Fiona Mackenzie: Local Boards Driving Separatism

The largest governance structure in New Zealand is the amalgamated Auckland Council. It governs a large region, providing infrastructure and essential community services for a third of all New Zealanders. Beneath the Governing Body, the region is divided into 21 Local Boards, each responsible for spending many millions of ratepayers’ funds on “local issues, activities and services”.

The Local Boards recently emailed ratepayers for feedback on their latest Plans. As the Boards do not treat all ratepayers equally, I had some questions for them. Other New Zealanders may also wish to question their local councillors, politicians or organisational representatives.

I asked for substantiation of my Local Board’s references to Māori and "partnership" throughout the plan, with specific questions as follows:

1. How does the Local Board define "Māori" for the purposes of this plan?
Is the term intended to refer to all people who identify as Māori, mana whenua iwi, mataawaka, Māori organisations, or another category? The document would benefit from clearly defining who is being referred to when citing engagement or partnership with Māori.

2. The plan treats "Māori" as though they were a single community with unified interests and perspectives. I question whether that is an appropriate assumption.
Māori are not a single, homogeneous community. Individuals who identify as Māori have diverse backgrounds, whakapapa, life experiences, political views, values, and priorities. This diversity is evident in the range of Māori members represented across all the political parties in Parliament.

3. Why is the Board so condescending towards Māori individuals?
No ethnic community speaks with one voice. Individuals can have diverse perspectives regardless of their ancestry or cultural identity.

4. On what basis does the Board determine who speaks for Māori?
I’m sure many Māori would like to have a say on who, if anyone, speaks for them and their perspectives. So how does the Local Board recognise the diversity of views among people who identify as Māori, rather than assuming a single collective position or set of needs?

5. How can the Board treat Māori as belonging to one ethnicity with unique needs different from the humans next door to them?
Many Māori have mixed ancestry and identify with multiple ethnic or cultural communities. Are they a 2% Māori blood line like Willie Jackson or do they have more Maori ancestry? How does any such quantum make their suburban needs any different from their neighbours’ needs?

6. What is the legal, constitutional, historical, and democratic basis for the Local Board describing its relationship as a "partnership"?
The Local Board was not in existence when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, nor when New Zealand became a fully sovereign democratic nation. I would appreciate an explanation of the statutory authority or democratic mandate under which the Board considers itself to be in partnership with the relevant Māori groups.

7. What is meant by the intent to “honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi"?
Te Tiriti is definitely not the same document with the same tenets as The Treaty of Waitangi - Crown sovereignty, property rights and citizen equality. Where is the statutory authority or democratic mandate under which the Board feels bound to honour a separatist Māori sovereignty over our country?

8. Why does the plan appear to provide a distinct consultative or decision-making status to ‘Māori’ that is not extended to other ethnic or cultural communities represented within the local board area?
Auckland is home to people from many backgrounds, and I would like the Board to explain why one ethnic group enjoys a unique relationship while other communities do not. How does the Board reconcile this approach with the principle of equal treatment of all residents regardless of ethnicity?

9. How does the Board ensure that its decision-making remains accountable to all residents and ratepayers equally while also pursuing the strong focus on one small part of the community and the partnership approach described in the plan?
Why should all ratepayers pay rates if the Local Board is going to treat them as lesser citizens if they don’t identify with the favoured Māori group? By focusing on Māori identity in local places or initiatives that support Māori priorities, the Local Board is being exclusionary of all other residents and abusive of the democratic process.

10. Equitable outcomes are very vague. This term sounds nice but is impossible to achieve unless the Local Board is capable of controlling all inputs into every person’s life.
Could the Board explain precisely what it means by "equitable outcomes", how it is measured, and how targeted investment based on ethnicity is consistent with equal treatment of all residents?

In conclusion, I support meaningful engagement with all communities paying for, and affected by, Local Board decisions. However, I believe any governance framework that gives particular recognition or consultative status to one group over all others should clearly explain its legal basis, scope, accountability, and how it remains consistent with equal democratic representation for all residents.

Answers to these race-based questions are particularly relevant with the General Election due in November. As New Zealanders face rising living costs and declining public services, many are questioning why increasing amounts of public money, influence, and decision-making are flowing to tribal interests.

Reference:
https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/local-board-plans-2026

Fiona Mackenzie is a businesswoman who has combined self-employment with voluntary work and is a firm believer in the safeguards that true democracy provides.