Protect Ihumātao hīkoi to Jacinda Ardern today

Written By: - Date published: 11:09 am, August 22nd, 2019 - 55 comments
Categories: jacinda ardern, Maori Issues - Tags: ,

Sign the petition here. Protect Ihumātao hope to get the number of signatures to 30,000 by the end of the hīkoi today.

FB Video of the start of the Ihumātao hīkoi this morning,

 



Other FB livestreams on the Protect Ihumātao FB page.

RadioNZ report,

Live: Ihumātao – Hīkoi to deliver petition to Jacinda Ardern’s office begins

Around 100 people have begun the hīkoi to the Prime Minister’s electorate office over Ihumātao, asking her to visit the site.

They’ll deliver a petition, signed by more than 22,000 people, urging Jacinda Ardern to travel to Ihumātao to experience the whenua – the land – herself.

The petition says without a personal visit they don’t think the prime minister has a true sense of why the land matters so much and what’s at stake if it’s lost.

RadioNZ have live updates here.

Newshub interview with Pania Newton,

Ihumātao protest leader Pania Newton says a “unique process” will be required to return the land to its rightful owners, as it “isn’t a Treaty issue”.

 

Photo RadioNZ

55 comments on “Protect Ihumātao hīkoi to Jacinda Ardern today ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. Robert Guyton 2
    22 August 2019 at 11:31 am

    I've always thought the word was "hikoi", not "hīkoi".

    It's curious that "hike" is so similar.

  3. Sanctuary 3
    22 August 2019 at 11:39 am

    Getting a bit desperate for publicity I see.

    • Wensleydale 3.1
      22 August 2019 at 12:15 pm

      This is a rare instance when I agree with you. If Jacinda's not even going to be at her electorate office, all they're really doing is posing a traffic hazard and annoying Auckland commuters. They get to be on the telly this evening, which is useful in keeping their cause in the media spotlight, but other than that… seems a bit pointless.

      And the weather in Auckland is shit.

      • bwaghorn 3.1.1
        22 August 2019 at 3:21 pm

        Why do you think they planned for when Arden is away??

        Accident or not wanting to put her on the spot or trying to embarrass her into visiting?

  4. Dukeofurl 4
    22 August 2019 at 12:07 pm

    Ihumātao protest leader Pania Newton says a “unique process” will be required to return the land to its rightful owners, as it “isn’t a Treaty issue.

    Yes it is. Otherwise the rightful owners before Kawerau a maki 'took it', Waiohua ( Te Akitai Waiohua and Ti Ata Waiohua would want a say in that.)

    The Treaty claim process put a line in the sand at 1840 and would only consider

    • weka 4.1
      22 August 2019 at 12:28 pm

      I tidied up the quote there, but can't do anything about the nonsensical grammar.

    • mauī 4.2
      22 August 2019 at 12:43 pm

      This issue has been going on for many years, Waiohua has had plenty of time to voice an opinion on it, and for all we know they could have already worked alongside Kawerau a maki people on what should happen with the land anyway.

      • Dukeofurl 4.2.1
        22 August 2019 at 1:34 pm

        I wasnt aware of them at all until told about it by members of the iwi- you will see their name on sites all over the isthmus when you know what it means. In this area the sub iwi remaining at at Pukaki and Waiuku. Kawerau a Maki are predominately a Waitakere ranges iwi

        The Treaty claim process drew a line at 1840, so loss of land before that isnt under consideration. …unless Newton wants to move the boundaries…and not just to suit her purposes.
        The Waiohua claim to the area of the Isthmus and South is not disputed and mentioned in the Manukau treaty report and the later “arrival” of the Ngati Whatua.
        https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68495207/The%20Manukau%20Report%201985.pdf

        Have you read any of it Maui?

  5. mauī 5
    22 August 2019 at 12:22 pm

    The neoliberal Labour have washed their hands of this issue. Their leadership is little better than Macron, who sent in the force of the state and continued to ignore national issues only for the problem to get much, much worse.

    • Formerly Ross 5.1
      22 August 2019 at 1:04 pm

      When Oranga Tamariki uplifted a child, Maori said that the Government should keep its hands off our tamariki. In other words, Maori could and should solve the issue. But here the Government is being asked to resolve the problem. That seems to be rather patronising. Surely Maori are capable of doing the resolving?

      • Dukeofurl 5.1.1
        22 August 2019 at 1:21 pm

        Tania Newton lives and speaks in an alternate reality world.

        • JohnP 5.1.1.1
          22 August 2019 at 1:42 pm

          Probably because she's called Pania.

        • marty mars 5.1.1.2
          22 August 2019 at 1:49 pm

          I doubt your puny mana could stand up to hers – you would have said that about Eva Rickard and Dame Whina Cooper too wouldn't you?

          • Dukeofurl 5.1.1.2.1
            22 August 2019 at 2:12 pm

            Im only reflecting what iwi leaders with considerable mana have been saying about her -in print and on Marae TV show.

            They question her whakapapa, and her truthfulness – 'bed of lies' was the term used. Why would they say this. Shes clearly no Whina Cooper or Eva Rickard.

            Otherwise its not my place to have a view on that at all as a pakeha.

            How about giving your whakapapa marty so can can see whether its your place to make comment ?

            • michelle 5.1.1.2.1.1
              22 August 2019 at 2:44 pm

              what Maori leaders with considerable mana name them and we can decide who has mana who are they to question her whakapapa

            • marty mars 5.1.1.2.1.2
              22 August 2019 at 3:02 pm

              lol – you wouldn’t understand it buddy – as usual you can’t argue you just try to diminish the person – Pania is an example – you are ridiculed because of YOUR ARGUMENT not your ethnicity.

              • Dukeofurl …
                22 August 2019 at 5:35 pm

                So after you raised it -" doubt your puny mana could stand up to hers"- its no longer about that.

                Going off script already. You would be popular at Ihumatao…. you you been yet?
                Not read the Tribunal Manukau report either….

                • marty mars …
                  22 August 2019 at 5:43 pm

                  yeah it's not about my mana. You are the one dissing her – vested interests? – she standing in the way of you making some money? – I don't care why you do it – I'll just call it when I see it. Argue against her points not against her as a person please.

                  No I haven't been out there in person – different island and when I lived up there I was in Milford, Muriwai and Waimauku so not out that way. Sounds nice by the descriptions of the land protectors – I will visit when next up there – may be a long time because I refuse to fly.

      • weka 5.1.2
        22 August 2019 at 1:53 pm

        "When Oranga Tamariki uplifted a child, Maori said that the Government should keep its hands off our tamariki. In other words, Maori could and should solve the issue. But here the Government is being asked to resolve the problem. That seems to be rather patronising. Surely Maori are capable of doing the resolving?"

        Are you suggesting that Iwi be allowed to set up their own states within NZ? At the moment Māori are constrained by law imposed by the Crown. Can't see how they can do much about that, hence needing the Crown's involvement.

        • Formerly Ross 5.1.2.1
          22 August 2019 at 5:46 pm

          Weka

          I’m not sure of the relevance of your question but you seem to be saying that Maori are incapable of resolving the issue without Government intervention. Why not simply say that at the outset? Personally I’m not sure that the Government unilaterally deciding the issue would go down well with Maori.

          • weka 5.1.2.1.1
            22 August 2019 at 7:04 pm

            It's not that Māori are incapable, it's that it's not possible for anyone to resolve this without the Crown being involved. There are laws that have blocked Iwi from resolving the issue, that's on the Crown and local authorities.

            That doesn't mean the Crown should unilaterally decide what should happen, and I'm not sure they have the power to do that easily anyway.

            • Formerly Ross 5.1.2.1.1.1
              22 August 2019 at 10:41 pm

              What laws are you talking about?

              • weka …
                22 August 2019 at 10:54 pm

                off the top of my head, the laws that prohibited the land from being included in Treaty settlements, that allowed the land to be rezoned so it could be sold, and that allowed the SHA to be created. There are some other ones around the environment court and how heritage sites are managed, as well as the original legislation in the 1800s that enabled the land to be taken and gifted to the Wallaces (I assume there were laws that enabled that). I don't have the details on all that, but it's not hard to find if you look. There have been a number of timelines published, as well as more indepth articles talking about these issues.

                • Formerly Ross …
                  23 August 2019 at 4:37 pm

                  I have seen timelines but they are not at all helpful. For example there is no mention of whether a claim was made by the local iwi to the Waitangi Tribunal. Was a claim made prior to September 2008? If a claim wasn’t made, those wanting Government intervention need to explain why that should happen and why a claim was not made to the Waitangi Tribunal.

