NZ passport redesign to have English words above te reo Māori
Since 2021, newly issued passports have had the words "Uruwhenua Aotearoa" printed in silver directly above "New Zealand Passport".
Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden today confirmed the positions of the text would be swapped in future to reflect the coalition's commitment to using English first "as it is the language most widely spoken by the New Zealand public".
She said the redesign – which would be unveiled later this year – was being done as part of a scheduled security upgrade, ensuring no additional cost to passport-holders.
Passports with the new design would start being issued only after the existing stock of booklets had been used up.
ADVERTISEMENT
A spokesperson for Internal Affairs told RNZ the department was working towards an "end-of-2027 release date" for the updated passport.
The ACT Party celebrated van Velden's move on social media, saying the change would "restore English before te reo Māori – without costing taxpayers".
The Department of Internal Affairs, in 2021, promoted the passport's existing "unique design" as one to "be proud of" and highlighted the more prominent use of te reo Māori both on the cover and throughout the book.
The change came as part of a deliberate push by the coalition to give English primacy over te reo Māori in official communications.
New Zealand First's coalition agreement with National stipulated that public service departments had their primary name in English and be required to communicate "primarily in English" except for entities specifically related to Māori.
It also included an as-yet-unfulfilled commitment to make English an official language of New Zealand.
On Wednesday, NZ First leader and Foreign Minister Winston Peters objected to the Green Party's use of the term "Aotearoa New Zealand" during Parliament's Question Time.
ADVERTISEMENT
"No such country exists," Peters said. "The name of this country in all the documents, and the membership of the United Nations, is New Zealand.
"We are not going to have somebody unilaterally – without consultation, without consulting the New Zealand people – change this country's name."
Speaker Gerry Brownlee insisted Peters respond to the question in a "reasonable fashion" and pointed to his ruling earlier this year that it was not inappropriate for MPs to refer to "Aotearoa New Zealand".
"The New Zealand Geographic Board also recognises and uses the term 'Aotearoa New Zealand'," Brownlee told MPs.
"It would be utterly ridiculous for this House to ban such use if the Geographic Board itself is using that."
Returning to the issue yesterday, Peters requested Brownlee reconsider on the basis that the Geographic Board had no jurisdiction to alter the country's name.
But Brownlee was unmoved.
ADVERTISEMENT
He noted that the word "Aotearoa" was regularly used as a name of the country, including on New Zealand passports, which he said Peters would be familiar with — given his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
"He would have – over some five years or more – presented the New Zealand passport at various passport stations around the world and never questioned the fact that our passport has the word Aotearoa on the front of it," Brownlee said.
"I'd further say that through all of those years ... there has been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever from a government he was part of.
"That is the end of the matter."
rnz.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
9 hours ago
- 1News
Cabinet Ministers defend hiking board fees for Crown bodies
Cabinet ministers are defending a move to hike board fees for Crown bodies by up to 80%, insisting those in the roles are overseeing billions of dollars — not just "beer and skittles." Labour says the decision proves the Government is out of touch with the cost-of-living crisis and has accused it of trying to sneak the news by the public. A Cabinet document, quietly uploaded online on Monday, shows ministers agreed to lift the maximum annual fee for chairs of governance boards from $90,000 to about $162,000. The "Cabinet Fees Framework" is not binding but provides guidance to ministers when deciding compensation for those on a range of bodies, such as royal commissions and ministerial inquiries. Speaking today, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said public sector fees had become completely "out of whack" with private sector rates and needed a reset. ADVERTISEMENT "We need to make that a little bit more competitive, so that we can actually attract good talent," he said. Luxon said paying more to ensure "really good governance teams" could save billions in the long run. New Zealand currency. (Source: Finance Minister Nicola Willis echoed the point, stressing that New Zealanders deserved value for money. "This isn't beer and skittles. This is billions of dollars of public money. We need the very best people making governance decisions about it." Public Service Minister Judith Collins told reporters that the updated fees still fell short of private sector rates — around 80% of the going rate. "A lot of people who are experienced directors don't want to do these jobs in the public sector because they know they're going to lose money," she said. ADVERTISEMENT Judith Collins. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone (Source: Collins said she did not think the public would be worried by the news. "One of the problems is that we've had an underperforming public service that's taken a hell of a lot of taxpayers' money, and so it is very important that we have the right people in charge of that." Hipkins accuses government of 'twisted priorities' Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the decision revealed the Government's "twisted priorities" at a time when households were doing it tough. "They're saying that board members can get up to 80% increases in their pay, whilst nurses and teachers are being told to settle for 1% or less," he said. "They've said everyone needs to tighten their belts — apparently except for the people who they hand-picked to put on public sector boards." ADVERTISEMENT Hipkins rejected the idea that higher fees were necessary to attract quality candidates, calling it "absolute nonsense." Chris Hipkins. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii (Source: He said many public appointees had altruistic motivations and were already sitting on "very well paid directorships" in the private sector as well. "They're not doing it for the money," Hipkins said. Hipkins accused the Government of trying to "slip this [announcement] out quietly" without scrutiny. But Luxon denied any secrecy: "It's normal practice... how it's been communicated." Hipkins does not appear to have issued a media release as Public Service Minister in 2022 when the then-Labour Cabinet agreed to a smaller 10% increase in fees. In November, State Owned Enterprises Minister Paul Goldsmith published a release about a similar but separate move to increase director fees for 22 Crown-owned companies.
Otago Daily Times
10 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
New med school to save $50m a year, govt claims
Nearly $2billion could be saved by 2042 if a new medical school to train rural doctors is created in Hamilton, the detailed business case for the project says. Made public at 6.45pm yesterday, a document dump including the business case reveals the cost of producing GPs at a new medical school at the University of Waikato would be $50million a year cheaper than doing it through existing medical schools. It was announced on Monday the government had decided to approve the country's third medical school, to be built in Hamilton. Over 16 years from 2026 to 2042 the total cost of medical education at Waikato, including capital costs that include building a new school, would be $9.1b, it says. It would cost $10.9b over the same period to increase the intake of students at existing medical schools and $10.2b if a new medical training programme focused on rural health, jointly run by the universities of Otago and Auckland was established. The Waikato option would also be the cheapest for the Crown in terms of its ongoing contribution to operating costs at $37.2m a year, compared with $45.5m a year for increasing intake at existing medical schools. But there are concerns the actual costs are still unknown. Green MP Francisco Hernandez said the government's decision to "dump" the business case after work hours on a Friday was "deeply insulting to the public". "This is not the actions of a government that is confident in the business case — and judging from what I've read so far they're right to not be," he said. Rather than engaging in good faith with Otago and Auckland universities and running an open process for a new graduate programme, the government had "deliberately stacked the deck to produce the outcome they want". "The cost benefit analysis also assumes no further cost escalations — and with the Minister [of Health] refusing to rule out further funding — we just don't know how deep the government's blank cheque will extend to back this flawed proposal," Mr Hernandez said. "Finally, the cost benefit analysis fails to even consider the issue of [the] benefits of training more Māori or Pasifika doctors — perhaps because [Waikato University] vice-chancellor [Neil] Quigley has reportedly ruled out a programme like [Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme] to boost Māori and Pasifika doctors and the government has failed to make that a condition of this handout." Dunedin MP Rachel Brooking said the Waikato medical school was pitched to the National Party as a "present" to them when in office. "Decisions about the future of New Zealand's medical workforce should be made on more robust grounds," she said. "It's important we take the time to analyse the business case before commenting, which we will do in due course." Taieri MP Ingrid Leary said she was not surprised information was redacted from the business case. "I've got numerous official information documents that are heavily redacted and I'm concerned but not surprised that this remains the pattern [of the government]." She said she felt it had been shown the new medical school was "effectively a done deal" well before the public announcement, due to the government's coalition agreements. "The timing of the release of critical documents on a significant issue is deeply cynical and, along with the heavy redactions, makes me wonder what the National government is trying to hide?"
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
On National's Bid To Steal Future Elections
Article – Gordon Campbell Other countries are expanding the ability of their citizens to vote. In Britain (from which New Zealand has long taken its constitutional cues) the franchise is being extended to 16-year-olds. In this country, were headed in the opposite direction. Other countries are expanding the ability of their citizens to vote. In Britain (from which New Zealand has long taken its constitutional cues) the franchise is being extended to 16-year-olds. In this country, we're headed in the opposite direction. The Luxon government is taking steps to make it significantly more difficult for people to cast a vote, and prisoners will lose their right to vote altogether. No valid reasons are being given for these changes. Formerly, we were world leaders in the ease of voting. People could register and vote on Election Day. But once the new legislation is passed, voters will need to have enrolled some 13 days prior to Election Day. At the 2023 election, 110,000 people registered and voted on Election Day. This was a 46% increase of same-day turnout at the prior election. During the two weeks before election day, 454,000 people registered to vote. Given those numbers, the changes being made by the coalition government will inevitably have a significant impact on the election result. No doubt, same day registration has put added pressure on the Electoral Commission to process the votes accurately, and on time. Any human error is one too many. Yet as the Auditor General's report on the 2023 election noted, 'The relatively small number of errors did not affect the overall outcome.' In the one electorate where a journalist had queried the calculations, the Auditor-General further noted, the subsequent Electoral Commission revision 'did not change the candidate or party vote outcomes.' So, at the last election, despite the sharply increased influx of votes close to election day, only minor errors occurred and these had no impact on any of the results. Yet rather than fund the Commission to be better able to process this welcome late rush of ballots, the Luxon government is choosing instead to stop latecomers from being able to vote at all. It is hard to see this as anything other than a bid by the coalition parties to skew the 2026 election results to their own benefit. When more hurdles are put in front of voters, the young and Māori stand to be disproportionately affected. No doubt it is a sheer co-incidence that those groups are statistically more likely to vote for the centre-left and/or for Te Pāti Māori. Voting in prison In addition, a National-led government will once again deny all prisoners the right to vote. Under successive Labour governments, prisoners could vote if they were serving sentences of less than three years. In 2010, the Key government abolished that right, after ignoring a critical report by the-then Attorney General Chris Finlayson on the steps being proposed. Finlayson indicated that a blanket ban on prisoner voting would be inconsistent with section 12 of our Bill of Rights legislation. In fact, [Finlayson] argued, the supposed objective of the Bill – to deter serious offending – was 'not rationally linked' to the Bill's own provisions to impose a blanket ban on prisoner voting. Reason being, serious offenders are already banned from voting by the existing law. As for everyone else : ' It is questionable that every person sentenced to any period of punishment is a serious offender. People who are not serious offenders will be disenfranchised…' The blanket ban, Finlayson concluded, cannot be justified. Having pointed out the irrationality of denying all prisoners the vote, Finlayson then went further, to show how unjust even the existing provisions could play out in practice: The avowed purpose of the Bill is to deter serious offending. Yet as Finlayson pointed out, under its provisions someone sentenced to home detention would still be able to vote, but someone sentenced to jail for the very same offence would be disenfranchised. Moreover, a serious violent offender sentenced to two and half years in jail would not lose their right to vote if their sentence fell – purely by chance – into the period between elections. Yet by the same token, someone sentenced to a week in jail for not paying their parking fines would lose their right to vote, if they were unlucky enough to be sentenced at the wrong point in the electoral cycle. 'Justice, to state the obvious, should not be reduced to such games of chance.' This shabby episode is about to be played out again. This time around, a critical report by the current Attorney-General, Judith Collins is also being ignored. Similar violations of human rights will recur. To be clear: for people in jail, the sentence they are serving is the punishment for their offence. Tacking on punitive extras like losing their right to vote is petty and vengeful, and will do nothing to aid the re-integration of prisoners back into society on their release. In other respects, the Bill being proposed by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith repeats some of the same anomalies identified 15 years ago by Chris Finlayson. People on home detention will still be able to vote but those in jail will not, even if they have committed the same offence. Thankfully, those on remand will still be allowed to vote. Not many people in prison do vote. Only 84 prisoners nationwide voted in the 2023 general election, out of circa 5,000 who were eligible to vote, and 41% of those voters identified as Maori. (Part of the overall low turnout can be attributed to the cumbersome process of enrolling and casting a special vote.) Although it is a very small cohort, the high proportion of Māori among the bloc of imprisoned voters merits further research into the rehabilitative role – for some offenders at least – of cultural identity and voter participation. To repeat: the changes being proposed look highly dubious. Instead of expanding the franchise and encouraging more people to vote, steps are being taken to limit participation, and by measures likely to penalise the current government's political opponents. Footnote One: Should 16-year-olds get the vote? Of course. They will inherit the effects of government actions and inactions, especially on climate change. There is a myth about young people not being interested in politics. In reality, the deeper problem is that politicians routinely fail to engage with the problems – climate change, high rents, too few jobs etc – that matter to them. As a percentage of those aged 18-24 eligible to vote, just over two thirds do so. Yet that participation rate has been improving, arguably as a result of last minute, Election Day registration. That conclusion is backed up by this chart – which shows that 74% of enrolled 18 to 24-year-olds voted in 2023. That turnout was higher than for every age band of enrolled voters between 30 and 45. Meaning : young people turned up on polling day, enrolled, and voted right then and there. National now wants to stop them from being able to do so. Surely, we should be trying to make it easier for the young to get enrolled, and vote. Instead, those in power are doing the reverse. As for the obvious fairness issues involved in allowing 16-year-olds to vote…No doubt, having civics lessons while 16 to 18-year-olds are still in school could be a significant help in fostering the habit of voting. Yet on those statistics cited above, the problem of non-voting by enrolled voters only really begins to kick in between 25-29, and gets worse thereafter until advanced middle age. This suggests that 20-somethings learn pretty quickly that their voices are being habitually ignored by those in power, so why bother keeping up the charade? Now.. and thanks entirely to this government, any initially disinterested/disillusioned voters who have second thoughts and engage with party politics only at the very last minute will no longer be able to enrol on Election Day. Smoking is a habit The tax break for Big Tobacco (now being extended from one to three years by New Zealand First Minister Casey Costello) is being estimated to cost about $300 million. Initially, NZF had promised that this tax break would be for only a one year trial, and be subject to research as to whether more people were actually switching from harmful nicotine to the monopoly line of heated tobacco products being sold by Philip Morris. This ' trial' and related tax giveaway has now been extended until 2027 at least. Meanwhile, as Labour's Ayesha Verrall has pointed out, the public health system – which could have made far better use of that $300 million giveaway– staggers on while under-funded, under-staffed, and under-paid. When it suits, changes get fast tracked. Not this time. For Big Tobacco, exceptions and foot dragging are the rule. Rastafarians at least, are upfront about the addictive nature of their herb of choice. Here's King Still, deejaying on top of a rhythm laid down by Clancy Eccles and the Dynamites:
