NZ First Bill Legislates 'New Zealand' As Official Name Of Country In Law
Leader of New Zealand First
New Zealand First has today introduced a Member's Bill that seeks to state in law that 'New Zealand' is the official geographic name of our country.
'Over the past few years, we have had a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, officials, government departments, and politicians trying to change our country's name by stealth - with no permission or consent from the people' says Rt Hon Winston Peters Leader of New Zealand First.
The 'New Zealand (Name of State) Bill' confirms that 'New Zealand' is our country's official name, and it is only parliament and the people, not bureaucrats, government departments, or officials, that have the authority to make decisions about the name of the country.
'The vast majority of New Zealanders are shocked at this insidious creep of misguided and misinformed cultural history of the name 'Aotearoa'.'
'Any true historian or cultural expert would know that it was never the original Māori name for New Zealand – and we should not allow it to be misused for cultural virtue signalling.'
'Colonialist William Pember Reeves incorrectly used 'Aotearoa' in the late nineteenth century, now the cultural hand-wringers have embraced his mindset.'
'Don't force the South Island's iwi Ngāi Tahu to use 'Aotearoa'. In 2021, Ngāi Tahu said the history of the name 'Aotearoa' originally referred solely to the North Island.'
Putting the name 'New Zealand' in law will also provide constitutional clarity and legal certainty.
'The name 'New Zealand' is recognised around the world as the name of our country, and any uncertainty about that risks our global economic markets and political identity that we have built, and spent billions of dollars promoting, over many decades' says Mr Peters.
'Our country's name is New Zealand and should not change unless the people of our country decide to change it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
The group's chair, Gail Duncan, said: 'The Social Justice Group have sent in their submission to the Peoples Select Committee on Pay Equity. This Select Committee was the brainchild of Marilyn Waring and we were very grateful to have the opportunity to submit ' The Bill was deliberately passed in full with no public consultation, no accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement, no exemption from the Ministry of Regulation, and did not meet Cabinet's requirements. Breaching all requirements with no regard to the long term impact on women or regard that these roles underpin the wellbeing of communities, ignoring that many women in these roles are the sole income earner for their families – they are the breadwinners - and all deserve appropriate recompense for their service and labour. Discrimination is what it is, and this Act embodies and perpetuates it, taking us backwards. The Government introduced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the house under urgency on Monday 5 May 2025 and it was passed on Wednesday evening 7 May 2025. The approach not only breached the Bill of Rights Act, but was inconsistent with the international Sustainable Development Goals requirements for delivery of fair pay for women. This government starkly says to New Zealand employers (including the government) that while we can't afford to pay women at pay equity rates, we can afford to deliver tax cuts to landlords and concessions to some industries such as the tobacco industry. The impact of this reduction in due process is being paid for by women across New Zealand as they strive to support themselves and their families. This Bill limits their capability to pursue claims by extinguishing existing cases and denying back pay. The removal of pay equity from the books has undermined the future prosperity of all women in New Zealand, particularly Māori and Polynesian, reducing the productivity and economic contribution of half of New Zealand's workforce. This in turn contributes to child poverty, holding back the next generation. Furthermore, it forces the women of New Zealand to sacrifice their pay equity claims to balance the books for Budget 2025. This, we submit, is unprincipled and ruthless. The National Party has always backtracked on any improvements to women's pay parity . It removed the Employment Equity Act, passed under the Labour government in 1990. That Act aimed to address pay equity and inequality in employment for women, Māori, Pasifika, and workers with disabilities. It also established the Employment Equity Office. The Act was repealed by the incoming National government later that year (1990). Again following Kristine Bartlett and the Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota winning the case for care workers in the Court of Appeal in 2014, and a pay equity settlement in June 2017 the National Party publicly stated that its intention was to write off the compensation from the ledger, and rewrite the Bill such that no woman would ever be able to make such claims again. In July 2017 the National Government introduced the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill 2017 (284-1), to repeal the Equal Pay Act 1972, and create a process for raising pay equity claims within the structure of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Bill lapsed following the general election. Source: In 2025 the Coalition Government has now achieved this intent with the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. The redacted Cabinet Paper 'Reviewing policy settings' (1 May 2025), justifies pay equity changes on the grounds of the Government's commitment to improve the quality of legislation, reducing complexity and costs. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was promoted as providing a better pay regulatory framework for a pay equity process, based on the concepts of the Regulatory Standards Bill. New Zealand is not a basket case economically, New Zealand has head space. Policy decisions should enhance wellbeing across the population and this is not evidenced. Instead, the austerity measures being applied are counterproductively pausing the economy against public messaging that growth is the answer. The government is forging a pathway to hardship for hardworking New Zealanders. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is one strategic part of these austerity measures and their ongoing plan to lower wages across the whole spectrum of workers. This began with the rescinding of Fair Pay Agreement Act, effective from 20 December 2023, by the Fair Pay Agreement Repeal Bill introduced on 12 December 2023 by MP Hon Brooke van Veldon, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The same minister then reviewed the Equal Pay Act 1972, one of the most important pieces of legislation for women on the statute book in New Zealand. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill has set New Zealand back over 50 years, abandoning international obligations to ensure pay parity for women and is another contractionary measure. Treasury has already warned of a slowing economy, slowing spending and lowering business revenue leading to a reduction in the Government's tax take. Taking $12.8 billion out of the economy by reneging on obligations to value women's work appropriately will backfire. This government has introduced a new framework for the use of parties to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government has raised doubts about the comparison between jobs conducted predominantly by women and other roles of similar responsibility, and implied that prior claims had no merit and determined a reset is required. Differences in remuneration for reasons other than sex-based discrimination? The only one given is the employer will struggle to pay and the Government is threatening that it will reduce funding for those activities concerned. This is as bad as saying businesses and farmers will struggle to make changes to meet our climate change obligations, so we won't foist any requirements upon them. This is setting New Zealand up to fail. St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group opposes the legislation which has passed giving Brooke van Veldon the power to adjust and further discriminate against women without consultation either publicly or with cabinet. To conclude, St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group will justify our stance by quoting scripture, as we were asked in the oral hearing for the Regulatory Standards Bill. Jesus is clear about our need to care for the poor and disadvantaged, for instance: in Matthew 25:34-46. He is scathing about influential people who circumvent justice with trickery, for example in Matthew 25:23, 'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! For you tithe mint dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.' And Luke 11:46, 'Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.' Using the words of Dr Martin Luther King, quoting Amos 5:24, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' This government is making decisions which put them on the wrong side of history. Basically, we must pay women what they are worth and reinstate the pay parity obligations lost in the passing of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Taxpayers' Union Launches Campaign Against Dirty Deal Between Big Banks, ANZ, ASB, And The National Party
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union has today launched a major campaign targeting Scott Simpson's Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, which includes retrospective provisions that would extinguish a live class action brought by tens of thousands of bank customers against ANZ and ASB banks. The campaign has been launched with National Party's annual conference attendees being delivered love letters from the Big Banks to recognise their special relationship and bank bailout. In the coming days, a digital advertising, billboard, and grassroots mobilisation campaign demanding that Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Minister of Consumer Affairs Scott Simpson drop the retrospective clauses from the Bill will be launched. Taxpayers' Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said: 'This is a disgraceful case of retrospective lawmaking that undermines the rule of law and destroys trust in New Zealand as a stable place to do business." "Last month the NZ Herald reported that the Bill is a result of backroom discussions between the Government and the Aussie-owned big banks which excluded the consumer-side parties of the very class action litigation the Bill is intended to extinguish." "Across the Tasman, the Aussie banks were hauled over the coals for misconduct and dishonest practises. But in Wellington, they are doing deals with the Beehive to be bailed out and 'protected' from consumer class actions. It's perverting the course of justice for tens of thousands." "Not only does the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill run roughshod over the rule of law, it is specifically designed to bail out the powerful at the expense of ordinary Kiwis.' 'Tens of thousands of Kiwis are part of a live class action over alleged unfair fees. Instead of letting the courts do their job, Nicola Willis and Scott Simpson are stepping in to shut it down with the stroke of a pen. That's not justice — that's Parliament playing defence for its mates.' The Union says the Bill makes a mockery of the Government's own rhetoric about restoring New Zealand's reputation as a safe, rules-based place to invest and do business. 'The same Ministers pushing the so-called Regulatory Standards Bill – which rightly warns against retrospective legislation – are now ramming through a bill that does exactly that. That's usually called hypocrisy.' 'When governments change the rules mid-litigation to protect the well connected, it sends a chilling message to investors, consumers, and taxpayers alike: the law in New Zealand is only as stable as the political connections of the people you're up against.' Williams concluded: 'This campaign isn't just focused at the Government. It's to hold to account and expose the disgraceful behaviour of ANZ and ASB banks to undermine their own customers' rights. This is about not just honesty and integrity and customer disclosures, but New Zealanders having the ability to enforce consumer protection law against the big end of town.' 'Either the Government walks the talk on stable, principled lawmaking, or they admit they're no better than the last lot. Kiwis deserve better than this grubby stitch-up.' The social media, digital and advertising campaign launches next week along with some more creative plans to ensure this bill gets the public scrutiny it deserves. 'Watch this space.'
