A question worth asking as identity, policy, and performance collide
The question posed in the Norwegian piece is confronting, but it is not uniquely Norwegian.
That got me thinking... It is a question New Zealanders should be asking themselves.
Not emotionally. Not reactively. But honestly.
Have we seen something similar happen here?
A shifting definition of identity
New Zealand once had a clearly understood cultural identity.
It was not perfect. No country’s is. But it was recognisable. There were shared norms, expectations, and a broad sense of what it meant to be “Kiwi.”
Today, that definition feels far less certain.
We are told New Zealand is a “diverse,” “inclusive,” “multicultural” society. These ideas are presented as strengths, and in many respects they can be. But they also raise a deeper question:
If identity becomes purely administrative, based on residency rather than shared culture, values, and history, what anchors it?
When anyone can become “Kiwi” by process alone, what distinguishes the identity itself?
The Treaty Principles question
Layered over this is a uniquely New Zealand dynamic.
The ongoing debate around Treaty Principles has shifted from historical recognition into active governance, policy direction, and institutional structure.
Regardless of where one stands politically, one thing is clear:
We no longer have a single, unified national framework.
We are increasingly operating under multiple interpretations of identity, rights, and governance.
This creates tension.
Not necessarily because diversity exists, but because there is no longer a shared agreement on the foundation of the country itself.
A nation cannot function indefinitely without clarity on who it is.
Immigration at scale
At the same time, immigration has been running at historically high levels.
Again, this is not inherently negative. Immigration can bring skills, growth, and new perspectives.
But scale matters.
Pace matters.
Integration matters.
If inflows are large and rapid, but the cultural framework they are entering is unclear or shifting, the result is not cohesion. It is fragmentation.
This is where New Zealand now finds itself.
We have high migration, evolving identity frameworks, and an increasing reluctance to define what “New Zealand culture” actually is.
Where did the culture go?
Ask a simple question:
What is New Zealand culture today?
Years ago, the answer would have been immediate.
Community, fairness, self-reliance, a strong rural backbone, shared humour, a sense of national direction.
Now, the answer is far less obvious.
Culture has not disappeared entirely. But it has become diluted, contested, and in some cases, actively avoided as a topic.
Because defining it risks excluding someone.
And in trying to include everyone, we risk defining nothing at all.
The OECD reality check
This is not just cultural.
It is measurable.
New Zealand was once near the top of the OECD across key metrics: economic performance, productivity, and living standards.
Today, we are slipping beyond #35 nearing #39.
Productivity is weak.
Infrastructure is under strain.
Cost of living pressures are rising.
Energy security is increasingly fragile.
These are not isolated issues. They are symptoms of a system under pressure.
And when a country loses clarity of identity, policy direction often follows.
A difficult but necessary question
So we return to the core question:
If anyone can become Kiwi, then what does being Kiwi actually mean?
This is not about exclusion.
It is not about rejecting diversity.
It is about recognising that a nation still needs a centre of gravity.
A shared understanding.
A cultural baseline.
Without that, everything becomes negotiable.
And when everything is negotiable, nothing is stable.
Food for thought
New Zealand is not Norway.
But the parallels are close enough to warrant reflection.
Identity.
Immigration.
Governance.
Economic performance.
These are not separate conversations. They are deeply connected.
The real question is not whether change is happening.
It clearly is.
The question is whether we are shaping that change, or simply reacting to it.
And whether, in the process, we have quietly let go of something we once understood without needing to define.
Who we are.