New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15886] 
New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 10 April. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to speak in the third reading debate on the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. This has been a most interesting debate despite the weak defence put up by the National Party and its mad decision not to support this very straightforward simple but very important bill. 
We have learnt a lot about the importance of names naming and pronunciation. We have all been reminded that Maori is an official language of New Zealand and that we all must make more effort. We have considered many examples of geographic features and the reasons for the names and we have talked about the importance of showing respect to each other in the House by endeavouring to call people by their correct names. [ 
Interruption 
] We have been reminded for the benefit of Sandra Goudie that this bill is important as it updates a 60-year-old law—and what is wrong with that? 
The bill contains some important provisions that were not in the original Act. One of those provisions is the extension of the jurisdiction rights of the board over the continental shelf. The continental shelf has Ruapehu-size volcanoes ravines up to 1 kilometre deep and sedimentary drift deposits up to 1 kilometre thick. The continental shelf is very important to New Zealand. It is over six times the area of the land mass of mainland New Zealand and it includes approximately 1.7 million square kilometres of continental shelf outside our exclusive economic zone. Right now it is the subject of increasing research and activity. So extending the board’s role as this bill does to naming features of the continental shelf will play a part in New Zealand’s effective management of the undersea resources in our area. 
I would have thought that the National members would see that as a priority. But no they have chosen to ridicule this bill and the board to focus on phantoms and imaginary problems and to take up hours and hours of select committee time for what should have been the straightforward modernisation of legislation that did need updating. 
The bill also recognises the Crown’s responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi in the context of the collection and use of original Maori names and geographic features on official maps and charts. As we have noted the Geographic Board already plays an important part in providing advice in proposed cultural redress for Treaty claim settlements where place names are involved—for example in the official name of Aoraki - Mount Cook. 
During the select committee process the Government Administration Committee received a small number of submissions all of which were positive about the bill—and the chairperson the esteemed Shane Ardern agrees with me. Two submitters said the bill did not go far enough in regard to Maori names and wanted to see a role for the board to restore Maori place names for all localities in Aotearoa. Another submitter said he believed that the board had not been strong enough in its policing of correct names for natural features such as original names assigned by Maori. The same person wanted the board to consider renaming New Zealand. Indeed some people might argue that “New Zealand” is actually a misspelt Dutch name and as such is no longer appropriate for our country but clause 8(2) states: “the Board does not have jurisdiction to assign a name to or alter the name of New Zealand.” 
It is also important to remember that this bill came about after a comprehensive review and public consultation process involving the public— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh get off the grass! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Does the member disagree with that? She might like to take a call and say exactly how the consultation process was deficient; otherwise she should just bear with me. 
The consultation process involved the public iwi central and local government and sector groups and it should have proceeded with little fuss. So it has been perplexing to say the least to try to unravel National’s objections to the bill. Some National members have said that the bill should not be in the House at all because it was not important enough. I do not think we can say that 1.7 million square kilometres of continental shelf is not important. The changes that the Labour Government has proposed are sensible and reasonable but the objections the National Party is raising are not. 
National claims that clause 24 gives a new discretion on whether to consult the public before a place name is changed and National states in its minority report that it believes it is a fundamental right for all New Zealanders to be involved in this decision-making process. Well that is news. Although the bill does not hamper public consultation National members complained about added bureaucracy. Then they came into the Chamber for the second reading and the Committee stage and complained about there not being enough. I ask you! In any case clause 24 which National has objected to applies only to recorded names and discontinued official geographic names and not to new name proposals or alterations of a name. 
National members claimed that clause 23 would mean enormous costs to businesses because only official names had to be in official documents such as those defined in clause 4. As the Minister pointed out during the Committee stage this is a provision in section 18 of the existing Act of 1946 though that section is worded a bit differently and it may be just too hard for the National members to get their heads around it. Let me read section 18 “Names in maps scientific manuscripts or tourist publications”. It states: “(1) No person shall publish or cause to be published in any geographic or scientific manuscript or publication or in any guide book handbook pamphlet road map or other publication intended for the use of travellers or tourists generally or on any map in any such manuscript or publication as aforesaid any name purporting to be the name of any place locality or natural feature in New Zealand to which any provision of this Act applies unless the name appears on a map previously published by or under the direction or control of the Surveyor-General or is a name assigned to or approved for that place locality or natural feature pursuant to this Act:”. 
When I talked about phantoms and problems that do not exist that was what I was referring to. We are dealing with a bill that rewrites an old Act and puts it into modern language and maybe that is just too difficult for some National members to get their heads around. This has been a very interesting bill to deal with despite National’s position. I have been offended to hear some National members branding this bill as tinkering. On the one hand the bill is just tinkering but on the other hand National members oppose it. 
We should not underestimate the importance of the role of the Geographic Board. Our boundaries and our land features and the names of the places 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. Members on this side of the House and other parties such as the Greens the Maori Party New Zealand First and United Future all know that the official naming of geographic features is important to communities and needs to be dealt with seriously. 
I take another opportunity to thank the officials for their patient advice and to thank the patient members of the select committee for the interesting background information and indeed for the debate we have had on this bill which has been very educational. I am pleased to support the third reading of this bill. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is with some concern tonight that I rise in opposition to the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and I ask Mr Flavell to talk to me later about whether I got the pronunciation right. Some concern has been expressed as to why we oppose this bill but let me tell members as a member of the Queen’s honourable Opposition that one of the hallmarks of this Government is overwhelmingly to provide the Opposition with something to oppose and it has done so in this bill. I hasten to add that it is difficult to find the real mischievous socialist undoing in this bill but it has provided us with ample reason to oppose the bill. 
I want to share with the House the minority report of National members of the Government Administration Committee. “National members recognise the role of the New Zealand Geographic Board under the existing legislation. There appears to be nothing wrong with the way the current legislation is operating and accordingly National members see no need for change.” That is clear. There is no ambiguity about that statement. 
The bill we are currently debating no doubt came about as a result of a range of various submissions to the Minister that there needed to be some modernisation of the 1946 Act. But during the submission process at the select committee and from the advice of the officials the select committee members could find nothing in what they put forward that would require this legislative change. We then looked deeper to find out what the bill does. We found a bit of positive stuff so it is not all negative. 
The bill provides for a number of new functions to be carried out by the board including new administrative functions in relation to the official naming of geographical features not only within the territorial limits of New Zealand but also on the continental shelf and in the Ross Dependency. So we asked the officials what happens now and why there was suddenly a need for legislation to make this a process that is easy to carry out. The officials came back to us and said that what happens now is no different from what will happen in the future. 
