OIA Request: India FTA MOTU Scope
Joshua Riley made this Official Information request to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Response to this request is delayed. By law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade should normally have responded promptly and by (details and exceptions)
From: Joshua Riley
Official Information Act Request
To: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Dear MFAT OIA Team,
I am writing to request, under the Official Information Act 1982, the following information regarding the commissioning and scope of the Economic Impact Assessment of the New Zealand-India Free Trade Agreement, prepared by Motu Economic and Public Policy Research and published in February 2026.
Request 1 Terms of reference
All terms of reference, scoping documents, and project briefs (including drafts and revisions) provided by or agreed between MFAT and Motu for the above assessment.
Request 2 Scope and methodology correspondence
All correspondence and communications (including emails, memoranda, meeting notes, and records of verbal discussions) between MFAT officials and Motu (including Dr Niven Winchester) regarding the scope, methodology, assumptions, or deliverables of the assessment. I am particularly interested in any discussion of:
(a) Whether the assessment should model immigration, population change, labour supply effects, or GDP per capita impacts arising from the Agreement's visa and mobility provisions (Chapters 8, 8C, Annexes 8F, 8K, and 8L);
(b) The decision to hold the total supply of each labour type fixed in both the FTA and baseline scenarios (as stated in Appendix B6 of the published report);
(c) Whether the assessment should model the costs or economic effects of the Article 9.10 tariff clawback, the US$20 billion FDI commitment, the Annex 14A Action Plans, or remittance outflows.
Request 3: Feedback and revisions
Any feedback, concerns, queries, or recommendations raised by Motu regarding the scope, limitations, or methodology of the assessment - including any suggestions for additional modelling that were not adopted - and MFAT's responses to same.
Request 4: Review and sign-off
Records of any review, comment, or approval of draft versions of the assessment by MFAT officials or ministers prior to publication, including any requests for changes to content, framing, or emphasis.
Regarding scope and format:
I am content to receive documents in electronic form. Where a document is partially withholdable, I request that the remainder be released with redactions clearly marked and the specific withholding ground identified per redaction.
If any part of this request is considered too broad, I would welcome consultation under s18B to refine the scope rather than refusal. I am particularly interested in Requests 1 and 2 and would accept prioritisation of those if resource constraints apply.
Regarding potential withholding grounds:
I note that the published Motu report is already in the public domain, as are its methodology, assumptions, and limitations (including the fixed labour supply closure). This request seeks information about the decisions that shaped those assumptions - not the model's proprietary mechanics or unpublished data.
I submit that there is a strong public interest in understanding how the scope of the Government's principal economic assessment of the India FTA was determined, given that:
- The assessment is the primary basis for the Government's economic case for the Agreement;
- The assessment does not model the immigration, population, or per capita effects of the Agreement's own visa provisions;
- Parliament is being asked to pass enabling legislation on the basis of this assessment; and
- Public submissions to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee have raised concerns about these omissions.
I do not consider that section 6(a) (international relations) applies to domestic commissioning correspondence between a New Zealand government agency and a New Zealand research institute regarding a publicly released report. Should MFAT consider withholding any information on this or other grounds, I request that the specific reasons be set out per item as required by section 19.
I look forward to your response within the statutory 20 working days.
From: ENQUIRIES
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Kia ora,
Thank you for your email.
Please see the below links to ensure you are sending your enquiry to the
correct location.
For all other enquiries that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is
responsible for, you will receive a response in due course.
Please note, we do not provide flags, postcards, or related materials.
Immigration, Travel and Visa Enquires:
* New Zealand visas, asylum and other immigrations matters - contact
Immigration New Zealand, by emailing
[1][email address] or visit the Immigration
New Zealand website at: [2]www.immigration.govt.nz/contact
* If you are unsure about the legitimacy of a job offer, immigration
advice, or visa agent, please refer to the official INZ website or
contact INZ directly. Be cautious of any requests for payment made
outside official channels.
* Visas for other countries and contact details for the foreign
embassies – refer to the relevant foreign representative to New
Zealand. A full list is available at
[3]https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/embassies/.
* Advice for New Zealanders living and travelling overseas – visit Home
| [4]https://www.safetravel.govt.nz/
* Consular issues - or if you are a New Zealand citizen overseas needing
assistance, email: [5][email address]
Customs and NZ Suppliers/Companies:
* Bringing goods into New Zealand - visit the New Zealand Customs
website at: [6]www.customs.govt.nz.
* NZ suppliers or companies - visit the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
website at: [7]www.nzte.govt.nz.
Authentication, Citizenship and Passports:
* New Zealand passports - visit the Internal Affairs website at:
[8]www.passports.govt.nz.
