Winston Peters and NZ First: Nationalists or opportunists?
Exploring the contradictions between political rhetoric and actions of New Zealand's Deputy Prime Minister.
Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters is under fire for comments made towards immigrant MPs in Parliament this week. This followed an exchange in the House where his NZ First ministerial colleague Shane Jones yelled ‘send the Mexicans home’ across the floor.
Peters took aim at migrants when he was heckled by Green MPs Lawrence Xu-Nan and Francisco Hernández.
“The very people who are here on the very refuge that we give to them have come here with their ideas, foreign to our country, native to theirs, and they wish to impose them upon our Parliament. No, you don't. You're not going to succeed here. You might be laughing now, you might be laughing now, but you'll be crying tomorrow. Come to this country, show some gratitude.” - Winston Peters
Mexican-born Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March said the comments were "outwardly racist and xenophobic" and called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to take action in response to comments made by his ministers1.
On 5 June 1979 a new member of Parliament made their maiden speech. In their closing remarks the MP described:
“a disturbing feature of New Zealand today. It is sad that there is growing in our country a self-contemptuous culture made up of people scornful of our society. It is curious that those who have this attitude see others as the appropriate target….”
“…The growth of this culture has served to confuse both dissent and leadership as concepts in New Zealand. Opposition, criticism, and dissent are worthy pursuits when combined with a sense of responsibility. They have a purifying effect on society. Areas in need of urgent attention can be identified and courses of action may be initiated. However embarrassing to community or national leaders, the results are enormously beneficial to the total well-being of the community.
“The critic I am speaking about has no such goals. He sets out to exploit every tremor and spawn in society, the economy, or race relations, seeking to use every such event as a vehicle to project his own public personality….”2
Could this be an applicable description of the political behaviour of Winston Peters and Shane Jones? Does ‘seeking to exploit every tremor and spawn in society’ describe the modus operandi of NZ First, particularly when falling in the polls?
Peters is likely to reject this description, even though the words quoted above will be strangely familiar.
They are the closing remarks of Winston Peters’ own maiden speech.
It is an irony that Peters’ denunciation of political opportunism in 1979 ended up being a pretty accurate description of his own political career.
It would not be the first time Peters has accused others of what he intends to do himself. Indeed, one could suggest Peters and Jones’ adoption of Donald Trump’s anti-Mexican rhetoric is imposing ‘foreign’ ideas on our Parliament, which are of very questionable relevance to New Zealand.
Peters’ and Jones’ comments are nothing new
During the 1996 election campaign NZ First made immigration a central issue, capitalising on concerns in some segments of the population at the growing number of Asian and Indian immigrants coming to New Zealand. Peters argued high immigration put greater pressure on public services, infrastructure, jobs and housing, leading to a significant increase in public support for NZ First. While Peters denied playing the ‘race card’ during this campaign, a ‘joke’ made in 2014 in relation to foreign investment that ‘Two wongs don’t make a white’ was a much more overt dog whistle3.
In 2002, Peters campaigned on reducing immigration, increasing punishments for crime and ending the Treaty of Waitangi “grievance industry”4. In relation to Treaty issues, it is instructive to again quote Peters’ words from 19795.
This critic never joins the nick of human existence; his opinions are never put at risk. His non-participation is a fail-safe device. For instance, this critic cares nothing about the Maori or Polynesian people, for he seizes every opportunity to set these people against their European brethren - Winston Peters
In 2005, Peters described the projected growth of the Asian population as a “disturbing issue” and warned of “imported criminal activity”6. Is ‘exploiting every tremor and spawn in society’ Peters own code for racism?
While Peters initially denied there was anything wrong with his and Shane Jones’ comments this week, Peters made a partial backdown once he knew the Mexican Embassy intended to raise the issue through diplomatic channels. Jones claimed NZ First were a ‘Nationalist party’ and that critics should not “make fun” of NZ First’s foundational beliefs.
But history shows that if NZ First is a ‘Nationalist’ party they are not an effective one. If one was being less charitable, one would call them a fraud.
The Greens and the Māori Party both have a stronger record than NZ First on issues relating to national sovereignty. That said, the Greens have been notably quieter on issues relating to foreign investment since Russell Norman’s resignation as co-leader in 2015.
But how would a party which claimed to protect the interests of New Zealand act?
NZ First: ‘Notice-mes’ not nationalists
A ‘nationalist’ would be looking to extend and strengthen New Zealand’s independent foreign policy, yet as Foreign Minister, Peters is doing the opposite. Peters has sought closer relationships with ‘traditional allies’ such as the United States of America, and appears keen to sign New Zealand up to ‘pillar two’ of the AUKUS pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the USA.