There is an international discussion as one would expect there would have to be when we are talking about areas that are outside our economic zone or outside our jurisdiction. I will not use the term “united nations” because it is not under the United Nations but there is a South Pacific forum I guess one could describe it as that meets and discusses these issues—although the United States obviously has an interest in that from time to time as well—and it comes to a binding agreement amongst the nations. Hence National members asked why there was a need to change the current Act and we could not find one. So at the end of the day we were unable to uncover the reasons why this bill is before the House today and why we have gone through this process. 
An additional concern raised by National members was the impact of clauses 32 and 33 on private entities that are affected by the definition of “official document” and the requirements for the use of official names for geographic features. The reasons for the concerns are simple. A lot of people have a strong affinity with various areas. There are cultural reasons for various names being used in different ways. 
Business operators and tourism activities also use those names in their promotional material and in literature they provide not only to their customers but also to the Inland Revenue Department and various other Government agencies to explain what they are involved in. Potentially the introduction of this new proposal this clause relating to an official name could impose a layer of compliance requirements on these operators that is completely unnecessary and no evidence was brought to the select committee to show why this change was necessary in the first place. The National members of the committee opposed the provision on that basis. 
The commercial impact on tourism as I have just said could be very significant if for example a board took a business operator to the High Court for failing to comply with clause 32. Many tourist attractions hold their appeal because of their colloquial names popular names or the names they use in the promotion of their activity. All sorts of different activities around New Zealand spring up as a result of an attachment to an identity. 
The final argument put to the select committee and debated was the sensitivity and consultation that takes place around the process of changing names. I give the example of Taranaki and its mountain which has always been known by local iwi as Mount Taranaki and that is where the province got its name from. But of course Captain Cook sailed past and he looked at the mountain and said it looked like Mount Egmont so he called it Mount Egmont. That is what it was commonly known as by most Europeans until about 10 years ago when local iwi said that it was wrong that it was Taranaki and that they wanted the name changed back to Mount Taranaki. It did not matter which name one preferred to believe or which name one accepted it was changed back to Taranaki. Most maps show it as Mount Taranaki and people who travel through Taranaki know it as either Taranaki or Egmont depending on their preference. The New Zealand Geographic Board was able to accommodate that change. 
The other argument put forward was that a lot of the European names that had been adopted were not the original names and that that was wrong. I used the example in previous speeches that when one drives around the coast of Taranaki one starts in South Taranaki where there is Manaia Oeo Pihama Opunake Oaonui Rahotu Warea— 
Hone Harawira 
: That’s enough Shane. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: How far does one need to go to realise that not all of Taranaki was named by Captain Cook when he sailed past? The reality is that those names have both cultural and iwi significance. They also have a great colloquial meaning and people accept that that is what they are. Even though the Act was introduced in 1946 there is absolutely no need for Parliament to be addressing this issue tonight. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e hoa ma i tenei po. Nau mai hoki mai ki te Whare ki te taupatupatu i nga take o te wa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us fellow members of Parliament tonight. Welcome back to the House to debate current business 
.] 
The importance of correct pronunciation and respect for a region or territory is centuries old. My colleague Mr Hone Harawira referred me to the Bible to Judges 12:6. We all know that Hone Harawira is a fine upstanding citizen of St Stephen’s School. I listened to him and I took down this quote. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask members to listen to this because it is very important. 
“Then said they unto him Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him and slew him at the passes of Jordan”.  
How awesome that quote is! They slew him at the passes of Jordan. In the days of the Old Testament mispronunciation bore a price obviously.  
This bill the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill made me return to the wisdom of times gone by and wonder whether the lazy or downright careless mispronunciation of geographic names should also carry a price. Death? Maybe not. Flogging? No that is a little bit tough. Sitting next to Hone Harawira? Now that could be good.  
We in the Maori Party can I say have been appreciative of the way in which this particular legislation has stimulated such a wide-ranging and thought-provoking debate about the importance of nomenclature—the selection of names. During the course of this bill we were duly advised by Darien Fenton Sandra Goudie Tau Henare and others of the correct pronunciation of their names—and the House should be suitably equipped now to pronounce the names of Tariana Turia Te Ururoa Flavell Pita Sharples and Hone Harawira with due respect and regard to the tupuna names that we carry. I am also impressed by the way in which my offer of help was taken up by some members of the House and it has been very pleasing throughout the debate to observe the efforts that some members have made to take care with the pronunciation of the geographic place names under consideration.  
There is just one more development that is needed and that is the correct pronunciation of Maori names outside of the discussion on this bill—even the word “Maori” and probably “Taranaki” I would suspect. I have a quick pronunciation sheet available here for all members of the House. I have prepared it as a follow-up so that in the future members can get it right.  
The debate has also provoked a lot of interest in the outside world. I have received emails informing me of the meaning of the names of such places as Te Urewera Panekaka and Kaikiore; advising me that Putauaki is not Mount Edgecumbe and never will be; and reminding me that Ranana is not London and that it is best that we all learn to tell the difference between those names. Naming rights are the way in which we demonstrate our respect for the origins and heritage of the place belonging to the name or more particularly for the name that belongs to the place. The bill will establish the development of rules protocols and guidelines to enable a systematic and standardised approach to the official naming of geographic features. We would hope that this systematic and standardised approach will benefit from the pearls of wisdom shared in the debating chamber over these last couple of weeks.  
Last year as part of the Speaker’s delegation to Europe I was made aware of the protocols that have been adopted in Sweden which require that all new names must have a linguistic form that is compatible with the Swedish language. The Swedish Names Act recommends that any names whose composition pronunciation or spelling are such that their linguistic form is not appropriate as surnames in Sweden will not be accepted by the Swedish Patent and Registration Office. As we debated in this House the standing of the two official languages of Aotearoa—te reo Maori and New Zealand Sign Language—and the de facto language of common use English I have wondered indeed about which language would inform the naming of geographic features and of the Crown protected areas. Would te reo Maori for example be the standard against which all geographic names would be approved? Which histories are honoured; whose ancestors are recognised?  
