Carter John: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Carter John: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15902] 
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.