Tākuta Ferris. (Photo: Facebook)
Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris’s recent social media post — criticising the involvement of “Indians, Asians, Black, and Pākehā” in Labour’s campaign for the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election — sparked fierce debate last week.
Denis O’Reilly (Pākehā) and Mohan Dutta (Indian-born) weigh in.
Mohan Dutta: An invitation to solidarity, not a rejection
Critics across the political spectrum, including Labour’s Willie Jackson, were quick to label Tākuta’s comments “racist”. The backlash has been used to paint Te Pāti Māori’s push for Māori sovereignty as divisive and exclusionary.
But to see Tākuta’s statement only through that lens is to miss the point.
His assertion that Māori seats are for Māori voices should be seen not as a rejection of other communities, but as a reminder of what’s at stake: the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this country, and the protection of Māori sovereignty within a system that too often erases it.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed in 1840, is more than a historical document. It’s the constitutional bedrock of Aotearoa, affirming tino rangatiratanga — the absolute authority of Māori over their lands, resources, and people — alongside a partnership with the Crown.
The Māori seats in parliament are one of the few mechanisms that attempt to give expression to that sovereignty, albeit within a colonial Westminster system designed to contain it.
To say those seats should remain Māori spaces is not a call to exclude, but a demand to honour Te Tiriti’s promise.
Labelling Tākuta’s statement “racist” ignores this context. It shifts the focus from the Crown’s historical and ongoing breaches of Te Tiriti to Māori who insist on protecting their own spaces.
Multiculturalism that erases Māori
The debate also highlights the limits of a certain brand of multiculturalism in Aotearoa, where diversity is often framed as everyone folding into a single “New Zealand” identity.
The trouble with that homogenised multicultural framework is that Māori are reduced to just another ethnic minority — rather than tangata whenua who have specific rights and responsibilities that predate and supersede the colonial state.
Tākuta’s comments highlight that erasure. To campaign for a Māori seat without centring Māori voices risks replicating colonial patterns of erasure, as Tākuta told RNZ when he warned against “homogenising Māori as a minority”.
His words, though sharp, were a genuine call to protect the Māori seats as spaces for Māori voices to assert tino rangatiratanga.
The point is not that non-Māori communities should disengage, but that their solidarity should be grounded in Te Tiriti. True partnership means recognising Māori leadership in spaces that belong to Māori, while building reciprocal relationships elsewhere.
For ethnic communities — Indians, Asians, Black, and others — this is an invitation, not a rejection. It’s a challenge to move past the shallow version of multiculturalism that demands assimilation into Pākehā-dominated frameworks, and engage instead with Māori as partners under Te Tiriti.
That includes supporting Māori voices in the seats created to ensure their representation. Hard-won seats that exist precisely because the mainstream system has failed Māori for more than 150 years.
Antiracism anchored in Te Tiriti
Any conversation about antiracism in Aotearoa must begin with Te Tiriti. The systemic racism faced by Māori — land confiscations, suppression of language and culture, and disproportionate incarceration — all stem from the Crown’s failure to uphold its Treaty obligations.
To call Tākuta’s comments “racist” is to apply a Eurocentric lens that prioritises individual equality over collective Indigenous rights. By contrast, a Tiriti-centric approach to antiracism centres Māori tino rangatiratanga while creating space for all communities to thrive.
For other communities, this is a moment to reflect. Solidarity with Māori doesn’t mean erasing our own identities. It means amplifying theirs as tangata whenua. It means advocating for Māori rights, learning about Te Tiriti, and challenging the structures that marginalise us all.
I don’t read Tākuta’s words as division, but as a challenge to build an Aotearoa where tino rangatiratanga is upheld, manaakitanga shapes our relationships, and Te Tiriti guides our shared future.
*
Denis O’Reilly: Ferrous fuming
I don’t believe that Tākuta Ferris’s stated perplexity about Indians and Asians and Pākehā supporting Labour’s Peeni Henare in the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election is necessarily racist. But it does betray a shallowness of thought and a high degree of political naivety.
Did the implications of fostering the party vote among tangata Tiriti at the next general election escape him?
I’ve only ever formally joined one political party, and that’s Te Pāti Māori. I did that because I’m committed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and our nation, Aotearoa New Zealand, as one of the partner peoples.
I bristle when my kin and I are described as non-Māori. I’m not non-anything. I’m a Pākehā New Zealander, tangata Tiriti no Aotearoa. I’m as proud as hell of my Irish heritage, but acknowledge ngā iwi Māori as the first peoples of Aotearoa, the holders of indigeneity, and the tuakana of our society.
I admit I’ve recently become a bit disappointed in the somewhat performative nature of Te Pāti Māori in the House. I miss the intellectual depth and gentle wisdom of Whaea Tariana Turia and Matua Pita Sharples.
I have been delighted with the political nous demonstrated by Oriini Kaipara during the election campaign. She seems grounded in real-life issues. I believe that she will be a great MP and will bring wholesome Indigenous grist to the mill of parliamentary debate.
Tākuta may need to reflect on whether he’s in the right job. He may not have fully comprehended the kōrero of Kuini Nga wai hono i te po as she shed the cloak of mourning and stepped into the light at the recent Koroneihana.
