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

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.

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 Māori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell on the importance of correct pronunciation. I apologise for my poor attempts at Māori. 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 Māori 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.

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 Rēwiti to Rēweti. I apologise for the pronunciation. That submission ran to 40 pages. Chief Rēweti 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.

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.

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.

Mr Deputy Speaker—

💬 Christopher Finlayson: How are the real estate agents at the moment?

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 (Ngā 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 (Ngā 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 (Ngā 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 (Ngā 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 (Ngā 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?

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!

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.

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 Māori 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—

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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!

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!

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!

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 (Ngā 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 (Ngā 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.

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.

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 Māori 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!

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?

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.