From tikanga to ‘protocol': Luxon's war on the Māorification of Aotearoa

The Spinoff

20-05-2025

The prime minister insists his government is clamping down on the spread of Māori language and culture in the public sector. But beneath the tough talk, what's really changing – and who is he trying to win over?
Our government is halting the Māorification of Aotearoa. This isn't an opinion, but rather a proud declaration made by Christopher Luxon in his usual Monday morning interview with Newstalk ZB broadcaster Mike Hosking earlier this week.
'How do senior bureaucrats not understand that they're working for a government that have spoken very clearly on the Māorification of this county?' asked Hosking. 'Where we see it, we call it out,' Luxon gloated in response.
The duo were talking about a job advertised in March by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mfat), searching for a tikanga lead. At around the same time, the minister of foreign affairs and trade (Winston Peters) was trumpeting his party's bill to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion targets from the public sector – with the backing of Luxon. The tikanga lead role quickly became the example, sort of.
The fix for Peters' concerns was seemingly simple – replace any mention of 'tikanga' with 'protocol'. 'The minister's opposition to the politically loaded and inaccurate use of the term 'tikanga' is well known. However, protocol has always been important,' a New Zealand First party spokesperson said following the change in terminology.
Following the furore, several requests were made under the Official Information Act in an attempt to unveil what was happening within the ministry during the kerfuffle. Evidently, it appeared top officials within Mfat were caught off guard by Peters' criticism of the role. Understandably, the likes of Hosking were dumbfounded as to how the country's top bureaucrats could have missed the agenda clearly set out by this government.
Nevertheless, Luxon is quick to point out that his government is laser-focused on stopping the 'Māorification' of the country. His most recent example? The removal of traffic control stop-go signs in te reo Māori in Te Matau a Māui. 'We need the stop-go signs to be very unambiguous,' Luxon said. Hosking went on to say that the production of Māori road signs is 'taking the piss', drawing a chuckle from Luxon as he reiterated his coalition government's intent on 'running things differently'.
'We want everybody in the public service focused on delivery, focused on results, and not lots of resources tied up in things that isn't core business,' Luxon said. 'Where it comes out and they get it wrong, we're very quick to clamp down on it.'
This is strong, authoritative language from Luxon. It shows a switch in his political demeanour from a centrist to a more explicitly right wing politician, at least on this issue. The shift towards 'a tough guy approach', as Willie Jackson called it during the Labour caucus run on Tuesday morning, appears to be an attempt to pull voters from its more right wing coalition partners, draining them of their overall influence on the make up of government. It's the dog trying to take back control of its tail – but this approach also has its risks.
The thing with the authoritative approach from Luxon is that you must walk your talk if you want to appear authentic in your belief – lest those you are trying to win over see through the charade. With the case of the Mfat job, it appears that all that was changed was the use of the word 'tikanga' in the job title. Everything else stayed the same and presumably, someone was still hired for the role and is currently employed at the ministry, providing expert advice and support to ensure Māori cultural 'protocols' are understood, upheld, and appropriately applied across the ministry's work and foreign policy priorities. So what was really achieved and is it enough to convince the voters you are trying to win over?
Similarly, te reo Māori road signs aren't really an important issue to everyday New Zealanders. Most people would understand that green means go and red means stop. 'This isn't about rules – it's about racism,' said Ngāti Kahungungu chair Bayden Barber. The language being used on a road sign is likely not something that shifts a swing voter. But seeing your prime minister getting giddy about Fonterra's ambient cream being sold in Korea, yet livid about the inclusion of te reo Māori in roadworks signage? That might be a deterrent for someone sitting in the middle.
The more you take the hard line approach, the more you risk alienating the always-important centre bloc voters who may feel uncomfortable with such an attitude on diversity, equity, inclusion and race relations. Luxon risks sending National further to the right and competing for a share of the same culture war voter base that New Zealand First and Act already tussle over while leaving voters abandoned in the middle.
I won't venture into how te reo Māori is an official language of this country, or how the likes of Wales and Ireland have effortlessly adopted dual-language signage across their roading networks, aiding the revitalisation of their indigenous languages. However, what's clear from all of this is that if it isn't a part of the government's 'core business' of turning a profit, then it's not a priority.
The issue around the use of te reo Māori is like the latest haka debacle – Māori culture is great, but only on certain terms and when it suits the wider agenda. We love to parade the culture overseas as being our point of difference, our unique selling-point. Why? Because it helps turn a profit. That is the government's core business. But when it comes to the normalisation of te ao Māori in its rightful home, we are quick to condemn. Not right. Not core business. Not helping us make money.
The window dressing and pandering to casual racists will only get National so far. With a turn right coming at a time of already fragile race relations in Aotearoa, the coalition government appears to be throwing caution to the wind. Luxon will be keeping an eye on how his latest gamble plays out with voters. If it goes well, we may be in for a fight for the right in 2026, with Labour left alone in the centre.