Subscribe to RSSWanganui Mayor Angry At NZTA’s “Illegal Rebranding” To ‘Whanganui’
Wanganui’s mayor, talk host and columnist Michael Laws, this afternoon angrily launched war on an NZTA initiative.
The transport agency today erected new and large signs this morning advising travellers that they were approaching ‘Whanganui,” not Wanganui.
The mayor calls the signs provocative, says NZTA has illegally rebranded his city and this afternoon ordered they be removed.
He says the signs “are both illegal and misrepresent our city’s name.
“This has been a deliberate and provocative act by NZ Land Transport and undertaken with not the slightest discussion with ourselves. My office has been inundated with complaints this morning, and understandably so.
“I have confirmed with the Minister of Land Information’s office this afternoon that the official name of Wanganui is still ‘Wanganui’. That the legislative law change required to gazette any new variant has not been passed by Parliament. The required legislation is yet to be reported back by the select committee.
“Even when it is passed, Wanganui will still have two formally gazetted names – Wanganui and Whanganui – and Land Transport needs to officially recognise that in its signage. We would have dual names and both are equally valid.”
Two referenda – conducted in 2006 and in 2009 – established that four out of five Wanganui people wanted the spelling of ‘Wanganui’ – without the ‘h’ - to be retained.
8 Comments
Michael, it is called “political correctness”. The person who authorised this will have does his chances of advancement no harm at all.
Lhaws is a dick and pompus twat with delusions of grandeur…
This guy is a pompous buffoon filled with a misplaced sense of self importance and righteousness. There are far more important things to be worrying about than this, even in Whanganui. For crying out loud It’s a friggin letter of the alphabet you patehtic little man,and what’s more it’s actually the correct spelling so get over it.
The only reason to carry the fight on this long would appear to be petty bigitory.
It is spelt Micael Laws…
I don’t really care pro or con on Laws or the issue personally (storm in a teacup, but easily understandable - names are symbols, and symbols have power).
But I’d be interested if NZTA could prosecute him for tampering with road signage. It seems that in a court of law, he’ll be the one doing illegal things, not them.
The mayor can’t be prosecuted for removing signs unless he was the one actually removing them.
I for one agree with him - renaming a city out of political correctness against the wishes of the people who make up that city is something that should be stamped out.
Fortunately it is highly unlikely the signs with the hi included will ever last. The citizens will forever be removing them. At the end of the day it is the people who will enforce democracy.
“The mayor can’t be prosecuted for removing signs unless he was the one actually removing them.”
I don’t think it works like that. If at all, the legal responsibility would rest with BOTH him and the person who executes his order to his staff. Supervisory function does not excuse you from the responsibility of having someone enact what you decree - that would be the biggest cop-out ever (and is done often enough, but doesn’t mean it has the blessing of law - quite the other way around, in fact).
“Even when it is passed, Wanganui will still have two formally gazetted names – Wanganui and Whanganui – and Land Transport needs to officially recognise that in its signage. We would have dual names and both are equally valid.”
That is untrue. There are not dual names (as there is for say Aoraki/Mt Cook), there are two alternate names gazetted. Signage does not need to recognise both names. Further, as I recall there bring a government directive that government agencies will use “Whanganui”, I think it is fairly obvious which name will be appearing on NZTA signs.
@Geoff - sorry but that isn’t democracy, that is rule by mob. Of course if you’re happy with that, I imagine you won’t have a problem with affected locals disabling a piece of infrastructure (a railway line for instance) because none of them wanted it passing near their properties?