Ihumātao: We either stand now against the State as they steal more Māori land or we acknowledge we are the collective problem

53
2245

In less than 100 years, Māori lost 95% of their land.

Colonial policy like the Settlement Act simply stole land from Māori and left them with no cultural or economic base.

It is no shock or surprise that the Māori race were almost wiped out at the turn of the 1900s.

When you hear pakeha claim the colonial experience has been a blessing to a stone age indigenous peoples the way Don Brash claims, they are either racists or ill informed fools.

The negative impact of that colonialism isn’t some historic scar that is simply forgotten and moved in from because the injustice of it is here, living and breathing right now.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

We see it in the incarceration rate from a racist judiciary and prison system.

We see it in the terrible health, education and poverty levels.

And we see it with the State stealing Māori babies.

Today, right now the State is trying to steal land again.

The land at Ihumātao was confiscated in 1865 and local Māori HAVE NEVER stopped fighting that theft…

Ihumātao, a west-facing peninsula on the shore of Auckland’s Manukau Harbour, is the city’s oldest settlement. In 1863, the land was illegally confiscated from Māori. Sacred hills were quarried, 800-year-old burial sites were demolished, archaeological remains were destroyed, a sewage-treatment plant was built over traditional fishing grounds, and a dye spill killed the local creek. 

…the State says the land will now be used for social housing.

The tactic is to find someone amongst the local indigenous population willing to sell the others out, make an ‘agreement’, claim the land confiscation is legal and respecting the wishes of locals, repeat over and over again.

Fuck that, it’s not the State’s land to decide what to do with the land, it is for Māori who are the decedents of that theft who own the land and make the decisions about it.

The protest at Ihumātao  has been building and building and now the State has moved the pigs in…

Battle for Ihumātao: Another arrest as protesters lose faith in police

A woman who boarded a truck outside the housing development site at Ihumātao has been arrested.

More than 50 demonstrators and a similar number of police officers are at the site in Māngere where a group occupying the land had been moved off yesterday.

About 100 people including mana whenua and local iwi protested peacefully during the night.

Tensions rose after a woman at the cordon climbed on board a contractor’s truck heading into the grounds, and police tried for more than 20 minutes to remove her.

Police later arrested the woman.

Protesters said police broke an agreement that no more vehicles would be allowed onto the site after they had earlier allowed machinery through.

…so are we going to allow the State ti repeat this confiscation? Are we going to allow the NZ Police to fulfil their original creation as a force to beat Māori with? Are we going to allow this to continue?

Only an enormous eruption of anger and a mass arrival of of New Zealanders from around the country to sit in solidarity with Māori is going to stop the State.

We either stand now against the State as they steal more Māori land or we acknowledge we are the collective problem.

The address is Ōruarangi Rd, Māngere.

53 COMMENTS

    • Did you know if you took all the settlement money Waikato received, as poultry as it was, they’d be able to buy back every bit of land they’d lost in 200 years. It’s something to consider.

      • Sam you comment is simplistic in the extreme and totally misses the point so it is not something to consider. The land at Ihumatao which belonged to Maori was taken from Maori without just cause. Now the corporate bully Fletchers, which cannot even operate itself properly, has moved in under some sort of so-called agreement to build houses, they say for Maori. Ho, hum – as if that will actually eventuate.

        In the meantime, Maori have been further displaced and the forces of the state, no doubt under a request from Fletchers, have moved in and are trying to physically remove the people who are only rightfully claiming back what is theirs. Bastion Point all over again. Isn’t it dreadful although typical in this country that big business can bulldoze (no pun intended) over the rights of individuals to get what they want but when the rightful owners of this land stand-up for themselves, as they should, they get arrested and vilified?

        One final thing Sam, the word is ‘paltry’ not ‘poultry’.

        • Youngsuffrajet: “The land at Ihumatao which belonged to Maori was taken from Maori without just cause. Now the corporate bully Fletchers, which cannot even operate itself properly, has moved in under some sort of so-called agreement to build houses, they say for Maori.”

          It sounds as if you’re unaware of the history of this situation. This is a good account:

          https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/icymi/395121/explainer-why-ihumatao-is-being-occupied-by-protectors

          “Maori have been further displaced and the forces of the state, no doubt under a request from Fletchers, have moved in and are trying to physically remove the people who are only rightfully claiming back what is theirs.”

