On 29 July 2026, Foreign Minister Winston Peters said it to Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan, who was born in China but has been living in New Zealand since 1994. The Prime Minister was asked whether the remark was racist and answered “Yes, I do”, but left him in all three of his ministerial portfolios, with no consequence at all.
In any New Zealand school, those words have consequences. We are asking for the same standard we already teach our children.
“Go back to your own country”
The Prime Minister agreed the remark was racist. But no consequence at all?
On Wednesday 29 July 2026, during a general debate in the House, Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan, who was born in China but has been in New Zealand since 1994, heckled Foreign Minister Winston Peters while he was speaking. Peters did not answer the question. Instead, he attacked the MP’s identity and background:
“I know you just came here five minutes ago. Go back to your own country. That’s where they lie like a flatfish, but they don’t lie like that here, all right? This is called democracy, unlike what you’re used to.”
Winston Peters, Minister of Foreign Affairs, in the House, 29 July 2026
Asked directly by reporters whether those remarks were racist, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said: “Yes, I do.” He then said he retained confidence in Peters as Foreign Minister and would not dismiss him. Peters called the accusation of racism “drivel” and said he was defending New Zealand’s democracy.
Race Relations Commissioner Melissa Derby responded:
“While the nature of politics often comes with rough-and-tumble dialogue, it’s also important for our leaders to remember that they set a tone in terms of what’s acceptable, and real people are affected when comments like this are made.”
Melissa Derby, Race Relations Commissioner
As of today, no consequence has followed. Winston Peters remains Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister for Racing and Minister for Rail, all three ministerial portfolios, unchanged.
Reported by 1News, RNZ and the NZ Herald.
Each item below links to the original news report. None of these are our assumptions or speculation, they are all on the public record.
During a general debate on New Zealand’s Covid-19 response, Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan heckled Winston Peters about his vaccination status. Peters replied: “I know you just came here five minutes ago. Go back to your own country. That’s where they lie like a flatfish, but they don’t lie like that here, all right? This is called democracy, unlike what you’re used to.”
Xu-Nan came to New Zealand in 1994 — thirty-two years ago. He arrived as a child, and he has sat in this Parliament since 2024.
Green and Labour MPs called on the Prime Minister to remove Peters from Cabinet. National’s own campaign chair, Simeon Brown, called the remarks “racist.” Peters dismissed the accusation as “drivel” and said he was defending New Zealand’s democracy.
Asked directly whether the remarks were racist, Christopher Luxon said “Yes, I do”, but in the same breath said he retained confidence in Peters and would not dismiss him. This was the moment the standard was set.
Helen Clark — Prime Minister of New Zealand for nine years, later head of the UN Development Programme — said Peters appeared to be “inviting a sacking.”
The exchange was picked up by Reuters, AFP, Al Jazeera, France24, The Independent, the South China Morning Post, the Straits Times and around twenty other outlets. This is now part of how New Zealand is being perceived abroad.
Chinese-New Zealanders described the effect in their own words, and some long-time voters said they were reconsidering who they support. This is the part that would not make the six o’clock news.
Members of the public started a Change.org petition calling for Winston Peters to be removed as Foreign Minister. It is not run by us and it is not what this site asks for — we ask the Prime Minister to apply the standard in the Cabinet Manual, not to reach a particular outcome about one person. We link it because it is part of the public record and you can decide for yourself.
Peters met the Prime Minister privately; neither would discuss what was said. Asked afterwards whether he would apologise, Peters answered: “I'm not apologising for them, most certainly not.”
Lawrence Xu-Nan questioned Peters directly in Question Time — around a dozen attempts to get a straight answer. Peters used procedural objections to avoid saying whether he stood by the words, said his comments were not racist, said he disagreed with the Prime Minister's criticism of them — and added that “somebody who's been in this Parliament five minutes has wasted so much of Parliament's time”. Speaker Gerry Brownlee rebuked him — an answer “doesn't need to be an insult to someone duly elected to the Parliament” — and said all MPs, “regardless of how long they've been here, are elected equally”.
No consequence has followed. Winston Peters remains Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister for Racing and Minister for Rail — and has now said outright that he will not apologise. No disciplinary action has been taken. No standard has been set out if something similar happens again.
Links direct you to the original news reports. If you think anything here is inaccurate, tell us and we will correct it.
A student who tells a classmate to “go back to your own country” is dealt with. Exactly how varies — schools set their own behaviour policies, and a principal may stand a student down under the Education and Training Act 2020. What no school does is treat it as nothing.
