National’s Potaka proposed ‘50:50’ co-governance
National’s Hamilton West hopeful, Tama Potaka, once penned a law journal paper seemingly at odds with his party’s position on cogovernance.
The seemingly innocuous article has come back to haunt the candidate, now expected to join his party’s criticism of a key current government policy he once wrote in support of.
While a student at the Victoria University, Potaka penned a jurisprudence piece in which he suggests that local government ought not to be thought of as the Crown – but in a way that is very similar to a concept of cogovernance with Mā ori at the heart of many of the Government’s most controversial policies.
Potaka argued in the paper for other methods such as having ‘‘Boards or committees which are responsible for water management, land use, planning and environmental management could have a 50:50 Mā ori and local government representation,’’ which could be a means to ensure the ‘‘principle of active protection’’.
His suggestion of ‘‘comanagement’’ is in direct opposition to the National Party on several major policy issues. Most significantly – Three Waters.
National’s Local Government spokesperson Simon Watts said recently that the party repudiates ‘‘co-governance’’, or to use Potaka’s phrase ‘‘comanagement’’.
‘‘Councils should retain ownership of their water assets and the Government should not impose co-governance on delivery of these public services. These have always been bottom lines for National,’’ Watts said.
While they might have always been ‘‘bottom lines’’ for National, the same cannot be said for Potaka.
This latest misalignment represents the second occasion Potaka’s own opinion has failed to fit with a key tenet of his party’s pledge to voters.
At the Green Building Council summit in September, Potaka, a panellist at the ‘future of housing’ event, used the opportunity to commend the Labour Government’s housing policy, by referring to it as ‘‘awesome’’.
Ngā i Tai ki Tā maki chief Potaka, was approached for an interview yesterday, but declined citing a full schedule. Instead he issued a statement which said: ‘‘I haven’t spent much time thinking about a university paper I wrote at law school more than two decades ago.’’
Officially the Water Services Entities Bill, the planned Three Waters changes are integral to the current government’s plan to continue to ensure the safe, reliable and cost-effective supply of water across the country. The proposed plan would see four regional bodies established to provide sewerage and drinking and waste water services nationally. While the control of
these service is currently with city and district councils, the new scheme would see mana whenua be brought on board to assist with their provision.
This arrangement would be in keeping with the calls by Potaka. In fact, the current oversight proposal may be less demanding than Potaka’s paper suggests it ought to be.
Potaka said in a statement provided to Stuff, ‘‘co-governance is raised with me, and I’m clear that National and I don’t support co-governance of our public services.’’
Why Potaka has changed tack is unclear, although he says his party believes in reducing bureaucratic burden.
‘‘Outcomes, not creating additional layers of bureaucracy, especially on Three Waters where Labour is stripping locals of control over our water assets and handing it to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.’’
This is now the third faux pas in an election that stands to be a barometer of New Zealand’s political mood.
At the beginning of the month Labour’s candidate, Georgie Dansey, was spotted at a protest against a senior member and minister of her own party, Health Minister Andrew Little.