In Parliament on Tuesday, the Speaker of New Zealand’s House, Gerry Brownlee, stated that he would not entertain more disputes regarding the application of the country’s M?ori name, Aotearoa, following a lawmaker’s attempt to ban its use.
“Aotearoa is regularly used as a name of New Zealand,” Brownlee remarked in Wellington’s Parliament. “It appears on our passports and it appears on our currency.”
The controversy surrounding the term, which is increasingly used in New Zealand, began last month when one lawmaker opposed another’s mention of it. This situation highlights the mixed reactions among New Zealanders, irrespective of their ethnic backgrounds, towards the growing enthusiasm for the M?ori language, as well as discussions over the country’s name. It also links to ongoing tensions in the so-called “culture war” between two political factions.
During a parliamentary session, Ricardo Menéndez March from the Green Party, a left-leaning group, used the term Aotearoa in questioning a government minister. Aotearoa, in te reo M?ori—the M?ori language—means “land of the long white cloud.”
Winston Peters, who serves as deputy prime minister, foreign minister, and leader of the New Zealand First party, raised a point of order against this usage. “Why is someone who applied to come to this country in 2006 allowed to ask a question of this parliament that changes this country’s name without the referendum and sanction of the New Zealand people?” Peters questioned Brownlee. It should be noted that Menéndez March, originally from Mexico, is a New Zealand citizen, which all lawmakers are required to be.
Peters requested that Brownlee prohibit the use of Aotearoa in Parliament. However, Brownlee clarified on Tuesday that lawmakers are permitted to speak in any of the three official languages of New Zealand—English, te reo M?ori, and New Zealand Sign Language.
“This really is the end of the matter,” Brownlee asserted. He had previously suggested that Menéndez March use “Aotearoa New Zealand” to “assist anyone who might not understand the term” but did not enforce this.
“If other members do not like certain words, they don’t have to use them,” Brownlee continued. “But it’s not a matter of order and I don’t expect to have further points of order raised about it.”
In response, Peters expressed his disagreement with Brownlee’s stance and vowed not to respond to questions where New Zealand is referred to as Aotearoa, while Menéndez March has yet to make any public statements regarding the situation.
The use of the M?ori name for New Zealand is not new in Parliament, and other lawmakers often employ it. Nevertheless, Peters and his party have had prior conflicts with Menéndez March. Earlier this year, the Green Party raised issues with the Prime Minister and Brownlee after Shane Jones, Peters’ deputy, made heckling remarks about Mexicans during a debate. Peters also suggested to two other Green lawmakers who immigrated to New Zealand that they should express gratitude, a stance Menéndez March criticized as “outwardly racist and xenophobic.”
Peters, a seasoned politician with a flair for populist policies, has at times drawn ire for his comments on Asian immigration to New Zealand. Although M?ori himself, Peters has often resisted initiatives promoting M?ori culture and language.
Reflecting on the situation, a former lawmaker, Peter Dunne, expressed in an opinion piece that the debate was largely about New Zealand First reinforcing its populist agenda, rather than the language issue itself.
Despite past discouragements and anticipated extinction by the 21st century, the M?ori language is experiencing a resurgence, aided by long-term advocacy from M?ori leaders. Now, M?ori account for almost 20% of the population, and the use of individual M?ori words like Aotearoa has become commonplace in New Zealand’s conversations among both M?ori and non-M?ori citizens.
Some individuals support officially renaming New Zealand to Aotearoa, the name attributed to the North Island pre-colonization by the Dutch cartographer who initially named the country. Nevertheless, any formal change of the country’s name would require a legislative process.