          This isn’t so, as you’ll know if you’ve read the above account.

          “Bastion Point all over again.”

          It most certainly is not. I vividly remember Bastion Point: I was an adult by that time, and we had many a vigorous discussion about it in my workplace. I and many of my colleagues were firmly and vocally on the side of the occupiers. We were horrified by the police action.

          What’s happening at Ihumatao in no way resembles the events at Bastion Point.

            • Frank Macskasy: “Actually, there are similarities. Not identical – but similar.”

              Hi Frank: welcome back: long time no see!

              The similarities relate only to the fact that it’s Maori protesting and facing off against police. The similarities end there. Those of us who remember events at Bastion Point know full well what lay behind that situation. Many pakeha (such as moi) were firmly in support of the local Maori; Muldoon realised that he’d backed the wrong horse and eventually climbed down.

              The land at Ihumatao is privately-owned; the local iwi supports the housing development. The stonefields area is already a reserve and wouldn’t have been built on in any event. There was never a burial site there. See this:

              https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/395242/ihumatao-disregard-for-mana-whenua-will-lead-to-trouble-willie-jackson

              “Fletcher Building now owns the land and in an unusual move struck a compromise with Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority to return 8ha to mana whenua – the iwi with historic and territorial rights over the land.”

              This time, it’s the protesters who are backing the wrong horse. See this as well (if you haven’t already), for a good account:

              https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/icymi/395121/explainer-why-ihumatao-is-being-occupied-by-protectors

              The fact of the land at Ihumatao being privately-owned is critically important, not just for the local iwi, but for all of us in NZ, whatever our ethnicity. For this reason, the government cannot intervene. Were it to do so, that would potentially undermine all private property rights – Maori included – throughout the country.

              I remind you that, long years ago, the Waitangi Tribunal was firmly put in its place by the then government, after it declared that a block of privately-owned farmland should be handed over as part of a Treaty settlement.

              The government blocked that move, and forbade the Tribunal from ever again attempting to include privately-owned land in Treaty settlements. I am grateful for this; you should be too.

              • Thank you for you “welcome back”, D’Esterre… 🙂

                The land at Ihumatao is privately-owned; the local iwi supports the housing development. The stonefields area is already a reserve and wouldn’t have been built on in any event. There was never a burial site there.

                […]

                The fact of the land at Ihumatao being privately-owned is critically important, not just for the local iwi, but for all of us in NZ, whatever our ethnicity. For this reason, the government cannot intervene. Were it to do so, that would potentially undermine all private property rights – Maori included – throughout the country.

                Indeed, it is more complex than Bastion Point – no argument there. Hence why I said, “…there are similarities. Not identical – but similar.”

                I’m working on a blogpost highlighting the very point(s) you’ve raised.

      • Forgot to add that if all the waikatos settlement money was put in a mutual fund they’d be able to buy back all the stolen land in 200 years. I’d do that if I was them. Just pass it on to your kids.

      • That is highly improbable! And even if it is true… what does that tell you about the guilt of the people giving the money over? Waikato is linked to Ihumatao… it’s where the police said the natives of Ihumatao who had *not* pledged their allegiance to the crown (and handed over their weapons) were advised to move to (out of South Auckland) around 1860 or 1862 if I recall. That sure kicked things off. Turns out its all about the right to bear arms!

        • As is my style I’ll just reply to y’all in one comment.

          So I’m more pessimistic on land deals ect. I continue to believe there could be a lot more done on Māori economic development. Very quickly the low hanging fruit of economic development run out like education and housing. And the pessimistic version is that advancing an economy is much harder than reading about it, there for it will be slower going.

          The more optimistic outlook would say well the culture is just proven and if you are more talented you’d go into business and innovation and if you are less talented you’d get into politics and treaty negotiation. You could also think of it in Darwinian terms and think of it as politics for people with bad math genes. So if you’re good at math you’d go into business and if you’re bad at math you’d go into politics with all the people who are somewhat less talented. So that might be a cultural explanation for why Māori economic development has slower progress.

          • Tainui have never looked back since they got their settlement money Sam. Ever heard of Waikato’s inland port??? no I thought not . It’s a Tainui development, as is the Tourism at Waitomo . They also have a vast number of scholarship schemes for their young covering funding for sports training as well as tertiary training. They also own a number of productive farming enterprises.I am not Maori nor do I know much about Tainui’s overall economic development but I am not ignorant or uninformed.Early Pakeha would have perished without Maori economic nounce and farming skills. Do some reading Sam and learn NZ’s history.

