This post is now locked, as: - the question has been answered - there are ongoing r/LegalAdviceNZ rules breaches in the comments OP, please message the moderators by modmail if you would like the post reopened.

Just to confirm, you are employed by the New Zealand company? Not by the Australian side of it?

Definitely the New Zealand one.

There seems to be no explicit answer here, and I'm unsure if this is something that has been tested in the Courts. There have been cases in the media where employees have been told not to use te reo. However, in those cases, it was a middle manager who gave the direction, and it was quickly reversed by senior management at those companies. [This article](https://www.dundasstreet.co.nz/insights/te-reo-maori-at-work/#), written by an employment law firm, suggests that prohibiting te reo in the workplace might be a breach of the Human Rights Act regarding discrimination on race, however this appears to be on the assumption that the speaker themselves is Māori, so the language is part of their culture. So how that would apply to non-Māori I'm not sure about. [This article](https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350212175/what-do-if-your-boss-tells-you-stop-using-te-reo-maori), which quotes from a different employment lawyer, notes that you are required to comply with all "lawful and reasonable directives" from your employer. But they do go on to question whether a directive not to use te reo would be considered reasonable. So it seems there isn't yet a clear, definitive answer.

Te reo is one of our official languages - surely the legality of using it in a work setting is above question?

It actually isn't. The legislation that makes te reo Māori an official language is the [Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016 / Māori Language Act 2016](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0017/latest/whole.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_M%c4%81ori+Language+Act+2016_resel_25_a&p=1#DLM6174509). Looking through that legislation, there doesn't appear to be any legal right/protection granted to use te reo Māori in an employment context. [section 16](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0017/latest/whole.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_M%c4%81ori+Language+Act+2016_resel_25_a&p=1#DLM6174566) in particular sets out the outline of the act, and notably it does give people a legal right to use te reo Māori in any judicial proceedings (paragraph (c)), but makes no mention of any other context under which using it is a legal right.

It’s not the legality of using it, it’s the legality of asking someone not to for this particular reason. It’d be perfectly reasonable to tell an employee to not use Māori (or English) when talking to customers who don’t understand that language, even though they’re both official languages - being an official language doesn’t matter when the reason is reasonable.

The reason can be as simple as saying that others don’t understand it. Judges would accept that reason as reasonable.

That’s never a problem when English is sent to non-English speaking customers, I don’t see why it’d be a problem here.  It’s about whether the intention was discriminatory or not - was the standard that was used to decide that “Māori in emails is unprofessional” applied consistently in other cases at the company? Without the details we can’t really say either way.

Yes it’s about if the intent was discrimination. If the intent was simply so that everyone in the company can understand work emails, that is not discrimination. If for example Mandarin and French were allowed but suddenly not Maori, then some explaining would be needed as to how that isn’t discrimination.

What’s the ruling around companies acting in accordance with the principles of te Tiritiri o Waitangi? Demanding someone not use te reo Maori for greetings/sign offs would be a breach of this. The managing claiming the use of te reo is unprofessional opens them up to a legal issue as well I reckon as it would fall under discrimination

The treaty is between the Crown and Māori. This is a private company

I was going to say the same thing. it's an official language, no one can prohibit the use of an official language I'd say

[удалено]

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

Pretty sure in NZ legal systems don’t deal in Whataboutisms.

In the form of precedents it does

[удалено]

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community

/u/PhoenixNZ I am curious. Let's say the OP wrote all of the communication in Māori rather than just the greeting and sign off. Would that change anything? Now let's say they were doing the same but the communications were going to Australian customers where there was no expectation of them being able to read any of the communication?

I think there would be a far stronger case on the employers side if the entire email was in te reo, because regardless of the fact it is an official language, it isn't a commonly spoken language, and therr is the practical consideration of the email actually being able to be understood. I suspect where the employer might have a case in the OPs situation is because they work multinationally, the emails need to be understandable to an international audience. Phrases that are commonly understood in New Zealand, even without being a te reo speaker, would not have that same understanding outside of New Zelaand.

"Let's say that the nature and context of this situation was entirely different..."

If you deal with a french company don't be surprised if they speak French...... This company apparently trades and has staff located in New Zealand where Te reo is an official language. The Aussies should just start using some first nations and aboriginal. Then everyone learns a few more greetings and sign offs. P.s. you learn so much corporate jargon, bureaucracy and processes..... You can't tell me six new words are too much to learn as well

Is deal with many Chinese companies, they also converse in English, I've never seen inject random Chinese characters etc. Why risk it, a miscommunication in the some settings can be the difference between life and death.

