Valmaine Toki: Deja vu as another call for Maori representation ignored

The call for Maori representation on the new Auckland council is nothing new.

Maori demanded from both the imperial and settler governments recognition of their pre-existing rights to autonomy as affirmed in the Treaty of Waitangi and the ability to administer law for themselves.

The 1867 Native (Maori) Representation Act provided a temporary creation (later to be permanent) of four Maori parliamentary seats in New Zealand. This initiative was Pakeha-driven, by the then Secretary of Native Affairs, Donald McLean, and the desire for other forms of governance or representation for Maori was ignored or refused. It is hardly surprising that Cox (Kotahitanga: The Search for Political Unity) has criticised this legislation as "an inadequate avenue for constitutional representation".

The general principle behind Maori representation in Parliament has been one of dedicated Maori seats allocated on a proportional population basis. Had the population-based criteria applied in 1958, when numbers of settlers were similar to that of Maori, equal representation would have resulted. However, according to Professor Ranginui Walker, "anything approximating proportionality would have been dangerous to the balance of Pakeha power in the House" and "Maori representation in the New Zealand Parliament exists only at the pleasure of the Pakeha majority".

Today, in 2009, the report from the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance has, after an extensive consultative process, proposed various recommendations including: "Recommendation 22A ... two Maori members should be elected to the Auckland Council ..." and "Recommendation 22B ... there should be a Mana Whenua Forum ... to appoint a councillor on the Auckland Council" (Volume 1).

Nonetheless, Local Government Minister Rodney Hide and Prime Minister John Key have chosen not to support these recommendations from the commission of three Maori seats on the new council.

Although Labour and National may sit on different sides of the House, like the foreshore and seabed legislation, once again the sitting Government has chosen to ignore the informed recommendations from an independent body related to Maori issues. Once again Maori have taken to the streets to voice concern. The recent hikoi (conservatively estimated at 6000) in support of Maori seats on the proposed Super City was notable for the number of non-Maori participating. This indicates not only a greater awareness and acceptance of tangata whenua rights but support for the accommodation of Maori self representation within New Zealand's governance structures at both central and local body levels.

As Dominic O'Sullivan (Herald , April 7) pointed out, viewing the seats recommended by the commission as "seats based on race" is a narrow and limited perception. Maori are not just a race or another interest group, or another minority group. Maori, through the Treaty, have sought recognition as an indigenous people, as tangata whenua.

Equating tangata whenua rights with the rights of other interest groups or cultural minorities, or viewing Maori as just another "race" fails to take into account the specific history and relationship that comes from being the first peoples of that territory.

An issue for Maori that flows from designated "Maori" seats within the Super City is a local one that focuses on iwi representation from local iwi. There are issues regarding exactly which iwi should be represented and in what capacity.

Certainly Ngati Whatua must be present. But there are others who could equally make a claim such as Ngati Paoa, Ngai Tai, Ngati Rehua, Kawerau a Maki and Tainui. Maintaining these seats as Maori rather than designating them hapu and iwi would overcome the tribal issue. As it will be local representatives who stand in the elections, keeping it general may be simpler than looking at competing tribal affiliations.

Since World War II Maori have migrated to urban centres from their traditional tribal territories in huge numbers. This has resulted in cities such as Auckland having a Maori population made up of descendants of local iwi and people from iwi outside of the isthmus.

The commission has indicated an appreciation of this dynamic of modern Maori demographics, by recommending representation for both groups - Mana Whenua being the local tangata whenua and general Maori representation for all other Maori resident in the Super City boundaries.

However, while the recommendations from the commission may not be viewed as reflective of a true partnership, to ignore this recommendation is perhaps a catalyst for unrest.