Submissions for 13 proposed names on Considered by the NZGB on 2 April 2020

Summary At its hui on 18 October 2019 the NZGB accepted 13 proposals to alter or assign: • King Billy Island to Aua / King Billy Island • Mansons Peninsula to Kaitangata / Mansons Peninsula • Coopers Knob to Ōmawete / Coopers Knob • Cass Peak to Ōrongomai / Cass Peak • Dyers Pass to Pukeatua / Dyers Pass • Evans Pass to Tapuwaeharuru / Evans Pass • Rapaki Rock (local use name) to Te Ahi-a-Tamatea • Sugarloaf to Te Heru-o-Kahukura / Sugarloaf • The Tors to Te Moenga-o-Wheke / The Tors • Adderley Head to Te Piaka / Adderley Head • Rapaki to Te Rāpaki-o-Te-Rakiwhakaputa • Tihiokahukura / Castle Rock to Te Tihi-o-Kahukura / Castle Rock • Witch Hill to Te Upoko-o-Kurī / Witch Hill During the public notification period from 20 November 2019 to 20 December 2019 the NZGB received the following numbers of submissions supporting or objecting to the proposals.

Proposed name # Supporting # Objecting # Ambiguous Total submissions submissions submissions1 Aua / King Billy Island 172 20 12 204

Kaitangata / Mansons 157 20 14 191 Peninsula Ōmawete / Coopers 157 20 15 192 Knob Ōrongomai / Cass Peak 159 20 13 192 Pukeatua / Dyers Pass 156 23 17 196

Tapuwaeharuru / Evans 157 21 15 193 Pass Te Ahi-a-Tamatea 138 14 32 184 Te Heru-o-Kahukura / 154 20 16 190 Sugarloaf Te Moenga-o-Wheke / 155 20 15 190 The Tors

1 Includes submissions received that did not sufficiently address the proposal, such as a submission about dual names on a proposed name that was not a dual name, or where the dual name is already official.

NZGB hui 2 April/Āperira 2020 Page 1 of 9 Linzone ID: A3978321 Te Piaka / Adderley 151 21 16 188 Head Te Rāpaki-o-Te- 141 14 30 185 Rakiwhakaputa Te Tihi-o-Kahukura / 95 1 94 190 Castle Rock Te Upoko-o-Kurī / 153 20 17 190 Witch Hill Total 1945 234 306 2485 Noting 502 unique submissions received from 208 submitters, many chose to duplicate/copy their reasons across multiple proposed names. During the submission period, we received supporting submissions from the following groups: • Rāpaki Rūnanga of Ngāti Wheke (24 signatories, counted as a single submission for this report) • Canterbury Aoraki Conversation Board Te Rūnanga Papa Atawhai o Waitaha me Aoraki (12 members) • Environment Canterbury • Network Waitangi Otautahi Three submitters also emailed supplementary information alongside their online submissions, while two made duplicate submissions online for a single name. These have only been counted as a single submission. The reasons given in the supporting submissions are largely based on acknowledging the history and heritage of the area, restoring the original Māori place names, and believe that the proposed names represent a move to become a more inclusive bicultural society. The reasons given in the objecting submissions are based on long term use of the existing names, that the change would be confusing and costly, and view the proposals as being ’crazy political correctness’. These objections, which are responded to below, are not considered to outweigh the original reasons for the NZGB accepting the proposals. Following the October 2019 NZGB hui, the Rāpaki Rūnaka requested an amendment to the name Te Rāpaki-o-Te-Rakiwhakaputa, to remove the hyphen between ’Te’ and ‘Rakiwhakaputa’ as Te Rakiwhakaputa is the name of the ancestor who laid down his rāpaki (waist mat) on the beach of the area. Although the name included this hyphen in the public notification, the Secretariat recommends removing it from the name going forward. This change will not impact the submissions received. Section 18(2) of the NZGB Act 2008 provides for the NZGB to obtain any further information necessary to enable it to decide on an objection.