In her 2001 doctorate thesis  
Tihei Mauri Ora: Honouring our Voices 
 Dr Leonie Pihama describes the possibility of renaming of the places around her home town Waitara because those streets commemorate for example the chief Crown purchasing agent a guy called Donald MacLean; the Governor Gore Browne the Hon Alfred Domett Colonial Secretary at the outbreak of the Maori war; Robert Parris the civil commissioner of Taranaki who was intimately connected to the conflict at Waitara; Lieutenant Blake of HMS  
Niger 
; Governor Sir George Grey; and so on. We can imagine how the iwi of Te Atiawa feel every day travelling down MacLean Browne Domett Parris Blake and Grey Streets and recognising the history that comes with those names. We can imagine also how they would feel travelling down streets that recognise the special histories and people of Ngati Rahiri Otaraua Pukerangiora Puketapu Ngati Tawhirikura Manukorihi Ngati Tuparikino Ngati Te Whiti and Hamua.  
I would suggest that we need a new approach. Can I say that the open-minded approach of most members of this House in considering the significance of geographical names is the type of approach that we would seek at both the national and territorial level regarding naming decisions. I say that because we noted that there was a clear consensus throughout the submissions on whether the board naming decisions should be made binding or advisory only. There was some support for retaining the status quo: what could be considered to be a mix of both binding and advisory powers. Currently most board decisions are final and binding but the board is also able to act in an advisory capacity when it receives objections to a name proposal. In those circumstances a board recommendation is sent to the Minister for a final decision. 
This latter example was the situation that confronted the Minister in March 2005 when the Geographic Board sought to correct the spelling of Mount Parahaki in Whangarei to Mount Parihaka. Mount Parihaka for those who are not aware was the site of a very substantial pa in pre-European times and comes under the care of the Te Parawhau hapu as tangata whenua in the Whangarei region. Now the Minister was required to make a decision under section 13 of the Act on whether to confirm modify or reverse the board’s recommendation. One matter that was indeed of crucial importance to both the board and the Minister was whether an original Maori place name existed. In coming to the point of decision making there was unanimous agreement between the various Maori groups represented at the meeting on 14 June 2005 that Parihaka was the name that had always been used in their oratory on marae. As the case developed it became apparent that although the Native Land Court had sometimes got Maori names wrong the oral record by chant and repetition keeps the correct pronunciation coming through in its original form. The board was assured that Parihaka was the name that Maori were using in the 19th century and earlier. Accordingly the Minister confirmed the correction of the name back to Parihaka. 
I wanted to share that case study in some depth as it represents to me an excellent and robust process. It is important that we remember there are processes that work that there are people who believe in consultation and that there are local government authorities that do respect mana whenua. Sometimes when some of our more media-hungry mayors hit the airwaves yet again with their pet hate we can overlook the positives that do happen. 
I was thinking about that yesterday when Wanganui mayor Michael Laws instructed residents that any move to add an “h” to the name of Wanganui “will be fiercely resisted”. Yes here he is—“Mr Mohio”; “Mr Knowledgable” of Maori names pronunciation history and culture. You see Te Runanga o Tupoho a local iwi committee has petitioned the New Zealand Geographic Board to put the “h” in Wanganui so as to spell the city “Whanganui”. The Maori Party says it is a fundamental human right to ensure that the integrity of local language is upheld. Whanganui was the name given to the area by an ancestor over 600 years ago. It acknowledges the existence identity and status of tangata whenua. It was tangata whenua who originally named the geographic features of the district and retaining their tribal spelling is all about respecting that special relationship. Yet the local authority the Wanganui District Council slaps them in the face by describing their decision to retain the traditional spelling of the name “Whanganui” as a “needlessly provocative gesture”. Well give me a break! 
In closing I say that in that issue there could not be a more dramatic departure from the precedent established by the people of Whangarei. We will support this bill in the optimistic hope that the legislation we are debating today will enable a benchmark for best practice to assist wayward councils back into processes that serve not to undermine and belittle but to honour and respect the relationship they have with tangata whenua. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to rise to speak against the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill—and I do not mind in the least if members pronounce my name wrong. This bill from the outset lacked good problem definition. That is actually a hallmark of this current Government. Whenever it is putting legislation through the House it lacks good problem definition so what we get is usually legislation that is less than robust and full of difficulty and conflict. This bill will be another one of these bills. There would be only a few dozen people who are aware of the bill’s existence. Largely the New Zealand population is unaware of this bill unaware of the provisions of the bill and unaware of what the potential outcomes of this bill will be. We heard about those potential outcomes from the previous speaker. We heard a reference to the renaming of names in the Waikato so we could see a plethora of Maori names being promoted for use in the Waikato. 
One of the key concerns around the bill is the fact that there are some new provisions outside what is currently in legislation. The provisions include board places for two additional Maori or iwi representatives and there is now discretion on the part of the board as to whether it is going to consult. That is a serious issue. There were only about 17 submissions to the discussion document and there were only about 5 submissions to the actual bill which I consider hugely disappointing. But the majority of submissions to the discussion document supported the requirement to consult the public. I think that is absolutely imperative because place names are important to people. My learned colleague was also talking about the cost in regard to place names and I will cover that a little bit later. 
The purposes of the bill are outlined at the beginning of it. They are about widening the powers of the board and the bill certainly does that. The board can now collect Maori place names and the Maori place names and any other name that has been collected to date may be validated without further referral to the public then becoming official place names. The effect of an official place name is this. Let us take the example of Wanganui and the adding of just an “h” to its name. If public bodies and any brochures or documentation used by tourists or for travel or whatever have to change the name that they currently have from Wanganui to Whanganui—I am not sure how we pronounce it—by adding an “h” there is a cost to that. If they have to completely change a name there is a huge cost to that. That has a much greater burden of cost on local authorities and commercial enterprises that use geographic place names as part of their tourist promotion. 
If the official geographic place name is not used some words have to be added. For example if we take people for a walk down to Sarah’s Gully and it is instead called Onewhero but we want to keep the name Sarah’s Gully we have the name Sarah’s Gully on a sign but underneath that name there has to be put the words “not the official name”. That is only if the official name is not used; if the official name is used of course that does not have to be done. But if the official name is not used there has to be put underneath the name Sarah’s Gully the words “This is not the official name.” I have not heard of anything more impractical or more dumb in my entire life. Well actually I have because quite a lot of that sort of thing goes on in the legislation of the current Government. 
These are just some of the things members will find in this bill—this innocuous little bill that everybody thinks is fine and is going to be OK. But I tell members we will see continuations of bun fights up and down the country. We have them already on occasion. Simpsons Beach at Whitianga now has the place name Wharekaho. That is put in big letters and underneath in smaller letters in brackets is Simpsons Beach. So what are we going to see? 
Some of the other functions of the board—as set out in clause 11—are to collect original Maori names for recording on official charts and official maps. What will that mean if the board has a function to collect original Maori place names throughout the country? What will that mean in terms of how official names will be required to be used over and above the other names that are already there? This is not readily apparent. If these names are validated without going out to public consultation how are communities going to react to no longer being able to use their local colloquial names? Will we see a plethora of dual names throughout the country and will people want to see that? People go crazy enough about seeing so many billboards sandwich boards etc. now. 
