I get why the left-wing parties are calling this dumb, both politically and because there's probably something of a racist background to it, but it seems kind of obvious to have Maori and English...
I get why the left-wing parties are calling this dumb, both politically and because there's probably something of a racist background to it, but it seems kind of obvious to have Maori and English as official languages, not just one or the other.
Is that not the purpose of an official language or am I missing something?
I agree. There's no real harm in making it official and the rhetoric that it's a waste of time make it seem like this will cost hundreds of work hours when I don't think that's true. This quote,...
I agree. There's no real harm in making it official and the rhetoric that it's a waste of time make it seem like this will cost hundreds of work hours when I don't think that's true.
the purpose of the “short, straightforward bill” is to “recognize in legislation what has long been assumed in New Zealand. Namely, that English is an official language of our country.”
This quote, while I'm sure someone will tell me that politician is a racist hack, is fairly mundane when taken at face value.
For what it's worth for people who want to know: She objects to inclusive language around gender and directed Health New Zealand to roll that language back. She was a lobbyist for a right wing...
For what it's worth for people who want to know:
She objects to inclusive language around gender and directed Health New Zealand to roll that language back. She was a lobbyist for a right wing group that wanted to break the partnership between the Crown and the Maori people insisting any policies that attempt to redress historical wrongs are "racist and separatist".
Her party New Zealand First actively pushes for transphobic/discriminatory bathroom and sports policies. Some of their candidates were full QAnon/plandemic level of conspiracy theorists. It's a right-wing populist party and though that looks different than in other countries - they at least say they want to invest in social services - they do play on fear of Asian immigrants, use the law & order rhetoric, and were campaigning to abolish the Maori electorates until they dropped it in negotiations to form a coalition government.
They have won Maori votes in the past, not sure about the present as they've pivoted more right. That's what I can glean from Wikipedia at least. Would love a local to correct/elaborate as needed because understanding those dynamics is helpful for me!
That's the trap with these sorts of things. What they push for here may not be itself problematic, but it begs questions of why they're doing it. Why does New Zealand actually need to enshrine...
That's the trap with these sorts of things. What they push for here may not be itself problematic, but it begs questions of why they're doing it. Why does New Zealand actually need to enshrine English as an official language if everyone's already using it? Are there actually laws that require "official languages" to be written down before certain things can happen? Would official documents not appear in English if it weren't marked "official"?
I suspect the answer to those latter two questions is usually "no," which means the reason for this law becomes suspiciously likely to be "I want to enshrine things I associate with white people into law, so as to subtly entangle the country's laws with my racism." So when you look into the person pushing for it, well... Go figure.
Kinda makes sense that this was pushed by a right wing extremist, but that doesn't make the policy automatically bad. If you're a country that has official languages, it seems pretty obvious that...
Kinda makes sense that this was pushed by a right wing extremist, but that doesn't make the policy automatically bad. If you're a country that has official languages, it seems pretty obvious that the most commonly spoken one should be one of them.
Take it up with the UK. Official language doesn't mean the same thing in every country. And de facto and de jure languages exist in different ways in different countries.
Take it up with the UK.
Official language doesn't mean the same thing in every country. And de facto and de jure languages exist in different ways in different countries.
Well, the UK doesn't have an official language. Neither does the US, despite Donald Trump thinking he can make it so via royal decree. New Zealand did have an official language though, except only...
Well, the UK doesn't have an official language. Neither does the US, despite Donald Trump thinking he can make it so via royal decree.
New Zealand did have an official language though, except only around 4% of the population speaks it. It makes sense that Maori is an official language, it doesn't really make sense that English wasn't though, considering it's the native language of the vast majority of the population.
I linked a professor making the point of why te reo and NZSL were made official - to provide protections not otherwise granted in a de facto English system - that English doesn't need because it's...
I linked a professor making the point of why te reo and NZSL were made official - to provide protections not otherwise granted in a de facto English system - that English doesn't need because it's the de facto English system.
Official language doesn't mean the same thing in each country and recognizing minority languages to protect them doesn't mean you have to recognize English out of some odd "fairness" or something unless you assume that the languages exist in opposition to each other.
As noted by someone else that they really wanted to control some other aspects of language in the government by requiring it to be in English instead of Māori which again suggests this is not a "neutral" act done to even things up.
