Ihumātao: These are the possible solutions for bringing the stand-off to an end

Thursday, 8 August 2019

At the heart of the Ihumātao dispute is a family divide between kaumatua and rangatahi.

Auckland Council could purchase the land at Ihumātao to help resolve a stand-off at the sacred Māori site.

The Government could buy the land too, although experts fear a Crown purchase would set a costly and controversial precedent.

As the protest at the site grows heated, there are several options on the table for solving the dispute. But all would involve first mending a rift between the mana whenua protesters and their elders.

* Ihumātao: Police presence increased, then de-escalated at site

Māori Council executive director Matthew Tukaki.

* Ihumātao: Police deny carrying firearms at protest after Facebook video outcry**

THE COUNCIL COULD BUY THE LAND

There is nothing stopping Auckland Council from buying the $36 million site off Fletcher Building, which indicated its willingness to sell in February this year. The council could then enter into negotiations with the iwi and mana whenua about what to do next.

It could designate Ihumātao a reserve, like the adjoining Otuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve, which is protected from development. Some of the land could be set aside for Papakainga housing: Māori housing developed on Māori land.

Some Auckland councillors have said they regret signing off on the land being used for housing.

Māori Council executive director Matthew Tukaki says the purchase might create breathing room for all parties to reach a compromise.

'The best thing that can happen here is that the council atone for its mistake in granting the development applications and purchase the land from Fletcher,' Tukaki said.

'There is no reason why everyone cannot win here. And Fletcher gets a pay-out, without a precedent being set around the Treaty settlement process.'

THE CROWN COULD BUY THE LAND

There is nothing legally stopping the Government from purchasing the 32 hectare site off Fletcher Building, either.

Treaty law expert from Victoria University, Carwyn Jones.

Experts argue the Crown is ultimately responsible for the stand-off at Ihumatao, so perhaps it should step in with a solution, rather than merely facilitating talks.

It's not in dispute that colonial troops forced Māori from the land in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi during the 19th century Waikato Invasion: a campaign to stamp out the Māori King movement and clear lands for European settlement.

After buying the site, the Crown could then sell or gift the land to the iwi.

But a Government purchase would raise questions about all confiscated land that's already in private hands, the exact amount and value of which is unclear. It would also undermine the iwi authority that has already agreed for the Fletcher development to go ahead.

So the move would need to happen outside the formal Treaty settlement process. Treaty claims from mana whenua in the region have already been settled, but because the particular site of Ihumātao was private property, it was never part of negotiations.

There's a long-standing principle in settling tribal grievances that the Crown respects private property rights.

Treaty law expert from Victoria University, Carwyn Jones, reckons the Government should take a more flexible approach to confiscated land in private hands.

Jacinda Ardern is in a difficult position - should she go over the iwi authority or allow Māoridom to settle its own disputes?

He said in Treaty settlements Māori usually receive about 3 per cent of the value of land that was taken from them, because so much of it is privately owned.

'Absolutely we don't want to upset existing private property rights, but I think the Crown has adopted a Treaty settlement policy which is too rigid, which means you can never have conversations about land that might be private property. It doesn't necessarily lead to the Government compulsorily acquiring the land,' Jones said.

'If there's a willing buyer and a willing seller, why wouldn't the Government explore that?'

FLETCHER COULD GIVE THE LAND TO IWI

It's possible that Fletcher Building could gift Ihumātao to the mana whenua without money changing hands.

But as far as Fletcher and the tribal iwi authority of the area are concerned, the negotiations on the development have already been completed.

Following initial attempts to stop the project, Te Kawerau a Maki struck a deal with Fletcher which included some of the built homes being placed into a shared equity scheme with the iwi.

There are calls for the police presence at the site to be reduced, replaced with Māori wardens.

Under the deal, homes would be built on 75 per cent of the available 32 hectare site. Eight hectares - the equivalent of about eight rugby fields - would be set aside as open space along the north and west boundaries of the reserve and added to the Ōtuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve. This land would be returned to mana whenua.

Rather than simply handing over the multi-million dollar site, Fletcher is more likely to seek a pay-out or the green light for construction.

THE DEVELOPMENT COULD GO AHEAD

The Fletcher development might proceed, but not until all parties have thrashed the issue out.

Jacinda Ardern vowed that no building will take place at Ihumātao while the government and other parties try to broker a solution. It puts her in a difficult position - should the Government go over the iwi authority, which says it has the mandate to make decisions over the land and wants the Fletcher deal to go ahead?

Local kaumātua Te Warena Taua from Te Kawerau a Maki gave his blessing for the housing development to go forward. He has said that SOUL leader Pania Newton - his niece - and other rangitahi are disrespecting their elders by not moving from the site.

Newton has maintained she never saw the agreement signed with Fletcher, and pledged to remain on the whenua until all of it was returned. Swelling crowds and international attention on the site may have hampered efforts for the two camps to reconcile.

Both sides of the dispute have the same interests: affordable housing for Māori and protecting the site's historical value. A deeper issue at play might be that rangatahi are disillusioned with the old Māori leadership structure and want more agency.

In the meantime, Tukaki reckons the police presence at the site, which has drawn crowds and led to heated scenes, should be scaled back and replaced with Māori wardens.

Then the divided hapu and whanau should be given space to negotiate.

'People who are not party to that land, who are not mana whenua, who don't have iwi authority - just step aside and let the whanau work it out,' Tukaki said.

'The key to all of this is kanohi ki te kanohi, or face-to-face, and kotahitanga, which is unity.'