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:646;Page:15616] 
New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is a sign of how bereft of ideas this Government is that in a year in which Parliament is sitting for fewer days than in any year in recent memory we are debating the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill which makes some very minor changes to the operation of the New Zealand Geographic Board and the naming of places. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh don’t be daft. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member from—where? He only just survived the last election. [ 
Interruption 
] He is from Otaki. The member questions that. I ask him how many letters he has received from constituents concerned about the naming process of the New Zealand Geographic Board. My constituents are concerned about the high interest rates—the second-highest in the world—that they are paying. My constituents are concerned about business confidence dropping to the lowest level in 33 years. My constituents are concerned about having to pay punitive tax rates under this Government that are making it more difficult than ever for families to survive. 
What I find extraordinary—and what I find so pathetic from this Government—is the priority being given to such minor changes. What are the changes that this bill makes to the New Zealand Geographic Board? The first is that it gives the opportunity to name areas beyond the 12-mile territorial waters zone. What is extraordinary is that we are going to be able to name things in the exclusive economic zone but not protect them. We have absolutely no legislation at all to for instance protect against mining or any other activities that might occur in that zone between the 12-mile limit and the 200-mile limit. Is it not extraordinary that we are passing legislation to be able to name things but we cannot protect them? 
The Local Government and Environment Committee had a petition today from thousands of New Zealanders who are concerned about mining in that environment which has no laws to protect it. There is absolute consensus across environmental organisations that we need laws that will enable us to provide some proper process for the protection of the ocean areas between those 12-mile and 200-mile limits. But is there any bill from Parliament to address that real issue? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Maryan Street’s looking good. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No there is not. We have a bill that Darren Hughes says will somehow enable us to claim sovereignty over areas beyond the continental shelf because this bill will let us name them. Well I will bet Darren Hughes on any day of the week that he will be cleaned up at the next election by Nathan Guy. I understand that Darren Hughes does not want to argue about the lack of environmental protection beyond the 12-mile limit. He probably wants us to forget the Government’s record in 2002 in relation to its oceans policy when it promised to have legislation in 2005. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Lesley Soper that it did not happen in 2005. It did not happen in 2006. And perhaps Lesley Soper could answer why that is. 
Lesley Soper 
: Hollow man! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Lesley Soper cannot answer why the Government has not brought in the promised legislation to enable the protection of the area between the 12-mile and 200-mile limits but will back this pathetic bill that does so little. 
The other issue that this bill changes— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The interjections are a running commentary. The member will please cease. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: And what is more she should not be interjecting from a seat that is not her own. Neither Mr Hughes nor Lesley Soper— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: But I do not think they have changed their seats with the specific purpose of interjecting on any speaker. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If I had the record that this Government has I would be trying to disrupt Parliament. Labour members have no answer for why they have not after 9 long years in Government provided any environmental protection law at all in the important area between the 12-mile and 200-mile limits— 
Lesley Soper 
: What about vulnerable people protection Dr Smith? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We now have from Lesley Soper that she is concerned about protecting people! What about protecting people from record high taxes? How about protecting people from the second-highest interest rates in the Western World? How about protecting people from the rorts that this Labour Government has made in relation to our electoral laws that would put Robert Mugabe to shame? How about protecting the environment from the sorts of issues that were exposed when the Government promised all the way back in 2002 that it would provide legislation in this area but which it has failed to deliver? 
A further point I want to make is to ask why the Government wants to change the law and not allow public consultation over names and changes in places— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt you Dr Smith but I said to Lesley Soper before that a running commentary is not allowed. The member is allowed to make only rare and sensible interjections and whatever else goes with that. The member is carrying on a running commentary. If there is any repetition of it the member will be out. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This bill takes away the public’s right to have a say in the naming of the communities they represent. In my area a place called St Arnaud is having a very heated argument as to whether St Arnaud should in fact be called Rotoiti. I would like to know why the Government wants to take away the requirement for public consultation on any change to the names of communities. I think this bill is another chapter in the story of this Government whereby it says that it knows best and that it wants to exclude the public from being able to have a legitimate say in the naming of geographic places. Members on this side of the House say that we should not remove the requirement under the existing Act for there to be a proper public role— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.