Which is why the "who" is doing it and their intentions matter in the first place.
I think the thinking of that having English as an official language would further reinforce it as the default language in the country. It's similar to the US making English the official language...
I think the thinking of that having English as an official language would further reinforce it as the default language in the country. It's similar to the US making English the official language of the country last year (though this was only through Executive Order). Previously the US had an executive order stating that federal agencies and federally funded programs had to make accomodations to those not speaking English but the 2025 EO undid that and said these must now be done in English (but doesn't explicitly say you can't use other languages).
English isn’t the official language of the United States because of that EO. All it really did was ignore jurisprudence related to Title VI and the 14th Amendment and language access. It’s no...
English isn’t the official language of the United States because of that EO. All it really did was ignore jurisprudence related to Title VI and the 14th Amendment and language access. It’s no different than Trump‘s EO on birth right citizenship, it’s just a thing he “did” to say he “did it” even though he actually didn’t.
It’s kind of shit right now because agencies have stopped investigating/enforcing disparate impact claims and there’s no private right of action under Title VI, but that doesn’t change the fact that the EO didn’t actually make English the “official” language.
Yeah they point out that England/UK doesn't list English as an official language as they don't have one. (They recognize Welsh for example regionally but not nationally. Which makes this feel...
Yeah they point out that England/UK doesn't list English as an official language as they don't have one. (They recognize Welsh for example regionally but not nationally. Which makes this feel "stunty" and with likely racist backing
It's definitely a "don't give ground even when it feels stupid" thing for me
I think this controversy is stupid, but if you reflexively oppose harmless changes then it makes your own side look stupid, too. And that's what they want.
I think this controversy is stupid, but if you reflexively oppose harmless changes then it makes your own side look stupid, too. And that's what they want.
I don't think there's a guaranteed lack of harm here. Many times things like this are a first step with future ones planned. Especially if they want to erode Maori rights or severely limit...
I don't think there's a guaranteed lack of harm here. Many times things like this are a first step with future ones planned. Especially if they want to erode Maori rights or severely limit immigration. Also opposing that isn't necessarily "reflexive", it can be quite principled. Neither assumption holds water IMO.
The issue to me is that with only Maori and ESL as official languages, that technically means that all government business needs to be conducted in Maori. I think the right solution would maybe to...
The issue to me is that with only Maori and ESL as official languages, that technically means that all government business needs to be conducted in Maori. I think the right solution would maybe to have originally named Maori a "national language" or "official cultural language" or something that gives it a status but doesn't technically mean everyone is using the wrong language.
Normally I'd say "who cares if the languages have the 'incorrect' status? Just be reasonable." But I mean...it's the government. If they want to make sure the rule of law is upheld, they should be following the law.
That's not true and certainly hasn't been the case since te reo/Māori was named official in 1987. Also it's NZSL not ESL (which is English as a Second Language). Also weird that you wouldn't have...
The issue to me is that with only Maori and ESL as official languages, that technically means that all government business needs to be conducted in Maori.
That's not true and certainly hasn't been the case since te reo/Māori was named official in 1987. Also it's NZSL not ESL (which is English as a Second Language). Also weird that you wouldn't have to conduct all business in NZSL too under this false assumption.
Fwiw, Australia and the UK also do not list English as an official language and still do business daily.
Official languages only give a requirement like thatif that is written into the law. From a law professor from the wiki:
English is already a de facto official language, which may be used in any or all public or official contexts. (...) [W]e legislated te reo [Māori] and sign language as being "official languages", in order to affirmatively grant the right to use them in particular, specified situations where they otherwise could not be used. This is not the case with English. It's simply a general, background cultural presumption in our particular society that this is the language of our government. (...) English is so much an "official language" that our law actually specifies in various places it must be used in place of any other.[4]
But I mean...it's the government. If they want to make sure the rule of law is upheld, they should be following the law.
So the government has been following the law the entire time. It seems like you're making a lot of assumptions using perhaps an American paradigm. The "rights" of an official language vary depending on what has been put into law. And NZ law does not, to the best of my ability to search, have any of the provisions you're claiming. So if you have a citation I'm open to being wrong, but otherwise afaict this is just factually incorrect
ETA it is genuinely upsetting to see outright falsehoods upvoted.
