Editorial: Minister must accept ruling on river city

Told of the New Zealand Geographic Board's ruling that Wanganui should be officially renamed Whanganui, the mayor of the river city, Michael Laws, responded tartly that it was a "racist decision".

Others were too quick to deem it politically correct. The decision was neither of those things. It was, quite simply, correct. If Maori names are to be used, they should be used properly. Anything else suggests a crass disrespect.

The Geographic Board's decision, which confirmed a finding in June, followed the receipt of almost 900 submissions. Interestingly, these were almost evenly split.

That is a sharp contrast with opinion in the city, which, according to a Wanganui District Council referendum in May, runs strongly in favour of the spelling remaining unchanged.

Seventy-seven per cent of respondents to that poll were unwilling to acknowledge Geographic Board research that showed not only evidence of the use of the "h" in early historical records, but that the early settlers clearly intended the name of the city to be derived from the Maori name of the river.

There was no such opposition in 1991 when the Geographic Board officially declared the name of the river to be Whanganui. The district health board subsequently took the same step. It seems bizarre that when, in the interests of consistency and as a measure of respect, the same is proposed for the city, there is so much antagonism.

Tellingly, the Geographic Board's decision was unanimous. Its members had extensive work on the subject available to them. Theirs will be the best advice available to the Land Information Minister, Maurice Williamson, when he considers whether to formalise the change to Whanganui. As such, he must accept the ruling.

Mr Williamson's job has been made easier by the board's willingness to recognise the sensitivities involved in changing a community's identity. It has proposed a 12-month minimum transition period to keep costs down.

It has also pointed out that, while government departments and local authorities will be expected to use the official name, private businesses and organisations can go their own way, except where their publications are designed for tourists and for geographic and scientific publications. There is, in other words, considerable potential for a Whanganui/Wanganui divide.

That is where Mr Laws enters the picture. He can continue to promote the sort of attitude evident in his angry retort to the Otaki schoolchildren who asked him to reconsider.

His initial impulse yesterday was to fight the Geographic Board's ruling. Alternatively, he could look to the future and become a unifying force.

Mr Laws should acknowledge that the ruling was based on the best available research and expertise. He should concede his city's chequered past in dealing with issues raised by the local iwi, Te Runanga o Tupoho.

He should admit that the only racist behaviour in this matter relates to a refusal to respect the culture from which his city's name has been appropriated. And he should recognise that a small show of regard in terms of the proper spelling of that city would not go amiss.

This was, in any event, not a decision for the mayor or the district council to make. Nor was it one where the Geographic Board should have bowed to local opinion.

Now it is up to Mr Williamson to show a similar leadership. He can confirm, modify or reject the board's ruling.

Some citizens of the city are bound to fight a rowdy rearguard battle. The minister may be tempted to take the easy course and seek some form of accommodation. He should resist that urge. The people of Whanganui will quickly adjust to their city's new name.