Ihumaatao must be returned to mana whenua says Kiingitanga

149 comments on “Ihumaatao must be returned to mana whenua says Kiingitanga ”

• Comments are now closed

1. weka 1

   18 September 2019 at 1:58 pm

   RNZ coverage https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/399023/mana-whenua-reach-decision-on-ihumatao-land

   SOUL people speaking in video starts at 12 mins, including ideas on what could happen next.
   • alwyn 1.1

     18 September 2019 at 2:16 pm

     How much are they proposing to pay for the land?

     Or are they just going to be given it for nothing?
     • Sacha 1.1.1

       18 September 2019 at 2:18 pm

       Have their stolen property returned, you mean? Can't see that flying with the general public.
       • Gosman 1.1.1.1

         18 September 2019 at 2:53 pm

         It wasn't stolen. It was confiscated legally. Whether or not that was morally right is another matter. there was also a Treaty settlement that loss of land via this method was specifically designed to cater and which the Iwi in question was comfortable with.
         • Incognito 1.1.1.1.1

           18 September 2019 at 3:00 pm

           So, it wasn’t legalised theft according to you? Do you think that concept even exists?
           • weka 1.1.1.1.1.1

             18 September 2019 at 3:04 pm

             Foreshore and Seabed Act. The group with the biggest stick get to take what they want and determine what to call the taking.
             • Incognito …

               18 September 2019 at 3:17 pm

               That sounds a bit like Western democracy in action in the Third World 😉
               • Gosman …

                 18 September 2019 at 3:27 pm

                 Actually it sounds like a progressive taxation system.
                 • In Vino …

                   18 September 2019 at 7:47 pm

                   Nice humour, but it appears that you have no shame Gossie. Not that you ever did..
         • weka 1.1.1.1.2

           18 September 2019 at 3:02 pm

           "It was confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act, thus breaching the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi agreement."

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

           Confiscation was for rebelling, but,

           "In 1927 a royal commission found that ‘a grave injustice was done’ to South Auckland Māori ‘by forcing them into the position of rebels and afterwards confiscating their lands’. In 1985 the Waitangi Tribunal concluded that ‘all sources agree that the Tainui people…never rebelled but were attacked by British troops in direct violation of Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi’"

           https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/27-07-2019/our-trail-of-tears-the-story-of-how-ihumatao-was-stolen/

           That, and the Crown needing land to pay for the war, makes it look like stolen to me.
           • Gosman 1.1.1.1.2.1

             18 September 2019 at 3:28 pm

             The Maori could have argued they weren't actually in rebellion in which case they could have got their land back via the court process. In fact why don't they try this?
         • solkta 1.1.1.1.3

           18 September 2019 at 7:49 pm

           The land was confiscated illegally, obviously. If the confiscations had been legal then there would have been no basis for settlements.
           • Gosman 1.1.1.1.3.1

             19 September 2019 at 6:36 am

             The fact that there IS a treaty settlement negotiation process rather than a court case shows the land WASN'T taken illegally.
             • solkta …

               19 September 2019 at 6:55 am

               Go and learn some history and don't be such a deadhead. The Crown invaded Waikato because Waikato Maori would not sell any more land. Both the invasion and the confiscations were illegal.
               • Gosman …

                 19 September 2019 at 5:05 pm

                 Wrong. The Crown invaded the Waikato because the Kingitanga movement regarded themselves as a separate sovereign authority to the Crown and the Crown deemed them a threat in that regard.
               • Gosman …

                 19 September 2019 at 5:06 pm

                 The invasion was not illegal nor was the confiscation. It may well have been unjust.
                 • weka …

                   19 September 2019 at 5:09 pm

                   What makes you think it was legal?
                   • Gosman …

                     19 September 2019 at 5:17 pm

                     The Kingitanga movement rejected the Sovereign authority of the British Crown over New Zealand. The Crown issued an ultimatum requesting all Maori between Auckland and the Waikato sign a pledge of allegiance to the Crown. The rejection of this caused the Crown to regard these Maori as being in rebellion to the authority of the Crown. As a result the land was invaded to enforce that authority. It is no different to what the British did in Scotland or Ireland in relation to rebellions. Unless you are trying to argue the fighting against Irish and Scottish rebels were also "illegal".
         • michelle 1.1.1.1.4

           19 September 2019 at 10:56 am

           Te kawerau a maki they got what they could and it wasn't much is this being comfortable gosman cause i am uncomfortable but your comfortable of course you are, your comfortable with anything that doesn't give us Maori a leg up
           • Gosman 1.1.1.1.4.1

             19 September 2019 at 5:04 pm

             Why do you assume that at all? I am happy with a Treaty settlement process where Iwi and the Crown come to a voluntary agreement to settle the grievances. The Crown is not forcing Iwi to settle. What I oppose is full and final settlements being changed to not full and final at a later date. That to me is the definition of not negotiating in good faith.
             • weka …

               19 September 2019 at 5:13 pm

               When full and final settlements were forced into the process, there was plenty of debate about how that wouldn't work. I remember people saying that the Treaty wouldn't be needed once all the settlements were done. This is a gross misunderstanding of what the Treaty is and what it means.

               None of this is a surprise, so if we are talking about good faith and fairness, I can't see a good reason to assume full and final has meaning.
               • weka …

                 19 September 2019 at 5:15 pm

                 otoh, had Māori been full partners in the creation of processes that would address colonisation in ways that were also meaningful and just from Māori perspectives, then we might be in a completely different situation now. It's not too late, we still have an opportunity here to get this right. If Pākehā agree that the Treaty is a partnership between the Crown and Māori, then it behooves Pākehā to argue for the Crown to relate with Māori as actual partners.
                 • Gosman …

                   19 September 2019 at 5:24 pm

                   Except we disagree with what partnership means.

                   I presume you take it to mean you have equal rights as the Crown and NZ has some sort of quasi joint sovereignty arrangement.

                   Where as I take it that Maori have a unique relationship with the Crown (but not as equals) where elements of the cultural identity and life are guaranteed to be protected by the Crown and Maori are to be included in any direct decisions impacting them as a group.
                   • weka …

                     19 September 2019 at 5:32 pm

                     Like whether Ihumātao should have been made an SHA? Or sold to Fletchers for a housing development? Those two decisions impact on them as a group.

                     What partnership means needs to include Māori perspectives on that. Otherwise it's just the Crown dictating what it wants (which is largely what has happened). Hence situations like Ihumātao.
                   • Gosman []

                     19 September 2019 at 7:51 pm

                     Private land being used in a legal commercial basis is not a matter of Iwi engagement.
                   • David Mac …

                     19 September 2019 at 8:19 pm

                     The law of treaty settlements needs to stand. No privately held land can be considered. To waiver from this precedent at this late stage of proceedings would be inviting the devil to dance.

                     I know you don't think so but I think this site is important to your great great grandchildren. We just busted open the purse for Kate Sheppard's joint. I'm sure that you can appreciate that many NZers, of all complexions, can see merit in making these fields a park for us all to treasure and enjoy.
               • Gosman …

                 19 September 2019 at 5:20 pm

                 If Iwi did not agree with the Full and final settlement process then they should have stated so and not participated in the process at all.
                 • weka …

                   19 September 2019 at 5:32 pm

                   what would have happened had they done that?
                   • Gosman …

                     19 September 2019 at 7:52 pm

                     The same that happened to Nga Puhi
     • weka 1.1.2

       18 September 2019 at 2:24 pm

       Have listen to the Q and A in the video, there's some ideas there on what could happen. The government, Auckland Council, and Fletchers all have money for instance.

       eg AC has $1.8b for open space over the next decade. If they went 50/50 with the Crown, that's 1.5% of that part of AC's budget.

       From the press release,

       “Mana whenua agreed the return of the land is outside of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process and therefore requires an innovative and modern solution that does not financially disadvantage iwi.”
       • Gosman 1.1.2.1

         18 September 2019 at 2:55 pm

         Except that could still be regarded as being part of a Treaty settlement. Legally the Crown has to avoid that as it opens up a massive can of worms if it isn't.
         • weka 1.1.2.1.1

           18 September 2019 at 3:08 pm

           In what way would that be part of a Treaty Settlement? My understanding is that the land is excluded from a treaty settlement because its in private ownership.
           • Gosman 1.1.2.1.1.1

             18 September 2019 at 3:30 pm

             The issue is if the Government manages to give them money for the land other Iwi could challenge that as really being part of the Treaty process. Then there will likely be a court case to determine if it was or not.
         • Barfly 1.1.2.1.2

           18 September 2019 at 3:20 pm

           Gosman

           “Mana whenua agreed the return of the land is outside of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process and therefore requires an innovative and modern solution that does not financially disadvantage iwi.”

           It would seem that the mana whenua not only want the $40 million dollar parcel of land they also want iwi to be able to gain parity payments on their treaty of waitangi settlements. I have seen an article where this was guesstimated to be up to half a billion dollars.

           I would rarely if ever find myself in agreement with you on any subject – guess this is a first.

           The happiest people about this would be…../drumroll …. the National Party – a half billion dollar gift of bleeding raw meat to energise and renew their supporters for the 2020 election.

           Meh I'm now going to start drinking heavily.
           • Gosman 1.1.2.1.2.1

             18 September 2019 at 3:26 pm

             Yes ANY agreement on returning the land to the local Iwi will likely lead to other Iwi opening up court cases questioning whether that impacts their own settlement amounts with the Crown. Congrats Jacinda for being so "caring".

             [Either you can choose to make a valuable contribution to the discussion or you can choose to troll about the PM’s involvement in today’s announcement by Kīngitanga. You choose, you accept the consequences – Incognito]
             • Barfly …

               18 September 2019 at 3:40 pm

               The "Congrats Jacinda for being so "caring"." is just silly Gosman nothing has been agreed by government yet. I personally think it reflects more on the "agreement" facilitated by Kiingi Tuuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII whereby Tainui would be looking reap 10 s of millions of $ in parity payment.
               • Dukeofurl …

                 18 September 2019 at 5:49 pm

                 Its a tricky one.

                 Kawerau a maki previously had a full and final Treaty settlement that they signed

                 https://www.govt.nz/treaty-settlement-documents/te-kawerau-a-maki/te-kawerau-a-maki-deed-of-settlement-summary-22-feb-2014/

                 'The Te Kawerau a Maki Deed of Settlement is the final settlement of all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Te Kawerau a Maki resulting from acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992'

                 KAM had a signed agreement with Fletchers over the land development which involved return of about 20% of the land ( next to the mountain) and a process for access to some of the lower cost housing.

