Burton Mark: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Burton Mark: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15469] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) 
: 
 I would like to pick up in a sense what my colleague the Hon George Hawkins started. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Why bother? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Well because for once we had some useful contribution to the debate. I must say that I thought I had lived a long time and that the day would never come that I would have cause to stand up and have something to say in response to Sandra Goudie because that in itself is quite a remarkable thing. But I have to ask this question—and I did ask the member by way of interjection; I was serious at the time. She was lamenting the renaming of one Simpsons Beach. The questions I pose to the member are simply these: when was it named Simpsons Beach and did it have a name before that? I really do not know the answers to those. I suspect there were some people around before those people who called it Simpsons Beach and I suspect they probably had a name for it. But apparently it has not occurred to that member that that might be the case and you see I think that just denotes the point. 
We have heard so much from members opposite as to why this New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill is unnecessary. They seem to think that time is locked not only for once and for all but also for a very narrow band which began apparently at some point about 100 years ago and is frozen there for the rest of time. Well that may be the Tory view of the world but I am sorry it is not the way it really works because culture and life is a dynamic thing. It is a living breathing moving thing. Things do change and evolve—yes they do and there will be controversy and debate from time to time. The power to name is one of the most profoundly powerful things that human beings can do. To give a name an identity and a reality to something is a very powerful thing. Of course it is. To be able to identify and name a mountain a river or a place is a profoundly important thing. But for the members opposite to suggest that somehow we are now locked in for all time and that the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: A good year. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: —a good year as it may have been—is also locked in time is unrealistic. As we witness tonight just as that member who was born small and perfectly formed in 1946 has evolved and changed with some rough changes along the way and with some improvements— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Where? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: —damn! I should not have gone down that track; I am sure there are some good improvements in that member—similarly there has been a need for change in this area of legislation. 
I will just cite for the members opposite who seem unaware of it the research that was done. [ 
Interruption 
] This is a novel idea. I know that Mr Hayes is relatively new but he might find it useful. If he goes over to the Table there are several pieces of paper there. One of them will be called by the name of this bill. If he is to read it he will see that on the first two pages there is an explanatory note. That is something the member may not have encountered before but an explanatory note tells us a bit about the bill. It tells us its purpose for being. That bill identifies in a mere 1? pages why the historical background justifies this legislation and why we need to update the 1946 Act which had its genesis even further back in the Designation of Districts Act 1894. I am sure members opposite will think that that Act should have stayed just as it was giving as it did the Governor of New Zealand the authority to alter and assign place names. 
Of course by 1946 it was clear there was a need for modernisation and change; the same situation applies now. For instance there is the use of geographic names for identifying correct emergency incident locations. The need for that in the modern technological environment in which we now live and operate is simply and fundamentally different. On the matter of naming in relation to the continental shelf and the Ross Dependency—again these are large extensions of the role and function. The legislation needs to reflect that and there needs to be change in order to enable that to occur. There is research underpinning this bill. It has led to and identified some of these areas of required change. This bill creates a more flexible environment that is more suited to the 21st century. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What about the effect on tourism operations? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I know that Sandra Goudie is locked in the early part of the 20th century and is barely dragging herself out of the 19th century but I tell the member that for the rest of us life has moved on. The world has moved on; it is the 21st century. Even my good friend George Hawkins has accepted that we have moved from 1946 into the 21st century. Things change; things are required in order for us to effect that change in an appropriate way. This bill gives the board a concurrence role in determining names for the protected areas that are managed for instance by the Department of Conservation. That is a refining of its function and role and it does this by formally involving the board in the naming process on conservation land. 
I also want to identify who is involved in making decisions because one of the criticisms that members opposite have made is about representation. Of course had the members read the bill they would know that two new positions have been created on this board. The reason for that is the widening of the functions of the board. Therefore because of the range of constituents it represents and the additional responsibilities it carries those additional persons are needed to better reflect the range of constituencies that the board must consider in its decision making. 
All in all I say to members opposite that it is the 21st century and that they have to get with the programme. It is time to change this legislation. It has served us well but it does need to better reflect the needs of 21st century New Zealand.