The new discretionary powers of the board that allow it to not have to give public notice and consequently not publicly consult apply to a range of areas. They apply to the alteration of a name of a district or region geographic features outside territorial limits the adoption of existing names for undersea features the process for review and the validation of certain names. If an official geographic name exists—and bear in mind that it is the function of the Geographic Board to collect those names—then it has to be used. If it is not used then one has to put in a little statement that “this is not an official geographic name.” The organisations that have to do that are all public authorities anybody producing brochures for travel or tourist operators that use place names. Let us just think about that. Here is another cost on local authorities another burden on ratepayers that they do not want. No organisation will provide the funding assistance necessary if it has to start changing a plethora of place names. That is certainly a possible consequence resulting from the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. Do the public know that? No they have not got a clue. The problem definition certainly was not done. 
There has not been a problem with the current legislation. Why change it? One of the new areas in the bill is clause 6 “Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”. It refers to those sections that come under some of the other functions of the bill which is about collecting those official geographic names. 
As my learned colleague Shane Ardern pointed out there is potential added cost if public bodies or commercial entities do not use the official geographic name and do not enter the statement that it is not an official geographic name. An injunction may be granted by the court to the Geographic Board in regard to the use of a name but the board will actually be exempt from any damages. It might be able to bring a claim against a local authority or a commercial entity about the fact that it is not using an official geographic name and it will be exempt from damages while a tourist venture could be crippled as a result of any action taken. 
The Human Rights Commission has stated: “Schedule 1 could be seen as giving rise to indirect discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origins because Maori are more likely than non-Maori to have knowledge of tikanga Maori. Non-Maori could therefore be disadvantaged in appointments to the Board. It could also be argued that clause 11(1) appears to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnic origin because it gives the Board a specific direction to collect and encourage the use of Maori placenames. There is no such direction in respect of non-Maori place names which could be of equal importance to these groups. Whether this would result in disadvantage to Maori is not clear however we have considered clause 11(1) further on the basis that it could be prima facie inconsistent with section 19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act.” 
I am very proud to stand here and oppose this bill on behalf of National. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I see that the Maori Party has castigated some of the members of the House for the mispronunciation of “Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa”. I want to congratulate those people who consider the pronunciation of one of the official languages of New Zealand. We are in a time when we should not be lazy about the pronunciation of New Zealand’s mother tongue whether it be English or Maori. 
Sandra Goudie 
: There is no need to get precious about it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well it is not about being precious. It is about loving one’s nation. It is actually about nationalism. 
The reason I say that is that during the adjournment I happened to walk past a second-hand book store and for five bucks I purchased  
I George Nepia 
. I have just finished reading  
I George Nepia 
 which tells the story of one of this country’s icons. The thing that I got from reading about that man was his nationalism his love for his country—not Maori not Pakeha not English not Maori but his country—and everything that went with it; his rugby the way he did things and the way he saw the world. All it came down to I believe—and I could be wrong; I have been wrong before—is that he had respect for his nation. He loved his nation and he had respect for his nation—for the hills the valleys and the rivers—and he enjoyed everything in his nation to the utmost. 
So as I talk about the pronunciation of one of the mother tongues of this nation I say that I believe that English is one of the mother tongues as well and that it too should be enshrined somewhere in our legislation alongside Maori—which it is not actually at the moment. So we need to do something about that in the future. 
Anyway I go back to what we are talking about which is the New Zealand Geographic Board. If one is going to move that Maori language be incorporated in the name of this bill then one should actually try one’s hardest to pronounce it correctly. Some people do some people do not. I think it is intergenerational laziness— 
Hone Harawira 
: That’s a big word. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What—laziness? It is for the member from Te Tai Tokerau! The member from Te Tai Tokerau would know a big word like “laziness” but I will leave it there. 
I want to wade into the debate about Wanganui and Whanganui and the use of the letter “h” by Mr Laws up in that lovely place Wanganui. I think we should leave it up to the people up there to decide. Leave it up to the people— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: The Maori people. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No. You see this is the problem we get into if it is left to only one sector of society to have a say. Why does not everybody have a say about it put it all into the pot and let the elected officials go about their business? The Maori Party says no to letting the elected officials go about their business and I suppose that is their democratic right but it is also the democratic right of the council up in Wanganui to decide on whether to have the “h” inserted. Is it a big issue? I do not think it is and do members know why? Well let us say that tomorrow we get a rush of blood to the head and we insert the “h”. What would that do for the nation of Aotearoa or New Zealand? Well it would not sort out the educational strife that our people are in. It certainly would not stop the dairies in Moerewa selling stuff to our young people. It certainly would not stop the P epidemic that is flourishing in our neighbourhoods. Look I say we should leave it to the locals. Here is a funny story. Well I think it is funny. Just outside of Whangarei north of Whangarei by maybe 29 minutes as the crow flies there is a place called Towai. There is a little pub on the left-hand side. 
John Carter 
: What is it called? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is called Towai—T-o-w-a-i. 
John Carter 
: “Toe-why”. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is absolutely correct. You know John Carter has said the correct pronunciation of what everybody else in the nation thinks is “Tor-wai”. It is not “Tor-wai”. Some bright spark forgot to put in the “u” and its correct pronunciation is “Toe-why”. So I congratulate Mr Carter on his correct pronunciation of that name. 
In Whangarei itself we have had the battle over what name we should give Parihaka one of the maunga one of the mountains in the area. I think that whether it is “Para-haki” or “Parry-haka” is a moot point. It is not “Parry-haka” as far as I am concerned. I have never known it to be “Parry-haka”. I had never ever heard it called “Parry-haka” by any of the kaumatua in the mid-north until someone had a bright spark and said it was called “Parry-haka”. Well it is not and that is the problem with these boards. 
This legislation is a complete waste of the House’s time—a complete waste. It shows a Government that does not have much to do apart from buying a few train sets. There is nothing in this bill that is new or that enhances the Geographic Board’s work. The bill fiddles around with the edges and I take the point made by the speaker just before me Sandra “Goo-dee”— 
Hone Harawira 
: “Gow-dee”. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh sorry. I apologise for my mispronunciation. That was as in the words of the great poet from Tai Tokerau “lazy”. 
