top of page

Explainer | From Voice to Influence: Democratic Participation in Superdiverse Auckland

14 hours ago
5 min read

Written by Aaminah Ali


With 43% of the population being born overseas, Auckland can be considered a superdiverse city (Stats NZ, 2025). Local democratic institutions have had to adapt to the changing population. However, assumptions may still be made about how citizens participate. While Auckland Council celebrates Auckland’s differences as a strength, it is important to consider whether Auckland’s democracy enables meaningful participation for its diverse communities. The challenge is not simply to create opportunities, but to ensure that these opportunities go beyond participation to genuinely empower communities. 


Costs of Participation

Auckland Council acknowledges the importance of supporting diverse communities, creating opportunities for them to participate in society. Formally, democracy is open to everyone. However, various structural and personal factors can influence a person’s participation, which institutions should consider (Zhu et al., 2024).


Navigating local democracy requires citizens to understand what the Council does, how decisions are made, how to have their say, and have the time to do so. These are forms of administrative burden, which is a citizen’s experience of policy as onerous (Zhu et al., 2024). These burdens are generally unequally distributed, exacerbating inequality (Arnzen, 2026). 


While participation for some might mean filling out a submission form, for others it involves navigating an unfamiliar process, overcoming language and confidence barriers, and balancing childcare and work commitments. These costs create a participation gap, increasing the perception that participation is too challenging (Zhu et al., 2024).


Civic literacy also shapes participation. More educated people may be more confident navigating bureaucracy, reducing the psychological cost of participation (Arnzen, 2026), while those with less institutional knowledge face greater barriers.


However, participation barriers go beyond knowledge. People also need to believe that participating is worthwhile. Internal efficacy measures an individual’s perception of their capacity to participate in political processes, while external efficacy concerns whether people believe the government will listen (Prats & Meunier, 2021). If either is low, participation is hard to justify, as levels of trust and satisfaction in democracy drop (Prats & Meunier, 2021; Southgate, 2025). 


The recent 2025 local election demonstrates why understanding barriers is important. Only 29% of registered electors voted in Auckland, with turnout particularly low for some younger age groups and in areas of high socio-economic deprivation (Osborne & Prakash, 2026). While this does not prove that administrative burden or civic literacy caused low turnout, it does suggest that Aucklanders may have equal opportunities but lack an equal ability to participate.


From Voice to Influence

While improving participation is important, engagement with diverse communities does not stop there, as participation does not necessarily translate into influence. Auckland’s local political representation has become more ethnically and gender-diverse (Webster & Crothers, 2022). However, this is not equivalent to giving communities decision-making power. 


Auckland Council has developed six demographic advisory panels, including for Pacific Peoples and Ethnic Communities (Auckland Council, 2022). These panels identify issues important to their constituents and advise the Council on policies (Auckland Council, n.d.). They provide a valuable channel between citizens and the Council and reflect the Council’s attempt to fulfil principles two and three in its Significance and Engagement Policy. However, these panels remain advisory and hold no decision-making power. This raises an important question about meaningful participation. Communities may have a voice, but that does not equate to power and influence. 


Auckland Council recognises, through the International Association of Public Participation approach, that participation occurs at various levels, ranging from consulting communities to empowering them. Yet it is worth asking how the Council decides who stays involved, and to what extent. Do communities ever reach the empowerment stage, where they have greater decision-making power? Arguably, an issue remains where communities may be kept at consultation without being engaged further, despite collaboration and empowerment better aligning with the Council’s principles. 


This distinction between voice and influence is important given the barriers discussed above. It is not enough to offer every community the same opportunity to participate when the costs are greater for some. For example, consultation may be open to everyone, but still produce unequal outcomes.


Implications and Recommendations

When diverse communities are not adequately involved, their perspectives can be lost. Improving participation and influence would ensure that policy decisions that affect communities, such as transport, housing, and community funding, are made with a range of perspectives in mind. This way, policy becomes more legitimate and responsive. Actively collaborating with communities could be a step closer to the authentic, two-way relationship the Council envisions (Auckland Council, 2022).  


According to Local Government New Zealand, 70% of participants believed communities should be more involved in council decision-making (Frethey, 2024). Communities believe councils are more effective when they choose localism (Frethey, 2024). Auckland Council could better engage with localism by going to communities rather than asking them to come to the Council. While advisory panels are a positive step, going to libraries, cultural festivals, and places of worship would make the Council more relational with the community and reduce administrative burden. The Council’s plans already consider this, calling for alternative pathways to participation and partnership with community organisations (Auckland Council, 2022). 


Building civic literacy is also an important step. Understanding how local government works can be difficult, even for Aucklanders who have lived here their whole lives. For new Aucklanders with other participatory barriers, understanding becomes even more difficult. Governments have a responsibility to make institutions more accessible (Auckland Council, 2022). Using simple, accessible language to explain local government, its significance, and how to participate is important when seeking diverse perspectives. 


Relatedly, how participation is evaluated is important. The number of people who submit on an issue or attend a meeting is relevant, but it is also important to look at who is not represented. A community policy cannot be successfully implemented when only a select group has submitted, albeit in large numbers. Therefore, going into the community is important, especially for those who find traditional participation difficult. 


Conclusion

Auckland is superdiverse, but this is its strength. Democratic institutions must effectively adapt to diverse communities, ensuring that participation is more accessible. However, this must also go beyond symbolic access towards meaningful influence and power. As Southgate (2025) notes, drawing on the potential of communities by genuinely empowering them with real authority could improve trust between citizens and the Council. While Auckland Council may be improving its representativeness, this does not automatically ensure participation and power for communities; that has to be actively pursued. 

 


References

Arnzen, C. J. (2026). Education and the Unequal Costs of Voting: Administrative Burdens and Democratic Participation. Policy Studies Journal, 54(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70106 


Auckland Council. (n.d.). Advisory panels – advocating for our diverse communities. https://voteauckland.co.nz/en/educational-local-election-resources/advisory-panels-advocating-for-our-diverse-communities.html 



Frethey, M. (2024). 'Eyes glaze over': Councils struggle to engage locals. RNZ. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/regions_local-democracy-reporting/526217/eyes-glaze-over-councils-struggle-to-engage-locals 


Osborne, B., & Prakash, A. (2026). 2025 Auckland local election voter turnout. Who did and did not vote? Auckland Council. https://www.knowledgeauckland.org.nz/media/223nezcy/2025-auckland-local-election-voter-turnout-auckland-council-saru-a-prakash-b-osborne-feb-2026.pdf 


Prats, M., & Meunier, A. (2021). Political efficacy and participation: An empirical analysis in European countries (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 46). OECD. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/4548cad8-en 


Southgate, P. (2025). How to fix the reputation of local government. The Helen Clark Foundation. https://www.helenclark.foundation/news/how-to-fix-the-reputation-of-local-government  



Webster, K., & Crothers, C. (2022). Women, ethnic minorities and local electoral success in Auckland, New Zealand. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, 27, 57–82. https://doi.org/10.5130/cjlg.vi27.8277  


Zhu, J., Han, Y., & Chen, Z. (2024). The Effect of Administrative Burden Perception on Citizen Participation: A Barrier or a Spur? Public Performance & Management Review, 47(5), 1138–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2024.2354304  


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page