                  • weka …
                    23 August 2019 at 4:45 pm

                    as far as I know private land is excluded from Treaty claims, and the land in question has been in private ownership since the 1800s.

                    • Formerly Ross …
                      23 August 2019 at 7:32 pm

                      That begs the question of why Maori should be gifted private land if the Waitangi Tribunal wouldn't have a bar of it. More importantly, how many other bits of private land could be the subject of a claim?

                      “Land that is privately owned is generally not available for use in Treaty settlements, but claimants can make their own arrangements with the owners if both parties agree. The Crown does not get involved in matters related to private land.”

                      https://www.linz.govt.nz/crown-property/types-crown-property/treaty-settlements-landbank-and-protection-mechanism

                    • weka …
                      23 August 2019 at 8:35 pm

                      I don't think anyone is suggesting that Fletchers gift the land to Iwi or SOUL (although I have thought this myself). The idea is that the Crown buys the land, which means it's no longer private. What would happen then would depend on what was negotiated, but creating protected reserve that is managed by local Iwi seems like one of the options.

                      Given the whole site that includes the SHA is of national significance in multiple ways, it seems like a reasonable outcome. The twenty odd million is something the government can afford when we compare it to something like the $ put into the Americas Cup.

                      The Ihumātao landscape (of which the land in question, Special Housing Area 62, is a part) is recorded on the United Nations International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) at risk register. This rare cultural heritage landscape (including SHA 62) matters because its stories, relationships, built heritage, ecological values and archaeological sites are critical to our understanding of the histories and futures of our city and country.

                      For mana whenua (local Māori), this place embodies sources of identity and wellbeing as well as family, community and tribal relationships.

                      https://www.protectihumatao.com/

                      "More importantly, how many other bits of private land could be the subject of a claim?"

                      I'm fairly sure this is one reason the govt is holding back. But not all private land was subject to confiscation. There are justice issues here that have never been resolved, despite Treaty processes. They're not going to go away, and yes there will be other cases.

                      I hope this makes local authorities and developers think twice about what they are doing. Auckland Council should never had changed the zoning on that land allowing this kind of sale, and the SHA should never have been established there. Fletchers should never have bought it knowing there were issues.

                      Beyond that, the sooner NZ gets to grips with Māori as in partnership with the Crown, the better it will be for all of us. The Treaty process itself was imposed on Māori, and then later the full and final settlement part of it. At that time, there was discussion about how that wouldn't work. This is what we are seeing at play now.

                    • Formerly Ross …
                      24 August 2019 at 8:59 am

                      The idea is that the Crown buys the land, which means it's no longer private.

                      Or Maori could buy the land if it is of such significance. If they have no desire to buy the land, perhaps its significance has been overstated.

                      the sooner NZ gets to grips with Māori as in partnership with the Crown, the better it will be for all of us.

                      Of course that works both ways. A partnershis isn't really a partnership if one party, and one party only, tries to publicly undermine the other party and has expectations which aren't realistic. A partnership works best when both parties act like grown ups and act in good faith. From all accounts Fletchers have acted in good faith.

                    • Sacha …
                      24 August 2019 at 9:33 am

                      Or Maori could buy the land if it is of such significance. If they have no desire to buy the land, perhaps its significance has been overstated.

                      Oh Ross. Not buying something does not mean you do not want it – usually, it means you do not have enough money.

                      A partnership works best when both parties act like grown ups and act in good faith. From all accounts Fletchers have acted in good faith.

                      I agree Fletchers has behaved appropriately as a business under the regulations in place at the time. The treaty partnership is between Māori and the Crown (representing all New Zealanders including Māori). Businesses do not come into it. Red herring.

                    • Formerly Ross …
                      24 August 2019 at 10:14 am

                      Not buying something does not mean you do not want it – usually, it means you do not have enough money.

                      Banks can often help if you don't have enough money. But in this case, the land possibly isn't worth much – maybe $50 million. Treaty settlements currently exceed $2 billion. Assets owned by Maori are valued at in excess of $40 billion. Going to the bank possibly isn't needed here.

                      I agree Fletchers has behaved appropriately as a business under the regulations in place at the time.

                      Awesome, so Fletchers shouldn't be penalised. If they wish to build, which presumably they have a legal right to, they should be able to do so.

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

  6. marty mars 6
    22 August 2019 at 1:40 pm

    Thanks for the post.

    Good stuff – showing how change occurs – the mana is obvious and the challenge is going to be hard to ignore. Lots of aroha – this is big and not going away no matter what some wish for.

  7. michelle 7
    22 August 2019 at 2:46 pm

    Yes marty mars i have been sending emails to Labour Ministers telling them they better fix OT & Ihumatao or else they will lose all the Maori seats and the next election

  8. Anaru 8
    22 August 2019 at 3:15 pm

    We hear some Māori voices amplified and other also Māori voices are drowned .. Why did they not buy the land when it was for sale?

    • Ad 8.1
      22 August 2019 at 5:49 pm

      Tainui buying the land direct from Fletchers is the cleanest option out there.

      • Barfly 8.1.1
        22 August 2019 at 6:34 pm

        Snowballs chance in hell there Ad IMO

        I believe Iwi are waiting and hoping for a government action that will allow Iwi collectively to make additional claims re "parity" on Waitangi treaty settlements so they can collect a few hundred million dollars extra. So no I don't believe there will be an Iwi "white knight" racing to resolve this.

        I don't think that the government will be moving this way. If they did…well…. it's an enormous pile of "juicy raw meat" for the National Party to help them win in 2020.

        I think so much of this whole situation is misguided bullshit.

        I have seen pictures of protestors signs with (paraphrasing) "burial grounds cemetery sacred land etc" but the a spokesman for the maori who negotiated the deal with Fletcher's stated "the land was declared "wahi tapu" because it was confiscated not because it was a frickin cemetery.

        Pania Newton appears happy for local maori who would have benefitted by 40 houses for their families to miss out.

        So I ask what is her goal? I don't know. The land in question has been farmed for the last 150 odd years. I suspect, but do not know, that the goal is for the land to sit there unused in any way.

        /SIGH

        • weka 8.1.1.1
          22 August 2019 at 7:02 pm

          Even by Pākehā standards, it's an incredibly important piece of land archaeologically. Yes, there are burial caves in the area, and I understood there to be graves in the ground across the general site to.

          Have a read of Protect Ihumātao's website to see what SOUL want to have happen.

          • Barfly 8.1.1.1.1
            22 August 2019 at 7:54 pm

            "Even by Pākehā standards"…..really? Your happy to say that?

            " Yes, there are burial caves in the area, and I understood there to be graves in the ground across the general site to."

            Wasn't this area farmed by maori prior to confiscation(yes I agree the confiscation was shitty and wrong)

            "The volcanic cone of Ōtuataua is sited within the Ōtuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve and as the dominant landscape feature, lends the 100 hectare"

            100hectares is not enough? It's really necessary to ensure local maori miss out on housing for 40 families? And Auckland is denied 440 additional houses for families?

            "These aspirations range from a mana whenua-led research, visitor and education centre, a food forest, a working farm, guided walkways, cultural experiences, and, open green space. "

            Marvelous aspirations(I note no mention of burial sites in these desires)…so who is paying? Tainui with their $1.22 billion dollars of assets? You said (maybe) "Iwi couldn't afford it at the time" with $1.22 billion in assets really? do you want to stand by that comment?

            "the Wallaces chose who they wanted to sell too" FFS are you suggesting the sellers were racists?

            Meh…I'm really unhappy about this 9 years of National stuffing over the poor and disadvantaged in New Zealand (yeah mainly brown ..but also white – of which I am one)…we finally have a government slowly dragging the "Overton window" to the left , but we have a "cause du jour" to assist National to try to resume their born to rule torture.

            Bah…I m going to have many beers right now hopefully after enough of them I will stop fukking caring

            • weka 8.1.1.1.1.1
              22 August 2019 at 8:04 pm

              "FFS are you suggesting the sellers were racists?"

              No, I'm suggesting that like some others they may have wanted certain things for the land they'd lived on for so long eg to see it developed. Not even suggesting really, just using my imagination to understand why it might not have been possible for Iwi to buy the land.

              I wasn't thinking of Tainui, I was thinking of Te Kawarau a Maki. I don't know what assets local Iwi had at that time. Again, I was saying it's not hard to imagine reasons why a purchase wasn't possible.

              Re the site, as an archaeologist has commented, we wouldn't put a housing development next to Stonehenge.

              It's an area of land with a long and complex history including how Māori have lived on it. I don't see how this invalidates SOUL's position.

              • Barfly …
                22 August 2019 at 8:26 pm

                "we wouldn't put a housing development next to Stonehenge."

                There's a 100 hectare protected site adjacent…but the 32 hectares for housing is "wrong"? but

                "These aspirations range from a mana whenua-led research, visitor and education centre, a food forest, a working farm, guided walkways, cultural experiences, and, open green space. " is right?

                That's it from me I know you will comment again…you always ensure you have the "last word " good night.

                • weka …
                  22 August 2019 at 10:31 pm

                  If you can't see the difference between a commercial housing development created by big business for shareholder profit, and community based, Iwi/Hapū-led management of their own land, I can't help you.

      • Muttonbird 8.1.2
        22 August 2019 at 6:58 pm

        It is absurd that Maori should have to buy back land which was stolen from them. I'd like to see you go down the pub and happily shell out for your stolen skill-saw.

      • michelle 8.1.3
        23 August 2019 at 9:55 am

        Why should Tainui have to buy their own land back people seem to be forgetting the part the crown played in this and how the crown has benefited from our confiscated land and racist policies like the rebellious act, the settlements act, the discharged soldiers settlement act all benefited pakeha families. And we received pepper corn payments, and we are stuck with those nasty perpetual leases. The other issue relates to cultural heritage and who values what and what has more value and why. In my view this shows a breach of the treaty on protecting our land and taonga etc it is in article two of the treaty taking the English version it confirms and guaranteed to the chiefs 'exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, forest, fisheries and other properties … basically none of this has been adhered to. So for people to say it has nothing to do with the crown when it does they have an obligation to protect our culture and our heritage but they haven't yet they can cough up 12.5 million to protect privately owned heritage buildings using our taxes now something is wrong here and we need to have a good fight for this other wise we might as well rollover and drop dead.

        • weka 8.1.3.1
          23 August 2019 at 10:14 am

          This.

          The government is afraid of racist voters, but I’m sure some MPs also think they know what’s fair. The sooner lefties get on board with what justice means for the people directly affected, the easier it will get for everyone.

    • weka 8.2
      22 August 2019 at 6:50 pm

      "Why did they not buy the land when it was for sale?"

      I don't know, but it's not hard to think of possible reasons. Iwi couldn't afford it at the time, Fletchers out bid them, the Wallaces chose who they wanted to sell too.

  9. Ad 9
    22 August 2019 at 5:58 pm

    Making your electoral staff take in a 26,000 signature petition in front of the TV1 news cameras is a pretty shitty thing to make your lowly-paid electoral staff do.

    At some point Ardern needs to make a useful move over Ihumatao or she is just going to diminish her effectiveness by the day.

    • Muttonbird 9.1
      22 August 2019 at 6:45 pm

      I thought this Ihumatao thing was just an irrelevancy to you. You should be happy that the PM is not engaging.

    • weka 9.2
      22 August 2019 at 6:49 pm

      I thought that was odd. They looked a bit intimidated with the haka too. Having an MP there, one who has been to Ihumātao, would have made more sense.

  10. Ankerrawshark) 10
    22 August 2019 at 10:00 pm

    It seems like the protesters are trying to pressure the PM into the outcome they want. It isn’t what all Maori want. Some local Maori were happy to enter in to the deal with fletchers. Isn’t their view equally valid? I know if I was local and I thought their was an opportunity to get into a home on this land I would be gutted with the hold up. The solution was a pragmatic way forward for local Maori that involved the handing back of some small amount of land.

    This issue could lose the govt the next election. Enjoy having Simons approach to the issue.

    • weka 10.1
      22 August 2019 at 10:29 pm

      what's the nature of the housing deal?

    • marty mars 10.2
      22 August 2019 at 10:47 pm

      It can also be okay to allow the process to continue so that an even better solution can be found. This seems to be the approach the Kīngitanga have facilitated and that the parties are working under.

  11. Ankerrawshark) 11
    22 August 2019 at 10:42 pm

    My understanding is that fletchers will build 40 houses for local Maori on a rent to buy scheme. But correct me if I am wrong about this.