Nz First has a pretty overtime history of xenophobia and racist rhetoric especially towards Asian immigrants, sadly it's not surprising that it's come up again.
I personally think it's hard to clearly label Te Pati Maori as a nationalist party but very easy to say the same about NZ First. It also depends on how you define nationalism. TPM…
Nz First has a pretty overtime history of xenophobia and racist rhetoric especially towards Asian immigrants, sadly it's not surprising that it's come up again.
I personally think it's hard to clearly label Te Pati Maori as a nationalist party but very easy to say the same about NZ First. It also depends on how you define nationalism. TPM are definitely left wing and advocate for maori issues primarily but that comes from the clear lack of equity that maori experience. Its hard to argue that maori are being prioritised in a nationalist way when all the statistical indicators would say they are still represented in a huge amount of negative statistics. This isn't to say that maori are incapable of having nationalist tendencies, of course everyone can that's the nature of being human. As someone who's grown up in a pretty multicultural environment older white people have consistently been the ones to push more nationalist rhetoric in my experience.
I do find it slightly odd to focus on TPM when NZ First has consistently pushed xenophobic and anti-immigrant rhetoric since it's inception and is easily the most nationalist party.
Thanks, Henry. I appreciate your perspective, and I get where you’re coming from. What I’m trying to explore is that nationalist tendencies aren’t inherently left or right, and framing matters a lot in how we interpret them. It’s not necessarily better or worse depending on where a party sits ideologically—it’s about who is being centered, how, and at whose expense.
I do struggle with race-based prioritization in public services like health, housing, and education. There’s no doubt about the inequities Māori face, and their role as Treaty Partners, and I’ve read the stats, the research, and the historical context for the past 10 years diligently. I completely understand why policies exist to address those disparities. But at the same time, New Zealand is becoming increasingly diverse, and for many new migrants, it’s difficult to reconcile the idea that their own struggles with institutional discrimination, economic hardship, and access to services are on a scale that makes them faith class citizens because they don’t belong to the historically colonized group.
Take healthcare as an example—if you’re a new immigrant, that’s is Muslim, southeast Asian ands female, who is another group who is consistent discriminated against as well, struggling to access a doctor, while seeing prioritization based on ethnicity, it can feel like an exclusionary system, even if the intent is about equity. The question then becomes: how do we reconcile a past that undeniably disadvantaged Māori with a present and future that includes a far more multicultural population?
That’s not to say Māori advocacy is nationalist in the same way NZ First’s rhetoric on immigration has been, but it does raise an important debate about how racial hierarchies are being structured in contemporary policy and whether they can be sustained in an increasingly diverse country. I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but it’s worth questioning whether a system that prioritizes one racial group indefinitely is sustainable when the broader demographic landscape is changing so rapidly. What do you think?
I agree that nationalist tendencies are not inherently left—or right-wing; the difference is their purpose and how nationalism is used. Nationalism itself is not a simple definitional category but something that is applied differently by different movements, parties, and political ideologies. Right-wing nationalism differs from left-wing nationalism, although it can be hard to tell how a party uses nationalism within their political ideology and movement.
While rhetorically, the forms of nationalism used by TPM and NZ first are sometimes vaguely similar, it is essential to understand the context and background from which this nationalism came. I.e. NZ First and Winston Peters using language such as "two wongs don't make a white", as well as Shane Jones blatantly racism over the last week. Conflating this with a both-sides style argument, I think, is harmful. I'm sure there are xenophobic Maori voters and communities, but the same is true for all other demographics and should be something that is worked on; it's not ok when anyone is racist. This also should not take away from the more systemic racism that is arguably far more harmful whether people believe it exists or not. The recent policing report that was released last year showed the systemic nature of racism within policing; the same goes for a myriad of other state institutions. Again, this is not to say these institutions should be abolished but to say that this level of prejudice exists whether we want to believe it does or not. By and large, the people often most affected by this more systemic style of racism are Maori.
I'm also not sure if you've explained why you're against affirmative action for Maori. You've pointed in the past to liberal democracy values, but these are not inherently in opposition to affirmative action. We have affirmative action programmes for rural students wanting to go to university, women, and poorer communities. Why is doing the same for Maori any different? If the answer is race, then the question should be, why have Maori historically been so overrepresented in negative statistics? Is equity not the goal?
On the topic of healthcare, "...it can feel like an exclusionary system, even if the goal is equity." This is an interesting sentence. To me, this is a question of resources. I can understand the feelings of discrimination, but the answer to this is better support for new immigrants and hard-to-reach groups. New Zealand's healthcare spending has decreased per person over the last several years. Is this the main problem? The issue seems to be a 'feeling' of discrimination rather than a real discriminatory policy. However, I fully acknowledge that navigating the New Zealand bureaucracy as a new resident is tough. However, as I said, we need better support for new immigrants, which again seems to be a resource question.
