That completely misses the point.
Nobody is suggesting English is about to vanish. The question is whether the language that unites almost every New Zealander should remain the clear and undisputed language of government, public services, law, education and national communication.
The answer should be obvious.
For decades, English functioned as New Zealand's common language without controversy. It allowed people from every background, ethnicity and culture to communicate with one another. Whether your ancestors arrived from Britain, China, India, Samoa, South Africa or anywhere else, English was the shared language that enabled participation in society.
Today that principle is increasingly being challenged.
Government agencies have been rebranded with Māori names unfamiliar to much of the public. Official communications increasingly contain Māori words, phrases and terminology without translation. Public servants are encouraged to use te reo regardless of whether their audience understands it. Acronyms, department names, programmes and services are being renamed in ways that often require explanation before people even know what organisation is being discussed.
The issue is not hostility toward te reo Māori. People are free to learn it, use it and celebrate it.
The issue is whether taxpayers should be expected to navigate public services through language they do not necessarily understand.
Critics claim there is "no evidence" of confusion. Yet confusion is precisely why government communication traditionally relied on plain English in the first place. The purpose of public information is clarity, not cultural messaging.
When an ambulance is needed, when a benefit is applied for, when a government department is contacted or when an emergency warning is issued, communication should be instantly understood by the greatest number of people possible. That language is English.
Supporters of the status quo argue that making English official is merely symbolic. Perhaps it is. But symbolism cuts both ways.
The relentless elevation of te reo Māori throughout public institutions has also been symbolic. It sends a message about identity, priorities and the future direction of the country. If symbolic recognition matters for one language, it is entirely reasonable that it should matter for the language spoken by more than 96 percent of New Zealanders.
The claim that official-language status exists only for endangered languages is equally weak. Official languages are not merely about preservation; they are about establishing standards and expectations. They define how a country communicates with itself.
New Zealand's reality is simple. English is the language of commerce, law, education, science, media and everyday life. It is the language that allows millions of people from vastly different backgrounds to function together as one society.
Recognising that reality in legislation should not be controversial.
What is truly unusual is the growing insistence that acknowledging English somehow threatens inclusion.
In fact, the opposite is true.
A common language is one of the most inclusive tools a nation can possess. It allows newcomers to integrate, citizens to communicate and public institutions to operate efficiently. It creates social cohesion rather than division.
The real question is not "What needs protecting?"
The real question is why some people become uncomfortable whenever English is recognised as the foundation of New Zealand's public life.
No one is banning te reo Māori. No one is abolishing Māori language education. No one is preventing anyone from speaking, learning or promoting it.
What many New Zealanders are asking for is far simpler than that.
They want the language spoken by virtually the entire population to be clearly recognised as the country's primary language of public communication.
That is not radical. - It is common sense.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
For decades, English functioned as New Zealand's common language without controversy. It allowed people from every background, ethnicity and culture to communicate with one another. Whether your ancestors arrived from Britain, China, India, Samoa, South Africa or anywhere else, English was the shared language that enabled participation in society.
Today that principle is increasingly being challenged.
Government agencies have been rebranded with Māori names unfamiliar to much of the public. Official communications increasingly contain Māori words, phrases and terminology without translation. Public servants are encouraged to use te reo regardless of whether their audience understands it. Acronyms, department names, programmes and services are being renamed in ways that often require explanation before people even know what organisation is being discussed.
The issue is not hostility toward te reo Māori. People are free to learn it, use it and celebrate it.
The issue is whether taxpayers should be expected to navigate public services through language they do not necessarily understand.
Critics claim there is "no evidence" of confusion. Yet confusion is precisely why government communication traditionally relied on plain English in the first place. The purpose of public information is clarity, not cultural messaging.
When an ambulance is needed, when a benefit is applied for, when a government department is contacted or when an emergency warning is issued, communication should be instantly understood by the greatest number of people possible. That language is English.
Supporters of the status quo argue that making English official is merely symbolic. Perhaps it is. But symbolism cuts both ways.
The relentless elevation of te reo Māori throughout public institutions has also been symbolic. It sends a message about identity, priorities and the future direction of the country. If symbolic recognition matters for one language, it is entirely reasonable that it should matter for the language spoken by more than 96 percent of New Zealanders.
The claim that official-language status exists only for endangered languages is equally weak. Official languages are not merely about preservation; they are about establishing standards and expectations. They define how a country communicates with itself.
New Zealand's reality is simple. English is the language of commerce, law, education, science, media and everyday life. It is the language that allows millions of people from vastly different backgrounds to function together as one society.
Recognising that reality in legislation should not be controversial.
What is truly unusual is the growing insistence that acknowledging English somehow threatens inclusion.
In fact, the opposite is true.
A common language is one of the most inclusive tools a nation can possess. It allows newcomers to integrate, citizens to communicate and public institutions to operate efficiently. It creates social cohesion rather than division.
The real question is not "What needs protecting?"
The real question is why some people become uncomfortable whenever English is recognised as the foundation of New Zealand's public life.
No one is banning te reo Māori. No one is abolishing Māori language education. No one is preventing anyone from speaking, learning or promoting it.
What many New Zealanders are asking for is far simpler than that.
They want the language spoken by virtually the entire population to be clearly recognised as the country's primary language of public communication.
That is not radical. - It is common sense.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
6 comments:
As expected. Stealth tactics used to undermine official status for English. Without status, easy to ban, ignore, sideline or relegate the language to a minor place.
Great article, except you contradict yourself. Your article is written in English, but when you refer to the maori language you pronounce it in maori, not English.
One language is uniting; two or more are divisive, especially in the way a process of introducing gobbledegook is being brought about. As I see it, the drive to enforce use of maori is a losing game except for those who want to maintain their cultural links, links that for non-part-maori have no relevance and even less importance. What is telling bout the utility of English is that in countries that have their own 'native' language, facility with English is encouraged and relatively fluent users are common. I have travelled enough to have experienced this phenomenon. Keep maori for the marae and home, it has no place in the everyday life of the 87% of us who claim alternative heritage.
The only time I take issue with Maori babble is when it is used as a weapon/vehicle for takeover of our Country. We have three languages endemic to NZ and it is appropriate for either all three to be formally recognised in legislation or for all three not to be - it is called equal treatment. We do not need the dog's breakfast we currently have with English missing from the equation.
I have posted this before, but it is worth bearing in mind as a background to this article.
“The Substance that Remains,” Wiremu Parker, in Wards, Thirteen Facets, 1978.
Maori Language (p. 187)
Those who say that the suppression of Maori culture in schools was a deliberate pakeha device to do away with Maori culture would be well advised to do a little research. The truth is that well-intentioned, but as we now know misguided, Maoris and pakehas were convinced that they were acting in the best interests of the Maori people. Mr Takamoana, one of the first newly elected Maori members of Parliament said in Parliament in 1871 ‘that the whole of the Maoris in this Island request that the Government should give instruction that the Maoris should be taught in English only.’ Another petition by Renata Kawepo and 790 others, and also one from Piri Ropata and 200 others asked for every endeavour to have schools established throughout the country so that Maori children could learn the English language.
As early as 1876 a petition to Parliament from We Te Hakiro and 316 others, asked that all children of two years of age, when just able to speak, should be taught the English language, so that their first language should be English. The petition also asked that not a word of Maori be allowed to be spoken in the school, and that the schoolmaster, his wife, and children be altogether ignorant of the Maori language.
For years the leaders of the Young Maori Party preached up and down the country what both A. T. Ngata and Dr Maui Pomare believed that ‘the first subject in order of priority in the school curriculum was English, the second most important subject was English, the third most important subject was English and then arithmetic and other subjects.’
At the refresher course for all teachers of the Maori Schools Service held in Rotorua in 1939, Ngata was still advocating that policy. It was a widely held Maori opinion that the function of the school was to teach English and the function of the home was to keep the Maori language alive and in that way ensure that all Maoris grew up bilingual. In 1936, Peter Fraser, the Minister of Education, dispatched a one sentence letter to Sir Apirana Ngata worded as follows:
Dear Sir Apirana,
Referring to your statements in the House last night, I would esteem it a favour if you would kindly let me know what your people expect of our school system.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) Peter Fraser.
The reply was prompt and equally brief:
Dear Mr. Fraser,
In reply to your letter, the question you pose is one that I have raised with my people of the Tairawhiti [Eastern electorate] and the reply has always been the same – we send our children to school to learn the ways of the Pakeha.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) A. T. Ngata.
Anyone from England should have no trouble understanding speech or writing in NZ.
That is the way it was for decades.
Now the white ants have destroyed that with their infiltration of every aspect of NZ life.
Even the working language and culture of the NZ Army has been quietly changed to Maori.
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.