            • I mean any economic indicator you’d care to mention will show Māori are 20 years behind non-Māori. There’s many reasons for that. One reason is because economic development keep missing the majority of Māori because of the great urban migration after the war. So Maori are considered undeserving if they live away from the marae and all these precise financialis atom of the Whenua just blow over most Maori, shit half don’t even vote, most find it difficult to even open a bank account because they lack ID.

              Your outrage does not do a very good job at masking how new you are to this subject.

              You must have scored much higher than I at English studies. I still curse that class every opportunity I get. Cracks me up when plastic maaris curse me for my substandard English writing. To be honest with you, Shona. 90% of it are deliberate spelling mistake, I put them in on purpose. It’s kind of like saying Tauranga as towel runger. Sorry, not sorry.

              • Sam: “One reason is because economic development keep missing the majority of Māori because of the great urban migration after the war. So Maori are considered undeserving if they live away from the marae and all these precise financialis atom of the Whenua just blow over most Maori, shit half don’t even vote, most find it difficult to even open a bank account because they lack ID.”

                This explains why there is still so much poverty in Maori society, despite the major Treaty settlements. Iwi have managed settlement money for the most part astutely, and they are wealthy as a result. But far too many ordinary Maori are dirt poor; the benefits of the Treaty settlements aren’t percolating down to them.

            • Shona: “Early Pakeha would have perished without Maori economic nounce and farming skills.”

              Bear in mind the paradox here; without the goods brought by colonisers – seeds, farm animals, tools, cultivation and farming techniques and so on – Maori could not have supplied the pakeha with food. Nor could they have exported to Australia – as they did for a period of time – without also having access to settlers’ ships.

              Prior to the arrival of Cook, there were no animals such as pigs or goats. The only endemic mammals were bats; the only cultivar was the kumara. Maori were dependent upon birds and fish for protein. They also ate some fern roots and greens. Nothing that was here prior to colonisation would have provided the basis for any kind of modern economy.

              • Prior to the arrival of Cook, there were no animals such as pigs or goats.

                Well, that’s correct. But considering that Maori were a sea-faring culture with deep knowledge of celestial navigation, how long would it have been before they reached land-masses where those animals (or similar) were available? Or, if they reached South America, work-beasts such as alpaca and llama?

                Given time, those possibilities exist.

                Nothing that was here prior to colonisation would have provided the basis for any kind of modern economy.

                You can’t, and don’t, know that for sure, D’Esterre. There’s a degree of euro-centric chauvinism in that statement and even if it were true – so what? Our “modern economy” has created weapons of mass destruction; resulted in two world wars (three, if you look at the Cold War as a covert WWIII); sent our CO2 levels above 411ppm and estimated to reach higher. And god help us when (not if) the methane in the arctic circle starts to defrost and enters the atmosphere. Then you’ll see what a “modern economy” can do to a planet’s biosphere.

                • Frank Macskasy: “…Maori were a sea-faring culture with deep knowledge of celestial navigation, how long would it have been before they reached land-masses where those animals (or similar) were available?”

                  Australia didn’t have those critters until European colonists brought them. As for the nearer Pacific islands, there were certainly pigs and chickens, which had been brought from Asia by the ancient Polynesian ancestors. But I believe that there’s no archeological evidence of there being regular sailings between NZ and the Pacific, following settlement. If the first migrants brought pigs and chickens here, they didn’t survive.

                  “Or, if they reached South America, work-beasts such as alpaca and llama?”

                  Their Polynesian ancestors had already been to South America, I believe; that’s the origin of the kumara, also (I think) a species of chicken found in the Pacific. Not llama and alpaca though; to transport animals of that size and complexity, much larger craft would be needed. Of course, they may have tried, but if so, these animals didn’t survive.

                  As to ocean voyaging, especially of the Tasman, Maori would have needed sturdier craft than the waka they used for getting around NZ. They’d have also needed evidence of there being land to sail to, before they’d have risked such a perilous journey.