I will talk about the Treaty of Waitangi. How this bill has anything to do with the Treaty of Waitangi is completely beyond me. Clause 6 “Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” has three paragraphs. Paragraph (a) states: “section 11(1)(d) confers on the Board the function of collecting original Maori names of geographic features for recording on official charts and official maps;”. Paragraph (b) states: “section 11(1)(e) confers on the Board the function of encouraging the use of original Maori names of geographic features on official charts and official maps;”. Again what that has to do with the Treaty of Waitangi is beyond me. Maybe someone from the Maori Party can get up and elucidate on how that has anything to do with the Treaty of Waitangi. Further clause 6(c) states: “clause 1(2)(a) of Schedule 1 requires 2 persons to be appointed to the Board on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs.” 
Goodness gracious me! Is that what we have come to? After 169-odd years of being a nation the Minister of Maori Affairs is now doing a wonderful job by recommending two people to sit on that board. Why do we not just appoint two people who are good for the job? Let us get Cabinet the Government to do that. It is a radical suggestion but let us appoint people because they can do the job. That would be really really great. Let us have faith that Governments can appoint people not because they are Maori but because they can do the job that is expected of them. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I confess to the House that I had not even looked at this bill before tonight but I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate and I am happy to support my colleagues in the National Party and to say that I too do not believe that we should support this bill. I can find no justification for it. There is an old adage that says “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” It has not been clearly laid out for me what is broken—what actually needs to be fixed. We in the National Party have looked at a number of layers of things that this Government has done across a whole range of areas and we see that they have all ended up with one result: more bureaucracy more office space in Wellington and more central control. 
I am going to talk a little bit later about nomenclature about a place name that is important to me and why and about why I think this bill will not help the cause. I am already involved in a process of determining the appropriate correct geographical name of a significant part of New Zealand. 
But first in looking at this bill I am quite intrigued by a lot of it. As I said it establishes a bureaucracy. It continues the Geographic Board which is to determine appropriate names. We have heard quite a bit in this debate tonight about the appropriateness adequacy or correctness of pronunciation. That is an entirely different issue. It is about education. It is about a desire to actually get it right and we should all want to get it right. It is a separate issue and creating a board in Wellington will not change the attitude of the nation in terms of their desire to give the correct pronunciation. That is the first point I would make. 
When I look at what the functions of the board are I see that under clause 10 one function is to “assign an official geographic name”. So the official geographic names we have got are wrong? Well in some cases they are. Then the question is how the board would know what the correct name was. When we look at the board’s other functions which are detailed in clause 11 we see that it has been given incredible powers. Under clause 11(1)(a) it may “adopt policies rules standards protocols guidelines or similar instruments for carrying out its own functions”. Well what a huge responsibility that is. 
But supposing that at the end of the day the board actually does not get it right; what is the critique process or the review process? What happens if the Geographic Board goes bad? What would we do then? Well hello! We are not told. What if it cannot actually work out what a name should be after going through the whole process prescribed in this bill and using all its powers? Well members should have a look at clause 20; that should make them feel better! If the board cannot determine what a name should be this is what happens: “(1) If the Board does not make a determination under section 19(1) it must report in writing to the Minister” and “(2) The Minister after making any inquiry he or she thinks fit may determine the proposal …”. So we set up a board but at the end of the day if it cannot get it right the Minister makes a determination and there is no other review process. I think that is not the right way to determine something as important as a geographic name. 
Let me explain my interest in this. I live in a small rural district in the lee of the Hokonuis. It has different names depending on which map one looks at. On most road maps of New Zealand—on those in which it appears because it is quite a small district—it is Te Tipua. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What is it? 
ERIC ROY 
: Te Tipua. But the locals across most of Southland call it “Titty-poo”. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What is that—call it what? 
ERIC ROY 
: “Titty-poo”. That is what it is known as. That is clearly the incorrect pronunciation—or is it? 
Sandra Goudie 
: No— 
ERIC ROY 
: Just hold on; I will explain. The interesting thing is that a nephew said to me one day: “Uncle Eric it must be really bad living in a place whose name has two swear words in it.” Just by chance— 
Hon Member 
: Which one’s the swear word? 
ERIC ROY 
: —the middle one—this year is the sesquicentennial of this august district. In the course of the celebrations of the centenary of the school and the sesquicentennial of the district I have been trying to determine the original name. All the original maps have it as “Titipua”—one word. But interestingly when the education board got involved in 1907—it created a school—it decided without consulting anybody that the correct spelling was ”Te Tipua”. 
Some of my colleagues may wish to correct my interpretation of te reo but “te tipua” means the devil the goblin the ogre or the spirit. That is my understanding. Maybe the board named it after the schoolteacher—I do not know. Also the river has not changed its name; it is still Titipua but the district is called Te Tipua which the locals pronounce “Titty-poo”. As part of the sesquicentennial celebrations I determined that we would sort out all this stuff and find the correct name. There is only one place after all. 
The interesting thing is that the district was originally native reed tussock country. I wonder whether the name “Titipua” comes from “titi” the sooty shearwater—although the district is a long way from the coast. I asked my learned colleague Tau Henare about it; I have asked everybody. I do not have any confidence that the Geographic Board could determine it. I have asked every single te reo - speaking person of authority including Tau Henare what it means. Tau’s missus gave me— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that he should use a member’s full name. 
ERIC ROY 
: Tau Henare’s wife his lady gave me the best interpretation I have heard. Maybe she should be on the Geographic Board. She said that “pua” is the seed of reed grass. I can see that that would be a good explanation of the name of the district given that it was reed tussock country. It is far far better than a name meaning “the ogre” because that could refer to me or to anybody else living there. 
But my point is this. There is a whole range of names like that out there and I do not have any confidence that the Geographic Board would come any closer to determining and sorting out what those names should be. I have spent about 10 years on this project and I cannot find anybody in New Zealand of authority who can determine what the correct name is so the decision will fall back to the Minister. Tau Henare made the point originally that the locals should decide and should have some say. That certainly makes a whole lot more sense to me than our creating a whole bureaucracy that may not be able to resolve the matter. Quite clearly names capture identity. They are significant and important things. There is a great deal of feeling around them. The local ethos is captured in them. 
Let me conclude by saying that this bill might be a principled bill but it will not resolve the issue of pronunciation. I suggest that it will not resolve the complex issue of what precisely and exactly is the correct name. For that reason National members say that it is unnecessary that it will be ineffectual and that it is most unlikely to add anything to the geographic distinction of any place in New Zealand. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I have made a number of speeches in this House and I think that recently when speaking in the first reading of this New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill I was criticised for my pronunciation. I apologise if I cannot pronounce Maori names properly; I do my very best. One thing I do realise in spite of my faults around pronunciation is that New Zealanders are taking a lot more pride in te reo in the Maori language and in trying to pronounce place names properly. If we come from the South Island as the previous speaker Mr Roy or I do we have not had as much practise as people who come from the North Island have had but we do try. 
