Key Takeaways
- Deputy New Zealand First leader Shane Jones framed “looking after our own people” as a nationalist, not racist, priority.
- He criticized recent immigration trends—especially from India—as unplanned and detrimental to wages, infrastructure, and cultural cohesion.
- Jones used hyperbolic language (e.g., “butter chicken tsunami”) to grab attention, insisting his rhetoric is effective despite calls to tone it down.
- He portrayed New Zealand First as the sole party willing to speak authentically about national interests, contrasting it with Labour, National, ACT and the Greens.
- Jones called for stricter immigration controls, urging the removal of foreign workers he claims exploit local industries and disrespect Kiwi culture.
- The speech was delivered at the NZ First party convention in Auckland, following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit, and was met with applause from party members.
Context of the Convention
Hundreds of New Zealand First members convened in Auckland for the party’s annual weekend gathering. The event followed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to New Zealand, which had sparked discussion about immigration and trade ties. Delegates gathered to set the party’s direction ahead of the upcoming election campaign, with Shane Jones delivering a keynote address that mixed humor, pointed criticism, and a rallying call for nationalist policies.
Jones’s Opening Remarks and Celebrity Analogies
Jones opened his speech with a light‑hearted jab at the influx of celebrity‑turned‑politicians, naming figures such as Paul Henry (ACT), Stuart Nash, Taine Randell and Alfred Ngaro before humorously positioning himself as the “matua” in a imagined celebrity contest. This approach set a tone of bravado and self‑assurance, signalling his willingness to dominate the political narrative through provocative commentary.
Defending the “Butter Chicken Tsunami” Comment
Reflecting on prior controversy, Jones referenced his earlier description of Indian immigration as a “butter chicken tsunami.” He recalled that parliamentary colleagues had urged him to moderate his language, but he defended the remark as a deliberate use of hyperbole to achieve “cut‑through” in debates. Jones argued that such exaggerated phrasing draws public attention to issues he believes are being ignored by other parties.
Hyperbole as a Political Tool
The deputy leader insisted that employing over‑the‑top metaphors is a strategic choice, not a lapse in judgment. He claimed that his ability to speak forcefully on immigration “any time, any day, anywhere” is a promise he intends to uphold throughout the campaign. By framing his rhetoric as intentional and effective, Jones sought to legitimize his confrontational style despite criticism from opponents and even his own daughter, who labeled his comments as having a “septic quality.”
Nationalism versus Racism
Central to Jones’s address was the assertion that prioritizing New Zealanders is inherently nationalist, not racist. He declared, “If the leader and the deputy leader… can’t speak authentically about cohesiveness, infrastructure deficit, the need to look after our own people – that is not racist. That’s what a nationalist party should be protecting.” This statement aimed to reframe the party’s stance as a legitimate defence of national interests rather than an expression of xenophobia.
Census Data and Unplanned Immigration
Jones cited recent Census figures showing a rise in the Indian‑origin population, arguing that this growth occurred “without anyone campaigning on it, anyone mandating it, and no one planning for it.” He vowed to “call it out every day, every week, every month,” positioning himself as a watchdog tasked with highlighting what he views as an uncontrolled demographic shift driven by inadequate policy foresight.
Critique of Other Parties and the Modi Visit
Turning his fire on Labour, National, ACT and the Greens, Jones remarked that these parties attend ethno‑nationalist rallies to greet foreign leaders while “wearing knee pads.” He accused them of serving global capitalist interests rather than protecting New Zealand’s economic independence, implying that their willingness to welcome leaders like Modi contradicts their professed commitment to national sovereignty.
Economic Independence and Infrastructure Concerns
Reiterating the party’s core belief, Jones stated that the essence of Parliament is to safeguard the nation’s economic independence, not to subsidize global capital. He linked lax immigration to depressed wages and strained infrastructure, asserting that unchecked foreign labour exacerbates deficits in housing, transport and public services, ultimately harming ordinary Kiwis.
Specific Industry Critiques
Jones singled out the kiwifruit sector, claiming it is not “foundational Kiwi culture” to have foreigners operating “slave gangs” that evade tax. He demanded that such workers be “put on the first plane and sent home.” Similarly, he criticized the proliferation of young Uber drivers whose “dreadful attitudes” toward New Zealand culture repeatedly bring them before the courts, arguing that these trends undermine social cohesion and respect for local norms.
Call for a Reset in Immigration Policy
Summarizing his position, Jones urged party members to “ensure we secure our own futures and get the people we need, not the people who need us.” He framed immigration reform as a necessary corrective to policies that, in his view, drive down wages, worsen infrastructure, and go unchallenged. By demanding a reset, he positioned New Zealand First as the sole party willing to confront what he perceives as a systemic failure to prioritize Kiwi wellbeing.
Closing Appeal and Party Unity
The speech concluded with a rousing appeal for unity and determination, met with applause from the convention crowd. Jones’s blend of humor, hyperbole, and hard‑line nationalism aimed to energize the base, differentiate New Zealand First from its rivals, and lay the groundwork for a campaign centered on protecting “our own people” through stringent immigration controls and a reaffirmed commitment to national sovereignty.