Making ‘New Zealand' country's official name added to NZ First's ever-changing list of bills
Winston Peters has been frustrated lately by the use of "Aotearoa" in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell
It's the eighth Member's Bill the party has announced this year, but due to the rules of Parliament, NZ First is only able to have four in the ballot at any one time.
Only MPs who aren't ministers – NZ First has four backbenchers – can have Member's Bills and they can only have one in the ballot at a time.
This has meant the party has had to shuffle out several of the bills it has previously announced, but which remain on NZ First's website as 'Our Member's Bills'.
For example, the 'Conscience Acts Referendums Bill', which was revealed in March to remove conscience votes in Parliament and instead require some particular legislation to go to a national public referendum, no longer appears on Parliament's website.
It was previously held in the name of NZ First MP Jamie Arbuckle. But he now has a bill protecting New Zealanders' right to use physical currency.
Other bills to pulled out recently include a bill to have a binding referendum when deciding whether to add fluoride to drinking water, one to remove diversity, equity and inclusion aspects from the public service, and another to improve access to palliative care.
In some instances, the bills have been overtaken by events. For example, the Government's Public Service Amendment Bill, which this week passed its first reading, intends to remove diversity provisions.
When the party announced a Member's Bill to clarify the definition of a woman and man in law, it removed another bill that would fine people who use a single-sex toilet not matching their own sex. Peters said the new proposal addressed the issue more comprehensively.
The party says if it could have all of its bills in the ballot at once, it would. Those not currently in the ballot, but which have been announced, remain current policy and could be returned.
MP Andy Foster has had a number of bills under his name. Photo / Mike Scott
The party's MP Andy Foster has been the sponsor of many of the bills, before they have then either been picked from the ballot, transferred to another MP or removed.
For example, earlier this year, his bill to stop banks withdrawing services from clients for 'woke' reasons was picked from the ballot and began going through the parliamentary process.
This meant he could add another to the ballot, which ended up being the bill to remove diversity elements from law.
Eventually, however, this was dropped and he picked up another requiring government buildings to only display the official flag of New Zealand.
But after the resignation of NZ First's Tanya Unkovich, this bill was transferred from Foster to new MP Dr David Wilson. Foster now has the bill about the country's name.
The four bills currently in the ballot for NZ First are:
Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill – Jenny Marcroft
Cash Transactions Protection Bill – Jamie Arbuckle
Display of Flags (Government Premises) Bill – Dr David Wilson
New Zealand (Name of State) Bill – Andy Foster.
NZ First MPs in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The newest bill comes after several showdowns between Peters and Parliament's Speaker Gerry Brownlee over the use of 'Aotearoa' in Parliament. Peters has bristled when other MPs have used it in questions.
In March, Brownlee ruled 'Aotearoa' was 'regularly used' as a name for the country including by the country's geographic board. He noted it appeared on the country's passport and currency, and Parliament's rules allowed MPs to use English, te reo Māori or sign language.
Peters subsequently told the Herald that Brownlee was 'wrong' as the matter had 'never gone to the people of this country'.
The NZ First leader raised the issue again last week, leading Brownlee to reiterate his previous comments.
Brownlee said: 'In his time serving New Zealand, in the capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, he would've, over some five years or more, presented the New Zealand passport at various passport stations around the world and never had questioned the fact that our passport has the word Aotearoa on the front of it.
'It was always a New Zealand passport despite the use of that word. That is the end of the matter.'
Following that, Minister for Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden confirmed the New Zealand passport would eventually be updated to have English appear before the te reo Māori text.
In a release on Friday morning, Peters said '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'.
'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.'
NZ First's coalition agreement with National includes a commitment about not changing the country's name.
'Commit that in the absence of a referendum, our Government will not change the official name of New Zealand.'
