Geoff Parker: Kotahitanga — Unity, Or Division By Another Name?

Metiria Turei's argument (Otago Daily Times, 4/9/26) for kotahitanga (unity) begins with a proposition few New Zealanders would disagree with: that people should work together, respect one another and build a better country for everyone.

So far, so good.

But then comes the sleight of hand.

Turei takes the perfectly reasonable concept of unity and uses it to promote a particular political ideology — one in which New Zealand is increasingly divided into distinct racial and cultural constituencies, where Māori are said to possess rights that other New Zealanders do not, and where opposition to that direction is casually labelled “white supremacy”, “racism” or “extremism”.

That isn't kotahitanga.

It is political advocacy dressed up as unity.

The most revealing sentence in her article is perhaps this:

“Monoculturalism is the threat to kotahitanga, not biculturalism or multiculturalism.”

But who gets to define what “biculturalism” actually means?

If it means Māori culture, language and history being respected and protected alongside the cultures of all other New Zealanders, there is little to argue about.

But if “biculturalism” means creating separate political rights, institutions, representation and decision-making arrangements according to ancestry, then we have moved well beyond celebrating cultural difference.

We are talking about the structure of the state.

And that is precisely the debate Turei avoids.

EQUALITY IS NOT SUPREMACY

Turei repeatedly invokes “white supremacy” while discussing people who oppose race-based policies, Māori wards, co-governance or the expansion of iwi political authority.

But opposition to racial preference is not white supremacy.

Believing that every New Zealander should have the same political rights regardless of ancestry is not racism.

Believing that government should make decisions on the basis of citizenship rather than race is not extremism.

And believing that Parliament should remain accountable to the people who elect it is not an “attack on democratic institutions”.

Quite the opposite.

It is an argument for equal citizenship and democratic accountability.

There is something deeply disturbing about a political culture in which saying “one law for all” can be portrayed as an extremist position.

Imagine applying the same logic in reverse.

Would it be acceptable to argue that Pākehā should receive special political privileges because of their ancestry? Of course not. We would rightly call that discriminatory.

So why should the principle change when the racial preference is directed in another direction?

THE TREATY IS NOT A BLANK CHEQUE

Turei also claims that Māori possess “rights affirmed at the formation of our country” and that Pākehā should not demand that Māori surrender those rights.

The Treaty certainly contains important guarantees to Māori. But this is presented as though the Treaty itself established today's system of co-governance, separate representation and shared decision-making.

It did not.

The modern Treaty framework has developed through legislation, judicial interpretation, government policy and the work of institutions such as the Waitangi Tribunal.

Even the ‘partnership’ principle developed by the courts does not authorise unreasonable restrictions on the right of a duly elected government to pursue its chosen policies.

That distinction matters.

If we are going to have a serious national conversation about the constitutional future of New Zealand, we should not pretend that every contemporary political proposal has existed unchanged since 1840.

KOTAHITANGA CANNOT MEAN SILENCING DISAGREEMENT

Turei says:

“Communities cannot work together when one group is silenced.”

Agreed.

But that principle must apply to everyone.

It must apply to the New Zealander who questions co-governance.

To the person who opposes Māori wards.

To the taxpayer who questions race-based funding.

To the citizen who believes Parliament, rather than unelected representatives of particular ethnic groups, should make the laws of the country.

And to those who believe New Zealand should have one political system and one standard of citizenship.

You cannot preach kotahitanga while simultaneously treating disagreement with your preferred constitutional model as evidence of racism or white supremacy.

That isn't unity.

It is an attempt to delegitimise the opposition.

WHO ULTIMATELY GOVERNS NEW ZEALAND?

Turei attacks the Government over its proposed replacement of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, portraying the move as an attempt to “break apart respectful relationships” and “silence iwi”.

That is a political interpretation, not an established fact.

The Government is proposing to replace the existing framework with narrower iwi participation agreements covering statutory planning processes and Treaty-settlement redress, with proposed guardrails against scope creep.

People can disagree strongly with that policy. But disagreement is not evidence of an attempt to silence anyone.

And there is a much bigger question:

Who ultimately governs New Zealand?

In a representative democracy, governments derive their authority from the electorate.

Ministers are accountable to Parliament. Members of Parliament are accountable to voters. Governments can be removed by those voters.

That is the foundation of democratic government.

There is nothing inherently undemocratic about consulting iwi or Māori communities. Governments should listen to the people affected by their decisions.

But consultation is not the same as shared sovereignty.

‘Partnership’ is not automatically co-decision-making.

And respect for Māori culture does not require different political rights based on ancestry.

‘Treaty principles’ may require good faith, consultation and reasonable cooperation, but they do not turn an unelected body into a second government with the power to override the policies of an elected one.

Those distinctions matter.

DIFFERENCE IS NOT THE PROBLEM

Turei is correct about one thing: difference does not necessarily create division.

New Zealand is full of people from different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds who live, work and raise their families together.

That is one of our strengths.

But the answer is not to turn those differences into an increasingly racialised political system.

The answer is to ensure that the state treats people equally while society remains free to celebrate difference.

There is a crucial distinction between cultural identity and political identity.

You can be Māori, Pākehā, Chinese, Indian, Samoan, Scottish or anything else you wish — and still be an equal New Zealander under the same law.

That is not “monoculturalism”.

It is citizenship.

And there is nothing racist about wanting it.

THE REAL CHOICE

Turei presents two alternatives: her vision of kotahitanga and the supposed threat of “supremacy”.

But there is another alternative she doesn't acknowledge.

Equality.

Not Māori supremacy.

Not Pākehā supremacy.

Not iwi supremacy.

Not government supremacy.

Equal citizenship.

One Parliament.

One law.

One vote of equal value.

One standard of democratic accountability.

And a country where Māori culture and language can flourish without requiring other New Zealanders to surrender equal political status.

That isn't an attack on Māori.

It isn't an attack on the Treaty.

It isn't white supremacy.

It is the belief that the best foundation for genuine unity is not the permanent political classification of New Zealanders by ancestry, but the recognition that we are all citizens of the same country.

Turei asks:

“Why would we choose different?”

Indeed.

Why would we?

Why deliberately construct a political system that increasingly separates New Zealanders according to race when we could instead build a country in which our differences are celebrated but our rights as citizens are equal?

If kotahitanga genuinely means unity, solidarity and collective action, then perhaps its most important test is whether it can embrace people who disagree with Metiria Turei.

Because a unity that demands ideological conformity isn't unity at all.

It is simply division dressed up in fashionable language.

Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.