Time for Aotearoa-New Zealand

NewsHub reports that there is a petition before Parliament for a referendum on adding Aotearoa to our country's official name:

A Kiwi man has launched a petition to add Aotearoa to our country's official name.

If accepted, it would require Parliament to pass legislation requiring a referendum on whether the official name of New Zealand should change to include the Māori name.

"Official documents of national identity, birth and citizenship certificates, passports and money-notes have Aotearoa and New Zealand together as the names of the country," Danny Tahau Jobe's petition states.

"Only 'New Zealand' has official status. Both names together will officially confirm/enhance nationhood and uniqueness in the world."

I've supported the idea of a national name change for a long time: our national identity has changed since the days of Muldoon (let alone the days of Holyoake), and referring to NZ as Aotearoa is second nature to many New Zealanders. Formally changing our name would be a positive expression of our new national identity and a recognition of this place's unique Maori heritage. As for the process, a national name change requires legislation (as noted in the select committee report the last time this came before the House), and a referendum is the appropriate way to decide such issues. I urge people to sign the petition.

Sending the wrong message

US Vice President Joe Biden is in Auckland today. As part of this, he is being greeted by a guard of honour at Government House. This isn't specific to him - we do it for every foreign dignitary. We get a bunch of soldiers to line up so that people can look at them, presumably in the hope that they'll be impressed with New Zealand's military might and how bright and shiny those soldiers are (its no surprise that this tradition originated in the era of absolute monarchy, when kings treated their armies as personal toys, and war as a sport).

What message does it send to greet visitors like this? That we're about war, soldiers, and militarism (oh, and British). This is exactly the wrong message for a peaceful, democratic nation in the south Pacific to send. We should do away with this archaic, militaristic crap, and just stick with the Pōwhiri instead.

Ambitious for New Zealand?

Back when John Key was first running for prime Minister in 2008, we heard a lot about how he was "ambitious for New Zealand". Its a slogan which suggests that he - and by extension National - wanted to make New Zealand a better place. So, when he was asked over the weekend what he would change if he had a magic wand and could change a policy overnight, what did he choose? To end the terrible child poverty currently affecting 300,000 kiwi kids? To ensure that every New Zealander had a decent, well-paying job? To raise our living standards and close the gap with Australia?

None of the above. Instead if he had ultimate power, Key would change the fucking flag:

In fact, a Nelson magazine asked Mr Key if he could implement one policy tomorrow, what would it be, and Mr Key answered he would change the flag to a silver fern.

I support changing the flag and ditching the Union Jack (not to mention the monarchy and all its feudal trappings). But I also recognise that its a symbolic change (but: symbols matter), and that we have other fish to fry as well. More importantly, its hardly the answer I'd expect from someone who proclaims himself to be "ambitious for New Zealand". And if that's the limit of Key's ambition for our country, if that's all he thinks is wrong with us and needs to be fixed, then we need a new Prime Minister.

For Pasifika bilingualism

Last year, in a shoddy attempt to boost National Standards stats on English literacy, the Ministry of Education suspended publication of Pasifika-language teaching materials. The decision led to a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, and now to a discrimination case before the High Court. But it has also led to a pushback from the Pasifika community, with a petition circulating demanding that bilingual education be restored and that the Niuean, Cook Islands Maori, Tokelauan, Samoan and Tongan languages be officially recognised in New Zealand.

I'm not qualified to comment on the legalities, but they have a strong moral case. Tokelau is part of New Zealand, while the Cook Islands and Niue used to be (and still retain a constitutional relationship). Every Tokelauan, Niuean and Cook Islander is a New Zealand citizen. Most of them live here. They are, in every sense of the word, our people. And we therefore have a clear obligation to protect, preserve and promote these languages, just as we do for Te Reo.

With Samoa the relationship is weaker, but still strong. We were colonial occupiers for almost 50 years, and while they are now independent, we still have a strong relationship. many Samoans became New Zealand citizens as a result of that occupation, and many moved here. Samoans are now our 4th largest ethnic group, and have become a core part of our culture. Arguably, we have language obligations towards them as well.

Tongan is the odd one out. We don't have a shared history with them. But even so, the Ministry of Justice argued in 2000 that we have obligations to protect and preserve the culture and language of our Tongan minority as well.

Bilingual education does not come at the expense of English, and usually helps it. It will result in better educated children, not worse. And this is not about "cultural separatism". These are our cultures in need of protection. But beyond that, culture is no more an either/or thing than language. You can speak more than one language, and you can belong to more than one culture. You can be Pakeha and a New Zealander, Maori and a New Zealander, Chinese and a New Zealander. And as we're seeing in South Auckland today, it is perfectly possible to be both Pasifika and a New Zealander. And we should be supporting that, by supporting these languages.

