Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15472] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I have been listening to this debate with some interest as my name has come up a couple of times. It is always reassuring to know that we had an impact during the first reading of a bill. I notice that one of the speakers George Hawkins talked about the name of a significant mountain in the North Island always known as Mount Egmont having been changed to Mount Taranaki. I have a particular interest in that area because my mother came from Egmont Village and went to school there. With this legislation I wonder whether the name of that village will now have to change to Taranaki Village. The village is synonymous with the mountain; that is why it had the name Egmont Village. Now that the mountain is named Mount Taranaki—and we accept that—the point is that if this legislation goes ahead do we have to change the name of the village that lies under the mountain? It could well be that people in the future will refer to that little hamlet as Taranaki Village. 
I am sure that the people who live there or who went to school there like my family did are going to say that that is absolute nonsense. They were brought up knowing that those places were Mount Egmont and Egmont Village only to find that the names are to change because a few people are to sit on a board and decide that that is how it will be in the future. 
We said right in the first reading of this bill that this was going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. There will be a compliance cost associated with having a board constituted to make decisions about what names should be. My colleague to my left John Hayes talked about the regulatory impact. In this legislation there is not one mention of a regulatory impact statement or that there will be a compliance cost for businesses. Tourism has been mentioned on a number of occasions especially by Sandra Goudie. Should names be changed at a whim—hopefully there will be a consultative process but that is probably unlikely—there will be a huge compliance cost to be met by the sorts of businesses that will have to comply. 
Let us remember that tourism is New Zealand’s number one export earner—worth $18.6 billion—and this legislation will put a huge compliance cost on those areas. I doubt whether tourism operators know that this legislation is before the House. They will soon know about it because I will tell them. So if we were to look— 
Brian Connell 
: Read the commentary. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is in the commentary; Brian Connell has made a good point. The thing about it is that I am sure that if it were not for the National members putting their views in there then the industry at large—and New Zealanders at large—would not know the significance of this legislation. 
So I support my colleagues here in saying that this bill is not necessary. I ask where the mischief is. Why after all these years do we have to make changes? Where is the mischief that means that this legislation should proceed? National has opposed this bill and I am happy to be taking a call to oppose it as well.