In brief
- Winston Peters challenges Māori indigenous status; his comments claiming “We come from Hawai-iki” ignite debate.
- He shares this historical background, but some say that his remarks are divisive and insensitive, with potential to impact race relations.
- Peters’ claims simply mirror what many of us were taught in school about Māori history and genetics which point to tribes originating in Asia.
Winston Peters revisits Māori indigenous status
Winston Peters recently asserted Māori are not indigenous to New Zealand. His claim is a challenge to the established narrative that Māori, as natives, are entitled to special rights over subsequent settlers.
His comments were made during a public meeting in Nelson, where he claimed Māori ancestry traces back to Hawai-iki.
“Here’s the rub if you are Māori. We’re not indigenous,” he said.
Winston Peters went on to elaborate that Māori people carried DNA from China and emphasised that their history in New Zealand was significantly shorter than the indigenous Australians, who have a 55,000-year history.

Reporters insinuated that the claims have potential to embolden anti-Māori sentiments or to undermine Māori cultural identity. Peters dismissed this by pointing out that it is in fact the mainstream media pushing racial separatism.
A lot riding on how indigenous is defined
While Peters’ assertion holds up factually, the repercussions revolves around the definition of indigenous status. Indigenous peoples are often understood as inhabitants of a region since a time immemorial.
However, partly due to the political activism of Māori rights activists themselves, the concept and definition of indigeneity has broadened to simply mean a marginalised minority, but ironically, that doesn’t necessarily mean being ‘first’ either. In this regard, New Zealand’s archaeological records indicate potential for prior inhabitants, like the Moriori for example. Other researchers have shown evidence of celtic immigration that also predates Māori arrival. Much of this research is often seen as unacceptable.
Numerous policies, such as co-governance or race-based healthcare, are built on the assumption of using a broader definition for what constitutes indigenous. Specificity in this case isn’t politically advantageous to Māori rights activists.
Fact or fiction? Examining indigenous status in context
While there is ongoing research into the exact origins of the Māori people, it is widely accepted that they migrated to New Zealand from Polynesia, likely the Society Islands, Tahiti, or the Cook Islands.
Many, like broadcaster Journalist Peter Williams, agree with Peters that Māori history and whakapapa (genealogy) clearly describe their origins being outside New Zealand. Many were taught this history at school, which itself isn’t controversial, but Winston said it publicly in a political context, which may undermine the justification for many race-based policies.
The claim that Māori carry DNA from China is more contentious. Genetic studies have indicated Polynesian ancestry and a connection to Southeast Asia, but the direct link to China is not as well-established. The science isn’t settled.
You say the research into pre Maori history specifically, Celtic inhabitants in NZ well before Maori is unacceptable!
Why is the evidence unacceptable?
We were taught at school in the 50s and 60s that the Maori came to nz in about 762ad then hunted the mori ori all the way to the chatham Islands so the way I see it I think the Solomon family was the last back a few years ago but if they are still living even by a strand that means they are the traditional owners
Even if that was a proven fact, the land we all live in today was built by the ancestors of every born New Zealander. Traditional owners, as you call them, became part of the society that helped build this country! We all deserve to be proud owners of this beautiful land that our ancestors built together ! We must respect the past generations who made this country the New Zealand, we were all once so proud of.