New Zealand First’s new Member’s Bill to officially declare “New Zealand” as the country’s name has triggered media pushback and parliamentary squabbling. But polling shows the public mood is decisively against the growing use of “Aotearoa” in official settings.
NZ First’s video protesting the use of “Aotearoa” in Parliament racked up over 50,000 views in less than 24 hours (and nearly 200k in a little over a week). The issue now looks set to become a cultural flashpoint heading into the next election cycle.
Parliament’s Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, has defended the use of “Aotearoa” as common and acceptable, citing its presence on passports and currency. But NZ First’s view is that such changes, however informal, represent mission creep. “If you want to change the country’s name, ask the people. Put it to a vote,” party leader Winston Peters said previously.
The coalition agreement with National explicitly bars any official name change without a referendum.
Peters has argued that government agencies and officials have overstepped. “A bunch of unelected bureaucrats… trying to change our country’s name by stealth, with no permission or consent from the people,” he said in a recent release.
“Only Parliament and the people… have the authority to make decisions about the name of the country,” he argued.
The bill, currently in the Members’ ballot under NZ First MP Andy Foster’s name, affirms that while “New Zealand” appears in law and treaties, it has never been formally declared as the country’s legal name. Peters says this ambiguity has enabled the creeping use of “Aotearoa” across public agencies, departments, and currency without proper mandate.
Polls show overwhelming opposition
While somewhat popular for a time, past polling suggests “Aotearoa” never had anywhere close to majority support. Recent data from a 2024 Research New Zealand poll reveals a further slide. Just 13% of Kiwis support changing the country’s name at all, down from 22% in 2022. Support to change the country’s name among South Islanders is even lower at 9%.
Click to view
In a separate question offering specific name options, only 8% preferred “Aotearoa” (down from 13%) and 19% favoured “Aotearoa New Zealand” (down from 24%), while 66% (up from 59%) said the country should keep the name “New Zealand.” (Curiously, “New Zealand Aotearoa” never seems to be asked as an option by researchers.)
Click to view
The numbers suggest that while media narratives often claim popular support for the name “Aotearoa”, using language like “widely used” and “accepted by most New Zealanders”, the vast majority aren’t buying it, and support is decreasing, not increasing.
As one adviser put it, the phrase “New Zealand” may not have changed, but the mood of the country has.
What’s in a name?
The name “Aotearoa” was never used by Māori to describe the whole country before European contact. It was likely coined or popularised by 19th-century European writers and ethnographers, then adopted by some Maori to refer only to the North Island. At the same time, the South was known as Te Waipounamu. In the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand is called “Nu Tireni”, a Māori transliteration of “New Zealand.”
The use of “Aotearoa” to mean the entire country only took off in the late 19th and 20th centuries, driven by schoolbooks, anthem translations, and government branding.
The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
Parliament’s Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, has defended the use of “Aotearoa” as common and acceptable, citing its presence on passports and currency. But NZ First’s view is that such changes, however informal, represent mission creep. “If you want to change the country’s name, ask the people. Put it to a vote,” party leader Winston Peters said previously.
The coalition agreement with National explicitly bars any official name change without a referendum.
Peters has argued that government agencies and officials have overstepped. “A bunch of unelected bureaucrats… trying to change our country’s name by stealth, with no permission or consent from the people,” he said in a recent release.
“Only Parliament and the people… have the authority to make decisions about the name of the country,” he argued.
The bill, currently in the Members’ ballot under NZ First MP Andy Foster’s name, affirms that while “New Zealand” appears in law and treaties, it has never been formally declared as the country’s legal name. Peters says this ambiguity has enabled the creeping use of “Aotearoa” across public agencies, departments, and currency without proper mandate.
Polls show overwhelming opposition
While somewhat popular for a time, past polling suggests “Aotearoa” never had anywhere close to majority support. Recent data from a 2024 Research New Zealand poll reveals a further slide. Just 13% of Kiwis support changing the country’s name at all, down from 22% in 2022. Support to change the country’s name among South Islanders is even lower at 9%.
Click to view
In a separate question offering specific name options, only 8% preferred “Aotearoa” (down from 13%) and 19% favoured “Aotearoa New Zealand” (down from 24%), while 66% (up from 59%) said the country should keep the name “New Zealand.” (Curiously, “New Zealand Aotearoa” never seems to be asked as an option by researchers.)
Click to view
The numbers suggest that while media narratives often claim popular support for the name “Aotearoa”, using language like “widely used” and “accepted by most New Zealanders”, the vast majority aren’t buying it, and support is decreasing, not increasing.
As one adviser put it, the phrase “New Zealand” may not have changed, but the mood of the country has.
What’s in a name?
The name “Aotearoa” was never used by Māori to describe the whole country before European contact. It was likely coined or popularised by 19th-century European writers and ethnographers, then adopted by some Maori to refer only to the North Island. At the same time, the South was known as Te Waipounamu. In the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand is called “Nu Tireni”, a Māori transliteration of “New Zealand.”
The use of “Aotearoa” to mean the entire country only took off in the late 19th and 20th centuries, driven by schoolbooks, anthem translations, and government branding.
The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
We could have easily been named Tasmania or remained as Staten Landt. Although Pig Island and the Mainland has an exotic sounding appeal.
There should not even be a debate about this. Could you imagine the Americans debating changing their countries name, in Congress? Don't worry about wars, illegal immigration, health or cost of living let's focus on coming up with a new name for the country! It's really totally absurd. If the country's name was to be changed, then firstly a referendum of the people should take place. Until then, our parliamentarians should use the correct name (as Winston does).
If the MSM hadn't pushed this day in and day out, there would be about 80% opposed to a name change. Even then, every time a poll is taken, a large majority are for "New Zealand". This doesn't change.
The reasons for retaining "New Zealand" are obvious: ensuring a democratic say by the people, trade, passports easily read and the way other countries have always known us.
The reasons for 'Aotearoa" are to make further inroads towards tribal rule by 2040.
Should be called "Ex Godzone"
I don’t want to change the name of the country, but this poll is at least a year old.
Someone please tell the guardian news website that New Zealand is New Zealand. They are, in the guise of freedom of speech and editorial freedom, trying to interfere with another country’s cultural statehood by promoting with no mandate other than an editors ideology the assumed Maori nomenclature. I have tried to voice opposition to their stance and been ignored several times and in consequence withdrawn my small financial support for them.
The young are being filled with guilt and pro name change by our ''educators''
At least two things are required to destroy a nation. It must be disappeared from world view (Aotearoa will do very nicely for that), and its common language must be eliminated. The direction is very clear.
Anon 1138, The Guardian are a bunch of fashionable marxofascists. Do what I did and switch to The Independent.
Isn't it sad we are even having this discussion. Our name is NZ! There are more urgent matters that need addressing. However, if this step stops the slipper slide we seem to be on. Get it done!
Barend: I just love pushing the guardian’s buttons
I get reminded all the time how much of a freeloader I am by having read 1000-plus of their articles so far this year (and every year) for free and really, I should be donating some thing to keep their flame going.
Post a Comment