Derek Dallow is a well-known person on the North Shore. He was a high-profile lawyer for 32 years, setting up Davenports Harbour Lawyers on the Shore and being involved with many local institutions, such as North Harbour Rugby, Massey University (chairing their advisory board for 10 years), Rangitoto College, Netball North Harbour, the North Harbour Stadium, and the North Harbour Club and Charitable Trust. Derek was a Government-appointed trustee to the Eden Park Board to undertake the development for the 2011 World Cup, and was a Government-appointed director of Regional Facilities Auckland. At age 55, Derek sold the law practice and became a primary school teacher. He went on to teach for nine years at Glenfield Primary, retiring in December 2022. Derek was an early supporter of the Channel Mag concept, sharing a desire for the North Shore to have its own magazine. These days, he’s happily retired on the Hibiscus Coast. He was an active contributor to the conversation and debate when the Auckland Super City was being formed prior to 2010. This month, he wanted to share his opinion on the governance of Auckland.

Our Local Board member, Jake Law, advises us in his recent article 'Winds of Change’ that the Auckland Mayor, Wayne Brown, again states he’s done with 21 Local Boards. Brown claims that there are too many; he wants them gone, combined, rehashed, or discontinued.
The funny thing is, most areas around greater Auckland claim they’re done with a central-based bureaucratic council and lament the loss of their former council, whether it was Auckland City Council, Manukau City Council, North Shore City Council, Waitakere City Council, Rodney District Council, Papakura District Council or Franklin District Council. No one laments the loss of the Auckland Regional Council, yet it is a Regional Council that we all ended up with.
Prior to the creation of the Super City of Auckland, many people had community, identity, and political connection with their own area, council/councillors and local mayor. They knew their local council had many financial constraints and limitations, but they could relatively easily get involved, lobby, make a phone call, or connect.
The Westies had their identity with the Bob Harveys of this world, and their proud creation of the likes of the film industry and the Trusts Stadium; the North Shore with the George Woods of this world and the development of the North Harbour region; the Albany Basin had the North Harbour Stadium with its concerts, eight All Blacks at the World Cup in 1995, and Bruce Mason Centre events; and Manukau with the Barry Curtis/Len Browns, Counties Manukau Rugby, and the Pacifica Centre etc.
In rugby terms, there were three great rivals: Auckland, Counties Manukau and North Harbour – and any one of those teams could win on the day. Many people felt that they knew or had some link or connection with their great leaders and heroes, like Errol Brain, Wayne Shelford and Sean Fitzpatrick. The crowds at events were sell-outs with people having community, identity, and connection with their own area, their own history, their own colours, and their own supporters and sponsors. They invested in their own communities.
So if it was so good, why did we end up with an Auckland Council that has resulted in the loss of much of that local identity, connection, involvement and support?
Throughout the debates about a super city for Auckland, we discovered things like: over 100 litigations were going on between the former councils and the Auckland Regional Council over such things as major roading arterial routes around Auckland, like whether the Waterview tunnel should or should not be built as a new gateway to the airport and an alternative to State Highway 1. Some councils hated the fact that the ARC wanted funding for Mount Smart Stadium (outside their area) or the fact that they controlled where greenbelts and growth restrictions would apply in their council areas. Some grumbled at having to fund major facilities Auckland City got the main benefits from, such as the Art Gallery, MOTAT, the Zoo, and the Museum. Others had spent hundreds of millions on sorting out their sewerage, to find that other councils hadn’t invested in that area, and spills affected those that had. Some councils had very low crime rates; others had high crime rates that often spilt over into other council areas. The list goes on.
We could see that what we had wasn’t working, but with what we got, did we throw the baby out with the bath water? There are clearly major infrastructural matters for which a region-wide approach is crucial: such things as roading networks, water, sewerage, crime, and major facilities like the zoo, art gallery, museum, port, airport, rescue hub, etc. These should be the main focus of the Auckland Council. The rest, such as building local business, sporting, and cultural identity, should be the domain of a few much stronger entities.
What happens when you take away identity and political strength from an area?