Former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark and former National leader Don Brash went as far as to pen a joint article to highlight how signing up to AUKUS effectively signs away New Zealand’s independent foreign policy, as “nobody pretends that AUKUS is anything but an attempt by the US to contain China”7. Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating also strongly criticised the AUKUS pact: "This arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as material dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate"8.
There are legitimate concerns relating to unregulated foreign investment undermining New Zealand sovereignty, especially when regulation of large corporations remains light to non existent at the international level. There are situations where we need to ‘pick and choose’. Yet Peters’ record on this issue is also very scratchy - he typically campaigns on foreign investment while in opposition and ‘forgets’ to do anything while he is a minister.
In the mid-1990s greater controls on foreign investment formed a key part of the New Zealand First political platform but was soon forgotten about. A good source for this is Murray Horton’s “Winston’s Petered Out” published in Foreign Control Watchdog in May 19979. Even the minor changes to the Overseas Investment regime negotiated as a part of the 1996 National/NZ First Coalition agreement did not become operational until after the Labour/Alliance government took office in 1999.
In June 2020, as small retailers begged for rent relief during COVID-19, Peters rode in to support the ‘big end’ of town, blocking Labour’s proposal for a compulsory arbitration scheme. One wonders how many small businesses went down due to Peters defending the ‘sanctity of contract’ on behalf of large commercial property owners, many of whom are foreign investors10. While some ‘battlers’ may still support NZ First, they should know Peters is more likely to be a ‘battler’ for party donors and those he is wining and dining at the elite Northern Club11.
In the context of the current government, Peters may point to his role in preventing the National Party from reversing the ban on foreigners buying residential property. However, there are signs that resolve on this issue may be weakening12. National and ACT could attempt to press this issue again in the context of an upcoming replacement of the Overseas Investment Act. Due to the structure of international treaties, if the ban on foreigners owning residential property is lifted it will be more difficult for a future government to reintroduce, even if they have a democratic mandate to do so.
If New Zealand First's claims to be a ‘Nationalist’ party hold no substance, where actions have regularly been in deep contrast to words - what is one left with?
NZ First: A party which “sets to to exploit every tremor and spawn in society, the economy, or race relations, seeking to use every such event as a vehicle to project his own public personality.”
You said it Winston.
Smith, A. (2025, Jan 25), Greens ask PM to condemn ‘outwardly racist’ rhetoric, RNZ, https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/540293/greens-ask-pm-to-condemn-outwardly-racist-rhetoric
Peters, W. (1979), Address and Reply and Proposed Amendment. In Parliamentary debates (Hansard) (Vol. 422, pp. 406-409), New Zealand Government. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3281373&seq=414&q1=Peters
Day, S. (2014, Aug 12), Two Wongs critical of Winston, Stuff.co.nz, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10373461/Two-Wongs-critical-of-Winston
Cooke, Henry (2018, June 21), A brief history of Winston Raymond Peters, www.stuff.co.nz. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97547465/A-brief-history-of-Winston-Raymond-Peters
Peters, W. (1979), Address and Reply and Proposed Amendment. In Parliamentary debates (Hansard) (Vol. 422, pp. 406-409), New Zealand Government. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3281373&seq=414&q1=Peters
Peters, W. (2005, May 27), New Zealand First immigration policy: Securing our borders and protecting our identity, Speech to Orewa GreyPower, Orewa, https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0505/S00702.htm
Clark, H. & Brash, D. (2024, Feb 13), Helen Clark and Don Brash: Aukus - NZ must not abandon our independent foreign policy, NZ Herald, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/helen-clark-and-don-brash-aukus-nz-must-not-abandon-our-independent-foreign-policy/LLYEOE4WH5AY5DTV3D323OXRUU/
Probyn, A. (2021, Sep 16), Australia’s embrace of nuclear submarine technology cements role as regional foil against China, ABC News, Australia, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-us-uk-nuclear-option-china-morrison-biden/100466150
Horton, M. (1977, May), Winston’s petered out, Foreign Control Watchdog, 84, 1, 3-6.
Sachdeva, S. & Moir, J. (2021, Apr 1), Poor uptake for commercial rent dispute scheme, Newsroom.co.nz, https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/04/01/poor-uptake-for-commercial-rent-dispute-scheme/
Sachdeva, S. (2024, Dec 18), Peters considers legal action over judge’s ‘verbal attack’, Newsroom.co.nz, https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/12/18/peters-considers-legal-action-over-judges-verbal-attack/
Brockett, M. (2024, Mar 24), New Zealand’s Peters open to relaxing foreign home buyer ban, Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-27/new-zealand-s-winston-peters-open-to-relaxing-foreign-home-buyer-ban
See also Seymour, D. (2024, Jun 6), Ministerial Directive Letter [Letter to Richard Hawke, Chief Executive of Land Information New Zealand]. New Zealand Treasury, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2024-06/ministerial-directive-letter-june-2024.pdf
Opportunists - evident in their flip flopping on selling NZ to the highest bidder. It was always just about whether they got the right price. And global money is big money.