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
6 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Number of high-security beds at Hawke's Bay Regional Prison could rise by up to 460, document shows
It said the population would increase rapidly until June 2028 and then rise gradually until June 2035. In a section of the long-term network configuration plan entitled The Future Prison Network – what could the prison network look like in the next 20 Years, the plan calls for new high-security capacity at Hawke's Bay Regional Prison. Between 240 and 720 new high-security beds would be built at the facility, to replace 256 existing beds deemed to be poor quality, the plan shows. The report also mentions the refurbishment of six hut units – typically low-security buildings for prisoners nearing release – which would improve quality and decrease bed numbers in these units from 380 to 252. A spokesperson from Corrections said on August 4, 2025, Hawke's Bay Regional Prison had 755 operational beds, 68 of which were vacant. Hawke's Bay Regional Prison. Photo / Paul Taylor Labour Corrections spokeswoman Dr Tracey McLellan said the party had warned before the 2023 election that the coalition Government was laying the groundwork for a 'mega-prison' in Hawke's Bay. 'The plan for up to 720 new high-security beds turns Hawke's Bay Regional Prison into one of the largest custodial sites in the country,' McLellan said. 'People in Hawke's Bay didn't ask for a mega-prison. They asked for better housing, safer communities and support for youth – not more cells.' Before the 2023 general election, then Tukituki Labour MP Anna Lorck said she didn't want any more beds built at the prison. 'What we know happens is, if we build a mega-prison, there will be more serious criminals brought into Hawke's Bay to serve their time and with them come their associates,' Lorck said at the time. Wedd said at the time that Lorck was peddling 'desperate misinformation' with her 'mega-prison' claim. When contacted by Hawke's Bay Today, Lorck, no longer in politics, said she hoped the region fights back against any plan to build a larger prison. 'It's the last thing our region needs,' she said. Wedd said Corrections had a range of projects under way to increase the number and quality of beds across the prison network, but no projects at Hawke's Bay Regional Prison had been confirmed. A Corrections spokesperson said public safety was their top priority, and ensuring they had sufficient fit-for-purpose prison capacity was critical to keeping the public safe. 'The Hawke's Bay Regional Prison redevelopment is a potential project being planned to meet the forecast rising demand for high-security beds at the prison,' the spokesperson said. 'This project would deliver additional high-security accommodation and necessary upgrades and replacements to essential site infrastructure such as the gatehouse and visitor facilities. 'The detailed scope of the project is being developed and the project remains subject to approvals and funding decisions.' The spokesperson said they could not provide timings of when decisions would be made. Inmate numbers at NZ's largest prisons*: Mt Eden Corrections Facility – 1318 Rimutaka Prison – 1024 Auckland South Corrections Facility – 960 Spring Hill Corrections Facility – 904 Christchurch Men's Prison – 896 Hawke's Bay Regional Prison – 703 Auckland Prison – 679 Northland Regional Corrections Facility – 601 Whanganui Prison – 519 * as of March 31, 2025 Jack Riddell is a multimedia journalist with Hawke's Bay Today and has worked in radio and media in Auckland, London, Berlin, and Napier.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Overseas investment reforms may create more uncertainty, law firms warn
The coalition Government's overhaul of the overseas investment regime could create more uncertainty for investors, law firms have warned. Associate Finance Minister and Act leader David Seymour is overseeing a suite of changes to the Overseas Investment Act, aimed at streamlining the existing system and bringing more foreign investment into the country.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Making heated tobacco products cheaper than cigarettes is no scandal
Opinion: The Government's decision to introduce a lower excise rate for heated tobacco products (HTPs) has been widely framed as 'giving tax breaks to tobacco companies'. It's a provocative line – and politically potent – but it doesn't help us have an honest, evidence-informed discussion about how to reduce smoking harm, particularly for the most disadvantaged New Zealanders, or how to deal with conflicts of interest. Let's be clear: this isn't a corporate subsidy, so long as the reduced tax is passed on with cheaper products. It's an excise adjustment applied to a class of tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco. (Like vaping products, HTPs are marketed as smoke-free alternatives to cigarettes, but are not the same thing.) Combustion is what makes smoking lethal. Cigarettes burn at over 800C, releasing thousands of toxic compounds. Heated tobacco products operate at much lower temperatures and don't produce smoke – just an aerosol – with far fewer harmful constituents. That distinction matters. The multinational tobacco company Philip Morris does hold a monopoly over HTPs in New Zealand. That's not ideal, but it doesn't mean the tax policy exists for Philip Morris International. The intention is to make a less harmful product more affordable than cigarettes – a principle long accepted in tobacco harm reduction, and already applied to vaping. Unfortunately, it appears Philip Morris International hasn't yet passed on the tax savings to the small number of HTP users in New Zealand – this is the real scandal. In addition, the apparent impact of PMI on government policy is tough to ignore, and contrary to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which seeks to protect government policy from tobacco industry influence. New Zealand has rightly taxed cigarettes heavily to deter use. But excise taxes are also regressive. The remaining people who smoke – fewer than 7 percent of adults – are disproportionately Māori, Pasifika, low-income, and more likely to experience mental health distress. The associate minister of health, Casey Costello, justified the excise differential by citing relative harm reduction and the growing inequity of uniform excise. Her reasoning deserves more attention than it has been given. Critics argue there's insufficient evidence that HTPs help people quit, but the UK Office for Health Improvement and Disabilities, the UK Committee on Toxicity, and the US Food and Drug Administration all acknowledge HTPs reduce exposure to toxicants compared with cigarettes. That doesn't make them harmless – but being less harmful than smoking is enough to warrant a differential tax. The example of Japan is instructive. There, HTPs make up over 30 percent of tobacco sales. Though vaping is banned, cigarette consumption has plummeted by 40 percent in some markets. Surveys suggest many smokers switched completely to HTPs. Youth uptake has been minimal. No policy is perfect, but that's a shift in the right direction. What's really at stake here? Not a tax break for big tobacco – but increasing the options for people who smoke and want to quit, and whether we believe in a response to nicotine products based on their comparative risks to human health as a foundation for public health policy. A more productive debate would ask: • Are they less harmful than cigarettes, and do they help smokers quit? • Are tax savings being passed on to consumers? • Are HTPs being promoted responsibly? • Will there be an independent evaluation of their impact on smoking rates? In a country that leads the world with its Smokefree 2025 goal, we should be asking how to accelerate the decline in smoking, not defending a one-size-fits-all excise regime that's increasingly disconnected from the realities of risk, behaviour, and equity. If HTPs can help some people switch, pricing them appropriately is not a scandal. It's a good policy – provided it's transparent, monitored, and grounded in evidence, and the tax savings are passed on to consumers.