* New Zealand citizenship - visit the Internal Affairs website at:
[9]www.dia.govt.nz/New-Zealand-citizenship.
* Authentication of documents and Apostilles - visit the Internal
Affairs website at: [10]www.dia.govt.nz/document-authentication
* To attest fingerprints - visit
[11]https://www.police.govt.nz/faq/having-fi...
MFAT Jobs, Scholarships and Graduate Programme:
* New Zealand Scholarships - email [12][email address]
* MFAT Vacancies - visit our website at:
[13]https://vacancies.mfat.govt.nz/.
* MFAT Graduate Programme - email: [14][email address].
OIA requests
* If you have made a request under the Official Information Act 1982,
the Ministry will be in touch to acknowledge your request and discuss
it further if necessary. [15]Official Information Act requests | New
Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ngâ mihi
MFAT ENQUIRIES
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade | Manatû Aorere
195 Lambton Quay, Private Bag 18901
Wellington 6160
New Zealand
[16]www.mfat.govt.nz | [17]www.safetravel.govt.nz
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the
addressee and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the
Ministry. It may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or
the information in it as this may be unlawful. If you have received this
message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately ..
[UNCLASSIFIED]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
http://www.immigration.govt.nz/contact
3. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/embassies/
4. https://www.safetravel.govt.nz/
5. mailto:[email address]
6. http://www.customs.govt.nz/
7. http://www.nzte.govt.nz/
8. http://www.passports.govt.nz/
9. http://www.dia.govt.nz/New-Zealand-citiz...
10. http://www.dia.govt.nz/document-authenti...
11. https://www.police.govt.nz/faq/having-fi...
12. mailto:[email address]
13. https://vacancies.mfat.govt.nz/
14. mailto:[email address]
15. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/con...
16. file:///AMasters/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/AGDSL449/www.mfat.govt.nz
17. http://www.safetravel.govt.nz/
From: ESD
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
[UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Joshua Riley,
We refer to your official information request of 26 June 2026.
We have transferred part of your request to Immigration New Zealand. Part
of the information to which your request relates, namely the advice being
referred to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rt Hon Winston Peters, is
believed to be more closely connected to the functions of Immigration New
Zealand (section 14(b)(ii) of the OIA refers). In these circumstances, we
are required by section 14 of the Official Information Act to transfer
your request.
You will hear further from Immigration New Zealand concerning your
request.
Ngā mihi,
Tom Turnbull (he/him/ia)
Senior Advisor
Executive Services Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade | Manatū Aorere
P 027 353 9243 E [1][email address]
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the
addressee and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the
Ministry. It may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or
the information in it as this may be unlawful. If you have received this
message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately ..
UNCLASSIFIED
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
From: ESD
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
[UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Joshua Riley,
We refer to your official information request of 26 June 2026.
We have transferred part of your request to the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment (MBIE). Part of the information to which your
request relates, namely the advice being referred to by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Rt Hon Winston Peters, is believed to be more closely
connected to the functions of Immigration New Zealand (section 14(b)(ii)
of the OIA refers). In these circumstances, we are required by section 14
of the Official Information Act to transfer your request.
You will hear further from MBIE concerning your request.
Ngā mihi,
Tom Turnbull (he/him/ia)
Senior Advisor
Executive Services Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade | Manatū Aorere
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the
addressee and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the
Ministry. It may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or
the information in it as this may be unlawful. If you have received this
message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately ..
UNCLASSIFIED
From: ESD
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
[UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Joshua Riley,
I refer to your Official Information Act (OIA) request of 26 June below,
to advise that responding to your request as currently framed captures a
significant volume of information. As such, it is likely that your request
will be refused under section 18(f) of the OIA, as the information
requested cannot be made available without substantial collation and
research.
Requests for “any correspondence” are difficult to collate, as often these
require a search of official’s individual email inboxes to determine what
information could be in scope. These searches often return hundreds or
even thousands of results and as such determining what material falls
within scope would require extensive manual review and would have a
significant and unreasonable impact on the Ministry’s ability to carry out
its other functions.
We note that any communications between Indian and New Zealand officials
would also very likely be withheld in full under section 6(a) of the OIA,
to protect the international relations of the government of New Zealand.
Accordingly, we are seeking your agreement to refine your request to be
for:
Advice provided to the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding any risk to
New Zealand-India relations arising from immigrations settings outlined in
Article 8C.3(4) and Article 8C.2(3) of the India-New Zealand Free Trade
Agreement.
Please let us know before 13 July 2026 whether you are prepared to amend
your request to the above, or if you would prefer an alternative
refinement to avoid a refusal of your request.
Please note, any clarification or amendment of a request is considered to
be a new request for the purpose of calculating the maximum statutory
timeframe for response (section 15(1AA) of the OIA refers).
