formal request to support the deal and that Labour had been provided the full text only more than a month after the agreement had been concluded.
"Your decision not to involve Labour at any point in the negotiation process – without consultation, despite your public assurances to the contrary – and the expectation that Labour would unconditionally support the agreement once presented with it as a fait accompli, falls short of best practice," he wrote.
Todd McClay spoke to Q+A's Jack Tame in February 2026 on the newly-negotiated free trade agreement with one of the world's most populous countries. (Source: Q and A)
Hipkins told media the "agreement offers some trading opportunities [but] there appears to be significant risks in the way it is to be implemented in New Zealand."
“Now that we have had the opportunity to scrutinise the agreement, we have written to National setting out the conditions that must be met before we will consider supporting the agreement."
Chris Hipkins noted Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was committed to a deal one of his coalition partners had refused to support. (Source: 1News)
Labour's decision on whether to support the landmark free trade agreement was critical, as Government coalition partner Winston Peters and NZ First have opposed the deal.
This means National and ACT need Labour's support to move the deal forward.
McClay: Sounds like 'a fishing expedition'
Trade Minister Todd McClay, speaking on Q+A this morning, said he hadn't yet seen the letter but would meet with Labour next week.
He stopped short of agreeing to release unredacted official advice, describing the request as sounding like "a fishing expedition", while adding he was "not saying no".
"I'm not saying yes or no on TV," McClay said, claiming some advice was redacted because it touched on future trade negotiations that could be harmed by a disclosure.
'As significant as the China FTA'
Hipkins wrote Labour did not object to the 1667 temporary employment entry visas proposed annually but wanted the Government to boost the number of compliance officers tackling migrant exploitation, decouple work visas from individual employers and strengthen protections for victims of modern slavery.
He also raised concerns about the agreement's provisions for international students, claiming the text contained no ability to cap student numbers, and wanted a focus on preventing an unchecked proliferation of low-quality education providers.
On Labour's concerns, McClay said he could offer assurances "right now" that visas would only be issued for authorised institutions and the agreement had a weighting towards STEM subjects, master's degrees and PhDs.
McClay added: "India Free Trade Agreement has the potential to be as groundbreaking and fundamentally significant for the New Zealand economy as the China one was."
Pressed on whether the Government had hamstrung negotiations by committing to complete the deal within its first term, the Trade Minister refused to be drawn, saying India had also set its own timeline and New Zealand's agreement was on par with or better than those secured by Australia, the United Kingdom and the European Union.
He also dismissed suggestions that New Zealand First's opposition was anything unusual, noting the party had voted against the China free trade deal in 2008.
But Hipkins said: "Christopher Luxon hamstrung the negotiation of this agreement by putting a time limit on it to fulfil his political agenda and botching the process.
"Now he finds himself agreeing to something without the support of his own Government."
Aspiration? Disagreement over clause
Chief among Labour's concerns is a figure within the agreement to promote US$20 billion (NZ$33 billion) in private sector investment to India over 15 years — a figure Hipkins called "unrealistic when compared with past trade agreements".
Labour claimed in its statement that "any shortfall could enable India to unilaterally revoke market access for the apple, honey, and kiwifruit sectors". It wanted "clarity on the rationale, precedence, and national interest" in the clause.
In response, McClay told Q+A the figure was "aspirational" and the Government's commitment was to "promote" investment, not guarantee it.
"We haven't committed to an amount of money, but we have committed to promote."
He said any remedial action by India could not occur until the end of the 15-year period, and would first require a formal dialogue process between the two governments — though he acknowledged there was no independent arbitrator.
Advice should be provided 'in spirit of bipartisanship'
Hipkins said Labour wanted the complete, unredacted record of advice from officials across all relevant agencies — including MFAT, MBIE, Treasury, DPMC and Education New Zealand — to assess the deal with the same information available to Cabinet.
"Given that the Foreign Minister has felt strongly enough to say he won't support the deal, we also want to understand exactly what advice officials have provided ministers.
"We ask that it is provided, in full, in the spirit of bipartisanship and the best interest of New Zealanders," Hipkins said.
McClay said he had phoned Hipkins before the deal was announced, made officials available for briefings and held multiple meetings with Labour's trade spokesperson Damien O'Connor. He said he would review the letter and respond next week.
"Trade has always been bipartisan in New Zealand, at least between the two larger parties," McClay said. "We may not agree on everything. We may disagree sometimes, particularly in election year."
McClay also confirmed that family members of Indian workers entering New Zealand under the deal's new visa would not be permitted to accompany them — unlike many other temporary work visas.
He could not say when the Government had made that decision.
NZ First leader Winston Peters had previously claimed the visa could see up to 20,000 Indian migrants in New Zealand if spouses and children were factored in.
McClay called for the debate around the deal to remain respectful in an election year, warning it was "in danger of maybe moving in a direction where it may not" be.
For the full interview with Todd McClay, watch the video above
Q+A with Jack Tame is made with the support of New Zealand On Air
SHARE ME