NZGB hui 2 April/Āperira 2020 Page 2 of 9 Linzone ID: A3978321 Secretariat recommendations

At its 2 April 2020 hui the NZGB resolved these recommendations

Recommendation 1 Consider all submissions on the proposals to alter or assign 13 place names in Banks Peninsula. and Reject all of the objecting submissions based on the reasons provided not outweighing those that the NZGB previously accepted for the proposals, being: • long term use of the English name, restoring the original Māori name and the dual name recognising the equal significance of both names, • restoring original Māori names and correcting the orthography for existing original Māori names, and Confirm the NZGB’s earlier decisions to accept the proposals to alter existing official or unofficial and recorded names from: • King Billy Island to Aua / King Billy Island • Mansons Peninsula to Kaitangata / Mansons Peninsula • Coopers Knob to Ōmawete / Coopers Knob • Cass Peak to Ōrongomai / Cass Peak • Dyers Pass to Pukeatua / Dyers Pass • Evans Pass to Tapuwaeharuru / Evans Pass • Sugarloaf to Te Heru-o-Kahukura / Sugarloaf • The Tors to Te Moenga-o-Wheke / The Tors, and amend the location of the feature and the feature type from hill to rocks • Adderley Head to Te Piaka / Adderley Head • Rapaki to Te Rāpaki-o-Te Rakiwhakaputa, noting the removal of the hyphen between Te Rakiwhakaputa • Tihiokahukura/Castle Rock to Te Tihi-o-Kahukura / Castle Rock • Witch Hill to Te Upoko-o-Kurī / Witch Hill and to assign a new name: • Te Ahi-a-Tamatea to the feature known locally as Rapaki Rock, and Report the NZGB’s decisions to the Minister for Land Information, and Request the Minister for Land Information to make the final determinations on the proposals. Recommendation 2 Subject to the Minister’s final determination, the NZGB recommends discussing with Ngāi Tahu and DOC altering the official names of the following associated Crown protected areas, for consistency with the NZGB’s recommendations for the associated proposed names: • Witch Hill Scenic Reserve to Te Upoko-o-Kurī / Witch Hill Scenic Reserve • The Tors Scenic Reserve to Te Moenga-o-Wheke / The Tors Scenic Reserve • King Billy Island Scenic Reserve to Aua / King Billy Island Scenic Reserve • Cass Peak Scenic Reserve to Ōrongomai / Cass Peak Scenic Reserve • Coopers Knob Scenic Reserve to Ōmawete / Coopers Knob Scenic Reserve • Adderley Head Scenic Reserve to Te Piaka / Adderley Head Scenic Reserve • Sugarloaf Scenic Reserve to Te Heru-o-Kahukura / Sugarloaf Scenic Reserve.

NZGB hui 2 April/Āperira 2020 Page 3 of 9 Linzone ID: A3978321 Recommendation 3 The Secretariat seeks to approve as official the associated recorded name, Rapaki Bay to Rāpaki Bay, through the section 24 ‘fast-track’ process for consistency, subject to Te Rāpaki-o-Te Rakiwhakaputa (locality) being approved as official by the Minister for Land Information.

Background

NZGB minutes The NZGB agreed that the associated Crown protected area names in the additional 18 October 2019 Secretariat recommendation on page 1 of the report be deferred until any submissions are received, and to amend the 4th bullet point in the recommendation to ‘Cass Peak Scenic Reserve to Ōrongomai / Cass Peak Scenic Reserve’. The NZGB also deferred recommendation 2 in the cover report for Rapaki Bay to Rāpaki Bay until after any submissions are processed. No. 9: Taukahara: The NZGB noted that this is the name is for the valley rather than a locality and agreed to notify an amending gazette for its position and feature type. No.7: Te Rāpaki-o-Te Rakiwhakaputa: The NZGB expressed some concern about the length of the name given it is a populated locality. The NZGB agreed that it was important to retain the whole story told in the name and the locality is likely to continue to be shortened to Rāpaki by locals in everyday speech. The NZGB noted the associated name Rapaki Bay and agreed to consider the recommendation to approve it in the standardised form, Rāpaki Bay, once the locality name has been through the statutory process. 11 and 14: Aua / King Billy Island and Te Piaka / Adderley Head: The NZGB agreed that it has no maritime safety concerns.

Notification

Advice to mana On 14 November 2019 the Secretariat advised Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the proposer, whenua that the that the NZGB would be publicly notifying the proposals between 20 November 2019 NZGB would be and 20 December 2019. publicly notifying the proposals Advice to MPs On 22 October 2019 the Secretariat advised the Members of Parliament for , Selwyn, and Te Tai Tonga electorates and all adjacent electorates, that the proposals would be notified from 20 November 2019 to 20 December 2019.

Public notification The NZGB advertised that the proposals were open for submissions: including social - in the New Zealand Gazette media - in the Sunday Star Times, Bay Harbour News and Press - on the LINZ2 Consultation and Facebook™ pages, and the New Zealand Government’s Consultation page. An advertisement was submitted to Te Puni Kōkiri’s events calendar Rauika, on 20 November 2019, but was not published.

Media

The NZGB released a media advisory in te reo Māori and English when consultation began on 20 November 2019. It was posted on the LINZ website and Scoop.co.nz

2 Land Information New Zealand

NZGB hui 2 April/Āperira 2020 Page 4 of 9 Linzone ID: A3978321 syndicated it on the same day. On 29 November 2019 the Otago Daily Times published a brief article3 advising that the submissions on the proposal would be open until 20 December 2019.

Submissions

Overview During the notification period between 20 November 2019 and 20 December 2019 the NZGB received 1945 submissions supporting and 234 submissions objecting to the proposal. An additional 306 submissions are considered ambiguous, being unclear whether the submitter supported the dual name or the Māori name only, or where the content of the submission did not address the proposal, particularly: • many objecting submissions received for Te Tihi-o-Kahukura / Castle Rock were objecting to the dual name. As the proposal was to correct the orthography of an existing dual name, these objections do not adequately address the proposed change. • a number of submissions, both supporting and objecting, for Te Ahi-a-Tamatea and Te Rāpaki-o-Te-Rakiwhakaputa, referenced dual names or affecting existing English names – being the same submission submitted across all 13 proposed names. The majority of the submitters used the online consultation form for their submission. This allowed them to copy and paste their submission against multiple proposed names. Where someone has used the same reason across multiple names, to count that reason once means the NZGB received 500 unique submissions from 206 individuals across the 13 proposed names. Some group submissions were received, including one with 24 signatures from Ngāti Wheke. Submissions were also received from Environment Canterbury, the Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Board and Network Waitangi Otautahi. These have each been counted as one submission. A spreadsheet in the ‘Supporting information’ summarises all submissions. Most the submitters identified themselves as living within the area of the proposals. Information on the location of the submitters is provided to inform of local community engagement. It does not indicate that they have a greater influence on the outcome of the proposals. Several submitters used both the Qualtrics form and directly emailed to [email protected]. They are only counted once. However, one of these submitters both supported and objected to two names.

Summary of the supporting submissions

The submitters provided these reasons for their support:

Cultural importance or significance Māori names tells a story of the place 194 Acknowledges the Māori history/heritage of the area, is respectful Shows a connection to the whenua Acknowledges the original or traditional name / precolonial name 142

3 Name change on the cards for Canterbury's 'hills of the gods', Otago Daily Times, 29 November 2019

NZGB hui 2 April/Āperira 2020 Page 5 of 9 Linzone ID: A3978321 General support for te reo Māori 89 General support restoring Māori place names Acknowledges bi-cultural heritage Reflects spirit of Treaty 85 Makes us a more inclusive society Support for local iwi and mana whenua 63 Support dual names as a general concept 49 Ambiguous - unclear if supporting dual name or Māori name only 25 (counted as ambiguous responses) Miscellaneous comments 23 Is the right/moral/good thing to do 21 Support dual name as a compromise - would prefer Māori name only 20 Acknowledges official languages of NZ 18 To make the name official (for unofficial names) 3

Some supporting submissions received for Te-Ahi-a-Tamatea (17), Te Rāpaki-o-Te- Rakiwhakaputa (21) and Te Tihi-o-Kahukura / Castle Rock (40) did not address the proposed name. Instead, these submissions supported dual names, or the implementation of a dual name. They have been moved into the ambiguous category. One supporting submission for the proposed dual names had the reason ‘I believe that should only use the Māori name’. This has been counted as an objection to the proposed dual names. One objecting submission for Kaitangata / Mansons Peninsula referred to their comments in the submission on Aua / King Billy Island, which was a supporting submission. All other submissions provided by the submitters were also supporting for the same reason (‘It makes sense to honour the first people of Aotearoa’), making it likely that ‘object’ was selected by mistake. This has been counted as a supporting submission.

Summary of the objecting submissions and Secretariat’s comments

Political correctness / pandering to a minority / takes society backwards (18) The NZGB considers the merits of a proposal in terms of its statutory functions, policies and standards. This includes considering the NZGB’s Treaty obligations and legislation, which encourages the use of original Māori names. Long term use of the existing names (15) The existing names would be retained in a dual name. Having a dual name with the proposed te reo names would not undermine any historic values associated with the existing name. Change would be confusing (13) The NZGB acknowledges that alterations to geographic names may cause confusion. However, since 1997 over 300 dual names have been made official and there is little evidence of ongoing confusion, noting that there are a number of dual names in use in the / Whakaraupō area. Most of the proposed names are geographic features and not relevant to addressed mail, and businesses and organisations using the existing names for their businesses can continue to do so. As official names are required to be used in official documents including those intended for travellers and tourists the risk of confusion is unlikely especially given that

NZGB hui 2 April/Āperira 2020 Page 6 of 9 Linzone ID: A3978321 people may still use either of the two parts of the dual name when speaking. Māori can use names unofficially if they want / too many places getting Māori names / General dislike of Māori names (11) Some objections state that there are too many Māori names being added around New Zealand or that the alteration to include Māori names is not necessary. The NZGB has a legal function to restore original Māori names. Waste of money, time and resources (8) Those supporting the existing names strongly cite the cost of any alteration. While official names are required to be used on official documents, the NZGB’s expectation is that updates are made over the course of regular maintenance and replacement cycles, thus minimising any costs. Many geographic names depicted on maps and charts are maintained electronically, so the cost to update products with new or altered names is minimal. Physical products are generally only updated and replaced once they have sold out. The Māori names are difficult to pronounce or too long (5) The NZGB carefully considers the length of a name where it may cause issues such as the practicality of its depiction on maps and charts, or the impact on emergency responses. The NZGB carefully considered the proposal alteration of Rapaki (locality) and considered the official name should tell the name’s full story, noting that in everyday speech it would likely be shortened to Rāpaki anyway. While pronunciation can be useful to determine how Māori place names are spelled, the NZGB has no mandate to comment on the pronunciation of place names. Short general reasons like ‘no reason to change’, ‘leave it alone’ (5) The NZGB has considered the reasons provided in the proposals as good reasons for change. Objects to a dual name, not a good compromise, finds dual name cumbersome (4) The NZGB is cautious about applying dual names. However, they can overcome issues around acceptance, and equally represent multiple strong traditions associated with features and places. Dual naming is a long-standing part of geographic naming in New Zealand, used since the first geographic names were written down. Many prominent features in Lyttelton have had dual names, including Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō which was made official in 1998. These dual names are used by third parties, including on signage, and the Secretariat is not aware of any serious issues with dual names in the area. Unhappy with process/Government/NZGB (2) Some submitters consider the NZGB’s public consultation process to be a sham or a rubber-stamping exercise. The NZGB considered all names in terms of its legislation, policies, and standards, all of which are openly available. Would prefer Māori name only (for dual names) (1) Noted. Ignores Moriori history in the region (1) Noted.

NZGB hui 2 April/Āperira 2020 Page 7 of 9 Linzone ID: A3978321 Location of submitters

Banks Peninsula Area (incl. Other New Zealand International Not provided Christchurch and Lyttelton) S O A S O A S O A S O A Aua / King Billy Island 165 15 9 4 1 1 2 5 2 Kaitangata / Mansons Peninsula 151 15 11 3 1 1 2 5 2 Ōmawete / Coopers Knob 151 14 12 3 1 1 2 6 2 Ōrongomai / Cass Peak 153 14 10 3 1 1 2 6 2 Pukeatua / Dyers Pass 150 17 14 3 1 1 2 6 2 Tapuwaeharuru / Evans Pass 151 15 12 3 1 1 2 6 2 Te Ahi-a-Tamatea 133 9 28 3 1 1 1 5 3 Te Heru-o-Kahukura / Sugarloaf 148 14 13 3 1 1 2 6 2 Te Moenga-o-Wheke / The Tors 149 14 12 3 1 1 2 6 2 Te Piaka / Adderley Head 145 15 13 3 1 1 2 6 2 Te Rāpaki-o-Te-Rakiwhakaputa 136 9 26 3 1 1 1 5 3 Te Tihi-o-Kahukura / Castle Rock 93 1 81 2 2 1 10 Te Upoko-o-Kurī / Witch Hill 147 14 14 3 1 1 2 6 Total 1872 166 255 39 0 14 13 0 1 22 68 34

Key: S = Supporting; O = Objecting; A = Ambiguous/doesn’t address proposal

NZGB hui 2 April/Āperira 2020 Page 8 of 9 Linzone ID: A3978321 Supporting information 1. NZGB Proposal report – 13 Rāpaki names – 2019-10-18 • Map 2. Submission spreadsheet 3. Copies of submissions received 4. Media article

NZGB hui 2 April/Āperira 2020 Page 9 of 9 Linzone ID: A3978321