However, the agreement’s passage through New Zealand’s Parliament now faces uncertainty after NZ First invoked a coalition “agree to disagree” clause, signaling its refusal to support enabling legislation. NZ First leader Winston Peters and other critics claim the deal does not deliver sufficiently for New Zealand’s agricultural sectors — especially dairy — and that concessions, including commitments around immigration and investment pledges, were made too hastily.

Peters specifically argues that more groundwork was needed to persuade India to open its tightly protected dairy market in a way that would fairly benefit exporters from New Zealand. He suggested that the earlier promise from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to complete the FTA within the current parliamentary term — combined with concluding the deal far ahead of the deadline — limited the time available for deeper dairy-related negotiations.

McClay has rebutted these critiques, insisting the agreement’s timing was appropriate, noting external factors such as India’s impending election and competing trade negotiations. He also dismissed claims that the deal guarantees adverse consequences if certain investment targets aren’t met, emphasizing that language involving a US$20 billion investment promotion pledge was non-binding and focused on deepening commercial ties rather than on penal outcomes.