I think that this bill moves us down the path of recognising our nation and its culture and heritage in a way that makes us more proud of what and who we are. We have named many many places across this nation on the back of our heritage from England from Ireland and from Europe. We have brought those names to this country and they have served us well. But looking back now we can see we are trying—as we have done for some time now—to use Maori names more appropriately where those names will mean more for local people be they Maori Pakeha Pasifika or any other cultural group in this country because we are a multicultural nation made up of many ethnic communities. However we are a bicultural nation by virtue of the Treaty and Maori people were here before the others such as my ancestors from Ireland or those people from Scotland and I think that Maori have the right to name places locations and features in an important way that recognises that cultural heritage. 
One example is Aoraki. It was Mount Cook for many of us for many years but I think that it is now appropriately named Aoraki. My home river the Buller River is more often referred to as Kawatiri. 
Shane Ardern 
: What about Greymouth? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I do not know the Maori name for that. Mawhera is the local iwi group down there. I think that we on the West Coast all now refer to the Mawhera Incorporation a commercial entity and that the Maori iwi and hapu groups in our region are more recognised. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I’ll bet the locals don’t use those names. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: We use their titles with more pride unlike the member there from Coromandel who is trying to discredit the whole process. We are moving down the path to greater self-identity and take pride in who we are in a way that we should embrace and celebrate unlike the National Party which seems to be loath to make any real progress in terms of national identity. 
This Government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in building our national identity through a whole lot of means—through the promotion of the country offshore through culture art and heritage and through film. We are trying to build an identity for New Zealand Aotearoa. I think that that has been an invaluable process and one that the National Party has always failed even to recognise in terms of its value. National members do not know where they are on this bill. They do not recognise that changing and modernising a bill from 1946 is progress. It is something we should celebrate. 
The bill allows us to have a better system of naming places around this country. I must refer to what is a difficult and challenging issue in my own electorate—that is an issue in the very small and very proud community of St Arnaud by Lake Rotoiti. Those people are going through the process of deciding whether they should move forward to call their community “Rotoiti”. That is the view of a number of people. However there is confusion—and there would be of course—in identifying a South Island community as opposed to a North Island community where there is also a Lake Rotoiti. But the issue is that there is growing enthusiasm to use Maori names—names that identify a place as being in New Zealand and as being part of New Zealand—and that is very important. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Now he confirms this is what’s driving it. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I encourage that member who is now criticising the process to embrace the direction the Government wants to move us in—that is to be a proud New Zealander someone who is proud to determine his or her own destiny and to invest in his or her own future which is something that the National Party seems loath to do. The National Party seems open to any sort of outside influence. In fact as we should be reminded on a regular basis it would have had New Zealanders in Iraq because it does not believe enough in our own identity to think that New Zealanders should make a decision for themselves. Labour on the other hand made a decision to stay out of Iraq because we are New Zealand Aotearoa and we make decisions for ourselves our people and our future. This is unlike the National Party; at that time when Simon Power was speaking in Nick Smith’s electorate in Nelson he said that we should be going to Iraq too. We would have been doing what our friends in the US told us to do. I am afraid that that displayed a complete lack of judgment from Simon Power from Nick Smith who supported him and from John Key on occasion. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Is this the best he can do? Goodness me—spare us! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The member there is wondering why. It is because the lack of pride in our New Zealand identity means that the National Party does not know what it stands for who it stands for and when it should stand up for New Zealanders and for New Zealand. Well we have no hesitation in this area; we believe that we must get on. We must update the 1946 legislation by way of this bill and better enable us to identify New Zealand as an independent nation using its own language and its own terms and titles so that we and others around the world clearly know te reo whenever possible even though many of us cannot pronounce it properly. We clearly identify with being New Zealanders. 
I think this is good legislation and I cannot understand why the National Party will not celebrate its progress and passage through this House. But that is typical of National members because they really do not know who they are they do not know what they stand for and they really do not know what sort of policy they should have for New Zealanders—full stop. I look forward to the day when we can debate policies or debate anything of substance with National members because in fact they are not anything of substance. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in the third reading of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. This bill has been before the House for an hour or so tonight. It is a bill that National members oppose. I want to focus initially on the reason why we oppose the bill so that it is clear to members of the public why we are doing so. It comes out quite clearly in the minority report presented in the summary of the bill. It states: “National members recognise the role of the New Zealand Geographic Board under the existing legislation.” There is no doubt there. We recognise the opportunity to name parts of the country. We are fully behind that. However the minority report states: “There appears nothing wrong with the way the current legislation is operating and accordingly National members see no need for change.” 
Therefore National members believe we are debating a bill that in our opinion is a waste of parliamentary time. We accept that there are some benefits in the new administrative functions within the bill but essentially it is more bureaucracy. We are taking up Parliament’s time to debate this bill at a time when food prices are going through the roof when petrol prices are going through the roof for hard-battling Kiwis out there when mortgage rates for hard-working Kiwis have doubled over the last 4 or 5 years and when we are seeing job losses throughout the country. I refer particularly to the loss of 500 jobs today in Oringi in southern Hawke’s Bay. 
The National Party believes that at times like this we should be debating legislation that will take this country forward. We look at this bill and we do not see it taking us forward as a nation and addressing any of those issues out there in the public domain. In fact if we look at what is on the Order Paper which includes this bill we have to ask ourselves whether there is anything on it at the moment that is taking our nation forward and addressing some of those key issues we are talking about. The fact is that we are slipping behind the rest of the world. 
If we want to tie this speech to geography then we are No. 22 in the developed world for income per person and we are falling. We cannot seriously compare our standard of living with the geography of the UK Australia or the United States which are the areas of the globe that we used to compare ourselves with significantly. If we go back to 1958 when my dad first put on his boots for the All Blacks we were No. 3 in the OECD and we compared ourselves with nations like the UK and Australia. But now it is not those key trading nations that we compare ourselves with geographically; it is the Czech Republic. That is not a nation we have been compared with before. We are comparing ourselves with families that are struggling in nations we have never compared ourselves with before. 
