The occupation of disputed Māori land at the site Ihumātao in Auckland is heating up. Last week police made several arrests and used pepper spray at the occupation. Several hundred protesters are currently active at the Ihumātao site. John Moore looks into the issues in this guest blog post.
The nature of the current dispute has now taken on the dimensions of not just a dispute between protesting Māori versus Fletcher Building (the legal owners of the disputed land) but also a dispute between the local Māori Establishment versus disaffected Māori. The very question of how Māori should orientate towards the colonial state and tauiwi corporations is at play here.
A brief summary of the background to this dispute
Ihumātao, is a peninsula on the shore of Auckland’s Manukau Harbour. It is a historical Māori settlement, and is the city’s oldest settlement. In 1863, the land was confiscated from Māori by the state. The states occupation of the land was followed by sites sacred to local Māori being quarried, and burial sites being destroyed
Ihumātao has ended up in the hands of one of New Zealand’s largest corporations, Fletcher Building. The land has been declared a Special Housing Area, and Fletchers is building 500 houses on Ihumātao. The corporation has negotiated with local Māori leaders representative of officially recognized iwi organisations. And these Māori iwi leaders have given the go ahead for Fletcher Building to develop the area.
A brief political analysis of this dispute
This is a developing political conflict that has many dimensions. As so it is not surprising that the mainstream media has been finding it particularly difficult to navigate around the various contrasting narratives that are coming from the protesters themselves, and contrasting narratives from their opponents.
On one level, this is primarily a protest by local Māori against Fletcher Building, who are intent on building hundreds of houses on the contested land. Another dimension, is that this is a conflict within the mana whenua of the area. The officially recognised Māori leadership of the area are in fact backing Fletcher Building. And at one stage local Māori leaders went onto the occupation with the police to demand that the protectors leave.
Some would argue that the inter- Māori nature of the conflict comes down to either an intergenerational dispute, a dispute of contrasting world views, and even a dispute of disaffected Māori versus the local Māori elite.
With the occupation of Ihumātao heating up, the conflict has now taken on the dimension of a clash between the protectors and their supporters versus the state. Hundreds of police and now present at the site. And arrests have been made, and physical force has been used. The state, to all intents and purpose, is recognising Fletchers as the legal owners of the land. And the police have used violence to thwart the efforts of the protesters, and to enforce Fletcher Building’s property rights over the disputed land.
This occupation of Ihumātao can be analysed through an "indigeneity and post-colonial" lens. Such a framework would position this dispute as a blowback by an indigenous people against an oppressive colonial state and a colonial corporation.
However, some key activists involved in the occupation at Ihumātao have argued that a form of class war is present with this dispute. Emilie Rākete, the Māori caucus coordinator for the group Organise Aotearoa, has stressed the class dimensions of the protest. She has argued that the planned development of Ihumātao by Fletcher Building, and the use of the police against the protesters, is an example of ongoing colonisation by the state and capital of Aotearoa.
Pasifika intellectual Alex Birchall has echoed this viewpoint. He has argued that the land development at Ihumātao is supported by a self-interested iwi elite, including some kaumātua of the “legally recognised mana whenua”. He sees this elite as complicit in the abuse of power now being undertaken by the police.
The Government versus the protectors
The Jacinda Ardern-led Government has ostensibly taken a neutral stance on the dispute. Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said that "the heavy hand of Government should not override the real opportunity the hapū have to resolve this issue within their whānau."
Initially, the prime minister said that the Ihumātao dispute was a concern not of the government but of local mana whenua. And she stressed that the government did not what to act to override the decisions made by local Ihumātao leaders. Of course, by local Māori leaders Ardern was referring to those Māori elite who are backing Fletcher Building, and the actions of the police to disperse the occupation.
As the situation has heated up, the Government has taken a slightly new tack by presenting itself as a neutral arbitrator that will bring all the different players to the negotiating table. However, protesters have indicated they see the government’s move as disingenuous, and that they feel they will be deliberately left out of future negotiations.
What Ihumātao points to, in a deeper political sense, is the deep levels dissatisfaction within Te Ao Māori with how the whole treaty settlement process has played out. With billions of dollars of land, resources and money transferred to certain Māori iwi, we have seen the enrichment and empowerment of a layer of Māori leaders, alongside the ever-present reality of general poverty within Te Ao Māori. Most Māori don’t seem to of benefited particularly from the Treaty settlement process. So, in a very real sense, this occupation is a rallying cry and rallying point for those Māori who feel they haven’t gained from Treaty settlements that have enriched and empowered certain official iwi leaders.
One thing that points to this deep-seated sense of unease within the Māori world is the growing levels of inequality within Te Ao Maori. That is, we have a new materially well-off Māori professional layer and an actual Māori capitalist class, while the majority of tangata whenua have, in many cases, become poorer.
Disaffected Māori are clearly dissatisfied with their local leaders. Questions are being asked of why local mana whenua leaders are siding with Fletcher Building, and are backing the use of force by the police. Concerns are being raised around what these leaders have to gain materially, and in terms of their power positions, by currying favours from a capitalist corporation and with both local and central government.
When so many local Māori feeling disenfranchised from their own leadership, the conflict at Ihumātao is likely to continue to build in momentum.
