The PoO team – keen to learn who said what during the first reading of the English Language Bill and not tuned into the broadcast of proceedings at the time – turned to Hansard.
We were especially keen to learn what the Māori Party had to say about a bill aimed at formally recognising English as an official language of New Zealand in legislation.
We were disappointed.
The Hansard record shows that just one Māori Party MP spoke during the debate and – no, we were not surprised – she preferred to speak in te reo.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:46):
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters led the charge in favour of the bill. He said:
English has long been the predominant language of Government, education, people with some brains, commerce, and daily life in New Zealand. It is spoken by around 95 percent of the population. It has never been formally recognised in statute as an official language. This bill seeks to correct that anomaly, providing consistency in legal framework and clarifying the status of all three official languages in legislation. The bill does not diminish the status of other official languages, te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language, but rather compliments them, acknowledging the linguistic reality of our nation and affirming the value of English as a shared means of communication used by the mass majority of the population—I’ll say it again quietly: used by the mass majority of the population.
Moreover, it’s a language which enables bellicose MPs like Peters to express their disdain for political opponents in terms which most people in this country can understand.
Labour’s Glen Bennett learned this when he interjected while Peters was explaining that the bill is the product of commitments made in the New Zealand First – National coalition agreement to legislate for the official status of the English language.
Glen Bennett: What’s your fear?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: English will continue to be the predominant language used in our courts, Parliament, and Government.
Hon Member: Why?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This bill provides clarity and certainty. The purpose of an introductory speech is that some ignoramuses, like you, might learn why the bill is being brought in the first time. So be patient. For the next eight minutes, you’re going to hear them all, and a bit extra.
The Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, advised Peters to be careful about name-calling.
I’m not sure who it was intended at, but it was certainly intended at an individual, and I’d ask the member to refrain from that type of language. Thank you. Just use plain language—English!
Peters isn’t strong on taking advice about how he expresses himself.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I know that some people have limitations when it comes to our language, but I’m not one of them.
And then on with his explanation…
The bill provides clarity and certainty in legislation of the official status of the English language in New Zealand. This affirms in legislation that New Zealand has three official languages. Other jurisdictions have taken similar measures to recognise English as an official language, including Canada, Ireland, and Wales. This indicates the importance of providing for the official status of a language in legislation to ensure a country’s official languages are respected and supported in public life, or more importantly, it is what the people in the mass majority of this country want.
This bill is an important clarification of the official status of the English language in New Zealand in legislation. This bill not only clears up a long-held assumption that English was already an official language but, importantly, also serves very practical applications.
Peters noted the increase in te reo being used in place of English, in recent years, although less than 5 percent of the New Zealand population can read, write, or speak it.
This (he contended) had created situations that encouraged misunderstanding and confusion.
We have some very real situations now where communications and names of important services are using te reo as primary names and language, and the room for confusion and miscommunication is huge.
He cited boaties trying to identify safe anchorages – such as Russell,
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Ha, ha!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: See—it’s a laughing matter over there. I just heard the so-called lawyer from Christchurch thinking it’s funny. He thinks it’s hilarious. [Interruption] Let me tell you, I was a far more successful lawyer than you, sunshine—about 10 times more successful.
And then on with the need for the bill to be enacted:
These changes to place names on navigational charts can only have come from Government departments such as Land Information New Zealand providing name changes. This form of dangerous and nonsensical totalitarianism is a reminder of the old Soviet Union. [Interruption] You should love this, being a pinko, being a communist—you should love this.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker, there’s a longstanding and consistent convention in this House that members must not refer to others as communists. It has been upheld consistently from Speakers throughout my relatively short time in this Parliament. It should not be permitted.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I agree with the member, and I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters should refrain from the name calling and focus on the piece of legislation.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Madam Speaker, I was reading from his CV.
Hon Members: Oh!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes—I’ll table the CV.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s not relevant, and if the member wishes to continue with this line of conversation he will withdraw and apologise. Otherwise he will go straight back to the bill.