Dismissed out of hand

Last week I blogged about the Petition of Anton Michael Hyman,

That the House recognise "Aotearoa" as a name of this country (New Zealand), and declare and record this.

This is an important question, which touches on our modern identity, and its something I think we should be able to have a say on. So I'm disappointed to see that the Government Administration Committee has dismissed it out of hand [PDF]. Their "reason" - that

the [New Zealand Geographic] Board has no jurisdiction to assign a name to, or alter the name of, New Zealand. Any decision to change the name of New Zealand would therefore be a matter for the House

is simply a non sequitur. The petition was addressed to the House, its asking them to do something, not the NZ Geographic Board. To ignore that and simply respond with the formula "we have no further matters to bring to the attention of the House" shows a disrespect for the issue, the petitioner, and the public.

Changing our name

Submitted to Parliament this week: the Petition of Anton Michael Hyman,

That the House recognise "Aotearoa" as a name of this country (New Zealand), and declare and record this.

It will be interesting to see what the Government Administration Committee makes of it. This is a matter of fundamental national identity, which has changed significantly in the last two generations. For old people, any change is unthinkable; for the young, "Aotearoa" is as much our name as "New Zealand", a recognition of this place's unique Maori heritage which deserves recognition. A petition signed by only 1,200 people isn't any mandate for change - but its a start, and nothing is stopping the committee from seeking public submissions to get a wider picture. They should. This is an issue which deserves proper consideration, rather than the usual "no matters to bring to the attention of the House" dismissal. And we should all be able to have a say in it.

Schama on New Zealand

In an article for the BBC Magazine, historian Simon Schama reacts to the proposal that New Zealand join Australia. His assessment? "It would be a sad step for a country which has used its independence to set an example for the rest of the world".

[T]he exceptional New Zealand history that needs to be preserved is human. Whatever its ethnic and social battles, New Zealand has often led the way. In 1893 it was the first country in the world to give women the vote, and it was the first to offer old-age pensions to the poor.

But it's the story of Maori and pakeha, the settlers of European origin, that - for all the pain, betrayals and suffering - still deserve to be known and celebrated as offering a different model of cultural encounter than anywhere else in the world.

[...]

Of course there have been serious problems of unequal social opportunity, of street gangs. But if there is anywhere in the post-colonial world where two cultural worlds truly live an engaged life alongside each other, it's in New Zealand.

Such stories don't come along very often. Cherish them. Chant them. Dance them.

This perfectly captures the reasons I am quietly proud of New Zealand. Other countries find misguided pride in their military conquests, their past empires, the wealth of their upper classes (a measure which always ignores the poverty and injustice that wealth is built on and sustained by). What we have to be proud of isn't war, but peace; not empire, but the end of empire; not the wealth of a few, but the equality of the many. Its not perfect - I spend hours a day posting about that - and it never will be. But on an international scale, its pretty good.

The problem is that the advocates of a merger - the usual suspects on the right and in the business community - are not interested in any of this. They have never believed in this country; they suffer universally from a massive colonial cringe which sees New Zealand as small, and therefore valueless. According to them, our natural role in the international order is not to be independent, but subservient, a "loyal ally" which needs to be taken under the wing of a more powerful protector (once the UK, then the US, and now Australia). There's more than a hint of feudalism about their view that military service must be exchanged for protection and trade deals.

But beyond that, these people see only money. They measure the worth of a society solely in terms of GDP. As a result, they are utterly blind to our real achievements, and place no value on them. Which is a shame, because as Schama points out, we have achieved something quite special here, and quite different from Australia (which is still militaristic and racist, though it shares our ideals of equality and social justice). And we shouldn't need Schama to tell us that that is something worth celebrating, protecting, and advancing.

Time for a new national anthem

Hot on the heels of the Herald's campaign to change the flag, we also have a campaign to change the national anthem. Quite apart from sounding awful, "God defend New Zealand" does not reflect the realities of modern Aotearoa, where a growing number of us (over 40% at the last census) are godless. While it was adopted after a petition to Parliament in 1977, nowdays it would almost certainly be rejected on the grounds of religious favouritism.

This sort of religious exclusion fails to reflect kiwi values of tolerance and equality. It has to go (as does its co-anthem, the equally exclusive, as well as bigoted and undemocratic "God save the Queen"). The question is what we change it to. But by proposing change, Anthem for Everyone will hopefully open a space for new anthems to be proposed which better reflect modern New Zealand as a 21st century Pacific nation.

But a new flag and a new anthem aren't enough. We also need to change the name. Currently we're named after an English mis-spelling of a Dutch province. Instead, we should move into the 21st century and acknowledge our Maori heritage, and adopt "Aotearoa-New Zealand" instead.

You can follow the Anthem for Everyone campaign on Facebook here.

