Fenton Darien: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Fenton Darien: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15460] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I thank our Maori Party colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for those comments. They fill me with great confidence as I take a call in the second reading debate on the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. Despite this bill seeming on the surface to be fairly simple I found it extremely interesting. Particularly interesting was the history of legislative provisions for place naming in New Zealand. These provisions were initially administered under the auspices of the Royal Geographical Society in London until the Designation of Districts Act in 1894 gave the Governor of New Zealand authority to alter or assign place names in the colony. 
John Hayes 
: I can read that too. It’s in the bill. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I will get there if the member would be patient. 
One of the reasons for a place names authority was to avoid confusion in the naming of post offices railway stations and so on. In 1924 the Minister of Lands approved the formation of a board to adjudicate on questions generally concerning place and feature names in New Zealand. The first board was known as the Honorary Geographic Board of New Zealand. However this board lacked the legislative power to enforce its decisions and acted only in an advisory capacity until the New Zealand Geographic Board Act was passed in 1946 and the present New Zealand Geographic Board was established. 
In 1959 a United Nations resolution paved the way for the establishment of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names in recognition that: “Consistent use of accurate place names is an essential element of effective communication worldwide and supports socio-economic development conservation and national infrastructure.” New Zealand has supported the principles underlying the UN group’s programme with for example the move towards dual Maori-English place names in some circumstances. 
As the Minister has said this bill came about after a comprehensive review and public consultation process involving the public iwi central and local government and sector groups. It is part of Labour’s plan for the future and it will help keep and preserve our unique national identity in the future. It provides a sound framework for New Zealand’s official geographical naming in the 21st century and it will also help ensure that place naming reflects who we are as a nation. 
The bill repeals and replaces the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946 as other speakers have said. It modernises the official naming process of New Zealand’s geographic features. The bill also extends the jurisdiction of the board to the naming of undersea features on New Zealand’s continental shelf and it revises procedures for public participation in the place naming process. Finally it aligns the provisions of the Act more clearly with the Treaty of Waitangi and it updates administrative provisions including the composition of the board. 
During the first reading debate National members indicated their support for the bill but they went to great lengths to disparage it as a lightweight bill that could have been dealt with more effectively in a Statutes Amendment Bill. Jacqui Dean said she wondered about the time spent debating a bill of such lightness. She said she regretted that she could not give a weighty speech on such a lightweight bill. Mark Blumsky said he did not think the bill warranted the status of being a bill in its own right although he did warn about the consultation procedures being passed on to local government and he expressed concern about the implications of extensive consultation. Lindsay Tisch said this bill was not important enough to take up the House’s time and that it could be covered in a Statutes Amendment Bill. Nick Smith called the changes in the bill very minor tinkering changes and said the House should not be wasting its time on such minor bills. 
If the bill is so minor tinkering and such a waste of time why then is National not supporting it tonight? I can agree that the bill is small and not overly significant in the scheme of things. It should have been very easy to get through the select committee process. But even simple bills like this one seem too complex for some members of the National Party particularly those on the Government Administration Committee. If we are talking about wasting time I have to say that the select committee wasted a huge amount of time while one of the National members tried to show her scholarly skills by arguing with officials making mountains out of molehills and seeing phantom traps in every clause of the bill. Can members guess who I am talking about? 
The changes that Labour will propose by way of Supplementary Order Paper are sensible and reasonable. The objections that National members are raising are not. Let us take the first one. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Why are they being done by Supplementary Order Paper? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It wasn’t that member was it? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I could not possibly answer that question. I will leave members to guess that. 
National objects to the fact that clause 24 gives a new discretion on whether to consult the public before a place name is changed. The National Party minority report on the bill states: “National members believe it is a fundamental right for all New Zealanders to be involved in this decision-making process”. Well that is not what National members said during the first reading debate. Lindsay Tisch as I have already said warned about the compliance costs of consultation. Jacqui Dean asked where the consultation would end and where the cost would end in the simple naming of a place. Actually the bill does not hinder public consultation. It does nothing of the sort. It gets rid of bureaucracy by allowing the board to make changes quickly on non-controversial proposals such as when everyone agrees. [ 
Interruption 
] I would have thought National members would be keen on getting rid of bureaucracy. 
Clause 24 which National objects to applies only to recorded names and discontinued official geographic names not to new name proposals or the alteration of a name. Despite the legal advice that the committee received that that discretion is judicially reviewable National members persisted in their bizarre objection to clause 24. I see this as typical slippery National under John Key’s leadership. In their first attack on this bill National members claimed it is too bureaucratic. In the second attack they claimed it is not bureaucratic enough. Well which is it? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Very slippery. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well it is slippery of course and we cannot expect any clear answers from National under John Key’s leadership. 
National members also derided the board in the first reading debate despite the information available to them that although the board may meet only for two 1-day meetings a year plus teleconferences and other tasks this very productive board makes an average of 100 decisions per meeting on New Zealand names and 60 on Antarctic geographic names. 
The New Zealand Geographic Board is an important institution. It is through this board that any name changes need to be applied for. For example recent proposals to rename land features after Sir Edmund Hillary will need to go to this board. I note that John Key the leader of the National Party was very quick to jump on to that idea. It is important of course to wait for a respectful period after the death of that great man and the right feature needs to be found before the board pursues these proposals. However I am advised that the board has already approved two names in Antarctica: the Hillary Coast and the undersea Hillary Canyon. 
Names of places we know and identify with such as mountains and rivers as well as settlements and localities reflect in a very real way our culture and shared heritage as New Zealanders. So although National has decided to treat this bill with disdain the Labour-led Government knows that the official naming of geographic features is important to communities and needs to be taken very seriously. 
I take this opportunity to thank the officials for their patient advice. Boy did they need to be patient in that select committee! I also thank the other parties that see that this bill is sensible and very necessary. I am very very pleased to support the bill.