                  It looks as if the skills required for building ocean-going craft had been lost over the generations. Not unusual, if the requisite materials weren’t available, as seems likely. Remember the Lapita people – ancestors of the Polynesians – had brought pottery-making techniques to Oceania, but that skill had been lost by the time the first Polynesians arrived here, probably because East Polynesia didn’t have suitable clays.

                  See this for a succinct account:

                  https://teara.govt.nz/en/pacific-migrations/print

                  “You can’t, and don’t, know that for sure…”

                  I think that’s the only conclusion one could draw, given the resources available here at first European contact. The best that Maori could have managed was what they actually did: trade the products of extractive industries with the first European settlers. They didn’t have craft of a size that could have enabled them to do anything remotely like sailing to Australia (even had they know it was there), until the first settlers and traders brought sailing ships.

                  None of this entails anything negative about Maori: it’s simply a reflection of the remoteness of NZ, along with the local environment, which was too cold for the survival of some of the resources they brought with them. Nor did they have the skills to exploit some of the resources here, such as coal.

                  I suggest that you read Jared Diamond; in particular “Guns, Germs and Steel”. He gives a clear account of the multiplicity of reasons why Western countries are generally so advanced technologically, compared with – for instance – Australia and the Pacific islands at first contact.

                  I’d add that, had there been no colonisation, Maori would have been in a similar situation to that of the hill tribes of Papua-New Guinea until quite recently.

                  That is, of course, assuming that they’d have survived. Years ago, I read a paper in which the author noted that, had Cook and his crew not left behind pigs and goats, there’d have been a population crash before the end of the 18th century or thereabouts. That’s because Maori were running out of food; they’d eaten the largest birds to extinction, and resources like fish and eels were under pressure. Can’t find that paper, but see this for a reference to the pressures of lack of food resources:

                  https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.160258

              • Hone Heke had a fleet of ships( all leased ) for the timber export trade. Maori had been trading European goods since before 1800 from the sealer’s and whalers.
                Maori had wheat and and other grain crops established in Northland well before 1840. Tony Simpson and James Belich as well as Michael King have recorded this info.Yes Trade was a two way street. But to assume Maori had no benefit from it or control of any of it is ignorant in the extreme, The fact that Heke was forced to fly only one flag ( British) and could no longer fly flags of convenience on his timber ships was the reason ( once we became a colony)he cut down the flagpole at Waitangi. yes folks for commercial reasons only nothing to do with sovereignty.

                • Although there are many ways to create central government bodies, most onvolving blood. Māori now have a central governing body that comprizes parliamentary seats, a Māori council and an Iwi Leaders forums. Now they must be employed into managing the Crowns Treaty relationship with Iwi Māori.

                • Shona: “Hone Heke had a fleet of ships( all leased ) for the timber export trade.”

                  Of course he did. But the point I was making was that he was able to have access to those ships only because of colonisation. That’s what I meant when I referred to the paradox of colonisation.

                  Maori were able to export food to Australia only because colonists had provided them with the wherewithal, both to grow food and the means to transport it.

                  Had there been no, or only transient, contact with Europeans, none of that would have been possible.

                  “But to assume Maori had no benefit from it or control of any of it is ignorant in the extreme…”

                  If you’re responding to me, I suggested no such thing. For the life of me, I cannot see how you could have read anything like that into my comment.

  1. Mobilise nationally. Protest Protest Protest Now.

    Confiscations were blatant theft. Then land was then transferred to an English settler.

    Stolen goods still remain the property of the owner under NZ law. The paper processes used to separate this land from its owners of hundreds of years must be put aside. Any compensation must come from the govt agency that enacted confiscation.

    It is more than a moral issue.

    Kiwis must not lie down and take such shit. Protest needs to be widespread and immediate while the momentum builds.

    john key ignored the people of NZ and sold off our publicly owned energy agencies. Massive protest would have stopped that.

    Kiwis need to be more reactive to injustice not just roll over and “do as we are told”. We are the ones who have the say and authority.

    Maori and others join and support what is right and not let a weeping sore created by NZ Govt at Maori expense, become a win for off shore corporate [ Fletchers is not NZ owned and hasn’t been f0r decades.]

    • John W: “Stolen goods still remain the property of the owner under NZ law. The paper processes used to separate this land from its owners of hundreds of years must be put aside. Any compensation must come from the govt agency that enacted confiscation.”

      It seems to me that you aren’t aware, either of the story behind the Ihumatao situation, or of the vitally important wider issue of private property rights.

