When Government funding weakens community – Jonathan Ayling
The Green Party wants taxpayers to provide $2.4 billion to establish a permanent fund for marae across New Zealand.
To put that extraordinary sum in perspective, it is almost four times the new capital funding allocated to health infrastructure in Budget 2026. It is a poor policy, not only because of the enormous sum of borrowed money involved, but because it misunderstands both the success of the Treaty settlement process and how strong communities are built.
New Zealanders should be proud of what has been achieved through Treaty settlements over the past 30 years. The Crown entered agreements and breached them. Property was wrongly taken and rights violated, therefore redress was justified.
But settlements have also helped iwi rebuild substantial asset bases, strengthen their institutions and gain greater freedom to determine their own futures. This independence now needs to mean something.
There can be good reasons for government to support public functions performed by marae, churches or other community buildings, or to provide exceptional assistance following disasters. But the Green policy proposes something quite different: $400 million for restoration and resilience, followed by $2 billion in an intergenerational investment fund. The Crown would provide the capital but would not appoint its trustees, direct its investments or determine how the proceeds were allocated.
That would establish a permanent source of taxpayer funding for one category of cultural institution. It is a peculiar destination after 30 years of settlements that have helped restore the independence and institutional capacity once taken from Māori.
Post-settlement iwi now possess substantial balance sheets and sophisticated commercial organisations. Circumstances vary, but surely greater capacity within iwi and hapū to determine their own priorities should be regarded as a success. Isn’t this what we’ve been working towards?
Too much of our fractious debate about race relations conflates two different questions. New Zealanders can celebrate the revitalisation of te reo Māori, the strength of iwi and the renaissance of tikanga (customary practices) without believing government should be responsible for making them flourish. That is often the point at which many Kiwis shift from feeling we are celebrating an organic and valued part of our culture to feeling it is being pushed on them.
Some opposition undoubtedly reflects base hostility towards Māori culture. But much of the wider unease comes from a sense that government has moved beyond protecting cultural freedom and remedying historical wrongs and increasingly sees the promotion of a particular cultural world view and corresponding political positions as part of its mandate.
Our liberal democracy allows communities the freedom to sustain their own cultures, beliefs and institutions, while maintaining a state that serves everyone. Government should protect that freedom without assuming responsibility for making each community flourish.
There is no question marae provide enormous value. Chlöe Swarbrick correctly pointed to their role during emergencies: when roads close, marae stay open. But Trudi Ngawhare of Hinerupe Marae, speaking to media in response to the policy announcement, captured something more important.
I was heartened when I heard her say: “We’ll do it anyway, money or not. We’ll still be there to look after our whānau.” That is the heart of a strong community. Last Sunday, I was reminded of something similar in my own life.
Once a month, after church, about 25 parishioners from our local congregation have lunch together. Much of this week’s conversation was about St Patrick’s, our church building that has been closed since an arson attack last year, and when we might finally return.
Churches are places where children are baptised, couples marry and families farewell those they love. Generations worship in the same place, accumulating memories and becoming part of a community’s identity. In this respect, I understand why marae matter so deeply to tangata whenua. Churches also host foodbanks and community groups and can become civil defence centres during emergencies. But their capacity to serve the wider community exists because a smaller community has taken responsibility for sustaining them.
St Patrick’s was built because generations before mine invested in it. Our present difficulties will likewise be resolved only if another generation accepts responsibility for what it has inherited. Sure, roofs need repairing and insurance bills need paying. But money is not what makes these institutions strong, whether marae or churches.
The responsibility for St Patrick’s or Hinerupe Marae belongs principally to the community that values it. Giving, volunteering and sacrificing are not incidental to its success. These habits reinforce the relationships that make it a community in the first place. As someone who has raised millions of dollars to support community work, I know the difference between 1000 people contributing $100 and a single donor giving $100,000. It’s a nice feeling walking away with six figures, but it represents significantly less community.
That investment sustains more than a building; it creates a community capable of opening its doors to others. The Green Party risks getting that relationship backwards. The proposed approach hollows out the community these spaces exist to serve. Autonomy must mean more than simply being free to make decisions with government money.
Strong marae, churches and voluntary organisations become strong because people invest themselves in institutions they regard as their own. They give money, maintain buildings, care for one another; accepting obligations no government department can reproduce. Then, when the road closes or disaster strikes, they have something to offer everyone else.
Ngawhare understands this. Money or not, her marae will still be there. Government support can at times play a part. But it should also know when to get out of the way and leave communities with the responsibility, autonomy and the space to build the confidence needed to look after their own.
Jonathan Ayling is a strategy consultant and professional director. He is the former chief executive of the Free Speech Union (NZ), an Act Party supporter and donor, and has worked as a ministerial staffer and senior Parliamentary adviser in both Government and Opposition.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.