Alternative flags

For the past couple of days, the Herald has been inviting reader submissions on alternative designs for the New Zealand flag. Browsing the two galleries, most of the results are expectedly awful - but there are some striking designs in there, such as:

• The current flag, on black rather than blue;
• A black / white / green design representing the land of the long white cloud;
• A black / white / red vertical tricolour. Its visually very striking, but its already been used;
• The Southern Cross on black;
• ...or on dark blue (the Federated States of Micronesia is on light blue)
• A green / white / blue version of the tino rangatiratanga flag;
• ...or in lighter colours, with Southern Cross.

There's a lot of good ideas in here, all better than the current one. It would be nice to see one of them adopted.

Time to change the flag - and the name

The Herald today has begun a campaign to change the flag to something more expressive of our identity as a 21st century multicultural Pacific nation. Its an idea with some powerful backers - 11 out of 18 members of the Order of New Zealand surveyed back change, mostly on grounds of national identity.

They have a point. The current flag is a colonial relic, which says nothing about who we are today. It is also too easily confused with Australia's, not to mention the host of other British colonial flags. Its time we moved on from that colonial past and chose our own symbol.

There will obviously be disagreement about what that symbol should be. I favour the Southern Cross, but others prefer the silver fern or the Tino Rangatiratanga flag - either would be better than the current one. Regardless, the government should not be allowed to duck the issue. The Herald suggests a panel process, followed by public submissions; I think its a damn fine idea.

But the flag isn't the only thing we should change. Currently, our country's name - based on a mis-spelled Dutch province - is as much a colonial relic as our flag. We should move into the 21st century, recognise our Maori heritage, and adopt "Aotearoa-New Zealand" instead.

Killing Wanganui softly

Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson has finally made a decision on W(h)anganui - and decided to make both names official. This is being presented as a compromise, respecting both parties - but with crown agencies expected to use the "h", its more a slow death for the traditional spelling. After all, who other than a few diehard Taranaki rednecks calls it "Mt Eggmont" anymore?

Pundit on flags

Pundit's David Lewis has the perfect rebuttal to those "concerned" about flying the tino rangitiratanga flag alongside the colonial one on Waitangi Day:

When the English flag – the cross of St George - flies next to the Union Jack on Windsor Castle, does that shake the foundations of Westminster democracy? Likewise the Scottish flag of St Andrew ‘s cross flying over the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, or the Welsh dragon flying on official buildings in Wales?

And the answer is "of course not" - it merely recognises people's dual identities as English / Scottish / Welsh as well as part of the UK. This is no different. And to refuse it, to insist that people have no identity but being a "New Zealander", is a toxic, puerile nationalism.

Playing with our identity

Yesterday, Cabinet finally confirmed its decision to fly the tino rangatiratanga flag on Waitangi Day. Good. As I noted when the in-principle decision was made last month, this makes a strong statement about what sort of country we are: one which includes rather than excludes Maori, and one which looks forward to its future in the Pacific rather than its past with Britain.

Not everyone agrees with that statement. In the Herald, Audrey Young warns darkly of "resentment" and (with the typical conservative fear of change) that it "could be the turning point or rallying point for something quite unforseen". But those disagreeing are largely the old, who grew up in a little white Britain-in-the-south-seas, and who have grown increasingly uncomfortable as the country has become increasingly diverse and Maori have become more assertive about their rights (the Brash / Goff / Winston demographic). At every assertion of Maori identity and power, these people have cried "separatism" - and every time they have been wrong. Young's piece is just the latest of these cries. And meanwhile, the demographic she is writing for dies off, their hold on our national identity weakens and power shifts to a new generation more comfortable with our bi- and multi-cultural heritage.

The next stage in that shift in identity is clearly to recognise Maori in our official name ("Aotearoa-New Zealand" sounds like a good idea to me) and our flag. But we'll have to wait for a few more old people to die first...

Flying the flag

The Maori sovereignty flag will be officially flown next Waitangi Day, including on the Auckland Harbour Bridge and at Premier House.

Good. Flags are symbols, and this sends a strong symbol about what sort of country we are: one which includes rather than excludes Maori, and one which looks forward to its future in the Pacific rather than its past with Britain.

Ian Curtis lives

Last week, in an act of pure cultural vandalism, Wellington City Council painted over the city's famous "Ian Curtis wall".

Naturally, it didn't stay gone for long, and now it is back from the dead. Hopefully it'll be allowed to remain this time.

A public holiday for Sir Ed?

The Greens are proposing that Sir Edmund Hillary's birthday be commemorated as a Mondayised public holiday. I think its a great idea. Sir Ed is a New Zealander who deserves recognition, and such a holiday would fall neatly into the winter gap when we don't have any. It would also provide a holiday which isn't about other people's gods or killing people, on which we can celebrate life and recreation, which isn't a bad thing IMHO.

Where can we sign a petition?