Hayes John: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Hayes John: New Zealand Geographic Board  (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15464] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It was with some interest that I sat and listened to the dull dour head-down monotones of Labour Ministers David Parker and Damien O’Connor earlier in the evening. It is quite clear to me that they are in a tunnel of despair and depression and they can see a light quite some distance away. What they do not realise is that it is a large locomotive with a big blue sign with a big “N” on the front and it says “National”. It is racing through that tunnel and within a matter of months it will hit them and move them from those Treasury benches. 
This bill is one of the reasons why we will remove them from the Treasury benches. This bill is absolutely unnecessary. It simply adds to bureaucracy red tape complication and cost. Sure the New Zealand Geographic Board Act has been in place since 1946 but it has stood the test of time. No reason has been given so far this evening as to why the Act is unnecessary or unsatisfactory. Clearly there is a board that is associated with naming these places and it has met eight times in the past 3 years. That is hardly a huge workload. 
If there is nothing wrong with the current Act and the way it is operating then what are the compelling reasons why this bill needs to be passed? It is just another example of time-wasting bad government by Labour. This is bad legislation. 
Clause 24 gives the board discretion on whether to consult the public before a place name is changed. It was interesting to listen to the speech made by Darien Fenton who said on the one hand that she had noticed that John Key wanted to involve Sir Edmund Hillary’s name in some places and said “but we must wait a discreet distance for that to happen” but on the other hand she started talking about the “Hillary Shelf” and other features in the Antarctic. Where was the process of public consultation with the community? This Government is about cutting the community out of government in any sense or form. We see that in the Electoral Finance Act and in this bill. I think we need a strong Opposition to stand up against this and to vote against it. 
Another reason that I think the bill is very bad legislation is that we are duplicating effort. Fewer than 18 months ago in this House we passed the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act. We set up a new bureaucracy to meet discuss and decide on areas that will be provided with names for wine and spirit regions. Why is this bill necessary when duplicate legislation has set up a completely different place-name arrangement and bureaucracy to deal with only wines and spirits? The fact is that if we had a Government that was on the boil if we had a Government that had a coherent legislative programme these areas of naming would have been amalgamated into one simple authority. That is a fair enough change to the 1946 legislation but this bill is totally unnecessary and it represents totally inefficient bad government. It is simply creating more bureaucracy and giving jobs to the boys. Mr Barnett shakes his head but he will have seen it in the list of bills and his party forgot about it. His party has forgotten about it and has prepared new and unnecessary legislation. Labour could have easily amalgamated these two bills into the one measure and had one cohesive agency in this country dealing with all place names. 
Clauses 32 and 33 will potentially have a significant negative impact on commercial tourism ventures that rely on colloquial themes or place names. We are talking about Simpsons Beach or Wharekaho up in Thames. Well I can say there is a Wharekauhau in the Wairarapa. It is a significant part of the Wairarapa’s growth industry and it is a luxury lodge. The clauses require the use of official names for geographic features and if people fail to comply with the legislation it could result in a court action by the board. Many tourist attractions hold their appeal because of their name and it is commercially unattractive or impractical to start suddenly using only the official name. I think this is simply an unnecessary bureaucratic cost being imposed on a tourist industry. 
Overall the bill takes an impractical approach towards private entities. More consultation is needed to address the commercial viability of a number of clauses in the bill and to ensure that a more practical approach is adopted. This is why I come back to the point I was making earlier: if we had a cohesive coherent strong well-thought-out legislative programme we would have amalgamated the changes that are being proposed in this legislation with the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act. The fact is there was nothing wrong with the legislation that has served this country for 62 years. Nobody has identified one problem with it. It seems to me this legislation is totally unnecessary and I will be joining my colleagues in the National Party to vote against it. Thank you.