In 2014 Auckland City, using the Special Housing Areas Act, designated 32 hectares adjacent to the Ōtuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve as a special housing area. This land, known as Puketāpapa, was confiscated ‘by proclamation’ under the New Zealand Settlements Act in 1863 as part of the colonial invasion of the Waikato that drove mana whenua of South Auckland from their lands ahead of the settler armies.
These Crown actions breached the partnership agreement forged in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The former Manukau City Council sought to ensure that it would become part of OSHR but its strenuous efforts to purchase Puketāpapa were thwarted by the landowner whose antecedents had obtained it by Crown grant in 1867. The boundary lines between the OSHR and SHA62 are simply the 1866 surveyor’s carve up of the confiscation that dissects a rich, storied, and culturally and heritage-wise continuous landscape. The land is now owned by Fletcher Residential Limited, which intends to build a low-density subdivision with 480 high-price dwellings on this heritage landscape.
It is important to understand that this land is a crucial part of one of the last remnants of the archaeologically rich stonefields landscape across Auckland and, as a natural component of the adjacent but legally separate OSHR, it holds the stories of the earliest inhabitants of our country.
The OSHR protects the places where the first Māori gardeners lived and worked using the stones and the microclimates they created to grow their Pacific Crops. SHA62 similarly is one of the last surviving places where the land and stone walls used by Māori for growing new crops such as wheat and European vegetables for the Auckland markets prior to 1863, still exists. It is of special significance in that here the ancient and more recent gardens stand next to each other. These places are even rarer than the stonefields were at the time of the creation of the Ōtuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve. Unlike the OSHR this land has been allowed to be scheduled for destruction without proper consultation with mana whenua and affected Māori.
This land is strategically located only a few miles from Auckland International Airport and should be considered as a very promising location for a world class visitor, research, education centre, working farm and open green space.
The creation of and now protracted controversy over SHA 62 enacts yet another layer of injustice, in what was already a fraught history of Crown-Māori relations in this place. Fletcher, a majority foreign-owned corporation, was able to use the provisions of the pro-development, anti-democratic, SHA Act 2013 to shut out and silence mana whenua grievances and community concerns over the proposed development.
The proposed development coupled with the Act’s consultation restrictions led to tensions at a local level among mana whenua. With a sense of inevitably, some sought to mitigate the anticipated serious and wide-ranging impacts of the SHA development while others (including the rangatahi who co-founded SOUL) mobilised supporters into action, to continue to use any and all legal and political means to stop the SHA62 development. Again, a Pākehā law and Pākehā processes have driven a wedge between affected Māori, creating a divided house. The Government must intervene and create an opportunity for meaningful engagement so that all affected Māori can express their concerns and interests.
In seeking to redress this latest injustice, the SOUL campaign has used various methods of non-violent direct action to create public support through a series of local, national and international events that include guided walks and events on the land, New Zealand Herald opinion pieces (May 2016 and October 2017), television engagement (a Sunday Programme that reached 500,000 New Zealanders, TV One and Maori TV primetime news items, a recent “Breakfast” interview on 22 February 2018, and a Heritage Rescue Programme to be screened in August 2018), numerous other media reports, a petition to Parliament, a delegation to the previous Social Services Select Committee, meetings with former Government Ministers, and presentations to the United Nations in May 2017 (at the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York and in a separate one hour meeting with the PFII Special Rappatour) and in August 2017 (at the Committee on the Elimination of Racism and Discrimination (CERD) in Geneva).
On 25 August 2017 CERD, after deliberation over the SOUL report and presentations as well as representations from the New Zealand Government delegation, delivered two recommendations on the issue as follows:
Special Housing Area 62 :
18. The Committee is concerned by conflicting information regarding consultation with local Māori in connection with the designation of Special Housing Area (SHA) 62 at Ihumātao on land traditionally and currently occupied by Māori. The
Committee notes that this land has been sold to a commercial developer who is required to actively mitigate the effects of development. While noting the State party’s position that it adequately consulted and obtained support from Māori authorities
regarding the designation, the Committee is concerned by alternate reports that Māori have not had the opportunity to formally take part in decision-making with respect to use of the land (arts. 2, 5.)
19. The Committee recommends that the State party review, in consultation with all affected Māori, the designation of Special Housing Area 62 to evaluate its conformity with the Treaty of Waitangi, the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other relevant international standards, and that the State party obtain the free and informed consent of Māori before approving any project affecting the use and development of their traditional land and resources.
As Ministers of Justice responsible for human rights, we ask you to address these recommendations as a matter of urgency. We know the controversy over SHA62 is highly complex, with many interests at stake, but the consultation issues are straightforward and must be properly considered. Our country’s reputation is at stake; we cannot afford to be seen internationally to override the basic human rights of our indigenous peoples.