Goudie Sandra: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15892] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to rise to speak against the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill—and I do not mind in the least if members pronounce my name wrong. This bill from the outset lacked good problem definition. That is actually a hallmark of this current Government. Whenever it is putting legislation through the House it lacks good problem definition so what we get is usually legislation that is less than robust and full of difficulty and conflict. This bill will be another one of these bills. There would be only a few dozen people who are aware of the bill’s existence. Largely the New Zealand population is unaware of this bill unaware of the provisions of the bill and unaware of what the potential outcomes of this bill will be. We heard about those potential outcomes from the previous speaker. We heard a reference to the renaming of names in the Waikato so we could see a plethora of Maori names being promoted for use in the Waikato. 
One of the key concerns around the bill is the fact that there are some new provisions outside what is currently in legislation. The provisions include board places for two additional Maori or iwi representatives and there is now discretion on the part of the board as to whether it is going to consult. That is a serious issue. There were only about 17 submissions to the discussion document and there were only about 5 submissions to the actual bill which I consider hugely disappointing. But the majority of submissions to the discussion document supported the requirement to consult the public. I think that is absolutely imperative because place names are important to people. My learned colleague was also talking about the cost in regard to place names and I will cover that a little bit later. 
The purposes of the bill are outlined at the beginning of it. They are about widening the powers of the board and the bill certainly does that. The board can now collect Maori place names and the Maori place names and any other name that has been collected to date may be validated without further referral to the public then becoming official place names. The effect of an official place name is this. Let us take the example of Wanganui and the adding of just an “h” to its name. If public bodies and any brochures or documentation used by tourists or for travel or whatever have to change the name that they currently have from Wanganui to Whanganui—I am not sure how we pronounce it—by adding an “h” there is a cost to that. If they have to completely change a name there is a huge cost to that. That has a much greater burden of cost on local authorities and commercial enterprises that use geographic place names as part of their tourist promotion. 
If the official geographic place name is not used some words have to be added. For example if we take people for a walk down to Sarah’s Gully and it is instead called Onewhero but we want to keep the name Sarah’s Gully we have the name Sarah’s Gully on a sign but underneath that name there has to be put the words “not the official name”. That is only if the official name is not used; if the official name is used of course that does not have to be done. But if the official name is not used there has to be put underneath the name Sarah’s Gully the words “This is not the official name.” I have not heard of anything more impractical or more dumb in my entire life. Well actually I have because quite a lot of that sort of thing goes on in the legislation of the current Government. 
These are just some of the things members will find in this bill—this innocuous little bill that everybody thinks is fine and is going to be OK. But I tell members we will see continuations of bun fights up and down the country. We have them already on occasion. Simpsons Beach at Whitianga now has the place name Wharekaho. That is put in big letters and underneath in smaller letters in brackets is Simpsons Beach. So what are we going to see? 
Some of the other functions of the board—as set out in clause 11—are to collect original Maori names for recording on official charts and official maps. What will that mean if the board has a function to collect original Maori place names throughout the country? What will that mean in terms of how official names will be required to be used over and above the other names that are already there? This is not readily apparent. If these names are validated without going out to public consultation how are communities going to react to no longer being able to use their local colloquial names? Will we see a plethora of dual names throughout the country and will people want to see that? People go crazy enough about seeing so many billboards sandwich boards etc. now. 
The new discretionary powers of the board that allow it to not have to give public notice and consequently not publicly consult apply to a range of areas. They apply to the alteration of a name of a district or region geographic features outside territorial limits the adoption of existing names for undersea features the process for review and the validation of certain names. If an official geographic name exists—and bear in mind that it is the function of the Geographic Board to collect those names—then it has to be used. If it is not used then one has to put in a little statement that “this is not an official geographic name.” The organisations that have to do that are all public authorities anybody producing brochures for travel or tourist operators that use place names. Let us just think about that. Here is another cost on local authorities another burden on ratepayers that they do not want. No organisation will provide the funding assistance necessary if it has to start changing a plethora of place names. That is certainly a possible consequence resulting from the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. Do the public know that? No they have not got a clue. The problem definition certainly was not done. 
There has not been a problem with the current legislation. Why change it? One of the new areas in the bill is clause 6 “Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”. It refers to those sections that come under some of the other functions of the bill which is about collecting those official geographic names. 
As my learned colleague Shane Ardern pointed out there is potential added cost if public bodies or commercial entities do not use the official geographic name and do not enter the statement that it is not an official geographic name. An injunction may be granted by the court to the Geographic Board in regard to the use of a name but the board will actually be exempt from any damages. It might be able to bring a claim against a local authority or a commercial entity about the fact that it is not using an official geographic name and it will be exempt from damages while a tourist venture could be crippled as a result of any action taken. 
The Human Rights Commission has stated: “Schedule 1 could be seen as giving rise to indirect discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origins because Maori are more likely than non-Maori to have knowledge of tikanga Maori. Non-Maori could therefore be disadvantaged in appointments to the Board. It could also be argued that clause 11(1) appears to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnic origin because it gives the Board a specific direction to collect and encourage the use of Maori placenames. There is no such direction in respect of non-Maori place names which could be of equal importance to these groups. Whether this would result in disadvantage to Maori is not clear however we have considered clause 11(1) further on the basis that it could be prima facie inconsistent with section 19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act.” 
I am very proud to stand here and oppose this bill on behalf of National.