Geoff Parker: Anti-Māori Talk, Pro-Māori Funding

Author’s note: This article is offered in the spirit of strengthening political credibility through honest engagement with the record, rather than as an argument against any party or leader.

Winston Peters and Shane Jones have built a political brand on railing against what they call “race-based policy”, “co-governance excesses”, and the supposed capture of the state by Māori interests. Their language is sharp, performative, and deliberately confrontational. It resonates with voters who feel alienated by identity politics and who believe governments should treat all citizens equally.

But there is a problem. A very large one.

Because while Peters and Jones publicly berate Māori elites, iwi leadership, and what they frame as grievance culture, the documentary record arguably shows that — apart from Treaty settlements — few politicians in recent decades have channelled more targeted discretionary government funding to Māori organisations, Māori land, and Māori institutions than these two men themselves.

The contradiction is not incidental. It is systemic.

This article critiques public policy outcomes and political positioning, not personal integrity or legality.

The Provincial Growth Fund: Māori by Design

Shane Jones was the political architect and gatekeeper of the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). From its inception, Jones made clear that Māori land, Māori enterprise, and Māori development were central objectives of the fund. This was not accidental “trickle-down”. It was explicit.

By way of example, PGF funding was channelled into:

• Māori land development and fencing projects

• Māori horticulture, forestry, and farming enterprises

• Māori tourism ventures

• Iwi-led water storage and infrastructure schemes

• Marae upgrades and papakāinga developments

The public record is extensive. Funding announcements through Beehive releases, RNZ, Newshub, Stuff, Waatea News and the NZ Herald show tens—likely hundreds—of millions of dollars allocated to iwi, Māori trusts, Māori land blocks, and Māori collectives through the PGF alone.

And Winston Peters has openly acknowledged the intent. In an E-Tangata interview, Peters stated plainly that New Zealand First secured the Provincial Growth Fund for Māori. This was not a secret, a by-product, or a bureaucratic accident. It was a political objective.

From PGF to RIF: Same Pipeline, New Name

The same pattern has continued under the Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF), effectively the PGF re-branded.

Under Shane Jones as Regional Development Minister, and alongside Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka, the RIF has delivered:

• $10.1 million to Rātana Pā for marae buildings

• $10.2 million for the Waitangi Treaty Grounds

• $7.1 million for Māori economic development in Northland and Taranaki

• $5.8 million for Parihaka water infrastructure

• $24.62 million for whenua Māori horticulture, aquifer recharge, and water storage projects across Hawke’s Bay and the East Coast

• Over $10 million for the Ringatū Marae Complex in the Bay of Plenty

Jones himself has described these investments as part of a deliberate strategy to unlock Māori land and Māori economic potential.

So the question arises: what exactly are Peters and Jones attacking when they rail against Māori privilege?

A Familiar Political Playbook

This is not a new phenomenon. Winston Peters has long portrayed himself as both Māori champion and Māori critic—often in the same breath.

Over the years, Peters has proudly claimed responsibility for:

• Establishing kōhanga reo

• Increasing Māori participation in tertiary education

• Supporting kapa haka and Māori sports institutions

• Securing funding for the Māori Women’s Welfare League and Māori Wardens

• Acting in major Māori land cases

Backing forestry and kiwifruit tax arrangements favouring Māori landowners

These are not marginal achievements. They are central to the modern Māori institutional landscape.

Yet today, Peters positions himself as the man standing against “separatism”, while Jones theatrically threatens to withdraw funding if Māori groups step out of line.

This is not principled opposition. It is transactional politics.

The Core Contradiction

If race-based funding is wrong, then it was wrong when Peters and Jones administered it.

If iwi-focused economic development undermines equality, then it undermined equality when they signed the cheques.

If Māori institutions are too powerful, then they did not become so by accident.

The reality is uncomfortable but unavoidable: Peters and Jones oppose Māori power only when they are not controlling it.

When they are in charge, Māori funding is framed as “development”, “partnership”, or “unlocking potential”. When others govern, the same policies are recast as radicalism or separatism.

This contradiction was not just rhetorical. It was embedded in how the funding system itself was designed.

Although the Provincial Growth Fund, established in 2017, was marketed as ethnicity-neutral, its structure was not. By explicitly listing iwi as a standalone funding category — separate from companies and charities — the Crown, under a Labour-led Government, embedded ancestry-based privilege into a discretionary economic fund. The simultaneous reliance on “charities” as a neutral catch-all further concealed this reality, given Māori organisations are disproportionately represented within charitable and post-settlement structures. The result was race-targeted funding delivered through administrative design, while maintaining the appearance of universal eligibility.

CONCLUSION: Voters Deserve Honesty

There is a legitimate debate to be had about race-based funding, co-governance, and the proper role of the state. But that debate cannot be conducted honestly by politicians who denounce Māori policy in public while privately—and proudly—building it.

Voters are entitled to consistency.

If Winston Peters and Shane Jones believe Māori-targeted funding is justified, they should say so openly and defend it on its merits. If they believe it is wrong, they should explain why they spent years delivering it.

What they should not be allowed to do is play both sides—stoking resentment with one hand while signing race-based cheques with the other.

Geoff Parker is a long-standing advocate for truth, equal rights, and equality before the law.