The debate NZ should really be having about language policy

Debates over language are back in the news in New Zealand, this time with proposed legislation that critics have dismissed as a political distraction.

In practical terms, the English Language Bill now before parliament – which has faced ridicule from the opposition for proposing to make English an official language in Aotearoa – would do little to change how it is used in daily life.

Nevertheless, the bill carries symbolic weight, arriving amid politicised debates over bilingual government department names and other changes to public language.

Moreover, it reminds us that language policy continues to be made reactively and piecemeal in New Zealand.

At a time when more languages than ever are being spoken in Aotearoa, the country remains without a clear and coherent national framework – something that increasingly carries implications for its workforce and migration.

A test too far? The bus driver case

A case in point came in January, when more than 500 bus drivers presented a petition to parliament warning that current immigration language settings risk creating a new driver shortage.

The petition argued the level of English required for residency is set unusually high, particularly when compared with Australia’s rules. According to the petitioners, this could force experienced drivers and their families to leave the country if they fail to meet the threshold.

At the centre of the dispute is the English-speaking world’s most used language test, the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), which tests listening, reading, writing and speaking.

Bus drivers applying for residence in New Zealand must achieve an IELTS score that is comparable to, and in some cases higher than, the level required of students beginning university study.

IELTS is also moving to an online-only format, meaning test-takers will need not only strong English skills but also the ability to type extended written answers under exam conditions.

One of the main arguments for maintaining high language standards is workplace safety.

But international research suggests this issue is more complex than a single test score implies. Studies show high-quality workplace training produces the best outcomes when it is tailored to different language groups.

For example, one 2021 study found that while environmental health and safety training delivered in English produced better results than animated cartoons for Portuguese speakers in Rio de Janeiro, the opposite was true for Chinese speakers in Guangzhou.

In other words, people learn best when they can understand what is being explained.

Reflecting this, US Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards introduced in 2010 require that “an employer must instruct its employees using both a language and vocabulary that the employees can understand”.

When content is well understood, it can also be more easily transferred into another language, including English.

Designed for settlement, not for work

The New Zealand government, for its part, has signalled little appetite to reform language requirements that have remained largely unchanged for more than two decades.

In its formal response to the petition, the government said the higher English standard applies only at the point of residence, not on temporary visas, and is aimed at long-term settlement rather than specific jobs.

In the government’s view, the requirement is about participation in social, economic and civic life, not occupational competence.

But even on its own terms, that distinction is open to challenge. English thresholds vary widely across visa categories: an Accredited Employer Work Visa requires IELTS 4, while from 2025 the Active Investor Plus Visa has no English requirement at all.

By separating “settlement English” from “workplace English”, policy is being asked to do several different jobs at once.

The result is a system that struggles to balance labour market needs, workplace safety and long-term integration, leaving key questions about language, training and productivity to be resolved as each issue arises.

A proper national language policy would align the scattered settings across immigration, education, government, law, public services, media and economic life – replacing ad hoc decisions with a coherent, evidence-based framework.

This is not to say the problem has been ignored.

Some notable pieces of work have included the Ministry of Education’s 1992 report Aoteareo: Speaking for Ourselves, the Human Rights Commission’s 2008 document Te waka reo and Royal Society Te Apārangi’s 2013 paper Languages in Aotearoa New Zealand.

More recently, the Ngā Reo o Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Languages Strategy set out a long-term vision with goals and actions. It also provided a blueprint for the Languages Alliance’s call for a national, evidence-based policy framework.

All of these documents stressed the benefits of bilingualism and multilingualism – for individuals as well as for society as a whole. The benefits are not only educational and social, but economic.

Meanwhile, Aotearoa’s population is becoming ever more diverse, with more people speaking more languages each year. Data from the 2023 Census shows languages spoken by migrant communities are growing fast, with Panjabi up 45%, Tagalog up 38% and Afrikaans up 33% since 2018.

Without a clearly articulated framework with a strong evidence base, New Zealand is missing out on the potential opportunities offered by its growing linguistic diversity.