The New Zealand Herald’s editorial (January 2) presents the use of “Aotearoa” alongside New Zealand as an innocuous act — a simple nod to history that should trouble no confident nation. Those who object, we are told, suffer from fragility, anxiety, or an inability to cope with complexity.
The debate is not about whether “Aotearoa” is an old word, or whether Māori language and culture deserve respect. They do. Nor is it about fear of plurality. New Zealand is already multiple in language, culture and identity, and has been for generations.
But even on its own terms, the historical claim deserves scrutiny. The assertion that “Aotearoa predates the state by centuries” is misleading. There is no sound evidence that Māori used “Aotearoa” as a name for the whole country before 1840, and the Treaty of Waitangi itself refers instead to “Nu Tirani”. The national use of “Aotearoa” is a relatively modern convention, not an ancient country name.
The concern many New Zealanders express is more specific: how language is being used as a political instrument rather than a cultural courtesy.
Comparisons with Ireland, Finland, or Switzerland sound persuasive, but they obscure more than they reveal. In those countries, naming conventions emerged organically through democratic processes, constitutional settlement, or long-standing linguistic reality. They were not introduced by administrative drift, institutional fiat, or moral pressure applied from above. Context matters.
In New Zealand, “Aotearoa New Zealand” is increasingly adopted not through public mandate, but through government departments, media organisations, and publicly funded institutions acting unilaterally. That distinction matters in a democracy. Language, when embedded in official use, carries authority. It signals not just recognition, but endorsement.
This is why the reaction exists — not because people are confused, but because they recognise a pattern.
For decades, New Zealanders were told that Treaty settlements were “full and final”, that bicultural recognition would sit comfortably alongside a shared civic identity, and that no one would be compelled to adopt new symbols or terminology. Yet the ground continues to shift. What was once optional becomes expected; what was once ceremonial becomes normative.
It is not unreasonable for people to question where that process leads.
The editorial asserts that English remains dominant, and therefore no loss is occurring. But dominance is not the point. Consent is. Shared national symbols work best when they arise from broad agreement, not from a sense that change is inevitable and resistance is suspect.
Calling “New Zealand” neutral because it has “carried power unchallenged” reframes history through a contemporary moral lens. New Zealand is not a placeholder name awaiting correction. It is the name under which a democratic state formed, institutions developed, wars were fought, rights expanded, and millions — Māori and non-Māori alike — built their lives. That history is not diminished by acknowledging what came before, but neither should it be casually recast as morally incomplete.
Nor does objection imply hostility to Māori culture. Many who resist the creeping replacement of the country’s name also support te reo revitalisation, Māori broadcasting, and cultural recognition where it genuinely enriches public life. What they resist is the implication that acceptance must be unconditional, perpetual, and immune from debate.
A healthy national identity is not one that “absorbs complexity” by silencing dissent. It is one that allows disagreement without assigning psychological motives to those who differ.
If the case for dual naming is as strong as its advocates believe, it should withstand public scrutiny, referendum, or open debate — not rely on moral insinuation or institutional momentum.
The sharper question, then, is not why some people react to the word “Aotearoa”.
It is why disagreement itself is so readily portrayed as intolerance or insecurity.
In a democracy, names matter. So does how we choose them.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
But even on its own terms, the historical claim deserves scrutiny. The assertion that “Aotearoa predates the state by centuries” is misleading. There is no sound evidence that Māori used “Aotearoa” as a name for the whole country before 1840, and the Treaty of Waitangi itself refers instead to “Nu Tirani”. The national use of “Aotearoa” is a relatively modern convention, not an ancient country name.
The concern many New Zealanders express is more specific: how language is being used as a political instrument rather than a cultural courtesy.
Comparisons with Ireland, Finland, or Switzerland sound persuasive, but they obscure more than they reveal. In those countries, naming conventions emerged organically through democratic processes, constitutional settlement, or long-standing linguistic reality. They were not introduced by administrative drift, institutional fiat, or moral pressure applied from above. Context matters.
In New Zealand, “Aotearoa New Zealand” is increasingly adopted not through public mandate, but through government departments, media organisations, and publicly funded institutions acting unilaterally. That distinction matters in a democracy. Language, when embedded in official use, carries authority. It signals not just recognition, but endorsement.
This is why the reaction exists — not because people are confused, but because they recognise a pattern.
For decades, New Zealanders were told that Treaty settlements were “full and final”, that bicultural recognition would sit comfortably alongside a shared civic identity, and that no one would be compelled to adopt new symbols or terminology. Yet the ground continues to shift. What was once optional becomes expected; what was once ceremonial becomes normative.
It is not unreasonable for people to question where that process leads.
The editorial asserts that English remains dominant, and therefore no loss is occurring. But dominance is not the point. Consent is. Shared national symbols work best when they arise from broad agreement, not from a sense that change is inevitable and resistance is suspect.
Calling “New Zealand” neutral because it has “carried power unchallenged” reframes history through a contemporary moral lens. New Zealand is not a placeholder name awaiting correction. It is the name under which a democratic state formed, institutions developed, wars were fought, rights expanded, and millions — Māori and non-Māori alike — built their lives. That history is not diminished by acknowledging what came before, but neither should it be casually recast as morally incomplete.