To put it another way, "the other side wants it" is a heuristic that might understandably make one suspicious, but it's only convincing to committed partisans. If there are other, better arguments...
To put it another way, "the other side wants it" is a heuristic that might understandably make one suspicious, but it's only convincing to committed partisans. If there are other, better arguments then they should stand on their own.
They did. Also why Maori and NZ sign language are given special status (mirroring Welsh being recognized regionally in the UK but English being given no de jure status) And this is just a sample...
They did.
In a report presented to the House in June, the country’s Justice Committee said it received written submissions from 1,601 people and groups regarding the bill, and almost two-thirds of these opposed it.
According to the report, opponents of the move argued that making English an official language would be “an unnecessary use of resources,” create “unnecessary division within society,” and would be “undermining the two other official languages” and their legislation, which gave those minority languages stronger rights and supported their use in legal proceedings.
Also why Maori and NZ sign language are given special status (mirroring Welsh being recognized regionally in the UK but English being given no de jure status)
Paul added that the Māori language has protected status “because it was beaten out of Māori systematically. We had to march our asses to parliament demanding that the indigenous first language of this country be recognized and not beaten out of the mouths of its native speakers.”
And this is just a sample of them, so they did make these arguments, and did believe it was worth standing up for. I don't think telling them not to care would be useful or effective political advice from a country with a very different system.
Okay, clearly many sympathetic people have argued against it. But this brief summary doesn't tell us how good the arguments are. For example, I'm wondering how expensive this measure could be when...
Okay, clearly many sympathetic people have argued against it. But this brief summary doesn't tell us how good the arguments are. For example, I'm wondering how expensive this measure could be when it seemingly doesn't do anything substantial? And how exactly does it undermine the official status of other languages?
There don't seem to be more substantive arguments in favor of this change shared in this article. either. I don't understand why you're only skeptical of the opposition rather than equally...
There don't seem to be more substantive arguments in favor of this change shared in this article. either. I don't understand why you're only skeptical of the opposition rather than equally critical of the proponents if you think the whole thing is "stupid" not just the opposition to it. I found the summary in the article to demonstrate the arguments made as reasonable and valid criticism of the concept.
This is what feels like the whole Just Asking Questions phenomenon where your criticism is originally that they're doing it "wrong" by not making substantive arguments while now admitting you have no idea what the strength of their arguments actually was. And you're "just asking" whether they did a good job, but actually you seem to be assuming it.
I don't think that's reasonable criticism as it's based only on a hypothetical framed as judgement of the opposition for doing a poor job despite lacking the evidence. Maybe they didn't do well and despite the summaries. But I won't start from the assumption that they're being stupid while fighting this stupid policy as even though I've done a decent amount of reading on this and still know I don't understand the intricacies. Nor will I assume they're in reflexive opposition rather than reasonable one.
So you're free to assume and do your own research or not as you like but I don't think any of your posts here are making cogent points given the assumptions they're making. Perhaps another article will provide you with more detail.
It's a bit silly. You don't need to legislate that the sky is blue. You can tell that English is an official language in NZ because all our official documents are written in English. Another thing...
It's a bit silly. You don't need to legislate that the sky is blue. You can tell that English is an official language in NZ because all our official documents are written in English.
Another thing New Zealand First (the party behind this change) pushed for, along similar lines, was that government agencies must use English names primarily. It was becoming popular in recent years to rebrand to Māori names, but everyday New Zealanders find all these Māori names too hard to understand, they said. So no more Te Whatu Ora -- you need to call yourself Health NZ (not to be confused with the Ministry of Health). It's not obvious what Waka Kotahi means -- you need to call yourself NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency is too much of a mouthful, so you'll only hear it referred to by its initialism).
But putting too much emphasis on how silly this all is just ends up playing into dog whistling narrative they're framing up with these efforts.
Best thing to do is vent to a friendly audience and move on.
I get why the left-wing parties are calling this dumb, both politically and because there's probably something of a racist background to it, but it seems kind of obvious to have Maori and English as official languages, not just one or the other.
Is that not the purpose of an official language or am I missing something?
I agree. There's no real harm in making it official and the rhetoric that it's a waste of time make it seem like this will cost hundreds of work hours when I don't think that's true.
