Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) Link to this
I move, That the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a second time. It is with pleasure that I move the second reading.
This bill repeals and replaces the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946. After 60 years of good service, the Act needs to be modernised. This bill being read again in the House today is the result of a comprehensive review that has taken place, and of consultation processes that have involved the public, iwi, central and local government, and sectoral groups. I know that the official naming of geographic places and features is taken very seriously by communities. From my role in some of the place names that the New Zealand Geographic Board deals with, I know the strength of feeling that names can generate. We identify with the names of mountains, rivers, settlements, and localities, because they reflect our culture and heritage as New Zealanders.
Knowing the correct names for places and their location is also important for businesses in their transactions. It is important to enable emergency services to respond quickly to incidents, and it is important for New Zealanders generally in all manner of everyday communications and activities. This bill provides for the continuation of the board and its work in a modern context, and it provides for public input. New Zealanders want a say over their place names and place naming.
Another piece of the modern context is that New Zealand extends beyond the land we see on everyday maps. Our legal continental shelf is 24 times the size of New Zealand’s land area.
We hear “So what?” from the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade diplomat. Well, the “so what” is that the continental shelf, which is 24 times the size of New Zealand’s land area, is of high strategic importance, and it is the subject of increasing research and exploration activity. It is important that New Zealand exercise its sovereign rights in respect of it. That is the “so what”—it is important that New Zealand exercise its sovereign rights in respect of it.
This bill extends the Geographic Board’s jurisdiction to include the naming of features on the continental shelf, because currently the board does not have that power. The member should read the bill and understand what it is about before he spouts off, dismissing it as irrelevant. It is important that New Zealand exercise naming rights as part of our sovereign rights in respect of the continental shelf. Place naming plays a part in New Zealand’s effective management of the undersea resources within that area. The exercising of naming rights in these areas is another demonstration of our sovereign rights to them, and it further secures our rights to those valuable parts of New Zealand for the future. So I would suggest to members of the National Party that they not make light of the issue but actually understand it, and that they support the extension of the legislation to include naming rights in respect of our part of the continental shelf.
The bill refines public consultation processes for proposed names by enabling any person or organisation to submit a proposal. It has more flexible arrangements for public input, which should be welcomed.
The current legislation, which is over 60 years old, includes only land and not the continental shelf. I have said that three or four times now. If the member has not picked it up, I suggest he read the bill or talk to one of his colleagues who can explain that simple principle to him. It has obviously gone over his head the three times I have explained it so far.
The bill requires Land Information New Zealand to provide public access to a record of official geographic names by publishing and maintaining an online gazetteer of official names. Again, this is what happens when we update legislation. There has been a change in technology in that we have the Internet now. We can provide this information via the Internet in a way that is convenient to people.
The members opposite seem to think that is unnecessary bureaucracy. I happen to think it is a way we can save costs for the New Zealand taxpayer and make information more readily available for the benefit of New Zealanders. This record will contain location and historic information for these names. An easily accessible online gazetteer is needed for both official and public purposes.
The bill gives the board a concurrent role in determining names for protected areas managed by the Department of Conservation. The bill does this formally by involving the board in the naming processes for Department of Conservation land.
Under the bill, the addition of two new positions on the board ensures it better represents a wide range of constituents, and fulfils additional responsibility. One new position is an ex officio position for the official who has primary responsibility for hydrographic standards in New Zealand. That is an important step, given the vast area of ocean that New Zealand has jurisdiction over. This new member is required because of the significant extension of the board’s functions to include the naming of undersea features on the continental shelf. The other new board member is from local government and is nominated by Local Government New Zealand. This is because the bill proposes to devolve responsibility for official suburb and locality naming to local authorities. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that that naming is consistent with the need for standardised but not duplicated address information across the country. So rather than our making more centralised bureaucracy, this measure is an example of our devolving some of these rights to local government, and it agrees that that is a sensible course.
The bill provides for more transparent board accountability. Accountability provisions relating to the Geographic Board are improved under the bill by a requirement for the board to submit an annual report to the Minister on its performance. The board will also be subject to the Ombudsmen Act 1975. The board is already subject to the Official Information Act 1982, and that will continue.
I thank the Government Administration Committee for its work in examining the bill and considering the public submissions. It discussed various amendments to the bill but was unable to reach agreement, so the bill is being reported back to Parliament unchanged. As a result of this, I now wish to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to make relatively minor changes to the bill. The proposals in the Supplementary Order Paper include an amendment to the bill’s commencement date from 1 July 2008 to a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. The Supplementary Order Paper also includes amendments to various Antarctic-related provisions in clause 8 of the bill, to allow the board to assign Antarctic geographic names outside the Ross Dependency in consultation with other relevant place-naming authorities. In addition, a new definition and several corrections are proposed to specify the scope of the jurisdiction of the board in terms of the Antarctica Act 1960, and to specify a definition of “Antarctica” in clause 4. Proposals are also included to clarify in clause 25 the scope of the consultation required about features outside of the territorial limits of New Zealand, and to clarify that the board must appoint the chair of any committee that is established.
The proposal to amend the bill’s commencement date is to ensure proper coordination and timing around the implementation of the new function. The proposal to amend various Antarctic-related provisions of the bill will allow the board to assign Antarctic geographic names outside the Ross Dependency—New Zealand’s Antarctic territory. Land Information New Zealand is working on mapping areas outside the Ross Dependency. These areas are of scientific interest to New Zealand. Any naming of features in areas outside New Zealand territory will be undertaken only in consultation with the place-naming authorities of other countries that have an interest in the area.
I commend the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill, and the associated Supplementary Order Paper, to the House.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this
I respect your sound judgment in giving me the call, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge some of the work that the Minister of Land Information, David Parker, spoke of that went on in the Government Administration Committee. I think that to some extent his Supplementary Order Paper covers some of the issues that were described in the submission process and also by the officials in discussion. But having said that, I point out that the National members could not come to the conclusion that this legislation was of benefit to New Zealand. Therefore, I rise in opposition to this bill.
I shall outline to the House a number of reasons why the National members on the select committee came to that conclusion. Probably the most important one was concern about the impact that clauses 32 and 33 may have on private entities—that is, the changing of the terminology around an official document and an official place name. For example, any tourism operators who may be using a place name as part of their promotional material could find themselves in a completely compromised position and potentially unable to continue that commercial activity. We saw that as not only a risk to one of our largest industries but also an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy when it came to amending the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946.
The Act itself has worked absolutely fine for all of that time—62 years, I say to the Hon David Parker—and no evidence to the contrary was brought to the Government Administration Committee. There seemed to be no real urgency to this amendment. The overall approach taken by the select committee was to look at how the bill will enhance the grand scheme of things going forward in terms of place names. I gave the example of the coast of Taranaki, where one can start in South Taranaki at Manaia or Hāwera, then go along the road to Ōeo, Pīhama, Ōpunake, Rāhotu, Wārea, Ōkato, and Ōākura. Every single one of those names is a Māori name. We used to have a mountain called Mount Egmont because Captain Cook had sailed past and said it looked like Egmont. There was enough local concern about that for the mountain now to be officially known as Mount Taranaki, which, of course, it was traditionally known as by the local Taranaki iwi. Based on all of the evidence presented to us, there was no conclusion that the 1946 Act would benefit from these moves.
I think that the Minister does make a point in regard to the continental shelf, and given that the Minister has the numbers for this bill to pass, that issue could be a potential advantage. I wonder why the rest of the provisions had to be included in the bill at the same time. In fact, if that were the purpose of the bill, then cluttering it up with the other areas of concern was, in our view, unnecessary and outweighed any advantage that may come from the proposal the Minister outlined earlier on. That is equally so with the Ross Dependency and Antarctic naming rights, which New Zealand has always enjoyed. I understand that those types of decisions are made by consensus through an international forum, and that has been happening. New Zealand has had the ability to influence those decisions up till now. There is no issue in regard to New Zealand being overruled or not having a fair say in those issues. So even in that regard, where there may have been some select committee sympathy for the amendments, there was nothing to suggest to us that the amendments are necessary.
I am sure there are other speakers who want to elaborate on some of the comments I have made. The National Party found that it could not support the passage of this legislation.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe, kia ora tātou. I did not want to interrupt the member Mr Ardern in the delivery of his speech, but I am wondering whether members, when they are debating this particular bill, could attempt to take a little bit of care in respect of their pronunciation of Māori names.
Once upon a time, about a year ago, I brought this matter to the attention of another member, not out of disrespect but to make the point that as we debate place names, and Māori place names at that, members might like to think about proper pronunciation. I am available, sitting right here, for any members who want to take any lessons before they deliver their speech, to help them out. Louisa Wall and Dr Pita Sharples are here, as well. Kia ora.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I thank the member for raising that point. I am sure that members will ponder on it.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I thank our Māori 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 (Ngā 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.
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 Māori-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.
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?
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.
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this
I think it is appropriate that I follow the previous speaker so that I can outline some of the process issues around introducing bills into Parliament. A party will go through the first part of whether it will support a bill going to a select committee for the simple reason that it needs to scrutinise the bill, in the first instance, to see exactly why there was a bill in the first place—what is the problem to be fixed—and, in the second place, to find out any other untoward features of the legislation proposed so that it can determine whether it wants to support it going any further than the select committee.
Clearly, this New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill seemed innocuous at first glance, but on closer inspection, as it came under the scrutiny of the Government Administration Committee, it was quite clear that it was not as open and transparent as it could have been. National has major concerns with the two key parts to this bill, and our concerns have been totally ignored. In the first instance there is no real definition of a problem. There is nothing wrong with the previous Act; no problems have been identified. That is the first point.
The second point is that there is a new provision in the bill that gives the New Zealand Geographic Board the discretion about whether to publicly notify name changes. That discretion is quite extensive, and National feels that that is wrong, particularly when even the Minister has said that place names are important to people. Whether it is Diggers Gulch, Mount Taranaki, or whatever, place names are important to people.
I give the example of Simpsons Beach in my neck of the woods, where a group of people came in and said they wanted to call it Wharekaho. Well, there was a huge bunfight over that. It is now called Wharekaho and underneath, in brackets, is Simpsons Beach. What does everybody still call it? They call it Simpsons Beach. If there are to be name changes, even if they are dual names or whatever, and there is no opportunity for public consultation, then that just embeds antipathy in a community where people with opposing points of view argue ad infinitum about a place name, and nothing is settled.
This bill, which I am very proud to say National is opposing, has a provision that allows the board not to consult the public on a range of matters, if the board so deems. Those matters are the alteration of a name of a district or region, the assignment of names to geographic features outside territorial limits, the adoption of existing names for undersea features, the process for review, and the validation of certain names. National has concerns about those sorts of issues. The board now has the discretion not to notify the public or to go through a public consultation process. National is not happy about that.
Another issue relates to clause 32, “Official geographic names must be used”, which my most excellent colleague Shane Ardern referred to earlier. The official geographic name for a geographic feature or area, if one exists, must be used in all official documents. One description in the definition of “official document” is a publication intended for travellers or tourists. That clearly affects every single tourism operation in the country, because generally they include place names in all their brochures.
The tourism industry is based on offering opportunities for tourists to see our places and spaces. Place names are a big part of that, and if there is an official geographic name, then tourism operators must use it in all their documents. They cannot use a colloquial name like Simpsons Beach; they have to use Wharekaho. But if they already have Simpsons Beach on all their paperwork, then they have to state that Simpsons Beach is not the official geographic name. If they want to retain the colloquial name of Simpsons Beach on their paperwork, then they have to change all their brochures to state that it is not the official geographic name.
I do not think that anybody gave any thought to the cost involved for all the tourism ventures up and down this country. They either have to state the official geographic name or a make a statement saying that it is not the official geographic name. I have never heard of anything more stupid and ignorant. It ignores the effect on, and cost to, all the tourism venture operations throughout this country. I really do not see how this issue was conveyed to the tourism sector. National opposes this bill for those two very fundamental reasons.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this
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.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. On 13 September 2007, 143 countries of the world united in an inspirational act of solidarity—they signed up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued in the spirit of kotahitanga or partnership and mutual respect. One of those standards, article 13 of that declaration, gives us an important global perspective from which to understand this new bill, the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. Article 13 states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems, and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected.”