Peters went back to the Bill and to a curious line of argument that seems to have been triggered by his mention of totalitarianism in the Soviet Union.
No, not curious. Bizarre.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: OK. This form of dangerous, nonsensical totalitarianism is a reminder of the old Soviet Union where out-of-touch bureaucrats were building, costing, and installing chandeliers based on weight-for-production bonuses rather than shape and design, and as a result, ripping the ceilings out of buildings because they were too heavy. And then President Khrushchev, upon finding this out, asked this question: for whom is this illuminating? And “for whom?” are the circumstances we now finding ourselves in with the use of te reo as a means of important communication now illuminating what exactly? That’s what happens when cross purposes defeat the public good.
This bill won’t solve the push of this virtue signalling narrative completely, but it is the first step towards ensuring logic and common sense prevails when the vast majority of New Zealanders communicate in English and understand English in a country that should use English as its primary and official language.
But try as we might while examining what Peters said, it is hard to find anything to justify the need for the bill’s introduction now.
Labour and Green MPs, on the other hand, didn’t convincingly give reasons for the bill to be voted down.
Rather, they argued that this is a distraction from other issues which the Government should be addressing.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): They are trying to distract us, with this trivial bill, away from the fact that they can’t actually run the country. That chaotic coalition, that fractured group of people, can’t actually run the country, can’t get costs down, can’t actually cut the cost of living, can’t organise two boats for the Cook Strait—haven’t seen those yet; the costs there are still going up. But, no, on a Thursday afternoon, they want us to be talking about the English language—
We were disappointed.
The Hansard record shows that just one Māori Party MP spoke during the debate and – no, we were not surprised – she preferred to speak in te reo.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:46):
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters led the charge in favour of the bill. He said:
English has long been the predominant language of Government, education, people with some brains, commerce, and daily life in New Zealand. It is spoken by around 95 percent of the population. It has never been formally recognised in statute as an official language. This bill seeks to correct that anomaly, providing consistency in legal framework and clarifying the status of all three official languages in legislation. The bill does not diminish the status of other official languages, te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language, but rather compliments them, acknowledging the linguistic reality of our nation and affirming the value of English as a shared means of communication used by the mass majority of the population—I’ll say it again quietly: used by the mass majority of the population.
Moreover, it’s a language which enables bellicose MPs like Peters to express their disdain for political opponents in terms which most people in this country can understand.
Labour’s Glen Bennett learned this when he interjected while Peters was explaining that the bill is the product of commitments made in the New Zealand First – National coalition agreement to legislate for the official status of the English language.
Glen Bennett: What’s your fear?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: English will continue to be the predominant language used in our courts, Parliament, and Government.
Hon Member: Why?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This bill provides clarity and certainty. The purpose of an introductory speech is that some ignoramuses, like you, might learn why the bill is being brought in the first time. So be patient. For the next eight minutes, you’re going to hear them all, and a bit extra.
The Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, advised Peters to be careful about name-calling.
I’m not sure who it was intended at, but it was certainly intended at an individual, and I’d ask the member to refrain from that type of language. Thank you. Just use plain language—English!
Peters isn’t strong on taking advice about how he expresses himself.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I know that some people have limitations when it comes to our language, but I’m not one of them.
And then on with his explanation…
The bill provides clarity and certainty in legislation of the official status of the English language in New Zealand. This affirms in legislation that New Zealand has three official languages. Other jurisdictions have taken similar measures to recognise English as an official language, including Canada, Ireland, and Wales. This indicates the importance of providing for the official status of a language in legislation to ensure a country’s official languages are respected and supported in public life, or more importantly, it is what the people in the mass majority of this country want.
This bill is an important clarification of the official status of the English language in New Zealand in legislation. This bill not only clears up a long-held assumption that English was already an official language but, importantly, also serves very practical applications.
Peters noted the increase in te reo being used in place of English, in recent years, although less than 5 percent of the New Zealand population can read, write, or speak it.
This (he contended) had created situations that encouraged misunderstanding and confusion.
We have some very real situations now where communications and names of important services are using te reo as primary names and language, and the room for confusion and miscommunication is huge.
