FIONA MACKENZIE: The “Land Back” Pogrom — Most Kiwis Don’t See It Coming

(Note: To reduce word count and aid understanding, Māori words have been omitted where possible.)

New Zealanders who pay attention to the slow creep of our political and legal institutions have every reason to feel uneasy. Many believed the 2023 election would halt the advance of racial division and restore a government committed to equal citizenship. Instead, the Coalition—particularly the National Party —seems schizophrenically determined to avoid offending those who demand ever-expanding tribal privilege. Far from dismantling race-based policy, it is still normalising it in much legislation and policy.

This is how authoritarian projects begin. Soft-sounding narratives take root. Media amplifies them. Bureaucracies internalise them. And ordinary people—fearful of social punishment—stay silent. In 2025, this pattern is unmistakable.

Across councils, courts, government agencies and community organisations, new powers are being carved out for unelected, unaccountable tribal authorities and their supporters. Decisions once made democratically are being delegated to iwi. Property rights—once considered foundational—are increasingly at risk. And nowhere is this transformation clearer than in Auckland.

Auckland: The Blueprint for a New Constitutional Order

Auckland’s evolution into a political laboratory began with the Super City. Ratepayers were promised efficiency and lower costs; what they received was a bloated bureaucracy, less transparency or accountability, ever-increasing rates, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board—an unelected, ratepayer-funded entity with political influence across every council function.

Treaty settlements have transferred swathes of Auckland’s public land and facilities into tribal hands. Still more money flows through mandated consultation, approval fees, and “cultural” charges—all immune to public scrutiny or resistance.

Co-governance arrangements and deeds of acknowledgement are increasingly embedded in park management. The Waitākere Ranges are only the beginning.

At the same time, heritage overlays, and cultural restrictions—often based on unsubstantiated assertions— are giving iwi influence over private titles. Council staff appear more than willing to support these claims while affected landowners must resort to lengthy, expensive legal processes.

Even the newest environmental laws bend in one direction. The October 2025 Hauraki Gulf Marine Protection Act still allows commercial fishing (and Mäori own 40% of quotas) if there’s no seafloor contact. It also preserves iwi fishing privileges within what are supposed to be ‘High Protection Areas’, while banning everyone else.

The 2011 Marine and Coastal Area Act intensified the problem. Tribal claims blanket the entire New Zealand coastline including all of Auckland’s marine area: the Port, beaches, estuaries, harbours, and territorial sea. Nothing of significance happens without iwi permission with the associated money flows. Whether the 2025 amendments to the Act will restore sanity is far from certain.

The Rewriting of Auckland’s Origin Story

Central to Auckland’s modern political narrative is the claim that the city stands on tuku whenua —land supposedly “gifted” by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, with an expectation of eventual return. This is now repeated ritualistically: in media, at civic ceremonies, in promotional events and by council-owned entities.

The Council-owned Ports of Auckland even replaced a plaque commemorating the original land purchase with one celebrating the “gift”. The Councils’ Our Auckland magazine did the same.

Yet the historical record is explicit. The 1840 Deed of Purchase states the chiefs “consented to give up to sell a portion of land to the Queen for ever and ever”—accompanied by payment, signatures, witnesses, and subsequent official documentation. Historian R.C.J. Stone has been unequivocal: the transaction was commercial and mutually beneficial, not ceremonial, or conditional.

But the truth has become inconvenient. As the Nazi Joseph Goebbels said of his propaganda campaigns, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. The gifting narrative strengthens tribal demands for co-governance over public assets and revenues, as well as Auckland’s strategic future.

This Isn’t Just Auckland—It’s Nationwide

The Land Back concept is gaining momentum far beyond the Auckland Region.

A Māori Party MP recently claimed the Tongariro National Park fire may have been a spiritual message calling for return of the land to the giftee’s tribe. Both Taupō and Ruapehu District Councils have been exposed for having secret agreements with iwi — deals hidden from public view (until in Taupo’s case, leaks forced them into the open).

Every region now has some version of this creeping encroachment: confidential agreements, cultural “designations,” iwi vetoes over planning, and great cost for private landowners.

