Parties accused of abusing cogovernance fear
WAITANGI: Prime Minister Chris Hipkins is accusing National and Act New Zealand of using uncertainty around cogovernance to stoke fear.
Speaking from Waitangi yesterday, Mr Hipkins accepted some blame for the public’s lack of understanding of cogovernance, saying the Government’s overloaded work programme had not allowed for a measured discussion on the topic.
Mr Hipkins had just attended the National Iwi Chairs Forum where he met Ma¯ori leaders and discussed a range of subjects, including cogovernance, housing, health and education.
He said iwi leaders had expressed their concerns about race and ethnicity being used to divide New Zealanders.
Mr Hipkins said he had reiterated his devotion to avoid that from happening and believed his meeting indicated a strong relationship between Ma¯ori and the Government.
Asked about the misconceptions about cogovernance, Mr Hipkins felt the topic had been misunderstood by the public — partly because Opposition parties had used it to stoke fear.
‘‘Those who seek to use misunderstanding around it for political advantage need to reflect on their own behaviour.
‘‘I certainly think the Opposition — National and Act — have used, as they have done in the past, uncertainty to try and stoke fear.’’
However, Mr Hipkins acknowledged his Government’s role in allowing the uncertainty to fester.
‘‘One of the challenges we’ve had is because we’ve been doing so many different things, actually, we probably haven’t created the space to make sure people understand what we’re doing and why we’re doing it.
‘‘That’s absolutely been a lesson for us over the last five years.
‘‘It’s something that we have all reflected on and you’ll see some change in that regard.’’
Act leader David Seymour said Mr Hipkins’ comments were similar to criticisms made by his predecessor, Jacinda Ardern.
‘‘The new Prime Minister is picking up where the old prime minister left off — attempting to blame Act for the divisions Labour is creating,’’ Mr Seymour said.
‘‘New Zealanders have an expectation that the new Prime Minister will take a new approach to constitutional issues and treat all Kiwis equally.’’
National leader Christopher Luxon countered Mr Hipkins’ narrative, claiming Labour had ‘‘progressed a divisive agenda’’.
‘‘It is disappointing to see the new Prime Minister try to shut down the discussion rather than clearly setting out Labour’s plans for the public to judge.’’
The New Zealand Herald yesterday reported some iwi leaders were in favour of retiring the term cogovernance as a way of explaining partnership arrangements between the Crown and Ma¯ori.
Asked whether he thought cogovernance should be swapped for a different term, Mr Hipkins said that issue was not raised during the meeting.
He did say he ‘‘loved’’ the phrase ‘‘mahi tahi’’ — which meant working together — but later said that comment was not an indication he was planning to ditch using the term, cogovernance.
Cogovernance was closely tied to the Government’s Three Waters legislation, which aimed to improve the management of the country’s drinking water, wastewater and stormwater.
This included establishing four entities governed by territorial authorities and mana whenua — the cogovernance aspect.
WaikatoTainui tribal executive chairman Tukoroirangi Morgan said before the forum, he would be advising Mr Hipkins to drop the use of the term altogether.
‘‘Remove the label of cogovernance and go back to the concept of mahi tahi, partnership, or working together,’’ Mr Morgan said.
Mr Morgan was recently confirmed as the chairman of Three Waters’ Entity A or Waipuna aa rangi, which stretched from the Bombay Hills to the Far North.
He believed cogovernance was a ‘‘modern expression of partnership’’, but negative rhetoric had infected debate on the issue.
‘‘This debate on cogovernance is full of contradictions because there are a whole number of models in this country that in their own way amplify partnership.’’
The establishment of Ko¯hanga Reo was one example, and the establishment of charter schools or partnership schools — by the Act Party — was another. Both were funded by the Crown and allowed Ma¯ori to educate their children in their own way.
‘‘Without the shared approach with the Crown, Ko¯hanga Reo would not have endured,’’ he said.
Charter schools were abolished by the current Government. — RNZ