A Minister of the Crown says it on the parliamentary record. The Prime Minister agrees it was racist. Nothing else happens. He keeps all three of his ministerial portfolios.
We hold nine-year-olds to a higher standard than we hold a Minister of the Crown.
This is not a grievance about hurt feelings. It is a question about whether a rule means anything. Every school in this country teaches children that where someone comes from is never a reason to tell them they don’t belong. If that rule stops applying at the door of Parliament, then we are not teaching a principle — we are teaching that the rule is for people without power.
Racism doesn’t care about your passport. A racist will not stop to ask if you were born in New Zealand or if your family has been here for several generations. A line held for one community is held for all; a line let go is let go for everyone.
New Zealanders have been here before, and it was not the offended group alone who fixed it. Dame Whina Cooper was seventy-nine when she led a hīkoi the length of the North Island for rights that were not being honoured — and this country now counts that among its proudest chapters. Standing up to prejudice is not foreign to New Zealand values. It is one of them.
This campaign does not ask New Zealand to adopt a new principle on behalf of one community. It asks the country to apply a principle it already claims as its own.
We are a grassroots initiative, built from the ground up by people who believe accountability matters. We are not connected to any political party, and not to any government, here or anywhere else.
Every dot is a city or town where at least one person has added their name. The point is not only the number, but also the spread.
Hover or tap a dot for the count. Locations are shown at town or city level only.
How the count works: one entry per submission, rate-limited per IP address, and shown at town or city level only. We do not claim it is tamper-proof. It is a show of support, not a referendum.
| Place | Signatures |
|---|---|
| Loading… | |
You do not need to be Chinese, and you do not need to be a citizen. You only need to live here and think the rule should mean something.
Arguments rarely travel well on social media. Images do. These are free to use — download one and post it, or screenshot it. No logo, no party, no branding to argue with.
Made for this campaign and released into the public domain. Please do not add a party logo to them.
We are not asking for a new rule. The rule already exists, and the Government wrote it. The Cabinet Manual sets out the standards of conduct expected of ministers:
“In all of these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards… Ultimately, all Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.”
Cabinet Manual 2023, paragraph 2.56
Paragraph 2.55 sets out the three capacities a Minister acts in — ministerial, political as a member of Parliament, and personal. Paragraph 2.56 applies to all of them, at all times. Remarks made during a parliamentary debate are not exceptions. And the Manual states the Prime Minister is the one ultimately responsible for holding Ministers to account when they do not meet the standards of conduct.
If you have experienced racism yourself, the Human Rights Commission takes complaints and provides a free, confidential service — hrc.co.nz.
Signing here shows the spread of support. A website cannot force anyone to act. Neither can these two channels. What they do is go directly to the person who is responsible, and get logged and counted. Both are open to anyone living in New Zealand; you do not need to be a citizen.
The Cabinet Manual says Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour. So he is the person to ask. One short, civil email — asking a question he has not yet answered — is harder to ignore than a petition he never sees.
To: C.Luxon@ministers.govt.nz
Subject: Ministerial conduct and paragraph 2.56 of the Cabinet Manual
Dear Prime Minister,
On 29 July, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told a member of the House to “go back to your own country”. You have said publicly that you consider the remark racist.
The Cabinet Manual states at 2.56 that in all of their roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards — and that Ministers are accountable to you for their behaviour.
I am asking you to say plainly: did that remark meet the standard set out in 2.56? If it did not, what consequences follow from that? And what will be written down, so the answer is clear before it happens again.
I live in [your suburb].
[Your name]
An MP counts letters from the people who can vote them in or out. One paragraph in your own words does more than a forwarded link. Write to your electorate MP, not to Mr Peters — the point is to reach the people whose support the Government needs.
Dear [MP],
I live in [suburb], in your electorate. On 29 July, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told a Member of this House to “go back to your own country”. The Prime Minister has said he considers the remark racist. No consequence has followed.
The Cabinet Manual (2.56) says Ministers are expected, at all times and in all their roles, to uphold the highest ethical and behavioural standards, and that Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.
I am asking you: did the remark meet that standard? If it did not, what consequences follow from that? And what will be written down so the answer is clear before it happens again?
[Your name], [suburb]
The one route with a statutory process is a petition. A letter binds no one — nobody is obliged to reply. A petition to the House of Representatives is different: under Parliament’s Standing Orders the Petitions Committee must report to the House on every petition it considers. It takes longer and the wording has to be checked first (petitions@parliament.govt.nz), so it is a next step rather than a first one.