New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill

Part 3 includes debate on schedule 2.

In speaking to Part 3, I say it is pretty amazing that the impact of this bill will not be understood until it is passed in this House and becomes an Act. A large majority of New Zealanders—if not all of them—would not understand what this bill means in reality.

Clause 32 is headed “Official geographic names must be used”. I wonder whether the New Zealand public knows that this bill provides that any person can submit a name to be used as an official geographic name. One of the functions of the New Zealand Geographic Board is to collect original Māori place names to be used as official geographic names. In adopting those official geographic names, the board can be exempt, under clause 24, from going through a public consultation process. New Zealanders need to understand the implications of that. This Government has failed to explain them clearly to the public.

Entities in the private sector do not understand the implications of the bill. They do not understand the obligations in clause 32 regarding publications for tourism or travel purposes that use place names. Entities are required to use official geographic place names. If they do not, they have to have a statement in their brochure that says a name is not an official place name. So they either have to use the official place name or, if they use a local colloquial name, they have to have a little statement that it is not an official geographic name. I do not think there is a tourism venture or operation throughout this country that understands that. Has there been any direct consultation with tourism groups about the impacts of this legislation?

I am talking about clause 32 in Part 3. Can members imagine the cost to all of those tourist ventures and operations from having to change all of their brochures because one place name has changed and an official geographic name has been adopted for it by the board—possibly without public consultation, because under clause 24 the board is not required to necessarily undergo it? The board has the discretion not to go through a public consultation process. It is to have that discretion now, and this Government has failed to explain why it thinks that is a good idea.

We have never had a problem before with the New Zealand Geographic Board, but now the Government has decided it wants to change the playing field. The playing field was level, but the Government wants to tilt it. We have now a completely different playing field, where consultation is discretionary and where tourism ventures have no idea of the impacts on their bottom line from having to record official place names in their documentation. Of course, the board can take entities to the High Court if they fail to observe the requirements of the Act. Perhaps the Minister in the chair, David Parker, may like to take a call to explain clauses 24 and 32 and tell us exactly what will happen with regard to tourist ventures and operations.

I am very proud to be standing here as part of National, saying that we oppose this bill for very good reasons.

I am very happy to respond to that last contribution, which suggested that some new provision was being sneaked in, against the interests of New Zealanders, that required proper names to be used. Of course, this clause merely carries forward, on this occasion, a provision that has been in the law since 1946. It has been in the law since 1946 for a good reason. If, for example, someone was producing a map that tourists were to use, it would be quite unhelpful if people started to call Auckland “Dunedin” and Dunedin “Auckland”, because people might go to the wrong place. It is quite a sensible provision for those providing information for tourists, and if a place has an official name such as “Auckland”, it is quite sensible that that place is actually labelled as Auckland on a map.

This is a bill that on the face of it is relatively minor, but I think it needs a little more discussion from the Minister for Land Information, David Parker, and there are some questions I would like to ask him.

I particularly go to clause 35, “Validation of certain names”, and ask whether this bill is an appropriate vehicle for the validation of particular decisions that have been made. In particular, I ask whether the provision in relation to the geographical features of the Ross Dependency is appropriate for the bill. What does the Minister mean by “Crown protected area under an enactment”? Which particular type of Crown protected area is he referring to?

I also ask the Minister to go to schedule 2, which relates to consequential amendments, which come in through Part 3—and I am sure that Mr Connell, having been on the Government Administration Committee that wrote the commentary on the bill, is well aware of that. I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that the amendments to the Local Government Act 2002, particularly those amendments to section 260(1), are in fact appropriate for this bill. I ask about consultation on the repeal of section 270 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act. Has there been proper consultation with Ngāi Tahu on that question? Consultation is something that I think most Ministers have taken seriously, and I want to ensure that officials have had a discussion with Ngāi Tahu.

I do not want to be accused, as a Mallard, of any self-interest, but in respect of the insertion into the Ombudsmen Act 1975 of “New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa” after “The New Zealand Game Bird Habitat Trust Board”, I want to make sure, given my surname, that there are no implications as far as the Game Bird Habitat Trust Board is concerned. As a Mallard I would be concerned if there were any denigration or unfair reference around that particular question.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s a very valid concern. Don’t duck the issue.

No, I think there is not much ducking of the issue as far as I am concerned, although possibly once or twice it could have been better if I did.

In respect of the consequential amendment to the National Parks Act, I want to check whether it is the Minister of Conservation who is referred to. It is a little unclear on the face of it whether it refers to the Minister for Land Information or the Minister of Conservation. I presume it is the Minister of Conservation, because it is a consequential amendment to the National Parks Act, but I think it is important that we have that clarified. Similarly, with the amendment to the Conservation Act 1987, I think it is almost certainly the Minister of Conservation who has to refer the proposed name to the board, but I ask what the role of the Minister for Land Information is in that particular case. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

In responding to two of the issues that the Hon Trevor Mallard raised with great interest, I agree with the member that Ministers are concerned to protect the integrity of Treaty settlements. One of the provisions in the Treaty settlement with Ngāi Tahu was to give them an official involvement in the naming of geographic features in the South Island. The Minister is quite proper in checking that in updating this legislation we are not undermining the intent of that Treaty settlement. Official involvement in naming is an important part of the Treaty settlement with Ngāi Tahu. They would obviously be upset if we were undermining the integrity of their Treaty settlement by unwinding the benefit that was conferred upon them in respect of naming places in the South Island.

Mr Mallard raises a consequential amendment, listed in schedule 2 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill, which refers to the repeal of section 270 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. I assure the member that that does not derogate from the rights of Ngāi Tahu to participate in the naming of South Island geographic features. I am advised by officials that the representative that Ngāi Tahu has on the New Zealand Geographic Board is Sir Tīpene O’Regan, who is obviously well versed in the detail of the Ngāi Tahu settlement because he was so involved in the negotiation of it. I am informed that he is comfortable with the repeal of this particular section, which does not derogate from Ngāi Tahu’s rights to be involved in the naming of these features in the South Island but rather repeals a provision in the old Act that has become out of date because of changes in circumstances since it was put in. I hope that explanation deals with the concern the Hon Trevor Mallard had.

In respect of the role of the Minister for Land Information in naming features, there are various parts of the Act providing that proposed decisions are proffered by the New Zealand Geographic Board to the Minister, having gone through various procedures before the board comes to making a recommendation. The Minister to whom it generally makes a recommendation in respect of most features is the Minister for Land Information, and then, in accordance with the terms of the Act, I—or whoever is the Minister for the time being—have rights to either approve or decline the name proposal that is proffered. I think that addresses the other concern the Hon Trevor Mallard raised.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 35 be agreed to.