Ben Thomas: Dump the 'co-governance' name, it's too tainted by confusion

Wednesday, 1 February 2023

Ben Thomas is a commentator and public relations consultant who has worked on both government and private sector projects, and for a minister in a National government. He is a regular contributor to Stuff.

OPINION: In the first days of Chris Hipkins’ prime ministership a historical consensus was reached by the leaders of our two major political parties about the vexed issue of co-governance: no-one, Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon each volunteered, really knew what it was.

It might have been sensible in that case for the protagonists to define the term, or even better drop it all together, at least as far as references to a supposed “co-governance agenda” centred on the He Puapua report prepared for Nanaia Mahuta in the last term of government are concerned.

Alas, it was not to be. The politicians instead doubled down on arguing about whether co-governance was good or bad, whatever in fact it was.

With Waitangi Day looming, and an apparent reset of the Government’s position on co-governance signalled under Hipkins, let’s take a breath to set out what some of these ideas mean.

**READ MORE:

* How co-governance is already working

* Chris Luxon doesn't support ACT's call for a Treaty of Waitangi referendum

* Te Pāti Māori seek 'divorce' from Britain's monarchy

* Luxon finds familiar ground ahead of 2023 election

**

First, my qualifications and conflicts on the subject: I was around for the genesis of the policy of using “co-governance” as a mechanism in historical Treaty claims in the last National government. I was the press secretary for the Treaty Minister, Chris Finlayson, and I really wish I had spent a few hours then whiteboarding some suggestions for a better name.

I have since worked for iwi who all have interests in co-governance mechanisms. Neither of these experiences at all resemble the fevered public discourse about what has somehow become known even in non-conspiratorial media as the current Government’s “co-governance agenda”.

The real mystery is that there is no evidence there is one. It may be a final testament to the scattershot political mismanagement of the Ardern Beehive’s last year or so that it managed to turn a non-existent “agenda” into an ongoing political catastrophe.

The history of co-governance is as follows.

It was a practical solution to certain historical Treaty grievances relating to iwi disconnection from especially significant natural resources, that could not be easily redressed with money or the transfer of public land: for example, being alienated from a river that had previously been the key to food, community, transport and spiritual life. On the understanding that a river was a natural resource that could not be turned over into private ownership, even its traditional owners, the solution was to share the governance and direction setting for the management of the river and its environment between, say, local council and iwi.

This allowed for the exercise of tino rangatiratanga, guaranteed in article two of Te Tiriti, and variously translated as chieftainship or an authority with corresponding responsibilities, over the Treaty partner’s lands, people and taonga.

So, for example, recognising the historical, cultural and spiritual importance of Auckland’s volcanic cones (maunga) to the tribes of the region, property title to the mountains was transferred to the Tāmaki Collective of 12 iwi, and governed by an authority whose members were half appointed by the council and half from the Tāmaki Collective. A statutory regime outlined the values under which the maunga would be governed, including continued public access.

ACT leader David Seymour has suggested, from a property rights perspective, the outright transfer of public land without encumbrances would have been a perhaps more just outcome for claimants in some cases. As with much in the Treaty space, it is a compromise agreement: allowing for the exercise of rangatiratanga while also recognising the Crown’s kawanatanga (its right to govern) and the public good of these precious natural resources. By necessity, the exercise of rangatiratanga is incorporated into the formal language and instruments of government – that is, legislation enacted by Parliament.

At base, all parties in Parliament agree that co-governance as a principle describes this mechanism: an oversight body with a particular purpose, with representatives appointed by the Crown (or council) and by the Treaty partner.

The key feature in practice of a co-governance arrangement is that some of the governance body are appointed by the Crown or its representatives, and some are appointed by Māori through their traditional authority such as iwi. The split will often be 50/50.

This model could be more widely used, but it starts to lose coherence outside the context of traditional geographical boundaries.

That is why the new Māori Health Authority is not a co-governance arrangement. Iwi do not appoint their representatives. The MHA is a Crown agency, with a board appointed by and answerable to the Crown, and with responsibilities to try to address the dire state of Māori health outcomes across the country compared with most other ethnic groups. The argument is not about ‘co-governance’ but whether or not this extra piece of bureaucracy will achieve anything. That is a question of bureaucratic design, not race.

The general proposition that Māori should be involved in decision-making affecting Māori is beyond doubt. Farmers should be involved in decisions affecting farmers. Government does not have a monopoly on wisdom or knowledge, and by definition will lack much of the practical knowledge itself to make good policy and effectively deliver services.

The problem is that the word co-governance is now tainted by confusion and misuse. It’s probably time to abandon it. Agreements over natural resources can go back to being called co-management agreements, and the rest can be called what it really is: new Wellington-based bureaucracies to co-ordinate services iwi should just be empowered to provide on the ground themselves.