Is Auckland Council fascist?
- Grant McLachlan - Column
- Mar 30
- 4 min read
Updated: Apr 7
“Fascism” is a strong word, but when examining recent events in Auckland Council governance, troubling parallels emerge. The term describes an authoritarian system where unelected officials wield disproportionate power, dissenters face suppression, information is controlled, and special interests capture governance. Recent events at Snells Beach offer a case study worth examining.
The Snells Beach Situation
A council biodiversity official, Megan Young, has proposed permanently banning dogs along a section of Snells Beach and removing picnic areas and footpaths to create a bird roosting area. This might seem benign, but internal correspondence reveals concerning facts:
Young admitted being pressured by local conservationists without scientific evidence supporting her proposals;
She sought funding specifically to find evidence supporting predetermined conclusions; and
She threatened elected officials that she would use “delegated authority” to implement her plans regardless of their decision.
The issue began when a property developer destroyed a protected bird’s roosting habitat. Rather than requiring the developer to restore the original habitat and extend the footpath across the estuary along the full length of the development’s beach frontage (which would have been the logical solution), Young instead targeted existing public amenities after birds relocated to a nearby picnic area.
Even more revealing of the council’s priorities: Young’s proposals include removing sections of existing footpath to the south, effectively moving the footpath terminus further away from the development. This creates a bizarre situation where public infrastructure is being degraded to accommodate a problem created by private development, rather than holding the developer accountable for proper environmental mitigation. The proposal protects developer interests while burdening the public with both the loss of amenities and diminished access.
Concentration of Power
In democratic systems, elected officials make policy decisions. In Auckland Council, unelected bureaucrats like Young appear to hold extraordinary power, threatening to override elected representatives through “delegated authority.” This echoes fascism’s preference for rule by unaccountable “experts” over democratic processes.
When I submitted evidence challenging Young’s proposals, Auckland Council’s “Manager Customer Resolutions”, Sally Woods, claimed I breached a “code of conduct” by naming her—despite official information confirming she was the architect of the proposals. Subsequently, all names in official information were redacted, creating a faceless bureaucracy immune from accountability.
Suppression of Dissent
Fascist systems cannot tolerate criticism. At Snells Beach, this manifests as:
Officials claiming “victimhood” when their public actions face scrutiny, appearing by video link;
Three security guards and two police officers appearing at public meetings;
Council staff being complicit in suppressing dissent;
Citizens limited to five-minute presentations while supporters received hours;
My submission, which included official evidence contradicting Young’s claims, never reaching elected officials; and
Only six submissions from council-funded groups supporting the proposals being presented (see below).
Most tellingly, elected officials who questioned these proposals were themselves accused of breaching the council’s code of conduct. When elected representatives cannot publicly criticize unelected officials—even with evidence of misconduct—democracy has been subverted.
Special Interest Capture
A small group of Snells Beach residents has established alarming influence. They’ve:
Built and operated an unsupervised police station with CCTV cameras and patrol cars;
Formed a residents’ group falsely claiming to represent community views;
Lobbied for restrictions on common beach activities including camping, motorhoming, dog walking, and alcohol consumption;
Used financial backing from property developers to influence local politics; and
Established council-funded chamber of commerce and conservation groups.
This fusion of private interests with government authority mirrors the corporatist elements seen in fascist systems, where wealthy developers and special interest groups gain disproportionate influence over governance.
Information Control
When Young finally faced public opposition—including a 700-signature petition—she presented a slightly modified “Plan B” that still achieved most of her original goals. The overwhelming public opposition was glossed over, while council-funded groups supporting her received disproportionate attention.
Young’s manipulation of information extended to her evidence base. She cherry-picked outdated scientific data to support her proposals—information that other government conservation organizations give little weight to—while ignoring contemporary research that didn’t align with her predetermined conclusions. This selective presentation of evidence, combined with her controlled information flow, created a distorted reality for decision-makers, a tactic reminiscent of how authoritarian systems maintain control.
Auckland Council’s Impenetrable Bureaucracy
The council has evolved into a fortress-like bureaucracy where democratic accountability is systematically undermined. Consider this critical structure: elected officials directly employ only one person—the chief executive—who then appoints 12,508 employees. This creates an almost perfect insulation of bureaucrats from democratic accountability.
Any criticism of staff must funnel through this single executive, creating an extreme bottleneck. Few complaints reach him, as he employs teams specifically tasked with intercepting and dismissing concerns before they reach his desk. The result? It’s virtually impossible to remove problematic officials regardless of their conduct.
This structure bears striking resemblance to fascism’s administrative state, where layers of bureaucracy intentionally shield officials from accountability while maintaining the appearance of democratic governance.
Conclusion
When examining these factors collectively—unelected officials wielding extraordinary power, criticism effectively criminalized, information manipulated, special interests capturing governance, and a bureaucratic structure specifically designed to prevent accountability—the uncomfortable question must be addressed: Has Auckland Council adopted governance patterns that mirror fascist administrative systems?
The evidence from Snells Beach suggests a troubling answer. When 12,508 unelected officials operate within a structure that renders them essentially untouchable, when they can threaten elected officials with their “delegated authority,” when challenging them becomes a code violation, and when they selectively present information to maintain control—we are witnessing something that undeniably shares DNA with authoritarian governance systems.
The 700 Snells Beach residents who signed the petition aren’t merely disputing a local issue—they’re instinctively recognizing and resisting the erosion of democratic governance. Their resistance represents perhaps the last line of defence against a system that increasingly resembles what we once thought could never happen here.