Jack Tame: New Zealand v Aotearoa - what does this bill achieve?

Are you better off than you were two years ago?   

Are you bathing in the soothing waters of the long-promised economic recovery? Is your future more secure? Is your food more affordable? Your insurance? Your rates? Is your road smoother? Are your children better educated? Is your water less polluted? 

Or do you think some of our most senior leaders’ time and attention is better used fussing over measures like the order of words on our passports and the transfer of payWave fees from a surcharge to the main bill?  

The latest folly, announced by our Foreign Minister on a week in which Gaza was stricken by starvation, and the US thanked us for opening an FBI office here by increasing proposed trade tariffs, seeks to enshrine the name ‘New Zealand’ in law.   

Ah yes, what a pressing issue. Tell you what, between that and the passport reordering, those tens or hundreds of thousands of kids who’ve fled to Australia are gonna be clambering over one another to get back home. 

Here’s my view on the name of our country: call it what you want. You want to call it Aotearoa? Fine. You want to call it New Zealand? Fine. You want to combine the two? Go for it. You do you. 

The thing about language is it’s fluid. It changes over time. There’s a reason we don’t all speak in Shakespearean prose. And it has nothing to do with compulsion.  

To those who say an increasing use of Aotearoa is some sort of affront to our collective values, I’d have thought freedom of expression is a value more worthy of protection. And for what it’s worth, if New Zealand First was trying to enshrine the name ‘Aotearoa’ in law, I’d have the same response. 

One of the justifications given for this member’s bill is that using Aotearoa threatens NZ Inc., our international brand. Is there any evidence that our exporters are being compelled en-masse to send their products overseas with the name Aotearoa, instead of New Zealand? Who, pray tell, is risking that international brand value by forcing this change on the packaging of our top products? I’d suggest it’s a pretty unsophisticated exporter who would voluntarily confuse their international customers. Or, you know, maybe this just isn’t really a big deal.  

I’ve a real distaste for performative politics that either drum up angst about a problem that doesn’t exist or do something symbolic at the expense of real action.  

I never cared for the trend of councils and governments declaring Climate Emergencies and patting themselves on the back, while simultaneously doing nothing new in a policy sense.  

There is a very simple way to see through this specific bill. Consider the timing. If the name of New Zealand is seriously so threatened, why didn’t New Zealand First introduce this bill 12 months ago? Why not six years ago? Why not negotiate it into the coalition agreement when they formed a government?  

My instinct with this kind of move is always the same. Don’t ask ‘What does this achieve?’ or ‘Why is this an issue? Instead, ask ‘what are they try to distract us from?’  

The ‘meh’ jobs report? The lame economic growth figures? The gang numbers ticking over 10,000 for the first time ever, this week? Or could it possibly be the fact that a few hours before the New Zealand (name of state) member’s bill was announced, Australia and the UK achieved comparatively lower trade tariffs with the United States, while our government’s top officials were apparently surprised to learn that our tariff had been increased?

Actually, maybe we should call ourselves Aotearoa. Who knows? It might have confused Donald Trump just long enough to keep us at 10%.    

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
You're listening to the Saturday Morning with Jack Team podcast
from news Talks at b BAC team.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Are you better off than you were two years ago?
Are you bathing in the soothing waters of the long
promised economic recovery? Is your future more secure? Is your
food more affordable? Your insurance your rates? Is your roads smoother?
Are your children better educated? Is your water less polluted?

(00:37):
Or do you think that some of our most senior
leader's time and attention is better used fussing over measures
like the order of words on our passports and the
transfer of payWave fees from a surcharge to the main bill.
The latest folly announced by our foreign minister on a
week in which Gaza was stricken by a starvation in

(00:58):
the US thanked US for opening an FBI office here
by increasing proposed trade tariffs, seeks to enshrine the name
New Zealand in law. Ah, Yes, what a pressing issue.
Tell you what Between that and the passport reordering, those
tens or hundreds of thousands of kids have fled to

(01:19):
Australia are going to be clamoring over one another to
get back home asap. Here's my view on the name
of our country call it what you want. You want
to call it alter or, fine, you want to call
it New Zealand. Fine. You want to combine the two
alter or in New Zealand, fine, go for it. You
do you The thing about language is it's fluid, right,

(01:44):
It does change over time. There's a good reason we
don't all speak in Shakespearean prose, and it has nothing
to do with compulsion. To those who say an increasing
use of altor is some sort of an affront to
our collective values as a nation, well, I would have
thought that freedom of expression is a value more worthy

(02:07):
of protection and for what it's worth. If New Zealand
first was trying to enshrine the name altera or in law,
I would have the same response. One of the justifications
given for this member's bill is that using altor threatens
end z inc our international brand. Let me ask, is
there any evidence that our exporters are being compelled en

(02:29):
mass to send their products overseas with the name Altor
instead of New Zealand. Who, pray tell, is risking that
international brand value by forcing this change on the packaging
of our top products. I'd suggest it's a pretty unsophisticated
exporter who would voluntarily confuse their international customers, or you know,

(02:52):
maybe this just isn't really a big deal. I've a
real distaste for performative politics that either drum up angst
about a problem that doesn't exist, or do something symbolic
at the expense of real action. So I never cared,
for example, for the trend of counsels and governments declaring
climate emergencies so bravely patting themselves on the back while

(03:15):
simultaneously doing nothing new in a policy sense. There is
a very simple way to see through the specific bill.
Just consider the timing. If the name of New Zealand
is seriously so threatened that we need to enshrine it
in law, why did New Zealand first introduce this bill

(03:37):
twelve months ago? Why not three years ago? Why not
negotiate it in the coalition agreement when they formed a government.
You see, my instinct with this kind of move is
always the same. Don't ask what does this achieve or
why is this an issue? Instead ask what are they
trying to distract us from? Is it the meh jobs report,

(03:59):
the lame economic growth figures, the gang numbers ticking over
ten thousand for the first time ever. This week, Or
could it possibly be the fact that a few hours
before the New Zealand Name of State Member's Bill was announced,
Australia and the UK achieved comparatively lower trade tariffs with
the US, while our government's top trade and diplomatic officials

(04:21):
were apparently surprised to learn that our tariff had been increased. Actually,
you know, m come to think of it, maybe we
should call ourselves alterador. Who knows it might have confused
Donald Trump just long enough to keep us at ten percent.

Speaker 1 (04:40):
For more from Saturday Morning with Jack Tame, Listen live
to news talks he'd be from nine am Saturday, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio