My email in-tray today included a newsletter from the source pictured above which – when opened – was found to be Land Information New Zealand (LINZ),
That’s the government agency which manages land titles, surveying, crown property, and topographic/hydrographic information.
Its Minister is Chris Penk, who presumably has better thing to do than press LINZ to put the English bit of its name first. Maybe he’s much too busy with his Building and Construction, Small Business, and Veterans duties.
Putting the English-language names of Government agencies ahead of their te reo names seemed a common-sense policy, when it was agreed to as part of the PM’s coalition negotiations with New Zealand First.
Most New Zealanders will know the Ministry of Health – for example – is the ministry which deals with health issues. Just a few will identify the nature of its work when it is presented to them as Manatū Hauora.
Whether it is “rebranding” to call something by a name which almost 100 per cent of the population can comprehend is a moot point.
But governments have a flair for complicating the simplest of things and Public Service Minister Judith Collins has explained why progress is slow.
She also clucked her concern about the cost of “rebranding” some Government agencies.
According to the New Zealand Herald:
Act MP Todd Stephenson wrote to Minister Judith Collins earlier this month, saying the party had been getting a “significant volume” of correspondence with “growing concern” that coalition commitments were not being visibly implemented.
The letter referenced the fact the Government’s main webpage had its brand in te reo Māori first.
“When Government branding does not reflect clearly articulated commitments, it creates the perception that either the direction is not being firmly driven or that departments are exercising discretion in areas where there should be none,” Stephenson wrote.
Collins acknowledged that in 2024, ministers agreed the coalition commitment between National and New Zealand First would be responded to on a case-by-case basis.
“This aligns with the Government’s priority that the public sector focus on frontline services. The Government expects agencies to be mindful of the fiscal environment and for taxpayer money to be spent carefully, including rebranding exercises,” Collins said.
But (for starters) how long will it take to change the Government’s own logo?
Stevenson reckons making that change would reflect its commitment to have all public service departments have their primary name in English, except for those specifically related to Māori.
The budget-conscious Collins has requested advice – ha! – on rebranding costs.
In a response letter to the Act MP, shared on social media, Collins wrote that ministers and agencies had been responding to the commitment on a “case-by-case basis”.
She added it aligned with the Government’s priority that public sector agencies focus on delivering more effective services, and making good use of taxpayer dollars.
Hmm. This focus on the fiscal factor looks formidable.
Collins said she had recently become concerned at the cost of agency rebranding activities – a matter she had raised with Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche.
Roche reminded agencies of the need to be “mindful of the fiscal environment” and minimise unnecessary expenditure around rebranding.
Collins stated she wanted any branding changes to be made without incurring substantial additional costs.
And that’s fine with Stephenson. He said his party did not support “costly rebrands involving consultants” or “flash new signage and stationery”.
However, he said Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden’s digital-first rebrand at her agency cost $741.
At the time, van Velden said she could’ve done the logo herself on a photo-editing application, prompting her agency to reduce the cost.
Stephenson called for the Government’s main logo to face the same fate.
“Act takes all Coalition commitments seriously and expects them to be delivered,” the Act MP said, giving an example of the change.
In an interview with Newstalk ZB, Stephenson said a digital-first update was “completely feasible” and could be done quickly without significant cost:
“I hope that’s where Minister Collins and the officials get to”.
“Departments have been slow in following that directive,” Stephenson said. He suggested agencies could start with digital assets and phase other factors in over time.
“It is a bit disappointing that things have been so slow,” he said.
The Government’s shift toward emphasising English names for state agencies aims to ensure that public services are “accessible to New Zealanders in language they understand,” following concerns that bilingual or te reo-first names were confusing to some members of the public.
“This aligns with the Government’s priority that the public sector focus on frontline services. The Government expects agencies to be mindful of the fiscal environment and for taxpayer money to be spent carefully, including rebranding exercises,” Collins said.
But (for starters) how long will it take to change the Government’s own logo?
Stevenson reckons making that change would reflect its commitment to have all public service departments have their primary name in English, except for those specifically related to Māori.
The budget-conscious Collins has requested advice – ha! – on rebranding costs.
In a response letter to the Act MP, shared on social media, Collins wrote that ministers and agencies had been responding to the commitment on a “case-by-case basis”.
