One of the great media obfuscations of 2009 is the refusal to remind how minority the minority Maori Party really is.By contrast, when NZ First, Act and the Alliance were in their influential heyday, most media commentators were quick to point out that their support base was desultory. But even at their parliamentary worst, they still doubled the party political votes that the Maori Party achieved at the 2008 general election.
Winston Peters, Richard Prebble and Jim Anderton were portrayed as preferential spoilers and the MMP electoral system decried for their collective shenanigans. And yet none had the influence of the current Maori Party – despite Peters being a temporary treasurer. Not bad for a party who polled just 2.3% at the 2008 election and distantly trailed Labour, in the party vote, in every constituency.
In fact, Maori voters on the Maori roll did something which, at first, seemed rather shrewd. They voted for Maori Party constituency MPs but shunned the party when it came to forming a government. So how ironic that they actually ended up gifting National its most influential coalition partner.
That National chose the racially motivated party was also odd. But you can now see its logic in all its glory. John Key perceives Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia as the Maori wing of the National Party. National has never really had one. So the Maori Party is their avatar.
Which is why the Maori Party must have its victories. Preferably lots of little ones, like the 1990-designed Maori flag that will now fly on Waitangi Day. Soon it will fly everywhere, but that is another gesture for another time.
Similarly the top-up for iwi who had their forestry assets settled a decade ago, but now claim them devalued by this year's emissions trading scheme. And now there is the suggestion of a separate welfare delivery agency to replace Income Support and perhaps even CYF.
Devolution has been a spectacular failure since its inception in 1984. Maori remain among the most underprivileged of ethnic groups and the most over-represented in all the worst statistics. Their relative position compared with other ethnic groups has not improved. Hence Sharples' suggestion for Maori prisons: with an inmate population of over 50%, who is to say that policy has not already arrived.
But, hey. If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. As any cabinet minister of any colour will claim, it is better having power than not. Helen Clark was the first Labour leader in a generation to appreciate that truth. John Key is a similar pragmatist.
So the renaming of Wanganui as "Whanganui" was always on the Maori Party's list. Primarily because many of its key operators, and especially Tariana Turia and Ken Mair, actually hail from the river city's surrounds. They have history here, too: from being at the forefront of the 1995 Moutoa Gardens occupation to standing (and being rejected) for civic office. This is personal.
In itself, there is no real gain in renaming a city that was first spelt in 1837 and spelt as "Wanganui". It is, again, the politics of useless gesture. No young Maori will be better parented, schooled or employed as a consequence. And it is not even the correction of some distant offence. Maori did not have a written language. Tribes had different dialects. Wanganui iwi pronounced their river without an "h", hence the literal transcription. If anything, it was a gesture of respect by the first British missionaries and settlers.
But all this is now academic. A 21st-century cabinet minister has been required to pronounce upon the intent of peoples living two centuries ago. After an unrepresentative and politically correct NZ Geographic Board went mad and decided that 172 years of written history means nothing.
Ironically, both Turia and myself would find common cause that, whatever the spelling, "Whanganui" is not pronounced "Fonganui". That is anathema to us both. The local dialect remains "h"-less. And so the greatest imperative will be requiring the rest of New Zealand to accept that there is no "f" in Whanganui as there never has been one in Wanganui.
Friday's compromise then will both satisfy everyone and not.
There has been a variant spelling since 1991 when the river was wrongly renamed with an "h". But the then district council got itself in a flap, didn't understand the power of referenda, and satisfied itself that the city and district's spelling would remain.
It was a foolish decision because it made Friday's decision inevitable. If there is one thing that Maori politicians have learnt over many generations, it is that incremental change starts with the first drip of water. It is entirely admirable lobbying. And it works.
By contrast, Pakeha politicians seek to effect change in their political lifetime and preferably in their lunchtime. It is the nature of our culture: if we can't do it soon, we lose interest. The tyranny of the term – usually three years – amplifies that desire for immediacy.
And so Friday's decision will not be the definitive nor final word. So long as the city and district remain as they have always been spelled, then the campaign to change will similarly remain. And what does it matter, you might ask? What's to gain? What's to lose?
That depends if you think that New Zealand has a heritage irrespective of its Maori origins. If you regard the contribution of non-Maori as important and whether you accept that identity can be created by new settlers as well as old. Although 1837 is old – especially when one considers that there was no written interpretation in prior existence.
I do. So do four out of five Wanganui people. We are proud of our city, our history and our identity. We do not bow down to fate nor political correctness. It is neither our nature nor our culture. We are Wanganui.
Sunday Star Times, December 20, 2009