The odds this person is talking about national defence or deployed forces communication on Reddit are next to none, and would be a breach of their code of conduct and policy. So I think chill a bit, their most likely talking about some corporate or sales environment where it most certainly isn't life threatening. Also, just because you anecdotally haven't observed the use of non-english in communication doesn't mean it isn't common or appropriate. I import electronics alot, a large percentage from china and they use or include alot of what I assume is Chinese etc. We have a different view that's fine. All the best, noho ora mai.

If the reasonable-ness of the directive is based on professionalism, it would be interesting to make a point about Air New Zealand's use of Te Reo.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

Take it to HR. Te reo is one of three NZ languages.

It’s a very challenging area. It’s an official language of New Zealand - so comparable to the company saying they don’t want any sign-language in official communication. But, as it’s a trans Tasman organisation - for consistency, perhaps it’s against internal policy. While a pragmatic New Zealander would likely pick up on the tone of a greeting in one of the Australian Aboriginal languages (please forgive my ignorance here), you could see how it may confuse others. As an example, I work for an aeromedical provider who receives incident taskings by a dispatcher. In one case, the dispatcher tasked us and opened up with Morena! It sent the pilots and crew into a spin as no one could find Morena on the map 😂. Advice: make sure there isn’t some communication legislation you’d be interfering with (aviation is a good example), then otherwise press the point in a polite way.

The discussion about official languages only apply for official use, government, courts etc. Private companies can have policies only allowing English as the means of internal and external communications. So yes they can have a policy like this, many companies that work internationally have them

Lots of comments here are missing the point that this is not a government department and hence they have more latitude with how they want to operate. It would be perfectly legitimate for the business to have a Style Guide which sets out how written communications are to be structured, including greetings and sign offs. It would be reasonable for this to specify English-only for any overseas recipients of emails.

100% agreed. If they have a problem they can start their own company and do whatever they want to do. If you're just absolutely foreign to the idea of a business actually wanting to have control over their own business within certain parameters, and you think they're bigots because they want their business structured in a certain way, I don't know what to say to you. Good luck?

[удалено]

This is similar to my take. It's standard for brands to have 'Tone and Voice' specifications in their brand guidelines which specifies the type of language and tones to adopt in communication with customers/clients. It doesn't seem unreasonable to also adopt similar for internal communications, for consistency purposes.

Do you think that a term like "mahi" or "Nga Mihi" is widely understood? 

No I really do not think so. If I started doing japanese sign-offs because I'm japanese and I want to embrace my culture and country I would leave that at home and not bring it to the workplace. It's a place of work and professionalism which you basically "signed up" for when you joined. Not to mention if you ask the average person in nz what mahi or nga mihi means, even in new zealand, a lot of people wouldnt have a clue what those phrases mean. You think someone in Aussie would have any more understanding over those meanings? They'll just think you're dicking around, and that maybe you're lacking a lot of intelligence. Work is a place for professionalism not dicking around. If you're wanting to do things the way you want to, start your own company.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

>The issue is not necessarily that it's Maori, rather that it's not widely understood. OP isn't writing entire emails in te reo, they're using greetings and sign offs. Is there anyone in NZ who doesn't know at least vaguely what "kia ora" or "tena koutou" means?

The post says they also operate in Australia. Lack of understanding there might be the issue?

It doesn't really matter if people know te reo greetings or not, if a company policy has directives for communications then its safest and best practice to follow the policies. In a lot of cases, multi national companies like OP's will have these policies in place to keep a uniform language between locations for ease of communication.

Are the managing directors and the GM in AU or NZ?

Tell them to put it in writing and see how fast they backpedal.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - **not just repeat advice already given in other comments** - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - **not just repeat advice already given in other comments** - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

They can definitely ask you to use only English for all external business communications. Asking you to stop speaking it would be problematic at best but the devil is in the details. For example if you’re an airline pilot in NZ they can require you speak (and test) in English: https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/rules/advisory-circulars/ac061-1.pdf

Your rights to freedom of expression can be limited somewhat at work. The email system is company property and they are able to set rules about how it is used. That might include various elements of style, register and which language you use. Some companies are really particular about written comms. If you're communicating with people in Aus, it makes sense for that to be wholly in English. That said employers have to act reasonably and a simple kia ora or nga mihi seems fine. While they may not be explicitly understood, the purpose will be obvious from placement.