She added it aligned with the Government’s priority that public sector agencies focus on delivering more effective services, and making good use of taxpayer dollars.
Hmm. This focus on the fiscal factor looks formidable.
Collins said she had recently become concerned at the cost of agency rebranding activities – a matter she had raised with Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche.
Roche reminded agencies of the need to be “mindful of the fiscal environment” and minimise unnecessary expenditure around rebranding.
Collins stated she wanted any branding changes to be made without incurring substantial additional costs.
And that’s fine with Stephenson. He said his party did not support “costly rebrands involving consultants” or “flash new signage and stationery”.
However, he said Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden’s digital-first rebrand at her agency cost $741.
At the time, van Velden said she could’ve done the logo herself on a photo-editing application, prompting her agency to reduce the cost.
Stephenson called for the Government’s main logo to face the same fate.
“Act takes all Coalition commitments seriously and expects them to be delivered,” the Act MP said, giving an example of the change.
In an interview with Newstalk ZB, Stephenson said a digital-first update was “completely feasible” and could be done quickly without significant cost:
“I hope that’s where Minister Collins and the officials get to”.
“Departments have been slow in following that directive,” Stephenson said. He suggested agencies could start with digital assets and phase other factors in over time.
“It is a bit disappointing that things have been so slow,” he said.
The Government’s shift toward emphasising English names for state agencies aims to ensure that public services are “accessible to New Zealanders in language they understand,” following concerns that bilingual or te reo-first names were confusing to some members of the public.
The formal agreement requires all public service departments to have their primary name in English, except those specifically related to Māori.
But rather than issuing a single all-of-government directive, the implementation was delegated to individual ministers to manage with their respective agencies.
The Government moreover has advised agencies to avoid “significant rebranding costs” by making changes to physical signage only when it needs replacement, while prioritizing “low-cost” digital updates like website headers and email signatures.
The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA), previously Waka Kotahi, was one of the first to revert, updating its logo and digital channels to lead with the English name.
Health New Zealand, previously Te Whatu Ora, changed its branding to lead with the English descriptor “Health New Zealand”.
It seemed easy enough to turn the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, into Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children in January 18, 2018. The word “vulnerable” was removed to reflect a broader focus on the wellbeing of all children and young people, rather than solely focusing on those in state care
Switching the order to Ministry for Children – Oranga Tamariki curiously has become much more challenging.
Some agencies, such as Kāinga Ora, have their te reo Māori names entrenched in legislation (e.g., the Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Act 2019). Changing these “legal names” would require a formal Act of Parliament rather than a simple branding directive.
Buy hey – this is a government that can pass a Bill almost as fast as Usain Bolt can run 100 metres.
But rather than issuing a single all-of-government directive, the implementation was delegated to individual ministers to manage with their respective agencies.
The Government moreover has advised agencies to avoid “significant rebranding costs” by making changes to physical signage only when it needs replacement, while prioritizing “low-cost” digital updates like website headers and email signatures.
The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA), previously Waka Kotahi, was one of the first to revert, updating its logo and digital channels to lead with the English name.
Health New Zealand, previously Te Whatu Ora, changed its branding to lead with the English descriptor “Health New Zealand”.
It seemed easy enough to turn the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, into Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children in January 18, 2018. The word “vulnerable” was removed to reflect a broader focus on the wellbeing of all children and young people, rather than solely focusing on those in state care
Switching the order to Ministry for Children – Oranga Tamariki curiously has become much more challenging.
Some agencies, such as Kāinga Ora, have their te reo Māori names entrenched in legislation (e.g., the Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Act 2019). Changing these “legal names” would require a formal Act of Parliament rather than a simple branding directive.
Buy hey – this is a government that can pass a Bill almost as fast as Usain Bolt can run 100 metres.
And Christopher Luxon surely commands enough leadership prowess to persuade his ministers to issue the formal instructions necessary for change.
Then again, does he have the inclination?.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Then again, does he have the inclination?.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
Such a simple thing … yet Luxon and this National led government continues to defy the wish & the will of those who rejected the deceitful implementation by Ardern & Labour of the racial, social and economic divisions via Maorification.
And it will cost National very dearly comes the election this year.
This is pathetic and probably reflects why National is dropping in the polls. National are WOKE.
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.