Editorial: New Zealand Day a weak compromise

Opinion

Peter Dunne, an MP who has carved a quiet niche for himself in the middle of the political road, wants to change the name of the national day, Waitangi Day, to New Zealand Day. He has drafted a bill to this effect and to his delight the bill's number was drawn in the latest lottery to decide which of the many and varied bills promoted by an individual MP will be given some of Parliament's precious time.

Mr Dunne duly introduced his bill on Wednesday and unfortunately it passed its first reading. Now it will go to a select committee which will invite public submissions, hold hearings and possibly, one distant day, send it back to Parliament to waste more time.

It is unlikely to proceed beyond that point. Even as most parties supported its first reading this week they were making it plain they would not support it at a second reading. They simply thought it deserved an airing. Why? Not many people besides Mr Dunne will bother giving this suggestion a moment's thought, let alone form an opinion on it, and for good reason. It would not make the slightest difference to anything, except perhaps to heighten resentment on February 6.

So why did other parties entertain it? Each for its own narrow political interests. Labour opposed a similar bill put up by Mr Dunne in 2001 but the following year his party, United Future, won enough seats for Labour to need its support for its own legislation. This is plainly a quid pro quo. National, Act and New Zealand First think it safer to support the bill with an election looming. National ignores its own history; it was the party that restored the name Waitangi after a Labour Government instituted the national holiday and called it ... New Zealand Day.

Not even Mr Dunne can seriously believe that changing the name again is going to remove any of the annual rancour surrounding the commemoration of the treaty. The suggestion appears to be one of those pointless contributions that serve only to offer a refuge for those who would rather not support one side or the other of a contentious issue. The issue in this instance, of course, is whether some anniversary other than Waitangi Day should be designated the national day.

Mr Dunne does not want to forsake February 6 but nor does he want it to continue to bear the name of the treaty. What does he imagine that would achieve? In Northland, where people were observing Waitangi Day by that name long before it was officially adopted as the national day, the name change would no doubt be ignored.

Elsewhere, if communities celebrated "New Zealand Day", could they ignore the reason for marking that particular day. And if they wanted to ignore it, would local iwi let them?

There might be a slight chance of running away from our founding agreement if we adopted some other day for the national observance, but there is absolutely no chance of avoiding the issue if we try to keep the day under a different name. That would invite even more dissension than we suffer now.

Opposing the bill this week Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said the bill's message was that the treaty is not valued and was being reneged on. That is exactly how Maori would regard it.

Weak, compromise suggestions are often worse than either of the alternatives, and this is a classic.