Re: ‘What special privileges?' (The Weekend Sun, February 20).

I give credit to Lyn Jarman for her queries about the petition at present circulating, concerning the status of the English language in NZ.

But I think she may rest easy, surprisingly, in these days of dark, hidden agenda.
R. Bishop's petition is precautionary, and some questions, to my mind, still need government answers.

English was the common language in use from about the mid 1800s. It simply wasn't questioned, I expect, and became the de facto official language, for all
governmental purposes and just general usage.

For example, the prevailing, useful language, when as often as not there were no other written words available in the Maori language.

And why wasn't the English language included at the official branding of the recent Maori and NZ Sign languages?

Maybe there is more reason to now question their ‘official' branding? How and when and why it was organised?

To ask why these matters aren't automatically the responsibility of the Government.
In the present case of the petition, what possible problem could have arisen had English simply been left with its implied official standing? Would the Government have just said: 'Oops , sorry, you should have asked ?”

It strikes me as a very unresolved situation. I request our Member of Parliament Simon Bridges, sort this out for us and ensure the public is put in the picture clearly, promptly.

Tell us why it is necessary to have a petition at all?

Did the Maori and Sign language application require a petition? If not, why not ?
What procedure did they follow in order to achieve ‘official' status?

D Holm, Otumoetai.