New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) Link to this

I move, That the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee. It is with great pleasure that I introduce this bill, which repeals and replaces the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946. The 1946 Act has guided the official naming of New Zealand’s geographic features for more than half a century, but it now needs to be modernised. The bill before the House today is the result of a comprehensive review and consultation process involving public, iwi, local government, and sectoral groups. The result is legislation that provides a sound framework for New Zealand’s official geographic naming needs into the 21st century. It will also help to ensure that place naming will reflect who we are as a nation.

In my ministerial role as decision maker in some place-naming submissions that the New Zealand Geographic Board deals with, I know that official naming of geographic features is important and taken very seriously by communities. The names of places that we know and identify with, such as mountains and rivers, as well as settlements and localities, reflect in a very real way our culture and shared heritage as New Zealanders. Knowing the correct names for places and their location is also important for people in all manner of everyday communications and activities, for businesses and their transactions, and for emergency services in responding to incidents.

This bill provides for the continuation of the New Zealand Geographic Board and its important place-naming work. The bill also extends the board’s jurisdiction, in particular to include the naming of undersea features within New Zealand’s continental shelf. It recognises the Crown responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi in the context of official geographic names, it refines public consultation processes for proposed names, it enables the public to have access to a record of official geographic names, it ensures board membership better represents a wider range of constituents and additional board responsibilities, and it provides for more transparent board accountability.

Extending the board’s place-naming jurisdiction to include New Zealand’s legal continental shelf is a significant step. New Zealand’s total continental shelf is up to four times that of the land. This area is of high strategic importance for New Zealand, and it is now the subject of increasing research and exploration activity. Right now the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is considering New Zealand’s continental shelf boundary submissions, which encompass the approximately 1.7 million square kilometres of continental shelf outside our exclusive economic zone. The Geographic Board’s role in naming features of the continental shelf will play a part in New Zealand’s effective management of the undersea resources within our area. Extending the board’s jurisdiction to include the continental shelf is also consistent with the Government’s Ocean Survey 20/20 initiative, which is a coordinated work programme of projects that will contribute to the knowledge base of ocean and sea floor information over the next 10 to 15 years.

Another aspect of the bill is that it formalises the board’s Antarctic geographic naming activities, which are not provided for under the existing Act. The bill’s provisions recognise the Crown’s responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, in particular with respect to the collection and use of original Māori names of geographic features on official maps and charts. In this context it is useful to acknowledge the valuable role that the Geographic Board plays in providing advice on proposed cultural redress for Treaty claim settlements where place names are involved—an example being the now official dual name of Aoraki / Mount Cook.

The Geographic Board’s current responsibility for assigning or altering the official names of suburbs and localities is continued under the bill. However, this function will be devolved to territorial authorities in the future through subsequent legislation. This devolution, agreed to by Cabinet and supported by local government, will include a naming code of practice, with the Geographic Board retaining concurrence in the process. The bill provides for a similar concurrence role for the board and for public consultation where names for Crown-protected areas are proposed under legislation administered by the Department of Conservation.

The bill will ensure that the public has access to a record of all official geographic names, and it will require documents to use official geographic names where they exist. The bill will also give the board discretion to determine effective consultation time periods and the best means of publishing final name decisions, thus relaxing what have proven to be overly prescriptive public consultation requirements in the current legislation.

Two new board members are provided for under the bill. The first new member is needed because of the significant extension of the board’s functions to include undersea feature naming within the continental shelf. The second new member is from the local government sector and is needed particularly because of the importance of official suburb and locality naming for standardised address information across our country. Accountability provisions relating to the Geographic Board are enhanced under the bill by the requirement to submit an annual report to the Minister on the board’s performance. The bill will now also be subject to the Ombudsmen Act of 1975.

This legislation provides a sound framework for New Zealand’s official geographic naming needs in the 21st century. It ensures that place naming reflects who we are as a nation. I commend the bill to the House.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

It is nice to have the opportunity to speak on what I now understand to be incredibly important legislation. I did not realise just how important it was until I heard the Minister build it up. I would have to suggest that my colleagues and myself on this side of the House believe that this is a little bit of padding in the House, to be perfectly honest, and maybe a Statutes Amendment Bill would have been appropriate for legislation of this type, because when one reads through the context of the bill it really is just an administration bill to a large extent. But anyway we are supporting it tonight and I am very comfortable speaking on behalf of my colleagues in that vein.