As you have already been advised, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Trade intends to begin proactively releasing its information on the
India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement by mid July 2026 at the following
address:
[1]www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements-concluded-but-not-in-force/new-zealand-india-free-trade-agreement/resources
Executive Services Division
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade | Manatû Aorere
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the
addressee and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the
Ministry. It may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or
the information in it as this may be unlawful. If you have received this
message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately ..
UNCLASSIFIED
References
Visible links
1. http://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-tr...
From: Joshua Riley
Thank you for your three messages of 6 and 7 July concerning my request of 22 June (which you refer to as 26 June). I'm afraid they do not correspond to the request I made, and I do not accept the proposed refinement. I explain below.
What my request actually seeks
My request concerns the commissioning and scope of the Motu Economic and Public Policy Research economic impact assessment of the India FTA (published February 2026). Specifically: the terms of reference and project briefs agreed between MFAT and Motu (Request 1); the correspondence between MFAT and Motu, including Dr Niven Winchester, about the scope, methodology, assumptions and deliverables of that assessment (Request 2); Motu's feedback or concerns about scope, limitations or methodology and MFAT's responses (Request 3); and MFAT's review, comment or sign-off of drafts before publication (Request 4).
It does not seek “advice referred to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs” about immigration, nor advice about “risk to New Zealand–India relations arising from immigration settings.” Those are the subjects of your transfers and your proposed refinement — but they are not what I asked for. Your responses appear to relate to a different request.
The transfers to Immigration New Zealand and MBIE
The Motu commissioning records are held by MFAT: MFAT commissioned Motu, agreed the terms of reference, corresponded with Motu about scope and methodology, received Motu's feedback, and reviewed the drafts before publication. Immigration New Zealand and MBIE have no role in that commissioning, and the correspondence is not more closely connected to their functions. To the extent your transfers relate to a separate “immigration advice” matter, that matter is not part of this request; to the extent they purport to transfer this request, they are misconceived. Please confirm exactly what has been transferred and to whom, and confirm that MFAT will itself answer Requests 1–4 as framed. (I note the MBIE transfer states the information is “more closely connected to the functions of Immigration New Zealand,” which appears to be an error.)
The proposed refinement — I do not accept it
Your proposed refinement — “advice provided to the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding any risk to New Zealand–India relations arising from immigration settings outlined in Article 8C.3(4) and Article 8C.2(3)” — is not a refinement of my request. It substitutes an entirely different subject (ministerial immigration-risk advice) for the subject I asked about (MFAT's commissioning and scoping of the Motu economic assessment). I do not agree to it. My request stands as made.
Section 18(f) is not made out
My request is not a broad request for “any correspondence.” It is confined to correspondence and records concerning a single, identified report, exchanged with a single, named counterparty — Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, and in particular Dr Niven Winchester. Correspondence with one research institute about one commissioned report is a bounded and readily identifiable set, not the “hundreds or thousands of results” a general inbox search would return. If MFAT nonetheless maintains section 18(f), please substantiate it specifically — the steps required and a time estimate — rather than by general assertion, as Ombudsman guidance contemplates. I also offered in my request to prioritise Requests 1 and 2 if resourcing is a genuine constraint, and I repeat that offer.
Section 6(a) does not apply to the commissioning correspondence
As I noted in my request, section 6(a) does not apply to domestic commissioning correspondence between a New Zealand government agency and a New Zealand research institute about a publicly released report. My request does not seek communications between Indian and New Zealand officials, so the section 6(a) concern you raise is directed at material I have not asked for.
Proactive release
A general proactive release of India FTA material is unlikely to contain the specific commissioning records I have requested — the terms of reference, the scope and methodology correspondence with Motu, Motu's feedback, and MFAT's sign-off. If MFAT intends to withhold any specific document under section 18(d) pending that release, please identify the document and the basis for concluding it “will soon be” publicly available, per section 18(d); I reserve the right to seek the Ombudsman's review if so.
Next steps
Please process my request of 22 June as framed (Requests 1–4), prioritising Requests 1 and 2 if necessary. If MFAT will not, or continues to treat this as a request about immigration advice rather than the Motu commissioning, I will seek an Ombudsman review of the handling of this request, including the transfers and the section 18(f) position.
I look forward to your response.
From: ESD
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
[UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Tēnā koe Joshua,
The transfer of your request to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment, and our suggestion of a refinement relates to your OIA request
of 26 June 2026, concerning information relating to risk advice regarding
differential treatment of Indian FTA visa holders. Your OIA request of 22
June 2026 concerning information relating to economic analysis
commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to Motu is being
processed separately.
Therefore, please can you let us know before 13 July 2026 whether you a
prepared to amend your request of 26 June 2026, along to the lines of what
the Ministry has proposed, or if you have an alternative suggestion.
Please note, any clarification or amendment of a request is considered to
be a new request for the purpose of calculating the maximum statutory
timeframe for response (section 15(1AA) of the OIA refers).
Ngā mihi,
Executive Services Division
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade | Manatū Aorere
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the
addressee and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the
Ministry. It may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or
the information in it as this may be unlawful. If you have received this
message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately ..
UNCLASSIFIED
From: ESD
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
[UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Tēnā koe Joshua Riley,
We refer to your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request of 11 July
2026.
In our view, it would have been necessary under section 14 of the OIA to
transfer your request to the Ministry of Business Innovation and
Employment (MBIE) because the information you requested is more closely
connected with its functions. However, we are aware that you have already
made your request to MBIE, and therefore we have not transferred it.
You will hear further from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and
Employment concerning your request.
Ngā mihi
Executive Services Division
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade | Manatū Aorere
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the
addressee and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the
Ministry. It may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or
the information in it as this may be unlawful. If you have received this
message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately ..
UNCLASSIFIED
From: ESD
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
[UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Tēnā koe Joshua Riley
We are writing in regards to your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA)
request of 22 June 2026 which asks for:
Request 1 Terms of reference
All terms of reference, scoping documents, and project briefs (including
drafts and revisions) provided by or agreed between MFAT and Motu for the
above assessment.
Request 2 Scope and methodology correspondence
All correspondence and communications (including emails, memoranda,
meeting notes, and records of verbal discussions) between MFAT officials
and Motu (including Dr Niven Winchester) regarding the scope, methodology,
assumptions, or deliverables of the assessment. I am particularly
interested in any discussion of:
(a) Whether the assessment should model immigration, population change,
labour supply effects, or GDP per capita impacts arising from the
Agreement's visa and mobility provisions (Chapters 8, 8C, Annexes 8F, 8K,
and 8L);
(b) The decision to hold the total supply of each labour type fixed in
both the FTA and baseline scenarios (as stated in Appendix B6 of the
published report);
(c) Whether the assessment should model the costs or economic effects of
the Article 9.10 tariff clawback, the US$20 billion FDI commitment, the
Annex 14A Action Plans, or remittance outflows.
Request 3: Feedback and revisions
Any feedback, concerns, queries, or recommendations raised by Motu
regarding the scope, limitations, or methodology of the assessment -
including any suggestions for additional modelling that were not adopted -
and MFAT's responses to same.
Request 4: Review and sign-off
Records of any review, comment, or approval of draft versions of the
assessment by MFAT officials or ministers prior to publication, including
any requests for changes to content, framing, or emphasis.
This email is to advise that we will need to extend the time limit for
responding to you by 20 working days, to 18 August 2026. This is because
responding to your request necessitates review of a large quantity of
information, and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably
interfere with the operations of the Ministry (section 15A(1)(a) of the
OIA refers).
However, if this process is completed before 18 August 2026, the response
will be sent to you as soon as possible. If you have any questions, you
can contact us by email at: [1]DM‑[email address]. You have the right to
seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision by
contacting [2]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.
Executive Services Division
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade | Manatū Aorere
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the
addressee and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the
Ministry. It may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or
the information in it as this may be unlawful. If you have received this
message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately ..
UNCLASSIFIED
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
From: Joshua Riley
I want to record one point, and repeat an offer.
The extension was based on a requirement to review "a large quantity of information." I note the tension between that and the Ministry's earlier position. On 7 July the Ministry indicated my request might be refused under section 18(f) because requests for "any correspondence" return "hundreds or even thousands of results," requiring "extensive manual review" to determine what fell within scope. As I explained in reply, this request is not of that kind: it is confined to correspondence and records concerning a single, identified report, exchanged with a single, named counterparty — Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, and in particular Dr Niven Winchester. Correspondence with one research institute about one commissioned report should be a bounded and identifiable set.
I raise this so it is clear on the record: if, at the end of the extended period, the Ministry considers the material genuinely voluminous, I expect a specific account of what makes it so — the systems and custodians searched, and the volume actually located — rather than a general characterisation. It remains unclear how correspondence with a single commissioned research provider gives rise to either a section 18(f) difficulty or a review of a size warranting extension. If any part is to be withheld, I ask that the specific ground be identified per document under section 19, and that the balance be released under section 17.
The offer: as in my original request, if resourcing is a genuine constraint, I am content for the Ministry to prioritise Requests 1 and 2 (the terms of reference, and the scope and methodology correspondence with Motu) and to provide those first, with the remainder to follow.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence (note: this contains the same information already available above).
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request