New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10864] 
New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Land Information 
: I move  
That the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee. It is with great pleasure that I introduce this bill which repeals and replaces the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946. The 1946 Act has guided the official naming of New Zealand’s geographic features for more than half a century but it now needs to be modernised. The bill before the House today is the result of a comprehensive review and consultation process involving public iwi local government and sectoral groups. The result is legislation that provides a sound framework for New Zealand’s official geographic naming needs into the 21st century. It will also help to ensure that place naming will reflect who we are as a nation. 
In my ministerial role as decision maker in some place-naming submissions that the New Zealand Geographic Board deals with I know that official naming of geographic features is important and taken very seriously by communities. The names of places that we know and identify with such as mountains and rivers as well as settlements and localities reflect in a very real way our culture and shared heritage as New Zealanders. Knowing the correct names for places and their location is also important for people in all manner of everyday communications and activities for businesses and their transactions and for emergency services in responding to incidents. 
This bill provides for the continuation of the New Zealand Geographic Board and its important place-naming work. The bill also extends the board’s jurisdiction in particular to include the naming of undersea features within New Zealand’s continental shelf. It recognises the Crown responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi in the context of official geographic names it refines public consultation processes for proposed names it enables the public to have access to a record of official geographic names it ensures board membership better represents a wider range of constituents and additional board responsibilities and it provides for more transparent board accountability. 
Extending the board’s place-naming jurisdiction to include New Zealand’s legal continental shelf is a significant step. New Zealand’s total continental shelf is up to four times that of the land. This area is of high strategic importance for New Zealand and it is now the subject of increasing research and exploration activity. Right now the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is considering New Zealand’s continental shelf boundary submissions which encompass the approximately 1.7 million square kilometres of continental shelf outside our exclusive economic zone. The Geographic Board’s role in naming features of the continental shelf will play a part in New Zealand’s effective management of the undersea resources within our area. Extending the board’s jurisdiction to include the continental shelf is also consistent with the Government’s Ocean Survey 20/20 initiative which is a coordinated work programme of projects that will contribute to the knowledge base of ocean and sea floor information over the next 10 to 15 years. 
Another aspect of the bill is that it formalises the board’s Antarctic geographic naming activities which are not provided for under the existing Act. The bill’s provisions recognise the Crown’s responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi in particular with respect to the collection and use of original Maori names of geographic features on official maps and charts. In this context it is useful to acknowledge the valuable role that the Geographic Board plays in providing advice on proposed cultural redress for Treaty claim settlements where place names are involved—an example being the now official dual name of Aoraki / Mount Cook. 
The Geographic Board’s current responsibility for assigning or altering the official names of suburbs and localities is continued under the bill. However this function will be devolved to territorial authorities in the future through subsequent legislation. This devolution agreed to by Cabinet and supported by local government will include a naming code of practice with the Geographic Board retaining concurrence in the process. The bill provides for a similar concurrence role for the board and for public consultation where names for Crown-protected areas are proposed under legislation administered by the Department of Conservation. 
The bill will ensure that the public has access to a record of all official geographic names and it will require documents to use official geographic names where they exist. The bill will also give the board discretion to determine effective consultation time periods and the best means of publishing final name decisions thus relaxing what have proven to be overly prescriptive public consultation requirements in the current legislation. 
Two new board members are provided for under the bill. The first new member is needed because of the significant extension of the board’s functions to include undersea feature naming within the continental shelf. The second new member is from the local government sector and is needed particularly because of the importance of official suburb and locality naming for standardised address information across our country. Accountability provisions relating to the Geographic Board are enhanced under the bill by the requirement to submit an annual report to the Minister on the board’s performance. The bill will now also be subject to the Ombudsmen Act of 1975. 