This bill, then, in repealing and replacing the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946, is the ideal opportunity to enable a systematic and standardised approach to the official naming of geographic features with particular respect to indigenous place names. The resurgence and revitalisation of te reo rangatira, te reo Māori, including original place names, is arguably one of the most significant features of the Māori renaissance in Aotearoa. The Māori Party is pleased that this bill is consistent with the aspirations of Māori as recognised through the provision of clause 6, which is inserted to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Far from being symbolic, Treaty justice will be seen through three specific provisions. They are, first, to collect original Māori names for recording on official charts and official maps; second, to encourage the use of original Māori names on official charts and maps; and third, to seek advice from Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori on the correct orthography—that is, the spelling and macrons—of any Māori name.
As well as these specific functions, schedule 1 of this bill has been extended with an additional two persons to be appointed to the board on the recommendation of the Minister of Māori Affairs. The Māori Party is very pleased to see such provisions.
The designated responsibilities outlined in the new functions of the board give clear emphasis to the kaupapa of mana tupuna—whakapapa—that connection that links us to our ancestors and to our heritage. And importantly, the recognition of the importance of mana whenua representation on the board demonstrates the significance that has been placed on the kaupapa of kotahitanga—moving together as one in pursuit of nationhood.
Just how vital this issue of respect for Māori geographical names is, has been powerfully demonstrated in recent weeks by the unfortunate marketing gimmick that caused enormous offence through the association of Māori place names with an English term of abuse. The gimmick, members may recall, involved a gross obscenity being placed alongside three place names, namely Whakamaru, Whakatāne, and Whakamoa. Although the dignity of this House requires that I avoid identifying the exact profanity used, the word’s literal meaning takes its source in a highly offensive term denoting that the subject engages in sexual intercourse with his or her mother. It was a classic play on words. Yet, in linking three indigenous place names with one of the most offensive profanities in the English language, it is difficult to think where anyone in the world would find some sort of humour in it.
In fact, a study published in 2002 found that British people considered this term of abuse second in severity only to a term identifying a female’s anatomy. I repeat that British people found this term of abuse distasteful. What was even more horrifying was that this gimmick, which the Māori Language Commission described as demeaning Māori people, the Māori language, and indeed, the reputation of our nation, was treated as light-hearted and funny by a political party that supposedly takes some interest in family policies. The comments from Mr Peter Dunne stating: “Only when we can laugh together will we be able to move on.” strike me as simply distasteful when thinking about the issue of incest, as indeed a letter to the Whakatane Beacon pointed out. The letter to the editor from “Ngāti Awa female of Whakatāne” concluded: “Gentlemen, some jokes depending on their use and context applied are simply over the top, therefore deeming them to be offensive”.
I have gone into quite some detail about this issue as I am hoping that the point will be taken that the placement of obscene profanities alongside Māori geographical names could not have been more offensive than in this instance. Dunedin, Dunsandel, Dunstan, “Dunn-e”? Is that still funny? No, not really. Due respect for the whakapapa denoted in the place name, as well as for the revitalisation and status of te reo Māori, will, however, be greatly assisted through the provisions of this bill we are debating tonight, and perhaps may see us avoiding being in such a situation again.
There are, however, three points of particular interest to us in the Māori Party that we will be interested in monitoring in the subsequent stages before the House. The first is that pertaining to the proposal to devolve the official naming of suburbs to territorial authorities, and the official naming of protected areas to the Department of Conservation. Although we understand the rationale behind supporting the move towards the autonomy of the local authorities to best know their own communities, we are, of course, worried by the precedent set by the Wanganui District Council 2 years ago in overthrowing the correct name of the area as recommended by iwi—that is, Whanganui with an “h”—for a made-up word. This was an issue I conveyed in depth in my kōrero, my speech, at the first reading but, suffice to say, it is a real worry for most tangata whenua to see how the regime of “majority rule” is used against Māori.
We in the Māori Party believe that although there must be sufficient consultation with territorial authorities to ensure their advice about naming decisions is taken to heart, there must also be the meaningful consultation with Māori, free of political or commercial influence at the local level.
The second major issue we will be watching out for is the proposal to align place name changes in future Treaty settlement processes more closely with the board’s standard consultation procedures. This again raises some difficulties for us. It would be our view that claimants need to negotiate directly with the Crown as Treaty partner, and final settlement decisions, including place names, need to be made by those parties, otherwise the process could be compromised and seen as less durable.
Finally, the issue that we note the National Party has indicated particular concern around is the new discretionary element set out in clause 24, detailing whether the public should be consulted before a place name is changed. It would appear from analysis of submissions that most groups considered that the existing consultation processes are generally working well. We did note, of course, that there was a strong preference for the board to undertake direct consultation with iwi rather than use the present arrangements of a proxy consultation process with Te Puni Kōkiri. The support for a more robust and culturally appropriate consultation process was strongly supported, as I understand it, where a place name proposal occurs in the rohe of the iwi concerned. Submissions also identified the need for an adequate level of funding to ensure appropriate consultation takes place.
There was also some advice from some local government submissions that the consultation principles in the Local Government Act of 2002 could be used as a guide for board consultation processes. As we well know in this House, the Māori Party has always taken a keen interest in the adequacy of consultation processes initiated by the Crown. For the purposes of this bill, we are keen to ensure that the maintenance and protection of culturally appropriate place names remain a priority across all levels of local and central government. We have borne witness to the cultural offence taken by mana whenua when tupuna names are misappropriated, misspelt, and mispronounced, or are shortened, for the benefit of the English-speaking population. Every iwi has experiences of names that have been treated with such contempt over generations. In some areas, such as was the case in the correcting of the spelling of Mount Parihaka in Whangarei, the mana has been able to be restored through respectful and meaningful consultation. We have a particular and enduring interest in ensuring that geographic place names are respected and protected, and we will continue to support this bill on that basis.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this
I want to talk about the New Zealand Geographic Board Act of 1946, which this new bill will replace.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
Of course, I was born in 1946, and as people here will know, the Labour Party is going through a renewal process. As I was born in 1946, people have suggested that perhaps it is time for renewal for me. But of course it is not.
I am pleased to be able to speak about this bill, because I think it underlines a change in New Zealand culture. When I went to school as a 5-year-old, the national anthem was “God Save the Queen”, and we all sang that heartily as 5-year-olds. When I was a teacher, we were singing “God Defend New Zealand” in English. Now kids very proudly sing our national anthem in Māori. So things change. For Sandra Goudie to talk about a beach changing its name as causing serious harm to the industry of tourism is a nonsense. We have to change.
I am in an electorate where I have a large Māori population. Most of them vote for me, even though Pita Sharples wishes they would vote for him. Of course, we have to respect the indigenous people of New Zealand. It is interesting. I went down to Egmont in January for a holiday. In days gone by I would have said I went to Mount Egmont.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
But now it is Taranaki, and New Zealanders accept the change. Everyone welcomes it, of course, apart from the members of the National Party. Those members have their heads in the sand, and when their heads are in the sand, they deserve a kick in the rear end. They have to change. It is all right being conservative; it is all right grabbing hold of those things that are of value to New Zealand—
Ron MarkHon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
We are all proud of the name change to Aorangi / Mount Cook. We have accepted the change. I did not know where Aorangi was when I was at school. I learnt about Mount Cook, and I think it was 12,349 feet, or something like that—I probably have that wrong. Those were the things we learnt about.
This bill went to the Government Administration Committee. It is not often that a select committee cannot agree; committee members work together to try to get agreement. I think Shane Ardern is a good chairman, but it is a pity that the select committee did not come together more on this.
You see, it is very important that we look to see how things are changing. We have to change. We have identified the names of our mountains and our rivers, and for most of the time people do not worry about it. In respect of the Waikato River, everyone talks about the Waikato, and it does not worry people because it is not an issue. However, when people like Sandra Goudie get up in this House and say that changing the name of a beach will cause all sorts of problems—you know, it will cause the tourism industry great concern—I say that is a load of rubbish. But what do we expect from Sandra Goudie but a load of rubbish? And we got it.
It is interesting. We had some Japanese visitors at home the week before last, and we were having a look at the map of New Zealand. It is really good to see so many changes from the old maps of the 1970s compared with the latest maps. We do change. People have talked about the changes in names to recognise the life of Sir Edmund Hillary, and people accept that changes will come for one reason or another. It is important that we also have jurisdiction over naming features on the continental shelf. This is very, very important; if we want effective management of undersea resources in that area, then we should be looking more seriously at it.
When I was mayor of Papakura, one of the great debates we always had was on the names of new streets. People used to get very passionate about the names of new streets. Well, in Auckland there are new suburbs practically every month, and the naming of them is important. It is great to see so many people lobbying over naming rights. They want to name a street after their great-grandfather, their grandmother, or someone else.
Hon Rick BarkerHon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
There should be a Hawkinsville—yes, that is right. Street naming is something that people are keenly interested in, and it is important that we show people that we recognise the indigenous people of New Zealand more and more in this country. For many years we just went along naming things after European settlers—for example, Dannevirke. Dannevirke is in Hawke’s Bay, I think. Of course we have other places named after early settlers, and some of that is good, because it is right that we understand our history. It is right that we understand our origins, but it is also right that we recognise indigenous names, as well. Sometimes, a dual name is quite appropriate and at other times we go a bit further. But having listened to the speakers on the other side, I—
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
Talking about margins, I remember John Hayes. I was going to talk about him, because he is in a marginal seat. They will not be naming his seat after him once he goes later this year. We do have—
Hon Georgina te HeuheuHon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
Dream on? I daresay that John Hayes never dreamt he would be here, and he will probably get his wish later this year, when he goes.
With this bill we had a situation where people could not agree in a select committee, and where people just could not come together to talk this through. Any legislation that is as old as I am has been around a long time, and when we have been around a long time, we get a bit of knowledge. I am very willingly going to support the second reading of this bill, and I am pleased to see that my colleagues from the Māori Party will support it, as well. I think it is important that Oppositions act as Oppositions, but that they do not always carry on in the way they are acting, in a very narrow manner, over this particular legislation. In a few years’ time this will not be an issue, at all. People will have accepted it. They will have moved on, and this bill will be legislation.
Chris TremainHon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
There we have the member for Napier—the temporary member for Napier—who is sounding off. I ask whether the member knows the Māori name for Napier. No, he does not know the Māori name for Napier. He has not thought about it. I do not know what it is, but if I lived there, I would most certainly find out. But that member has not. He has not bothered to learn what Napier’s Māori name is—what the indigenous people called it originally.
Sandra Goudie has just walked back into the Chamber. I hope that she will be able to find her beach and spend her time lying in the sun, thinking about what it was like in Parliament when she was there, because she will be going at the end of this year.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member was out of order when he referred to one of my colleagues returning to the Chamber. That comment should be withdrawn.
I do not think that the member was so much remiss in the reference to the member’s return; it was rather the inference that the member was absent that would put him at odds with the Standing Orders.
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) Link to this
I would like to pick up, in a sense, what my colleague the Hon George Hawkins started.
Well, because for once we had some useful contribution to the debate. I must say that I thought I had lived a long time and that the day would never come that I would have cause to stand up and have something to say in response to Sandra Goudie, because that in itself is quite a remarkable thing. But I have to ask this question—and I did ask the member by way of interjection; I was serious at the time. She was lamenting the renaming of one Simpsons Beach. The questions I pose to the member are simply these: when was it named Simpsons Beach, and did it have a name before that? I really do not know the answers to those. I suspect there were some people around before those people who called it Simpsons Beach, and I suspect they probably had a name for it. But apparently it has not occurred to that member that that might be the case and, you see, I think that just denotes the point.
We have heard so much from members opposite as to why this New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill is unnecessary. They seem to think that time is locked not only for once and for all but also for a very narrow band, which began, apparently, at some point about 100 years ago and is frozen there for the rest of time. Well, that may be the Tory view of the world but, I am sorry, it is not the way it really works, because culture and life is a dynamic thing. It is a living, breathing, moving thing. Things do change and evolve—yes, they do, and there will be controversy and debate from time to time. The power to name is one of the most profoundly powerful things that human beings can do. To give a name, an identity, and a reality to something is a very powerful thing. Of course it is. To be able to identify and name a mountain, a river, or a place is a profoundly important thing. But for the members opposite to suggest that somehow we are now locked in for all time and that the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946—
—a good year as it may have been—is also locked in time is unrealistic. As we witness tonight, just as that member, who was born small and perfectly formed in 1946, has evolved and changed, with some rough changes along the way and with some improvements—
—damn! I should not have gone down that track; I am sure there are some good improvements in that member—similarly, there has been a need for change in this area of legislation.
I will just cite for the members opposite, who seem unaware of it, the research that was done. [Interruption] This is a novel idea. I know that Mr Hayes is relatively new, but he might find it useful. If he goes over to the Table, there are several pieces of paper there. One of them will be called by the name of this bill. If he is to read it, he will see that on the first two pages there is an explanatory note. That is something the member may not have encountered before, but an explanatory note tells us a bit about the bill. It tells us its purpose for being. That bill identifies in a mere 1⅔ pages why the historical background justifies this legislation and why we need to update the 1946 Act, which had its genesis even further back in the Designation of Districts Act 1894. I am sure members opposite will think that that Act should have stayed just as it was, giving, as it did, the Governor of New Zealand the authority to alter and assign place names.
Of course, by 1946 it was clear there was a need for modernisation and change; the same situation applies now. For instance, there is the use of geographic names for identifying correct emergency incident locations. The need for that in the modern technological environment in which we now live and operate is simply and fundamentally different. On the matter of naming in relation to the continental shelf and the Ross Dependency—again, these are large extensions of the role and function. The legislation needs to reflect that, and there needs to be change in order to enable that to occur. There is research underpinning this bill. It has led to and identified some of these areas of required change. This bill creates a more flexible environment that is more suited to the 21st century.
I know that Sandra Goudie is locked in the early part of the 20th century and is barely dragging herself out of the 19th century, but I tell the member that for the rest of us, life has moved on. The world has moved on; it is the 21st century. Even my good friend George Hawkins has accepted that we have moved from 1946 into the 21st century. Things change; things are required in order for us to effect that change in an appropriate way. This bill gives the board a concurrence role in determining names for the protected areas that are managed, for instance, by the Department of Conservation. That is a refining of its function and role, and it does this by formally involving the board in the naming process on conservation land.
I also want to identify who is involved in making decisions, because one of the criticisms that members opposite have made is about representation. Of course, had the members read the bill they would know that two new positions have been created on this board. The reason for that is the widening of the functions of the board. Therefore, because of the range of constituents it represents and the additional responsibilities it carries, those additional persons are needed to better reflect the range of constituencies that the board must consider in its decision making.
All in all, I say to members opposite that it is the 21st century, and that they have to get with the programme. It is time to change this legislation. It has served us well, but it does need to better reflect the needs of 21st century New Zealand.
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) Link to this
About a month ago a journalist for the Sunday Star-Times wrote an article lamenting that my dulcet tones had not been heard in Parliament for some time, so by popular demand I am back. I suppose the fact that I am speaking tonight is also evidence that global warming really is happening. Let us think about that for a moment.
The most significant thing I want to say on the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill is that the National Party opposes it, and opposes it for very good reasons. I was a member of the select committee that wrote the commentary on the bill, and I want to commend it to the House by reading the last paragraph of that commentary, which summarises National’s position on the bill very well. Members opposite should have taken the time to read it, because when they get out into their constituencies—if they have them—their constituents will be raising this issue with them. The paragraph states: “National members hold strongly to the view that consultation is not only important but necessary, and that a more practical and commercial approach towards private entities should be adopted. In the absence of any changes to address our concerns, National opposes the bill.”, and our position certainly has not changed.
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this
I am very proud to speak in the second reading stage of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. I am just checking with my colleague Mr Flavell that my pronunciation is adequate for this moment. I would like to begin by acknowledging what in springtime would be like the appearance of the cuckoo: the appearance of Brian Connell, in a rare and very important peroration.
He provided a very useful service to the House by pointing out to Mr Hayes that not only was there an explanatory note to the bill but also something called a report of the Government Administration Committee. Mr Hayes, in all of his wonderful 7 minutes of speaking on the bill, did not make any reference to the arguments that his National colleagues put forward in the commentary. But anyway I shall ignore that just for a moment.
It seems to me that the quality of any democracy is best measured by the effectiveness of the Opposition. I have to say that sitting here as somebody who has had, up to this stage, a casual interest in this legislation—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders make it very clear that a member is not entitled to shift his or her seat for the purpose of interjecting. There has been a stream of interjections from Mr Hayes. I am prepared to accept that maybe it is only the end of his interjections, but I feel that if Mr Hayes is going to interject in this manner he should be required to go back to his designated seat.
This House is robust and I do not think that Mr Hayes’ interjections were over the top; I think they were reasonable. In fact, I found them quite funny. I think it would be a shame if the House were to sit here in stony silence. I think he was making a significant contribution. I note that he has been sitting there all night. I have been watching the debate with some interest from my office, and I can assure the House that he has not moved seats.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
Thank you. I do not need any further assistance. It is my view that John Hayes did not move his seat for the purpose of interjecting. That should be obvious to anyone.
I was actually imagining that Mr Hayes’ involuntary shouts in the Chamber were just a reflection of the fact that since the beginning of this debate he now understands both what a commentary is and what an explanatory note is. Maybe we are moving on in the course of this matter this evening.
As I was saying, it seems to me that the quality of any democracy really is measured by the effectiveness of the Opposition. As someone who has had only a casual interest in this legislation up until now, I listened very carefully to try to understand why the National Party is opposing this legislation. In doing that I listened most carefully to Sandra Goudie, who seems to me to be the sharp end of the National Party’s opposition to this legislation.
Sandra Goudie started by offering to explain how bills are introduced to Parliament, which was very useful. She then offered the very useful reflection that we had to look at any bill to work out what was in the legislation. Then she suddenly said that the bill was innocuous. That is very strange, because she said that the bill was innocuous in its first reading at the same time as her colleague Lindsay Tisch said it was very bureaucratic. We can explain that by saying it is a bit slippery. But let us move on from there.
We have now heard from Shane Ardern that the bill is not bureaucratic enough. We have a bill that is innocuous, not bureaucratic enough, and too bureaucratic. That is fine. Then I listened to Sandra Goudie’s two particular issues around the legislation. One was that she said there was no definition of a problem. I will come to that afterwards, but it seems to me that this legislation has a forward-looking and very important element at its core. Secondly, she mentioned the problem with discretion over public notification, which none of her colleagues even bothered to mention, so I can really ignore that one.
Then there was a fascinating little byway that Sandra Goudie took us on, in talking about a place that she regards as having been called Simpsons Beach from the beginning of time. She called that the real name of the beach. But it was given its original Māori place name again and that, according to Sandra Goudie, is its colloquial name. So we go from having had a nation with a colloquial naming policy to real names—from Māori to English. That is an extraordinary statement about values, the importance of language, and, as my colleague Mark Burton was saying, the importance of naming and the importance of history.
I realised at that point that whatever this legislation is about, it is about something pretty important. When I started to look at it in more detail and to listen to the wise words of my colleagues here I thought to myself that the key part of this legislation, which is so important, is that it is extending the ability of the board to grant naming rights to an area 25 times the size of the current land area of New Zealand.
This legislation recognises that one of the places in the world that contains wealth and that will be particularly important in our future is the seabed. This legislation is extending the area of the geographic board from the land area of our country to a sea area 25 times that size, over which Sovereign rights can be exercised. New Zealand needs to show that it has an interest in naming it. As Mark Burton said, that is fundamental to a nation expressing an interest in a place and is a recognition of the characteristics of that place.
Asserting naming and mapping rights is at the heart of this legislation. That is recognising that the seabed, in our extraordinary position as a developed nation in a massive expanse of sea, is actually a strength for our nation and not a weakness. I commend both the Minister and the Labour members of the select committee for recognising the strengths of this legislation. I am very proud to commend it to the House.
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this
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—
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.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 70
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand First 7
- Green Party 6
- Māori Party 4
- United Future 2
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Field)
Noes 49
- New Zealand National 48
- Independent 1 (Copeland)
Bill read a second time.