Ardern Shane: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15541] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Try as I might to find in Part 2 the socialist wrongdoing that we can normally uncover as the Queen’s honourable and loyal Opposition it has been difficult to uncover. I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper. By and large the Minister is correct in what he states: the bill does extend the jurisdiction in the New Zealand Geographic Board into the continental shelf and also the Ross Dependency. I guess that is a significant legislative change. But having said that no one could uncover—and it was certainly not uncovered in the select committee process—what is the mischief that needs to be fixed. The naming in these areas has been going on now for 62 years under the current legislation which was passed in 1946. There is no evidence—and certainly no evidence was presented to the select committee—that at any stage that has created a problem. The decision in particular in regard to the continental shelf is an international decision a multiparty decision whereby New Zealand has always had a major and significant role to play. To the best of my knowledge—and I chaired the select committee through the process—no one brought evidence to the contrary. 
I say to the Minister that it sounds good to tidy up 1946 legislation but we were unable to find a mischief. One has to wonder as my colleague the Hon Nick Smith stated earlier why this is the most urgent legislation to occupy the last dying hours of a desperate Government by having to do this tonight in Parliament. I ask the Minister when he takes his next call which I am sure he will or other colleagues of his on the Labour side of the Chamber to describe to me what significant changes will come about as a result of this enormous piece of parliamentary work that we are engaged in here tonight because we were unable to find them. 
The additional concerns that were raised and which are well stated in the select committee’s report by National members were that there is a potential to layer a further bureaucratic obstacle in the way of those who may want to go about their legitimate business and use names that may now get caught up in clauses 32 and 33. There are also those that are tied up in clause 24 where there is a requirement to consult those amendments that the Minister speaks of that do not bring about the desirable changes that one would have thought might have been a positive outcome of this process. 
So I ask the Minister to please take a call. I would be interested in the detail of that. I would certainly be interested in the genesis of the idea that this legislation needed reform. I guess there are three or four tidy-minded bureaucrats somewhere in the place who go through our dusty halls and find bits of legislation that are now 62 years old and say we should therefore have a look at them in the House. But nothing was presented to the National members of the select committee that would indicate that this was an urgent matter of importance. I would really like to hear from the Minister why this is such an important matter for us to be debating in the Committee tonight. It may well be that the Minister has nothing else to do of course but that said I am sure the Minister will address those questions.