Ambitious hopes still a dream at Ihum¯atao

How times have changed. When I was last at Ihuma¯ tao, the small road was packed from side to side with politicians and other people-pleasers. Brian and Hannah Tamaki were there, with an oversized entourage. Labour’s Willie Jackson and Peeni Henare were there, too, begging for time and sympathy.

And Marama Davidson, the Green Party co-leader and, as of this week, Henare’s direct competition for the

Ta¯ maki Makaurau electorate, was there with big ideas.

But who wasn’t there? The one person that matters, Winston Peters. Oh, and Jacinda Ardern.

Now almost everyone is gone. Where once police blockades stood next to rows of tents, now about a dozen people live beside an otherwise empty rural road. As the clock ticks on a signalled Government deal to resolve this dispute, supporters must now be starting to wonder what good those politicians’ words achieved.

We must assume any deal done by this Government needs the nod from NZ First, after getting past what can be a fairly conservative Labour Party. Good luck.

The Cabinet was understood to be discussing the issue on Tuesday, after King Tu¯ heitia signalled an end to the long dispute over the historic land. Since

Tu¯ heitia visited last week, Ihuma¯ tao has reached a new level of calm. Protesters now live in a house that was, just a few months ago, used as a makeshift police station.

The movement has gained support from across Ma¯ oridom, with the Kı¯ngitanga leading negotiations for a deal. But soon after Tu¯ heitia indicated a resolution would be reached by Waitangi Day, Peters knocked his optimism back into place.

‘‘The reality is that this has been a long-range discussion that will take a long, long time to be completed, if it ever is,’’ he told Newstalk ZB.

Then his sidekick, Shane Jones, went a step further at Ra¯ tana when he called protest leader Pania Newton a ‘‘young putiputi’’ and questioned her mana. ‘‘You derive your mana in te ao Ma¯ ori, not from pleasing Pa¯ keha¯ ,’’ Jones said.

You must wonder if he was talking about himself or Newton.

He and Peters have been vocal critics of the actions at Ihuma¯ tao, the obvious reason being to appease angry Pa¯ keha¯ voters. Jones’ criticism of Newton, a wellrespected and liked young leader in te ao Ma¯ ori, is so hypocritical it’s laughable. He’s disrespecting not only her, but the thousands who support her, and the Ma¯ ori king himself.

Of course buying this land would be controversial.

A price of anywhere between $30 and $45 million, for land that Fletcher Building bought for $19m, won’t sit well with many voters.

There’s also concern from coalition MPs about the ‘‘precedent’’ the purchase would set.

Ultimately, this is an issue the Government must address regardless of the ‘‘precedent’’.

Newton says protesters found success at Ihuma¯ tao because the land could unite many different groups of people. It’s a lightning rod for every issue imaginable.

The situation at Ihuma¯ tao has come about because of a flawed Treaty claims settlement process, which refused to fund iwi to buy back important sites in private ownership.

The settlements were so small, and stopped short of giving iwi any political powers, that the only option for those worried about the future of Ihuma¯ tao was to occupy it.

Despite being so evidently unshakeable in her mission to ‘‘save Ihuma¯ tao’’, Newton seems pragmatic as we talk this week. She says they’re not calling for the land to be gifted back to the hapu¯ , but rather for it to be protected and fostered as an ecological reserve. Her vision is to see some of it turned into a ‘‘food forest’’, similar to its use by early Ma¯ ori as a fertile garden.

Other parts of the land are said to be tapu, and will need protection from development as volcanic caves hold the tu¯ pa¯ paku (bodies) of tu¯ puna.

So, what will become of Ihuma¯ tao? Newton and the few left there seem hopeful, but unsure.

She hopes a resolution really will be reached by Waitangi Day.

But there’s no sign she and the others are getting ready to leave.

At the moment, she seems cooperative. The future of Ihuma¯ tao, as she sees it, will involve Auckland Council, the non-Ma¯ ori community and tangata whenua caring for the land together.

But she and others have been waiting for so long now. With King Tu¯ heitia promising a deal has been reached, it seems now that the Government’s preferred option is to keep stalling.

These tactics aren’t only rude, but won’t achieve much.

Inaction after a promise to the Kı¯ngitanga seems certain to reignite this focal point for Treaty and environmental concerns.