New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15539] 
New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 General matters and key provisions relating to New Zealand Geographic Board Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 1. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The fact that Parliament is even debating the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill speaks volumes about how weak the Government’s programme is. I ask the members opposite what the problem is. Parliament is sitting fewer days this year than in any year in recent history. An Order Paper that is so light on a programme shows a bereft Government that has run out of ideas. It will not be long before it joins the history books. In this bill we have a Government desperately trying to fix something that is not broken. I do not know how many of my colleagues have received desperate letters from their constituents saying: “Please reform the New Zealand Geographic Board.” 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Not a one! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Not a one. I challenge members opposite: have they been inundated? I have certainly had letters from constituents concerned about their interest rates going through the roof concerning the Government putting up taxes and concerning the bureaucracy of the Building Act and the Resource Management Act. I have not had a single letter expressing concern about the New Zealand Geographic Board. 
I note that the bill takes away the current right of the public to be notified when the Government proposes to change the name of a particular place or community. In clause 24 we see a sneaky wee provision to lock the public out. I want to know where the Government’s mandate is for that change. People get very attached to the names of the communities they live in whether it is the Brightwaters the Nelsons the Wellingtons— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: The St Arnauds. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague Chris Auchinvole will soon be the elected representative for the community of St Arnaud where there has been a very vigorous debate about whether that place should be called Rotoiti or St Arnaud. This sneaky little provision in clause 24 changes the existing law so that a change can be made by the Geographic Board to the name of a community without any public process at all. We think that is wrong. What is even more bizarre is that when this process began the Government said it would give a greater role to our local councils. That makes pretty good sense. They know their local communities. None of that is in the bill and National asks why not. If we are going to have a reform bill for the New Zealand Geographic Board— 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I clarify what exactly we are doing? I thought we were debating Part 1 including schedule 1 not clause 24 which is in Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. I leave it to the Hon Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I draw the member’s attention to what is referred to in the purpose clause. It is all about the public having a role. How can those members say in Part 1 that they are going to give the public a role in decision making about names then further down the track take it away? We are simply arguing that that is improper and that is why National is saying that this is just another desperate bill from a Government that is in trouble on the way out and trying to do something that will make it look busy even though it has run out of ideas. It is time for a new Government. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 The member who just took his seat might wish that was so but I am afraid that the reality is more prosaic. The current legislation is over 60 years old. Legislation has to be updated periodically to take account of changes. 
The big change—and I am very surprised that the members of the National Party have not yet become alert to this issue—is that New Zealand’s territorial waters have been extended to include the continental shelf. The area that is under the jurisdiction of New Zealand—that New Zealand has sovereign rights over—extends well beyond our land area to include an area undersea that I think is about 24 times the area of our land area. At the moment the Geographic Board has no power to name features in that area. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My constituents are really worried about that! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is an important issue here I say to Dr Smith even though he makes light of it. There is considerable potential wealth in our sea area not only in terms of the fisheries but also in terms of the mineral wealth. I am sure that Mr Brown—as a person who has experience of our maritime area—understands this. Our maritime area is of considerable economic potential for us not only in terms of petrocarbons but also in terms of minerals and fisheries. If we want other people to respect our rights to areas over which we want to exercise dominion we have to do the things that Governments do in respect of areas that they assert rights to. We have to exercise our rights of governance and sovereignty. That is what this bill takes a small step towards. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What are you scared of? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am not scared of anything. I am explaining the need for this legislation which extends the rights of the Geographic Board to include naming features in that area. That is one of the things a country does to assert rights in respect of areas of the continental shelf. It is given effect in Part 1 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and it is an important advance. 
The National Party may make light of the issue but the reality is that it is important. For that reason the Government is very pleased to support this bill. The other functions of the board are largely unchanged. This legislation will not cause undue costs to taxpayers but it will help New Zealand assert its sovereign rights in respect of an area 24 times the size of our land area that lies underwater on the continental shelf. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Naming of geographic features and Crown protected areas 
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. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak on Part 2 “Naming of geographic features and Crown protected areas”. In doing so I acknowledge the contribution this afternoon from the Maori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell on the importance of correct pronunciation. I apologise for my poor attempts at Maori. Unlike other members I have not been brought up bilingual and I do my best. 
I understand the importance of naming and having names pronounced correctly. Just for the information of the Committee I say that my name is pronounced “Dar-rien” not “Darry-en”. If people could make the effort to get that right I would appreciate it. For years and years people have mispronounced my name. I understand exactly what the Maori Party is saying about that. It has got to a point where I hardly bother about it now but I would appreciate it if a bit of respect were showed in this House. My name is pronounced “Dar-rien”. 
I want to talk about the importance of naming rights and also about some of the rubbish that has been talked about them by the members on the opposite side of the Chamber. I also want to talk about the scare stories about what can happen under this bill. It is very interesting when one looks into this bill and sees how people have used the Geographic Board the importance of proposals to the board and who actually sees these things as important. I was interested to read about a certain Mr Holmes— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Explain clause 24. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: If Ms Goudie would just listen she might learn something once more. 
Mr Holmes is known as “the detective” and he has had 60 corrected place names accepted by the New Zealand Geographic Board since 1997 with more in the pipeline. The corrected place names include mountain ranges mountains glaciers peaks localities small hills bits of hills a lot of streams and creeks and a few coastal features on points and bays. He has presented these out of a passion for the large number of misspelt names let alone mispronounced names. He has reminded the Geographic Board that one of its functions—and one of the reasons one would submit a proposal to the board under Part 2—is to examine cases of doubtful spelling of place names and also to determine the spelling to be adopted on official maps. 
Mr Holmes put a couple of interesting submissions to the board. One of his longest submissions to date was a change of name from Rewiti to Reweti. I apologise for the pronunciation. That submission ran to 40 pages. Chief Reweti Tamahiki was one of the chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. An area was named after him when he gifted the land that finished the railway line through to Helensville. [ 
Interruption 
] I would have thought the member John Key would be interested in what is happening in Helensville but probably not—we do not see him in the Chamber very often these days. 
These examples illustrate that the proposals that can be submitted to the board under the provisions in Part 2—I have many more examples and I am happy to take many more calls on the proposals that can be submitted to the board—are very very important. They are important to ordinary people in New Zealand. This side of the Chamber takes that extremely seriously but members on that side of the Chamber have derided this bill. They have been disgusting in their derision of the board and disgusting in their comments about this bill and quite frankly I am appalled. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I will respond to a comment that was made by Dr Nick Smith. He said—and I think Mr Ardern raised concerns about it too—that somehow clause 24 would do the public out of their right to be involved in processes that involve proposed changes to names. Members will note if they read clause 24(2) that that provision occurs in a very limited situation where the New Zealand Geographic Board finds it is being asked to approve a recorded name. So this would be in the case of something that has had a recorded name for some historical reason and there are no alternative recorded names for that geographic feature. So rather than adding to bureaucracy which I thought was one of the concerns that the National Party had this provision says that in such a case if it is obviously not controversial the board does not have to go through a fully public objection process because that process would be a waste of time and money. The other exception to the normal rule of giving public notice is recorded in clause 24(2)(b) which states that the board does not have to give public notice to discontinue the use of an official geographic name for a geographic feature. 
Both of these are very limited examples and I do not think there is any serious concern. In fact I do not know that this provision was an issue. I do not think it was raised by people as being of concern at the select committee— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Absolutely it was. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Sandra Goudie said it is an issue that was raised at the select committee. Well it is a real shame that the select committee could not agree to a report back to Parliament to advise Parliament of that concern. I understand that that was because the National members were not cooperating in that regard. So they get what they deserve. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: How are the real estate agents at the moment? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I can report to Mr Finlayson that the real estate agents are in great heart. Despite the squawking from the bantam hens on the other side of the Chamber I take a call to support the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. 
The report of the Government Administration Committee in respect of Part 2 is interesting when it comes to the views of National members—which ones we do not quite know. The C-team is here tonight and they have all pumped themselves up. It must be audition time again in the National Party because they have all pumped themselves up. The eminent barrister is here the “orange roughy” from Coromandel and Mr Ardern whom I pay my respects to. He is an excellent chair. I have been on a number of select committees with Mr Ardern and I think he is a fine chair. 
National members have pumped themselves up to come down to the Chamber for a big audition to oppose I am told the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. What an absolute ripper that is for the National Party to get all that testosterone burnt off on a bill and come down to the Chamber to oppose it. How could National members oppose it? They have worked out a way to try to do that. Under the heading “Views of National members” the report states: “National members recognise the role of the New Zealand Geographic Board under the existing legislation. There appears nothing wrong with the way the current legislation is operating and accordingly National members see no need for change.” That is interesting. 
Mr Key is on the record on this issue. The slippery Leader of the Opposition has had the axle grease out around this. First he attacked clause 24 because he claimed it was too bureaucratic. Then “Old Slippery” got the axle grease out and the grease gun pumped away and he put it around the bill. Then he attacked it because it was not bureaucratic enough. The bill streamlines some of the decision-making processes and allows the board to get involved and accordingly take care of a number of the naming processes. I would have thought that that would actually cut down some of the bureaucracy but oh no all the heavy hitters of the National Party are down here tonight all steamed up and full of vim and vigour. The morale is high over there because they have all come to the Chamber to try to defeat with all the energy and might they have the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. 
This is Sandra Goudie’s moment in the sun in her political career. This is what she lived for got elected for and has been briefed for—judging by the amount of paper on her desk. She has led the charge of the Opposition and spent an inordinate amount of taxpayers’ money here tonight to defeat the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. I am sure she will go back to her constituents and say she has spent a lot of time defeating this bill. She will say: “I do not know how much it costs the taxpayers to run Parliament per hour but I’ve spent an inordinate amount of energy and time and my wages working for you the people with my National Party colleagues to defeat this major piece of legislation the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill.” 
As we debate Part 2 it will be interesting to see those wonderful— 
Chris Tremain 
: Oh that’s right. It’s Part 2 we’re on isn’t it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is right. For those who are asleep on the other side of the Chamber I say that we are debating Part 2. It will be interesting to hear the wonderful and eloquent arguments as we debate Part 2. I do take my hat off to Mr Finlayson. I know he has led the charge of briefing his members— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Oh no. I had nothing to do with it! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: A wise man is Mr Finlayson! As an eminent barrister he knows deep down that this is not a bad bill. This is something we should do. We should reform and change this. He is not leading the charge. He has probably provided the intellectual grunt behind the debating notes of many of his colleagues but he knows we should not be spending a lot of time trying to pump this one up. The National Party members have come down here to attack the bill and defeat it. [ 
Interruption 
] I can hear them over there. They are really excited about this bill. 
This is a streamlining bill. It has been around for a long time. It is part of a series of reforms that allows us to cut through a lot of the bureaucracy. National members say there is too much bureaucracy in our public sector but when we come to address a number of these issues what do we see that they do? They attack the legislation as “Mr Slippery Key” did and say it is not bureaucratic enough. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Several times during that speech the member did not identify various members of the National caucus by their proper titles. In fact some of the terms have been quite derogatory. I would like you to point out to him that that is not allowed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. Yes the member did go down that track particularly in respect of the member for Coromandel. I do not think that is necessary. As far as the use of the word “slippery” is concerned it is something the member should bring up with Madam Speaker. I think it has been allowed. I am quite comfortable with it although the member had it round the wrong way. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am indebted to you for your advice Mr Chair and I will endeavour to use the term “slippery” in its correct fashion when referring to the Leader of the Opposition—“Slippery John Key”. I am indebted to you for your fine ruling and I would like to thank Mr Henare for his usual late-night intellectual contribution to the debate—it usually happens at about half-past 9 or 20 to 10. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Like the member for the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell and like the member in the Labour Party Darien Fenton I like my surname to be pronounced correctly. It is “Henare” and not what that member tried to pronounce. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that Mr Henare. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mr Henare has a very valid point. I think it was drawn to our attention by Mr Flavell before question time today. Mr Henare’s point would carry more weight if he had not ridiculed Robert Reich’s name in the House during a previous incarnation of Parliament and made references to that Jewish name that he refused to take advice on at that time. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That was before he was a proper Tory. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The member is going to interrupt on a point of order is she? That is all right. She might be able to get away with it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is not all right. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Again Darren Hughes like the member for somewhere in the South Island—I cannot remember where— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He can’t pronounce it! 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Well there we go again. And it is “Waimakariri”. I bet my bottom dollar that that member would not be able to pronounce the name of his own electorate but that is neither here nor there. Mr Hughes does not pronounce my name properly either. My name is “Henare”. That is what it is. So if those members are going to pinprick all night about this as Mr Hughes did then we will too. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think we all understand what is required and we can only try our best. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I again thank Mr Henare for his great intellectual contribution at 9.30 p.m. The member normally picks his moment. It is a wonderful contribution. He did not make much of a contribution— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It’s only half-past 8 mate! Daylight saving finished last week. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Hang on he is reverting to type now. He is reverting to type which is this Porirua public bar sort of boofhead-type sport box that we have over there. He would actually do well as a bouncer in the Porirua public— 
Sandra Goudie 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it is about time that we stuck to the scope of the bill. It is getting just a bit wide of the mark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to speak on Part 2. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: On Part 2 absolutely. I was talking about naming just at that point but we will leave it there. Maybe the Geographic Board referred to in Part 2 will find an interesting historic or technical name for Mr Henare. I could think of a number but it would not be appropriate to use those names in the Chamber. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I can think of one for you. It starts with “w” and ends with “r”. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will yield to the member if he likes. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Away you go. Do you want to yield? He’s a big man now! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am not half as big as the member. 
What this bill does is streamline bureaucratic process and I conclude on the point that National members purport to be the sort of bureaucratic busters who want to rip the insides out of the Public Service to get rid of what they term as bureaucracy which is code for front-line services yet they stand here— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Whatever pussy! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member is interjecting on me with the sort of vim and vigour and energy that we have not seen from that side or from that member for many moons— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s a real policy man! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh yes that intellectual giant of the National Party has been in more parties than we have had hot dinners. I think he wrote to our party and asked whether he could join it. That member’s contribution—apart from the sort of silliness that we have seen in the last 5 minutes—has been to attack the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. 
I conclude by saying that I look forward to hearing other contributions from the C-team members over there as it is the height of their careers to come down and do an audition for the front bench and oppose attack and try to defeat which they will not Part 2 Part 1 Part 3 and Part 4 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. What a great moment. I pay credit to Mr Finlayson because he is the only member opposite who has used his judgment tonight. He knows that it is good legislation and he has decided to do some real work get on with it and do something productive rather than try to attack this very good bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon “Dar-mien” O’Connor. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I am not as sensitive as some in this House over how people pronounce my name Mr Chairperson. It was still very polite and I think that if politicians worry about things like that then they should move on to another career. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am really disappointed that people would make fun of the issue of mispronunciation of names because it is not funny. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I am not making fun of that. It is the reality that not everyone has been to elocution lessons not everyone has been to te reo lessons and some of us struggle particularly in the South Island to pronounce Maori names. For that I apologise but that is the reality of the challenge that each and every one of us faces. Mr Henare for example—I am not sure whether I pronounced that name right or wrong. I apologise. I do my best. I think we have to move on to more important issues in this Chamber. 
I am taking the opportunity to speak on this bill because I am absolutely astounded that National members would want to oppose this bill—for a couple of reasons. Firstly we are replacing a 1946 Act. I would have thought that even National members would want us to make progress across the country. I guess that if there is one thing National members are stuck in then it is a time warp. If they are prepared to be linked and locked into a 1946 Act then God help the country if they were to ever get their hands on the levers of Treasury again. This Government is prepared to review such Acts and to get on and make the changes that might seem insignificant to members opposite and that might seem unimportant but none the less they are part of being a responsible Government. 
The other thing that absolutely astounds me about the Tories and their opposition to this bill is that I have never known a true Tory who does not want to extend his or her power and authority. There is one thing about a good Tory—Tories know what the value of power is and how to abuse it. This bill extends the territorial power to name areas in the Ross Dependency. I would have thought that a good old-fashioned Tory would seize the opportunity to name such places and to have more authority because that is what has happened in the past. 
If we go back and look at the genesis of this legislation it goes back to the Royal Geographic Society of London which had the right to name places in this country. That is right—the Tories back in London made the decisions about place names in this land Aotearoa. And that in my view was wrong back then. Then it moved on to a newer Act the Designation of Districts Act 1894. Unfortunately the country was run by a bunch of Tories then too. They then named places in this country. What we are doing is moving on to rightful authority and the ability to name places in the Ross Dependency and the continental shelf and we think that is progress. It is moving us on from 1946. 
Mr Ardern agrees so I presume he will be supporting this bill in its passage through this Parliament as any sensible Tory would do. I know that he is a decent Tory and there are a few. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: There’s no such thing! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Some of my colleagues think that there is no such thing—that it is an oxymoron—but there are a few. Mr Ardern knows how to earn a decent day’s living out on the farm. 
The passage of this bill is a sensible use of parliamentary time. The National Party should just get on with it support the passage of the bill and move on and change an Act that has governed place names and the authority to make them since 1946. 
Shane Ardern 
: You used to be better at filibustering than this. What’s happened in the last 8 years? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I say to Mr Ardern that that is what we call progress. He will never know about it because he will not get the opportunity to make the changes. Kia ora. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Part 3 includes debate on schedule 2. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 3 I say it is pretty amazing that the impact of this bill will not be understood until it is passed in this House and becomes an Act. A large majority of New Zealanders—if not all of them—would not understand what this bill means in reality. 
Clause 32 is headed “Official geographic names must be used”. I wonder whether the New Zealand public knows that this bill provides that any person can submit a name to be used as an official geographic name. One of the functions of the New Zealand Geographic Board is to collect original Maori place names to be used as official geographic names. In adopting those official geographic names the board can be exempt under clause 24 from going through a public consultation process. New Zealanders need to understand the implications of that. This Government has failed to explain them clearly to the public. 
Entities in the private sector do not understand the implications of the bill. They do not understand the obligations in clause 32 regarding publications for tourism or travel purposes that use place names. Entities are required to use official geographic place names. If they do not they have to have a statement in their brochure that says a name is not an official place name. So they either have to use the official place name or if they use a local colloquial name they have to have a little statement that it is not an official geographic name. I do not think there is a tourism venture or operation throughout this country that understands that. Has there been any direct consultation with tourism groups about the impacts of this legislation? 
I am talking about clause 32 in Part 3. Can members imagine the cost to all of those tourist ventures and operations from having to change all of their brochures because one place name has changed and an official geographic name has been adopted for it by the board—possibly without public consultation because under clause 24 the board is not required to necessarily undergo it? The board has the discretion not to go through a public consultation process. It is to have that discretion now and this Government has failed to explain why it thinks that is a good idea. 
We have never had a problem before with the New Zealand Geographic Board but now the Government has decided it wants to change the playing field. The playing field was level but the Government wants to tilt it. We have now a completely different playing field where consultation is discretionary and where tourism ventures have no idea of the impacts on their bottom line from having to record official place names in their documentation. Of course the board can take entities to the High Court if they fail to observe the requirements of the Act. Perhaps the Minister in the chair David Parker may like to take a call to explain clauses 24 and 32 and tell us exactly what will happen with regard to tourist ventures and operations. 
I am very proud to be standing here as part of National saying that we oppose this bill for very good reasons. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I am very happy to respond to that last contribution which suggested that some new provision was being sneaked in against the interests of New Zealanders that required proper names to be used. Of course this clause merely carries forward on this occasion a provision that has been in the law since 1946. It has been in the law since 1946 for a good reason. If for example someone was producing a map that tourists were to use it would be quite unhelpful if people started to call Auckland “Dunedin” and Dunedin “Auckland” because people might go to the wrong place. It is quite a sensible provision for those providing information for tourists and if a place has an official name such as “Auckland” it is quite sensible that that place is actually labelled as Auckland on a map. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 This is a bill that on the face of it is relatively minor but I think it needs a little more discussion from the Minister for Land Information David Parker and there are some questions I would like to ask him. 
I particularly go to clause 35 “Validation of certain names” and ask whether this bill is an appropriate vehicle for the validation of particular decisions that have been made. In particular I ask whether the provision in relation to the geographical features of the Ross Dependency is appropriate for the bill. What does the Minister mean by “Crown protected area under an enactment”? Which particular type of Crown protected area is he referring to? 
I also ask the Minister to go to schedule 2 which relates to consequential amendments which come in through Part 3—and I am sure that Mr Connell having been on the Government Administration Committee that wrote the commentary on the bill is well aware of that. I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that the amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 particularly those amendments to section 260(1) are in fact appropriate for this bill. I ask about consultation on the repeal of section 270 of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act. Has there been proper consultation with Ngai Tahu on that question? Consultation is something that I think most Ministers have taken seriously and I want to ensure that officials have had a discussion with Ngai Tahu. 
I do not want to be accused as a Mallard of any self-interest but in respect of the insertion into the Ombudsmen Act 1975 of “New Zealand Geographic Board Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa” after “The New Zealand Game Bird Habitat Trust Board” I want to make sure given my surname that there are no implications as far as the Game Bird Habitat Trust Board is concerned. As a Mallard I would be concerned if there were any denigration or unfair reference around that particular question. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s a very valid concern. Don’t duck the issue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think there is not much ducking of the issue as far as I am concerned although possibly once or twice it could have been better if I did. 
In respect of the consequential amendment to the National Parks Act I want to check whether it is the Minister of Conservation who is referred to. It is a little unclear on the face of it whether it refers to the Minister for Land Information or the Minister of Conservation. I presume it is the Minister of Conservation because it is a consequential amendment to the National Parks Act but I think it is important that we have that clarified. Similarly with the amendment to the Conservation Act 1987 I think it is almost certainly the Minister of Conservation who has to refer the proposed name to the board but I ask what the role of the Minister for Land Information is in that particular case. Thank you Madam Chairperson. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 In responding to two of the issues that the Hon Trevor Mallard raised with great interest I agree with the member that Ministers are concerned to protect the integrity of Treaty settlements. One of the provisions in the Treaty settlement with Ngai Tahu was to give them an official involvement in the naming of geographic features in the South Island. The Minister is quite proper in checking that in updating this legislation we are not undermining the intent of that Treaty settlement. Official involvement in naming is an important part of the Treaty settlement with Ngai Tahu. They would obviously be upset if we were undermining the integrity of their Treaty settlement by unwinding the benefit that was conferred upon them in respect of naming places in the South Island. 
Mr Mallard raises a consequential amendment listed in schedule 2 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill which refers to the repeal of section 270 of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. I assure the member that that does not derogate from the rights of Ngai Tahu to participate in the naming of South Island geographic features. I am advised by officials that the representative that Ngai Tahu has on the New Zealand Geographic Board is Sir Tipene O’Regan who is obviously well versed in the detail of the Ngai Tahu settlement because he was so involved in the negotiation of it. I am informed that he is comfortable with the repeal of this particular section which does not derogate from Ngai Tahu’s rights to be involved in the naming of these features in the South Island but rather repeals a provision in the old Act that has become out of date because of changes in circumstances since it was put in. I hope that explanation deals with the concern the Hon Trevor Mallard had. 
In respect of the role of the Minister for Land Information in naming features there are various parts of the Act providing that proposed decisions are proffered by the New Zealand Geographic Board to the Minister having gone through various procedures before the board comes to making a recommendation. The Minister to whom it generally makes a recommendation in respect of most features is the Minister for Land Information and then in accordance with the terms of the Act I—or whoever is the Minister for the time being—have rights to either approve or decline the name proposal that is proffered. I think that addresses the other concern the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 35 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 5 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 My contribution on this I think will be relatively brief. If at all possible I want to ask the Minister the Hon David Parker about clause 2 first and that is whether he thinks it is appropriate for this bill to come in on a particular date or whether this is the sort of bill that should come in on a date to be decided by the Governor-General as part of the Executive Council. It is a discussion that we have often. Often it is a question of whether—and this is a relatively minor bill and therefore having a fixed date is probably OK— 
Shane Ardern 
: This is a critical point! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member might one day learn something about it— 
Hon Member 
: I doubt that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I doubt it too with Mr Ardern whether he ever will. Questions of principle are involved in the type of clause that is used for the commencement date and I would be interested in the Minister’s views as to why this is a fixed-date bill as opposed to one that comes into force by way of Order in Council. 
But the more substantive question- I would like to ask—and I would be particularly interested in the contribution from members of the Maori Party and even from my Maori colleagues from the National Party as well as Louisa Wall—is about the style of the title. This bill in fact looks like it was styled on an approach taken by my former colleague the Hon Koro Wetere in I think about 1986 or 1987 when he made a decision on the naming of Taranaki. He said it could be Egmont - Taranaki Taranaki - Egmont or Egmont or Taranaki which provided a fair range of choice for people to adopt the name they thought appropriate for the mountain. I find it slightly interesting in respect of the member for Taranaki - King Country that people have taken a different approach in this. I think the vast majority of younger people from outside Taranaki call the mountain Taranaki but it seems to be that the closer people get to the snow and the closer they get to the mountain the more likely it is to be called Egmont. The approach taken by New Zealanders just in that area is a fascinating thing. 
However putting that to one side it is clear that the title of this bill in the way it is shaped is quite unusual in that it has picked up that style. It is called the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and it may also be cited as either the New Zealand Geographic Board Bill or Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa Bill. I want to ask colleagues the Minister Georgina Tau Tariana and Mr Flavell who are in the Chamber today as well as Louisa Wall whether they think that this style of approach is one that could be more generally used for the titling of bills in New Zealand. This is an interesting approach; it has not only bracketed Maori but also uses Maori as an alternative in the title of the bill. It seems to me to be an interesting and useful approach. But one of the things I am wondering is whether it should be applied only when it is so close to naming things or whether it is a more general style that could be applied around other legislation as well. It is an interesting question. 
Shane Ardern 
: You used to be a good filibusterer Trevor! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would be very tempted to say if I were filibustering that there is quite a nice guy who actually lives in Wellington but is running for Parliament in Hutt South—a guy called Paul Quinn. I was interested to hear John Key on the radio say that Paul Quinn could go in the top 20 on the National Party list. If I were Tau Henare or Georgina or even Pita Sharples and there was a discussion about who might be Minister of Maori Affairs in the long term—if the National Party ever got to Government—and I heard that Paul Quinn was going to be parachuted over the top I would be a little bit annoyed. I am not sure when we translate Paul Quinn what we actually get but it is— 
Brian Connell 
: Madam Chair— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a case of the member being just too slow in seeking the call which is not particularly surprising as far as the member is concerned. He is too slow they all say he is too slow and he is even too slow to run away from television reporters on occasions. 
Getting back to the bill I am actually trying to stimulate some interest on the part of the Maori Party in the titling of this bill and to get a reaction as to whether this is the sort of form that they think we should adopt more generally. To me it seems logical but there is a choice. The choice is whether we include the Maori translation in the title or have it as an alternative citation—to have either the English title or the Maori title or a combined title that has both. There is a real question about whether that is the right approach. It is one that I have not seen. I have been here for a number of years and I have not seen a title in quite this format before. I introduced a bill this afternoon and it was titled only in English. [ 
Interruption 
] The member might say that is disgraceful; I do not think it is. It is the normal form when introducing a bill. We do not normally have this sort of approach when a bill is introduced. 
I ask the Minister David Parker whether he consulted the Minister of Maori Affairs or any other person on this matter whether parliamentary counsel are using this bill as an experiment and whether it is an approach they are likely to take in the future in the drafting of legislation of a more general type that does not go into naming. I think this is an important bill but as part of an important bill there are some principles involved around the style of the titling. My inclination is to say the style of titling could be more generally extended to other legislation if there was support around the Chamber for that sort of approach but it would not be something that I would want to impose on members without broad discussion. 
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— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I feel a compulsion to respond to that member. I am addressing his comments in respect of clause 1 “Title” and clause 2 “Commencement”. That member berated members on this side of the Chamber for doing their job in speaking to a bill. In doing our job by debating the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and going over it in great detail as Mr Mallard did—I think Mr Mallard talked at length about the meaning and nature of clause 1 “Title”—we were berated by the “ghost that walks”. We were berated by a man who is not going to be here much longer; he has done so well in his career that he is heading out of the back door because his party has given him the bullet. 
Coming back to the title I challenge that member. That member challenged us for debating clauses doing our job working the bill over and working the arguments through. Yet as I said before his party is spending all its time debating that and trying to convince Parliament that not only will it vote against the bill in toto but also—I bet—it will vote against the title and against something very small called the commencement date. National members have all got up all pumped up and all full of enthusiasm. The greatest moment in the annals of this House for that member’s career as he exits this place will be his attempts to stymie to attack and to defeat clause 1 and clause 2 of this bill. I know that his constituents will look back on his eminent career—from Ashburton down the Waitaki and around there—and he will be known. They will put up statues they will put up monuments and they will put up silver plates on walls as they open Returned and Services Association premises and schools to remember that he spent his time attacking this bill. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member while he is on his feet and demonstrating his ignorance around this but since it is a discussion around names I thought I should correct the member. The constituency of Rakaia does not go as far as South Canterbury. The Minister in the chair David Parker will know that that is correct. So the member is misleading the House. I do not think it is intentional; I just think it is ignorance and a touch of arrogance. But maybe he could just put that right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I think that that is really— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think this is a classic case of a point of order that is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. No Standing Order has been referred to. Members do occasionally get things wrong. The member may or may not— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I did get it wrong. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well he probably did get it wrong. But the member—at the peak of his career or as he moves out—should understand that he takes a call to debate that rather than a point of order. 
Brian Connell 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: This is the last call I am taking on this because I am going to judge it. 
Brian Connell 
: Certainly. I know the member is used to fighting talk but this is an issue of accuracy and we are talking about a bill that is dealing with naming places. I think it is germane to the argument to say that the member is incorrect and he should be asked to get it right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you very much Mr Connell. It may be germane to the argument but it is not a point of order. It was a point of debate and a point of information. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I apologise to the member. I acknowledge that the name of his electorate is Rakaia and as I was saying I know that the people of Rakaia will remember him as they are riveted to the spot listening to him on their radios tonight. They know that his major contribution probably his most significant contribution in his political career was a last-ditch stand—sort of Custer’s last stand—to try to defeat clause 1 “Title” and clause 2 “Commencement” of this bill. As I said and Madam Chair knows history better than I—and I am sure Gerry Brownlee would agree with me—they will put up monuments and statues to this learned member. This day will go down and be recorded in the annals of Rakaia’s history as the day Mr Connell—and I do hope I pronounced that name correctly—the member for Rakaia attempted to defeat clauses 1 and 2 of a bill. 
In essence what is this bill about? It is about streamlining a very very old piece of legislation an exceptional piece— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Then why are you filling the Chamber with so much hot air? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: When it comes to hot air that member is a human blunderbuss. The billows over there in the front row blow pretty regularly for that member to make a wonderful contribution. 
It amazes me that the National Party the anti-bureaucratic party would spend all its energy— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why is the member so upset? What is the member disappointed about? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Now it has brought the big hitter from Ilam the member for Ilam Gerry Brownlee—the big bazooka—who has come down here to put a bit of energy into the team because its members are flailing a bit and to have a crack at attacking clause 1. 
What does clause 2 say? It simply says that this Act will come into force on 1 July 2008. How on earth could one disagree with that? How on earth could one disagree with a bill that seeks to reform and renew a very old Act and that seeks to strip away some of the bureaucratic stuff that was around in respect of the naming of the continental shelf and other areas to assert our sovereignty over those areas? Who on earth could disagree with that? I am sure the punters the real people who sit outside this place listening tonight are scratching their heads asking firstly who is Brian Connell and secondly why is he wasting our time trying to attack and defeat what is a pretty logical bill. Normally we have to say—and I am sure others may agree—that this is a sort of bipartisan bill. There is not a lot of politics in it. But maybe it is audition time—maybe they want the member for Ilam’s job. I do not know. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I noticed that during the course of that commentary by Clayton Cosgrove he mentioned clause 1 clause 2 and some other such—I cannot remember—and loosely that would relate to any old bill whatsoever. But he made no substantive comments about the bill itself. That raises the prospect as my colleague Brian Connell put so well before of the Government either filibustering this bill or perhaps the Chair herself being distracted by some other antics in the Chamber which means she has not been able to keep an eye on what these members have been saying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I do not actually take kindly to that sort of comment. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do apologise to you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I was fully aware— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is the end of the point of order. Madam Chairperson I seek the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I call Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No I have ended the point of order and I have called Gerry Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member spoke before you interrupted. He cannot speak and then move the closure. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I accept that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I took a point of order and then you gave me the call Madam Chairperson. Then I moved that the question be now put. It was perfectly in order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: OK. I do not accept the motion for closure. I am calling Rodney Hide. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek that the vote now be taken. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is the wrong wording I am sorry Mr Hide. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Madam Chair— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I apologise about getting the words wrong. But it is very difficult because being in Opposition we are not used to having a Government filibustering its own bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is a frivolous point of order. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would like to respond to a number of the points that the Hon Trevor Mallard made. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yeah; Cabinet doesn’t talk to itself. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Mallard raised what is a serious issue and he raised it as is his right. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I know there has been a little bit of to-ing and fro-ing and a little bit of humour—some good some bad—but I think the Minister is prepared to take a call and speak to the issue. I think the shouting and boorish behaviour we have on the other side of the Chamber has gone a wee bit too far. I think those members should taihoa. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I do accept that. I would ask members on the benches right around the Chamber to take a little bit of order in what they are doing. Calling for points of order and being disorderly in the calling for them does not make much sense so if we could have less of the barrage please and let us hear the contribution from the Minister. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson. The first point I will make is in respect of the commencement date. There is a Supplementary Order Paper that changes the commencement date from what it was in the bill that went to the select committee which was 1 July 2008 to a date to be appointed by Order in Council. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry but I cannot hear the answers the Minister is giving and I am really interested in them. Madam Chairperson could you ask the members opposite to let us hear them please? 
Brian Connell 
: I think the difficulty here is that the Minister is not speaking into his microphone and that he is speaking to his own party rather than addressing the Committee. Madam Chairperson if you could direct the Minister to do that then I think we would all hear what is being said. I am sure it is riveting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I will ask the Minister to do that. Before he resumes could I also remind the member immediately to my left Sandra Goudie that the interjections should be minimal short and brief and not a barrage of noise. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Madam Chair. The Supplementary Order Paper changes the commencement date so that the legislation if passed comes into force on a date appointed by Order in Council. 
The other more substantial point was the issue raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard as to the way in which the legislation can be referred to either by its Maori name Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa Act or by its New Zealand equivalent the New Zealand Geographic Board Act—with the year 2008 in both cases. One of the things that has changed since the previous legislation was passed back in 1946 is that we now have two official languages in New Zealand. We have Maori and English being used as alternatives plus New Zealand Sign Language— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: English is not an official language. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh I am sorry. Well we have Maori as well as English being languages that can be used for official purposes in New Zealand and that is particularly important to both those who favour Maori and those who favour English in terms of geographic features. Indeed the increasing importance of the Treaty of Waitangi—which is also recognised in this legislation; it was not in the previous Act—is also one of the changes that has taken place since the previous legislation was passed in 1946. 
In terms of giving recognition to those two languages in some legislation it is important that we go that extra step and give both the Maori and English alternatives to titles in Acts and that we enable either to be used. I think this is respectful to the interests of those who are interested in Maori geographic place names that we give that recognition in this legislation. It reflects the earlier steps that were made by the previous National Government when bringing in the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act in order to acknowledge the importance of Maori place names to Ngai Tahu. So it surprises me that National having conceded in the 1990s the importance of that to Ngai Tahu in respect of their claims settlement—and it was very important; it remains very important to them in respect of the naming of geographic names—is choosing tonight to oppose this legislation and the entrenchment of the principle of giving due regard to Maori place names in the naming of geographic features. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s a Maori place name? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: A Maori place name can be different from the English word. If the member wants an example then he is obviously not as well informed as I thought he was. Mount Egmont and Taranaki is one of the more common ones that seems to be known to most members but there are lots of other examples if the member wishes to learn about them. 
As the Minister with responsibility for this legislation I am certainly happy to have both the Maori and English translations of the name of the bill incorporated into the legislation. I think it is a step forward and that it goes towards improving relationships between Maori and non-Maori. It gives due recognition to the importance of both Maori and English. I hope that answers Mr Mallard’s question. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It does go to the precedents for calling in the House. We have had a party I think that has taken three or four calls on this clause we have had a party that has taken none and you have called again the party that has had a number of calls. My question is whether you did not hear the call from the Maori Party this time or whether there was a particular reason for not calling its members on this clause. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 The Opposition has had five calls on this part of the bill. We have requested two calls on this side and there has been no request made from members at the end of the Chamber for a call to be taken. As a result of that I moved that the question be now put. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I think this is the second or third time the Maori Party member has attempted to get the call on this clause and for Mr Tremain to say that there has been no request made from members at that end of the Chamber is just incorrect. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I agree with Mr Mallard actually but having called Mr Chris Tremain the Chairperson cannot un-call him. What the Chairperson can do however is realise that Mr Tremain’s moving that the vote be now taken will not be agreed to and then the member from the Maori Party—Mr Flavell; I am almost too scared to say his name—but the Chairperson certainly cannot now drop off Mr Tremain and I am sure Mr Mallard would agree with me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I thank the member. I heard Mr Tremain I am declining his call to end the debate and I am now calling the member Te Ururoa Flavell—and I am practising my pronunciation. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chairperson. The pronunciation of that call was a very good effort indeed; thank you very much. Today as members know we put out a statement in the House and I thank members this evening who listened to that discussion today. If there has been one benefit already then it is that members have taken stock of their pronunciation in general and they have taken a little bit more care. That is very much appreciated. So ka nui te mihi ki a koutou katoa. 
[ 
Much appreciation to you all. 
] 
There was a lot of discussion around the issues the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. I thought that I would take a brief call—anxious as members are to pass this legislation I suppose—just to set the record straight about a couple of things that some members may not know. They are raised in the light of clauses 1 and 2 and the issues that Trevor Mallard raised earlier. The first thing is the matter raised by the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker which is that Maori is an official language of New Zealand—of Aotearoa—and that New Zealand Sign Language is the other official language. I am told that even in terms of the statement we made today English exists as a lingua franca. What is a lingua franca? It is a language used as a common language between speakers whose native languages are different. 
Hon Member 
: Is that so? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Yes; I learnt that today which is pretty good. 
Rodney Hide 
: Your Latin ear’s good. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Ha ha—I thank Mr Hide. The second thing which is another important notion that I think is good to put in front of the Committee is that New Zealand’s citizens can request to be addressed in Maori in a court of law and the court is expected to provide a translator. But oddly enough the proceedings are recorded only in English. So that might give us a lead as to where we are heading in terms of response to Mr Mallard’s comments. 
The third thing I want to put in front of the Committee that might be of interest is that most public services are available only in English and the fourth thing is that some Government departments will provide translations or Maori-speaking public servants on request. Key Government documents such as the census and other documents of concern to Maori are usually translated into Maori. 
So what is the point of some of those key points of information? I suppose it is to come back to the matter that Mr Mallard raised. He talked about the fact that the title of this particular bill starts off in English “New Zealand Geographic Board” and then in brackets it has “Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa”. Clause 1 states: “and may also be cited as—(a) the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 2007; or (b) Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa Act 2007.” I cannot remember the term that Mr Mallard used in terms of how it is set out— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Style. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Style! So I suppose we might throw back that challenge and say that if Maori is the official language of Aotearoa and not English as Mr Mallard acknowledged a little bit earlier—and there is also New Zealand Sign Language—then perhaps the easy answer is to put the Maori title there as the official language and follow it up with the English title. In terms of let us say the official language notion the proposition of putting the Maori version in front is I hope a response to Mr Mallard’s call around this particular issue. I suppose that in raising the issue we are put in a position to be able to open up that debate to a number of bills—in fact if not to all bills in this Parliament—on the basis that Maori and New Zealand Sign Language are the official languages of this country. Therefore one might suggest that they go at the front of the title and not at the back and certainly not in brackets. That might be able to help the Minister in terms of future developments or in fact help the whole Government or any Government about how they might set out bills from here on in. It would certainly create an awesome precedent and in particular line up with some of the discussion that was placed in front of the Committee today. Kia ora. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I thank the member Te Ururoa Flavell for his contribution. He raised an issue that I had not got to which is the relative positioning of the Maori and the English within the title of the bill. I think there is a question to be asked because clearly English has been the dominate language of legislation. There is a natural inclination to start in English and then to translate but I do not know whether there is a good reason for that especially when there is a bill that is looking at alternatives. A better example could be by turning the title around and having the “Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa (New Zealand Geographic Board) Act 2007”.  
I am not sure even on the question of the translation of “Act” because of the party. I have never seen a translation of its name—probably the type of party that ACT is means it is less likely to have a translated version available. But there is a question of whether the word “Act” could also be in Maori as well.  
I think this has raised an important issue. Style has developed. I am absolutely certain that at the time of Koro Wetere’s decision to change “Mount Egmont” to “Mount Taranaki” he would have contemplated—[ 
Interruption 
] I apologise to the member. I have climbed it but I probably cannot pronounce it. He is welcome to climb it. He can pronounce it but probably could not climb it. But going back to the time of the Hon Koro Wetere he probably would have contemplated having something like this bill but getting the widespread support of the Parliament at that time would have been unlikely.  
I think we have made some progress to get to this point but the question is raised as to whether the Minister has got it right with the first line of the title the precedents and what is in the brackets. I think probably with deference to the Maori Party Mr Henare and others who have made a contribution on this bill that we will probably have to put it through in the form it is in now and accept that as progress as far as legislation is concerned. But we should look at two issues: at the question of the order of the English and Maori in the title and also at whether in fact the style is something that is more generally applicable.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Ka tono au  
Kia takoto te patai. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I move 
 That the question be now put.] 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill without amendment and the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted.