Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson Denies Ihumātao Will Generate More Private Land Deals

Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson has defended the government’s decision to step in and buy Ihumātao, saying he was unwilling to sit idly by and watch the issue grow increasingly divisive.

“It’s the right thing to do. We had a situation that was on its way to becoming the Bastion of my generation. I was not prepared, and the Government was not prepared to stand by and allow what could have been a divisive and destructive time to happen.” .

Robertson also played down suggestions that it set a precedent for the Crown to intervene to return plots of private land to the Maori, saying it was an “innovative and unique solution to these unique circumstances.”

The deal to solve the problem in Ihumātao included the government buying the land from Fletchers for $ 29.9 million, a sum that Fletchers said would bring her ‘breakeven’. Robertson said it was an “appropriate price” for the land and costs for Fletchers over the years since he bought it.

It will be purchased under the Government’s housing program and is intended to be used as a home.

However, its end use and future ownership will be decided by a steering group consisting of three representatives of the Ahi Kaa (occupants of the land), two Kīngitanga and two of the Crown.

The agreement leaves open the possibility of a future transfer of ownership to the tangata whenua, if that is what the group decides.

Robertson said that would be up for discussion, but if the land had been purchased for housing, it had to be used for housing purposes.

“If there were significantly different results on the ground beyond housing, there would be other talks about financing.”

He said it was too early to say whether the land would have to be bought from the Crown, if that was the case.

Soul co-founder Pania Newton said it was an important first step and acknowledged the efforts of whānau and others who had kept up the occupation and pressure on the issue.

“We are relieved that the government has finally come out and made its announcement because that is the first step in curing the pain this whenua is going through.”

However, Newton said it was disappointing that the government did not recognize it as a treaty-related settlement, given that the land was confiscated from the Maori in the 19th century.

Ihumātao had never been considered in a treaty agreement because it was private land since then and private land cannot be used in settlements.

The agreement specifically excludes the use of the land in any future treaty agreements, or to attempt to reopen settlements that had already been concluded.

Robertson rejected the National and Act’s claims that the agreement set a precedent that would result in occupations of other private lands in an attempt to obtain a similar agreement, or that it undermined the agreement process of the Treaty.

“This is a one-size-fits-all solution for this particular area. It is a one-time fix outside of the treaty settlement process. We are doing nothing to undo the treaty settlement process.”

However, Maori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi said the deal should be taken as an “important precedent” for the Crown to address injustice by returning confiscated land from Maori outside of the Treaty resolution process.

“We know that there are many other ‘Ihumātao’ across the country, sites of great importance that mana whenua is struggling to return to.

“The position of the Maori Party is that no agreement of the Treaty is complete and final if it is unjust, and that the justice of the Treaty must mean the return of whenua Māori at the hands of whānau, hapū and iwi.”

Green co-leader Marama Davidson also referred to it as an agreement that corrected a historical error, terminology often used with Treaty agreements.

Robertson said Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern would follow Kīngitanga’s advice on when and if it was appropriate for her to visit the site.

The agreement estimates that it could take up to five years before the steering group concludes its talks on future use of the land.

Newton said it would be up to whānau to decide what to do with the land, but he did not necessarily believe that it should be used to build more houses.

“Most of the conversations have focused on the preservation and protection of this cultural landscape.”

Robertson said that all parties agreed that it would be used for some housing, and that it could take many forms, including senior housing, papakainga and some state housing.

It could also be used for a combination of heritage, culture or conservation purposes.