There are two probable reasons the Government is not engaging in a proper debate over its co-governance policy: either it doesn't know what to say or it doesn't have the right people to say it.
One thing is clear, however, and this is whether the Government joins the debate or not, the vacuum will be filled with the views of others, and others' views of the Government.
The Hui, on TV3, is the latest media show to encourage debate, as it did on Monday with a look at the earliest example of co-governance, the Waikato River Authority, which brings together the Crown and five iwi to oversee the health of the river.
The Herald has run many articles on co-governance this year, including a long piece featuring Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson and Act leader David Seymour.
On Sunday, Jackson had been due to appear on TVNZ's Q and A to discuss co-governance, as well as Act leader David Seymour. Unfortunately, Jackson contracted Covid-19 and could not appear.
But even if he had, it is highly unlikely that Jackson could have delivered what is being reasonably demanded of the Government: a coherent overview of what co-governance is, why it is being expanded and to what extent.
Jackson has to be given credit for at least being willing to front, but assurances by him that there is nothing to be afraid of will not be enough.
He is a strong voice for Māori in the Cabinet. He is not the natural ally of the co-governance sceptic.
It is not enough for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to say co-governance was begun by National or that Māori health statistics have been terrible for years.
What is required is a big picture narrative from a senior member of the Government, if not Ardern herself, or deputy Grant Robertson, then someone like Attorney-General David Parker who has had considerable experience in Treaty of Waitangi issues.
Governments for 30 years have had senior voices such as Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, Michael Cullen, Margaret Wilson, Bill English and Chris Finlayson to explain how the treaty policy was evolving. Through articles, speeches and interviews, they spoke often about the treaty.
There are no such voices in the current Government.
It is possible that Parker is so consumed by drawing up the final version of the Natural and Built Environments Bill – not least how to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi principles – that he can't be distracted by bigger picture stuff at present.
But a big picture is needed and soon.
Finlayson was on The Hui on Monday and explained why he had set up co-governance arrangements in the context of treaty settlements and natural bodies such as rivers, mountains and a national park.
But he correctly said it was the responsibility of the Government of the day to explain its own co-governance policy and its rationale for expanding.
Former United Future leader Peter Dunne went a lot further on Newsroom and suggested that the issue deserves debate but that it should be led by a group of external, independent and distinguished New Zealanders, not by politicians.
It is such a potent issue that it may be worthy of a debate about how the debate should proceed but in the meantime, it proceeds.
All sorts of things that have been settled law for 30 years are being challenged without any response from the Government, such as the concept of "partnership" confirmed in the 1987 Lands case.
It is true that Lord Cooke in the Lands case said that the treaty was "akin" to a partnership and "something in the nature of a partnership".
But he also mentioned the word "partnership" eight times in his judgment and not always without such qualification.
"The Treaty signified a partnership between races, and it is in this concept that the answer to the present case has to be found," he also said.
In another part of the judgment, he said: "The third Article extends the Crown's protection and imparts all the rights and privileges of British subjects. I see such a principle as very relevant to this case, inherent in the concept of an ongoing partnership founded on the Treaty."
The Lands case was not challenged by the Government and has formed the basis for the evolution of treaty policy for the past 30 years.
It may be that the Government has decided that it is much healthier for democratically elected MPs to have a stronger influence on such matters, instead of leaving it to the courts.
That is a legitimate and commendable position. But could someone in Government please work out what the policy is and find someone to explain it.