Submission to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga — Upgrading List № 6055 Ōtuataua Stonefields, Auckland to Category 1
In general, I support the increase in heritage listing (#6055) from category 2 to category 1 and the recognition of the outstanding and nationally significant heritage landscape of Ihumātao / Te Ihu o Mataoho. I support the inclusion of Lots 1–2 DP 481169 (RT 674557), otherwise known as the Puketaapapa Block or Wallace Block. I support the full increased extent as proposed in the notification however I note that while this is appropriate for a listing through the eurocentric heritage listing process the wider ancestral wāhi tūpuna of Ihumātao requires the full extent of place including Te Motu a Hiaora, Waitomokia, Maungataketake, Ooruarangi and Puketaapapa papakaainga.
The amendments I seek to specific provisions follow:
Of considerable importance is a change in the name of the listing. The listing must be changed from Ōtuataua Stonefields to Ihumātao / Te Ihu o Mataoho. The Otuataua Stonefields should remain as the name for the reserve but as it is now a part of a larger listed place the appropriate name, and the one for which the area is known, is Ihumātao or Te Ihu o Mataoho.
Justification — The naming convention should be through a Te Ao Māori framework. The use of Ihumātao also recognises the dual heritage of the place. This name has ancestral connections as well as referencing the colonial heritage of the place (note: the legal title given to the confiscated land block in 1866 SO 237, North Auckland Land District Notification was Ihumātao.). Ihumātao also recognises the full range of geomorphological values, the social history of the place and 200 years of one farming family. Also, Ihumātao is now how the land is known as a result of the recent campaign to protect the land which has reached hundreds of thousands of people nationally and internationally.
Criteria K — Add to the listing the following text: “The area identified for the category 1 listing is part of a wider wāhi tūpuna and cultural heritage landscape which has strong traditional associations with the ancestral tūpuna Hape and Mataoho, and is outstandingly significant to tangata whenua, Te Ahiwaru, Te Akitai and the ahi kā of Makaurau Marae. Greater emphasis should be put on the continuous spiritual, cultural and visual landscape values of the wider area included in the ancestral landscape of Te Waiōhua; Te Puketaapapatanga a Hape, Ootuataua, Te Motu ā Hiaroa, Ooruarangi, Waitomokia and Maungataketake. All these components of the place are integral to the identity, sense of belonging and cultural well-being of the ahi kā and as such qualify as wāhi tūpuna. Whilst some of these features are significantly altered by colonial activity, this landscape is outstandingly representative of the value to tangata whenua as a wāhi tūpuna and to the country as a cultural heritage landscape.”
Criteria H — The notified version has not attributed significance to the “symbolic or commemorative value of the place”. This is incorrect in my view.
Change significance level to Outstanding.
Justification –This place is outstandingly significant because it is symbolically representative of critical social justice movements in Aotearoa’s history:
- Association with the Kingitanga movement
- Place where 1984 Waitangi Tribunal hearings were held in recognition of its pou rangatira status
- #protectihumātao campaign that has reached hundreds of thousands nationally and internationally as well as more than 54,000 petition signatories.
Criteria G — The notified version has not attributed significance to the “technical accomplishment, value, or design of the place:”. This is incorrect in my view.
Change significance level to Outstanding.
Justification — This place is outstandingly significant because of its sophisticated technical systems of gardening and farming.
PERSONAL DETAILS — PLEASE COMPLETE
Full name:
Iwi affiliation (if any):
Street address:
Email:
Mobile/Phone:
Do you wish to be contacted by Heritage NZ: Yes/No
So they want to include the 'paddock' where the iwi had agreed to have some low income houses built by Fletchers for the iwi ( as part of the SHA) as 'part of the actual stonefields' reserve.
Which is the iwi group Pania Newton is acting for ( she is a lawyer) this time . Previously SOUL had ,when opposing the SHA in the formal process, claimed they were Kawerau a Maki.
You see a paddock, others see cultural, spiritual, historical and physical significance /shrug.
As far as I know Pania Newton is part of SOUL, which is an NGO (not an Iwi). I've not heard that PN is 'acting for' TKaM in her work with SOUL.
"Previously SOUL had ,when opposing the SHA in the formal process, claimed they were Kawerau a Maki."
Can you please provide a reference for that?
https://www.protectihumatao.com/
I called it a paddock because its not a stonefield. Ive been there a couple of times. Acting was in the legal sense
The SOUL group already lost against Heritage NZ
The campaigners challenged in court the decision by Heritage New Zealand to grant archeological authority for building on the Ōruarangi Rd property.
The Environment Court full decision gives the appellants as
BETTY KING, PANIA NEWTON, NGA KAITIAKI 0 IHUMATAO CHARITABLE TRUST and SOUL IHUMATAO
Betty King is decribed in the decisions as ', is a kuia with an undisputed whakapapa connection to Makaurau Marae.
and tellingly
Pania Newton describes herself as a rangitahi member of Makaurau Marae. She gave no evidence of her whakapapa. She claims to have the support of the Makaurau Marae Committee.
