Panuku asked children from Wiri Central School to input on what they would like a new playground in their area to look like. (Photo: Supplied)
Panuku asked children from Wiri Central School to input on what they would like a new playground in their area to look like. (Photo: Supplied)

ĀteaSeptember 28, 2020

How a South Auckland playground will be a gateway to an iwi’s history

Panuku asked children from Wiri Central School to input on what they would like a new playground in their area to look like. (Photo: Supplied)
Panuku asked children from Wiri Central School to input on what they would like a new playground in their area to look like. (Photo: Supplied)

An Auckland iwi whose population and land holdings were decimated during the New Zealand Wars is partnering with the Auckland Council’s development arm to ensure its stories are being heard – and a new playground plays a starring role.

Note: This article uses the iwi’s preferred spelling of Takaanini.

A new playground for South Auckland will serve as a memorial to the life of a prominent Tāmaki Makaurau chief, but also the tragedy that beset him and his iwi. 

As part of Panuku Development’s extensive work around the Manukau CBD, it is building a new playground in the neighbouring community of Wiri, which will be ready to use from next April. A key part of its creation has been input from South Auckland-based iwi Te Ākitai Waiohua. 

Karen Wilson is chair of the Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority and great-great-great granddaughter of Ihaka Takaanini, one of the preeminent chiefs in South Auckland during the mid-1800s. The suburb of Takaanini is named after him, and his son, Te Wirihana, is the inspiration for Wiri’s name. Prior to the New Zealand Land Wars, Te Ākitai Waiohua, under Takaanini’s leadership, had extensive land holdings across the region, including settlements in Māngere, Ihumātao, Papakura, Drury, Red Hill, Kirikiri, Ramarama, Karaka, Pokeno and Pukekohe. Takaanini was also a Crown-appointed land assessor and owned hostels in Onehunga and Mechanics Bay.

Having complained that dense forest and swamps made the overland invasion of Waikato almost impossible to achieve. Sir George Grey set about rectifying that situation, ordering the construction of the Great South Road from Auckland through to Waikato. This photograph, circa 1863, shows men working on the road’s construction. (Alexander Turnbull Library, PA1-q-250-48, photograph by William Temple)

In 1863, Governor George Grey denounced Waikato-Tainui’s Kīngitanga movement as a threat to the British empire and demanded that all Māori living in Auckland either declare their loyalty to the empire or leave the district. But Ihaka Takaanini neither stated his loyalty to Queen Victoria or fled to the Waikato. Leading up this point, Takaanini had gained much respect from Māori and Pākehā alike through his role mediating between the colonial government and Auckland Māori. But the colonial parliament in Auckland had just passed the Suppression of Rebellion Act, which allowed the indefinite imprisonment without trial of any Māori suspected of disloyalty to the queen. So without any basis for the accusations, the entire Takaanini family was locked in the Ōtāhuhu military barracks for months, where many of them died of disease, and those who survived were exiled to Rakino Island in the Hauraki Gulf, where Takaanini would eventually die. It is still unknown where exactly he was interred, and this remains a source of distress for the tribe to this day. Wilson says her great-great grandfather Te Wirihana Takaanini, Ihaka’s only surviving son, was eventually freed and given a fraction of the iwi’s former lands at Pukaki in Māngere. 

Despite the decimation of Te Ākitai’s population and assets, Wilson says the iwi continues to reestablish itself. The iwi is currently working towards signing a Te Tiriti o Waitangi Deed of Settlement with the Crown, while looking for opportunities to enhance the economic and social wellbeing of its people. In this regard, the iwi has partnered with Panuku and other parties in the housing development known as Kotuitui, a name which has been gifted to the development by Te Ākitai. The massive 300-strong housing development is being built on Barrowcliffe Place between the southern motorway and the Wiri Creek Reserve, where the playground will be.

“Takaanini was the preeminent chief for the area and we acknowledge his significance, but it’s also a tragic story,” Wilson says. “So it’s humbling that Panuku and other mana whenua have allowed us to tell this story so people can understand why these areas are named as they are. So even though it might seem his influence has been lost, we would wish to make sure that it’s never lost in that we’re able to make sure his stories are told.”

Karen Wilson, right, alongside Manurewa Local Board members Melissa Atama and chair Joseph Allan at the Wiri Stream Reserve where the new playground will be built. (Photo: Supplied)

Wilson says the injustices committed against her great-great-great grandfather still reverberate today. 

“During that time of incarceration, most of the land holdings held by Ihaka Takaanini were taken over by others, so when Te Wirihana was released there were only small pieces of land that were available. When you lose key tīpuna in that manner, you get cut out of the process. But we’re now in a good space, and we’re able to talk to our whakapapa and history more knowledgeably.”

She says it means a lot that local children will be able to engage with Te Ākitai’s stories, particularly the story of how her people came to Aotearoa. 

“The best part of this is that it’s an educational space for children. The story I was told when I was a child was that our people didn’t come here on a waka but on a stingray, so that has been integrated into the design and we can retell that story through the playground. It provides kids an opportunity to have an adventure as it’s not prescribed what you do on it.”

An artist’s rendering of what the new playground will look like at Wiri Stream Reserve. (Photo: Supplied/Panuku)

Mason Ngawhika is the kai ārahi Māori – Māori responsiveness manager – at South Auckland-based community development agency The Cause Collective. He applauds Te Ākitai Waiohua’s efforts to ensure the playground reflects a Māori worldview. 

“The fact that it’s able to tell the mana whenua story is good, because if you asked the average person in South Auckland, ‘who are the mana whenua and do you know what happened to them?’, most wouldn’t know anything, so that story needs to be told,” Ngawhika says. 

“Also, the current style of playgrounds these days are these plastic monstrosities that are very singular in terms of purpose. There’s a slide and you just slide down it, there’s a swing and you just swing on it. Whereas these playgrounds, because they draw upon mātauranga Māori knowledge, they encourage children to use their imaginations, which is a thing children these days are starting to lose with the advent of devices and technology.”

Panuku’s principal landscape architect Suzanne Lange says using local stories can help the community feel a greater sense of ownership for the space.

“The success of this project has been working closely with the knowledge and people of the Wiri and Manukau neighbourhoods to understand the place and people and how we can fold that into the design brief.”

Keep going!
Judith Collins watches Jacinda Ardern during the first TV debate of the campaign (Getty Images)
Judith Collins watches Jacinda Ardern during the first TV debate of the campaign (Getty Images)

OPINIONPoliticsSeptember 28, 2020

The first leaders’ debate was so awful because the old format no longer works

Judith Collins watches Jacinda Ardern during the first TV debate of the campaign (Getty Images)
Judith Collins watches Jacinda Ardern during the first TV debate of the campaign (Getty Images)

Laura O’Connell Rapira has some ideas for improving the standard of TV election debates in Aotearoa.

Last week I hate-watched the TVNZ Leaders’ Debate.

I knew I wasn’t going to like it. TV election debates are generally awful. Whoever decided fast-paced, adversarial soundbite clashes where folks speak over each other was the best way to help voters make important decisions was wrong. There is no grounded wisdom that can emerge from this whack AF process.

It’s especially strange to prioritise a primetime presidential-style debate between just two party leaders in a country with MMP. It’s a recipe for banality and a format that belongs in the past.

Like any good political nerd, I knew this and watched anyway. John Campbell gave Judith Collins and Jacinda Ardern 30 seconds each to answer questions about inequality, infrastructure, housing and health – as if complex kaupapa can be discussed in any meaningful way in half a minute.

I waited with bated breath for a question – any question – that included the words, ‘Māori’ or ‘Te Tiriti’ but it never came. Ninety minutes and not a mention. The mental health of farmers was discussed – which is good – but the 94% increase of young Māori dying by suicide over the last decade was overlooked. I’m not saying the mental health of farmers isn’t important. I’m saying the mental health of rangatahi Māori is too.

I cringed when Judith Collins claimed to understand what it’s like to be a decile two Pasifika student in today’s world because her “husband is Sāmoan”. The incredible Fili Fepulea’i-Tapua’i had asked what National or Labour will do to help students who are dropping out of school to help their families pay the bills. Jacinda said Labour would lift the minimum wage to $20 an hour. Judith said National would give minimum wage workers a tax cut that works out to be an extra $8.10 per week. Neither addressed the issue of classism and racism inherent in our education system. Could they have if given more than 30 seconds to respond?

After the debate, which was between two Pākehā and hosted by a Pākehā, the audience was treated to an all-Pākehā panel. I turned off the TV at that point and searched for an election discussion that I could see my whānau represented in. I found The Hui’s Māori electorate debates and relished the slower pace, limited interruptions and concessions from candidates that other parties have some good ideas too.

The Hui debates felt less like a game where the winner takes all, and more like a group of people engaging in robust discussion about their ideas for the future of Aotearoa. By including parties other than National and Labour, the range of ideas discussed were broader and the kōrero more interesting. When a debate only includes representatives from the centre-left and centre-right, the scope of discussion is disappointingly narrow. I’m not suggesting we entertain ideas from the far-right but a little more diversity of political thought is welcome.

Let’s imagine for a moment how election debates could be different if they were designed in service of democracy: It’s election time and Mihingarangi Forbes and John Campbell are co-hosting a series of political discussions. There are five episodes – each exploring a range of important kaupapa – broadcast across radio, television and social media.

Each event has NZSL interpreters and live captions are available in our five most spoken languages: English, Māori, Sāmoan, Mandarin, and Hindi. We’d decided as a country that democracy works best when everyone participates so we’re working together to make it possible for everyone to do so.

Each discussion takes place in a different part of the country with a diverse and representative audience. Community, hapū and iwi contribute to the questions to ensure a wide range of kaupapa are covered.

National, Labour, ACT, NZ First, Māori Party, TOP and the Greens all participate. Advance NZ have been rejected due to a media-wide commitment to de-platforming peddlers of disinformation. That’s something we felt was important to ensure a healthy democracy too.

The debates are creative in format. Short videos are played to explain the whakapapa of an issue before it gets discussed. A range of experts and people with lived experience helped make the videos. Parties are asked how they would respond to imaginary scenarios like, “What would you do if there was an earthquake in Wellington?” or “How would you respond if the US government asked us to go to war?” Each party has a group of candidates present for each discussion. Responses are considered in teams before they are answered and spokespeople are given three minutes, not 30 seconds, to allow for meaningful contributions.

Candidates are, at times, asked to identify what aspects of another party’s policies they agree with before presenting an alternative view. The format makes for much more deliberative discussions, which has attracted a whole new audience. Candidates are encouraged to make explicit their vision and values so that voters can better understand their worldviews.

Voters deserve better than the debate we were served last Tuesday night. I hope for our democracy’s sake they deliver in the next one.