                 "About 30 per cent would be "affordable", including 40 homes (8 per cent) available to people who belong to the area's whakapapa. Fletcher Building said it would develop a pathway to ownership programme to help Māori into homes. This may involve a shared equity-type scheme,.."

                 https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/114776601/ihumtao-heres-what-fletcher-buildings-480-home-development-would-look-like

                 'Innovative and Modern' doesnt really cover walking away from 2 previous signed agreements.
                 • mauī …

                   18 September 2019 at 7:21 pm

                   This sits outside of the treaty as it's private land. Kawerau a maki aren't the only iwi involved, and perhaps if their leadership hadn't been so arrogant as to stitch up a deal with Fletcher without consulting other lhumaatao iwi, then we would have had resolution much earlier.
                   • solkta …

                     18 September 2019 at 7:36 pm

                     If it sits outside of the Treaty then why are they asking gummint to pay for it? I'm OK with the Crown paying up but talking nonsense will no help things.
                   • Dukeofurl …

                     19 September 2019 at 7:56 am

                     " Kawerau a maki aren't the only iwi involved, "

                     Thats not the case for the 'Fletchers block' , the manawhenua at 1840 is through the adjacent Oruarangi marae is Kawerau a Maki

                     Auckland especially iwi interests overlap everywhere thats why they are part of the Tamaki Makarau Collective Redress Deed of Settlement
             • Incognito …

               18 September 2019 at 4:12 pm

               See my Moderation note @ 3:26 PM.
           • patricia bremner 1.1.2.1.2.2

             18 September 2019 at 6:18 pm

             No Barfly, Don't do that xx

             Drinking never solved anything.
             • In Vino …

               18 September 2019 at 7:51 pm

               That is not quite true. Patricia. I have found that it emptied a number of half-fulled bottles, which were becoming problematic.

               Do I have to put 'sarc' after that one?
             • Stuart Munro. …

               18 September 2019 at 10:14 pm

               Forgive me, but that drinking solves some kinds of problems is not altogether inconceivable.
         • Stuart Munro. 1.1.2.1.3

           18 September 2019 at 4:44 pm

           The worms are already there.

           One of the foundational principles of our legal system is that you cannot get good title from bad title. Nothing short of full restitution meets that standard.
           • Dukeofurl 1.1.2.1.3.1

             18 September 2019 at 6:04 pm

             They didnt have fee simple title but customary title – its a technicality. But its pointless raising that type of issue.

             Plus the Treaty settlement extinguished all previous claims due to acts of confiscation by the Crown
             • Stuart Munro. …

               18 September 2019 at 6:13 pm

               "the Treaty settlement extinguished all previous claims"

               Legally perhaps – the moral claim stands.
               • Dukeofurl …

                 18 September 2019 at 6:36 pm

                 If that was the case why 'sign it all away'. They explained all the previous injustice at the Treaty hearings at that very Marae

                 Regarding Land Titles the current 'Torrens Type Titles didnt exist till after 1870, before that was the 'Deeds System'

                 https://www.linz.govt.nz/land/land-records/overview/record-types/types-land-records/deeds-and-deed-registers-indexes
                 • Stuart Munro. …

                   18 September 2019 at 7:11 pm

                   Presumably those who signed thought they were being offered all they were going to get. A private entity might want them to sign, existing as they do for short term gain – but the Crown is obliged to work both in the long term best interests of citizens, and so as not to bring the legal system into disrepute – which the confiscations did.
                   • Dukeofurl …

                     18 September 2019 at 8:30 pm

                     You are going in circular arguments. No one disputes the confiscation in this case was wrong… and surely you cant dispute the Iwi signed a final and final settlement of all the governments wrongs before 1992.

                     The NZ government much more recently confiscated mineral resources under private citizens land.. at various times.

                     Gold and silver ( under royal perogative from 1568), petroleum from 1937, uranium from 1945 . Coal may belong to the Crown too in certain circumstances.

                     Once Fisheries were there for the taking ..no longer the case.

                     Water is a tricky one
                   • Stuart Munro. …

                     18 September 2019 at 10:00 pm

                     I'm not going in circles at all.

                     As a private entity one may achieve an unjust outcome through law and count it good, but a government that pretends to be more than a band of brigands cannot. (ie not National)

                     A full and final settlement that is not just does not resolve an ancestral grievance, even were it honestly designed.

                     The law is a process to achieve just outcomes in accord with community values. Bureaucratic convenience devices like 'full & final' are not fit for resolving greater issues – they’re really to produce compromises when the limited ability of individuals to repay makes that necessary.
                   • Dukeofurl …

                     19 September 2019 at 7:40 am

                     Thats what the Treaty settlement process was. Redress for past wrongs.

                     As far as the Crown goes, they dont 'act in a moral way' at all- it wasnt the case when an iwi which wasnt in rebellion had the land confiscated and it wasnt again in Christchurch when those who werent insured ( for the house ) only recieved half value of their property when it was declared unsellable being inside a Government declared red zone. ( Since fixed by the new Government) Being screwed over is a far more common Crown attitude mostly to 'save money'

                     Maybe there should be a $50 mill per year , every year fund for the Government to buy land for iwi which had a continuous connection to like at Ihumatao . And that land is important culturally.

                     And that isnt 'relativised' to other previous Treaty claims. But I cant see it getting through those sort of 'whatabout' roadblocks.
                   • Gosman …

                     19 September 2019 at 7:56 am

                     Yes that is why ALL Iwi signed Deeds of Settlement. Now they will know that is not the case if the Government caves in and buys the land
                   • Stuart Munro. …

                     19 September 2019 at 11:26 am

                     "Thats what the Treaty settlement process was. Redress for past wrongs."

                     Is that what it was? I thought it was a figleaf of propriety to get Maori 'elites' to endorse a neoliberal model. It came from the corrupt heart of Rogergnomics, so of course it created a festering canker of discontent that ultimately kept the Gnats in power a little down the road.
       • Dukeofurl 1.1.2.2

         18 September 2019 at 5:32 pm

         Parks and reserves capital spending over next 10 years is around $700 mill. Dont know how much they would have set aside for land purchases.

