Points of Order — Debate—Use of “Aotearoa”

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to some matters of evidence relating to the use of the word “Aotearoa” in this House. Yesterday, you referred to the New Zealand Geographic Board’s use of “Aotearoa” as the basis for its use in the House. I wish to draw your attention to the document which sets out the board’s decision making, entitled Frameworks of the New Zealand Geographic Board, April 2018. It sets out the guidance on dual and alternative naming, and it states, “Change should only take place at the will of the public, with each dual name considered case by case by the Board.” It further states—and I quote—“The Board has no jurisdiction over the country name of New Zealand and to change it would require an Act of Parliament.” Further, these points find their basis in the New Zealand Geographic Board’s Act of 2008, at section 8(3).

Finally, we can draw your attention, sir, to the petition response from the Government Administration Committee in 2008 that said, “Section 8(3) of the Act explicitly states that ‘the board has no jurisdiction to assign a name to, or alter the name of, New Zealand.’ ” In other words, changing the name of this country—New Zealand—based on the Geographic Board has no basis in law or in decisions of the Speaker or of this House. As such, we seek your consideration of this matter, given your former statements.

Good. Well, because the member might have missed it due to his international commitments, I’m going to read a Speaker’s ruling which I gave on 4 March 2025, and then I’ll make some comments after that.

“I’ve been asked to rule on the use of the word ‘Aotearoa’ in the House. I said I would consider the approach taken by the New Zealand Geographic Board, though this is not … binding on the House, which does enjoys unfettered freedom of speech. The official name of New Zealand may only be altered by legislation. However, ‘Aotearoa’ is regularly used as a name of New Zealand, including by the Geographic Board itself in its own name, and in the title of the legislation that created it. It appears on our passports and it appears on our currency. I’ve pointed out several times that Standing Order 109 says that ‘member[s] may address the [House speaking] in English, [te reo] Māori, or [in] Sign Language.’ That really is the end of the matter. In light of Standing Order 109, it’s not for the Speaker to arbitrate when individual words in any of those [forms might] be used. I suggested”—at the time—“to Ricardo Menéndez March he might like to use ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’ for the sake of order in the House and to assist anyone who might not understand the term. However, members may speak in any of the three languages at any time. If other members do not like certain words, they don’t have to use them. But it’s not a matter of order and I don’t expect to have further points of order raised about it.”

Further, I’ll make the point that in his time serving New Zealand in the capacity of Minister of Foreign Affairs, he would have, 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. I’d further say that through all of those years, and I might use a term familiar with the member, not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur—no condemnation whatsoever from a Government he was part of. That is the end of the matter.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you telling this House that your statement is constitutional authority now for the ruling you just gave—yes or no?

No—the answer is no—and if the member would like to read the statement later, he’ll understand that I wasn’t taking that position.