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%.    

Are you better off than you were two years ago? &nbsp;&nbsp;
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?&nbsp;
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? &nbsp;
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. &nbsp;&nbsp;
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.&nbsp;
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.&nbsp;
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. &nbsp;
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.&nbsp;
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. &nbsp;
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. &nbsp;
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. &nbsp;
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? &nbsp;
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?’ &nbsp;
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%. &nbsp; &nbsp;

Jack Tame’s crisp perspective, style and enthusiasm makes for refreshing and entertaining Saturday morning radio on Newstalk ZB.

News, sport, books, music, gardens and celebrities – what better way to spend your Saturdays?

Jack Tame’s crisp perspective, style and enthusiasm makes for refreshing and entertaining Saturday morning radio on Newstalk ZB. News, sport, books, music, gardens and celebrities – what better way to spend your Saturdays?

Saturday Morning with Jack Tame

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

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/9764b2b9-1326-4ba7-854e-b32d0028f3f6/transcript

Advertisement