Government Ministers Simon Watts and Chris Bishop have given councils just two more months to propose mergers or face imposed restructuring, which they say will simplify and strengthen “local voices”. But it would pay to be sceptical of their motivation. “Local voices” doesn’t mean local democracy.
Bigger Councils, Less Accountability
Auckland’s imposed amalgamation in 2010 should serve as a warning, not as a blueprint. It shows how such constructs can leave ratepayers funding their own political marginalisation at an ever-increasing rate.
The promise was stronger representation, lower costs, and greater efficiency. The reality in Auckland has been the opposite, with the Council becoming a sprawling and expensive bureaucracy where decision-making is remote, cumbersome, and increasingly dominated by unelected officials, interest groups, and tribal elites. Elected councillors often appear powerless, with agendas, information and options controlled by bureaucrats.
Ratepayers Fund a Parallel System
Aucklanders were never asked whether they agreed to fund a parallel governance system that incorporates a growing network of tribally focused structures and operations alongside — and within — the Council itself.
Ratepayers are obliged to accept ever-increasing rates, as well as separated out water, sewage, rubbish and food-recycling charges, plus a ridiculous amount of debt. The hikes are cited as necessary to retain ‘library hours, bus and ferry services, community grants and maintenance of sports fields and recreation facilities’.
Funding streams that appear never to be under threat, however, are those specifically designated for ‘Māori’. They bubble up here, there and everywhere, are not transparent, and so are exceedingly difficult for ratepayers to monitor and assess. Examples include:
- The Māori Outcomes Group, with ratepayers now funding $171 million in capital and operational expenditure over a 10-year period. The Group’s 2023/24 report stated that this funding was to promote “partnership and shared leadership” and “to ensure Māori voices continue shaping council decision-making”.
- Annual grants to tribes (all 19 of them) have risen rapidly, from $2.04 million in 2020/21 to $8.14 million in 2024/25 — certainly more than the rate of inflation. This information was only revealed by a recent Official Information Act request which took 4½ months to be answered. The funding’s purpose? Once again: to support Māori participation in the Council’s decision-making processes.
- Then there’s the all-powerful Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB), now rebranded Houkura. It was imposed as part of amalgamation to represent Māori interests in Auckland. What began as an advisory body now occupies offices in Viaduct Harbour, the most desirable part of town, and charges all expenses to ratepayers ($3.5 million in 2025).
The IMSB/Houkura appoints unelected members with voting rights to Council committees. These include Policy and Planning, Revenue, Expenditure and Value, Transport, Infrastructure, Budgets, Audit and Risk, Performance and Appointments, CCO Oversight, Civil Defence, Regulation and Safety, Auckland Domain, Parks and the Community.
These committees are powerful, receiving and deciding on detailed information. Their recommendations go to the Governing Body of elected councillors (who don’t have access to all the data), for what is in effect a tick-the-box exercise. For example, the Budget committee recommends rate increases (including the latest of an average 7.9% excluding the many service costs which are separately priced and invoiced). - Ratepayers also fund race-based expenses in ‘Council-Controlled’ Organisations (CCOs), both sides of co-governance entities, race-based employees/entitlements, affirmative action for ‘Māori businesses’ and race-based art.
Some of these entities openly pursue “decolonisation” programmes. The co-governed Tūpuna Maunga Authority, for example, has pursued legal action against residents opposing the destruction of healthy exotic trees from volcanic cone reserves. Ratepayers end up funding the millions of dollars involved in both the tree destruction and native replanting, plus the legal defences. Meanwhile residents pay their legal bills in after-tax dollars. - Across the wider council, race-based cultural programmes, ‘partnership’-based initiatives and consultation processes have become standard practice, often with little transparency over their cost or value. There’s pressure on staff and suppliers to participate in Māori greetings, prayers and cultural protocols regardless of personal belief. Some privately object but stay silent for fear of professional consequences.
Critics are told these race-based costs are “negligible” in the overall budget. Yet the many millions involved could help repair ageing infrastructure, meet the demands created by Auckland’s rapid population and housing growth, reduce debt, or ease relentless cost increases, while keeping libraries open and sports fields maintained.