         However the 'total amount' for Ihumatao is a fraction of the Americas Cup spending. ( Grrr)

         On the other side , the Council does own

         1) The Mountain and Stonefields at Ihumatao ( Its a major Park)

         2) Large Block of land next to Fletchers at Corner of Ihumatao and Oruarangi Rds

         For some reason the The Tupuna Maunga Authority for Auckland doesnt include Ihumatao mountain and Stonefields
         • weka 1.1.2.2.1

           18 September 2019 at 11:30 pm

           The Americas Cup is the one that puts the whole thing in perspective for me. NZ really has some shocking values at times.
   • weka 1.2

     18 September 2019 at 2:19 pm

     When asked about future development, the wahine (sorry I don't know her name) said,

     "The land being returned is for us to determine what happens to it moving forward. What that looks like is up to us to determine, and that's still another step in the process and is a long way away. So what does development actually mean?

     … we've never had the opportunity for ourselves to determine for ourselves what happens at Ihumātao, and that's what this has allowed to happen. Having land returned to mana whenua, allows mana whenua to determine the future of Ihumātao. It allows us to thrive and not just be in constant survival mode."
     • weka 1.2.1

       18 September 2019 at 2:20 pm

       "There are layers of mana whenua here, I can't say who is and who isn't, I can say that we are"
2. Sacha 2

   18 September 2019 at 4:30 pm

   Winston brings the cold water (scroll down): https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/399023/mana-whenua-reach-decision-on-ihumatao-land

   "There would have to be one extraordinarily high benchmark for the government to be involved and hitherto we do not see that benchmark," he said.

   And it looks like the SOUL spokesperson who Weka mentioned hearing was Qiane Matata-Sipu.
   • Formerly Ross 2.1

     18 September 2019 at 5:37 pm

     Winston is being pragmatic. I can recall former PM David Lange saying that under no circumstances would private land be up for negotiation. He was a pragmatist too.

     [Fixed two typos in e-mail. Please be more careful]
   • Dukeofurl 2.2

     18 September 2019 at 5:39 pm

     Qiane is listed as a Spinoff author and of Te Wai-o-hua, Waikato-Tainui

     https://thespinoff.co.nz/author/qiane-matata-sipu/

     No mention of Kawerau a Maki
3. Ad 3

   18 September 2019 at 5:05 pm

   It's a first step in several years of processes.
4. gsays 4

   18 September 2019 at 6:04 pm

   In regards any payment for land, if foreign banks can magic money out of thin air, then so can the local council, the state or local banks.
   • Dukeofurl 4.1

     18 September 2019 at 6:08 pm

     If they have 'magic money' then why do they borrow from depositors, bond markets and so on.

     https://www.interest.co.nz/bonds/101182/asb-borrows-nz600-million-through-five-year-bond-issue-will-pay-investors-interest-just

     Is it magic money or the actual way banks make money , borrow short to lend long.
     • gsays 4.1.1

       18 September 2019 at 7:07 pm

       Fractional reserve banking.

       When banks loan money on a 'promise to pay', not from cash in their vaults, it's like magic.
       • Dukeofurl 4.1.1.1

         19 September 2019 at 8:12 am

         Loans arent 'promises' , the full amount is transferred into your account.

         You maybe thinking of overdrafts where you might have a deal to go to a certain amount 'just in case'

         Why would banks even bother with borrowing from individuals via 'deposits and term investments' PLUS borrowing from bond markets when they can 'magic the money'

         ASB bank for 2018 had income from their lending of $4.1 bill and interest costs of $2.1 bill.
         Deposits were $62 bill, other bonds borrowing was $20 bill

         Like I said they borrow cheaper short-term – which costs them $2.1 bill and lend longer term at higher rates which gets them $4.1 bill.

         Its called Banking. Explain how they pay interest of $2.1 bill to others when they can magic the money.
   • Nic the NZer 4.2

     18 September 2019 at 8:51 pm

     There is one institution in this position, the reserve bank (coupled with treasury) which is wholy part of the government. The difference with others you mention is they have creditors they don't themselves dictate to (eg Auckland council will come under scrutiny if it outspends what central government gives it and doesn't make it up in rates).

     The main take away from the banks create money idea is that bank lending is not constrained by their access to bank reserves. This should imply that giving them more (or more liquid) reserves isn't going to spur bank lending or result in a pick up in inflation (and yes QE and similar central bank policies have performed in this way in practice).
     • Gosman 4.2.1

       19 September 2019 at 8:01 am

       Lol! You think the problem of money being used to buy this land and give it to Maori is to PRINT money do you? How about we just print a lot of billion dollar notes and give one to each Iwi in the country. That woukd solve everything.
       • xanthe 4.2.1.1

         19 September 2019 at 8:52 am

         why not! it worked for wall st
         • Gosman 4.2.1.1.1

           19 September 2019 at 8:53 am

           Do you really think it worked for Wall Street?
           • KJT 4.2.1.1.1.1

             19 September 2019 at 9:26 am

             Of course it did. The failed bankers still got their bonus's!
       • Nic the NZer 4.2.1.2

         19 September 2019 at 1:42 pm

         Your comment makes little sense so i dont really know what your saying. All i am claiming is that the government could pay fletchers for the land and the sums are small enough you wont notice that occuring or be negatively effected by it. It will just happen same as other government spending occurs every day.

