In brief
- Tākuta Ferris judged Labour volunteers by appearance, reviving the discarded “blood quantum” test, yet aligned with those same groups when it served his interest, like opposing the Treaty Principles Bill.
- Oriini Kaipara’s 98% Māori DNA reveal was celebrated, showing how insiders can use lineage as political capital while outsiders are relegated.
- Rawiri Waititi dodged questions on Ferris by speaking only te reo during Māori Language Week, excluding 95% of New Zealanders.
- Blood and language are being used as political weapons.
Levering blood lines and language
Ferris judged race by appearance, and Waititi conveniently decided to answer questions in te reo, which allowed him to dodge scrutiny. Together, they expose a double standard at the heart of the party’s politics.
During the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election, Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris posted a campaign image of Labour volunteers with the caption: “This blows my mind!! Indians, Asians, Black and Pākehā campaigning to take a Māori seat from Māori.”
The post was rightly decried as racist, but it also exposed a key contradiction: Ferris had no way of knowing their whakapapa. Instead, he applied the appearance test, blood quantum by another name, long condemned as a racist colonial relic. He presumed the right to judge identity by sight, as if it could be read off a face.
The irony is that Ferris, of mixed heritage himself, might not pass his own test.
Identity as a moving target
New Zealand already rejected the narrow blood test decades ago. In the 1970s, the official definition of Māori was broadened to include anyone with Māori descent, no matter how small the fraction.
The intent was to move beyond exclusion. Yet Ferris’ post did the opposite, reviving the same approach that the law moved away from half a century ago.
At the same time, insiders have continued to use ancestry as political capital. Newly elected Te Pāti Māori MP Oriini Kaipara once fronted a story about her DNA results that showed she was “98 percent Māori,” a revelation she staged on Māori Television before it became headline news across the country.
Kaipara herself said she did not see it as making her “more Māori than anyone else,” yet the media response treated her DNA as a badge of authenticity. Inside the tent, DNA percentages become proof of authenticity. Outside the tent, the same measure is denounced as racist, at least when it suits.
That is the contradiction at work.
From blood to language
The reaction to the backlash against Ferris revealed the next move. Co-leader Rawiri Waititi fronted up at Parliament for the first time since Ferris repeated his claim. Faced with questions, he refused to answer in English, citing Māori Language Week.
The tactic drew criticism across the political spectrum. Labour’s Shanan Halbert warned the party was “starting to create an exclusive bunch of Māori.”
The dodge was obvious. Later the same day, both Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer spoke in English in the House when they felt so inclined. The reo rule only applied when journalists pressed them on Ferris. In that moment, Māori Language Week was a shield, not a celebration.
However, Centrist’s question in te reo as to why Ferris’s comments were not racist when judged by the same standard they apply to others, went unanswered by the party.
According to the 2023 Census, only 4.3 percent of New Zealanders said they could hold a basic conversation in te reo. That means more than 95 percent were effectively excluded when Waititi used the language to block scrutiny.
The ordinary voter
Was it about celebrating te reo? Or was it about controlling the terms of the conversation? It appears hypocritical for Ferris to march alongside “tauiwi” (foreigners) when they are helpful in his cause, like during the fight against the Treaty Principles Bill, celebrating them as proof of unity for Te Tiriti. Yet when those same communities exercise their democratic right in Tāmaki Makaurau, he denounces them as outsiders.
