Four voices at Bastion Point, 1977–78
On 5 January 1977 members of the Orakei Māori Action Committee, led by Joe Hawke, occupied Bastion Point (Takaparawhā) above Auckland's Waitematā Harbour. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei had lost the land in stages: taken for defence in the 1880s, taken again under public works legislation in the 1940s for a housing scheme that was never fully built, and in the mid-1970s the government announced a housing development for the remaining site. The occupation lasted 506 days. On 25 May 1978 police and army personnel removed 222 people. Consider four perspectives. (1) Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei: 'We are not trespassers. We are tangata whenua protecting what was never freely sold.' (2) The Minister of Lands: 'This is Crown land needed for homes for Auckland families. The law must be upheld.' (3) A nearby resident: 'I have some sympathy, but the occupiers are breaking the law and the harbour view is being spoiled.' (4) A trade unionist: 'This is the same struggle as the workers' struggle. We will bring food and money.'
1. Explain why these four people held different perspectives on the occupation.
Read the worked answer
Perspectives differ because position, experience and interest differ
1. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. Their perspective comes from a specific history of repeated takings and from being tangata whenua with obligations to the land and to ancestors. Key values are mana whenua and the duty to protect the site for descendants. They do not see the occupation as law-breaking, because they dispute the lawfulness of the original takings.
2. The Minister of Lands. A minister is responsible for Crown land and public housing, and answers to Parliament and the electorate. His perspective is shaped by a legal framework in which Crown title is valid, and by a housing shortage that is a real problem. He is also defending the government's decision, which makes it hard for him to concede error.
3. The resident. This person's position is local and personal: property, amenity and a view. Their sympathy is real but limited by an interest that the occupation threatens. It is a perspective of someone with something to lose and no responsibility for the original grievance.
4. The trade unionist. Their perspective is ideological: they read the occupation through a class framework and see common cause with workers. Their support is practical - food and money - because their movement can offer solidarity rather than land.
Judgement: the differences are not simply ignorance versus knowledge. Each person reasons from a different position, with different obligations and different things at stake.
2. What do the Minister's perspective and the unionist's perspective reveal about different ideas of what land and law are for?
Read the worked answer
The Minister: land as a resource administered under law
For the Minister, land is a public asset to be allocated to needs - here, housing for Auckland families. Law is the procedure that makes allocation orderly and prevents anyone from simply taking what they want. The occupation is a problem because it challenges the procedure, not because the occupiers' history is denied. This is a perspective of administration: the question is who decides, not who was wronged first.
The unionist: land as a site of struggle
For the unionist, land is not a neutral asset but something already taken unfairly. Law is not neutral either - it is the means by which the taking was made to look legitimate. Support is offered to change the balance of power, not to apply the rules. Their interest in the occupation is partly strategic: a successful alliance strengthens their own movement.
Where they collide
The two perspectives answer different questions. The Minister asks: by what authority is this land held? The unionist asks: how was it acquired? Each is internally consistent, and neither can be defeated by the other's evidence alone, because they are not using the same test.
Judgement: the disagreement is about legitimacy, and that is why it cannot be settled by pointing out who broke a bylaw.
3. A student writes: 'The occupation failed because the police and army removed the protesters.' Assess this judgement.
Read the worked answer
What supports it
On the immediate question, the student is right: the site was cleared on 25 May 1978, 222 people were arrested, and the housing development went ahead. If success means possession of the land at the time, the occupation failed.
What the judgement misses
It measures only the last day. Three things point the other way:
- Public attention. For 506 days the occupation made land loss visible. The Crown's actions at Ōrākei were investigated by the Waitangi Tribunal, which criticised the Crown's conduct - a decision the occupiers could not have obtained from outside the fence.
- Political change. The occupation is widely credited with helping change how public works takings and Māori land grievances were handled, and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei later reached a settlement with the Crown.
- Duration and support. The occupation lasted 506 days and drew food, money and volunteers from unions and churches, which shows it built a coalition rather than isolating itself.
How to judge 'failure'
Success must be defined before it can be measured. If the aim was to keep the land in 1978, the occupation failed. If the aim was to force the grievance into public and legal view, it partly succeeded.
Judgement: the student's claim is accurate about the eviction and too narrow as an assessment of the occupation.