         You can claim that there is money printing involved all you like but the main change is to some account entries inside the reserve banks computer systems causing this to occur.
         • Gosman 4.2.1.2.1

           19 September 2019 at 1:45 pm

           There is a potentially HUGE implication if the Government decided to spend 40 million on returning this land to the local Iwi. If this came to fruition it would lead to the government having to shell out hundreds and possibly billions more dollars. Do you not know that?
           • Nic the NZer 4.2.1.2.1.1

             19 September 2019 at 2:19 pm

             You seem to be having a discussion with somebody who claimed the 40 million odd was the big problem here. That wasn't me.

             And apparently there may be additional liabilities created somewhere between $200 and $9000000000? Which seems quite a broad estimate.
5. David Mac 5

   18 September 2019 at 8:42 pm

   It'll be under water in 40 years.
6. David Mac 6

   18 September 2019 at 8:57 pm

   This is a special place for all of us. Like a historic building we only get one chance to take care of these places. This is not a Maori land grab, it's a special spot for all of us.

   Our early history should matter to all of us. If we agree that it does, save this place for all of us.
   • gsays 6.1

     18 September 2019 at 10:17 pm

     A comment from I forget whom, but it stayed with me, that Ihumaatoa is the Aotearoa Stonehenge.
     • Dukeofurl 6.1.1

       19 September 2019 at 7:24 am

       It is . That part is already an Auckland park. The current land in dispute is mostly open paddocks
       • mauī 6.1.1.1

         19 September 2019 at 8:23 am

         Maaori never went into those neighbouring 'paddocks' in 800 years. In fact they were the first to draw up the surveying lines I suppose…. It was their rubbish dump… etc, etc. Insert whatever white wash here.
         • Dukeofurl 6.1.1.1.1

           19 September 2019 at 9:18 am

           The iwi used this block for growing wheat , cropping and cattle at the time of confiscation. Are you saying they werent capapble of using European farming practices?

           Was reading the other day about the pre european growing of kumara,often inside walled gardens it involved single plant mounds, but indroduced varieties gave better yields and different methods.
           • David Mac 6.1.1.1.1.1

             19 September 2019 at 9:53 am

             It's not important because Maori ran cattle on the site.

             It's important because we were living there in the 12th century.
             • Gosman …

               19 September 2019 at 1:48 pm

               So? Lots of parts of the World have been lived on for longer than that and people are allowed to do something with it. There is already a large part that is protected. Your whole argument about protecting the other areas is because someone lived on it a long time ago and that we can.
     • Gosman 6.1.2

       19 September 2019 at 8:03 am

       Have you ever been to Stonehenge? The protected area of standing stones is quite small and is surrounded by farmland.
       • weka 6.1.2.1

         19 September 2019 at 9:22 am

         Nek minit, 460 houses are built around Stonehenge.
         • Dukeofurl 6.1.2.1.1

           19 September 2019 at 9:41 am

           Stonehenge isnt inside a major urban area. Britain has plenty of those historic sites which are inside cities as well.

           The kingitangi statement yeasterday didnt rule out once the land was returned it could be sold or turned into housing.

           The deal with Fletchers allowed for something like 20% of the land closest to the mountain and stonefields becoming iwi control.
           • weka 6.1.2.1.1.1

             19 September 2019 at 9:48 am

             Sure and NZ keeps things in museums, and people can stand right next to those things. Vague comparisons are not really relevant to this discussion.

             What you are arguing is Pākehā values. Which is fine. I just don't understand why they should trump Māori values.
             • Dukeofurl …

               19 September 2019 at 10:47 am

               The iwi had an agreement with Fletchers which appeared to allow for both. Surely they are the ones to say .
               • Molly …

                 19 September 2019 at 10:58 am

                 “Members within an iwi” reached an agreement with Fletchers that they were individually willing to accept. AFAIK, there were others involved at that time that disagreed, but were not afforded equal consideration.

                 This fundamentally illustrates why the use of SHA's to avoid existing RMA processes for required consultation can be reasonably expected to result in blowback.

                 The use of selective choice of representative for any consultative process, can remove the integrity of consultation, while retaining the pretext. This is true, not only for Māori, but other groups as well. Recognising how far some authorities have come from the intent of consultation while improving the look of it, would improve outcomes for all.
                 • Dukeofurl …

                   19 September 2019 at 11:23 am

                   What does that even mean.

                   The SHA mandated that Fletchers have 'low cost housing' which they were prepared to offer for the iwi along with shared equity path to ownership. Returning 20% of the site to the iwi isnt one of the requirements of the SHA.

                   The other night on that Maori TV series on 'The negoiators' they covered one well known woman who was involved in such settlement talks for her iwi and they showed how on the final day when the Minister and the iwi would sign the deed of Settlement, a group of people who had never participated in any of the hui or talks over the previous decade, they blocked any signing.

                   I wouldnt want to tell Maori how and when they should negioate if at all, but its a long consultative process involving many meetings and a signoff occurs when consensus is reached.

                   'Selective representatives' is a normal process but pathway requires broad consensus.

                   That of course can be blocked at the last minute by people who dont participate in the overall process.

                   Thats what happened in Ihumatao , where Pania Newton drove back from Rotorua where she was living and who had never taken part in Kawerau A Maki hui or decisions became spokesperson against the agrred development.

                   Molly, you dont offer any definitive background or information for your claims, which amount to merely 'dont like it' – as though you would ever be asked !
                   • weka …

                     19 September 2019 at 1:11 pm

                     "I wouldnt want to tell Maori how and when they should negioate if at all,.."

                     And yet here you are, apparently saying Kiingi Tūheitia is wrong when he says the agreement reached by mana whenua is that the land should be returned.

                     "…but its a long consultative process involving many meetings and a signoff occurs when consensus is reached."