This quote, while I'm sure someone will tell me that politician is a racist hack, is fairly mundane when taken at face value.
For what it's worth for people who want to know:
She objects to inclusive language around gender and directed Health New Zealand to roll that language back. She was a lobbyist for a right wing group that wanted to break the partnership between the Crown and the Maori people insisting any policies that attempt to redress historical wrongs are "racist and separatist".
Her party New Zealand First actively pushes for transphobic/discriminatory bathroom and sports policies. Some of their candidates were full QAnon/plandemic level of conspiracy theorists. It's a right-wing populist party and though that looks different than in other countries - they at least say they want to invest in social services - they do play on fear of Asian immigrants, use the law & order rhetoric, and were campaigning to abolish the Maori electorates until they dropped it in negotiations to form a coalition government.
They have won Maori votes in the past, not sure about the present as they've pivoted more right. That's what I can glean from Wikipedia at least. Would love a local to correct/elaborate as needed because understanding those dynamics is helpful for me!
🤦 I just knew it. Such a simple, harmless quote out of context. I just knew, in my bones or something, it was said by someone reprehensible.
Yeah I mean I certainly wasn't surprised and I'm not sure I'm capable of being disappointed.
That's the trap with these sorts of things. What they push for here may not be itself problematic, but it begs questions of why they're doing it. Why does New Zealand actually need to enshrine English as an official language if everyone's already using it? Are there actually laws that require "official languages" to be written down before certain things can happen? Would official documents not appear in English if it weren't marked "official"?
I suspect the answer to those latter two questions is usually "no," which means the reason for this law becomes suspiciously likely to be "I want to enshrine things I associate with white people into law, so as to subtly entangle the country's laws with my racism." So when you look into the person pushing for it, well... Go figure.
Kinda makes sense that this was pushed by a right wing extremist, but that doesn't make the policy automatically bad. If you're a country that has official languages, it seems pretty obvious that the most commonly spoken one should be one of them.
Take it up with the UK.
Official language doesn't mean the same thing in every country. And de facto and de jure languages exist in different ways in different countries.
Well, the UK doesn't have an official language. Neither does the US, despite Donald Trump thinking he can make it so via royal decree.
New Zealand did have an official language though, except only around 4% of the population speaks it. It makes sense that Maori is an official language, it doesn't really make sense that English wasn't though, considering it's the native language of the vast majority of the population.
I linked a professor making the point of why te reo and NZSL were made official - to provide protections not otherwise granted in a de facto English system - that English doesn't need because it's the de facto English system.
Official language doesn't mean the same thing in each country and recognizing minority languages to protect them doesn't mean you have to recognize English out of some odd "fairness" or something unless you assume that the languages exist in opposition to each other.
As noted by someone else that they really wanted to control some other aspects of language in the government by requiring it to be in English instead of Māori which again suggests this is not a "neutral" act done to even things up.
Which is why the "who" is doing it and their intentions matter in the first place.
I think the thinking of that having English as an official language would further reinforce it as the default language in the country. It's similar to the US making English the official language of the country last year (though this was only through Executive Order). Previously the US had an executive order stating that federal agencies and federally funded programs had to make accomodations to those not speaking English but the 2025 EO undid that and said these must now be done in English (but doesn't explicitly say you can't use other languages).
English isn’t the official language of the United States because of that EO. All it really did was ignore jurisprudence related to Title VI and the 14th Amendment and language access. It’s no different than Trump‘s EO on birth right citizenship, it’s just a thing he “did” to say he “did it” even though he actually didn’t.
Language access in schools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lau_v._Nichols
It’s kind of shit right now because agencies have stopped investigating/enforcing disparate impact claims and there’s no private right of action under Title VI, but that doesn’t change the fact that the EO didn’t actually make English the “official” language.
Language access for drivers licenses and no private right of action for disparate impact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_v._Sandoval
Yeah they point out that England/UK doesn't list English as an official language as they don't have one. (They recognize Welsh for example regionally but not nationally. Which makes this feel "stunty" and with likely racist backing
It's definitely a "don't give ground even when it feels stupid" thing for me
I think this controversy is stupid, but if you reflexively oppose harmless changes then it makes your own side look stupid, too. And that's what they want.
I don't think there's a guaranteed lack of harm here. Many times things like this are a first step with future ones planned. Especially if they want to erode Maori rights or severely limit immigration. Also opposing that isn't necessarily "reflexive", it can be quite principled. Neither assumption holds water IMO.
Better to call it out as stupid than to comply.
The issue to me is that with only Maori and ESL as official languages, that technically means that all government business needs to be conducted in Maori. I think the right solution would maybe to have originally named Maori a "national language" or "official cultural language" or something that gives it a status but doesn't technically mean everyone is using the wrong language.
Normally I'd say "who cares if the languages have the 'incorrect' status? Just be reasonable." But I mean...it's the government. If they want to make sure the rule of law is upheld, they should be following the law.
That's not true and certainly hasn't been the case since te reo/Māori was named official in 1987. Also it's NZSL not ESL (which is English as a Second Language). Also weird that you wouldn't have to conduct all business in NZSL too under this false assumption.
Fwiw, Australia and the UK also do not list English as an official language and still do business daily.
Official languages only give a requirement like thatif that is written into the law. From a law professor from the wiki:
So the government has been following the law the entire time. It seems like you're making a lot of assumptions using perhaps an American paradigm. The "rights" of an official language vary depending on what has been put into law. And NZ law does not, to the best of my ability to search, have any of the provisions you're claiming. So if you have a citation I'm open to being wrong, but otherwise afaict this is just factually incorrect
ETA it is genuinely upsetting to see outright falsehoods upvoted.
The Irish constitution lists Irish as "first official language" and English as a second official language, similar phrasing might work here.
To put it another way, "the other side wants it" is a heuristic that might understandably make one suspicious, but it's only convincing to committed partisans. If there are other, better arguments then they should stand on their own.
They did.
Also why Maori and NZ sign language are given special status (mirroring Welsh being recognized regionally in the UK but English being given no de jure status)
And this is just a sample of them, so they did make these arguments, and did believe it was worth standing up for. I don't think telling them not to care would be useful or effective political advice from a country with a very different system.
Okay, clearly many sympathetic people have argued against it. But this brief summary doesn't tell us how good the arguments are. For example, I'm wondering how expensive this measure could be when it seemingly doesn't do anything substantial? And how exactly does it undermine the official status of other languages?
There don't seem to be more substantive arguments in favor of this change shared in this article. either. I don't understand why you're only skeptical of the opposition rather than equally critical of the proponents if you think the whole thing is "stupid" not just the opposition to it. I found the summary in the article to demonstrate the arguments made as reasonable and valid criticism of the concept.
This is what feels like the whole Just Asking Questions phenomenon where your criticism is originally that they're doing it "wrong" by not making substantive arguments while now admitting you have no idea what the strength of their arguments actually was. And you're "just asking" whether they did a good job, but actually you seem to be assuming it.
I don't think that's reasonable criticism as it's based only on a hypothetical framed as judgement of the opposition for doing a poor job despite lacking the evidence. Maybe they didn't do well and despite the summaries. But I won't start from the assumption that they're being stupid while fighting this stupid policy as even though I've done a decent amount of reading on this and still know I don't understand the intricacies. Nor will I assume they're in reflexive opposition rather than reasonable one.
So you're free to assume and do your own research or not as you like but I don't think any of your posts here are making cogent points given the assumptions they're making. Perhaps another article will provide you with more detail.
Does it matter? A lot of people don't want it. If meaningful benefit isn't found, that should be enough.
It's a bit silly. You don't need to legislate that the sky is blue. You can tell that English is an official language in NZ because all our official documents are written in English.
Another thing New Zealand First (the party behind this change) pushed for, along similar lines, was that government agencies must use English names primarily. It was becoming popular in recent years to rebrand to Māori names, but everyday New Zealanders find all these Māori names too hard to understand, they said. So no more Te Whatu Ora -- you need to call yourself Health NZ (not to be confused with the Ministry of Health). It's not obvious what Waka Kotahi means -- you need to call yourself NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency is too much of a mouthful, so you'll only hear it referred to by its initialism).
But putting too much emphasis on how silly this all is just ends up playing into dog whistling narrative they're framing up with these efforts.
Best thing to do is vent to a friendly audience and move on.