      To be blunt, the fact of it having been confiscated land, while clearly significant morally, is legally irrelevant. The land has been privately-owned for over a century, and was sold to Fletcher Building by the previous owners, as they were entitled to do. The Treaty settlement process was predicated on privately-owned land being off the table for settlements. Were the government to intervene, that would risk the undermining of the property rights of all NZ citizens, Maori included.

      I’m well aware of the issue of confiscated and stolen land. It was a tragedy at the time; but because most of it has passed into private ownership, it cannot be reversed. Do you have any idea of how many citizens own and live on such land? I suspect that applies to most of the population of the Waikato, including Hamilton. Then there’s all the land that was taken by Maori from other Maori in historical times, about which there is still unhappiness. There is no way that restitution can be made, without creating more injustices. And all of us – Maori included – would be affected.

  2. That there is still a piece of Maori whenua that has not been torn to pieces by the invaders is nothing short of a miracle. This must be protected, most especially from Fletcher, the closest entity we have to the mafia in this land. Kia kaha SOUL and whanau

    • Matthew: “That there is still a piece of Maori whenua that has not been torn to pieces by the invaders is nothing short of a miracle.”

      Nonsense: what on earth are you talking about? I suspect that you’ve never seen the site, and know nothing about the situation.

      I’d point out that it’s covered in kikuyu, by the looks. Certainly not original vegetation.

      “….Fletcher, the closest entity we have to the mafia in this land.”

      Is it possible for you to be any more offensive? Fletcher Building is an unexceptionable entity, with good people working for it.

      If this is pakeha guilt on your part, it’s wrong-headed. Enough already!

  3. how did we rebel we fought for our land that is what we did, we fought for our survival and we are still fighting and we will carry on fighting we have nothing to lose

    • Michelle…Michelle…Michelle, this is not what you love to melt over, white man against the Maori!
      This is between the main tribe/iwi against a sub tribe , the main tribe/iwi and Maori land court want them off the land…now, settle down and tell us why you and Martyn agree with the protesters, just because they are protesting or are you going to go back 200+ yrs and again blame white man/colonialism as there was no problem before colonisation as NZ was an idyllic utopia with no violence, cannabalism, slaves etc etc

      • Why would we not confront the crown head on. Remember Bastion Point this was won by the absolute determination of the people to get back the land that was theirs. The crown are gutless when it comes to these things – Ardern is gutless, if she had real mana she would step in.

        • The problem with Maori economic development is that white people in particular don’t like it when they see jobs that used to be filled by white people now have different colours and they sound different and speak a different langauge. That causes great discomfort.

          The next problem with Māori economic development is you have to use the Māori land courts and treaty process, that comes with tax payer money and that takes it another step further into hatred for a lot of people.

          And then the next problem with it is that Māori economic development can be done really well with out your traditional pakeha education.

          So Māori economic development is really about exposing the weaknesses in mainstream economics and making it better much to the angst of everyone else.

        • Michal: “Remember Bastion Point this was won by the absolute determination of the people to get back the land that was theirs.”

          The situation at Ihumatao in no way resembles that of Bastion Point. As you’d know if you did a bit of reading on both.

  4. The information I had was that these protestors are outsiders and the local iwi is happy with the developement . The 480 houses are certainly needed and local iwi have first pick

    • Some local iwi say they want housing.

      The Govt confiscating land was a corrupt ploy to privatise communal Maori land. A wrought which was wrong at every level and has NO NO NO justification except using power to steal.

      A massive amounts of lands was stolen..

      The land is still there.

      So called “Treaty Settlements” complicate matters but do not take away the wrong doing by agents of the crown who were crooks. Nothing but stupidity allows confiscations to be cemented. That would be a racist position.

    • I am not happy and I am from Tainui and our people lived in that area so don’t say everyone is happy cause we ain’t a small group who lead the hapu might be happy cause they gonna get a few houses but really they are getting fuck all many of our claimants have been shafted and we are getting a pittance. Especially with the land values so high now and the shortage of homes and our people being over represented in homelessness this makes this issue even more significant. Keep fighting whanau we need to fight like our ancestors did, fight cause at the moment our Maori politicians are showing they are gutless when it comes to land and treaty issues our tamariki are showing them up.

  5. Kia ora Martyn
    I see Ihumatao as complicated. These disputes usually are. To my mind it is not a simple case of state theft of Maori land (we have seen that before and know what it looks like), and to most New Zealanders it would appear to be a conflict between the rights of private property owners and the collective right of our people to maintain their cultural heritage and natural values.
    The fact that this is confiscated land that has passed into private ownership is a pertinent consideration, but not the determining one. Many hundred thousands of New Zealanders work or live on confiscated land, and there is a tacit understanding that they will not be disturbed in their occupation without good and compelling reason, and if that does happen it should happen with their consent if that is at all possible.
    Against that, our people need a sense of collective ownership of the land, and they need to be able to exercise their kaitiakitanga. This sense of collective ownership and tiakitanga has been depleted over the past half-century of neo-liberal rule, and now may be a time for it to be revived.
    The whenua, in turn needs its people to defend, protect and enjoy it.
    The word from our local kuia last night was “Go to Ihumatao” and even when taking into account all the complexities and conflicting motives and interests, I believe that is the right thing to do.
    If we go, however, we should not go in anger. The purpose is not to pick a fight with Fletchers, the New Zealand government, the New Zealand Police or those from Te Kawerau o Maki who have thrown their support behind Fletchers. The purpose is to protect the whenua. We know from our own experience of a fifteen year struggle to stop state development from encroaching on the natural values of our own land that while it is never easy, it can be done, and that kotahitanga is vital to success.
    Arohanui

  6. Yes we know there is a housing shortage , but come on !

    Anyone can see this is simply a profit making venture on the part of the contractors. And that’s their only motive.

    Now , it may have been confiscated originally ,with the forced eviction of the original land occupiers under the guise of ‘war ‘, – but the real reason was not just the King movement , – it was a profit driven move to grab land ultimately contrived by the colonial government. The Crown knew that the King movement could never stand forever against the full weight of the British Empire and its relentless fielding of army’s and ongoing arrivals of settlers,- the war was a method to fast track opening up lands for profit.The Waikato war was nothing more than a land grab and to subdue all and any future resistance ,…Governor Grey knew that. General Cameron even resigned in the end because he disagreed with the motives and mass land grabs and loss of human life…

    Ihumātao is all about the money for these contractors and always has been , – not for some altruistic reason in order to help the govt out,… that’s a laughable motive for them to use.

    But a very big issue for me was that this is an archaeological site of significant importance. That they have, over the years, already destroyed elements of that site as mentioned above by Mr Bradbury is appalling,… this being one of the oldest sites not only in Auckland but the country. It has quite a long history. What an appalling treatment of one of this country’s oldest archaeological sites. Archaeology is not just concerned with buildings but land use , and gives us a snapshot of history and its people. Once its destroyed and built over , its gone.

    Pa sites , – and battle sites need to be protected. Such as the Rangariri battle site. Human lives were lost on both sides. It and other sites need to be treated with respect. They are sacred to the memory of those lives . Yet the state in its arrogance built a road clear through the middle of the ridge the battle was fought along. Mercifully , the main redoubt is left , and maintained as testament to human lives lost and an archaeological treasure for years to come.

    One would not simply just bulldoze and build over over the Custer / Battle of the Little Bighorn historical site in America and one does not do the same at Rangariri in New Zealand . And in true synchronicity , – both were motivated by the govt’s of the day by the same thing : land grabs. For the northern Plains Indians, it was the Black hills ( Paha Sapa ) that was the last straw , …with the govt’s decision to break the Treaty and force a war in order to confiscate the land to open up the gold fields that were found there. And it was the same for Ihumātao , as part of the contrived war to conduct a land grab in the Waikato to gain vast tracts of fertile lands.

    Rangariri is left , used as pasture and maintained. One can still walk that redoubt today. So should Ihumātao in my opinion , … though that is up to the people whose land was confiscated ( annexed , stolen ) to decide on its use.

    To some , like these contractors , …it may seem like a worthless low lying area containing nothing more than a bunch of rocks and grass. And a source of profit to be made by building over.

    To the broader local Iwi , it has huge historical cultural significance. It is the home of their ancestors. To the people of Auckland and NZ, it has significance as a heritage site. And to the archaeologist, it has significance as a site of early human activity and settlement of a unique historical culture. And all three of the latter groups interests are threatened by the destruction and short terms gains by the first group. Why is the Government even letting these profit driven contractors have the option to destroy this area in the first place?