                     Or a signoff occurs without consensus. Or a signoff happens because the people want to cut their losses and/or think this is the best they can get despite it not being just. You're missing significant aspects here, including that the Crown dictated both the settlement process and who could be legally an Iwi in that process.

                     Thats what happened in Ihumatao , where Pania Newton drove back from Rotorua where she was living and who had never taken part in Kawerau A Maki hui or decisions became spokesperson against the agrred development.

                     I'd like to see your source for that. To make sure it is true, and then to examine it in context.

                     My understanding is that 6 cousins formed SOUL, and they whakapapa in different ways. Most recent source for that is in the RNZ piece, but it's been a clear narrative for the past two months.

                     https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018713927/soul-spokesperson-qiane-matata-sipu-says-winston-wrong-on-ihumatao
                   • Gosman …

                     19 September 2019 at 1:43 pm

                     There may be a good reason why it is in interest for Tainui to back getting the land back. Do you know what that might be Weka?
                   • Molly …

                     20 September 2019 at 7:39 pm

                     I have been involved with a community planning programme that undertook considerable consultation with many members of the community, and documented all feedback, over a period of two years. We used multiple methods of communication, and gave everyone many updates and ways of contributing.

                     Despite this, against hundreds of registered contact, council representatives chose to listen to the minority of very vocal locals who are part of the longterm network. A verified percentage of 4%, who didn't undertake any information gathering, discussion with other residents or consideration of long term community benefits. As our local board members are fond of saying, "If we listened to the community, we would never get anything done".

                     I was part of a community planning network, and although we were a community fighting against a long established old boys network, we were not the only ones. We were very careful to document, but even that means nothing if personal views and relationships take precedence.

                     The SHA was a mechanism that was legal, but it was always flawed.

                     I looked at purchasing a section in Ihumatao, about twenty years ago, and another friend purchased the same section around two years later. They have been involved with previous discussions with Manukau District Council, and have invested a lot of their own resources (time and money) with bringing this matter to the attention of council, and other iwi.

                     I have had considerable contact with Auckland Council during consultation with the Unitary Plan, both as a representative of a community and as an individual. From my own experience, the attention given to feedback is filtered, both by the local boards, and in terms of framework, directed towards certain outcomes.

                     For that reason, I think it is naiive to assume that Auckland Council have acted with integrity on this issue.
             • Formerly Ross …

               19 September 2019 at 5:38 pm

               Weka,

               What are Māori values? Of course, the government makes decisions for all NZers, not for a minority of NZers.
               • weka …

                 19 September 2019 at 6:21 pm

                 Do you see a difference between how many Pākehā think about Ihumātao, and how mana whenua do?
7. Formerly Ross 7

   19 September 2019 at 7:19 am

   Maori assets are worth in excess of $40 billion. Land that's worth about $40 million equals about one-tenth of one percent of the value of those assets.

   If Ihumatao means so much to so many Maori, the answer is obvious. Maori have the ability to buy the land. Receiving it as a gift from the Government would be disheartening, disempowering and would smack of tokenism. Surely Maori have had enough tokenism from Pakeha.

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12224193
   • mauī 7.1

     19 September 2019 at 8:10 am

     Yeah and maybe the government can setup a givealittle page for the land buyback… 😆
     • Gosman 7.1.1

       19 September 2019 at 8:53 am

       Or Iwi could set up a givealittle page on their own.
   • michelle 7.2

     19 September 2019 at 11:09 am

     So you formely ross want us to buy our own land back taken because we wouldn't swear an allegience to Queen Victoria this sounds rather sick to me. Waikato people were punished for not allowing their men to go to the war yet they had good reason land confiscation was why and then when our men that did go got back they were treated like second class citizens with land, benefits, housing all went to pakeha so much for being a fair country and all of us having equal opportunities this is all bullshit
     • Formerly Ross 7.2.1

       19 September 2019 at 12:56 pm

       So you formely ross want us to buy our own land back

       You have not shown that it is your land. But you are welcome to provide creative solutions to ensure Fletchers are no worse off, bearing in mind that any solution should not rely on disempowering Maori.
8. David Mac 8

   19 September 2019 at 8:29 am

   Great news, our government have seen fit to spend 4.5 million dollars on purchasing the house Kate Sheppard lived in for some time. I don't understand why the same reasoning that facilitated that purchase doesn't apply at Ihumātao.

   ….maybe if Hone Heke was white and lived at Ihumātao for a few years.

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12268896
   • Formerly Ross 8.1

     19 September 2019 at 8:42 am

     Kate Sheppard house will be owned by the Crown so that anyone, including Maori, can visit. The Crown could subsequently sell the property and realise any gain from the sale. I guess the Government could do the same with Ihumātao.

     By the way, today marks the 126th anniversary of women winning the right to vote in New Zealand.
     • David Mac 8.1.1

       19 September 2019 at 8:53 am

       Just as Fletchers have attempted to do, if Tainui buy the site they would be well within their rights to fence it off, do as they like with it and regulate access. We need to be finding ways to unite us, not hammering in wedges.

