NZ’s Local Government Review is Part of an Obnoxious Drive to an Ethnostate: MAKE A SUBMISSION

The Review into the Future for Local Government aspires to implement at the local government level He Puapua, Nanaia Mahuta’s blueprint for an ethnocracy

In 2021 an Official Information Request forced publication of He Puapua, a report commissioned by former Minister of Maori Affairs Nanaia Mahuta (often referred to as Mahuta the Looter) but kept under wraps since 2019.  It has been termed ‘the political statement of Nanaia Mahuta and her iwi’. Michael Bassett has described He Puapua thus:

‘It is a plan to introduce racial segregation into every aspect of our public service. It would divide our society into Maori who form 16% of the population on which 50% of political power would devolve by 2040, while the other 170 ethnicities in this country who constitute 84% of the population would share the rest. The 16% would enjoy their privileged position because they possess a drop or more of Maori blood. Without that drop, the rest of us are destined to become a rather crowded group of second-class citizens. 

Despite its early denials, the government is on track to implement He Puapua, having already passed legislation to bring into effect proposals for race based reforms relating to health and water management (‘Three Waters’).

The Review into the Future for Local Government was established by the same Nanaia Mahuta as Minister for Local Government, and is an implementation of He Puapua at the local government level. 

‘Co-governance’ instead of democracy

The function of the Review is to further the government’s objective to transfer power, rights and assets to tribal elites, relegate nonMaori to second class citizens and transform New Zealand from a modern, highly respected democracy, which has always aspired to equality, to a third world ethnostate, run by a small privileged elite.  It is notable that just the word ‘Maori’ occurs 534 times (along with ‘iwi’, ‘mana whenua’ etc).

Last October former broadcaster Peter Williams revealed that a confidential document obtained by the Taxpayers Union showed that the Review includes:

  • Transferring a laundry list of powers that currently fall before elected council directly to hapū/iwi and other Māori organisations;
  • Appointing unelected positions by mana whenua to be given equal status as elected members (including voting rights). But unlike the councillors, the mana whenua representatives cannot be removed at the ballot box;
  • Requiring council staff to conform with ‘te ao Māori values’ by law;
  • Funding of ‘Tiriti-based partnership in local governance’ (no matter the cost to ratepayers, apparently);
  • Lowering the local voting age to 16.

The Review refers repeatedly to democracy in conjunction with the Treaty of Waitangi, which in context is nonsense: the idea is to subvert democracy.  The Review takes as read a dishonest interpretation of the Treaty as promising a partnership between Crown and Maori, ie governance rights based on race.

An example of co-governance in action is demonstrated by the Playcentre Assocation

‘[…] a recent vote to change the constitution, that was supported by 366 out of 400 branches was overturned, because only 4 out of six Maori branches agreed to the change, and five out of six were needed for a consensus. Effectively, this means that under their co-governance arrangement, those two Maori votes in opposition, were able to veto 366 votes in favour.’

‘Wellbeing’: The New Age Agenda

The report claims for local government the responsibility of looking after our ‘wellbeing’.  Local government’s ‘narrow focus on delivering services and infrastructure’ needs to go, it seems: instead they will be planning how we live our lives.

 ‘The wellbeing challenges facing Aotearoa New Zealand are too big for central government to address alone – local government has an important role to play. We need to see shifts in mindsets and approaches with greater collaboration and innovation so that communities and local and central government have the tools, funding, and resilience to face the challenges ahead.’

It’s patently obvious that the Review is nothing to do with wellbeing, and all about the creation of racial privilege, division and disharmony, and the disempowerment of the majority.   ‘Greater collaboration’ is simply a euphemism for giving councils the right to seize the land of individuals and cancel the rights of the community at large.

Lowering the voting age (without a referendum)

Lowering the voting age is Labour and Green policy, no matter that the public is adamantly opposed.  It is an idea completely without merit.  The argument that preventing 16 year olds from voting is somehow ageist is on a par with arguing that 14 year olds should be allowed to get married.  It is a fact of life that everywhere there is a definition of adulthood applying to important rights and responsibilities such as voting and fighting in wars, normally 18, and that the young acquire rights and responsibilities gradually as they mature.  That five year olds are allowed to walk to school without adult supervision, and 12 year olds to have a paper round, does not mean they should be allowed to get married, vote or go off to war.

