The India Free Trade Agreement has come under renewed criticism after critic Joshua Riley of Sovereign NZ said the deal would undermine New Zealand’s long-term competitive advantage by requiring the country to share valuable horticultural expertise with one of the world’s largest agricultural producers.
Riley argued the agreement goes beyond reducing tariffs and improving market access, saying it commits New Zealand to helping India strengthen its own horticultural industry through formal “action plans” aimed at increasing orchard productivity. The provisions could ultimately enable India to compete directly against New Zealand using knowledge, cultivation techniques and premium fruit varieties developed over generations.
Riley claims New Zealand’s competitive advantage lies not in the size of its industry but in its productivity and expertise. He says local apple orchards produce around 60 tonnes per hectare compared with an estimated 6 to 10 tonnes in India, while New Zealand kiwifruit orchards produce about 40 tonnes per hectare compared with roughly two to three tonnes in India. He argues that narrowing this productivity gap would strengthen a future competitor with significantly lower labour costs and a vastly larger production base.
He also warns that premium New Zealand fruit, particularly Zespri kiwifruit, currently commands substantial price premiums across Asian markets because of its quality and reputation. If India successfully adopts New Zealand’s growing methods and cultivars, it could eventually challenge New Zealand producers in export markets including China, Japan and Europe while benefiting from lower freight costs and cheaper labour.
Riley compares the situation to Chile’s emergence as a competitor after previously benefiting from New Zealand horticultural knowledge, arguing the India agreement risks repeating the same mistake on a much larger scale.
He is also highly critical of the economic modelling used to support the agreement, saying the projected gain of approximately 0.07 percent of GDP by 2036—equivalent to about $387 million annually—fails to account for the long-term cost of creating a stronger overseas competitor. The modelling focuses primarily on tariff reductions and trade diversion while overlooking potential losses in export market share and future competitiveness.
The comments add to ongoing debate surrounding the India Free Trade Agreement, which has been slammed by commentators and political figures over its implications for agriculture, immigration, sovereignty and long-term economic policy.
A small group of men, with no mandate from New Zealanders, are on the brink of transferring our crown jewels to India: premium kiwi and apple cultivars and growing skills developed over a century.
Their economic model, intended to justify the transfer, ignored its consequence.… https://t.co/cwkXKaevqM pic.twitter.com/QqjxbFHCMr
— Joshua Riley 🇳🇿 (@VoteSovereign) July 8, 2026
Sovereign NZ website.
