Connell Brian: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15552] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Generally when a bill is before a select committee we look at the title to get some indication of what the bill is about and what it is trying to capture. This title is so nebulous that I went to the purpose clause. I thought it might be interesting for members to understand what the purpose is. Clause 3 states that one of the purposes is to: “(a) provide for—(i) the continuation of the New Zealand Geographic Board as the same body as that established under the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946”. Interestingly its primary responsibility is “naming geographic features and Crown protected areas;”. So we have to ask what the purpose of changing the bill is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member. I might have been mistaken but I have just made about an 8-minute contribution on what I thought were clauses 1 and 2 rather than Part 1. The member has just started to talk on clause 3 which is in Part 1. If the member wanted I am sure members will give him leave to go back to Part 1 if he thought it was important to debate clause 3 further. But I thought that we had passed it earlier in the evening. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: 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. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes I did hear that distinction. Can I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard that any debate on clauses 1 and 2 is normally a fairly wide-ranging debate. It is not the old style of debate when members concentrated on just the title and on the date. So I ask the member to go ahead. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: 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—