Goudie Sandra: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15547] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 3 I say it is pretty amazing that the impact of this bill will not be understood until it is passed in this House and becomes an Act. A large majority of New Zealanders—if not all of them—would not understand what this bill means in reality. 
Clause 32 is headed “Official geographic names must be used”. I wonder whether the New Zealand public knows that this bill provides that any person can submit a name to be used as an official geographic name. One of the functions of the New Zealand Geographic Board is to collect original Maori place names to be used as official geographic names. In adopting those official geographic names the board can be exempt under clause 24 from going through a public consultation process. New Zealanders need to understand the implications of that. This Government has failed to explain them clearly to the public. 
Entities in the private sector do not understand the implications of the bill. They do not understand the obligations in clause 32 regarding publications for tourism or travel purposes that use place names. Entities are required to use official geographic place names. If they do not they have to have a statement in their brochure that says a name is not an official place name. So they either have to use the official place name or if they use a local colloquial name they have to have a little statement that it is not an official geographic name. I do not think there is a tourism venture or operation throughout this country that understands that. Has there been any direct consultation with tourism groups about the impacts of this legislation? 
I am talking about clause 32 in Part 3. Can members imagine the cost to all of those tourist ventures and operations from having to change all of their brochures because one place name has changed and an official geographic name has been adopted for it by the board—possibly without public consultation because under clause 24 the board is not required to necessarily undergo it? The board has the discretion not to go through a public consultation process. It is to have that discretion now and this Government has failed to explain why it thinks that is a good idea. 
We have never had a problem before with the New Zealand Geographic Board but now the Government has decided it wants to change the playing field. The playing field was level but the Government wants to tilt it. We have now a completely different playing field where consultation is discretionary and where tourism ventures have no idea of the impacts on their bottom line from having to record official place names in their documentation. Of course the board can take entities to the High Court if they fail to observe the requirements of the Act. Perhaps the Minister in the chair David Parker may like to take a call to explain clauses 24 and 32 and tell us exactly what will happen with regard to tourist ventures and operations. 
I am very proud to be standing here as part of National saying that we oppose this bill for very good reasons.