    The land needs to be preserved and given full legal title back to its original occupiers , for them to decide tactfully and with sensitivity how best to utilize it. If some areas they may wish to develop , and other areas preserved as is, so be it.

    Not just take the easy way out and perpetuate the same essential profit driven land grabbing policy’s of the colonial government of the 19th century. One would like to think we are at least trying to rectify and move on from that dark episode of New Zealand history and start to have an appreciation of our own unique history and its peoples.

    • Our deeply racist history in entangled with legal papers, title deeds and past agreements.

      Do we let all that crap dictate our national memorials. Remember Cook shot Maori in many places he landed.

      • Yes , one death or a hundred ,its still death. But mechanized, systematic warfare and annexation of land which leads to genocide is yet another issue… such was the Waikato war… but to simply destroy an area of historical cultural significance for short term financial gain is a national reproach.

        We are supposed to be a modern nation that is capable of reflection , appreciation of historical sites and cultural interest.

        I say it is time to preserve what is left , – disregarding if some want to make it an issue of ‘ left ‘ or ‘right’ politics. I believe it would be better to create a historic site complete with a walkway and signage explaining the significance of what the individual is observing and bring that culture to life before their eyes.

        That to me,… is a symptom of the mature nation state coming of age and accepting the good , and also the ugly side it prefers not to have to deal with .

        In humility and respect for its own recent and ancient past.

      • Most people who have come to New Zealand over the centuries do so because they are fleeing there own persecution and oppression. Only a tiny minority come to New Zealand to line there own pockets. There is no real political alternative than to stand against persecution and oppression.

        So this is me improvising. First you too have written very good models for how we screwed things up. It’s like Michael Cullen saying give us 9 years and we will give you tax cuts and then John Key comes along and says we will turn you into a South Pacific Switzerland of finance. We are so sure of ourselves today as I am sure everyone was hundreds of years ago. The whole thing 2 years ago was supposed to be that Jacinda is at the top and we don’t have to worry. Even though it’s a specific crises I would say Ihumātao is an even worse crises than Bastion Point.

        The whole situation is so confused that even if a genuine leftist programme was implemented it’s lost a lot of its function as tens of thousands sleep in there cars and garages last winter. So I think the way things inevitably turn out is a model for how to screw things up.

        Not long after the successes of Bastion Point a lot of Māori lost there jobs in forestry and state owned enterprises and big manufacturing went away along with everyone else. And I’m in no way defending the colonisers and / or Māori I’m just building the contrast. Unlike the UN migration pact protest – protesting loss of sovereignty and state asset sell offs keep fizzing away. But what I think is lacking is a genuine despair. Protesters today can go home when they get tired unlike what happened in Spain, Greece or the Middle East Uprising.

        Now I will not be very popular in saying that the protesters at Ihumātao are being manipulated by the radical left. Left wing operatives all up and down the left present themselves to protestors but they have absolutely no vision because Jacinda is in power or the Greens are in power. We do have the very beginnings of a left wing idea in Social Democracy but it maybe to much of a hope that the protestors at Ihumātao educate themselves on it while they ready there beds for another cold night.

        It’s even more of a problem because SOUL led by Pania Newton is really fighting for independence. Y’know I’m not part of the left who say that Māori can have independence (sorry to disappoint) I actually claim that every time Māori reclaim lost whenua and resources they go backwards or stagnate economically and grow even further from independence. New Zealand is actually not in a fundamental crises.

        In a way I am indifferent in a way where I don’t take sides. What I think it is is that all contradictions are really coming to a close because it must not end in these internal contradictions where land can be reclaimed only for powerful government and business interest to wash there hands of it and carry on with the day’s business. But I do think it is important to play the long game, of in social democratic circles the extremely long game.

    • 100% Wild Katipo. If Fletchers are so keen to provide 400 odd houses for the homeless, there are plenty of Golf Courses in the Auckland area that have very little historical value, I am very sure the council will sell them, they would be perfect for the homeless. (Sarcasm – YES)

      • Maama: “… there are plenty of Golf Courses in the Auckland area that have very little historical value, I am very sure the council will sell them…”

        As usual, commenting from basically no knowledge, I see. This is already happening, you know.

    • Wild Katipo: “Anyone can see this is simply a profit making venture on the part of the contractors. And that’s their only motive.”

