Whrong whay to do it

The Diva thunders in his latest column that it's "untenable, and anti-democratic to suggest that the public should be excluded from [the "H"] debate... This is not an issue to be settled by either executive decree or the desire of the tangata whenua. It should be settled by the residents and ratepayers of Wanganui". Among the "undemocratic" targets singled out is none other than Cr Sue Pepperell.

Her argument, which actually got a fair run in the Chronicle, boils down to the fact that she would be "happy for it to go to a referendum if [she] knew there could be a widespread public education campaign on the subject". Doesn't sound all that undemocratic to us.

And that is it in a nutshell, really. None of the topics included in the referenda are simple, but of all the choices on the Diva's populist shopping list, the "h" issue is potentially the most complex because the arguments both for and against are by no means clear-cut. And to understand the opposing viewpoint requires a preparedness to set aside one's preconceptions and listen to the alternative point of view with respect.

Cr Pepperell's suggestion that this may not occur isn't due to her belief that "Wanganui people are too racist or too dumb to be trusted with such a decision" as the Diva accuses (before adding, disingenuously, "I know that's not what [she is] saying").

Since daring to deviate from the Diva gets you that kind of response, it's understandable Cr Pepperell hasn't come right out and nailed the problem. But LawsWatch will.

Referenda are only effective when put to an informed populace. And that requires that all points of view on an issue are provided, well in advance of the decision, with the means and the opportunity to put opposing arguments and that people are given an opportunity to ask questions in a public forum.

The way in which the Diva has quite deliberately chosen to go about the referendum is the polar opposite of this approach: expecting voters to decide multiple questions (including choosing a new councillor) based on little more than what they may have read on the Mayoral website or seen in the Chronicle, and how much propaganda can be stuffed in an envelope. The result is not inherent ignorance, but it is imposed ignorance. And faced with an uncertain basis on which to make a decision, human nature generally dictates that people choose the status quo.

The Diva's a skilful politician and he knows this better than almost anyone. Incumbents (be they politicians or place names) have an enormous advantage. And he knows that, absent a lengthy and reasoned education campaign and widespread debate, the status quo will prevail. Thus he can claim to be bound by the outcome of a process which was pre-destined the moment he initiated it.

It's cynical manipulative populism at it's worst - but that doesn't seem to bother Crs Marty Linday and Don McGregor, who've changed their minds on the matter after initially voting against it. Are there Diva-shaped bite marks on their ankles, or have they miraculously had some sort of revelation since September 18, when they were implacably opposed? Cr Lindsay says "it's about the people of our community taking the time to understand the issue, have their say and do what’s right".

Listening to whom? In what forum? If they want to ask iwi why the issue is important to them, how do they do that? Who's going to write the "pro-H" case which will presumably be included in the official referenda documentation? And several other questions that we bet Cr Lindsay doesn't know the answer to either. But it's better than having to keep putting ointment on those nasty bites.

Meanwhile, the New Zealand Geographic Board has responded to a Watcher's query as to whether the addition of an "h" would be considered a name change or a spelling correction, confirming it would be viewed as the latter:

I refer to your enquiry of 26 September 2005, in which you sought advice on whether the discussion over Wanganui vs Whanganui (for the city name) would be considered to be correcting a 'doubtful spelling' or a 'name change', and whether it would require the formal assent of the Wanganui District Council.

My view is that any such submission received would be classed as a spelling correction, rather than a change of name. If the Wanganui District Council makes a formal submission proposal to the NZ Geographic Board then I would expect that they would wish to make a formal resolution to support the change, but it is not a pre-requisite for the process set out under the NZ Geographic Board Act.

Wanganui is the official name for the 'city', this being a name that has not been gazetted as an official place name, but which has been published on maps and charts for many years and has been in such long term usage, that the New Zealand Geographic Board, when it considered altering its spelling in the early 90s, decided to leave it as spelt, because of the adverse effects that such a change would have on the community and businesses.

However, for Whanganui River, the 'h' was included - NZ Gazette 1991 page 3226 refers, which notified the Minister of Lands decision of 23 April 1991...

Wendy Shaw
Secretary for the New Zealand Geographic Board
Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa
c/- Land Information New Zealand Toitu te whenua
160 Lambton Quay, Private Box 5501,
Wellington

So at least we now know that much, Mharty. Meanwhile, LawsWatch will again endeavour to act as an oasis of informed debate and will today invite tangata whenua to contribute a post on the issue and, hopefully, to respond to any questions or comments that visitors may care to leave.

Update (7.30 pm): A commenter suggests "get[ting] signatures and lobby[ing] the Geographic Board. As they clearly state it is not a decision of Council any way - in fact its not even a pre-requisite. All we would need is signatures from over 50% of the rating base to show that the change has the majority support of the city. How about this blog actually promoting something positive..."

We're only too happy to do what we can to promote positive initiatives. That's why we've set up the by-election poll, in order to give those who might be thinking of standing some idea of what support they might receive and hopefully encourage them to do so. And why in this very post we've indicated that we're offering LawsWatch to local Iwi to initiate an ongoing dialogue on the "H" during which their point of view won't be marginalised - as it clearly will in anything the Diva writes.

And we'll promote any petition you care to start, Whanganui Fan. But be warned, the crucial word in your suggestion is "lobby". The Board is under no obligation to take notice of any submission, and takes into account a wide variety of factors including:

• An indication as to whether local Maori authorities have been consulted on the possibility that an original Maori name may already exist for the feature.
• An indication as to whether consultation has been undertaken with the local community, Department of Conservation, Local Authority, etc., with documentary evidence of their support to any name proposal. NB this consultation is not mandatory but is encouraged by the Board.

Furthermore, as the Board's secretary stated in her reply to the Watcher, quoted above, "Wanganui is the official name for the 'city'... has been published on maps and charts for many years and has been in such long term usage, that the... Board, when it considered altering its spelling in the early 90s, decided to leave it as spelt". So just ten years ago the answer from the Board was a resounding no.

That's leaving aside the logistic difficulty of obtaining the signatures of more than 50% of "the rating base". And minor but nonetheless important questions like, what about non-ratepaying residents? Do they get a say? And how are you going to fairly and impartially present both sides of the case when asking for a signature?

The Council has the cash and the infrastructure to poll 100% of the District, and is nominally our servant. Why wear yourself out sitting at a card table outside supermarkets or going door-to-door with a clipboard when the infrastructure is already there? Rather than the negativity of which you accuse us, we're suggesting supporting and helping Sue Pepperell and others who've identified the deficiencies in the Diva-style referendum process and are trying to correct them. But if you want to go the petition route, rest assured we'll do all we can to help with that, too.

Comments on this post are now closed.