Iwi representation gets us talking

What is more important for New Zealand: how it looks now, or how it will look in 100, 200 or 500 years' time?

Is the present the destination this country has been striving to reach for the past 179 years, or are we only part way through our journey?

It's a question which encourages us to wonder how we want our society to look, how it should be structured, how we should act towards each other, what we should know, and what we should say.

And it encourages us to be honest in our appraisal of whether or not we have arrived. Of course, we will never reach civic utopia. But there is value in striving towards a rational and achievable version of it.

Most would conclude we are only part way along the journey towards our potential. And most would broadly agree what that destination looks like; fair, free, open and honest, a place of equal opportunities for all, where hard work is rewarded, where the sick are looked after and education is always available.

There would be harmony between genders, between those of differing sexual orientations, between the urban and the rural and, of course, racial harmony.

But how do we get there? This month's decision by the Otago Regional Council to appoint unelected iwi representation to a committee has proven we are not ''there'' yet, neither do we all agree on how we get there.

There are extreme views on all manner of topics in this country. Some believe Maori should reclaim the country as theirs and theirs alone. Others believe Maori culture to be a relic with nothing to offer the future.

Most, however, believe neither. Most believe we are a forward-moving country encapsulating an increasing number of ethnicities, beliefs and customs, and that what binds us together - that we are all New Zealanders - is the key to our identity.

To most, our destination would have one people, New Zealanders, who together can trace myriad bloodlines but are drawn together as Kiwis. All those people would be equal - certainly in terms of their rights and opportunities.

To many, such a destination doesn't mesh with the idea some governance roles should be allocated on race.

Yet nor do many feel it is acceptable that Maori are genuinely underrepresented in such roles, while being overrepresented in other key areas - the prison roster being one.

The problem reaching the destination we want is that there are nearly five million of us, and many have very particular ideas about the path we should be taking. And, if we're being very honest, it is impossible to know for sure who is right and who is wrong.

Some, like Don Brash, have taken flak for believing the time for New Zealand to adopt racial equality of opportunity is now. He is called racist for those views, though his argument is nothing of the sort. It may be incorrect, but that is a very different accusation.

People are quick to throw all manner of abhorrent labels at those with differing views. Many have been quick to insult, belittle and scorn those arguing the ORC's decision is not helping us progress towards the destination we want our country to reach. Others have offered ugly rationale for why Maori aren't better represented in the first place.

Whether the ORC's decision is correct is impossible to know for sure. Either way, it is surely without dispute that maturing as a nation would be easier and quicker if such topics were debated respectfully, without resorting to name-calling and virtue-trumpeting on one side, or the rehashing of old and ugly racially-charged tropes on the other.

There is a worthy and healthy debate to be had on the place of race-allocations in governance in this country. We should endeavour to have it.