How the Right Wing Weaponises Māori Success
How Māori Success Is Used to Roll Back Te Tiriti Obligations
By Dr Harpreet Singh | drhsinghnz.substack.com | FB: @DrHSinghNZ
Cherry picking is moral convenience: it selects the light and calls the shadow imaginary. - Dr Harpreet Singh
In Aotearoa, debates about equity and Te Tiriti o Waitangi often follow a familiar script, one pushed by right-wing groups such as Hobson’s Pledge, ACT, NZ First and National: pointing to Māori success and saying Māori-specific protections aren’t needed anymore.
Success is real. It deserves celebration. The problem is what happens next. A few standout examples are used to tell a much bigger story, that unfairness is over, and the system now works the same for everyone.
That Move Has a Name: Cherry Picking.
Cherry picking is when you choose the most comforting evidence and present it as the whole truth. It sounds reasonable, even generous, but it can quietly pull attention away from ongoing gaps and from the responsibilities the Crown agreed to under Te Tiriti.
What Cherry Picking Looks Like
Cherry picking leans on symbols. Sir Āpirana Ngata is held up as proof that Māori have always been able to get ahead within existing institutions. The presence of Māori MPs is treated as proof that Māori have real power. A handful of high-profile leaders, professionals, or successful iwi organisations are presented as if they settle the question of fairness for everyone.
The message is rarely said out loud, but it is easy to hear.
If some Māori succeed, then the system must be fair.
If the system is fair, then Māori-specific measures must be “special treatment”.
How It Helps Rollbacks Happen
Cherry picking becomes even more powerful when it is paired with slogans like “one law for all” or attacks on so-called “race-based policy”. In that climate, cutting Māori-specific initiatives can be sold as simple, common-sense tidy-up work rather than a major shift in how the Crown honours partnership and protection.
In other words, the success stories become cover. They make big changes feel harmless. They encourage people to see Treaty commitments as optional, outdated, or divisive, rather than part of the country’s foundation.
Why This Story Misleads
Cherry picking mixes up visibility with fairness. Seeing Māori in Parliament or in public leadership does not automatically mean Māori control Māori priorities, or that institutions are designed to deliver equitable outcomes.
It also treats the past as proof that barriers no longer exist. One person’s achievement does not erase the effects of land loss, broken promises, unequal policy settings, or the long tail of disadvantage passed from one generation to the next.
Most of all, it warps what Te Tiriti is. The Treaty is not a reward for “doing well”. It is an ongoing agreement about collective rights, shared authority, and duties that do not disappear just because some people thrive.
Celebrating Māori success should never be used as a reason to turn away from Māori rights.
Success is not an excuse to stop keeping promises.
Cherry picking leans on symbols. Sir Āpirana Ngata is held up as proof that Māori have always been able to get ahead within existing institutions. The presence of Māori MPs is treated as proof that Māori have real power. If some Māori succeed, then the system must be fair. If the system is fair, then Māori-specific measures must be “special treatment”.
Indeed, it's a personalised and individualised approach rather than looking at the whole. Very much part of our pakeha way of looking at the world, so it makes sense to many....
One only has to look at school results or prison populations to see things are not working for Māori.