       Yes, as you say Crown ownership would provide access to all, including pakeha. Yes, if circumstances change in the future, the Crown could sell the site. It's not many feet above the Manukau Harbour, the Crown may well be marketing it as a potential marina site in 50 years.
       • Gosman 8.1.1.1

         19 September 2019 at 8:55 am

         I have no problem if Tainui buy the site and do that. You can't just rock up to Stonehenge and have a look around.
         • weka 8.1.1.1.1

           19 September 2019 at 9:42 am

           Stonehenge is owned by the Crown. What you appear to be saying is that if Māori want to protect their important sites and history they have to fund it themselves, but Pākehā can have the government fund the sites and history important to Pākehā.
         • michelle 8.1.1.1.2

           19 September 2019 at 11:11 am

           you have no problem us buying our confiscated land back gosman
           • Gosman 8.1.1.1.2.1

             19 September 2019 at 1:35 pm

             That is correct. The legally confiscated land.
             • Psycho Milt …

               19 September 2019 at 1:54 pm

               "Legally" confiscated indeed. Mind you, "legally" often doesn't mean much:

               Between 1933 and 1945 the Reich's Courts sentenced at least 72 German juveniles to death, among them 17-year-old Helmuth Hübener, found guilty of high treason for distributing anti-war leaflets in 1942.

               "Legally" executed children, for example.
               • weka …

                 19 September 2019 at 3:45 pm

                 Silly them, should have just taken the Nazis to court to sort that out.
                 • Gosman …

                   19 September 2019 at 4:42 pm

                   Are you comparing the NZ justice system to the Nazi justice system?
                   • weka …

                     19 September 2019 at 4:50 pm

                     No, I'm ridiculing your idea that Māori should have taken the NZ government to court and argued they weren't rebels in order to get their land back, as if them actively trying for 200 years to get legal redress hadn't happened.
                   • Gosman …

                     19 September 2019 at 5:12 pm

                     The NZ legal system HAS provided Maori with redress over ownership rights. Remember the Foreshore and Seabed debate.
                   • weka …

                     19 September 2019 at 5:17 pm

                     Not sure what you mean there Gosman. The Foreshore and Seabed Act stole land from Māori and removed their rights to legal action.

                     But sure, there have been some redresses, in a limited way.
                   • Gosman …

                     19 September 2019 at 5:19 pm

                     I did not mention the Act. I mentioned the debate. What was the catalyst for the Act being pushed through in to law?
                   • weka …

                     19 September 2019 at 5:27 pm

                     Some Pākehā fearmongering that Māori were going to lock up the beaches if they weren't stopped.

                     I’m curious where you are going with this. You do realise that Clark passed the Act to *remove Māori legal rights?
                   • Gosman []

                     19 September 2019 at 7:56 pm

                     Yes and that was wrong (but still legal)
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 September 2019 at 6:34 pm

                     Are you comparing the NZ justice system to the Nazi justice system?

                     Nope, just using a handy example to demonstrate that "legal" is no indicator of merit.
               • Formerly Ross …

                 19 September 2019 at 5:54 pm

                 Germany ain’t a great example. After World War I, Germany “forfeited 13 percent of its European territory (more than 27,000 square miles) and one-tenth of its population (between 6.5 and 7 million people).” That can happen when you lose a war. 🙂

                 https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/map/german-territorial-losses-treaty-of-versailles-1919
             • michelle …

               20 September 2019 at 12:47 pm

               legally confiscated under two acts created primarily to take our land the settlement act and the rebellious act because our coloniser could not win the war with guns so they used the pen stop making excuses gosman
   • Gosman 8.2

     19 September 2019 at 8:51 am

     Do you want the government to purchase it and keep it in State hands like they are doing with Kate Sheppard's old house?

     I would object if the State purchased the house and gave it back to Kate Sheppard’s family.
     • David Mac 8.2.1

       19 September 2019 at 8:56 am

       It's an important historic site to anyone that has an interest in pre European NZ. I don't think this is a Brown/Euro thing but that's the engine room for the friction.
       • Gosman 8.2.1.1

         19 September 2019 at 9:03 am

         The part that is of interest is already protected. The rest of it has been part of a working farm for over a hundred years.
         • David Mac 8.2.1.1.1

           19 September 2019 at 9:09 am

           Visualise Stonehenge surrounded by 100's of squeezed in McMansions. Yes, it is surrounded by open fields, what a great idea, we should do the same. Plane Spotters Park.

           We are so close to agreement Gos.
           • Dukeofurl 8.2.1.1.1.1

             19 September 2019 at 9:25 am

             Best you go there David ..its no plane spotters park
             • David Mac …

               19 September 2019 at 9:35 am

               Ahh ok, it looks just round the coast from Mangere airport
         • David Mac 8.2.1.1.2

           19 September 2019 at 9:10 am

           Oh! your comment that I was responding to disappeared!
       • Dukeofurl 8.2.1.2

         19 September 2019 at 9:12 am

         David you can find out about the Mountain and otautaua-stonefields here

         https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/arts-culture-heritage/heritage-walks-places/Documents/otautaua-stonefields-historic-reserve-brochure.pdf
         • David Mac 8.2.1.2.1

           19 September 2019 at 9:34 am

           Thanks Duke, interesting as it is, I get the feeling you have provided me with this link because of some perceived gap in my knowledge of the place. I haven't walked it, I Google maps zoomed in and out. Viewed the site from the major roads, flown over it. For me the gems in that brochure are paragraphs like…

           "The Otuataua Stonefields and the surrounding areas have been occupied and cultivated since the earliest days of settlement in the region. A recent carbon age estimate for shell midden from an archaeological site on nearby Puketutu Island dates to the 12th century; this is currently one of the earliest dates for human occupation in Aotearoa (New Zealand)."

           We get one chance to look after places like this. Those 10 kms of Southern Motorway before the Bombay Hills, 1000's of acres suitable for building and laying rails.
           • Dukeofurl 8.2.1.2.1.1

             19 September 2019 at 10:44 am

             Specific Archeological sites that arent previously known about are protected in anycase during a development process , but in this area the whole historic stonefields are in a reserve and wont be built on.