Reinterpreted History and Political Power
Ngāti Whātua is Auckland’s most successful tribal invader and is reportedly the largest commercial landowner in the region since a 2011 Treaty Settlement — another Chris Finlayson special. Their activities have extended beyond governance, funding streams and thought control (including the pervasive Rainbow Tick programme!) into documented history itself.
An example was the replacement of Auckland’s waterfront plaque commemorating Governor Hobson’s 1840 purchase of land for the founding of the city. The new plaque doesn’t mention the Deed of Purchase, instead framing the land as a ‘gift’ from Ngāti Whātua. This will no doubt be useful for future land or coastal claims.
When challenged on the facts, Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson defended the plaque’s reinterpretation, saying Council had relied on “guidance from those with more skill in this area” and that “it is reasonable for the Council to use narratives that seek to capture the spirit of this interpretation of the 1840 deed”.
Democracy Outmanoeuvred
As councils grow larger, ordinary residents lose influence while entrenched institutional interests gain it. Wealthy tribes, bureaucracies, corporate partners, activist networks, and the legacy media operate continuously and strategically. Ratepayers vote on councillors once every three years, with little information to go on.
From the Far North down to Gore — before the RMA revisions are implemented and before the 2026 elections — councils are right now aggressively embedding unelected, unaccountable tribal power throughout their governance and operational systems, with cultural overlays affecting a lot of private land. Councils are also creating independent entities to entrench tribal controls over public resources, with the essence of all life — water — being top priority.
Any well-informed sceptic would conclude this is exactly how National wants it. The subtlety of a letter from Minister Watts’ office to a constituent, dated 10th June 2026, tells all:
“How councils choose to involve iwi is a decision for them ………. and they are accountable to their ratepayers for those decisions. National’s position on co-governance hasn’t changed. We support local decision-making, not co-governance being imposed on communities by central government.”
Minister Watts did undertake to amend the Local Government Systems Improvement Bill so that unelected individuals will not enjoy voting rights or count towards a quorum at council committee meetings. This, however, is unlikely to be in force this side of the election so may well be too little, too late.
His press release also states that “Statutory committees and appointments, including those agreed as part of a Treaty settlement, will be excluded and committee members appointed under Acts that are not covered by the Local Government Act 2002 will retain voting rights”.
Watts also claims that it’s too difficult to close Auckland’s racist loopholes — which affect 34% of New Zealand’s population. This is despite Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance obtaining legal advice to the contrary.
So Auckland’s Super City will be free to continue its ‘Māori world view, race-based consults, committees, appointments, business procurements and funding — both in-house and in the CCOs which have no direct responsibility to ratepayers, despite being responsible for water and sewage, transport, culture and events, and the future resilience fund.
A Warning for New Zealand
It is so disappointing that National-led governments have failed to deliver legislation that adequately protects democratic accountability. We can expect unelected individuals or groups to continue to ‘sit at the table’ to vote, influence or intimidate elected councillors, and win all sorts of race-based entitlements, including outright control.
Unlike in Auckland, ratepayers in smaller districts may still be close enough to see what is happening and heed the warning. They may be able to push back if they’re not already too intimidated.
And now is the time to make a lot of noise — before more race-based entities are created and before the November 2026 election. Under amalgamation, it all becomes far harder.
Remember that Auckland’s so-called Super City has delivered:
- More distant governance and weaker accountability.
- CCOs controlling resources (such as water) and infrastructure with appointed boards and deals with tribal interests.
- Higher costs, rising debt, and wasteful spending.
- Larger bureaucracies and less transparency.
- Legalised race-based ‘corruption’, expanded tribal influence and control, co-governance and co-management frameworks, decolonisation programmes, and race-based spending.
The inevitable conclusion is that amalgamation and the “local voices” slogan do not strengthen democracy. They concentrate power away from ratepayers while rewarding inefficiency, incompetence, and greed.
References:
- The IMSB Annual report 2024/25.
- auckland-council-group-maori-outcomes-report-2023-2024.pdf
- Auckland Ratepayers Alliance https://www.ratepayers.nz/news
- A letter from Minister Watts’ office to a constituent, dated 10th June 2026
Acknowledgement:
Research by Democracy Action was referenced in the preparation of this article.