Emergency housing on Te Puke o Arataki reserve
Arataki is a town of 9,000. The council spends $1.4 million a year putting 12 families in motels because there is no transitional housing. It proposes building 20 units on a 1.8-hectare council reserve known as Te Puke o Arataki. The reserve contains midden shells, a pā terrace, and is listed as wāhi tapu in the district plan. Local hapū say the land is a burial and gathering place and have not consented. Housing advocates say families are living in cars and the need is urgent. A geotechnical report says the site is stable, but a cultural assessment was never done. The proposal has 63 submissions for and 54 against. The council must decide whether to proceed, relocate, or delay.
1. Explain why this decision is a social justice issue, not just a housing issue.
Read the worked answer
This is a social justice issue because it involves the distribution of a scarce resource (housing) and recognition of mana whenua. The 12 families in motels experience distributive injustice: they lack secure homes. The hapū experience procedural and recognition injustice: a wāhi tapu site may be built on without their consent. A housing issue becomes a justice issue when decision-makers must choose whose needs count and who gets to decide. The council cannot simply maximise housing units; it must consider the Treaty partnership, the cultural value of the site, and the vulnerability of the families. Fairness requires both a home and a fair process.
2. Describe the consequences of proceeding without hapū consent, and the consequences of delaying.
Read the worked answer
Proceeding without consent could damage the council–hapū relationship, trigger legal challenges under the district plan or Treaty settlement processes, and cause protest and mistrust. It may also cause cultural harm that cannot be compensated. Delaying leaves 12 families in motels at $1.4 million a year, with instability and stigma; some may lose jobs or schooling. A delay also costs money that could build homes. The council should not treat delay as neutral: it distributes harm to families. A short delay for a cultural assessment may be justified if paired with interim housing, but an indefinite delay is not.
3. Recommend a process the council should follow. Justify how it would address both housing need and the Treaty partnership.
Read the worked answer
The council should pause the current proposal, commission a cultural assessment with the hapū, and set up a joint working group with hapū, housing providers, and council. It should ask the hapū whether any part of the reserve is suitable, and explore alternative sites and urgent interim housing. Justification: this follows a Treaty-based partnership approach and addresses procedural justice. It also keeps housing need visible. A decision should be made against published criteria: cultural safety, number of homes, cost, and time. If no agreement is reached, the council should not force the site; it should fund motel exits and a new site.