Her message? Just get on with being Māori. Don’t let hurt and protest define you.
For my part, I’ll get on with being a respectful Pākehā and willing Tiriti partner committed to building a shared nation where all our mokopuna can flourish regardless of their individual ancestry.
As the second verse of our national anthem reminds us:
Ōna mano tāngata,
Kiri whero, kiri mā,
Iwi Māori, Pākehā,
Rūpeke katoa,
Nei ka tono ko ngā hē,
Māu e whakaahu kē,
Kia ora mārire, Aotearoa.
Mohan J Dutta is a professor of communication and the director of the Centre for Culture-Centred Approach to Research and Evaluation (CARE) at Massey University, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Denis O’Reilly is a writer, social activist and consultant. He lives at Waiohiki in Hawke’s Bay, where he chairs the Waiohiki Community Charitable Trust.
Thank you for reading E-Tangata. If you like our focus on Māori and Pasifika stories, interviews, and commentary, we need your help. Our content takes skill, long hours and hard work. But we're a small team and not-for-profit, so we need the support of our readers to keep going.
If you support our kaupapa and want to see us continue, please consider making a one-off donation or contributing $5 or $10 a month.
The concept of “homogenity” raised by Takuta Ferris, and taken up by Mohan Dutta here, deserves our serious attention. On one level it accords with the notion of common humanity. “Kahore he Hurai, kahore he Kariki”. Few of us would argue with that.
However in another context, such as that brought to the debate by “Hobson’s Pledge” (“We are one people”), it becomes problematic. We may rightly be aspire to be one nation but to deny the existence of different iwi Maori and to insist that we are “one people”, is to fly in the face of the facts and to deeply offend the sensibilities of those whose existence is denied.
It is important to recognise that this misleading concept of homogeneity is built into the Westminster system of government. Take the case of a simple First Past the Post constituency, remembering that there are 72 such FPP constituencies represented in the New Zealand parliament, including the 7 Maori seats. In the Tauranga electorate in 2023 some 42000 votes were cast. The “winner” gained a little under half of the votes. The remaining votes were distributed among nine other candidates. The outcome was that Tauranga is represented by “Sam Uffindell, National”. The other nine candidates and their voters disappear into the political ether. There is the appearance of homogeneity, reinforced by the ritual proclamation by Mr Uffindell that he will represent “all the people of Tauranga”. By its assumption of homogeneity the system thus denies truth, it denies common sense, and it is a travesty of democracy. We can never have true democracy while we are working under this false concept of homogeneity, and we can never have true kotahitanga until we recognise our common humanity – not just in words, but in genuine compassion for others and dedication to social and economic equality.
Through the concept of homogeneity the colonialist political system pretends that we are all the same, while the colonialist economic system is doing its damnedest to ensure that we remain totally different from each other in our material conditions of life. Both these systems need to be radically changed.
Was Takuta Ferris being racist? We can say that his remarks were open to that that interpretation. Yet there was a valid point to be made. The choice of a representative should be entirely and exclusively a matter for the community that he or she is to represent. Yes, I know that under the present system party organizations, media pundits and outsiders in general have a major influence on constituency elections. I am just saying that they should not.
The people of Tamaki makaurau should not have been subject to “foreign interference” in their election, whether that came from the Labour Party, Te Pati Maori, or any other party or organization or individual. The constituency branches of those parties should have been leading the charge in Tamaki makaurau, not their national or regional headquarters.
Our tangata whenua also have English, French, German, Indian and Chinese ancestry. No doubt others as well. They acknowledge and respect their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents who came from among other peoples and other cultures. Like all Maori communities, it is inclusive because it has to be. But it is still Maori. Maoritanga is the centripetal force which keeps the hapu and hapori together. It is the glue which cements together those whose whanau names may be English, French, Indian or Maori. The marae and the kura are welcoming and inclusive, but for all that they are monocultural. If you tried to make either of those institutions “multicultural” people would shake their heads in disbelief and walk away.
I believe that this is what happened when Labour tried to introduce the idea of multiculturalism into the Tamaki Makaurau by-election. It was seen as intrusive rather than inclusive. Takuta Ferris would not have been the only one to react in the way that he did. The Maori seats in parliament are Maori seats. They are not multicultural seats. Trying to make them multicultural is naturally perceived as a threat to their essential character.
To put it simply, Labour’s multicultural intervention was a mistake which betrayed a surprising and woeful lack of political nous.
There is a bigger aspect to this. Maoritanga is not just the force that holds Maori hapu,iwi and hapori together. It is all that there is to hold Aotearoa as a whole together. Therefore Maoritanga can do what multiculturalism can not. It is the only possible basis of kotahitanga amongst our peoples as a whole, just as it is on the marae and in the kura. I would not expect Labour to agree with me on that. Not now. It is too soon for that. But the time will come when they will see what should be obvious to them already.
Disappointed in the performative nature of The Pati Maori? No given the world wide interest and the subsequent overreaction of the ruling coalition their stand has highlighted the uphill battle still faced by Maori to overcome the discrimination inherent in our system We still exist in a sanitized historical recollection made worse by the shadow power brokers seeking to expunge the Treaty as a living document