Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10872] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will be supporting this bill. We do have some questions however as to why we are debating it now. The principal Act has been around since 1946 so 61 years later it is to be amended. When I look at the progress of this bill I see the first genesis of a review was done in the release by the Government of a discussion paper in October 2003 and here we are 4 years later now looking at a bill that changes names and gives further powers. One would have thought however that because this is really not such important legislation as to need to take up the House’s time it could be covered in a Statutes Amendment Bill. In Statutes Amendment Bills we have a number of bills that we think can be passed and if all parties agree then the bills proceed on that basis. The measures in this bill could have been covered by a Statutes Amendment Bill. 
But when I look at the Order Paper I can understand why the Government has brought this bill forward because the Order Paper is very very light. Out of the 26 bills on the Order Paper today 12 are second readings five are at the Committee stage and four are third readings so it is not going to take very long for the Order Paper to become depleted. Tonight the Government is moving in this bill to take up the House’s time; otherwise it will find that its legislative programme will be very very much reduced. 
Since 1946 when the principal Act was passed there have been significant changes to geographic names. Their importance has increased for local national and international purposes so this bill is required. The question National asks is why? Why do we need a bill when names have been changed over many many years? I remember that my mother who was born at Egmont Village always referred to the mountain as Mount Egmont. Although she has passed on now she always referred to it as Mount Egmont even though it is known as Mount Taranaki. There will always be people in local areas who see their local landscapes the geographic features and refer to them by the names they had when they were brought up. 
The bill provides for a number of new functions to be carried out including new administrative functions and the territorial authorities will be involved in those. The question that needs to be asked—and certainly other speakers on the National side of the House have asked this—is what will be the compliance costs associated with implementing this new legislation? 
I note that Maori place names are significant in maintaining and certainly promoting our culture and heritage. From a tourism perspective they are one of the advantages that make New Zealand uniquely different from other places in the world. The Associate Minister of Tourism well knows that visitors to New Zealand can climb mountains go bungy jumping and ski anywhere in the world but what they cannot do elsewhere is to experience Maori culture. That is significant and we support the legislation along those lines. 
I had reason to visit a town in northern France—Arras—which members may have heard of. During the First World War there was an underground city where the citizens of that city were able to go. It had a 700-bed hospital. I have been fortunate enough to go through those caves. They have been there for centuries but the New Zealand tunnelling company was very much involved at the time in making the place safe for citizens to shelter in during the war. I mention that because each of the street names that came off the main thoroughfare was the name of a New Zealand town. The names were those of towns of significant New Zealand importance and many of those names were Maori. 
I note that clause 8 is an important clause. Although the board will have the powers and functions along with the territorial authorities to name certain places—including places on the continental shelf and the Ross Dependency—one thing the board will not be able to do is to alter the name of New Zealand. That is certainly reassuring. 
Clauses 16 to 21 concern the process for the approval of names and clauses 22 and 23 look specifically at the names of local authorities districts and regions. I mentioned before that the compliance costs need to be looked at closely. When this bill goes to a select committee no doubt those sorts of issues will be raised at that time. I also note another point that no doubt will come out in the select committee. In clauses 27 to 29 where the board cannot agree on a name when the matter has been referred to the board for review in accordance with the policies then the issue comes to the Minister of Conservation for final determination. No doubt a question will be asked as to how that process will work. 
Finally it is important that clause 33 as Jacqui Dean identified in her address allows the board or any person to apply to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the publication of an unofficial name in an official document. That safeguards our heritage; it safeguards the important landscapes and names within New Zealand. 
Although National does not think this bill is as important as other bills it is certainly one that National will be supporting.