In late July 2026, New Zealand First leader and Foreign Minister Winston Peters turned to Green Party MP Lawrence Xu-Nan in Parliament and said:
“I know you just came here five minutes ago. Go back to your own country… Go back to where you’ve come from, you loudmouth.”
Xu-Nan was born in China but has lived here since 1994. The remarks were widely condemned as xenophobic and unworthy of a senior minister. But they also expose a deeper inconsistency — one that turns Peters’ own stated logic right back on himself.
In September 2023, Peters said about Māori: “We’re not indigenous… we came with our DNA from China.” Yet this overlooks a profound truth: the identity “Māori” was born here, in Aotearoa. The ancestors who were Polynesian, arrived settled, adapted, and over generations became a distinct people — and it was in this land called Aotearoa that they became Māori. That identity is not imported; it was created here. That is what it means to be tangata whenua — the first people of this land.
What Winston has also not considered, is that when William Hobson signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, he signed it for and on behalf of the British Empire and all future generations who would later come to these shores. The Treaty became a constitutional bridge — one that allowed peoples, from every corner of the globe, to make this place their home. It established the relationship that enabled British settlers to be here, but that bridge was never closed to others. It extends to all who come.
And so, all who make Aotearoa their home become tangata tiriti — people of the Treaty — carrying equal rights and responsibilities under its covenant, alongside tangata whenua. This does not replace Māori status; it affirms that under Te Tiriti, we stand together — tangata whenua by whakapapa, tangata tiriti by covenant.
If Peters argues Māori are not indigenous because ancestors came from elsewhere, then by that same reasoning, who belongs? If “came from somewhere else” disqualifies one from true belonging, then that standard applies to him as much as anyone else. If Xu-Nan can be dismissed as having been here “five minutes,” then by that logic, Peters too arrived only “sixty minutes ago.” It is the same measure, applied equally.
We cannot have one rule for one group and a different rule for another. If the standard is “how long have you been here” or “where did your ancestors come from,” it must apply to everyone. It cannot be wielded selectively.
The old saying “the pot calling the kettle black” could not be more fitting. If you tell someone to go back to where they came from, you must be prepared to answer the same question yourself — especially when it is the very Treaty that allows us all to stand here.
Aotearoa is a nation built on many arrivals. Māori arrived first — tangata whenua. All who followed come across the same bridge — tangata tiriti. Both carry rights; both carry responsibilities. That is our shared covenant.
If we want a country where everyone feels welcome, we must hold our leaders to that same standard. We cannot demand respect for our own right to be here while denying it to others. Peters is entitled to his opinions — but opinions must stand up to scrutiny. When the logic you use to exclude others can be turned around and applied to you, it is not just offensive. It is inconsistent. And inconsistency, in a nation built on partnership, deserves to be called out.
So the response to those recent remarks might simply be this: If you don’t like the logic of “go back to where you came from,” then perhaps it is time to stop using it. Because if that is the rule, it applies to all of us — tangata whenua and tangata tiriti alike.
