Editorial: Compromise prolongs tale of two cities

Opinion

A bold Land Information Minister would have insisted that Wanganui was officially renamed Whanganui. In doing so, Maurice Williamson would have been simply confirming the view of the New Zealand Geographic Board, the body best placed to deliver a definitive verdict. He has, however, chosen a compromise solution. Crown agencies will have to spell the city's name as Whanganui and update their signs and official documents over time. For other people, it is simply a matter of choosing the version they prefer. Officially, the river city is both Whanganui and Wanganui.

Clearly, Mr Williamson sees this as the best means of defusing what had become an acrimonious situation. While the Geographic Board had been convinced by the case put by the local iwi, Te Runanga o Tupoho, and a round of public consultation did not change its mind, polls showed something like 70 to 80 per cent of residents did not want to change from Wanganui. On balance, said the minister, his solution acknowledged the correct spelling of Whanganui while respecting the views of those who had always known the city to be spelt Wanganui. Nothing of any great note will happen overnight to ruffle feathers, thanks to Mr Williamson's open-ended instruction to Crown agencies.

Some will compare the decision to the compromises that created Aorangi/Mt Cook and Taranaki/Mt Egmont. The situation is not really analogous, however. The naming of the two mountains by Europeans was not a mistake. Wanganui was. Geographic Board research showed not only evidence of the use of Whanganui in early historical records but that the early settlers obviously intended the name of the city to be derived from the Maori name of the river.

This went awry only when the incorrect spelling caught on. But Wanganui was never formally gazetted and, therefore, until yesterday was not an official New Zealand place name. Mr Williamson was, however, clearly swayed by the fact that altering the identity of a community, however slightly, was a matter of much greater sensitivity than that of any mountain.

Yet whatever that degree of local feeling now, Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia is undoubtedly right when she suggests people will drift towards Whanganui. "It's just a stage process and people, by osmosis, will change," she says.

Further up SH3, the use of the name Mt Egmont is already dwindling. In Wanganui, a similar process had begun long before the furore orchestrated by the city's mayor, Michael Laws. The district health board, polytechnic and many tourism organisations have already embraced Whanganui. They have, in effect, acknowledged that observing the proper spelling of a language is the right thing to do. In time, a generational change will surely prompt the same degree of respect, and put an end to the debate.

Mr Williamson could have ended that discussion right now. There was nothing in the process and procedures of the Geographic Board that would have given him pause to question its verdict. There is also no reason to question its expertise or its interpretation of the best available research. Its decision was unanimous. In 1991, there was no great opposition when the same board officially declared the name of the river to be Whanganui. For consistency, alone, the river city should follow suit. But this is a conservative, pragmatic decision from a Government making those words its touchstone. Its declaration will do no harm but it does not resolve the issue either. The residents of Wanganui are likely to adapt over time to their "h". Mr Williamson's caution will simply mean that adjustment takes a little longer.