When “Customary Practice” Becomes a Legal Weapon

New Zealanders have long believed our land title registration system ensures state-guaranteed ownership. That assumption is dangerously outdated. Land occupations, harassment and “customary” claims increasingly undermine private title in practice, with a lack of support from government or councils for private landowners.

Meanwhile, courts are reinterpreting legislation through the lens of tikanga—a concept so fluid that even its proponents cannot define its boundaries. In the 2011 Marine and Coastal Area Act cases, activist judges used tikanga to effectively rewrite the law and its purpose in favour of claimants.

Regulators are joining in. The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has stretched its mandate beyond radio and television to harass free-speech enabler Sean Plunket for calling tikanga “mumbo jumbo” on an internet livestream. Like the very topical police action against a whistleblower, the BSA may be using the Harmful Digital Communications Act to claim the complainant has been ‘harmed’.

Trust in so many institutions has collapsed. Few officials face real accountability for their bad behaviour or corruption; instead, they retire graciously with very generous golden handshakes courtesy of taxpayers or shareholders. Thousands of New Zealanders now believe the system is not merely failing — it is actively hostile to fairness, transparency and equal citizenship.

This is not the behaviour of a liberal democracy.

Media’s Complicity

Legacy media are no longer purveyors of truth or a check on power. They promote carefully curated slices of history, omit crucial facts and context, and frequently reinforce iwi narratives without any scrutiny or two sides to any story. When the BBC can splice two unrelated truths into a one massive lie, it should be no surprise that similar tactics shape local reporting.

The result: the public is misled, dissenters are marginalised, and alternative viewpoints are framed as extremism.

This Is Not Harmless Cultural Recognition

What is unfolding is not about language promotion or cultural respect. It is a structural realignment of power. The goal of the tuku whenua narrative—and its international counterpart, the Land Back movement—is clear: to elevate tribal authority above democratic institutions, replacing equal citizenship and property rights with hereditary privilege.

Those who insist otherwise should examine the Canadian Cowichan Tribes v Canada case, which overturned fee simple ownership in favour of Aboriginal title. All levels of government are now scrambling to appeal – and guess who is paying. This is not a theoretical threat; it is a precedent.

And New Zealand is significantly further down this path.

What Citizens Must Now Demand

If New Zealanders want to preserve their democracy, they must insist on clear, uncompromising principles:

1. Equal citizenship for all.

Government must act for every New Zealander, not for tribal elites.

2. Public land and natural resources must remain under democratic control.

Delegating authority to unelected groups, imposing iwi charges, or restricting public access is unacceptable.

3. Cultural symbolism must not alter legal rights.

Deeds of acknowledgement cannot be used to reshape ownership or control of public or private land.

4. Private property must be sacrosanct.

Historical redress can only occur (if evidence can be substantiated) between iwi and the Crown—not through any imposition on private title.

5. The historical record must be respected.

Claiming that land was “gifted” when it was purchased is a political strategy, not truth.

6. All financial flows to iwi must be made transparent.

New Zealanders must be informed of what they are paying for (directly and indirectly) — and why.

A Turning Point for New Zealand

Many informed New Zealanders no longer rely on the courts, councils, or central government to defend equal citizenship or property rights. Too many officials have shown they will capitulate rather than confront. Too many are willing to enforce cultural impositions without regard for cost, legality, or public consent. Too many journalists repeat unverified claims as if they were established fact.

Everyday New Zealanders who resist face expensive litigation, land occupations, harassment, and institutional intimidation.

Ethnicity is being weaponised—through undefinable terminology like tikanga, Māori language impositions and confusion, manipulated Treaty interpretations and the repackaging of historical events. This is not unity; it is division exploited for political power.

If the country continues down this path, we should not expect peace, prosperity, or social cohesion. We should expect something much darker: a society where democratic rights are conditional, property rights are uncertain, and truth is whatever those in power choose it to be. Look around the world for examples – New Zealand does not have to be a dumb follower of this destructive path.

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.

This article first appeared at Breaking Views