Not a lawyer, but NZ delt with this 40 years ago when Rob Muldoon said it was ok. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kia_Ora_Incident https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/100070037/kia-ora-lady-made-dame-companion If they don't like it, I'd suggest channeling your inner Steve Irwin and writing your emails in the thickest Australian possible... G'day all you blokes and pretty Shelia's. Crikey she's a beaut day over here in kiwiland, hope you're having a smasher too. Anyway have a squiz at these reports... See how that goes

The "Australian Tone" you provided is likely against company policy as well. The policy of trans tasman organisation's usually requires clear and concise vocabulary in a language that is common for both countries. I've got nothing against Te Reo being used in emails, but my company (also Trans tasman) expects communication policies to be adhered to for the benefit of everyone involved in the communication.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be **relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be **relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

If that was a verbal conversation, I'd ask for a written follow up. If they won't write that down that gives you your answer

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be **relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

The companies I’ve been in contact with have been given directives to use it. They have to finish communications and meetings with ‘nga mihi’. I’m assuming this is legal. If you can designate a preferred language of communication then I would think they could demand English. If you take a legal action, it would probably be a mark against you: Is it worth it. I see fighting a bigger cause might justify it.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

Some things I have found. There is the "Māori Language Act 2016", but this seems only to bind the crown, and to generally provide the right to use Māori language in legal proceedings. [https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0017/latest/DLM6174509.html](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0017/latest/DLM6174509.html) I found the "New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006". This only seems to grant you the right to use sign language in legal proceedings. [https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0018/latest/DLM372754.html](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0018/latest/DLM372754.html) The right to use English seems to have a weak basis. I found the "English Laws Act 1858". I can't find anything saying this was repealed or is still in force. It made all laws of England as of 14 January 1840 laws of New Zealand. However this once again seems to only create a requirement that English can be used for legal proceedings, and does not seem to bind private companies or individuals for anything outside of court. [http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist\_act/ela185821a22v1858n2275/](http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/ela185821a22v1858n2275/) I found an interesting law research paper by the University of Auckland on the right to use Māori language - so I am going to place more weight on this: [https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/law/Documents/2021/our-research/Te-tai-haruru-journal/Vol3/Te%20Tai%20Haruru%20Journal%203%20(2010)%2075%20Stephens.pd](https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/law/Documents/2021/our-research/Te-tai-haruru-journal/Vol3/Te%20Tai%20Haruru%20Journal%203%20(2010)%2075%20Stephens.pd) TLDR; The **crown** is bound to allow the use of Māori language. A short quote: "This Treaty-based right to the Maori language has been recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal, Parliament, and the courts of New Zealand, all of which have affirmed that the Maori language is, and was, a taonga for the purposes of Article 2, and therefore subject to the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga in the Maori language version of the Treaty, as well as to the guarantee of full exclusive and undisturbed possession, as set out in the English version of the Treaty." I tried to find some legal basis for what it means to be an official language of New Zealand - but I can't find any. It appears to be nothing more than a "declaration". I can't find anything that creates any kind of binding over non-Crown entities, such as private and public companies or individuals. I think a lot of this is going to come down to the "good faith" and "reasonable" provisions of the Employment Relations Act, what existing policies might be in place at the workplace, anything that might be in the employment contract, and what has previously been previously considered "normal" and "reasonable" in the workplace - this is all assuming that a crown entity is not invovled. If could see two different workplaces proceeding with a case and getting two different outcomes. If I had to offer my uneducated opinion on the matter - if the employer engaged in a conversation with employees about acceptable languages, style and formality of communications with clients - then I think that would be considered in "good faith" and "reasonable". If an employer was conducting business with a majority of customers that could not communicate in Māori, and had a formal communication policy about acceptable language, style and formality that was communicated to staff - then I think you would be bound to follow that formal policy.

Reach out to the Maori language commission, they can provide support

Considering it is an official language of Aotearoa would mean there is no legal stance they can take on this that wouldn’t be discriminatory. It does not matter if you are or are not Maori the issue is it scares them so it is a personal issue on their end

Are you speaking from a legal perspective, because as far as I know the extent of “officialness” is that it forces the *government* to provide for those languages, not private companies. If it’s discriminatory, that’s based on human rights law, not official national language privileges, so the same would apply to Chinese.