He cited boaties trying to identify safe anchorages – such as Russell,
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Ha, ha!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: See—it’s a laughing matter over there. I just heard the so-called lawyer from Christchurch thinking it’s funny. He thinks it’s hilarious. [Interruption] Let me tell you, I was a far more successful lawyer than you, sunshine—about 10 times more successful.
And then on with the need for the bill to be enacted:
These changes to place names on navigational charts can only have come from Government departments such as Land Information New Zealand providing name changes. This form of dangerous and nonsensical totalitarianism is a reminder of the old Soviet Union. [Interruption] You should love this, being a pinko, being a communist—you should love this.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker, there’s a longstanding and consistent convention in this House that members must not refer to others as communists. It has been upheld consistently from Speakers throughout my relatively short time in this Parliament. It should not be permitted.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I agree with the member, and I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters should refrain from the name calling and focus on the piece of legislation.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Madam Speaker, I was reading from his CV.
Hon Members: Oh!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes—I’ll table the CV.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s not relevant, and if the member wishes to continue with this line of conversation he will withdraw and apologise. Otherwise he will go straight back to the bill.
Peters went back to the Bill and to a curious line of argument that seems to have been triggered by his mention of totalitarianism in the Soviet Union.
No, not curious. Bizarre.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: OK. This form of dangerous, nonsensical totalitarianism is a reminder of the old Soviet Union where out-of-touch bureaucrats were building, costing, and installing chandeliers based on weight-for-production bonuses rather than shape and design, and as a result, ripping the ceilings out of buildings because they were too heavy. And then President Khrushchev, upon finding this out, asked this question: for whom is this illuminating? And “for whom?” are the circumstances we now finding ourselves in with the use of te reo as a means of important communication now illuminating what exactly? That’s what happens when cross purposes defeat the public good.
This bill won’t solve the push of this virtue signalling narrative completely, but it is the first step towards ensuring logic and common sense prevails when the vast majority of New Zealanders communicate in English and understand English in a country that should use English as its primary and official language.
But try as we might while examining what Peters said, it is hard to find anything to justify the need for the bill’s introduction now.
Labour and Green MPs, on the other hand, didn’t convincingly give reasons for the bill to be voted down.
Rather, they argued that this is a distraction from other issues which the Government should be addressing.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): They are trying to distract us, with this trivial bill, away from the fact that they can’t actually run the country. That chaotic coalition, that fractured group of people, can’t actually run the country, can’t get costs down, can’t actually cut the cost of living, can’t organise two boats for the Cook Strait—haven’t seen those yet; the costs there are still going up. But, no, on a Thursday afternoon, they want us to be talking about the English language—
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) Some out there say that this Government is stupid. Unfortunately, I think that they know exactly what they are doing. The English language is not under threat. We are literally speaking it and debating in it right now. This is a bill which is an answer to a problem that does not exist—a problem which this Government is trying to create in the minds of people across this country in place of the very real problems of the climate crisis, record homelessness, inequality, and infrastructural decay, which they have decided to actively make worse.
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I can only join my colleague Duncan Webb in concluding that this Government is bereft of ideas about how to address the real issues for New Zealanders. They are so out of touch that they need this piece of symbolism.
But the Government has chosen to devote Parliament’s time to this bill, so I have the remaining time left for my speech to talk about the beauty of the English language….
Which she did.
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I can only join my colleague Duncan Webb in concluding that this Government is bereft of ideas about how to address the real issues for New Zealanders. They are so out of touch that they need this piece of symbolism.
But the Government has chosen to devote Parliament’s time to this bill, so I have the remaining time left for my speech to talk about the beauty of the English language….
Which she did.
The debate was interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day, on Tuesday, 3 March 2026.
Maybe then we will hear what the Māori Party thinks about the Bill in a language – albeit an unofficial one – which most people in this country can understand.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Maybe then we will hear what the Māori Party thinks about the Bill in a language – albeit an unofficial one – which most people in this country can understand.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
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.