Smith Nick: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10873] 
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.