I have to suggest to members that the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill is very interesting. I did not know we had a New Zealand Geographic Board, and I did my usual test of just how aware the public is of it. At the gym this morning I asked Rachel and the other gym members there whether they had heard of the New Zealand Geographic Board, and like myself there is a very large public unawareness of this organisation, if I can be so bold.

It is one of those organisations that sits a little bit under the radar, and I did a little bit of research this afternoon. The board has met eight times in the last 3 years, so I suggest to members that it is not the most incredibly busy board that we have within the list of boards that operate in New Zealand. It is interesting, though, because I have learnt how we name things or how various landscapes or whatever get named. I was not aware of that. In fact, the history as outlined in the bill is interesting. It talks about the fact that the Governor-General, in 1894, had the right to assign or alter place names. Then, of course, there was the 1946 Act, which the Minister referred to in his speech, that took over that right and gave it to the New Zealand Geographic Board. We now obviously have a guardian of names.

The board undertakes to assign place names, and I thought that that was more than appropriate. I also found very interesting the fact that if one of us wants to be remembered by a place name, and to have a name allocated, we have to be dead. I thought that that was rather sad. But I was reflecting on what potential names the New Zealand Geographic Board could actually assign over the next little while, and I noticed that it has the right to assign names to waterfalls. It occurred to me that we have the Huka Falls, but one day we might have the “Benson-Pope Falls”. I thought that was a very appropriate dissertation, if you like, on his legacy to New Zealand. Then I thought that if we had any cliffs, like the White Cliffs of Dover, we could well end up with the “Cullen Cliffs”, because I suggest that very many times he must feel like jumping off those cliffs—

DIANNE YATES (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak to the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. It is very interesting that this bill replaces an Act that goes back to 1946. This bill is about the naming of names, and I think that that is very, very important. Most times when I come down to Parliament we fly around New Plymouth and we fly past Mount Taranaki. I notice that from time to time pilots talk about Mount Egmont, and I think “Taranaki”. Where is this name from, how did it change, how does this process of change go, how are names registered, and how do we come to use names?

I note tonight, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you have been very careful in your use of Māori language and Māori names. We have just had Maori Language Week, and I must commend Radio New Zealand also on its use of Māori language in Māori Language Week, and I note that it is continuing that use.

It is very important to New Zealand that, as this bill says, we name names in New Zealand to indicate what places are about. This bill is not coming before my select committee, but I note that in my select committee we had a bill called the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill where we dealt with where wines come from, what wines are named, and how they are named in terms of export, and so on. Our names in New Zealand are very, very important. It is important that we get them right, it is important that there is a process, and it is important that there is public consultation.

This bill does three things, in that it repeals and replaces the old Geographic Board, it extends the board’s jurisdiction, as we have said, to New Zealand’s continental shelf, and it recognises the Treaty of Waitangi responsibility in the context of official geographical names. What is in a name? Everything is in a name, and the names we use for things are extremely important, as is the effort we go to in New Zealand to get things right. I have noticed recently that new schools in my area have been named, and people have gone to a great deal of trouble to do research on the area that the school services, and on who owned the land previously and what the names were. People have gone to a great deal of trouble, not only in the naming of the name but in following up on the tradition of that name, so that it carries on in the name of the school, the name of the place, or the name of the street, and so on.

I note, as we have said, that the bill will help to ensure that place naming will reflect who we are as a nation. I remember going on a trip to the Pacific where somebody asked me what a tui was—what was the meaning of that New Zealand word “tui”? I explained that it was a bird, and the questioner said that that was interesting because he had just bought a piece of land and had dug up a whole lot of tins that all had the word “Tui” on them. He was quite impressed that the tui was not just a can of beer but also the name of a bird. That piece of land—I think it was in Vanuatu—was then going to be called “Tui” and the farm was going to be called “Tui”. The tradition had been carried on from soldiers who were there during World War II. So traditions do carry on. We can look around the walls of this House and see place names, and they are place names that are very significant to New Zealanders.

It is important that we have a geographic board, and that the naming of names occurs in the way the bill intends. As we have said, the bill extends the board’s jurisdiction to cover the continental shelf, and it recognises responsibility in relation to the Treaty.