Going beyond Winston Peters and New Zealand First there is scope to revisit the legacy of Robert Muldoon's National Party. The question should not be whether Peters is an opportunist. After all, which parliamentary politician is not?. Opportunism goes with the territory of politics.
Peters first came into the New Zealand Parliament as a member of Muldoon's governing party, and so naturally in his maiden address to the House he would make statesmanlike comments deploring political negativity. In opposition, things are seen from a different perspective, and the more negative the better.
The proper question to ask is whether Peters, New Zealand First, Robert Muldoon and the National Party are indeed nationalist. That is tantamount to asking whether nationalism is a feature of New Zealand capitalism, as it has been a feature of capitalism in most other nations at various stages in their development.
There is no simple answer to that question. Despite what the left might think, the National Party does represent the interests of certain elements of domestic capital and therefore has a slim right to call itself a "National" party.
Muldoon was the leader of the National Party, and also a nationalist of sorts. Regrettably, his nationalism was often expressed in petty ways such as contempt or disregard for races other than Maori and the British-descended peoples who were considered to constitute the national population of New Zealand. That contempt extended to working class Britons (those with "Clydeside accents"), though not to the British ruling classes, for whom he always showed a proper respect.
So far, so like Winston Peters.
Under Muldoon National set out to develop New Zealand's industrial capacity with the aims of providing the infrastructure necessary to support New Zealand's primary export industries and employing foreign capital to build the industrial base necessary to become a fully developed economy, with domestic capital providing a second tier of small to medium size businesses. Therein lay a contradiction. New Zealand at the time was (and still is) an integral part of the Anglo-American imperial system. The imperial powers wanted New Zealand to produce and export a range of primary products to the empire, and also wanted New Zealand, as part of the imperial alliance, to have the economic depth and strength to withstand market shocks such as the 1970s oil crisis or supposed strategic threats such as that presented by the Communist bloc. But they did not want New Zealand to develop to the point where it could go completely its own way and wave goodbye to Mother England or Uncle Sam. To the imperial powers colonies should be moderately successful, but never so successful that they take the road to full political and economic independence.
So the development of national capitalism in New Zealand was always a fraught business, negotiated between New Zealand, UK, Australian and US governments on a micro-scale, project by project.
Thus colonialism and nationalism met in the no-mans land occupied first by the National Party and Robert Muldoon, then by Winston Peters and New Zealand First. Are they nationalist or colonialist? In a sense they are both, unconsciously progressing the normal dynamic by which colonies develop into economically and eventually politically independent states. That was the process followed to completion in the British North American colonies which eventually became the United States of America.
However something happened in New Zealand to interrupt the normal historical process. In 1984, Robert Muldoon was thrown out of office and the Labour Party, which from its origins was a colonialist party pure and simple, with no aspirations for either economic or political independence from the Anglo-American imperial system, took charge. The effect of Labour's transformation of the New Zealand economy was to massively tip the balance away from domestic capital and towards foreign "investors". Labour's argument to its middle and working class supporters was that foreign capital was more efficient than domestic capital, would pay higher wages, and ultimately create more jobs. While there was some basis to that claim, ultimately it lead to New Zealand de-industrializing and created structural problems in the economy that have become progressively more severe in the succeeding four decades.
Peters could see the problems which would flow from Labour's mindlessly colonialist approach to the economy, subsequently taken up by National as well, and so New Zealand First became the one remaining party of New Zealand national capitalism. At the same time, Peters remained a colonialist through and through. He is staunchly loyal to the British monarchy, and to the United States as leader of the Anglo-American imperial system.
Sometimes people ask what has happened to Peters' "economic nationalism" now? Where has it gone? The answer is that it has missed the boat. Out of the Lange-Douglas transformation New Zealand domestic capitalism reverted to strictly colonial capitalism. Foreign capital took back the commanding heights of the New Zealand economy and any new enterprise which reaches a certain level of success is quickly sold off to foreign buyers. Thus colonialist capitalism degenerated into capitalism without heart or soul. In short, it became nothing more than a way of making money. Lacking a heart, it also lacks a sense of decency and morality. It becomes corrupt, and with it the colonialist political system, and New Zealand First in particular, has also become manifestly corrupt. Winston Peters himself has fallen victim to this corruption. None of his decisions as Deputy Prime Minister or Minister of Foreign Affairs reflects a moral approach to political affairs. He does whatever he is told to do by his superiors in Westminster, Canberra and Washington, or failing that, whatever he perceives may serve his own narrow political interests. His problem is not that he is a political opportunist. It is that he has personally succumbed to the colonialist regime's inexorable descent into political and economic corruption.