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

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 Māori Party and even from my Māori 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 Wētere 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 (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and it may also be cited as either the New Zealand Geographic Board Bill or Ngā 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 Māori but also uses Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori translation in the title or have it as an alternative citation—to have either the English title or the Māori 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 Māori 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.

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—

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 (Ngā 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.

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.

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.

I seek that the vote now be taken.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): That is the wrong wording, I am sorry, Mr Hide.

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 Māori name, Ngā 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act in order to acknowledge the importance of Māori place names to Ngāi Tahu. So it surprises me that National, having conceded in the 1990s the importance of that to Ngāi 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 Māori place names in the naming of geographic features.

Hon Tau Henare: What’s a Māori place name?

Hon DAVID PARKER: A Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori and non-Māori. It gives due recognition to the importance of both Māori and English. I hope that answers Mr Mallard’s question.

I move, That the question be now put.

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 Māori Party this time, or whether there was a particular reason for not calling its members on this clause.

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.

I think this is the second or third time the Māori 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.

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 Māori 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.

Tēnā 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori-speaking public servants, on request. Key Government documents such as the census and other documents of concern to Māori are usually translated into Māori.

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 “Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa”. Clause 1 states: “and may also be cited as—(a) the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 2007; or (b) Ngā 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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.

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 Māori 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 “Ngā 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 Māori as well.

I think this has raised an important issue. Style has developed. I am absolutely certain that at the time of Koro Wētere’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 Wētere, 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 Māori 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 Māori in the title, and also at whether, in fact, the style is something that is more generally applicable.

Ka tono au, Kia takoto te pātai.

[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 (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.