Dean Jacqui: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10868] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill going to the Government Administration Committee but I wonder about it because I have taken a wee bit of time this afternoon to read through this bill—about half an hour. I just wonder whether this bill would not have fitted in nicely to a Statutes Amendment Bill. I reflect on the number of members of Parliament who are sitting in this House this evening and I wonder whether this is the kind of business that the House should be concerning itself with in such a solemn nature. It appears to me upon reading this bill that although it is laudable and I look forward to seeing what the select committee comes up with when it gets to chew it over I wonder about the Government’s legislative programme when we spend our time debating a bill of this lightness. However that is possibly for the Government to answer. 
The New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill updates the 1946 Act and we support that. Of course it is terribly important that we have a robust process for naming places we hold dear to our hearts in New Zealand so we support it from that point of view. But I have a number of questions to raise and I suspect that the select committee to which this bill passes will discuss a lot of the questions that I and my colleagues have already raised. Mr Blumsky has raised a couple of very important issues to do with this terribly terribly weighty bill which I believe could have been dealt with more effectively in a Statutes Amendment Bill. 
However one of the major questions I have about this bill is the proposal to devolve to local authorities in the future through subsequent legislation the responsibility for assigning or altering the official names of localities and suburbs. So does that mean there will be another bill all by itself or will the legislation be tucked into another Statutes Amendment Bill? I just raise that question to be helpful to the Government whose legislative programme seems to be a bit light. Maybe this is an opportunity for the Government to pop in another little bill and this might be the way to do it. But what concerns me about devolving part of the responsibility for the naming assigning or altering of official names is that the board will retain a concurrent role in that process. Well shucks that looks to me like another layer of bureaucracy and it looks like some more reports and some more joint meetings and people will have to have lunch and travel. It just looks to me as if this will be a very cumbersome expensive and slow process. So I wonder whether the select committee that considers this bill might also consider the wisdom of having a concurrent role in the naming of significant areas for us. 
I turn now to the functions of the board. My colleague Mr Blumsky noted how many times the board was to meet per annum. I did not hear the answer; was it four times per annum or two times per annum? Nobody is telling me so I do not know but it does not appear to me that the board would meet too often. The questions I would probably have are where would the board meet and how much would it cost ratepayers—well it will cost ratepayers with the devolution of responsibilities to local government—and taxpayers? Will we be paying twice for this? 
We see that the functions of the board include signing approving altering or discontinuing the use of official geographic names—that is fine. Clause 10(2) also requires the board to review any proposals that include naming or altering the name of a Crown protected area. So the board does have a function. 
Further to that the board is to administer the Gazetteer and develop policies. That sounds a bit suspect to me because I thought all the board was to do was to name things but no it will have to develop policies. Of course it will because if local government is going to be brought into it then local government will have to bring up a policy under the Local Government Act. We know that. Maybe this issue will be so significant that the board will have to trigger off the requirement to have a special consultative process. So where will the consultation end? Where will the cost end in the simple naming of a place? I just raise the question and I am hoping the select committee can do some asking in respect of that. The duties of the board are to develop policies rules guidelines or standards for naming Crown protected areas. For goodness’ sake this board will sit there hour after hour after hour developing policies in conjunction with local government. I ask how much that will cost because I believe there is a whole minefield of cost and talk talk talk within this bill. 
I support clause 33 of Part 3 “Miscellaneous provisions” going to the select committee. Clause 33(1) will allow the board to apply to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the publication of an unofficial name in an official document. That is one of the sensible things I read in this New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. 
Those are about all the comments I have. I have waded through this bill and I wish I could provide a weighty 10-minute speech but this is not a weighty bill. I have done my very best to give it the weight it deserves. When the bill goes to the select committee I will be very interested in the submissions of the local government sector and I hope the sector’s representatives do not feel the need to travel to Wellington to make a submission on this bill because I do not believe it is worth the cost of air fares or train fares to do so. I think that written submissions or submissions via videoconferencing could pretty much cover the making of submissions although that is up to individual councils. 
 I have another small concern about devolution to local authorities—that is when a decision like this gets too small then feelings grow. When we have a small community with one family here and another family there and then suggest a name using that of a third family or something like that then maybe decision making in a little wider sphere could be helpful. 
Finally to end my weighty speech on this weighty bill— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Good! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I know that Government members have enjoyed it because they have just said so. I thank them for their encouragement. 
I note that Bridges 1 2 and 3 are on the magnificent Lindis Pass. I also note that one of the nicest names we have in New Zealand is the Pigroot. One might think that the Pigroot would be pronounced the “Pig Route” but it is the Pigroot and it is accompanied by Pigroot Creek. If that does not say “New Zealand South Island” I do not know what does. I thank the House for the opportunity to give a weighty speech on this weighty bill.