How immigration has been used to win votes in New Zealand elections

Winston Peters, leader of New Zealand’s New Zealand First party, sparked controversy last month when he directed a sharp remark toward China-born Green Party MP Lawrence Xu-Nan during a parliamentary session. Peters reportedly told Xu-Nan to “go back to where you’ve come from,” a comment that drew immediate backlash. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon condemned the remarks as racist, while other political leaders urged Peters to relinquish his role in foreign affairs. Peters defended his actions, citing Xu-Nan’s prior heckling during his speech. However, Luxon suggested the remarks were part of a broader strategy to gain voter support ahead of the November election, noting that the nation was now fully engaged in campaign mode. Peters’ recent comments echo past tactics employed by members of his party to frame immigration policy as a political tool. In April, New Zealand First deputy leader Shane Jones likened the country’s proposed free trade agreement with India to a “butter chicken tsunami,” a metaphor that drew criticism from the Indian community. Jones’ remarks were interpreted by some as an attempt to sway public sentiment ahead of the election, particularly among voters concerned about economic impacts of international agreements. The Indian community described the language as “distasteful” and speculated that the rhetoric was strategically timed to influence electoral outcomes. These incidents reflect a recurring pattern in New Zealand politics, where immigration has historically been leveraged as a campaign issue. Since the introduction of the Immigration Act in 1987, designed to eliminate racial and national biases in immigration policy, debates over migration have consistently influenced election cycles. Victoria University historian Sekhar Bandyopadhyay noted in an RNZ interview that “migration has always been an issue in every election, with this year being no exception.” This trend underscores how political parties often use immigration-related rhetoric to mobilize specific voter bases, particularly in times of economic uncertainty or cultural change. The roots of this practice can be traced back to the 1970s, when New Zealand experienced a shift in political dynamics. During this period, successive governments conducted so-called “dawn raids”, targeted operations aimed at enforcing immigration laws and identifying unauthorized migrants. These raids, often executed under the guise of law enforcement, were accompanied by growing public discontent due to economic challenges such as global oil price hikes and the UK’s entry into the European Economic Community, which reduced New Zealand’s trade advantages. As cost of living rose and unemployment increased, immigration became a focal point in political discourse. In 1975, National Party leader Robert Muldoon, then in opposition, capitalized on these tensions by adopting a hardline stance on immigration. His campaign featured provocative television ads depicting Pacific Islanders as economic burdens, a tactic that resonated with many voters. Muldoon went on to secure a decisive victory in the 1975 election and held power until 1984, when David Lange led the Labour Party to a historic win. Muldoon’s approach marked a turning point, demonstrating how immigration could be weaponized to galvanize support and shape electoral outcomes. Following Lange’s rise to power, significant reforms were enacted to modernize New Zealand’s immigration policies. In 1987, Lange introduced the Immigration Act, which shifted the focus from prioritizing migrants from traditional countries like Britain and Ireland to a merit-based system. According to the New Zealand Encyclopedia Te Ara, the act represented a “real break” from previous practices, emphasizing criteria such as education, skills, and financial stability rather than ethnicity or nationality. Four years later, the Immigration Amendment Act further refined this approach by replacing the occupational priority list with a points-based system designed to reward candidates based on their potential contributions to the economy. These legislative changes laid the groundwork for contemporary debates over immigration, which continue to play a central role in New Zealand’s political landscape. As campaigns intensify ahead of the November election, the historical precedent of using immigration as a political tool remains relevant, highlighting the ongoing tension between policy, public perception, and electoral strategy.