The bill also mentions—and I am very pleased with this—the public consultation process. That is very important in New Zealand. There have been some tremendous arguments about names of places and about changes in names, and it is very important that we get that sorted out. The bill enables the public to have access to the record of official geographic names. The bill also ensures that board membership gives a better representation of people who are involved in this process. It provides for more transparent board accountability. I think these elements are true of what we are seeing now with legislation. Not only are we feeling proud of New Zealand’s processes in forming legislation but, more and more, we are involving more people and having more public consultation. We are ensuring greater democracy when people are involved in the naming of geographic places.

I note now that some places have dual names, which recognise the official languages of New Zealand. For example, we have Aoraki / Mount Cook. As I mentioned in respect of Taranaki, we have a greater recognition, in many cases, of the original names that were used by people and have significance to the culture and the history of this country.

I thank the Minister and the officials involved for the formulation of this legislation. I am sure that it will be a very interesting process for the select committee to look into the implications of the bill, and I am sure there will be some very interesting submissions on this bill about the history of naming.

In looking at the introductory summary of the bill that I have before me, I see that it refers to Aoraki / Mount Cook. I notice that so often now when we look around the country, we see that things have two names. There is an interesting television ad about who we are, which shows No. 1 bridge, No. 2 bridge, No. 3 bridge, and so on. The ad says that New Zealanders are very economical with names. We are also very concerned to have names that people recognise, names that are significant, and names that recognise who we are and our history. I look forward to the progress of this bill through the House.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will take a very brief call just to say we are pleased also to be supporting the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. It is great that the Government has seen its way clear to update the 1946 Act after 61 years.

We are also pleased to see that a significant part of this upgrading involves a new Māori name for the board and other provisions to recognise the Crown’s responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. This is particularly important because so many of us, particularly, of course, tangata whenua, are keen to rediscover, acknowledge, and rename places with the names with which they were originally blessed.

Although this is clearly not the most significant legislation to come before this House in 2007, the board does carry out absolutely necessary functions, and we support its emergence in a new 21st century incarnation.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) Link to this

I rise to speak in favour of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill going to the Government Administration Committee, but I wonder about it, because I have taken a wee bit of time this afternoon to read through this bill—about half an hour. I just wonder whether this bill would not have fitted in nicely to a Statutes Amendment Bill. I reflect on the number of members of Parliament who are sitting in this House this evening, and I wonder whether this is the kind of business that the House should be concerning itself with, in such a solemn nature. It appears to me upon reading this bill that although it is laudable, and I look forward to seeing what the select committee comes up with when it gets to chew it over, I wonder about the Government’s legislative programme when we spend our time debating a bill of this lightness. However, that is possibly for the Government to answer.

The New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill updates the 1946 Act, and we support that. Of course it is terribly important that we have a robust process for naming places we hold dear to our hearts in New Zealand, so we support it from that point of view. But I have a number of questions to raise, and I suspect that the select committee to which this bill passes will discuss a lot of the questions that I and my colleagues have already raised. Mr Blumsky has raised a couple of very important issues to do with this terribly, terribly weighty bill, which I believe could have been dealt with more effectively in a Statutes Amendment Bill.

However, one of the major questions I have about this bill is the proposal to devolve to local authorities, in the future through subsequent legislation, the responsibility for assigning or altering the official names of localities and suburbs. So does that mean there will be another bill all by itself, or will the legislation be tucked into another Statutes Amendment Bill? I just raise that question to be helpful to the Government, whose legislative programme seems to be a bit light. Maybe this is an opportunity for the Government to pop in another little bill, and this might be the way to do it. But what concerns me about devolving part of the responsibility for the naming, assigning, or altering of official names is that the board will retain a concurrent role in that process. Well, shucks, that looks to me like another layer of bureaucracy, and it looks like some more reports and some more joint meetings, and people will have to have lunch and travel. It just looks to me as if this will be a very cumbersome, expensive, and slow process. So I wonder whether the select committee that considers this bill might also consider the wisdom of having a concurrent role in the naming of significant areas for us.

I turn now to the functions of the board. My colleague Mr Blumsky noted how many times the board was to meet per annum. I did not hear the answer; was it four times per annum or two times per annum? Nobody is telling me, so I do not know, but it does not appear to me that the board would meet too often. The questions I would probably have are where would the board meet, and how much would it cost ratepayers—well, it will cost ratepayers, with the devolution of responsibilities to local government—and taxpayers? Will we be paying twice for this?

We see that the functions of the board include signing, approving, altering, or discontinuing the use of official geographic names—that is fine. Clause 10(2) also requires the board to review any proposals that include naming or altering the name of a Crown protected area. So the board does have a function.

Further to that, the board is to administer the Gazetteer and develop policies. That sounds a bit suspect to me, because I thought all the board was to do was to name things, but, no, it will have to develop policies. Of course it will, because if local government is going to be brought into it, then local government will have to bring up a policy under the Local Government Act. We know that. Maybe this issue will be so significant that the board will have to trigger off the requirement to have a special consultative process. So where will the consultation end? Where will the cost end, in the simple naming of a place? I just raise the question, and I am hoping the select committee can do some asking in respect of that. The duties of the board are to develop policies, rules, guidelines, or standards for naming Crown protected areas. For goodness’ sake, this board will sit there hour after hour after hour developing policies in conjunction with local government. I ask how much that will cost, because I believe there is a whole minefield of cost, and talk, talk, talk, within this bill.

I support clause 33 of Part 3, “Miscellaneous provisions”, going to the select committee. Clause 33(1) will allow the board to apply to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the publication of an unofficial name in an official document. That is one of the sensible things I read in this New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill.

Those are about all the comments I have. I have waded through this bill, and I wish I could provide a weighty 10-minute speech, but this is not a weighty bill. I have done my very best to give it the weight it deserves. When the bill goes to the select committee, I will be very interested in the submissions of the local government sector, and I hope the sector’s representatives do not feel the need to travel to Wellington to make a submission on this bill, because I do not believe it is worth the cost of air fares or train fares to do so. I think that written submissions or submissions via videoconferencing could pretty much cover the making of submissions, although that is up to individual councils.

I have another small concern about devolution to local authorities—that is, when a decision like this gets too small, then feelings grow. When we have a small community with one family here and another family there, and then suggest a name using that of a third family or something like that, then maybe decision making in a little wider sphere could be helpful.

Finally, to end my weighty speech on this weighty bill—

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. The great Te Arawa thinker Socrates gave us a lead in understanding the importance of naming rights and the powers and duties of naming. He said: “Regard your good name as the richest jewel you can possibly be possessed of—for credit is like fire; when once you have kindled it you may easily preserve it, but if you once extinguish it, you will find it an arduous task to rekindle it again.” That was Socrates from Te Arawa.

The focus of this bill in clarifying the procedures for Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa around approving geographic names has everything to do with retaining the value of names as the richest jewels in our cultural heritage. The Māori Party is very pleased to support the development of rules, protocols, and guidelines to ensure a systematic and standardised approach to the official naming of geographic features. The power to name is linked to the distinct languages, to mita, stories, ancestral memories, and tribal heritage of tangata whenua. Naming our places, our landscapes, the reserves, the parks, the streets, the cities, the towns, is therefore very important to Māori. And within this, we believe it is vital to foster community respect and understanding for the vital contribution that indigenous peoples can make about the significance of land and the duty to care.

Our attachment to places is far more than physical. Describing and naming our landscape are significant in connecting with our emotional, spiritual, and cultural heritage. I give as a example one place in my electorate of Waiariki—the town of Tūrangi. It takes its name from the rangatira Tūrangitukua, who is central in the history and ongoing life of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The people of Hīrangi Marae in Tūrangi reference themselves to Tūrangitukua as guardian of Rongomai, of the Tongariro River, at the head of Lake Taupō. The name, Tūrangi, therefore links between the past and the present—references back to tupuna and the whakapapa that is vital to the people.

The names we use and promote colour the way we perceive them. Those in a position to name, hold the power to also shape the perceptions we hold of places. In this light, I am so pleased to see that the title clause permits this bill to be known either by the English title, the New Zealand Geographic Board Bill, or its Māori title, Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa Bill.

We know in Aotearoa that the process of colonisation has often brought with it a renaming of much of our land, resulting in particular histories being shared, and others being marginalised. We need only look at the recent history—early last year in fact, for my colleague Tariana Turia—to see the extent of this alienation. The name of their awa, their iwi, their rohe, suddenly lost a letter—the infamous letter “h”. To add insult to injury, the mayor of that city, Michael Laws, sent out a directive telling organisations who spell the name as “wh” to now reconsider their position or justify it to the community. His position was to rename the town with the made-up word, Wanganui, without the “h”.

Whanganui iwi lobbied the Wanganui District Council to include the “h” in the name, telling the council it was meaningless without it. They went so far as to lay a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, advising the commission that it is a fundamental human right to ensure that the integrity of the language is upheld. I give this example today, because I believe it is critical that in the debate around naming rights, we consider the relationship between Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa and the local authorities. Although the board will apparently retain the responsibility for official naming of localities and suburbs, it is suggested that this will be devolved to local authorities in the future through subsequent legislation. If the experience of the Whanganui district council teaches us anything, it is that the value of mana tupuna, of naming rights, is not being consistently honoured at all by this local council.

The importance of process, of respecting the authority required to alter or assign place names is, however, demonstrated in another instance that I want to share with the House. This is the experience of July 2005 when the New Zealand Geographic Board recommended to correct the spelling of Mount Parahaki, in Whangarei, to be Mount Parihaka. The local iwi brought forward their expert advice—that Mount Parihaka is the original Māori name of this landmark. Objections were received. The board considered submissions, made its own investigations, and, in due course, advised the Minister accordingly.

As this House will be aware, the board acts in an advisory capacity where it receives objections to a name proposal and sends a recommendation to the Minister for a final decision. In this case, the luck was all good. The iwi were lucky, in that the Minister for Land Information at the time was the Hon Pete Hodgson, who had grown up in Whangarei, and therefore had a personal association with the importance of this landmark. Due process was therefore followed; the decision was formalised; the new old name was published in the New Zealand Gazette; and the world in Whangarei still goes on. That was a good process. The power to name, the power to claim as put forward by mana whenua, was supported by the Crown. It gives a very good precedent to future functions and responsibilities for the board.

The people who first put names on the map in this country were not linguists. They were not aware of the importance of paying careful attention to the subtleties of pronunciation. They were generally Europeans—surveyors and explorers who would travel through the land and write up the names that they “thought” they heard. In this respect, although we understand how mistakes come about, it does not, however, detract from the importance of getting it right now, to ensure that the geographic features, the Crown protected areas, and the landscapes of Aotearoa are respected and consistent with the original names attributed to this place.

I can perhaps illustrate the importance of naming within kaupapa Māori. Our identity as tangata whenua is based upon our ancestral waka, our physical landmarks such as maunga and awa—a body of water, a river, the moana—the sea; and a significant tupuna, our ancestors. In this way, the names we know of our places are not just neutral markers of the geography. They are our very identity and culture of our people and our communities. To make mistakes with spelling is therefore far more serious than a typing error. All of this explains the need for ongoing and meaningful consultation with Māori to guide the board’s jurisdiction across territorial authorities, across protected areas, across rohe.

Finally, I refer to a quote by the Tūhoe identity Tame Iti in 2005. When he talked about the silencing and denial of the use of Māori language in post-colonial Aotearoa, he had this to say: “If you can imagine yourself in a room, and you are the blackbird and then the other blackbird decided that nobody is allowed to sing like a blackbird, it’s all the seagull language.” So members can imagine that there is going to be resistance.

This bill, in establishing and supporting Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa, is a way of ensuring that both blackbirds and seagulls can sing together, and that there is policy in place that invests in the value of names as the richest jewel in our cultural heritage. The Māori Party is therefore happy to support this bill. Kia ora tātou.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this

National will be supporting this bill. We do have some questions, however, as to why we are debating it now. The principal Act has been around since 1946, so 61 years later it is to be amended. When I look at the progress of this bill, I see the first genesis of a review was done in the release by the Government of a discussion paper in October 2003 and here we are, 4 years later, now looking at a bill that changes names and gives further powers. One would have thought, however, that because this is really not such important legislation as to need to take up the House’s time, it could be covered in a Statutes Amendment Bill. In Statutes Amendment Bills we have a number of bills that we think can be passed, and if all parties agree then the bills proceed on that basis. The measures in this bill could have been covered by a Statutes Amendment Bill.

But when I look at the Order Paper I can understand why the Government has brought this bill forward, because the Order Paper is very, very light. Out of the 26 bills on the Order Paper today, 12 are second readings, five are at the Committee stage, and four are third readings, so it is not going to take very long for the Order Paper to become depleted. Tonight the Government is moving in this bill to take up the House’s time; otherwise it will find that its legislative programme will be very, very much reduced.

Since 1946, when the principal Act was passed, there have been significant changes to geographic names. Their importance has increased for local, national, and international purposes, so this bill is required. The question National asks is, why? Why do we need a bill, when names have been changed over many, many years? I remember that my mother, who was born at Egmont Village, always referred to the mountain as Mount Egmont. Although she has passed on now, she always referred to it as Mount Egmont, even though it is known as Mount Taranaki. There will always be people in local areas who see their local landscapes, the geographic features, and refer to them by the names they had when they were brought up.

The bill provides for a number of new functions to be carried out, including new administrative functions, and the territorial authorities will be involved in those. The question that needs to be asked—and certainly other speakers on the National side of the House have asked this—is, what will be the compliance costs associated with implementing this new legislation?

I note that Māori place names are significant in maintaining, and certainly promoting, our culture and heritage. From a tourism perspective, they are one of the advantages that make New Zealand uniquely different from other places in the world. The Associate Minister of Tourism well knows that visitors to New Zealand can climb mountains, go bungy jumping, and ski anywhere in the world, but what they cannot do elsewhere is to experience Māori culture. That is significant, and we support the legislation along those lines.

I had reason to visit a town in northern France—Arras—which members may have heard of. During the First World War there was an underground city where the citizens of that city were able to go. It had a 700-bed hospital. I have been fortunate enough to go through those caves. They have been there for centuries, but the New Zealand tunnelling company was very much involved at the time in making the place safe for citizens to shelter in during the war. I mention that because each of the street names that came off the main thoroughfare was the name of a New Zealand town. The names were those of towns of significant New Zealand importance, and many of those names were Māori.

I note that clause 8 is an important clause. Although the board will have the powers and functions, along with the territorial authorities, to name certain places—including places on the continental shelf and the Ross Dependency—one thing the board will not be able to do is to alter the name of New Zealand. That is certainly reassuring.

Clauses 16 to 21 concern the process for the approval of names, and clauses 22 and 23 look specifically at the names of local authorities, districts and regions. I mentioned before that the compliance costs need to be looked at closely. When this bill goes to a select committee, no doubt those sorts of issues will be raised at that time. I also note another point that, no doubt, will come out in the select committee. In clauses 27 to 29, where the board cannot agree on a name when the matter has been referred to the board for review in accordance with the policies, then the issue comes to the Minister of Conservation for final determination. No doubt a question will be asked as to how that process will work.

Finally, it is important that clause 33, as Jacqui Dean identified in her address, allows the board or any person to apply to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the publication of an unofficial name in an official document. That safeguards our heritage; it safeguards the important landscapes and names within New Zealand.

Although National does not think this bill is as important as other bills, it is certainly one that National will be supporting.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this

It speaks volumes about the death throes of the Government that, here we are, we have the highest interest rates in the Western World, each week 760 New Zealanders are getting on a plane to leave the country, old people in pain are sitting in hospital emergency departments for 3 days waiting to get a hip operation, we have an export industry on its knees with a record high dollar, one in four New Zealanders is leaving school unable to read and write, and what is on the Government’s legislative programme for our House of Representatives? It is the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Amendment Bill.

I suggest this is hardly the issue on the minds of New Zealanders that they are wanting this Parliament of ours to address. We are going to be making some very minor tinkering changes. The New Zealand Geographic Board—wait for it—is going to be able to assign names for areas in relation to the continental shelf. I am sure that has people excited out there in Kiwi country. I am sure that is the issue on their minds that they want Parliament to be addressing. But even with this bill, it is a botch-up. Let me tell members why.

Back in October 2003 a discussion paper was put out—and the discussion paper shows just how slowly the wheels of Government spin—about how we might name places in New Zealand. The core issue was whether the decision should be made by the local council or by the Geographic Board. Well, listen to this from the explanatory note. It states that the function of assigning names to localities and suburbs “will be devolved to local authorities in the future through subsequent legislation and consequential amendment.”