Nor does objection imply hostility to Māori culture. Many who resist the creeping replacement of the country’s name also support te reo revitalisation, Māori broadcasting, and cultural recognition where it genuinely enriches public life. What they resist is the implication that acceptance must be unconditional, perpetual, and immune from debate.
A healthy national identity is not one that “absorbs complexity” by silencing dissent. It is one that allows disagreement without assigning psychological motives to those who differ.
If the case for dual naming is as strong as its advocates believe, it should withstand public scrutiny, referendum, or open debate — not rely on moral insinuation or institutional momentum.
The sharper question, then, is not why some people react to the word “Aotearoa”.
It is why disagreement itself is so readily portrayed as intolerance or insecurity.
In a democracy, names matter. So does how we choose them.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
11 comments:
It's funny how the name "Aotearoa" invokes such annoyance. For me, it's the democracy aspect. Nobody was consulted. A few citizens of New Zealand have taken it upon themselves to make this change. That is pretty irritating. They probably saw that, as with the flag issue, a referendum didn't give them the desired result. Re-naming a country is a pretty big deal. Most of the countries that have done so would probably have had a majority approval. Apparently 80% of New Zealanders are happy with the name New Zealand. Normally, in times past, that would have been the clinching criteria.
Indoctrination by the media.
Especially, TVNZ, and RNZ , neither of which have the authority or mandate to change the name of the country.
Does anyone, other than Trump's acolytes, refer to the Gulf of Mexico ?
So why are our children being taught that it's Aotearoa rather than New Zealand ?
Pure and simple indoctrination, the same as every other cult, political or religion.
Imagine going to europe on your OE and saying you are from aotearoa and start doing a karakia with someone interviewing you for a job. At some point reality needs to sink in. No one else cares about maori culture. It should not be indoctrinated into people who are not of that culture. If people with maori heritage don't want it either, then it should not be forced. Our country is called new zealand and it is 2025, not 1830
Completely reasonable as ever Geoff. I don't like either name. Aotearoa I find boring, and New Zealand is inappropriate for a mountainous land, ascribed by a Dutchman who did not even land - though he mapped pretty well. As you say New Zealand is the name by which we are known to others, and the reputation we have earned.(Aotearoa is well used by Maori, but the sticking point for me is its adoption by the vomit-inducing woke)
I choose Aotearoa.
When I shifted up to the North Island over 60 years ago, I was told by an elderly Maori colleague that Aotearoa simply mean a 'long white cloud'. An early writer of our history (Percy Stevenson Smith?) added 'the land of', making it the Land of the Long White Cloud. He also told me that the Maori language that was spoken then was not the language that was spoken in 1840. Even today it is still being "modernized". Indeed, the whole world is being modernized, not necessarily for the good! I used to be an avid reader of the New Zealand Herald but would only buy the Saturday issue during the winter now because it is good to light the fire with.
Imagine someone deciding to call you by a completely different name. Most of use would be slightly bemused, if they persisted down right offended.
It's exactly the same with the name of our country.
Most of us find it offensive in the extreme, and that applies to all the renaming were being subjected to.
Many lifetimes have been spent establishing and, indeed, protecting the brand - "New Zealand".
Why on earth would you want to change that to a veritable blow-in name of "Aotearoa" - a name which wasn't even used as a name for the country by its previous inhabitants. Unless, of course, you want to de-stabilise that country and promote some form of cultural revolution that no-one else in the world relates to?
It's simply mischief making without the mandate of the citizens and those that continue to promote such, without that mandate, deserve our contempt. Whatever they claim to be, they are NOT New Zealanders, and we should treat them accordingly.
I have said elsewhere that, as a young adult in the 1970s, I learned the Maori language to a fair degree of fluency.
However. In the last few years, I've made it my business to forget it. That's because, in that period, it's been weaponised. Nowadays, I cannot be bothered with it.
Many years ago, I was supportive, both of attempts at language revitalisation, and of Treaty settlements. No longer. With regard to Treaty settlements, I've come to realise that we're being expected to pay for claimed injustices which are supposed to have occurred long before any of us was born. With regard to the language, I've moved from supportiveness, to indifference, to outright hostility. The ineluctable rules of language acquisition apply to all languages, including Maori. It likely cannot now be revived: it doesn't matter how many well-meaning non-Maori attempt to learn it. They cannot save it. That task rests with Maori themselves, and it's a very hard road for them.
I feel the same hostility about the word "aotearoa" I know its history: I heard it from my Maori teacher in the 1970s. I have pointed out to many people that Maori had no name for NZ as a country, because, before the Treaty, it wasn't a polity, and Maori had no concept of it as being so. Hence the name used in the Treaty, a transliteration of New Zealand.
The "aotearoa" word is, like the language, being weaponised. I don't much care who's primarily responsible for that. In my case, the effect is the same: hostility and the very opposite of respect. I detect similar levels of hostility among other non-Maori NZers. The weaponisers have only themselves to blame, but it's surely an unintended (though very far from unexpected) consequence of their campaign.
I don't subscribe to the Herald so can't read the editorial. But something else that doesn't seem to be dealt with is that for so many of us, when the word 'Aotearoa' was used as a place name it meant only the North Island.
Has anyone noticed?
So many comments about " no mandate of the people" on various issues.
So when will the people demand the mandate that is their right as voters? i.e. a referendum on democracy.
PM Luxon is watching your critical response ... even if noone else is.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.