             Its not always common but this is an instance of historically important sites being saved and housing can both occur because they arent together. Raising this as still an issue , when its all about the return of the open fields, just confuses people.
       • michelle 8.2.1.3

         19 September 2019 at 11:15 am

         it actually is brown/ euro thing if you look at whose historical sites have been protected and whose haven't
         • Gosman 8.2.1.3.1

           19 September 2019 at 4:46 pm

           The Stonefields sites HAVE been protected. The paddocks that may or may not have been used in other types of agriculture haven't been.

           Can you find me some land that was used for agricultural purposes by NZ Europeans which is protected on the same scale as as Ihumaatao?
           • arkie 8.2.1.3.1.1

             19 September 2019 at 5:03 pm

             Molesworth Station for one.

             What is a pastoral lease if not Govt protection of European agricultural purposes?

             More than 2 million hectares of high country owned by the Crown have been leased to farmers, who have exclusive and perpetual rights to that land and have farmed it for 150 years.

             Tenure review, a voluntary process under Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998, enables leasehold land capable of sustaining a range of commercial uses to be freeholded.

             At the same time, areas with important inherent values – conservation, historic, landscape, cultural, recreation and public access – can be restored to Crown ownership as public conservation land.

             – Mathew Clark, NZ Herald, 26 Aug 2006
             • Gosman …

               19 September 2019 at 5:11 pm

               LOL! Are you claiming Pastoral leases are there to protect the land for historical purposes?
               • arkie …

                 19 September 2019 at 5:20 pm

                 No I found you some land that was used for agricultural purposes by NZ Europeans which is protected on an even larger scale than Ihumaatao.

                 Then I quoted a tenure review expert pointing out a method through the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 that Crown pastoral land can be freeholded or alternatively restored to Crown ownership as public land. This is an example of protections of NZ european farming concerns.

                 You chose to ignore my points to quibble about a claim of your own imagining. Strawman.
                 • Gosman …

                   19 September 2019 at 5:28 pm

                   There is no cultural basis behind pastoral leases and they are not protected for historical reasons. You may as well claim National parks were set up to protect land for NZ Europeans.
           • weka 8.2.1.3.1.2

             19 September 2019 at 5:08 pm

             Not Europeans, but this Chinese market garden site has been protected,

             https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/114079392/heritage-protection-for-ashburton-chinese-market-garden
             • Gosman …

               19 September 2019 at 5:09 pm

               The buildings have been protected. Not the ground on it's own.
               • weka …

                 19 September 2019 at 5:28 pm

                 What's your point?
                 • Gosman …

                   19 September 2019 at 5:30 pm

                   My point is the equivalent of the buildings have been protected at Ihumaatao. It is the surrounding land that you are trying to argue is somehow culturally significant. Your example does not equate to that.
               • mauī …

                 19 September 2019 at 6:37 pm

                 The buildings have been protected. Not the ground on it's own.

                 From the article:

                 "The buildings are already protected under the council district plan, but from today, the whole site will get protection and any earthworks or proposals to develop the land will require permission from us along with the land owners."

                 So the ground has been protected.
                 • Gosman …

                   19 September 2019 at 8:01 pm

                   So if it is already protected what is the problem?
           • David Mac 8.2.1.3.1.3

             19 September 2019 at 7:10 pm

             All of the NZ land farmed by Europeans in the 12th century is protected. If there was such a place we'd be moving the Beehive to the sacred site.
9. Pat 9

   19 September 2019 at 10:11 am

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018713926/winston-peters-getting-involved-in-ihumatao-may-not-be-in-the-national-interest

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018713927/soul-spokesperson-qiane-matata-sipu-says-winston-wrong-on-ihumatao

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018713938/maori-news-correspondent-leigh-marama-mclachlan-on-ihumatao

   good luck sorting that can of worms
10. David Mac 10

    19 September 2019 at 11:45 am

    We were living there during the European Middle Ages. King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table times. I think that's significant beyond the already protected stonefields. A significance that should have little to do with the colour of our skin.
    • Dukeofurl 10.1

      19 September 2019 at 12:14 pm

      What historical significance does a paddock which over some long time has used for growing vegetables, crops and more recently cows have. Its not what is called hsirorically significant.

      You are just repeating claims for the stonefields which are protected with the paddocks which arent

      believe me when you go there you will know the difference. Google maps shouldnt be the basis to claim historically significance.
      • David Mac 10.1.1

        19 September 2019 at 12:23 pm

        I can zoom right in or out via an aerial photo.

        I don't think me walking the site is at the core of our bone of contention Duke. I'm of the opinion 'Wow, people tilled the soil here when Robin Hood was operational." and you're of the opinion 'So what?'
        • Gosman 10.1.1.1

          19 September 2019 at 4:43 pm

          Yeah. People tilled the soil in lots of places that are now covered with buildings of all sorts. Why are these fields any more special than those lands?
          • mauī 10.1.1.1.1

            19 September 2019 at 6:42 pm

            So you haven't been following this issue at all… and now you've decided it's just some random fields being fought over.
          • David Mac 10.1.1.1.2

            19 September 2019 at 7:18 pm

            Not in NZ they didn't. 12th century is about as far back as human records go here. We are the newest land mass on Earth and the last to be occupied. 12th century is nothing to an indigenous Australian, a tick of the clock on their timeline. For us, it is the beginning of people here.

            I appreciate that many might have a 'So what?' view of the issue. Many don't.
11. Formerly Ross 11

    20 September 2019 at 8:35 am

    The law was changed in 1993 so that the Waitangi Tribunal could not recommend that private land be confiscated by the Crown or returned to Maori. What are the benefits of that law?

    https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Te-Manutukutuku-Issue-23.pdf

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS