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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Not a one. I challenge members opposite: have they been inundated? I have certainly had letters from constituents concerned about their interest rates going through the roof, concerning the Government putting up taxes, and concerning the bureaucracy of the Building Act and the Resource Management Act. I have not had a single letter expressing concern about the New Zealand Geographic Board.

I note that the bill takes away the current right of the public to be notified when the Government proposes to change the name of a particular place or community. In clause 24 we see a sneaky wee provision to lock the public out. I want to know where the Government’s mandate is for that change. People get very attached to the names of the communities they live in, whether it is the Brightwaters, the Nelsons, the Wellingtons—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

My colleague Chris Auchinvole will soon be the elected representative for the community of St Arnaud, where there has been a very vigorous debate about whether that place should be called Rotoiti or St Arnaud. This sneaky little provision in clause 24 changes the existing law so that a change can be made by the Geographic Board to the name of a community without any public process at all. We think that is wrong. What is even more bizarre is that when this process began, the Government said it would give a greater role to our local councils. That makes pretty good sense. They know their local communities. None of that is in the bill, and National asks why not. If we are going to have a reform bill for the New Zealand Geographic Board—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

I draw the member’s attention to what is referred to in the purpose clause. It is all about the public having a role. How can those members say in Part 1 that they are going to give the public a role in decision making about names, then further down the track take it away? We are simply arguing that that is improper, and that is why National is saying that this is just another desperate bill from a Government that is in trouble, on the way out, and trying to do something that will make it look busy even though it has run out of ideas. It is time for a new Government.

Hon DAVID PARKER Link to this

There is an important issue here, I say to Dr Smith, even though he makes light of it. There is considerable potential wealth in our sea area, not only in terms of the fisheries but also in terms of the mineral wealth. I am sure that Mr Brown—as a person who has experience of our maritime area—understands this. Our maritime area is of considerable economic potential for us, not only in terms of petrocarbons but also in terms of minerals and fisheries. If we want other people to respect our rights to areas over which we want to exercise dominion, we have to do the things that Governments do in respect of areas that they assert rights to. We have to exercise our rights of governance and sovereignty. That is what this bill takes a small step towards.

Hon DAVID PARKER Link to this

I am not scared of anything. I am explaining the need for this legislation, which extends the rights of the Geographic Board to include naming features in that area. That is one of the things a country does to assert rights in respect of areas of the continental shelf. It is given effect in Part 1 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill, and it is an important advance.

The National Party may make light of the issue, but the reality is that it is important. For that reason, the Government is very pleased to support this bill. The other functions of the board are largely unchanged. This legislation will not cause undue costs to taxpayers, but it will help New Zealand assert its sovereign rights in respect of an area 24 times the size of our land area that lies underwater, on the continental shelf.

DARIEN FENTON Link to this

If Ms Goudie would just listen she might learn something once more.

Mr Holmes is known as “the detective”, and he has had 60 corrected place names accepted by the New Zealand Geographic Board since 1997, with more in the pipeline. The corrected place names include mountain ranges, mountains, glaciers, peaks, localities, small hills, bits of hills, a lot of streams and creeks, and a few coastal features on points and bays. He has presented these out of a passion for the large number of misspelt names, let alone mispronounced names. He has reminded the Geographic Board that one of its functions—and one of the reasons one would submit a proposal to the board under Part 2—is to examine cases of doubtful spelling of place names and also to determine the spelling to be adopted on official maps.

Mr Holmes put a couple of interesting submissions to the board. One of his longest submissions to date was a change of name from Rēwiti to Rēweti. I apologise for the pronunciation. That submission ran to 40 pages. Chief Rēweti Tamahiki was one of the chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. An area was named after him when he gifted the land that finished the railway line through to Helensville. [Interruption] I would have thought the member John Key would be interested in what is happening in Helensville but probably not—we do not see him in the Chamber very often these days.

These examples illustrate that the proposals that can be submitted to the board under the provisions in Part 2—I have many more examples, and I am happy to take many more calls on the proposals that can be submitted to the board—are very, very important. They are important to ordinary people in New Zealand. This side of the Chamber takes that extremely seriously, but members on that side of the Chamber have derided this bill. They have been disgusting in their derision of the board and disgusting in their comments about this bill, and, quite frankly, I am appalled.

Hon DAVID PARKER Link to this

Sandra Goudie said it is an issue that was raised at the select committee. Well, it is a real shame that the select committee could not agree to a report back to Parliament to advise Parliament of that concern. I understand that that was because the National members were not cooperating in that regard. So they get what they deserve.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

I can report to Mr Finlayson that the real estate agents are in great heart. Despite the squawking from the bantam hens on the other side of the Chamber, I take a call to support the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill.

The report of the Government Administration Committee in respect of Part 2 is interesting when it comes to the views of National members—which ones, we do not quite know. The C-team is here tonight, and they have all pumped themselves up. It must be audition time again in the National Party, because they have all pumped themselves up. The eminent barrister is here, the “orange roughy” from Coromandel, and Mr Ardern, whom I pay my respects to. He is an excellent chair. I have been on a number of select committees with Mr Ardern, and I think he is a fine chair.

National members have pumped themselves up to come down to the Chamber for a big audition to oppose, I am told, the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. What an absolute ripper that is for the National Party, to get all that testosterone burnt off on a bill and come down to the Chamber to oppose it. How could National members oppose it? They have worked out a way to try to do that. Under the heading “Views of National members” the report states: “National members recognise the role of the New Zealand Geographic Board under the existing legislation. There appears nothing wrong with the way the current legislation is operating and accordingly National members see no need for change.” That is interesting.

Mr Key is on the record on this issue. The slippery Leader of the Opposition has had the axle grease out around this. First, he attacked clause 24 because he claimed it was too bureaucratic. Then “Old Slippery” got the axle grease out, and the grease gun pumped away, and he put it around the bill. Then he attacked it because it was not bureaucratic enough. The bill streamlines some of the decision-making processes and allows the board to get involved and accordingly take care of a number of the naming processes. I would have thought that that would actually cut down some of the bureaucracy, but, oh no, all the heavy hitters of the National Party are down here tonight, all steamed up and full of vim and vigour. The morale is high over there because they have all come to the Chamber to try to defeat, with all the energy and might they have, the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill.

This is Sandra Goudie’s moment in the sun in her political career. This is what she lived for, got elected for, and has been briefed for—judging by the amount of paper on her desk. She has led the charge of the Opposition and spent an inordinate amount of taxpayers’ money here tonight to defeat the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. I am sure she will go back to her constituents and say she has spent a lot of time defeating this bill. She will say: “I do not know how much it costs the taxpayers to run Parliament per hour, but I’ve spent an inordinate amount of energy and time, and my wages, working for you, the people, with my National Party colleagues to defeat this major piece of legislation, the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill.”

As we debate Part 2 it will be interesting to see those wonderful—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

That is right. For those who are asleep on the other side of the Chamber, I say that we are debating Part 2. It will be interesting to hear the wonderful and eloquent arguments as we debate Part 2. I do take my hat off to Mr Finlayson. I know he has led the charge of briefing his members—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

A wise man, is Mr Finlayson! As an eminent barrister he knows deep down that this is not a bad bill. This is something we should do. We should reform and change this. He is not leading the charge. He has probably provided the intellectual grunt behind the debating notes of many of his colleagues, but he knows we should not be spending a lot of time trying to pump this one up. The National Party members have come down here to attack the bill and defeat it. [ Interruption] I can hear them over there. They are really excited about this bill.

This is a streamlining bill. It has been around for a long time. It is part of a series of reforms that allows us to cut through a lot of the bureaucracy. National members say there is too much bureaucracy in our public sector, but when we come to address a number of these issues, what do we see that they do? They attack the legislation, as “Mr Slippery Key” did, and say it is not bureaucratic enough.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

I am indebted to you for your advice, Mr Chair, and I will endeavour to use the term “slippery” in its correct fashion when referring to the Leader of the Opposition—“Slippery John Key”. I am indebted to you for your fine ruling, and I would like to thank Mr Henare for his usual late-night intellectual contribution to the debate—it usually happens at about half-past 9 or 20 to 10.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

He can’t pronounce it!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

I again thank Mr Henare for his great intellectual contribution at 9.30 p.m. The member normally picks his moment. It is a wonderful contribution. He did not make much of a contribution—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

Hang on, he is reverting to type now. He is reverting to type, which is this Porirua public bar, sort of boofhead-type sport box that we have over there. He would actually do well as a bouncer in the Porirua public—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

On Part 2, absolutely. I was talking about naming just at that point, but we will leave it there. Maybe the Geographic Board referred to in Part 2 will find an interesting historic or technical name for Mr Henare. I could think of a number, but it would not be appropriate to use those names in the Chamber.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

I will yield to the member if he likes.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

I am not half as big as the member.

What this bill does is streamline bureaucratic process, and I conclude on the point that National members purport to be the sort of bureaucratic busters who want to rip the insides out of the Public Service, to get rid of what they term as bureaucracy, which is code for front-line services, yet they stand here—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

The member is interjecting on me with the sort of vim and vigour and energy that we have not seen from that side or from that member for many moons—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

Oh yes, that intellectual giant of the National Party has been in more parties than we have had hot dinners. I think he wrote to our party and asked whether he could join it. That member’s contribution—apart from the sort of silliness that we have seen in the last 5 minutes—has been to attack the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill.

I conclude by saying that I look forward to hearing other contributions from the C-team members over there, as it is the height of their careers to come down and do an audition for the front bench and oppose, attack, and try to defeat, which they will not, Part 2, Part 1, Part 3, and Part 4 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. What a great moment. I pay credit to Mr Finlayson, because he is the only member opposite who has used his judgment tonight. He knows that it is good legislation, and he has decided to do some real work, get on with it, and do something productive rather than try to attack this very good bill.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR Link to this

I am not making fun of that. It is the reality that not everyone has been to elocution lessons, not everyone has been to te reo lessons, and some of us struggle, particularly in the South Island, to pronounce Māori names. For that I apologise, but that is the reality of the challenge that each and every one of us faces. Mr Henare, for example—I am not sure whether I pronounced that name right or wrong. I apologise. I do my best. I think we have to move on to more important issues in this Chamber.

I am taking the opportunity to speak on this bill because I am absolutely astounded that National members would want to oppose this bill—for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we are replacing a 1946 Act. I would have thought that even National members would want us to make progress across the country. I guess that if there is one thing National members are stuck in, then it is a time warp. If they are prepared to be linked and locked into a 1946 Act, then God help the country if they were to ever get their hands on the levers of Treasury again. This Government is prepared to review such Acts and to get on and make the changes that might seem insignificant to members opposite, and that might seem unimportant, but none the less they are part of being a responsible Government.

The other thing that absolutely astounds me about the Tories and their opposition to this bill is that I have never known a true Tory who does not want to extend his or her power and authority. There is one thing about a good Tory—Tories know what the value of power is and how to abuse it. This bill extends the territorial power to name areas in the Ross Dependency. I would have thought that a good old-fashioned Tory would seize the opportunity to name such places and to have more authority, because that is what has happened in the past.

If we go back and look at the genesis of this legislation, it goes back to the Royal Geographic Society of London, which had the right to name places in this country. That is right—the Tories back in London made the decisions about place names in this land, Aotearoa. And that, in my view, was wrong back then. Then it moved on to a newer Act, the Designation of Districts Act 1894. Unfortunately, the country was run by a bunch of Tories then, too. They then named places in this country. What we are doing is moving on to rightful authority and the ability to name places in the Ross Dependency and the continental shelf, and we think that is progress. It is moving us on from 1946.

Mr Ardern agrees, so I presume he will be supporting this bill in its passage through this Parliament, as any sensible Tory would do. I know that he is a decent Tory, and there are a few.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR Link to this

Some of my colleagues think that there is no such thing—that it is an oxymoron—but there are a few. Mr Ardern knows how to earn a decent day’s living out on the farm.

The passage of this bill is a sensible use of parliamentary time. The National Party should just get on with it, support the passage of the bill, and move on and change an Act that has governed place names and the authority to make them since 1946.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR Link to this

I say to Mr Ardern that that is what we call progress. He will never know about it, because he will not get the opportunity to make the changes. Kia ora.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

No, I think there is not much ducking of the issue as far as I am concerned, although possibly once or twice it could have been better if I did.

In respect of the consequential amendment to the National Parks Act, I want to check whether it is the Minister of Conservation who is referred to. It is a little unclear on the face of it whether it refers to the Minister for Land Information or the Minister of Conservation. I presume it is the Minister of Conservation, because it is a consequential amendment to the National Parks Act, but I think it is important that we have that clarified. Similarly, with the amendment to the Conservation Act 1987, I think it is almost certainly the Minister of Conservation who has to refer the proposed name to the board, but I ask what the role of the Minister for Land Information is in that particular case. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

The member might, one day, learn something about it—

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

I doubt it too, with Mr Ardern, whether he ever will. Questions of principle are involved in the type of clause that is used for the commencement date and I would be interested in the Minister’s views as to why this is a fixed-date bill as opposed to one that comes into force by way of Order in Council.

But the more substantive question- I would like to ask—and I would be particularly interested in the contribution from members of the Māori Party and even from my Māori colleagues from the National Party, as well as Louisa Wall—is about the style of the title. This bill in fact looks like it was styled on an approach taken by my former colleague the Hon Koro Wētere in, I think, about 1986 or 1987 when he made a decision on the naming of Taranaki. He said it could be Egmont - Taranaki, Taranaki - Egmont, or Egmont, or Taranaki, which provided a fair range of choice for people to adopt the name they thought appropriate for the mountain. I find it slightly interesting, in respect of the member for Taranaki - King Country, that people have taken a different approach in this. I think the vast majority of younger people from outside Taranaki call the mountain Taranaki, but it seems to be that the closer people get to the snow, and the closer they get to the mountain, the more likely it is to be called Egmont. The approach taken by New Zealanders just in that area is a fascinating thing.

However, putting that to one side, it is clear that the title of this bill, in the way it is shaped, is quite unusual in that it has picked up that style. It is called the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and it may also be cited as either the New Zealand Geographic Board Bill or Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa Bill. I want to ask colleagues, the Minister, Georgina, Tau, Tariana, and Mr Flavell, who are in the Chamber today, as well as Louisa Wall, whether they think that this style of approach is one that could be more generally used for the titling of bills in New Zealand. This is an interesting approach; it has not only bracketed Māori but also uses Māori as an alternative in the title of the bill. It seems to me to be an interesting and useful approach. But one of the things I am wondering is whether it should be applied only when it is so close to naming things or whether it is a more general style that could be applied around other legislation, as well. It is an interesting question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

I would be very tempted to say, if I were filibustering, that there is quite a nice guy who actually lives in Wellington but is running for Parliament in Hutt South—a guy called Paul Quinn. I was interested to hear John Key on the radio say that Paul Quinn could go in the top 20 on the National Party list. If I were Tau Henare or Georgina, or even Pita Sharples, and there was a discussion about who might be Minister of Māori Affairs in the long term—if the National Party ever got to Government—and I heard that Paul Quinn was going to be parachuted over the top, I would be a little bit annoyed. I am not sure, when we translate Paul Quinn, what we actually get, but it is—

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

That is a case of the member being just too slow in seeking the call, which is not particularly surprising as far as the member is concerned. He is too slow, they all say he is too slow, and he is even too slow to run away from television reporters on occasions.

Getting back to the bill, I am actually trying to stimulate some interest on the part of the Māori Party in the titling of this bill and to get a reaction as to whether this is the sort of form that they think we should adopt more generally. To me it seems logical, but there is a choice. The choice is whether we include the Māori translation in the title or have it as an alternative citation—to have either the English title or the Māori title, or a combined title that has both. There is a real question about whether that is the right approach. It is one that I have not seen. I have been here for a number of years and I have not seen a title in quite this format before. I introduced a bill this afternoon and it was titled only in English. [Interruption] The member might say that is disgraceful; I do not think it is. It is the normal form when introducing a bill. We do not normally have this sort of approach when a bill is introduced.

I ask the Minister, David Parker, whether he consulted the Minister of Māori Affairs or any other person on this matter, whether parliamentary counsel are using this bill as an experiment, and whether it is an approach they are likely to take in the future in the drafting of legislation of a more general type that does not go into naming. I think this is an important bill, but as part of an important bill there are some principles involved around the style of the titling. My inclination is to say the style of titling could be more generally extended to other legislation if there was support around the Chamber for that sort of approach, but it would not be something that I would want to impose on members without broad discussion.

BRIAN CONNELL Link to this

I prefaced my remarks by saying that I looked at the title and, in order to understand the title, I referred members to the purpose clause—so that we could better understand what was intended by the title of the bill. Now, had the Minister not spent 10 minutes boring members to death we might have all been awake and heard that. Obviously he did not hear the distinction, but I am sure, Madam Chair, that you did hear it.

BRIAN CONNELL Link to this

Thank you, Madam Chair. My point was that nothing is changing very much at all with the exception, of course—as the Minister in the chair pointed out—that the Crown now wants the ability to rename the Ross Dependency. I noticed when he was taking a call that he could not find that name. If that is the principal purpose, then the bill could have been simply amended, and the name could have been the “Ross Dependency Amendment Bill” rather than members being taken through the charade we have been subjected to this evening.

I find it incredible that the “bantam from Waimak” came down to the Chamber, stood up—and he proved to us that he will not go much further in this House, judging by his stature—and said that National has the C team in the Chamber tonight. I did a count of the number of Ministers who had been on their feet taking calls. It was not one; the number comes after five and is before seven. We have had six Ministers in the Committee, filibustering. Do members know what is happening when they filibuster about the title of a bill? Do members know what they are doing? They are showing the status of this administration—the height of this administration—when they dust off their filibustering skills. They know that in a very short time that is what they will be doing day after day and night after night.

I have to say that if that is the best that Trevor Mallard can do around the title debate of a bill of this importance, then, oh boy, he is in for a very slow ride in this House. The Minister, when he was talking about the bill, also dismissed the concerns that my colleagues raised about clause 24 in particular, by saying that a change to a name without consultation would be very—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

I did get it wrong.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

I apologise to the member. I acknowledge that the name of his electorate is Rakaia and, as I was saying, I know that the people of Rakaia will remember him as they are riveted to the spot listening to him on their radios tonight. They know that his major contribution, probably his most significant contribution, in his political career was a last-ditch stand—sort of Custer’s last stand—to try to defeat clause 1, “Title”, and clause 2, “Commencement”, of this bill. As I said, and Madam Chair knows history better than I—and I am sure Gerry Brownlee would agree with me—they will put up monuments and statues to this learned member. This day will go down and be recorded in the annals of Rakaia’s history as the day Mr Connell—and I do hope I pronounced that name correctly—the member for Rakaia, attempted to defeat clauses 1 and 2 of a bill.

In essence, what is this bill about? It is about streamlining a very, very old piece of legislation, an exceptional piece—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

When it comes to hot air, that member is a human blunderbuss. The billows over there in the front row blow pretty regularly for that member to make a wonderful contribution.

It amazes me that the National Party, the anti-bureaucratic party, would spend all its energy—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

Now it has brought the big hitter from Ilam, the member for Ilam, Gerry Brownlee—the big bazooka—who has come down here to put a bit of energy into the team because its members are flailing a bit and to have a crack at attacking clause 1.

What does clause 2 say? It simply says that this Act will come into force on 1 July 2008. How on earth could one disagree with that? How on earth could one disagree with a bill that seeks to reform and renew a very old Act, and that seeks to strip away some of the bureaucratic stuff that was around in respect of the naming of the continental shelf and other areas to assert our sovereignty over those areas? Who on earth could disagree with that? I am sure the punters, the real people, who sit outside this place listening tonight are scratching their heads asking, firstly, who is Brian Connell and, secondly, why is he wasting our time trying to attack and defeat what is a pretty logical bill. Normally, we have to say—and I am sure others may agree—that this is a sort of bipartisan bill. There is not a lot of politics in it. But maybe it is audition time—maybe they want the member for Ilam’s job. I do not know.