      Well of course Fletcher is looking to make a profit: that’s how business works. Nothing wrong with that.

      “The land needs to be preserved and given full legal title back to its original occupiers , for them to decide tactfully and with sensitivity how best to utilize it. If some areas they may wish to develop , and other areas preserved as is, so be it.”

      Do you know anything about this situation? What you’ve called for here is exactly what’s happened. See this:

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/icymi/395121/explainer-why-ihumatao-is-being-occupied-by-protectors

      It seems to me that the best course of action is for everybody to mind their own business and let the main actors carry on with their plan.

  7. i was waiting for you to raise your ugly swede im right who is usually wrong. I am from Tainui and so the hapu involved come of our Tainui waka we are the same people. My whanau come from Kawhia. In 1863 when this land was taken we were entreprenuers we owned a huge sailing vessel and so did my other tribe Ngati Porou and we sold our produce in the UK until the pakeha settlers cried for more land and the land wars broke out devastating our businesses that we had built up. So we weren’t dumb savages we were entreprenuers we embraced trade. Now i see our government is saying they cant get involved and they cant interfere with the treaty claim yet they have been doing this anyway with the mess in the Coromandel and our Ngai te rangi whanau are fighting over who the land belongs to and our Opotiki whanau issuing a trespass notice to the Minister. So despite the crown saying they can’t get involved they have been involved with other claims and they are still involved with trying to get Ngapuhi hapu to settle so i find this excuse to be a bit lame and the labour government need to remember they have all our Maori seats if they fail to deliver people like me will do my utmost best to make sure they don’t get in again and i will work for free to get rid of them just like we got rid of the last rotten lot.

    • Michelle: “i was waiting for you to raise your ugly swede im right who is usually wrong.”

      Is ad hom the best you can do? We pakeha do not sling insults about; I’ll thank you not to do it either. Stick to facts.

      As it happens – and I don’t doubt that you know it – Imright is right. This is a tussle between different Maori groups. Nor can you blame it on contemporary pakeha: we aren’t responsible for the historical processes that led to the current situation.

      “…our government is saying they cant get involved and they cant interfere with the treaty claim….”

      The government cannot get involved because the land in question is privately-owned. When the Treaty settlement process was first set up, the deal was that privately-owned land would be permanently off the table for settlements. Long years ago, the Tribunal ruled that a block of privately-owned farmland could be subject to return to iwi under the settlement process. The then government put the Tribunal firmly in its place; that could not go ahead. Nor could privately-owned land ever be used for settlements. I am grateful for that; if you own property, you should be too. Heck, even if you’re a tenant, it matters in terms of your landlord’s property rights.

      Were the current government to intervene, that would put at risk the private property rights of all NZ citizens, Maori included. You better hope that it gets sensible advice and acts on it; I certainly do.

      “…our Ngai te rangi whanau are fighting over who the land belongs to….”

      The Crown involves itself in brokering settlements, as it ought to do. However, if the land to which you refer is privately-owned, the same principle applies. I know nothing about that claim, but if there’s conflict about ownership, it sounds as if the land in question isn’t privately-owned.

      My impression of recent claims which are proving difficult to settle is that iwi and hapu are in conflict with each other over who has the mandate to negotiate; that isn’t the same thing as what’s happened at Ihumatao.

      “….the labour government need to remember they have all our Maori seats if they fail to deliver people like me will do my utmost best to make sure they don’t get in again and i will work for free to get rid of them just like we got rid of the last rotten lot.”

      Heh! I think that the old Jewish proverb applies here: be careful what you wish for. If you’re successful in tossing out the Labour government, who do you think you’ll get in its place? The Natz? NZ First? Or likely a coalition of the two. I doubt that you’ll be better off if that happens.

    • My advice would be to ignore the crown. It’s a mindset. If you fight the crown they’ll take everything because they hold a monopoly on violence, and I think that’s the way it ought to be. But if you ignore them then you’ll achieve self governance and self sovereignty far quicker.

  8. @ Wild Katipo, agreed.
    This site is an ancient and should be protected for all NZ”s history more than anything else.
    For those who have visited Ihumatao in the past, it is a magical place with a true “awe” about it.
    Despite all the legal debates about ownership it truly would be sad to see it destroyed.
    We need to save Ihumatao for New Zealand.

Comments are closed.