Paul Goldsmith: Separate seats based on race are the opposite of equality

Opinion

What's the harm of having three Maori seats on the new Auckland City Council, as recommended by Justice Peter Salmon and his Royal Commission on Auckland Governance? In my view, plenty.

The best indication of potential harm is the bizarre suggestion democracy should be thrown out the window for one of the Maori seats so that one councillor is appointed by mana whenua.

What is the model that we're emulating? Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs, the British aristocracy's hereditary rights to sit in the House of Lords? An unelected group of men from one ethnic group, and possibly one network of families, decides who goes on to the council?

Where are we heading with this, back a few centuries in Europe or towards a Fiji-style political environment where race is everything? The suggestion of a mana whenua selected seat indicates to me that those pushing in this area are sadly out of touch.

It reflects a worrying trend. The implication in retaining democratically elected Maori seats has been that to be represented in a democracy in the same way as everyone else is not good enough for Maori. Now we are being told that having specific Maori seats is also not sufficient for Maori, there needs to be direct appointments by Maori elders as well.

The direction of travel is to keep on elevating the importance of race, to keep pushing the country away from simple democracy. I think we should be going in the other direction.

This attempt to improve on equality only undermines it. Let's take the long view. At the time of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand had two distinct groups, Maori and a few settlers, mainly British.

As the decades passed the two peoples intermarried and many other ethnic groups made New Zealand their home. Special arrangements were made for Maori seats in the 19th century, after a war, as a transition measure. Over time, you would expect the special arrangements to diminish as race became less important, as Maori gained confidence in the rule of law and as the intrinsic worth of all New Zealanders, regardless of background as the generations passed.

Instead, in recent times we've gone the other way, towards more differentiation on the basis of Maori ancestry, more special rights of consultation in the Resource Management Act, more parliamentary Maori seats.

Where could we be in 100 years' time, when, because of further intermarriage, an ever larger share of the population, say 30 per cent, has a drop of Maori blood.

Will we still be dividing the country between Maori and non-Maori? In 2109 will 30 per cent of Parliament's seats be Maori seats?

That is not the future I want for New Zealand. It is a recipe for the continual elevation of racial difference to the top of everyone's minds. It is a recipe for strife. Other ethnic groups who already outnumber Maori in Auckland will want their separate representation.

Maori have a special place in New Zealand, but that specialness should not be allowed to undermine the sanctity of the simple equality of all New Zealanders living together. In 2009, we should be moving to end the Maori seats in Parliament, not making a significant extension of race-based politics by introducing Maori seats to Auckland City.

* Paul Goldsmith is an Auckland City councillor.