I also always think that discussions of racial hierarchies have severely negative connotations and foster a way of thinking that is incredibly unhelpful and unproductive. If Maori are prioritised on a system of racial hierarchies, then why are they (when looked at on a demographic basis) overrepresented in negative statistics? How is that being a top pyramid of racial hierarchy? This, to me, represents a logical fallacy type of argument, as does the one about prioritising Maori 'indefinitely'; I don't think that has ever been brought up because, at the current pace, it is so far in the future.
New Zealand has changed a lot as a country, but that doesn't mean the past is not topical or relevant. Our history should be taught more so that we can learn and develop our shared knowledge. If we want to talk about the significant changes to our foundation as a country, maybe we should question why we still call people knights, have a watermark in the corner of our flag and insist on maintaining a harmful number 8 wire mentality when it comes to infrastructure development. New Zealand is facing critical issues, and a large part of them come down to an outdated and unfair economic model that discriminates regardless of who you are based on homeownership.
Apologies for the extensive reply, but multiple points need addressing.
Really appreciate this thoughtful response—no need to apologize for the length! And sorry for the slow reply. These are exactly the kinds of conversations I want to have, and you’ve raised some great points that deserve unpacking.
I completely agree that nationalism isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept—it’s always shaped by its context. TPM’s nationalism is obviously rooted in historical injustice and indigenous rights, while NZ First’s version leans more into cultural preservation with a heavy dose of exclusionary rhetoric. That said, nationalism—regardless of where it comes from—tends to create "us vs. them" dynamics, and that’s what I’m trying to explore. The intention and impact may differ, but the pattern is there. At its core, nationalism is about defining who belongs, and by extension, who doesn’t. And in a world shaped by globalization, that often means positioning immigration as something that dilutes rather than strengthens national identity, explicitly or implicitly, deliberately or unintentionally.
On systemic racism, I don’t disagree with you at all. Institutional bias is real, and reports like last year’s policing report make that painfully clear. I actually did my Master’s in political science on institutional discrimination in New Zealand’s public service, and I’ve also experienced it firsthand. The challenge is how we talk about it. Some people hear “systemic racism” and assume it means individuals within the system are personally racist, rather than understanding that these biases are baked into structures, the institutions have a legacy of discrimination within their polices, and that is the challenge. That’s a structural problem we haven’t figured out how to solve yet. Here or in any post-colonial country. Its a hard nut to crack.
On affirmative action—I don’t oppose it outright, but I think it needs constant reassessment to ensure it’s actually achieving its intended goals. More importantly, it needs to be part of a wider structural approach—on its own, it can create more problems than it solves. The issue with affirmative action for Māori isn’t just political controversy; it’s that it prioritizes one historically disadvantaged group while excluding others who also face systemic barriers. That creates a hierarchy—if Māori are prioritized first, there is no space for other marginalized groups. The data shows Māori are disproportionately struggling, but the same is true for immigrants from non-English speaking countries in the Global South—especially from Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. The question is: how do we address their challenges if every social and political grievance must first be resolved for Māori?
Racial hierarchies are problematic, but they’re not the wrong framing—it’s actually how New Zealand has deliberately structured its population data and policy frameworks. Not all post-colonial countries do this. Some organize populations by class, education, or income. New Zealand does it through cultural and racial categories, which is a political choice. None of these systems are perfect, but structuring policy around race/culture in this way creates its own set of challenges.
On healthcare—yeah, it’s absolutely about resources, but that’s the political paradox, right? At the end of the day, every government has to make financially viable trade-offs based on tax revenue and available funding. They can’t serve everyone, all the time. That’s where some left-leaning policies hit a wall—the trade-offs still exist, but they’re not always clearly articulated. And when healthcare prioritizes Māori and Pasifika communities (which, in many ways, is justified based on health outcomes), other minority groups inevitably get left out. I’ve studied this academically, but more importantly, I’ve lived it. This is a blind spot in both social and political discussions, and honestly, I might write a separate piece on it because it deserves a deeper dive.
And I love your point about rethinking our national symbols. We get so caught up in cultural debates that we ignore the structural barriers that actually determine people’s lives—like homeownership and economic fairness. The whole "number 8 wire" mentality is a great example. It’s romanticized as Kiwi ingenuity, but in reality, it often just means “do more with less” while the bigger systemic issues go unresolved.
Anyway, really appreciate the thoughtful kōrero, and I’ll check out that healthcare article. These discussions are why I write this newsletter. Hope to hear your thoughts on next week’s piece too!
Nz First has a pretty overtime history of xenophobia and racist rhetoric especially towards Asian immigrants, sadly it's not surprising that it's come up again.
I personally think it's hard to clearly label Te Pati Maori as a nationalist party but very easy to say the same about NZ First. It also depends on how you define nationalism. TPM are definitely left wing and advocate for maori issues primarily but that comes from the clear lack of equity that maori experience. Its hard to argue that maori are being prioritised in a nationalist way when all the statistical indicators would say they are still represented in a huge amount of negative statistics. This isn't to say that maori are incapable of having nationalist tendencies, of course everyone can that's the nature of being human. As someone who's grown up in a pretty multicultural environment older white people have consistently been the ones to push more nationalist rhetoric in my experience.
I do find it slightly odd to focus on TPM when NZ First has consistently pushed xenophobic and anti-immigrant rhetoric since it's inception and is easily the most nationalist party.
Thanks, Henry. I appreciate your perspective, and I get where you’re coming from. What I’m trying to explore is that nationalist tendencies aren’t inherently left or right, and framing matters a lot in how we interpret them. It’s not necessarily better or worse depending on where a party sits ideologically—it’s about who is being centered, how, and at whose expense.
I do struggle with race-based prioritization in public services like health, housing, and education. There’s no doubt about the inequities Māori face, and their role as Treaty Partners, and I’ve read the stats, the research, and the historical context for the past 10 years diligently. I completely understand why policies exist to address those disparities. But at the same time, New Zealand is becoming increasingly diverse, and for many new migrants, it’s difficult to reconcile the idea that their own struggles with institutional discrimination, economic hardship, and access to services are on a scale that makes them faith class citizens because they don’t belong to the historically colonized group.
Take healthcare as an example—if you’re a new immigrant, that’s is Muslim, southeast Asian ands female, who is another group who is consistent discriminated against as well, struggling to access a doctor, while seeing prioritization based on ethnicity, it can feel like an exclusionary system, even if the intent is about equity. The question then becomes: how do we reconcile a past that undeniably disadvantaged Māori with a present and future that includes a far more multicultural population?
That’s not to say Māori advocacy is nationalist in the same way NZ First’s rhetoric on immigration has been, but it does raise an important debate about how racial hierarchies are being structured in contemporary policy and whether they can be sustained in an increasingly diverse country. I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but it’s worth questioning whether a system that prioritizes one racial group indefinitely is sustainable when the broader demographic landscape is changing so rapidly. What do you think?
I agree that nationalist tendencies are not inherently left—or right-wing; the difference is their purpose and how nationalism is used. Nationalism itself is not a simple definitional category but something that is applied differently by different movements, parties, and political ideologies. Right-wing nationalism differs from left-wing nationalism, although it can be hard to tell how a party uses nationalism within their political ideology and movement.
While rhetorically, the forms of nationalism used by TPM and NZ first are sometimes vaguely similar, it is essential to understand the context and background from which this nationalism came. I.e. NZ First and Winston Peters using language such as "two wongs don't make a white", as well as Shane Jones blatantly racism over the last week. Conflating this with a both-sides style argument, I think, is harmful. I'm sure there are xenophobic Maori voters and communities, but the same is true for all other demographics and should be something that is worked on; it's not ok when anyone is racist. This also should not take away from the more systemic racism that is arguably far more harmful whether people believe it exists or not. The recent policing report that was released last year showed the systemic nature of racism within policing; the same goes for a myriad of other state institutions. Again, this is not to say these institutions should be abolished but to say that this level of prejudice exists whether we want to believe it does or not. By and large, the people often most affected by this more systemic style of racism are Maori.
I'm also not sure if you've explained why you're against affirmative action for Maori. You've pointed in the past to liberal democracy values, but these are not inherently in opposition to affirmative action. We have affirmative action programmes for rural students wanting to go to university, women, and poorer communities. Why is doing the same for Maori any different? If the answer is race, then the question should be, why have Maori historically been so overrepresented in negative statistics? Is equity not the goal?
On the topic of healthcare, "...it can feel like an exclusionary system, even if the goal is equity." This is an interesting sentence. To me, this is a question of resources. I can understand the feelings of discrimination, but the answer to this is better support for new immigrants and hard-to-reach groups. New Zealand's healthcare spending has decreased per person over the last several years. Is this the main problem? The issue seems to be a 'feeling' of discrimination rather than a real discriminatory policy. However, I fully acknowledge that navigating the New Zealand bureaucracy as a new resident is tough. However, as I said, we need better support for new immigrants, which again seems to be a resource question.