Right now as we are dealing with this bill grocery bills are going through the roof. Families are finding it harder to save for a holiday and it is becoming harder and harder every day to save for the mortgage. More than 78000 New Zealanders are leaving this country every year. There are 78000 Kiwis leaving this nation every year and here we are debating the New Zealand Geographic Board bill. What will this bill do to stop 78000 Kiwis leaving this nation every year? I put it to members that it will do nothing—absolutely nothing. Here we are in this Parliament taking up hours and hours of this Parliament’s time to debate a bill that will do nothing for growth in this nation and will not take us forward. 
Members will be aware that Michael Cullen said earlier this year that this year’s election would be about a contest of power in New Zealand. I have news for him; I have a lot of news for him. This election will be about other far bigger issues at stake such as grocery bills mortgage payments and job losses like the 500 jobs that were lost at Oringi today. It will be about growth and productivity—things that will take this nation forward. We should not be spending hours of this Parliament’s time debating the New Zealand Geographic Board bill. 
New Zealand needs to be focusing its efforts on the things that will really make a difference in this country. Do members think this bill will do that? No it will not. There is not a chance. Tinkering around the edges is not good enough. We have major issues in this country now. Mortgage prices are through the roof. Hard-working Kiwis are battling to keep their heads above water. Those are the issues we are facing out there. 
New Zealand needs a step change geographically. National has a plan for this. We have a plan to deliver geographically around this fine nation of ours around all the different parts of this country from Kerikeri at the top to parts of Mr O’Connor’s electorate—to Punakaiki to Hokitika and even to Motueka. We have a plan that will deliver geographically for this nation. It will not achieve what this bill has set out to do which is just more bureaucracy more administration and not taking a step change forward for us. 
National has plans to deliver an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts. We have plans to take a disciplined approach to Government spending so that interest rates will track down over time not up. Over the course of this Government we have seen interest rates go through the roof. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What plan? Waffle waffle waffle. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I ask Mr Burton how the people in his electorate of Taupo are coping with the interest rates that they are currently paying. How will this bill help them to sort out their interest rates? It will do nothing. That member’s lack of activity on this issue will drive him out of his seat of Taupo very shortly. 
We have other plans to deal with geographically. The third plan is that we will stop the massive rise in head office bureaucracy that Labour has encouraged. We will deal with the compliance issues that are affecting small businesses in Taupo in Tokoroa and all around that member’s electorate where people are struggling to pay the bills and the grocery prices. 
Mr Burton is in this House and we have Ministers here—Mr Carter is here and so is Mr Barker. They are spending time on the New Zealand Geographic Board bill when we have issues such as rising grocery prices and interest rates going through the roof. Ministers of this Government are down here debating insignificant little bills like this when we should be looking at a step change to this economy 
Here is something else we will do. We will have an unwavering focus on improving education standards. These are the things that this party will do to take a step change in this country. 
Geographically we will be investing in infrastructure because this country needs a step change in investment in infrastructure. In particular 3 weeks ago my leader announced a huge step change in investment in infrastructure. This policy will take this country forward and will increase productivity from Kaitaia to Kerikeri all the way down to Waihi down to Wairoa all the way down to Oringi—where we lost 500 jobs today—to Paraparaumu to Kaikoura to Waipara all the way down to Punakaiki Wanaka and right the way down to Invercargill in the south. This step change is about an investment in broadband; an investment like we have never seen before in this country. It will bring us closer to the rest of the country and to other nations. It will improve productivity and take this nation forward. 
These are the things that the Labour Government should be discussing in order to take us forward rather than the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill which we are debating tonight. We are spending hours and hours of this country’s time on this bill while hard-working Kiwis are battling with grocery prices battling with interest rates and battling to keep their heads above water. This bill is a waste of time. Thank you. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this bill. The ordinary citizens of this country who are listening to this debate on the radio and the TV could probably be forgiven if they were confused by the speech made by my learned colleague Chris Tremain who spoke just before because he spoke about everything under the sun except this bill. He criticised everything under the sun except this bill here—the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. I just want to bring him back to the debate at hand. The first thing I say is that it is easy to criticise and very difficult to build look forward and capture a vision for this country. The other thing I say is that this bill here is part of Labour’s plan for the future. It will help to keep and preserve our unique national identity into the future. It is difficult to have a vision and easy to criticise if one does not know what a national identity is. That is what this bill is about. It is about building a strong national identity for Aotearoa New Zealand. 
The bill repeals and replaces the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946. It modernises the official naming process of New Zealand geographic features. Places like Manukau Otara Mangere Manurewa and Papatoetoe all have meaning to the people who have given those names from long ago. Knowing the correct names and locations for places such as those is also important for people in all manner of everyday communications. I have heard the National Party attack the bill at the Government Administration Committee. Its members have said that the requirement for official names to be used in official documents is too burdensome for some businesses. Obviously those members have not been to Australia where some of the names are so long that it takes a mouthful to be able to pronounce them. However it is important for legal practice consistency and our national identity that official names are used in all official documents. 
This bill recognises the Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities in the context of official geographic names and refines public consultation processes. People in Manukau City take Te Tiriti o Waitangi very very seriously. They take the pronunciation of names very very seriously. I believe that the people of Manukau listening to this debate will agree with Labour that this is an essential bill in ensuring that we move forward as a nation that we take everybody on board and that we begin to appreciate what makes this country very unique when one is dealing with international people. Nowhere else will one find Maori other than in New Zealand. Nowhere else will one find Maori words other than here in New Zealand. As I mentioned before this bill will encourage the appreciation of names such as Manukau Otara Papatoetoe Otahuhu— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Mangere. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: —and Mangere. Those are the original names given by the people of Tainui of Ngai Tai and of Tamaki-makau-rau. Those are names that we have to be comfortable in the pronunciation of. 
I complete my speech by saying that Labour is happy to support the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill in its third reading. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 If ever there was an example of our wasting taxpayers’ money it was that contribution. I have to say that it added absolutely nothing to this debate. However having listened to some of the other contributions I must say that they are in about the same league quite honestly. What is even worse is that this one will be on just about the same level—it will not add much to the debate. But nevertheless that is part of the problem with this Government: it is tired it is old and it has run out of steam. So what do we do? We spend Tuesday evening putting around— 
Hon Member 
: Sounds like John Carter. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It takes one to know one does it not? Talk about old and out of pace! That member across the way cannot even get on the rugby paddock. 
If ever there was a bill that showed that a Government had run out of something to do it is this bill tonight. It is old tired and exhausted and all it can do is bring up a bill that says we need a system for changing place names—a system that has worked since 1946 I think. 
