But a lot more work is required to bring the general population along. There's a difference between being on the agenda and being the agenda.
Perhaps driven by fear of the unknown or resistance to change, co-governance is not yet widely embraced. I expect that's partly because it's not well understood. Perhaps it hasn't been well explained.
It's probably easier to start with what it's not. Commonly understood, co-governance is not about resource ownership or a system of government, although it could lead to those things.
And it shouldn't be about separatism. Quite the opposite. It's about common ground. A partnership approach to decision-making.
At its core, co-governance should be about better decision-making.
About bringing both a Māori and non-Māori perspective to the decision-making table on matters which affect Māori.
While this reflects the Treaty partnership, there is a risk in relying solely on the Treaty as a justification for co-governance. Like any contractual document, the Treaty / Te Tiriti is subject to different interpretations.
This can lead to disputes and division rather than common ground.
One issue is that the Treaty "principles" (as opposed to the "articles") are not well known.
The principles are evolving concepts defined by the courts, not found in the words of the contract.
A well-known principle is "partnership" - lesser known is "compromise". The application of these principles to a given situation may give rise to tensions.
When considering representation on decision-making bodies, "equity" will not necessarily mean "equality" when it comes to Māori.
I've seen it put like this: equality involves providing everyone with the same resources regardless of need.
Equity involves distributing resources based on need.
In a representation context, we know that Māori are less likely to vote in general and local elections than non-Māori (11 per cent fewer in both the 2019 Auckland Council election and the 2020 general election).
Because Māori are more inclined to raise issues through their appointed representatives, rather than by voting in elections, it may be fairer to provide for fewer Māori representatives, but allow them to be directly appointed through a tikanga process rather than voted in through Māori wards.
This approach has recently been adopted to ensure better representation by Ngāi Tahu on Environment Canterbury, and through the Local Government Commission review of Rotorua District Council's representation arrangements.
To gain wide acceptance and be enduring, co-governance as a process for decision-making will need to demonstrate that it achieves better outcomes than the status quo.
People need to see positive examples of co-governance in action, involving transparent and accountable processes.
I've seen co-governance produce excellent outcomes in relation to environmental decision-making - where there is a clear common objective - a thriving and sustainable earth.
Māori have much to offer in this area. Their holistic worldview and traditional wisdom (matauranga) have resulted in successful and sustainable environmental outcomes.
I've been involved in a project which has successfully used matauranga principles together with "western science" to bioremediate dioxin-contaminated sediment.
The recently-announced joint venture between Fletcher Building and Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara to build 160 new homes in Albany/Ōkahukura is another example of co-governance in action.
As former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson recently observed about co-governance initiatives, "if you address those matters successfully, who benefits? Everybody! The whole economy benefits".
Like him, I understand why many are nervous about the He Puapua report - possibly due to a lack of transparency about why it was commissioned.
Three Waters has also fallen victim to concerns about co-governance by stealth, and process failures.
But it would be a shame if opportunities to showcase positive examples of co-governance in a transparent and accountable way are lost due to a lack of trust and understanding about local and central government objectives.
If we can face our fear of co-governance and do it anyway, I'm guessing we'll be richer for it.