I also always think that discussions of racial hierarchies have severely negative connotations and foster a way of thinking that is incredibly unhelpful and unproductive. If Maori are prioritised on a system of racial hierarchies, then why are they (when looked at on a demographic basis) overrepresented in negative statistics? How is that being a top pyramid of racial hierarchy? This, to me, represents a logical fallacy type of argument, as does the one about prioritising Maori 'indefinitely'; I don't think that has ever been brought up because, at the current pace, it is so far in the future.
New Zealand has changed a lot as a country, but that doesn't mean the past is not topical or relevant. Our history should be taught more so that we can learn and develop our shared knowledge. If we want to talk about the significant changes to our foundation as a country, maybe we should question why we still call people knights, have a watermark in the corner of our flag and insist on maintaining a harmful number 8 wire mentality when it comes to infrastructure development. New Zealand is facing critical issues, and a large part of them come down to an outdated and unfair economic model that discriminates regardless of who you are based on homeownership.
Apologies for the extensive reply, but multiple points need addressing.
Here's the article about healthcare: https://union.org.nz/new-zealand-not-in-better-health-after-budget-2024/
Hey Henry,
Really appreciate this thoughtful response—no need to apologize for the length! And sorry for the slow reply. These are exactly the kinds of conversations I want to have, and you’ve raised some great points that deserve unpacking.
I completely agree that nationalism isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept—it’s always shaped by its context. TPM’s nationalism is obviously rooted in historical injustice and indigenous rights, while NZ First’s version leans more into cultural preservation with a heavy dose of exclusionary rhetoric. That said, nationalism—regardless of where it comes from—tends to create "us vs. them" dynamics, and that’s what I’m trying to explore. The intention and impact may differ, but the pattern is there. At its core, nationalism is about defining who belongs, and by extension, who doesn’t. And in a world shaped by globalization, that often means positioning immigration as something that dilutes rather than strengthens national identity, explicitly or implicitly, deliberately or unintentionally.
On systemic racism, I don’t disagree with you at all. Institutional bias is real, and reports like last year’s policing report make that painfully clear. I actually did my Master’s in political science on institutional discrimination in New Zealand’s public service, and I’ve also experienced it firsthand. The challenge is how we talk about it. Some people hear “systemic racism” and assume it means individuals within the system are personally racist, rather than understanding that these biases are baked into structures, the institutions have a legacy of discrimination within their polices, and that is the challenge. That’s a structural problem we haven’t figured out how to solve yet. Here or in any post-colonial country. Its a hard nut to crack.
On affirmative action—I don’t oppose it outright, but I think it needs constant reassessment to ensure it’s actually achieving its intended goals. More importantly, it needs to be part of a wider structural approach—on its own, it can create more problems than it solves. The issue with affirmative action for Māori isn’t just political controversy; it’s that it prioritizes one historically disadvantaged group while excluding others who also face systemic barriers. That creates a hierarchy—if Māori are prioritized first, there is no space for other marginalized groups. The data shows Māori are disproportionately struggling, but the same is true for immigrants from non-English speaking countries in the Global South—especially from Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. The question is: how do we address their challenges if every social and political grievance must first be resolved for Māori?
Racial hierarchies are problematic, but they’re not the wrong framing—it’s actually how New Zealand has deliberately structured its population data and policy frameworks. Not all post-colonial countries do this. Some organize populations by class, education, or income. New Zealand does it through cultural and racial categories, which is a political choice. None of these systems are perfect, but structuring policy around race/culture in this way creates its own set of challenges.
On healthcare—yeah, it’s absolutely about resources, but that’s the political paradox, right? At the end of the day, every government has to make financially viable trade-offs based on tax revenue and available funding. They can’t serve everyone, all the time. That’s where some left-leaning policies hit a wall—the trade-offs still exist, but they’re not always clearly articulated. And when healthcare prioritizes Māori and Pasifika communities (which, in many ways, is justified based on health outcomes), other minority groups inevitably get left out. I’ve studied this academically, but more importantly, I’ve lived it. This is a blind spot in both social and political discussions, and honestly, I might write a separate piece on it because it deserves a deeper dive.
And I love your point about rethinking our national symbols. We get so caught up in cultural debates that we ignore the structural barriers that actually determine people’s lives—like homeownership and economic fairness. The whole "number 8 wire" mentality is a great example. It’s romanticized as Kiwi ingenuity, but in reality, it often just means “do more with less” while the bigger systemic issues go unresolved.
Anyway, really appreciate the thoughtful kōrero, and I’ll check out that healthcare article. These discussions are why I write this newsletter. Hope to hear your thoughts on next week’s piece too!
Nat
Dare you to approach Winston and tell him he's xenophobic .
Overt* not overtime