The issue here, however, is whether the Far North rejected the opportunity to support Maori wards because the majority of electors declined to recognise the role Maori could and should be playing in our collective future, or wish to continue the alleged subjugation of Maori as an expression of numerical supremacy. It could be argued, though, that neither of those is the case. That the rejection of Maori wards was in fact a vote of confidence in the future for Maori and Pakeha without artificially creating separate components in what many, hopefully most, regard as one community. Perhaps the rejection of Maori wards is a sign that we are growing up.
Mr Piripi's view is that the referendum confirmed a blind spot in local body politics, "a predictable but debilitating situation hurtful to the Maori population". He interprets the result as an expression of the view that Maori are of no more than nominal importance to the economic and political fabric of the community, and that it will embolden the district and regional councils to pursue opportunities to further alienate and isolate Maori community needs from the business of municipal government. Indeed, he says the councils will now be obliged to take that approach.
Surely not. The writer is not aware of any deliberate effort on the part of either council to alienate or isolate the Maori community. That is not to say that neither council will take actions in future that give cause for Maori concern, but it is drawing a very long bow to suggest that either authority will ignore Maori concerns or issues, or at worst deliberately act against Maori interests.
Mayor John Carter has made it clear that he believes his council should be looking for ways by which his council and Maori can work more closely together for the benefit of all, and the Far North's rejection of the Maori ward option seems unlikely to persuade him otherwise.
Mr Carter is hardly likely to need convincing that the Far North's future lies in all who live there working together in pursuit of common goals, before or after the massive fillip that the district will undoubtedly receive from the settlement of iwi Treaty claims.
At the end of the day, as Mr Piripi concedes, it is about opportunity for all to play an active role in the Far North's future, and it is difficult to see how the rejection of the Maori ward option penalises Maori in that regard. Indeed, it could be argued that the establishment of Maori wards would be divisive, in that some non-Maori would inevitably see one section of the community receiving a right denied to others. That sentiment is currently being expressed vociferously in Rotorua, where proposals for unelected Maori representation as part of the otherwise elected local authority is seen by some as a direct attack on the fundamental principles of democracy.
Meanwhile it is unhelpful to suggest that failure to provide for some sort of specific representation of the Maori world view at the council table represents an attack on Maori or a desire to relegate them to the margins. It might well be that some Maori have become disillusioned with the electoral process, but the opportunity for full and effective participation in that process remains open to all, and will continue to be so. It is extraordinary that a people who are seen by some as a racial minority should simply refuse to take part in a process that others around the world are prepared to fight and die for.
Maori candidates do seek election to our system of local government, and some are successful. It is hardly a case of an entire race, some 43 per cent of the voting population, being shut out. Anyone who needs evidence that the people of the Far North, and Northland, do not cast their votes according to colour or culture might note that all four Northland-based Members of Parliament are of Ngapuhi descent. Does that smack of a desire by the Pakeha majority to shut the door on Maori?
The collaboration that Mr Piripi desires, as do the vast majority of those who live in the North, may well be a work in progress, but it is not contingent upon special electoral provision being made for Maori. It is simply not true that the Maori world view is not represented at every level of government, or that Maori candidates have no chance of electoral success.
The outcome we should all be pursuing is for the people of the Far North working towards a common future, where Maori, Pakeha and others contribute what they can for the benefit of all. The decision to reject the Maori wards proposal should have no effect on that aspiration, let alone derail it. We might not yet quite be the one people that we were optimistically described as in 1840, but we are surely coming closer to that every day.
Te Rarawa has long displayed a highly professional attitude towards creating opportunities not only for its people but the community of which it is a large, important part. Mr Piripi is right when he says that role will become increasingly significant in the future, thanks in part to Treaty settlements and in part to visionary leadership. He is wrong, however, when he says the iwi's essence of goodwill and equity has not been reciprocated, and that there are forces in the community that continue to seek to undermine the future and potential of his people.
That is reading far too much into a referendum that was always going to have only one outcome, for reasons that speak more about commonality and a fair go for all than about depriving anyone of the opportunities they deserve.
