Mood of the Boardroom: Increased co-governance divides chief executives

Nanaia Mahuta has been leading the push on Three Waters, which has a significant co-governance element. Photo / Mark Mitchell

CEOs are split on whether increased co-governance between Government and Māori is "right for the times" or "anti-democratic".

The vexed issue of "co-governance" frequently dominates headlines with supporters saying it is a crucial step in the Crown meeting its obligations under Te Tiriti.

But others say the extent of "co-governance" is already divisive and anti-democratic.

CEOs and directors responding to the Herald's Mood of the Boardroom survey were asked specifically if they believed increased co-governance between Government and Māori was "right for the times", "anti-democratic" or whether they were "unsure.

Some 37 per cent of survey respondents said that increased co-governance was "right for the times", although many include caveats in their support.

"Co-governance seems a sensible solution for resolving claims in relation to taonga/property — especially where only a 21st-century solution is possible," says The New Zealand Initiative chair Roger Partridge.

"However, co-governance of the national provision of services is not consistent with the principles of our liberal democracy."

Nanaia Mahuta has been leading the push on Three Waters, which has a significant co-governance element. Photo / Mark Mitchell

The head of an investment company says "there has been a 'whites only' policy to date, and that needs to change".

A chair says they agree with co-governance in principle, but it does not need to be in every domain. "Māori values, and in fact most things Māori are undergoing a renaissance," they say. "Our Māori history is common to all New Zealanders."

But a further 41 per cent of respondents believe increased co-governance is "anti-democratic".

"I will not support two votes for one ethnicity in any election process," says Precinct Property chair Craig Stobo.

The head of a design firm says co-governance is "totally against all democratic principles — a reversal to dark days."

An investment banker shares a similar sentiment. "It is not only anti-democratic, it is unnecessary and an inefficient way to address the inequities trying to be addressed."

"Having dedicated Māori seats on local councils makes sense," says a top chair. "But in governance, where Māori have an equal say on important matters, is a step too far for me."

"Have a referendum and let's see what Kiwis want," says the head of an energy company.

What are the politicians talking about here?

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern maintains her Government has been clear about where it would implement co-governance, such as the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora (the Māori Health Authority) to improve indigenous health by working in partnership with the new centralised health agency Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand.

"Health outcomes for Māori are worse in this country, Māori die younger in this country," Ardern has said.

"I think we all acknowledge that the way we've been operating in our health system hasn't been serving Māori well."

But the extent of co-governance overlaid on the Government's Three Waters plan to amalgamate local water assets into four big new regional authorities has proved divisive.

The new entities will be represented by regional representative groups comprising 50 per cent local council members and 50 per cent from iwi. Mana whenua will have oversight over the boards charged with operational management, but no operational authority.

This has already set the scene for co-governance to be a major election issue in 2022 with Act and New Zealand First highly critical of initiatives taken by a majority Labour Government which were not put up as policy at the 2020 election.

Act Party leader David Seymour said a referendum on co-governance would be a bottom line if forming a Government with National.

He said the Treaty of Waitangi was not a partnership and co-governance arrangements should not be viewed as a necessary extension of that and have warned co-governance will end liberal democracy in New Zealand.

However, National leader Christopher Luxon had ruled out a referendum for now: "We're not in any place to have a referendum right now because the bottom line is we're not clear what we're talking about with respect to co-governance."

CEOs also want more balance

Some 22 per cent of survey respondents say they are unsure about increased co-governance.

"We need a much greater level of the national conversation," says a professional director.

"The controversy is coming via the uninformed and is not being countered by an intelligent conversation."

"I want Māori inclusion but with democratic principles," says Vector chair Jonathan Mason.

From a utilities boss: "Māori should definitely have a voice in governance its more about balance."

Others are concerned the subject has become a political dog whistle.

"We need to ensure that the debate around it is measured and informed," says a property CEO.

"I am anxious about the way conspiracy theorists are harnessing genuine confusion and concern around what the term really means and turning it to their own ends.

"I don't think this is going anywhere good, and I think it is incumbent on the leaders of all of the sane political parties to ensure the rhetoric around this issue is measured and grounded in fact."

Under National-led governments, co-governance arrangements were made with iwi over Te Urewera national park, the Waikato and Waipā rivers, and the Whanganui river.

Former National Cabinet minister Christopher Finlayson has been vocal that the present Government is losing valuable purchases on public tolerance for Māori advancement.

"I subscribe to Chris Finlayson's world view on this issue," says a property CEO.

"And also note that this has been happening in lots of spaces for quite some time — it's not, in fact, new."