RETURN BASTION POINT TO THE NGATI WHATUA

Mana (Auckland), Volume 2, Issue 3, 4 May 1978, Page 1

RETURN BASTION POINT TO THE NGATI WHATUA

THE LAND, WHO DOES IT BELONG TO? DOES IT BELONG TO THE ONE WHO JS BORN OF IT, WHO IS LOVED OF IT AND WHO WORKS IT? OR DOES IT BELONG TO THOSE WHO, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MAJORITY, EXPLOIT IT, AND OUR PEOPLE, DAILY? SYD JACKSON BASTION POINT — 485 DAYS ON The struggle of Bastion Point is a Maori struggle as we, the indigenous people of this country, reclaim some of our land. It is us claiming our right to exist as Maoris, as Tangata Whenua, on the traditional lands of our forefathers. It is us claiming the right to live our way of life. The process that brought us to Bastion Point has been a long and sad one. This process began as we recovered from the tragedy of the Pakeha Wars in the 19th Century. It has quickened pace and gained shape over the last ten years.

In 1971, the new wave of the Maori struggle began with the formation of NgaTamatoa. They demonstrated at Waitangi and wept,for the broken Treaty that was Waitangi. During the next four years there were

demonstrations against bureaucracy and confrontations with the government and its agencies. Many of these were seemingly unconnected but they were all part of the growth of a movement.

In 1975, Te Roopu o te Matakite was formed and this group organised the epic Maori Land March. That march ended with the camp on the steps of Parliament Buildings and the eviction of the campers from there on Christmas Eve, 1975.. The second phase of the Land March had begun meanwhile and since then there have been more and more people moving from the cities back to their tribal lands, the land occupation in Reglan and the momentous sixteen-month repossession of Maori land on Bastion Point. This has clearly been a milestone in the struggle.

On 20 April the Crown again successfully led the white attack against Maori attempts to assert sovereignty over their lands. Speight J. held in the Auckland Supreme Court that Joe Hawke, Jack Rameka, Grant Hawke and Roger Rameka had no “right, title or license” to Bastion Point and he granted the Crown, i.e. the government, an injunction to restrain them from staying on their own land.

On 24 April the next step in this systematised oppression was taken when the Commissioner of Crown Lands served notice on Joe Hawke and Roger Rameka that they were to quit the land forthwith. He told others present that they were trespassing.

However, at a meeting the day before it had been decided that the repossession of Bastion Point Would continue. The meeting was told that if Joe, Grant, Roger and Mike were removed others would take their place. At the time of writing that was how things stood as people from Nga Hau e Wha gathered in support of Ngati-Whatua.

The Court's decision came as no surprise to any Maori. We know from years of bitter experience that we do not go to the Courts for justice. There had earlier been proof of this in the Bastion Point case for Joe, Grant, Mike and Roger were refused legal aid. The injustice of this decision is seen more clearly when their plight is compared to that of Directors of the collapsed J.B.L. empire which had ripped millions of dollars off ordinary New Zealanders. They being white, middie-class and prosperous, and part of the land rip-offs were granted legal aid. Yet, even when Joe and his comrades appealed the iniquitous decision not to grant them legal aid, they were still turned down in spite of their desperate financial plight.

People who had been present throughout the Court hearing said, after reading the judgement, that they must have been sitting in a different courtroom from the judge for him to have reached the decision he did on the evidence presented. Joe Hawke described the decision as ‘inept, racist and discriminatory.’ Oliver Sutherland, spokesperson for ACORD, said the decision was a ‘bloody disgrace’.

It is vital that the Crown’s claim in this case, the Bastion Points defendant’s submissions and the Judge's decision be clearly understood so that we realise how justice again has not been done. The first point which must be stressed is that the Bastion Point defendants were not tried by one of their peers. They were tried by an older Pakeha lawyer whose knowledge of Maori language, Maori custom and Maori tradition was at best, minimal, and whose competence to take this case must, therefore, be seriously questioned. To prove this assertion we need simply point to the fact that Sir Apirana Ngata’s name and even the name of that pillar of respectability Professor Kawharu, were spelt incorrectly, on occasion, in the judgement.

Other evidence to support our contention of the Judge’s incompetence is found in the fact that he spoke in the judgement about the effect on the Morioris and their relationship to the land when Maoris arrived. It has long been established that the theory that a group of people known as Morioris ever existed was sirrtply the invention of a Pakeha. It has never been

supported by Maori Customs. It has been totally discredited by anthropologists, linguists, prehistorians and archaeologists and the Judge’s competence must be seriously questioned when he writes such onsense in his judgement. Further evidence which throws light on the Judge’s incompetence is seen when he discusses the formation of the steering committee which the Minister of Lands set up to consider the question of Orakai lands. Justice Speight stated ‘lt would be hard to think of a more responsible or fair-minded group of persons.’ In saying this he was, of course, disregarding the fact that one of this committee was the Commissioner of Crown Lands who has shown throughout this struggle, by both word and deed, that he was not an impartial observer. The Judge also chose to ignore the fact that two other members of the

Committee were Pakeha, local body politicians, neither of whom is noted for his .liberal position on racial matters. The fourth member of the committee was Professor Kawharu whose primary role, in the vexed question of Orakei, has been to work in conjunction with the Government to exagerate the divisions among his people. If, in the opinion of the learned Judge, this constitutes a responsible and fair-minded group of persons’ we can only conclude that his powers of judgement are sadly astray. Such a comment would be true, if all, or the majority of the committee had been Maori. His comments would have had some validity if those who repossessed Bastion Point were represented on the committee. But that was not the case. Had the Minister given the people on Bastion Point the right to be represented on a committee, agreed to buy

them, a fair decision would have been reached.

The examples which have been given show that the Court proceedings were no more than a farce. All they did was to prove yet again that the Court is there to look after that small minority of people who make the laws and whose interests they are there to

protect. The four defendants claimed that the injunction sought by the Crown should be refused because the Crown had not done equity (justice) to NgatiWhatua. In his judgement Speight held that he had discretion to decline the Crown’s application if there had been ‘illegal or unconscionable conduct by the Crown’ such as ‘deception’ or ‘fraud’. He then ignore the many examples of Crown double-dealing and deceit which had been clearly proved by the defendants. One example, of the many given in Court will serve to illustrate this point.

A four acre block was gifted by Apihai Te Kawau to the Anglican Church as a school, church site and burial ground. The Church used the land for these purposes only briefly and Maoris stayed on the land. In the mid-1920s the Crown started looking for ways to get rid of the natives and by special legislation overcame the legal obstacles to the Church being able to sell the land. The Crown then bought the land from the Church and threw the Maoris off.

The learned Judge claimed that incident was irrelevant to this case and said the Crown ‘was not to. be criticised’ for its actions. So much for equity’.

Even on the issue of the eviction of the people from the flat in 1950 all Speight could say was that the eviction was carried out in ‘good faith’ and was ‘the best solution’. Here again he ignored the fact that the most blatant injustices had been carried out against the people of Ngati-Whatua. Those brave patriots who are on Bastion Point are defying the injunction. They call on all our people to come to their aid.

solitary bastion Tamaki Makaurau A windswept point, a solitary bastion Tamaki Makaurau The eyes of your children openly brood into the past of a living future beyond a tomb of concrete grass beyond a tomb of wooden boxes towards your tussock warmth that beckons towards your sacred warmth ancestral You are the pulse so lives your children Children live — become your pulse A windswept point, a solitary bastion Tamaki Makaurau By Leonie Te Amohanga