Luxon opposes co-governance. Or does he?
National’s leader wants to abolish the Ma¯ori Health Authority but also favours ‘‘targeting people on the basis of need’’, which is what the authority does, writes Otago University department of marketing senior lecturer Morgan Godfrey.
OPINION: When Christopher Luxon outmanoeuvred Simon Bridges, taking the National Party leadership in a seemingly clean contest in 2021, the commentators were certain on one count: Luxon would break from the Judith Collins era and its chaotic, often random political management and deliver corporate polish.
Luxon is a CEO’s CEO – he can deliver a proficient soundbite, he closely manages his team and his self-confidence mostly manifests as a winner’s vibe rather than arrogance.
But what the commentators were less certain of is whether the incoming National Party leader would maintain the political ideology of the Collins era. Would he adopt Collins’ punitive style? Yes (think of ‘‘bottom feeders’’, ‘‘South Auckland garages’’, etc . . .) and no. Would he adopt Collins’ fixation with the academic discussion document He Puapua? Well, no.
Instead, the Leader of the Opposition is firing shots – or blanks – at ‘‘co-governance’’. In a wide-ranging interview with Moana Maniapoto, he reinforced his commitment to abolish the Ma¯ori Health Authority, explaining, ‘‘I believe a single system with innovation and components around targeting people on the basis of need and partnering through devolution and through localism with iwi . . . to actually get better outcomes’’.
That’s a perfectly reasonable and sensible position. It’s also an accurate description of what the Ma¯ori Health Authority actually does. It targets a subset of the population on need.
On almost every measure Ma¯ori experience worse health outcomes than any other ethnicity. On most measures this holds when controlling for other factors like income and wealth as well, meaning that Ma¯ori do not just experience poorer outcomes because they’re poor – although they mostly are – they also experience poorer outcomes because they’re Ma¯ori.
But within that sound bite is a far more interesting reflection. Luxon believes in ‘‘partnering through devolution and through localism with iwi’’. That’s an accurate description of what ‘‘cogovernance’’ is, whether Wha¯nau Ora (which devolves funding and delivery decisions to kaupapa Ma¯ori health and social service providers) or Ko¯hanga Reo (which devolves funding and delivery decisions to Ma¯ori-speaking family and hapu¯ communities).
What’s interesting and tantalising here is that, on the one hand, Luxon opposes ‘‘cogovernance’’ in the delivery of public services and, on the other, he provides an accurate definition of what it is and offers two examples of it that he supports. Only a politician could maintain this contradiction. Yes, they oppose co-governance in theory, and, yes, they support cogovernance in practice.
The most generous commentator might argue that the National Party leader is simply illinformed. He’s an unusually green
MP, having entered Parliament in 2020 and assumed the leadership a little over a year later. Some MPs spend a decade or more auditioning for that role.
But a less generous commentator might accuse Luxon of cynicism. David Seymour’s ACT, Winston Peters’ NZ First and Luxon’s National are fighting over the 5% of New Zealanders who care enough to commit their vote to whichever party opposes co-governance.
For ACT, an additional 5% increases its leverage in postelection negotiations with National. For NZ First, 5% is enough to breach the threshold and return Peters to Parliament. But for National, the benefit isn’t quite so clear.
What does Luxon gain from opposing co-governance in Opposition when he’s almost certain to maintain that same cogovernance – whether in the form of Wha¯nau Ora, Ko¯hanga Reo, Treaty settlement redress or the dozens of other forms of cogovernance – when in government?
This isn’t quite clear. But it’s a strategic and tactical departure from the approach of his predecessors. When John Key took as National’s leader after the distracting, divisive Don Brash years one of his first acts was to abandon Brash’s racist rhetoric, recommit to policies like Treaty settlements, and attend Waitangi Day commemorations in the spirit of reconciliation.
On winning power, he invited the Ma¯ori Party to sign a confidence and supply agreement and take up ministerial positions.
Likewise, Bill English continued in the same tradition, citing his relationship with the Ma¯ori Party and the Iwi Leaders Forum as one of the most productive and rewarding from his time in office.
Luxon had two choices: he could identify with the tradition that Key and English established, working closely with iwi leaders and Ma¯ori politicians inside and outside his party. Or he could continue Judith Collins’ bizarre obsession with He Puapua and ‘‘co-governance’’. He opted for the latter.
But it’s not too late to change course.