[that last paragraph is a quote but i had to look it up to see that. You already know that it’s a requirement here to make quotations and copy and pastes CLEAR. You’re in premod now until I see a clear acknowledgement from you on this and an agreement to in the future quote correctly. This is an issue of potentially misleading debate, but also of wasting moderator time. I’ll be looking at your ban history to guide moderation if you keep wasting my time this way – weka]
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/114492710/ihumtao-eviction-generations-of-maori-divided-in-dispute
Thats very true . Also in your link is:
"However, he now supports the move, saying it would see Te Kawerau a Maki families return to the village." -Te Kawerau a Maki kaumātua Te Warena Taua
"I called it a paddock because its not a stonefield"
Like I said, you see a paddock, others see cultural, spiritual, historical and physical significance. Two key issues here. One is how Pākehā society has asserted dominance to get to define what is important, against Te Ao Māori. The other is different value systems between two groups of people.
"Acting was in the legal sense"
Are you saying that Newton is TKaM's lawyer? You need to clarify now, and provide some back up.
You've obviously got a perspective here, which is fine to post, but it's unclear what you are saying at times and it would help if you were clear upfront instead of me having to drag it out of you.
"The SOUL group already lost against Heritage NZ "
Different matter as you well know. Unless you are suggesting that HNZ has a political agenda and will oppose anything from SOUL on principle. That would be an extraordinary claim.
"and tellingly
Pania Newton describes herself as a rangitahi member of Makaurau Marae. She gave no evidence of her whakapapa. She claims to have the support of the Makaurau Marae Committee."
See my mod note above.
Paddock ?
Te Kawerau a Maki kaumātua Te Warena Taua.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/114492710/ihumtao-eviction-generations-of-maori-divided-in-dispute
Surely you are aware Pania newton , a lawyer has been acting for Soul.
[you said “Which is the iwi group Pania Newton is acting for ( she is a lawyer) this time . Previously SOUL had ,when opposing the SHA in the formal process, claimed they were Kawerau a Maki.”
I want you to demonstrate how Pania Newton has been ‘acting for’ an Iwi as a lawyer and to say which iwi you mean. And to say it clearly so I don’t have to keep dragging this out of you. If you believe she was acting for TKaM, then say so clearly. If not TWaM, then who? The onus is on you to (a) communicate clearly (being more careful with punctuation would help here too), and (b) back up statements of fact. This is wasting my time, again. – weka]
and another mod note.
ok, I've had enough of tracking this, dropping you into the blacklist until I see a response.
Sorry about that lack of quoting directly after the link , I should have used the quote or italics to make it clearer.
[I need a clear agreement that you will quote clearly in the future. – weka]
mod note.
Absolutely. Now that you made it clear in that instance I agree completely, its unacceptable to mix quotes and comment like I did – which I did accidentally , I had too many tabs open and didnt pay close enough attention.
I did one saying what I did was unacceptable , has it dissappeared or I didnt click submit ?. Im a bit rushed this morning
Just released it. I suggest you slow down. This post will be here tonight and tomorrow. Tbh, your comments looked rushed in a number of ways, but I’m grumpy at having to spend so much time just trying to make sense of what you are saying.
Don't forget lunch.
Not suggesting anything of the sort. Not in my words at all! Its called a link so others can see the background if they wish to look deeper.
And those that look deeper will find , that despite it being a different case, the land is the same
From the decision "The archaeological sites which are known to be affected do not present such historical and cultural heritage value as to prevent or further restrict the reasonable future use of the site for the lawful purposes enabled by the existing zoning and resource consents. We consider, in the context of the present circumstances following the decisions which enable the land to be developed, that the heritage values of the site, including any that may yet be discovered during the development process, can be appropriately recognised and provided for through the Archaeological Management Plan and the Research Strategy"
from the decision- [60]"When asked by the Court what a good outcome would be in this case, Ms Newton said that her vision was to see this whenua protected, preserved and conserved as a public open space, returned to the mana whenua and reclaimed to what it was once used for, growing food and honouring the significance of the whenua to all people. She wanted other land made available for residential development and characterized the designation of the area as a special housing area as a mistake."
https://www.environmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/2018-NZEnvC-214-King-v-Heritage-New-Zealand-Pouhere-Taonga.pdf
But isn't it that the so called 'paddock' is "outstandingly significant because of its sophisticated technical systems of gardening and farming.", and that is the justification for changing its status?
Tactically it would have been smarter to go for the Stonefield part as Category 1, and the rest (or much of it) as category 2.
The council might want some land for housing (… are there transport links to the area – which those in affordable housing would need).