New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill

The debate on this part includes schedule 1.

The fact that Parliament is even debating the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā 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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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 (Ngā 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.