The proposal is completely self serving.  By the age of 16 New Zealand children have gone through a system of walltowall child abuse and disempowerment.  The mission of the modern teacher is not to teach NZ children essential skills, respect for facts, or critical thinking, but to assign gender, create racial division, peddle untruths on issues from NZ history to the status of polar bears, and turn children into activists for government agendas.  School children are in no way equipped to make mature decisions about town planning, climate change, or who should be running councils or the country. They have no understanding of the balance between what Councils do and the costs they must pay as ratepayers.

Citizens’ Assemblies

Introducing (ostensibly) randomly selected ‘citizens’ assemblies’ that have status but you cannot vote out is another device for manipulating democracy, which would be better served with more use of referenda.

Maori language as a parasite on English

The Review is of course a manifestation of the extraordinary idea, unique to New Zealand, that the Maori language can only be, and must be, preserved as a parasite on the English language, thereby showing contempt for both.

Submissions criteria

The submission criteria laid down by the Future for Local Government Review board are another cause for concern.  The Review board will redact information from a response that:

‘Uses language or content that is defamatory, racist, sexist or discriminatory, insulting, offensive (including swearing and obscene or vulgar comments), or potentially harmful.’

The Free Speech Union has suggested that you disagree with 16 year-olds being given the right to vote in local council elections (which by definition is discriminating on the basis of age), or you oppose racist policies, your submission can be moderated at the discretion of the Review board.


The last day for submissions is Tuesday 28 February. The draft report can be viewed, and submissions made, here.

Protect Local Democracy has created a submission tool.

See also:

On 8 February this year, Auckland University’s Professor Elizabeth Rata and three senior colleagues sent an open letter to the Prime Minister Christopher Hitchens, asking that the Curriculum Refresh and the associated NCEA qualification reforms be halted. Their objections include traditional knowledge (mātauranga Māori) being inserted everywhere in the curriculum and being given equivalence with modern knowledge, including science and maths; the division of students by race into Māori and non-Māori; and the creation of what they describe as a “racialised curriculum”.

4 thoughts on “NZ’s Local Government Review is Part of an Obnoxious Drive to an Ethnostate: MAKE A SUBMISSION

  1. Thanks, Barbara.
    I just recently learned about Elizabeth Rata’s collaboration with ACT, her address at their Real Change Event last year and her Open Letter to Chris Hipkins. She presents critical knowledge about democracy. Labour’s anti-democratic and pro-elite Maori reforms are untangled by her towering intellect and those of her colleagues with apparent ease. She is a delight to read. Thank you.

  2. The Crown NZ govt are desperate to maintain control .
    The “treaty” is a lie.The Crown NZ govt is illegitimate. No one race can lawfully be partners with govt and have privileges that other ” British subjects” dont. Its absurd, too many believe the preposterous ideas and claims of govt( and thoughts from the Maori Freemasons like “Mahuta the gravy train looter”)
    What we have is a central bankster’s demockracy.
    This divide and conquer division of the people through an Apartheid State is a strategy.
    I would suggest not submitting to anything. Submitting is a legal act.
    And instead objecting to what we have which is an Apartheid State.
    I have made a petition to the UN. The UN does not care as it doesn’t care about Apartheid Israel or any of the perpetual wars. Its up to the people of NZ to become aware of this regression into an Apartheid State.
    First they have to throw off the Crown colonization guilt that the Crown has mind programmed them with. You did not do anything to the other early settlers to NZ Maori… you are innocent.

    1. ‘No one race can lawfully be partners with govt and have privileges that other ”British subjects” dont.’ Or other New Zealanders. That’s a good way of putting it and I’ll probably use it in the future.

      1. This slightly altered version of the fraudulent modern claim that the Treaty creates a partnership with the Crown may need correcting, since the government is not the Crown and may have many actual partnerships where the Crown cannot. That’s not for me to say, of course, but I rather like the idea that no citizen is entitled to unique privileges granted by the Crown apart from those arising from achievement or rank. Otherwise the foolish, even more fraudulent notion might survive that a small portion of the right DNA together with the correct choice on a census form deserves a permanent reward as though it’s some heroic sporting triumph.

Leave a Reply