Blumsky Mark: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
Blumsky Mark: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10865] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 It is nice to have the opportunity to speak on what I now understand to be incredibly important legislation. I did not realise just how important it was until I heard the Minister build it up. I would have to suggest that my colleagues and myself on this side of the House believe that this is a little bit of padding in the House to be perfectly honest and maybe a Statutes Amendment Bill would have been appropriate for legislation of this type because when one reads through the context of the bill it really is just an administration bill to a large extent. But anyway we are supporting it tonight and I am very comfortable speaking on behalf of my colleagues in that vein. 
I have to suggest to members that the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill is very interesting. I did not know we had a New Zealand Geographic Board and I did my usual test of just how aware the public is of it. At the gym this morning I asked Rachel and the other gym members there whether they had heard of the New Zealand Geographic Board and like myself there is a very large public unawareness of this organisation if I can be so bold. 
 It is one of those organisations that sits a little bit under the radar and I did a little bit of research this afternoon. The board has met eight times in the last 3 years so I suggest to members that it is not the most incredibly busy board that we have within the list of boards that operate in New Zealand. It is interesting though because I have learnt how we name things or how various landscapes or whatever get named. I was not aware of that. In fact the history as outlined in the bill is interesting. It talks about the fact that the Governor-General in 1894 had the right to assign or alter place names. Then of course there was the 1946 Act which the Minister referred to in his speech that took over that right and gave it to the New Zealand Geographic Board. We now obviously have a guardian of names. 
The board undertakes to assign place names and I thought that that was more than appropriate. I also found very interesting the fact that if one of us wants to be remembered by a place name and to have a name allocated we have to be dead. I thought that that was rather sad. But I was reflecting on what potential names the New Zealand Geographic Board could actually assign over the next little while and I noticed that it has the right to assign names to waterfalls. It occurred to me that we have the Huka Falls but one day we might have the “Benson-Pope Falls”. I thought that was a very appropriate dissertation if you like on his legacy to New Zealand. Then I thought that if we had any cliffs like the White Cliffs of Dover we could well end up with the “Cullen Cliffs” because I suggest that very many times he must feel like jumping off those cliffs— 
Pansy Wong 
: Or be pushed. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: —or he might be pushed by members of his caucus for sure. I am quite encouraged I tell the Minister by where this bill is going. The bill talks about the current responsibilities of the board but it also talks about the fact that one day this naming function will be devolved to local government. 
I think that the select committee process will be a good opportunity for the local government sector to become involved in where this bill goes. Local government should become involved because this is another piece of legislation that has the risk of adding to its workload. It is another piece of legislation from this Government that could add to the financial costs of local government which would therefore carry those costs on to the ratepayer. I think it is important that local government does get involved in the bill at this stage because there is an impact on what it will be doing as per its role over time. So local government should be consulted and needs to be consulted. I hope that local government is involved and has it made very clear what its responsibilities are and what the costs of those responsibilities will be. 
The local government sector will have to be careful though I would suggest because when it does take over the naming of locations suburbs or landscapes I can assure members from history that that is a very fraught area in local government. The community can become very very divided over what something is named. For example a battle is occurring right now at Rotoiti in Nelson because there is a settlement there called St Arnaud but people are looking to change that name to Rotoiti. The community is very divided as to where they should go with that name change. So it is no easy task when we want to pass this type of role on to those in local government and it is with care and a warning that I suggest local government looks at where this bill will take it when those functions are devolved. 
In summary National is supportive of this bill. We believe that it is a padding of the programme in the House and does not actually warrant the status of being a bill in its own right. But we understand the need to update the 1946 Act and we support that. However we send a message to local government that it should become involved early because yet another example is being shown by this Government of how it wants to pass the roles it has had on to local government and as I have said the sector then has to debate whether there is a cost involved. This side of the House supports the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.