Punishing the objectorsA crowd greeted police when they arrived at Te Paina on 11 June 1918. After being escorted into the meeting house, they read out the names of those who were to be arrested. Nobody moved and Te Puea made it clear that she would not co-operate. The police waded into the crowd and began arresting men they believed to be on their list. Mistakes were made. Te Puea's future husband, 16-year-old Rawiri Katipa, was mistaken for his older brother; a 60-year-old was also arrested. Each of the seven men selected had to be carried out of the meeting house.King Te Rata's 16-year-old brother, Te Rauangaanga, was also seized. Police caused great offence by stepping over the King's personal flag, which had been protectively laid before Te Rauangaanga. Te Puea intervened, calming the shocked onlookers and blessing those who had been seized. She told the police to let the government know she feared no law, or anything else 'excepting the God of my ancestors'.The prisoners were taken to the army training camp at Narrow Neck, Auckland. Those who refused to wear uniform were subjected, like other objectors, to severe military punishments, including being fed only bread and water and being supplied with minimal bedding. When this failed to break their resistance, some were sentenced to two years' hard labour at Mount Eden prison.Te Puea supported those who had been arrested by bringing them food (which never seemed to reach the inmates) and attempting to visit them in prison. She was a source of great inspiration to the prisoners. One of those detained, Mokona, described how Te Puea would sit outside the prison so they could catch a glimpse of her when they went to the toilet. This was enough to make them want to 'invent an excuse to go to the whare mimi. The fact that she was there gave us heart to continue.'

Waikato resistWhen Te Puea offered refuge at Te Paina pā (Mangatāwhiri) to men who chose to ignore the ballot, Waikato were denounced as 'seditious traitors'. The revelation that Te Puea's grandfather had a German surname – Searancke – seemed to confirm her status as a 'German sympathiser'. Te Puea pointed out that the Searanckes were at least four generations removed from their German origins and that the British royal family itself was German.Rua Kēnana, 1908Colonel Patterson of the Auckland Military District wanted Te Puea punished and planned to goad her into making anti-conscription statements in front of reliable witnesses. This would allow her to be prosecuted under the War Regulations for 'inciting men not to enlist'. Others favoured a more cautious approach, fearing such action would simply increase her prestige. The government knew that under Te Puea's leadership the campaign was at least non-violent. In 1916 two Māori had been shot and killed by police attempting to arrest the Tūhoe leader Rua Kēnana at Maungapōhatu, in part because of his active discouragement of Māori recruitment. The government did not want more bloodshed.

'We have our own King'A significant sector of the Māori community did not support the Native Contingent Committee. Many Māori from Taranaki and Tainui-Waikato resisted the call to fight for ‘King and Country’. Their land had been confiscated in the 1860s as punishment for ‘rebellion’ against the British Crown. Why should they now be expected to fight for the British?Te Puea HērangiKīngitanga leader Te Puea Hērangi maintained that her grandfather, King Tāwhiao, had forbidden Waikato from taking up arms again when he made peace with the Crown in 1881. She was determined to uphold his call to Waikato to 'lie down' and 'not allow blood to flow from this time on'. Te Puea maintained that Waikato had 'its own King' and had no need to 'fight for the British King'. If the confiscated land was returned, Waikato might reconsider its position.

Almost every day I was visited by officers and sometimes by a chaplain. They argued with me sometimes for hours at a stretch. One parson told me that he was very much interested and glad that he had met me. He had heard about me, and had evidently expected to meet a crank or an egotist, who had no regard for any law, human or divine. He talked with me for a long time, and told me that he agreed with me on most points, but that his views were not so extreme. He offered to do anything in his power for me, and promised to call and see me again. After this, the colonel and the adjutant paid me another visit, and informed me that I was being sent to France with the next draft. I was glad to hear this, for I knew that my comrades were there, and I hoped to meet them again. They told me that if I went along quietly with the other soldiers I would be all right They asked me if I would do this, and I replied that I realised that I was in their power, and that they could send me wherever they wished.

They asked me what I would do when I reached France, and I replied: "They can send me to France, they can send me into the trenches or anywhere they like. All that I can conscientiously do I will do, but what I cannot conscientiously do I'll refuse to do, no matter what the consequences."

I was then taken and given an order, which I refused. I was taken before him again, and was sentenced to twenty-eight days' No.1 Field Punishment. Next day I was taken to a compound, where I received orders from the sergeant, which I again refused. I was then reported to the officer in charge, who told me that he would have to tie me up, but he hated to have to do this to any man, and was not doing it to other prisoners. I remained there for about a week, but was not tied up. An officer came to the compound and had a conversation with me, and said that I should not be permitted to live. I was then taken out of that compound and sent to another called Mud Farm. The men there were being tied up, whether they obeyed orders or not. This compound was in charge of a lieutenant page 80of the Imperial Forces and a N.Z. sergeant. After I had been there for a few days, tied up three hours each day, Kirwan was brought in under escort and put in a tent in the same enclosure with me. There were a good many prisoners there, but only one New Zealander beside Kirwan and myself. Kirwan had been sentenced for the second time to twenty-eight days' No. 1 Field Punishment for refusing orders. While doing the first term he had been put in close confinement for a time on biscuits and water. While we were there we received the same food as the other prisoners. It kept our body and soul together. The weather became very cold and rough. The poles on which we were tied were in a very exposed place by the roadside, in view of the passers-by. The other prisoners were not tied up in all weathers, but Kirwan and I were.

This Medical Officer at Boulogne was one of the broadest-minded and most generous-hearted men that I have ever met, and he had a fine sense of humour, It was a good thing for me that I met him for at that time I was driven to the brink of an abyss. After I had been in hospital for a few days in England the M.O. came to me and asked me why I disobeyed orders in France, and I told him what the orders were, and he began to argue with me on the law of "the survival of the fittest." I told him that to my mind the fratricide and the suicide are much the same, and that the man who kills his fellows, believing that he is doing wrong, commits moral and intellectual suicide. He told me that I, through what I called passive resistance, and what he would call my stubbornness, had put myself in a position of absolute dependence on the Army. I replied that I was not ungrateful for what had been done for me, but that I thought the Army was responsible for me, for the military authorities knew what I was before ever they sent me out, but, if he did not want me there, all he had to do was to allow me to go out, and that I would look after myself and find my way back to New Zealand on my own. He talked to me no more, but sent me to bed for three days for what he was pleased to call my insolence.

When we came in at Wellington the M.O. called me and said that page 86I was to go before Colonel Allen and Mr. Myers. I went along with the M.O., and he showed me into a room where these two gentlemen were sitting and the M.O. introduced me to them and went out. Mr. Myers asked me to sit down, and then asked me a few questions about my health. Sir James Allen asked me if I was still of the same mind with regard to military service, and I told him that I was. He then asked me if I had been badly treated while in the Army, and said that they had been charged with treating me and other Objectors very cruelly. I said that I had received treatment that I would call cruel. He asked me if I had any complaint to make to him, and I replied that I did not think that I should make a complaint while the men against whom I would have to make it were not here in New Zealand. He then asked me what I was doing while at the front, and I told him that I was given a document by the Commanding Officer, which stated that I was not under military control, and all that I had done in the Army was done by me voluntarily, out of a sense of fairness to the men I was with. He asked me whether I was a Conscientious Objector, and I answered that I was called one in the Army, but did not call myself by any name. He said: "Why did you object to military service?" and I replied, "Because I am against war." He then asked me did I know anything about No. 1 Field Punishment, and I replied, "Not much." He said that a letter that I had written from France had been published in the papers, and that I had stated in that letter that I had been subjected to this punishment, and asked if that was true. I told him that I did not know that the letter had been published, but that it was all quite true.

The case against me was dismissed, but I was not set at liberty. I was kept a prisoner in company with William Little, my brother John, and some others in the "clink." After a few days, my brother Alex. was brought in, and we were then sentenced to twenty-eight days' detention for refusing our kits. When we arrived at the Detention Barracks at Wellington, we were put on bread and water for three days for refusing to take page 77off our civilian clothes and change into denims. We were afterwards charged before a courtmartial (and got three months' jail for the same offence. We were taken back to Trentham when our time was up and were sentenced to another twenty-eight days' detention. We were sent again to the Wellington Detention barracks, where we were asked if we intended to take off our clothes this time. We replied that we did not, and no further pressure was used. We were locked in our cell most of the time for about a fortnight, when, early one morning we were marched out by about a dozen military police. We were put on board a transport, and when we were put into the guard-room on board we met ten other Objectors who had been put on board during the night. I had met most of these men in jail, and they were pleased to meet us again. There were then fourteen of us in all. The thing we felt most at the time was not being allowed to bid our friends good-bye.

refuse

My object in writing this statement is not to parade my opinions or principles. Neither do I write it as a complaint against the Army, for I believe complaints, as a rule, do little good. My object is an honest one. I wish to make a plain statement of facts which may prove of some value, and if much of which I have to relate discredits me in the minds of some people, the public has at least an honest, if incomplete, statement to judge from, and I might say here at the outset, that I have nothing to conceal, and, from my point of view, nothing to be ashamed of. I have often been asked, "What are my objections to war?" and the argument of the "survival of the fittest" has often been used in support of military methods. I have wondered that educated men can be so illogical, for while this law may be natural enough throughout the animal kingdom, in war it is not the "fittest" who survive, but a great many of the world's fittest and best men are slain, while a still greater number are rendered unfit. I am against war on this ground, and I wonder that any sane person who knows the destruction, the degradation, the misery, and the sorrow page 76caused by war, can regard it as anything else than diabolical in the extreme. Now I have always been a true believer in law and order, and as a citizen I have regard for the thoughts and opinions of my fellows, and also for their feelings. I believe that a man should seek to bring his life and actions into agreement with his truest sense of duty towards God and Man. I believe that the Soul of Man is not, and cannot be, subject to any earthly State, for no earthly State is perfect. For this the military authorities designated me a "Defiant Objector" in New Zealand, but in France they told me that they believed me sincere, although I had not changed my opinions. I believe that passive resistance to evil is the power that will yet conquer the world, and I believe, that that form of militarism that goes on the principle that Man is merely the property of Man, will find that there are men who will oppose such principles, though they be subjected to the most barbarous cruelties, or put to death, or shut in cells and bound with all the chains and fetters that were ever forged on the anvils of Hell. I am not against the soldier; the troops I came in contact with know that, I judge no man for his opinions. I have my failings like other men, but I stand for Universal Brotherhood. I view all men as comrades and brothers in different stages of moral, intellectual, and spiritual development, and I know that far above all earthly States is to be found the awakened Soul of Man struggling onward and upward, away from long cherished delusions towards that universal harmony which to know in its fullness would be perfect comprehension, freedom, and love.

A Methodist chaplain also visited me, and having listened to my experiences on the boat, asked me if it was worth while one man knocking his head against a Stone wall. I asked him how he could possibly say a thing like that when. Sunday after Sunday, in his own church, he sang:— Dare to be a Daniel, Dare to stand alone, Dare to have a purpose firm, And dare to make it known. page 61 He eventually told me that his own conscience would condemn him if he endeavored to sway me from my determination.

By this time we recognized that the move was to forcibly transport us. When we reached the foot of the gangway, one of the boys in the front rank shouted: "Are we going to walk up the gangway, Mark?" I replied: "Certainly not." We were then seized and forced up the gangway. As they were taking me up I called out to the wharf labourers: "You can tell the citizens of Wellington that there are eight conscientious objectors forcibly deported in civvie clothes from New Zealand." They replied: "You have our sympathy." I answered back: "We want more than that." By this time they had got us on deck. The eight of us were pushed into the "clink" together, and an armed guard of four men with fixed bayonets was placed on the inside of the door of the "clink," and remained there all night.

That day I was courtmartialled, the charge being the stereotyped one of disobeying a lawful command. The President of the courtmartial asked me: "Are you a religious objector?" I replied that I did not base my objections on religious grounds. "What, then, do you stand for?" he asked. "For the liberty and freedom of the masses of the people of New Zealand," I replied. "But, my dear fellow," he said, "if you stood for the liberty and freedom of the people of New Zealand, you'd be fighting the Germans. What do you mean when you say you stand for the liberty and freedom of the people?" "I stand absolutely opposed to the Conscription Act, which was placed on the Statute Book by a few irresponsible individuals," I said. He retorted: "You elected these men to Parliament to make the laws, and you should obey them." "If that is your contention," I said, "you must uphold every German in the trenches, because they are only obeying laws made similarly by the irresponsible individuals in their country."

I was drawn in the Third Ballot, and duly notified by registered letter to parade for medical examination, I ignored the order, and some time later a military officer with the rank of major appeared at my place of business and handed me another notice, at the same time saying: "you will parade at Duke Street, Palmerston North, at half-past nine to-morrow morning." I replied: "I will not" The Major then said: "Will later in the day suit you?" I said: "No," He then asked: You are the Mark Briggs who was drawn in the ballot, are you not?" I replied: "I have had sufficient notifications from the military authorities to lead me to believe I am." The page 55Major then wanted to know when it would suit me to appear for examination. I told him that it would never suit me. He then said: "All right; I'll send you a registered notice in the morning." The Major then walked out, and next morning the third notice (registered) came to hand. I took no notice of this; and I next received a card ordering me to parade at Palmerston North preparatory to proceeding to camp. Of this I also took no notice. Then, after all these interviews and notices, I found my name gazetted as "Missing and cannot be found." When this Gazette notice appeared in the Palmerston North papers it was the source of much amusement.

At the time the miss-called National Register was taken, Mr. Briggs was employed as a flax-worker at Manga-iti, in the Waketo district. In filling in the register form, he stated that he held conscientious objections to military service, and that he was not prepared to serve with the army either in or out of New Zealand; but he further stated that he was prepared to do any work of national importance (other than war work) either in or out of New Zealand, provided it was work for which he was fitted.

Mr Peters also said that if New Zealand First was part of the next government, he would let the public to decide whether to abolish Māori seats and cut the number of MPs in Parliament to 100. He said Māori seats send a terrible message and vowed to hold a mid-term binding referendum on the two matters. "The fact is that Māori don't need to be told that they're not good enough to be equal, or that somehow they should be handicapped or somehow they should be pigeon-holed," Mr Peters said. "When did you ever hear Buck Shelford say don't tackle me too hard I'm a Māori, or all those women playing in our netball team or any other team, when have you ever heard them say don't hit me too hard I'm a Māori? "Māori don't need the Māori seats - they don't need any more tokenism." Mr Peters said he expected New Zealand First would be attacked by other political parties for the plan - but said if they did they would be hypocrites.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has warned the country is on the verge of an economic and social nightmare because of government neglect.

Local iwi were outraged when the track was built without them being told, and an independent review later found the council should have publicly notified the resource consent. Iwi have considered Te Mata Peak to be a sacred mount for 1000 years and there were a number of old Pā sites in and around the mountain, the report released by Hastings District Council said. The report said the peak should be given full recognition as a legal equivalent to a legal person, similar to Whanganui River which was given the rights of a legal person last year. Given the half a million visitors to Te Mata Peak each year the report also recommended some places be set aside for cultural practices and the right for local iwi to have a sit on any governing boards that played a part in the management of the peak. The public would be barred from eight sacred sites on the mountain, while another 17 sacred sites should be fenced off from stock, the report recommended. "We seek to show that justification now exists for the use of every available planning, policy and community contribution to assist local Māori communities to reclaim, reframe and re-instate the mana and mauri of whānau Māori," the report said. It also wanted the track cut by Craggy Range in December last year to be removed, though last week the council agreed to pay the full $650,000 cost of remediation.

It is one of several recommendations made to Hastings District Council in a cultural report by iwi organisation Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga.

Fletcher announced that it has set aside 25 per cent of the development land to provide "a buffer zone for the reserve. We believe Auckland can have both history and houses".

The disputed land was reportedly farmed by the Wallace family for 150 years, then in 2011 was zoned for residential development.

He said the company has been working with mandated iwi representatives.

Fletcher Residential general manager, Ken Lotu-I'iga said the 33.8-hectare property is set to be a "wonderful new neighbourhood" of stand-alone homes and terrace housing. "It will also include the affordable housing which many Aucklanders so desperately need." The exact location of caves and midden have been identified and Fletcher said they will not be building on any of those areas. Additionally, an old farm house and some significant trees will remain untouched.

A wonderful new neighbourhood': Fletcher Residential buys 'sacred' Maori land at Ihumatao in south Auckland

So as the protest enters its fourth week, the Opposition leader is making his views on the Ihumātao dispute clear. "It's time to go home so we can see houses being built," Bridges says.

Bridges believes Ardern has given protesters the wrong idea. "The fact that the Prime Minister has halted the building, she's allowed things to escalate. Yes it was happening before but she's given it a profile and significance," he says.

Now, after three long weeks, Bridges says the protest must come to an end. "The Prime Minister's missing in action and she needs to show leadership," he says.

The National leader claims Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern set an appalling precedent by halting construction and needs to right the wrong.

The battle to remove a controversial cycling track on Te Mata Peak in the Hawke's Bay has escalated with an iwi leader saying his people are being treated like "dumb savages from the wop-wops".

Ngāti Kahunugunu iwi leader Ngāhiwi Tomoana penned a scathing open letter to Craggy Range Winery director Mary-Jeanne Hutchinson about the racist attitudes shown by the winery. It comes in the face of the winery's decision to build a zig-zag walking track on Te Mata Peak last year. The winery promised in December to remove the track but last week it released an expert land report saying remediation would never get the land back to its original condition. Mr Tomoana said the winery was trying to frighten the iwi with legal action. "Again we are not intimidated by this behaviour or that of the 'charge of the Lycra Bridgade' who have resorted to personal attacks on our people who don't have the luxury of mountain bikes mounted on the latest SUVs," he said.

Mr Tomoana said if the current manager, barrister and director were left in charge of the matter - then he wanted the name Ngāti Kahungungu to be "melted or removed" from the commemorative opening plaque.

Mr Tomoana said over the past 20 years, he had formed a close bond with Mrs Hutchinson's parents and others - but that relationship was now put to a severe test. "The track has not only put a scar on our maunga, but has driven a chasm in our community that has brought the worst of racist and class comments to the fore."

Te Mata Peak Peoples' Track Society Inc also launched an appeal through the Givealittle.co.nz website. Funds raised will go towards defending potential legal action, and for betterment of the track.

"We acknowledge that iwi have a particular interest in Te Mata Peak and were not properly consulted. "Now there needs to be local dialogue, local consensus-building and the pursuit of win-win solutions to heal the division within our community. "Te Mata Peak undoubtedly has outstanding landscape value that should be protected but it is also an outstanding recreational feature for the region and embodies significant cultural, biodiversity and tourism values as well. All these things are important, and it should be up to the people of Hawke's Bay to decide."

The society had today instructed its lawyer to write to Hastings District Council explaining the need for public consultation on the fate of the track, and of the group's intention to support the council in defending any legal proceedings that might be brought to challenge the legality of the track. Williams said the strong support shown through the "Save the Craggy Range Walking Track" online petition demonstrated that people saw the track as a "fantastic addition to recreation and tourism in Hawke's Bay". "We are thrilled to be able to support petition initiator Rebecca McNeur in forming an organisation to formally represent the views of those signatories. "We're thrilled that Rebecca has agreed to join the society as secretary." Peoples' Track Society spokesman Xan Harding said the group stood "for a fair hearing" for the significant number of people in Hawke's Bay who supported the retention of the track. "We also adamantly believe in the need for a balanced and objective approach to determining its fate.

A group of "unashamed supporters" of Craggy Range's controversial Te Mata Peak track have formed an incorporated society intent on waging a legal battle to keep it. "We have formed the society as a vehicle to promote this overwhelming public interest in retaining the Craggy Range Track," Te Mata Peak Peoples' Track Society chairman George Williams said. The group aimed to "give a voice" to the nearly 17,500 people who signed a recent petition to save the Craggy Range Te Mata Peak track, he said.

Pania Newton is the spokesperson for the protest group Save Our Unique Landscape (SOUL), which is preparing to challenge the legitimacy of the Heritage New Zealand process that approved the Fletchers' build in a hearing before the Environment Court.

Listen to the full interview with Pania Newton

Once there were plans to make Oruarangi block a public space protected as part of the adjacent Ōtuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve, Newton says. After the Super City was formed in 2010, the government and the Auckland Council designated it as a Special Housing Area (SHA). In 2012, it was sold it to Fletcher's Residential – a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fletcher Building.

"Archeologists would describe this place as where Polynesians became Māori because its one of the sites that [the earliest evidence of] human settlement can be found."

Ihumātao's Ōtuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve is highly significant "archaeologically, geologically and culturally", Pania says, yet an adjacent site known as the Oruarangi (or Wallace) Block is currently earmarked for a 480-residence Fletcher Building project. Ōtuataua Stonefields is home to remnants of storage pits and cooking areas constructed by Māori as far back as the 1400s, lava caves which Māori used as urupa (burial grounds), a number of wāhi tapu (sacred sites) and native skinks and birdlife, she says.

Pania Newton is a finalist for the Young Achievers prize at this year's Matariki Awards. The 27-year-old gave up a career in law to work for the preservation of Ihumātao – a 33km piece of Māori ancestral land on the shores of the Manukau Harbour – and she's already taken the cause to the United Nations three times.

In the case of something like moko kauae, the issue should not just be whether well-meaning non-Māori can claim our taonga — because that seems to assume either that they have an automatic right to take, or that we have no right to control what should be shared. Neither should it be about how “Māori” a Pākehā might be, nor what a “real” Māori is, because both subvert the meaning of whakapapa. Rather, it should be something more fundamental, about how a proper reciprocity might occur at a level where collective Māori consent is possible. That, in turn, requires moving towards a Treaty-based relationship in constitutional as well as personal terms. But there is also another debate which ultimately only Pākehā can have. It’s about how they see themselves in this land, and what they need to do to find the secure place the Treaty offered them, without unilaterally using Māori taonga to embellish their identity. How, in other words, can they stand upright in their own uniqueness?

Certainly, any taking of moko kauae or other taonga for personal or business gratification would appear to have little to do with reciprocity. The struggle by iwi and hapū to prevent the misuse of Māori images, or to protect our intellectual property rights, shows how difficult it’s been to ensure any reciprocity at all. Whether it was trying to stop the use of tīpuna images on tea towels in the 1990s, or the ongoing attempts to ensure the authenticity of taonga sold as souvenirs, the struggle has always been how best to protect what is important to us, while opposing damaging or unethical taking.

A number of Māori, for example, felt that, just as there is a genuine willingness to share the reo in the spirit of manaakitanga, so the moko kauae should be shared with anyone who respectfully desires it. However, sharing always requires reciprocity, and a presumed right just to take is fundamentally at odds with the mutual generosity implicit in manaakitanga.

Māori women who argued that it was only a taonga for those with whakapapa were subjected to a level of contempt on social media that gave the lie to any illusions of good faith. Their brave attempts to explain why it was necessary to protect the tradition and reclaim its value for all Māori women, were met with slut shaming and allegations of “moko police”.

It is that history which has made the moko kauae issue so hurtful and problematic for many Māori, and for many Māori women in particular. So much has already been taken that the recent reclaiming of the moko kauae by our people has been both a recognition of its unique beauty as a representation of whakapapa, and a taking back to protect it from further damage. Sally Anderson, whose moko kauae sparked a debate about whether non-Māori should be able to use such taonga. Because history is still with us, a Pākehā woman’s use of the moko kauae may properly be seen as another taking. Her professed good intentions don’t necessarily explain or excuse the taking. A nineteenth-century coloniser who farmed confiscated land may have had good intentions in subsequently employing Māori labourers, but that did not justify the taking.

In many ways, the history of colonisation has been like a journey through a shopping mall for the violent and the power hungry. It has been acted out in a supermarket of racism and greed, where the colonisers assumed that everything from precious jewels to human bodies were either on special or a free giveaway just for them.

Respecting what we’re prepared to share and not share

Click here to hear Ron Mark's excellent speech against the Maori Party's Local Electoral (Equitable Process for establishing Maori Wards and Maori Constituencies) Bill in June 2017. The Bill presupposes that all Maori think alike". Fortunately the Bill was defeated.

Hobson’s Pledge believes: Maori wards are not necessary for Council decisions which are mainly to do with roads, drinking water, sewage, parks and venues, which are for the benefit of everyone irrespective of their ancestry We all have the ability to represent our communities through democratic elections on merit. It is demeaning and patronising to suggest that Maori need special assistance Separating us into "Maori" and the "rest of us" is divisive and will damage our communities

Last year Councillors in Palmerston North, Kaikoura, Manawatu, Whakatane and Western Bay of Plenty districts decided that ratepayers on the Maori electoral roll would be forced to vote in separate Maori wards. We challenged the Councillors and voters overwhelmingly voted "No" to separate Maori wards. 

Vote "NO" to Maori wards

There is no longer any need for the Waitangi Tribunal

There is no longer any need for special Maori representation in government

The Treaty of Waitangi did not create a “partnership” between Maori and the Crown;

The Treaty of Waitangi is not in any meaningful sense New Zealand’s constitution;

All New Zealanders should be equal before the law, irrespective of when they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand;

Judd has written to minister of local government, Paula Bennett, asking for the law that allows a binding poll to be changed. "This is a national issue," he said. "Central Government has set the rules for councils to engage with Maori in a meaningful way, and yet there are things that mean the engagement can be opposed. "Well that's not good enough for me, let alone how it must feel for Maori."

Despite this Judd has now challenged New Plymouth MP Jonathan Young and Labour leader Andrew Little to take the issue to parliament.  "They must have a view on this, and what is that? They are our representatives and they need to talk about it," Judd said.  District councils debated Maori wards every six years and because of this Maori had no permanent representation, Judd said.  However, if the representation was written into law Maori could have a constant presence around council tables.

Judd said he has been sworn at in the supermarket by people unhappy with the decision, and said he believed his championing the cause would cost him a second term as mayor. 

New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd has taken his fight for Maori representation a step further, calling for a law change so up to half of all councillors in New Zealand are Maori. Judd, already fighting critics over his council's plans to create a Maori ward, believes there should be more Maori representation across the country to better reflect the Treaty of Waitangi.  "The reasonable interpretation of the Treaty is that you would have fifty-fifty representation around the table," Judd said.  "We should be incorporating the Maori perspective around council tables, and ultimately that would mean up to half the representation each."

New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd has taken his fight for Maori representation a step further, calling for a law change so up to half of all councillors in New Zealand are Maori. Judd, already fighting critics over his council's plans to create a Maori ward, believes there should be more Maori representation across the country to better reflect the Treaty of Waitangi.  "The reasonable interpretation of the Treaty is that you would have fifty-fifty representation around the table," Judd said.  "We should be incorporating the Maori perspective around council tables, and ultimately that would mean up to half the representation each."

maunga, our awa, our moana.

whakapapa

tūpuna

urupā

puna

wahi tapu

A spokesperson for the protesters, Pania Newton said her tūpuna used to live and work on the land she was now fighting to protect. "We've been here since the 5th of November, since the Parihaka commemoration day when we launched our noho whenua, our land stay here at Ihumātao." "This is wahi tapu, there is urupā here, there is puna and stone wall structures which were constructed by Māori, our tūpuna. "This is where we grew māra kai to feed our people and to feed Auckland, so that's why it is so significant this is where our whakapapa and our identity lies, our maunga, our awa, our moana. "It is important to maintain these structures and wahi tapu because we come back here and we feel connected to our tūpuna."

Ihumātao and Ōtuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve is the home to New Zealand's earliest gardens and is a significant archaeological site on land considered wahi tapu, or sacred, by local hapū and iwi. The land has been earmarked for housing and developer Fletcher Building has been granted approval to build 480 homes on 34 hectares next to the stone fields.

Mangere

ahi kā

mōkai

whakapapa

tapu

whāngaied

disenfranchised

stretching

Associate Professor Mera Lee-Penehira from Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi said she had nothing against Sally Anderson. She just wanted Māori women to retain an important cultural practice for themselves. "It is about wahine Māori maintaining the integrity of moko kauae for wahine Māori. "It's not really about Sally, it's not really about Sally's artist, it is about maintaining that we know that this is importantly whakapapa related."

A leading moko artist, Mark Kopua, said Māori taonga was often exploited and this was no exception. But he said given certain circumstances he would not deny a Pākehā woman from receiving a moko kauae. "There have been instances in the 1900s where various kuia Pākehā that have lived a predominantly Māori life have been given moko by that Māori community because of their contribution to that community. "If I was to come across an individual who had those similar circumstances backing her then I would have no hesitation to follow the advice and the direction of the hapū."

Tania Cotter from Wairoa has had her moko kauae for 10 years - it represents mana wahine and her feminine essence. She said she doesn't have a problem with Pākehā women wearing them too because she believes Māori taonga need to be shared. "We share our culture ... we want the reo to be compulsory in schools, so we're asking for Pākehā people to learn our reo, so why aren't we allowing them to take on our taonga tuku iho of tā moko?" She said her ancestors even gave European settlers tā moko in the past. "My ancestors and our tipuna set the precedent way back in the 1800s when they gifted many Pākeha men moko kanohi."

But Lynette Olsen who also wore a moko kauae, said the taonga should only be carried by Māori women. "In the years that I've had my moko, I've travelled the world. We can go anywhere in the world and we're the only people that wear it, us wahine Māori. "To have it used the way she's chosen to use it really doesn't sit well with me. In that moko kauae is our genealogy, I don't know how wahine Pākehā can do that."

A Māori woman who has had a facial moko for 10 years is backing a life coach who also has one despite being Pākehā. Sally Anderson sparked outrage on social media for flaunting her moko kauae or Māori chin tattoo on her company's website, and she has since removed the images on some of her branding. But the debate about whether or not Pākehā should be able to wear traditional moko has divided people in the Māori community.

https://www.protectihumatao.com/   https://www.facebook.com/protectihumatao/

chalenges

MP William Sio, councillor Kathy Kasey archaeoligist David Veart and many others. There have been many articles in the media including excellent articles in New Geographic and Cracuum as well as TV appearences on Maori Television and the TVNZ Sunday program.

Kaitiaki Village

However many local residents were unaware that this had happened and strongly objected to the proposal.

Urban designer Garth Falcone was employed to design a master plan for the larger Otuataua Reserve. http://reseturban.co.nz/work/otuataua-stonefields-master-plan/   Architects Ken Crosson and Charissa Snidjers designed and completed construction drawings for a Heritage Centre. At the time this scheme had  support from local interested parties including Makarau Marae, Auckland Airport, Watercare and the Villa Maria Vineyard   http://crosson.co.nz/otuataua-heritage-centre-otuataua/ https://www.csaarchitect.com/otuataua-stonefields-project

Te Waiohua

Auckland’s Oldest community

480 homes

Not far from where I live in Mangere Bridge, Auckland

Māori Affairs select committee

hikoi

eviction notice

Environment Court declined to overturn the permission granted to Fletcher Building to build the houses in Māngere.

SOUL

32 hectares adjacent to the Otuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve as a Special Housing Area (SHA).

Te Kawerau ā Maki and the Crown signed a Deed of Settlement at Makaurau Marae in Māngere.

Auckland Council tried to make the land an open, public space, but the move was challenged in the Environment Court and council was directed to rezone the land, meaning it could be developed for business or residential purposes in future.

Crown

breaching

confiscated

New Zealand Settlements Act

'by proclamation'