This legislation provides a sound framework for New Zealand’s official geographic naming needs in the 21st century. It ensures that place naming reflects who we are as a nation. I commend the bill to the House. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 It is nice to have the opportunity to speak on what I now understand to be incredibly important legislation. I did not realise just how important it was until I heard the Minister build it up. I would have to suggest that my colleagues and myself on this side of the House believe that this is a little bit of padding in the House to be perfectly honest and maybe a Statutes Amendment Bill would have been appropriate for legislation of this type because when one reads through the context of the bill it really is just an administration bill to a large extent. But anyway we are supporting it tonight and I am very comfortable speaking on behalf of my colleagues in that vein. 
I have to suggest to members that the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill is very interesting. I did not know we had a New Zealand Geographic Board and I did my usual test of just how aware the public is of it. At the gym this morning I asked Rachel and the other gym members there whether they had heard of the New Zealand Geographic Board and like myself there is a very large public unawareness of this organisation if I can be so bold. 
 It is one of those organisations that sits a little bit under the radar and I did a little bit of research this afternoon. The board has met eight times in the last 3 years so I suggest to members that it is not the most incredibly busy board that we have within the list of boards that operate in New Zealand. It is interesting though because I have learnt how we name things or how various landscapes or whatever get named. I was not aware of that. In fact the history as outlined in the bill is interesting. It talks about the fact that the Governor-General in 1894 had the right to assign or alter place names. Then of course there was the 1946 Act which the Minister referred to in his speech that took over that right and gave it to the New Zealand Geographic Board. We now obviously have a guardian of names. 
The board undertakes to assign place names and I thought that that was more than appropriate. I also found very interesting the fact that if one of us wants to be remembered by a place name and to have a name allocated we have to be dead. I thought that that was rather sad. But I was reflecting on what potential names the New Zealand Geographic Board could actually assign over the next little while and I noticed that it has the right to assign names to waterfalls. It occurred to me that we have the Huka Falls but one day we might have the “Benson-Pope Falls”. I thought that was a very appropriate dissertation if you like on his legacy to New Zealand. Then I thought that if we had any cliffs like the White Cliffs of Dover we could well end up with the “Cullen Cliffs” because I suggest that very many times he must feel like jumping off those cliffs— 
Pansy Wong 
: Or be pushed. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: —or he might be pushed by members of his caucus for sure. I am quite encouraged I tell the Minister by where this bill is going. The bill talks about the current responsibilities of the board but it also talks about the fact that one day this naming function will be devolved to local government. 
I think that the select committee process will be a good opportunity for the local government sector to become involved in where this bill goes. Local government should become involved because this is another piece of legislation that has the risk of adding to its workload. It is another piece of legislation from this Government that could add to the financial costs of local government which would therefore carry those costs on to the ratepayer. I think it is important that local government does get involved in the bill at this stage because there is an impact on what it will be doing as per its role over time. So local government should be consulted and needs to be consulted. I hope that local government is involved and has it made very clear what its responsibilities are and what the costs of those responsibilities will be. 
The local government sector will have to be careful though I would suggest because when it does take over the naming of locations suburbs or landscapes I can assure members from history that that is a very fraught area in local government. The community can become very very divided over what something is named. For example a battle is occurring right now at Rotoiti in Nelson because there is a settlement there called St Arnaud but people are looking to change that name to Rotoiti. The community is very divided as to where they should go with that name change. So it is no easy task when we want to pass this type of role on to those in local government and it is with care and a warning that I suggest local government looks at where this bill will take it when those functions are devolved. 
In summary National is supportive of this bill. We believe that it is a padding of the programme in the House and does not actually warrant the status of being a bill in its own right. But we understand the need to update the 1946 Act and we support that. However we send a message to local government that it should become involved early because yet another example is being shown by this Government of how it wants to pass the roles it has had on to local government and as I have said the sector then has to debate whether there is a cost involved. This side of the House supports the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. It is very interesting that this bill replaces an Act that goes back to 1946. This bill is about the naming of names and I think that that is very very important. Most times when I come down to Parliament we fly around New Plymouth and we fly past Mount Taranaki. I notice that from time to time pilots talk about Mount Egmont and I think “Taranaki”. Where is this name from how did it change how does this process of change go how are names registered and how do we come to use names? 
I note tonight Mr Assistant Speaker that you have been very careful in your use of Maori language and Maori names. We have just had Maori Language Week and I must commend Radio New Zealand also on its use of Maori language in Maori Language Week and I note that it is continuing that use. 
It is very important to New Zealand that as this bill says we name names in New Zealand to indicate what places are about. This bill is not coming before my select committee but I note that in my select committee we had a bill called the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill where we dealt with where wines come from what wines are named and how they are named in terms of export and so on. Our names in New Zealand are very very important. It is important that we get them right it is important that there is a process and it is important that there is public consultation. 
This bill does three things in that it repeals and replaces the old Geographic Board it extends the board’s jurisdiction as we have said to New Zealand’s continental shelf and it recognises the Treaty of Waitangi responsibility in the context of official geographical names. What is in a name? Everything is in a name and the names we use for things are extremely important as is the effort we go to in New Zealand to get things right. I have noticed recently that new schools in my area have been named and people have gone to a great deal of trouble to do research on the area that the school services and on who owned the land previously and what the names were. People have gone to a great deal of trouble not only in the naming of the name but in following up on the tradition of that name so that it carries on in the name of the school the name of the place or the name of the street and so on. 
I note as we have said that the bill will help to ensure that place naming will reflect who we are as a nation. I remember going on a trip to the Pacific where somebody asked me what a tui was—what was the meaning of that New Zealand word “tui”? I explained that it was a bird and the questioner said that that was interesting because he had just bought a piece of land and had dug up a whole lot of tins that all had the word “Tui” on them. He was quite impressed that the tui was not just a can of beer but also the name of a bird. That piece of land—I think it was in Vanuatu—was then going to be called “Tui” and the farm was going to be called “Tui”. The tradition had been carried on from soldiers who were there during World War II. So traditions do carry on. We can look around the walls of this House and see place names and they are place names that are very significant to New Zealanders. 
It is important that we have a geographic board and that the naming of names occurs in the way the bill intends. As we have said the bill extends the board’s jurisdiction to cover the continental shelf and it recognises responsibility in relation to the Treaty. 
The bill also mentions—and I am very pleased with this—the public consultation process. That is very important in New Zealand. There have been some tremendous arguments about names of places and about changes in names and it is very important that we get that sorted out. The bill enables the public to have access to the record of official geographic names. The bill also ensures that board membership gives a better representation of people who are involved in this process. It provides for more transparent board accountability. I think these elements are true of what we are seeing now with legislation. Not only are we feeling proud of New Zealand’s processes in forming legislation but more and more we are involving more people and having more public consultation. We are ensuring greater democracy when people are involved in the naming of geographic places. 
 I note now that some places have dual names which recognise the official languages of New Zealand. For example we have Aoraki / Mount Cook. As I mentioned in respect of Taranaki we have a greater recognition in many cases of the original names that were used by people and have significance to the culture and the history of this country. 
I thank the Minister and the officials involved for the formulation of this legislation. I am sure that it will be a very interesting process for the select committee to look into the implications of the bill and I am sure there will be some very interesting submissions on this bill about the history of naming. 
In looking at the introductory summary of the bill that I have before me I see that it refers to Aoraki / Mount Cook. I notice that so often now when we look around the country we see that things have two names. There is an interesting television ad about who we are which shows No. 1 bridge No. 2 bridge No. 3 bridge and so on. The ad says that New Zealanders are very economical with names. We are also very concerned to have names that people recognise names that are significant and names that recognise who we are and our history. I look forward to the progress of this bill through the House. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will take a very brief call just to say we are pleased also to be supporting the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. It is great that the Government has seen its way clear to update the 1946 Act after 61 years. 
We are also pleased to see that a significant part of this upgrading involves a new Maori name for the board and other provisions to recognise the Crown’s responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. This is particularly important because so many of us particularly of course tangata whenua are keen to rediscover acknowledge and rename places with the names with which they were originally blessed. 
Although this is clearly not the most significant legislation to come before this House in 2007 the board does carry out absolutely necessary functions and we support its emergence in a new 21st century incarnation. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill going to the Government Administration Committee but I wonder about it because I have taken a wee bit of time this afternoon to read through this bill—about half an hour. I just wonder whether this bill would not have fitted in nicely to a Statutes Amendment Bill. I reflect on the number of members of Parliament who are sitting in this House this evening and I wonder whether this is the kind of business that the House should be concerning itself with in such a solemn nature. It appears to me upon reading this bill that although it is laudable and I look forward to seeing what the select committee comes up with when it gets to chew it over I wonder about the Government’s legislative programme when we spend our time debating a bill of this lightness. However that is possibly for the Government to answer. 
The New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill updates the 1946 Act and we support that. Of course it is terribly important that we have a robust process for naming places we hold dear to our hearts in New Zealand so we support it from that point of view. But I have a number of questions to raise and I suspect that the select committee to which this bill passes will discuss a lot of the questions that I and my colleagues have already raised. Mr Blumsky has raised a couple of very important issues to do with this terribly terribly weighty bill which I believe could have been dealt with more effectively in a Statutes Amendment Bill. 
However one of the major questions I have about this bill is the proposal to devolve to local authorities in the future through subsequent legislation the responsibility for assigning or altering the official names of localities and suburbs. So does that mean there will be another bill all by itself or will the legislation be tucked into another Statutes Amendment Bill? I just raise that question to be helpful to the Government whose legislative programme seems to be a bit light. Maybe this is an opportunity for the Government to pop in another little bill and this might be the way to do it. But what concerns me about devolving part of the responsibility for the naming assigning or altering of official names is that the board will retain a concurrent role in that process. Well shucks that looks to me like another layer of bureaucracy and it looks like some more reports and some more joint meetings and people will have to have lunch and travel. It just looks to me as if this will be a very cumbersome expensive and slow process. So I wonder whether the select committee that considers this bill might also consider the wisdom of having a concurrent role in the naming of significant areas for us. 
I turn now to the functions of the board. My colleague Mr Blumsky noted how many times the board was to meet per annum. I did not hear the answer; was it four times per annum or two times per annum? Nobody is telling me so I do not know but it does not appear to me that the board would meet too often. The questions I would probably have are where would the board meet and how much would it cost ratepayers—well it will cost ratepayers with the devolution of responsibilities to local government—and taxpayers? Will we be paying twice for this? 
We see that the functions of the board include signing approving altering or discontinuing the use of official geographic names—that is fine. Clause 10(2) also requires the board to review any proposals that include naming or altering the name of a Crown protected area. So the board does have a function. 
Further to that the board is to administer the Gazetteer and develop policies. That sounds a bit suspect to me because I thought all the board was to do was to name things but no it will have to develop policies. Of course it will because if local government is going to be brought into it then local government will have to bring up a policy under the Local Government Act. We know that. Maybe this issue will be so significant that the board will have to trigger off the requirement to have a special consultative process. So where will the consultation end? Where will the cost end in the simple naming of a place? I just raise the question and I am hoping the select committee can do some asking in respect of that. The duties of the board are to develop policies rules guidelines or standards for naming Crown protected areas. For goodness’ sake this board will sit there hour after hour after hour developing policies in conjunction with local government. I ask how much that will cost because I believe there is a whole minefield of cost and talk talk talk within this bill. 
I support clause 33 of Part 3 “Miscellaneous provisions” going to the select committee. Clause 33(1) will allow the board to apply to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the publication of an unofficial name in an official document. That is one of the sensible things I read in this New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. 
Those are about all the comments I have. I have waded through this bill and I wish I could provide a weighty 10-minute speech but this is not a weighty bill. I have done my very best to give it the weight it deserves. When the bill goes to the select committee I will be very interested in the submissions of the local government sector and I hope the sector’s representatives do not feel the need to travel to Wellington to make a submission on this bill because I do not believe it is worth the cost of air fares or train fares to do so. I think that written submissions or submissions via videoconferencing could pretty much cover the making of submissions although that is up to individual councils. 
 I have another small concern about devolution to local authorities—that is when a decision like this gets too small then feelings grow. When we have a small community with one family here and another family there and then suggest a name using that of a third family or something like that then maybe decision making in a little wider sphere could be helpful. 
Finally to end my weighty speech on this weighty bill— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Good! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I know that Government members have enjoyed it because they have just said so. I thank them for their encouragement. 
I note that Bridges 1 2 and 3 are on the magnificent Lindis Pass. I also note that one of the nicest names we have in New Zealand is the Pigroot. One might think that the Pigroot would be pronounced the “Pig Route” but it is the Pigroot and it is accompanied by Pigroot Creek. If that does not say “New Zealand South Island” I do not know what does. I thank the House for the opportunity to give a weighty speech on this weighty bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. The great Te Arawa thinker Socrates gave us a lead in understanding the importance of naming rights and the powers and duties of naming. He said: “Regard your good name as the richest jewel you can possibly be possessed of—for credit is like fire; when once you have kindled it you may easily preserve it but if you once extinguish it you will find it an arduous task to rekindle it again.” That was Socrates from Te Arawa. 
The focus of this bill in clarifying the procedures for Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa around approving geographic names has everything to do with retaining the value of names as the richest jewels in our cultural heritage. The Maori Party is very pleased to support the development of rules protocols and guidelines to ensure a systematic and standardised approach to the official naming of geographic features. The power to name is linked to the distinct languages to mita stories ancestral memories and tribal heritage of tangata whenua. Naming our places our landscapes the reserves the parks the streets the cities the towns is therefore very important to Maori. And within this we believe it is vital to foster community respect and understanding for the vital contribution that indigenous peoples can make about the significance of land and the duty to care. 
Our attachment to places is far more than physical. Describing and naming our landscape are significant in connecting with our emotional spiritual and cultural heritage. I give as a example one place in my electorate of Waiariki—the town of Turangi. It takes its name from the rangatira Turangitukua who is central in the history and ongoing life of Ngati Tuwharetoa. The people of Hirangi Marae in Turangi reference themselves to Turangitukua as guardian of Rongomai of the Tongariro River at the head of Lake Taupo. The name Turangi therefore links between the past and the present—references back to tupuna and the whakapapa that is vital to the people. 
The names we use and promote colour the way we perceive them. Those in a position to name hold the power to also shape the perceptions we hold of places. In this light I am so pleased to see that the title clause permits this bill to be known either by the English title the New Zealand Geographic Board Bill or its Maori title Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa Bill. 
We know in Aotearoa that the process of colonisation has often brought with it a renaming of much of our land resulting in particular histories being shared and others being marginalised. We need only look at the recent history—early last year in fact for my colleague Tariana Turia—to see the extent of this alienation. The name of their awa their iwi their rohe suddenly lost a letter—the infamous letter “h”. To add insult to injury the mayor of that city Michael Laws sent out a directive telling organisations who spell the name as “wh” to now reconsider their position or justify it to the community. His position was to rename the town with the made-up word Wanganui without the “h”. 
Whanganui iwi lobbied the Wanganui District Council to include the “h” in the name telling the council it was meaningless without it. They went so far as to lay a complaint with the Human Rights Commission advising the commission that it is a fundamental human right to ensure that the integrity of the language is upheld. I give this example today because I believe it is critical that in the debate around naming rights we consider the relationship between Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa and the local authorities. Although the board will apparently retain the responsibility for official naming of localities and suburbs it is suggested that this will be devolved to local authorities in the future through subsequent legislation. If the experience of the Whanganui district council teaches us anything it is that the value of mana tupuna of naming rights is not being consistently honoured at all by this local council. 
The importance of process of respecting the authority required to alter or assign place names is however demonstrated in another instance that I want to share with the House. This is the experience of July 2005 when the New Zealand Geographic Board recommended to correct the spelling of Mount Parahaki in Whangarei to be Mount Parihaka. The local iwi brought forward their expert advice—that Mount Parihaka is the original Maori name of this landmark. Objections were received. The board considered submissions made its own investigations and in due course advised the Minister accordingly. 
As this House will be aware the board acts in an advisory capacity where it receives objections to a name proposal and sends a recommendation to the Minister for a final decision. In this case the luck was all good. The iwi were lucky in that the Minister for Land Information at the time was the Hon Pete Hodgson who had grown up in Whangarei and therefore had a personal association with the importance of this landmark. Due process was therefore followed; the decision was formalised; the new old name was published in the  
New Zealand Gazette 
; and the world in Whangarei still goes on. That was a good process. The power to name the power to claim as put forward by mana whenua was supported by the Crown. It gives a very good precedent to future functions and responsibilities for the board. 
The people who first put names on the map in this country were not linguists. They were not aware of the importance of paying careful attention to the subtleties of pronunciation. They were generally Europeans—surveyors and explorers who would travel through the land and write up the names that they “thought” they heard. In this respect although we understand how mistakes come about it does not however detract from the importance of getting it right now to ensure that the geographic features the Crown protected areas and the landscapes of Aotearoa are respected and consistent with the original names attributed to this place. 
I can perhaps illustrate the importance of naming within kaupapa Maori. Our identity as tangata whenua is based upon our ancestral waka our physical landmarks such as maunga and awa—a body of water a river the moana—the sea; and a significant tupuna our ancestors. In this way the names we know of our places are not just neutral markers of the geography. They are our very identity and culture of our people and our communities. To make mistakes with spelling is therefore far more serious than a typing error. All of this explains the need for ongoing and meaningful consultation with Maori to guide the board’s jurisdiction across territorial authorities across protected areas across rohe. 
Finally I refer to a quote by the Tuhoe identity Tame Iti in 2005. When he talked about the silencing and denial of the use of Maori language in post-colonial Aotearoa he had this to say: “If you can imagine yourself in a room and you are the blackbird and then the other blackbird decided that nobody is allowed to sing like a blackbird it’s all the seagull language.” So members can imagine that there is going to be resistance. 
This bill in establishing and supporting Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa is a way of ensuring that both blackbirds and seagulls can sing together and that there is policy in place that invests in the value of names as the richest jewel in our cultural heritage. The Maori Party is therefore happy to support this bill. Kia ora tatou. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will be supporting this bill. We do have some questions however as to why we are debating it now. The principal Act has been around since 1946 so 61 years later it is to be amended. When I look at the progress of this bill I see the first genesis of a review was done in the release by the Government of a discussion paper in October 2003 and here we are 4 years later now looking at a bill that changes names and gives further powers. One would have thought however that because this is really not such important legislation as to need to take up the House’s time it could be covered in a Statutes Amendment Bill. In Statutes Amendment Bills we have a number of bills that we think can be passed and if all parties agree then the bills proceed on that basis. The measures in this bill could have been covered by a Statutes Amendment Bill. 
But when I look at the Order Paper I can understand why the Government has brought this bill forward because the Order Paper is very very light. Out of the 26 bills on the Order Paper today 12 are second readings five are at the Committee stage and four are third readings so it is not going to take very long for the Order Paper to become depleted. Tonight the Government is moving in this bill to take up the House’s time; otherwise it will find that its legislative programme will be very very much reduced. 
Since 1946 when the principal Act was passed there have been significant changes to geographic names. Their importance has increased for local national and international purposes so this bill is required. The question National asks is why? Why do we need a bill when names have been changed over many many years? I remember that my mother who was born at Egmont Village always referred to the mountain as Mount Egmont. Although she has passed on now she always referred to it as Mount Egmont even though it is known as Mount Taranaki. There will always be people in local areas who see their local landscapes the geographic features and refer to them by the names they had when they were brought up. 
The bill provides for a number of new functions to be carried out including new administrative functions and the territorial authorities will be involved in those. The question that needs to be asked—and certainly other speakers on the National side of the House have asked this—is what will be the compliance costs associated with implementing this new legislation? 
I note that Maori place names are significant in maintaining and certainly promoting our culture and heritage. From a tourism perspective they are one of the advantages that make New Zealand uniquely different from other places in the world. The Associate Minister of Tourism well knows that visitors to New Zealand can climb mountains go bungy jumping and ski anywhere in the world but what they cannot do elsewhere is to experience Maori culture. That is significant and we support the legislation along those lines. 
I had reason to visit a town in northern France—Arras—which members may have heard of. During the First World War there was an underground city where the citizens of that city were able to go. It had a 700-bed hospital. I have been fortunate enough to go through those caves. They have been there for centuries but the New Zealand tunnelling company was very much involved at the time in making the place safe for citizens to shelter in during the war. I mention that because each of the street names that came off the main thoroughfare was the name of a New Zealand town. The names were those of towns of significant New Zealand importance and many of those names were Maori. 
I note that clause 8 is an important clause. Although the board will have the powers and functions along with the territorial authorities to name certain places—including places on the continental shelf and the Ross Dependency—one thing the board will not be able to do is to alter the name of New Zealand. That is certainly reassuring. 
Clauses 16 to 21 concern the process for the approval of names and clauses 22 and 23 look specifically at the names of local authorities districts and regions. I mentioned before that the compliance costs need to be looked at closely. When this bill goes to a select committee no doubt those sorts of issues will be raised at that time. I also note another point that no doubt will come out in the select committee. In clauses 27 to 29 where the board cannot agree on a name when the matter has been referred to the board for review in accordance with the policies then the issue comes to the Minister of Conservation for final determination. No doubt a question will be asked as to how that process will work. 
Finally it is important that clause 33 as Jacqui Dean identified in her address allows the board or any person to apply to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the publication of an unofficial name in an official document. That safeguards our heritage; it safeguards the important landscapes and names within New Zealand. 
Although National does not think this bill is as important as other bills it is certainly one that National will be supporting. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It speaks volumes about the death throes of the Government that here we are we have the highest interest rates in the Western World each week 760 New Zealanders are getting on a plane to leave the country old people in pain are sitting in hospital emergency departments for 3 days waiting to get a hip operation we have an export industry on its knees with a record high dollar one in four New Zealanders is leaving school unable to read and write and what is on the Government’s legislative programme for our House of Representatives? It is the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. 
I suggest this is hardly the issue on the minds of New Zealanders that they are wanting this Parliament of ours to address. We are going to be making some very minor tinkering changes. The New Zealand Geographic Board—wait for it—is going to be able to assign names for areas in relation to the continental shelf. I am sure that has people excited out there in Kiwi country. I am sure that is the issue on their minds that they want Parliament to be addressing. But even with this bill it is a botch-up. Let me tell members why. 
Back in October 2003 a discussion paper was put out—and the discussion paper shows just how slowly the wheels of Government spin—about how we might name places in New Zealand. The core issue was whether the decision should be made by the local council or by the Geographic Board. Well listen to this from the explanatory note. It states that the function of assigning names to localities and suburbs “will be devolved to local authorities in the future through subsequent legislation and consequential amendment.” 
Bob Clarkson 
: What the hell does that mean? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It means: “We haven’t decided.” Three years ago we had a review to decide whether the decision-making power over the names of places should be made by the local council or the board—quite a reasonable thing to be debating—and the Government has introduced a bill that says the Government has not made its mind up yet and it will do that in the future. I have to say that that is hopeless. The Geographic Board has been in place since 1946. There is no great urgency for the House to address the very minor issues covered in this bill. Why can the Government not do the job properly make a decision about whether our local councils will have this function and then introduce a bill? Would that not be a pretty logical way to go about it? 
Bob Clarkson 
: That’s common sense. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My good friend and colleague Bob Clarkson says it is common sense. Well we do not get much of that from the Government. We will put a select committee to all the work of hearing submissions. We will advertise up and down New Zealand and the very issue that people want to debate is whether the councils or the Geographic Board should decide but they cannot do that because the Government decided that that issue will be dealt with in a consequential amendment. 
I simply say to the Government that it should do the job once and do it properly. But the truth is that the Government’s legislative programme is so weak and so light and it is so bereft of ideas about where it may take New Zealand that it brings half-baked stupid ideas like this bill to the House simply to use up time. Members on the National side of the House simply say that is not good enough. We say that if the Government wants to bring in a bill it should resolve the issue as to what the approach and role of local authorities will be include that in the bill and let the House do the job once and let it do it properly. 
The National Party is saying the House should not be wasting its time on such minor bills. As my colleague Lindsay Tisch said this is the sort of minor tinkering that should be dealt with in a Statutes Amendment Bill. There are many important issues facing our nation—everything from the quality of our education system fixing up the mess in the health system dealing with the crisis in our export sector and dealing with the issues of the overburden of tax to dealing with the burden of compliance costs that this Government has imposed on people. If National was on the Government benches those are the sorts of issues we would be addressing rather than trivia and trash like this bill which makes such a small difference. 
I simply challenge the Government and say that if it wants to reform the Geographic Board that is fair enough but it should do it in a single process. If it is going to make a ruling that these decisions about names will be made by local councils it should not put the House and the process through the pain of debating this minor bill and subsequently bring in amendments at some future time to make that substantive change. If the Government is going to have a rational reform process around the— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Rational! That’s rich coming from you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Maybe Mr Cosgrove can explain. Why are we not going to make a decision through this bill about the role of councils in the naming process? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’re not rational. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I asked the Minister in charge of the bill a very reasonable question. The bill says that the role will be devolved to local authorities in subsequent legislation. Why not do it in one process? It seems a pretty rational question to me—that if the Government is going to do it it does it in one process. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It’ll be the first time for you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Those members have become so desperate in Government that they cannot answer the questions. All they can do is resort to personal abuse. I simply challenge members opposite and say that is not a sensible way to do it. If they are going to change the role and who decides what name is for what place if they are going to give that function to local authorities for goodness’ sake include it in one bill so that we can have one intelligent debate about the proper process for naming places in New Zealand in 2007. This bill does not do it. 
This bill is just a time-waster for a Government that has no legislative programme no vision for New Zealand and is wielding bills into the House that are ill-prepared where the policy work is not done and as a consequence we waste the time of this House and this country. This country needs the sort of bold agenda that John Key set out at the weekend rather than this sort of pathetic— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Selling State houses again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Clayton Cosgrove interjects that we might sell State houses to the tenants in them. We think that is a great idea. I ask Mr Cosgrove what he has against homeownership. We know that in every single year Labour has been in office the rate of homeownership has declined. And yes a John Key - led National Government will change that because— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Keep saying it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have to tell Mr Cosgrove that when I talk to my State housing tenants in Nelson and say: “John Key is going to give you the opportunity to own your own home.”— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Aha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —they say just as Bob Clarkson says: “Good job bring it on change the Government and focus on the real issues.” When there is reform of the Geographic Board it will be done in a logical way. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.