Take, as an example, North Harbour. Under North Shore City (then the fourth largest city in New Zealand), it had mayors that supported Sport North Harbour, which now has 23 national sports codes in New Zealand, recognising North Harbour as a separate sporting entity and force from Auckland sporting bodies. It supports over 300 clubs and includes the entire North Shore of Auckland, North West Auckland, Hibiscus Coast, and Warkworth to Wellsford.
Former North Shore City mayors helped successfully lobby for a Super 10 Rugby franchise for North Harbour from New Zealand Rugby and facilitated the building of North Harbour Stadium, and built the Bruce Mason Centre for cultural shows and events. Even though rugby turned professional, Auckland has grown by 770,000 (Census 1996-2023), but no Auckland mayor has done anything to lobby New Zealand Rugby for another Super Rugby franchise for Auckland. In fact, no Auckland mayor could even tell you the area that the North Harbour region covers, or that many businesses have built the name ‘North Harbour’ or ‘Harbour’ into their business names, and that there is the North Harbour Club with over 200 members, which recently celebrated 30 years and has donated over $3.4m to outstanding youth in the North Harbour Region through the AIMES Awards.
The Auckland Super City presented 26 pages of promises to the trustees of the North Harbour Stadium - a venue which had enjoyed many events (All Blacks, Kiwis League, FIFA, Pavarotti, Cher, Roger Waters, Nitro Circus events etc.) - that if they would hand ownership and management of the stadium to the Super City, the North Harbour Stadium’s full potential would be realised. Instead, the stadium has been run into the ground in favour of Mt Smart investment, and is now the training ground for Mt Smart franchises. In fact, some in Auckland Council suggested Auckland get rid of the North Harbour Stadium (Auckland’s newest stadium, of which $20 million of the $44 million to build it was funded by the local North Harbour community).
Or take Manukau. Prior to the creation of the super city, Manukau City was just passing Christchurch as the second largest city in New Zealand. Under the super city, what has happened to its identity, its sporting and cultural strengths, passions and heroes? When former passionate Counties Manukau supporters are asked, they say, “We don’t know who to support any longer. We were put with the Blues, then dumped with the Hamilton Chiefs, then there is the Moana Pasifika culturally-based team with many of our players, but they have to play at North Harbour Stadium up in the north, as there was no room for them at Mt Smart."
In fact, consider The Blues rugby franchise with dwindling crowds at Eden Park, which recently asked whether there is a place at Mt Smart for them. The Blues won the first two seasons of professional rugby in 1996 and 1997, but even now, with a third (two million) of New Zealand’s population, they have only won twice since. What happened and why? Well, New Zealand Rugby first ordered Auckland Rugby to amalgamate with Counties Manukau (old rivals) and then, from 2000, ordered Auckland to amalgamate with North Harbour (old rivals) and Counties Manukau to leave the Auckland area and amalgamate with Hamilton Chiefs.
Some background. In 1994, in the sold-out ‘Battle of Onewa’, Auckland played North Harbour for the NPC final before professional rugby. In 1995, North Harbour had eight All Blacks (the most ever from one rugby union). In 1996, at a sold-out Eden Park, Counties played Auckland in the NPC final. Notwithstanding a 700,000-population growth in Auckland since professional rugby (compared to 70,000 for the same period for another rugby franchise area), 29 years later in 2025, the NPC 14 table shows Counties 8th, Auckland 12th, and North Harbour 14th.  
That’s what happens when you lose your identity, community, and any political support.
So how do we turn all this around? How do we restructure Auckland Council so that there is some meaningful strength in these large local identities and communities again? How do we recognise that there are unique communities across Auckland and give them a meaningful voice and connection within their own area? How do we let them provide their own history, colours, supporters and sponsors? How do we get them invested again?
It’s much more than just recognising them; it’s bringing them politically alive with a meaningful say, it’s fighting for them, it’s getting them opportunities and success, and they will more likely feel valued in being a part of a successful greater Auckland.
How do we ensure a central mayor and council have on their table both the major infrastructure decisions for greater Auckland and are totally up to speed with the crucial decisions and next steps to promote and develop these unique sub-regional communities?
The mayor may be right. It’s not with 21 local boards with a centralised bureaucracy and mayor.

Derek Dallow, email: gatungadad@gmail.com