Fenton Darien: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Fenton Darien: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15886] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to speak in the third reading debate on the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. This has been a most interesting debate despite the weak defence put up by the National Party and its mad decision not to support this very straightforward simple but very important bill. 
We have learnt a lot about the importance of names naming and pronunciation. We have all been reminded that Maori is an official language of New Zealand and that we all must make more effort. We have considered many examples of geographic features and the reasons for the names and we have talked about the importance of showing respect to each other in the House by endeavouring to call people by their correct names. [ 
Interruption 
] We have been reminded for the benefit of Sandra Goudie that this bill is important as it updates a 60-year-old law—and what is wrong with that? 
The bill contains some important provisions that were not in the original Act. One of those provisions is the extension of the jurisdiction rights of the board over the continental shelf. The continental shelf has Ruapehu-size volcanoes ravines up to 1 kilometre deep and sedimentary drift deposits up to 1 kilometre thick. The continental shelf is very important to New Zealand. It is over six times the area of the land mass of mainland New Zealand and it includes approximately 1.7 million square kilometres of continental shelf outside our exclusive economic zone. Right now it is the subject of increasing research and activity. So extending the board’s role as this bill does to naming features of the continental shelf will play a part in New Zealand’s effective management of the undersea resources in our area. 
I would have thought that the National members would see that as a priority. But no they have chosen to ridicule this bill and the board to focus on phantoms and imaginary problems and to take up hours and hours of select committee time for what should have been the straightforward modernisation of legislation that did need updating. 
The bill also recognises the Crown’s responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi in the context of the collection and use of original Maori names and geographic features on official maps and charts. As we have noted the Geographic Board already plays an important part in providing advice in proposed cultural redress for Treaty claim settlements where place names are involved—for example in the official name of Aoraki - Mount Cook. 
During the select committee process the Government Administration Committee received a small number of submissions all of which were positive about the bill—and the chairperson the esteemed Shane Ardern agrees with me. Two submitters said the bill did not go far enough in regard to Maori names and wanted to see a role for the board to restore Maori place names for all localities in Aotearoa. Another submitter said he believed that the board had not been strong enough in its policing of correct names for natural features such as original names assigned by Maori. The same person wanted the board to consider renaming New Zealand. Indeed some people might argue that “New Zealand” is actually a misspelt Dutch name and as such is no longer appropriate for our country but clause 8(2) states: “the Board does not have jurisdiction to assign a name to or alter the name of New Zealand.” 
It is also important to remember that this bill came about after a comprehensive review and public consultation process involving the public— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh get off the grass! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Does the member disagree with that? She might like to take a call and say exactly how the consultation process was deficient; otherwise she should just bear with me. 
The consultation process involved the public iwi central and local government and sector groups and it should have proceeded with little fuss. So it has been perplexing to say the least to try to unravel National’s objections to the bill. Some National members have said that the bill should not be in the House at all because it was not important enough. I do not think we can say that 1.7 million square kilometres of continental shelf is not important. The changes that the Labour Government has proposed are sensible and reasonable but the objections the National Party is raising are not. 
National claims that clause 24 gives a new discretion on whether to consult the public before a place name is changed and National states in its minority report that it believes it is a fundamental right for all New Zealanders to be involved in this decision-making process. Well that is news. Although the bill does not hamper public consultation National members complained about added bureaucracy. Then they came into the Chamber for the second reading and the Committee stage and complained about there not being enough. I ask you! In any case clause 24 which National has objected to applies only to recorded names and discontinued official geographic names and not to new name proposals or alterations of a name. 
National members claimed that clause 23 would mean enormous costs to businesses because only official names had to be in official documents such as those defined in clause 4. As the Minister pointed out during the Committee stage this is a provision in section 18 of the existing Act of 1946 though that section is worded a bit differently and it may be just too hard for the National members to get their heads around it. Let me read section 18 “Names in maps scientific manuscripts or tourist publications”. It states: “(1) No person shall publish or cause to be published in any geographic or scientific manuscript or publication or in any guide book handbook pamphlet road map or other publication intended for the use of travellers or tourists generally or on any map in any such manuscript or publication as aforesaid any name purporting to be the name of any place locality or natural feature in New Zealand to which any provision of this Act applies unless the name appears on a map previously published by or under the direction or control of the Surveyor-General or is a name assigned to or approved for that place locality or natural feature pursuant to this Act:”. 
When I talked about phantoms and problems that do not exist that was what I was referring to. We are dealing with a bill that rewrites an old Act and puts it into modern language and maybe that is just too difficult for some National members to get their heads around. This has been a very interesting bill to deal with despite National’s position. I have been offended to hear some National members branding this bill as tinkering. On the one hand the bill is just tinkering but on the other hand National members oppose it. 
We should not underestimate the importance of the role of the Geographic Board. Our boundaries and our land features and the names of the 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. Members on this side of the House and other parties such as the Greens the Maori Party New Zealand First and United Future all know that the official naming of geographic features is important to communities and needs to be dealt with seriously. 
I take another opportunity to thank the officials for their patient advice and to thank the patient members of the select committee for the interesting background information and indeed for the debate we have had on this bill which has been very educational. I am pleased to support the third reading of this bill.