In an interview organised by NZICA, Winston Peters questions some Indian New Zealanders’ allegiance while affirming equal rights for people living here legally.
Part of our coverageNZ Election 2026Polls, policies, candidates and how to vote, all in one place. →
In an interview organised by NZICA, Winston Peters questions some Indian New Zealanders’ allegiance while affirming equal rights for people living here legally.
By Webfit News
Winston Peters says becoming a New Zealander involves more than changing a passport, identifying acceptance by the neighbourhood as a critical measure of belonging.
The New Zealand First leader made the comments during the first episode of Unboxed, a political interview series organised by the New Zealand Indian Central Association (NZICA).
Questioned about migration, assimilation and national identity, Peters argued that people who make New Zealand their permanent home should place the country first. He also said people living here legally should have equal rights, regardless of how long their families have been in the country.
The conversation exposed a distinction in his thinking between having rights in New Zealand and being recognised as belonging to it.
One interviewer, who said he had lived in New Zealand for three or four years, asked what he needed to do or achieve to qualify as a New Zealander.
Peters answered by reversing the situation. Had he moved to Delhi at the age of 20, he said, he would not simply have become Indian.
“I’m an expat that lived in India, that’s adopted India for my country,” he said.
He described a commitment involving respect for the country’s laws, its flag and the responsibilities of living there, but argued that a change of documents did not automatically change identity.
“I think you’ve got some people who think if I just change the passport and my handwriting, I will change the actual outcome. Life does not work like that,” Peters said.
He then moved from official documents to everyday relationships.
“The most important thing, of course, is whether the neighbourhood accepts you. That’s a critical one.”
That answer placed social acceptance alongside personal commitment in Peters’ account of belonging. It also left an important question unresolved: what happens when someone regards New Zealand as home but others do not accept them as a New Zealander?
The discussion became more pointed when Peters was asked whether migrants could retain a cultural and historical attachment to their country of origin while giving their allegiance to New Zealand.
“There are two types of Indians,” he said.
“There are those that have fully adopted this country for their future and forever. And there are some who still salute India first.”
Asked how he could tell the difference, Peters referred to the welcome Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi received in Auckland during his July visit.
“Well, I saw when Modi arrived exactly what the diaspora looked like,” he said.
“I’m having a good, loud look, and I thought, which country do these people salute?”
His answer linked the reception for a visiting Indian leader to questions about the national allegiance of those welcoming him. The exchange did not establish the individual loyalties of the people who attended.
Peters acknowledged that people’s allegiances were ultimately their own concern.
“It’s their business, it’s their democracy,” he said.
However, he argued for a shared commitment to New Zealand across different backgrounds.
“I’m trying to build a country where we also, no matter what our background is, we think a country called New Zealand is the most important part of our ownership,” he said.
The interviewers pressed him on whether affection for a country of origin could coexist with commitment to an adopted home. Peters responded by distinguishing between Indians who had chosen New Zealand permanently and those he believed continued to put India first.
Alongside those comments, Peters explicitly affirmed his party’s position on equal rights.
“My belief and my party’s belief is the day you are here legally, you have the same right as anybody’s been here for hundreds of years,” he said.
“That’s our party’s policies written into our principles. You have the same rights, the same everything.”
These remarks are an important part of the context. Peters was setting out his views on identity and allegiance while also saying that a person’s background or length of residence should not determine their entitlement to equal treatment.
His comments about passports and neighbourhood acceptance expressed his understanding of belonging, rather than setting out a new citizenship requirement.
The conversation also examined what assimilation should mean.
Peters referred to Fiji when discussing historical divisions and intermarriage. He said people were entitled to marry whomever they wanted and emphasised accepting the laws and norms of the country where they lived.
Asked directly whether intermarriage was a major yardstick of cultural assimilation, he replied: “Not necessarily.”
He said he respected differences between people while supporting the development of a common country.
“In the end, it comes down to respect for people,” he said.
Through its questions, the NZICA-organised interview brought three distinct issues into focus: the rights people hold, the commitment they make to New Zealand and the acceptance they receive from those around them.
Peters’ comments form part of a wider discussion about migration, identity and belonging. Readers can watch the questions and his responses in context in the full Unboxed interview.
Credit: Interview organised by the New Zealand Indian Central Association (NZICA) for the Unboxed series.