I have to say that in all the time I have been a member of Parliament I have not had one constituent come to the electorate office and say that there is a serious need to change this legislation. Other members may have had that happen—not that I have heard anybody mention it tonight. If any members have had a constituent come up to them and say: “Could we please change the New Zealand Geographic Board legislation?” I would be really pleased to hear from them. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: When was the last time the member was in his constituency? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I hear the member Rick Barker making some suggestions about constituents. Of course he still has to get his first constituency clinic going—and he has been in Parliament for about 10 years! 
A couple of points are worth noting tonight. I listened very carefully to my colleague from the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell make his contribution. He is one who stands in this House and talks about pronunciation. There he was as he was talking— 
Sandra Goudie 
: And I gave him permission. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well I just want to make the point that he was pronouncing Sandra Goudie’s name as “Gow-dee”—I think that is how he pronounced it. And Shane Ardern’s surname is actually pronounced “Ar-din”. If we are going to pronounce names incorrectly then maybe we should call Te Ururoa Flavell “Toheroa” Flavell or something like that. 
Brian Connell 
: Oh! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well there is nothing wrong with that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The fact is— 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find no reason why the speaker should be insulting my colleague to make a point. If he wants to make a point he should use an example that points at one of his own colleagues. 
Brian Connell 
: I have been listening to this debate in my office and I have to say that this is a robust Chamber and I would expect that points of debate would be allowed to flow. Mr Carter was just making some clear observations. I do not think it is necessary for the member to oppose that type of robust debate. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I say to my friend from Te Tai Tokerau that if it is all very well for Te Ururoa Flavell to mispronounce the names of my colleagues then he should expect to get the same response. I do not like Sandra Goudie being called by anything other than her correct name and I do not like Shane Ardern being called by anything but his correct name. He should be called Shane “Ar-din”—that is the correct pronunciation. I respect the name “Te Ururoa Flavell” and I do my best to pronounce it correctly. I do not want to call that member by any other name and I say to my colleague who raised the point of order that that is why I raised the issue. If we are going to have this sort of legislation and if we are going to stand up and say that we should use correct pronunciation then that rule has to fit everybody. It cannot be good just for some and not for others. I think it is important that we recognise that point. 
I want to make two other points before I get on to the most serious point— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say to the member who made those claims that I appreciate the sentiment he was trying to put across but I want to explain to him that before those statements were made I asked his colleague in the National Party about the correct pronunciation of her name and she guided me on that. Therefore my pronunciation according to her was acceptable. So I ask that Mr Carter be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I will not do that but I thank the member for clearing that up. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I respect the statement the member has made. It was actually quite good because it added to the debate a little and put some flavour into it. So it was very helpful. Kia ora. 
I want to make this point. Let me move on to some names and some issues that are hotly debated in Northland. There is a township that I grew up calling “Manga-why”. Now there is a debate as to whether it is pronounced “Manga-why” or “Manga-fy”. It is one of those cases where as my colleague Tau Henare was saying earlier it is hard to say who is right and who is wrong. It has been known as “Manga-why” since forever and all of a sudden now that we are politically correct we have to start calling it “Manga-fy”. Well as far as I am concerned it will never be “Manga-fy”; it will always be “Manga-why”. It is the same with the township spelt O-m-a-p-e-r-e and called “O-maa-pirry”; now people are saying it is “O-ma-perry”. Well my mind boggles. It is no wonder my mum does not know where she is going these days; she does not know whether she is in “O-maa-pirry” or “O-ma-perry”. I was listening to my colleague Eric Roy. If mum had gone to that town he mentioned she would not know whether she was in it out of it or coming through it quite honestly. It has three different names. She would not have known whether to go in backwards and walk out frontwards or what to do. 
Let me come to the most serious point about this bill. The problem with this bill is that it gives a board the power to change place names. That is all very well and we will consider and debate endlessly whether that should or should not happen. The worry I have every time a bill like this comes into the House is that from a local government perspective sixty-nine different pieces of legislation have been passed by this Government in the last 9 years and those bills have imposed costs and more costs on the ratepayers of this nation to the extent that it is now estimated that the changes made by this Government—just the changes—have cost ratepayers in excess of 6 percent of the rates they now pay. That is not the cost of the Government doing anything; it is the cost of just the changes themselves. The fact is that a bill like this will heap more and more cost on to the ratepayers of this country. 
Of course when a place name is changed all the official documents have to be changed. Let us say that a local authority changes a name from “Otamatea” to “Ota-ma-taa-ta” for some reason. Suddenly all the documentation and all the leases and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all—the history of it—has to be changed officially. What is the cost of that? It is a huge cost. 
Brian Connell 
: Who’s paying for it? 
JOHN CARTER 
: The ratepayers of course are paying for it. There is an extra cost on their rates. That is the problem with this sort of legislation. It is all very well for the Government to come along and say it would be nice to change the name of this board and to give it more power. Those members do not think of the consequences. The consequences are that the long-suffering ratepayers in this country face another cost. I tell members that we are heading into another rates revolt and we will have to have another Shand report to try to appease the ratepayers. They will not accept rate increases this time. Here is another cost being loaded on to the ratepayers of this country. The last thing the ratepayers of this country need is more cost to bear. They have problems now with rate increases. I read an article just the other day by Mayor Michael Laws of Whanganui or is it Wanganui—how do we pronounce that one by the way? 
Brian Connell 
: Wanganui. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Wanganui or Whanganui or whatever it might be. Well the fact is that Mayor Laws is saying that the cost to his ratepayers of the changes made by this Government is $4.6 million. That is in excess of 6 percent of their rates. That is nuts. We have just had changes to the building legislation. The councils now have to have buildings accredited. When the Government brought in that legislation it said it would be cost neutral—that it would not cost anything and there would be no increase in bureaucracy. Well as a consequence of the accreditation provision the number of inspectorial staff has gone up by 20 percent. Some city councils have increased their staff from 40 to 50 which is a 20 percent increase. The cost across the country just to implement the first stage has been in excess of $40 million. 
Brian Connell 
: That’s the cost of the train not the cost of running it. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh bless my soul! We will not get into trains and choo-choos will we! The fact is that this sort of silly nonsense legislation means more cost to the ratepayers and more cost to the taxpayers. 
I conclude on this note. Can someone remind me of how much it costs to run Parliament every minute? Is it something like $1000 a minute or is it $10000 a minute? I cannot remember but it is a significant sum of money. We have spent the last 2 hours debating this legislation at great cost to the country and to the taxpayer and I would like the Labour members to stand up and tell the taxpayer what benefit and value they will get from this bill tonight. I will tell them: zilch none nothing. Quite honestly that is one of the main reasons why the National Party opposes this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.