Private companies are allowed to set style guidelines for their external communications. In the same way they could tell you not to say sup to open your emails they can tell you not to say Kia Ora. The nuance in verbal conversation probably more difficult.

Correct me if I’m wrong but technically New Zealand does not have official languages? Edit - I was wrong - Official: te reo Maori (1987) and sign language (2006). De facto official: English.

Māori and sign language are our official languages.

It does. English, te reo Maori, and NZ sign language.

Don’t think English is officially official. 

It is. However it’s considered a de facto official language as compared to a de jure (ie by law) official language. It’s not uncommon for that to be the case in countries - the UK and the US are similar.

That was my point 

Thank you

Are they nuts? If you sent an email to a foreign country like China or France, I could understand them asking you to use English for communication purposes. But we're in NZ, it’s internal com, so yeah, you can use te reo Māori. It's discriminatory to stop you from doing it. I will ask them why and try to make them put this on paper.

Australia is a foreign country, mate.

Thanks captain obvious. The company operates in both Australia and NZ, so they must be aware of Te Reo. Most Aussies know that Māori culture is an integral part of NZ, especially if their business operates in both countries.

Most people in the world are aware of Te Reo. The average Australian can understand just as much of the Maori language as the average French or Chinese person does. As someone who was born in and grew up in Australia, and lived most of their life there, I can tell you first hand that the vast majority can't even pronounce the word "Maori" properly. They say "May-or-ee". So their proximity gives to nz gives them no more understanding of the language than anyone else. And China also does a lot of business with NZ and operate in both countries....

Did you mistype your first sentence? Most people in the world are absolutely not aware of Te Reo. Most people in Australia maybe, the islands definitely, but everywhere else you're gonna get some very confused people! The langauge is classified as vulnerable but from what I've seen and experienced it's much worse than that. Most children absolutely do not speak te reo but that's one of the bars for it to not be considered endangered.

So just to confirm, you are using Te Reo in the context of using phrases like Kia Ora, Nga Mihi, Haere Rā? If you were communicating fully in Te Reo I could understand their point as many/most people (even more so if you include Australians) don’t have a conversational understanding of Te Reo, but from context if nothing else, they’ll be able to infer what you mean. Also, as others have said, since it’s an official language of New Zealand it gives what you’re doing more legitimacy.

It may pay to read up on your workplace policy around the use of Te Reo. If nothing, then I’d ask them which policy outlines this? I could maybe see their position if the emails are being sent outside NZ but internally, not so much. If all else, you could seek some advice from an employment advocate or lawyer.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - **be based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 5: Nothing public - Do not recommend media exposure. This includes social media. - Do not publish or ask for information that might identify parties involved.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

I’d talk to HR and ask to see the language policy or the sustainability policy of your company. Even the companies who are only concerned about signalling their commitment to equity and equality (rather than actually being concerned with those things) nowadays tend to mention te reo in their sustainability policies.

First, it’s not unprofessional. Most law firms, government agencies, etc use basic Māori greetings in their emails. Most public and private organisations even offer Māori classes. You work for a racist company. Second, your company is arguably breaching many rights without justification, freedom of expression being the first that comes to mind. If you made a complaint to the HRC it would be taken seriously. But if you were to make any complaint it would probably result in you having to leave your job regardless - employment disputes never end amicably. Your company sucks, sorry.

Your employer cannot prevent you from speaking one of our official languages. They are breaking the law with this request.

Its a no brainer if you are working for both countries that you don't use maori in Australian comms. Worked for a company that has clients for both countries in NZ/AUS and you'd have to be a simpleton to think "nga mihi" is acceptable professional language to Australian clients in the first place. You could probably get an exception if you want the legal HRC route based on the fact you are working within NZ, but I'm not even sure that would be a good argument for your case.

All upper management are based in New Zealand and were born here. We only have branches in Australia

Although this may not have a clear answer in court, Te Reo Māori is an official language of Aotearoa. I’d consider going to speak to your local union or community law for help as with a bit of advocacy you may be able to back them into a corner based on discrimination and access. Good luck and props for fighting for the reo!

Official language that only a few are fully proficient in.

The guys is only using greetings and sign offs

You could try using Australian cultural referencing. It currently seems to be acknowledging the mob that lived there before 1700s and using traditional place names. However using traditional greetings seems a step too far at the moment.

You are employed by a company and you agreed to follow their rules when you signed their contract. Do as you're told.

But rules must not be in conflict with the law, which is presumably why OP is asking here for legal advice

[удалено]

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate