WAI894 # A26

A History of the Waiohau Blocks

A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal

Bernadette Arapere June 2002 Table of Contents

Introduction i.i The Research Commission 3 Lii Claims Relating to Waiohau 7

Chapter One Waiohau: The Land and the People 1.1 The Land 11 1.2 The People 13 1.2.1 Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu of Tuhoe 14 1.2.2 Ngati Pukeko 16 1.2.3 Other Hapu and Iwi 18

Chapter Two Leasing, Surveying and Title Investigation 2.1 Tuhoe and Land Leasing in the Rangitaiki Valley 20 2.2 Survey of Waiohau 25 2.3 Title Investigation of Waiohau 27 2.4 The Outcome of the Native Land Court's Decision 33

Chapter Three Partition, Fraud and Alienation 3.1 Waiohau 1 Block: Subdivision and Fraud 39 3.1.1 Compensation for Waiohau 1 B 44 3.1.2 Partition of Waiohau 1A 53 3.2 The Sale of Waiohau 2 55

Chapter Four Land Sale, Consolidation and Development 4.1 Purchases of Individual Interests 62 4.2 The Ruatoki-Waiohau Consolidation and Development Schemes 64 4.2.1 Crown Awards 73 4.3 The Development Scheme 74

4.4 Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe 79

4.5 Legal Access to Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe Lands 79

Conclusions 83 2

Bibliography 87

Appendices Appendix 1 Map of Waiohau 1 and 2 blocks, 24 July 1878, ML 4206, LlNZ. Appendix 2 Certificate of title, Waiohau 1. Appendix 3 Certificate of title, Waiohau 2. Appendix 4 Map, Waiohau and Te Teko Series, Ruatoki Consolidation Scheme, ML 15736. Appendix 5 Location map, Te Urewera (A Miles, 'Te Urewera', Rangahaua Whanui Report, 1999, p xx) 3

Introduction

Tena Koutou

Ko Ruahine te maunga

Ko Rangitikei te awa

Ko Ngati Raukawa ki te tonga, ko Ngati Tuwharetoa, ko Ngati Maniapoto nga iwi

Ko Ngati Pikiahuwaewae te hapu

No reira, tena koutou katoa

My name is Bernadette Arapere. I am a contract researcher based in Auckland. I am a partner of Te Uira Associates, a private Maori research company. In February 1999

I completed a Master of Arts (Hons) degree in history at Auckland University. I have been employed as an Analyst: Policy/Negotiations at the Office of Treaty Settlements

(1999-2000) and a Research Officer at the Waitangi Tribunal (2000-2002). I have researched and written reports for the Gisborne, Wairarapa and Urewera district inquiries.

i.i The Research Commission

In 1999 the Waitangi Tribunal commissioned Wayne Taitoko, a Research Officer at the Tribunal, to write and research a report concerning the Waiohau block. Taitoko subsequently moved to a new job within the Waitangi Tribunal but completed a scoping report and much of the research for the main report. Anita Miles, the Claim

Facilitator for the Urewera Inquiry and Report Supervisor for Waiohau until March

2002, also did research for the main report. The research had largely been completed when I took over the Waiohau report.

My work on the Waiohau report began in December 2001 while I was a full-time employee at the Waitangi Tribunal. I left the Tribunal in mid February 2002 and I 4 worked part-time on contract in March and April 2002 writing the report. I collated and assessed the material already collected and produced an inventory in order to identify gaps in the research. I completed a small amount of gap-filling research but my job has largely been one of analysis and writing.

I have been fortunate to have had access to completed block reports for the blocks surrounding Waiohau . I note, in particular, Nicola Bright's report on Kuhawaea, Peter

Clayworth's report on Tuararangaia and Steven Oliver's report on Ruatoki. My thanks go to these researchers and to Wayne Taitoko, Anita Miles and John Hutton.

I met with claimant representatives from Wai 36 (Tama Nikora) and Wai 819

(Wiparaki Allen Pakau) while writing the report. I received written comments on the draft report from the Wai 36 claimants. I did not meet with the Wai 726 claimant

(Robert Pouwhare) but he agreed to provide me with written comments on the draft report. Given that the commission has now concluded I will consider written comments from the Wai 726 claimants if I am called to present the report as evidence at a Waitangi Tribunal hearing. I am very thankful for the insights and information the claimants gave me. However, it should be noted that this report is not written from any particular claimant group's perspective and is not a comprehensive history of the Waiohau block. Rather the report is an independent account of customary interests, as well as, title investigation, land alienation and Crown actions or omissions relating to those processes.

The report was commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal as one of a series of block histories compiled for the Urewera district inqu iry casebook. The report was commissioned to address the following issues: a) A brief summary of customary relationships in the Waiohau area, prior to title

investigation of the Waiohau block by the Native Land Court; 5 b) information concerning any leasing of Waiohau lands prior to title investigation; c) the survey of the Waiohau block, identifying at whose initiative and with whose

consent the survey took place; d) a synopsis of the Native Land Court investigation of the Waiohau block and an

analysis of the outcome; e) the alienation of the Waiohau No 2 block; f) the compensation deal offered to owners of the Waiohau 1 B block by the Crown; g) the Crown purchasing of individual interests in the Waiohau block; h) the identification of private purchases of Waiohau lands; i) the Ruatoki-Waiohau consolidation scheme; and j) issues of legal road access to Waiohau blocks.

Waiohau is located inland from the eastern Bay of Plenty. The western boundary of the block is the Rangitaiki River. The block is bounded to the north by the

Tuararangaia block and to the south by the Kuhawaea block. These blocks, together with lands at Matahina and Kaingaroa, form the north-western borderlands of the

Urewera area. The Rangitaiki River valley encompassed an important gateway into the Urewera district, a circumstance that was to have considerable impact on relationships between local Maori and the Crown from the wars of the 1860s.

The Native Land Court investigated title to Waiohau in July 1878. Title was awarded predominantly to individuals of Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu of Tuhoe and partly to

Ngati Pukeko. There were several applications to the Native Land Court from Tuhoe for a re-hearing but none of them were granted. Waiohau was subdivided into two blocks after title investigation: Waiohau 1 and Waiohau 2. Each part of the original

Waiohau block has its own very different history. 6

Waiohau 1 was awarded to approximately 150 individuals of Ngati Haka,

Patuheuheu, Tuhoe and Ngati Manawa. In 1886 Waiohau 1 block was partitioned into two parts, Waiohau 1A and Waiohau 1 B. Waiohau 1B was transferred immediately thereafter to a Pakeha, Harry Burt, through a fraudulent purchase involving the Ngati Manawa owners. Appeals to the government and the courts over the legality of this purchase consumed Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu, in particular, and Tuhoe, generally, for over 40 years. In July 1905 the Supreme Court held that the sale of Waiohau 1B had been unjust and obtained by fraud. However, the judgement also held that the freehold title remained valid. Negotiations for compensation between the Crown and the origin?-I owners took many years to reach a conclusion. Even then questions remained as to the usefulness and adequacy of the compensation that the original owners of the block received . Waiohau 1A became embroiled in the Ruatoki-Waiohau consolidation scheme and land was alienated from the original owners via this scheme and purchases of individual interests in the land. The Tuhoe Waikaremoana Trust Board currently manages land remaining in Tuhoe ownership after the Ruatoki-Waiohau consolidation and development scheme was concluded. This land is known as Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe.

Waiohau 2, an area of 1,100 acres, was awarded to 81 individuals of Ngati Pukeko

(and some Ngai Tai and Ngati Whare chiefs) after title investigation in 1878. There is little recorded information about Ngati Pukeko's use of the land and whether or not they resided on Waiohau 2 after title was awarded to them. The descendants of the original owners did succeed to the land and in 1913 negotiations for sale of Waiohau

2 began. Various Pakeha applied to the Waiariki District Maori Land Board for meetings to ascertain ownership of Waiohau 2 in order to advance alienation. After five years of negotiations Waiohau 2 was sold to a Pakeha farmer in 1917. 7

This report begins with a brief overview of customary interests at Waiohau. It provides a synopsis of the Native Land Court investigation of title. It discusses the outcome of title investigation and events after the block was subdivided into Waiohau

1 and 2 blocks, and later, Waiohau 1A and 1B blocks. Crown purchases of individual interests in the block and the impact of the Ruatoki-Waiohau consolidation scheme are also examined in the report. Issues of legal road access to remaining Waiohau lands leads on from the impact of the consolidation scheme and remain a live issue for the current owners of Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe.

Lii Claims relating to Waiohau

The principal Waiohau claims lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal are Wai 36, Wai 726 and Wai 819.

Wai 36 is a consolidated claim reg istered by Wharehuia Milroy and Tama Nikora on behalf of the Tuhoe tribe. The claim is managed by the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori

Trust Board. The Statement of Claim alleges a number of breaches of the Treaty by the Crown regarding the Waiohau block and other blocks. In relation to Waiohau the statement of claim alleges that:

• The Native Land Court wrongly awarded title to 1,100 acres of Waiohau to Ngati

Pukeko on the basis of a lease of land which did not amount to a customary

interest in the land (paragraph 5.2.1, Wai 36 Statement of Claim);

• The Native Land Court refused to grant a rehearing despite repeated requests by

Tuhoe; (paragraph 5.2.2)

• In September 1886 the Native Land Court investigated title to Waiohau 1B but

failed to give notice of the hearing to Tuhoe and as a consequence Tuhoe did not

attend (paragraphs 5.3.1 and 5.3.2) ; 8

• The court wrongly awarded title of Waiohau 1B to two persons who subsequently

sold the block on which the main Tuhoe village, Te Houhi, was situated and failed

to grant a re-hearing despite Tuhoe requests (paragraphs 5.3.3 and 5.3.4);

• The Crown thereafter wrongly evicted Tuhoe from Te Houhi and Waiohau 1 B

(their village, urupa and mahinga kai) (paragraph 5.3.5);

• The Crown failed to purchase and return Waiohau 1B to Tuhoe despite the

illegality/injustice of the sale having been recognised by the Supreme Court in

Beale v Tihema Te Hau and Others and the Attorney-General [1905] (paragraph

5.3.6);

• The Crown failed to fully compensate Tuhoe for the loss of Waiohau 1B, for the

loss of the village, urupa, church, school and mahinga kai and for the costs

incurred by Tuhoe in attempting to recover Waiohau 1B (paragraph 5.3.7);

• Despite opposition by Tuhoe the Crown pursued a policy of purchasing individual

interests in the Ruatoki and Waiohau blocks and then established the Ruatoki­

Waiohau consolidation scheme (paragraph 4.0);

• Tuhoe understood that once Crown interests were separated as a result of the

scheme those interests would be offered back to Tuhoe. The Crown did not offer

those lands to Tuhoe (paragraph 4.4);

• The Crown failed to ensure that all new survey titles had legal access (paragraph

4.6); and

• As a result of the Ruatoki-Waiohau consolidation scheme the Crown retains

ownership of Waiohau B9 block, an area of 2073 acres, 1 rood and 32 perches

(paragraph 4.9).

Wai 560 was registered by Te Whitu McGarvey on behalf of the Tauarau Marae trustees and Ngati Rongo. The claim relates to the loss of Waiohau 1B, Tuhoe 9 appeals over the land, eviction of Tuhoe from Waiohau 1B, and compensation for land lost. Wai 560 was consolidated with Wai 36 in 2000 and is not a separate claim.

Wai 726, the Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu Lands, Forests and Resources claim, was

registered by Janet Carson and Robert Pouwhare in 1998. The Statement of Claim alleges that Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu were prejudicially affected by:

• the invasion of the Urewera by Crown forces during the New Zealand wars;

• the establishment of the Urewera District Native Reserve;

• the operation on the Native Land Court and the Urewera Commission;

• the implementation of the Urewera Lands Act;

• the creation of the Urewera National Park; and

• the taking of Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu land for public purposes.

The claimants allege that those breaches of the Treaty occurred within the traditional rohe of Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu and that the area under claim includes lands within the Matahina, Waiohau, Ruatoki and Te Houhi areas, as well as all rivers, lakes, streams, waterways and associated fisheries.

Wai 819, Waiohau Block No.2 and Rangitaiki Block No. 38 claim, was registered in

1999 by Wiparaki Allen Pakau. The claims alleges that the descendants of Tamaia

Rohi, a chief of Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko, have been prejudiced by acts, policies and administrative actions of the Crown in relation to Waiohau 2 and Rangitaiki 38 blocks.

Other claims that mention Waiohau are Wai 212, Te Ika Whenua claim, Wai 247,

Waiohau C26 claim and Wai 46, the Ngati Awa claim. Claimants to Wai 46 and Wai

247 have been through the Waitangi Tribunal process and are currently in direct 10 negotiations with the Crown. Evidence relating to Te Ika Whenua traditions and

Waiohau was prepared for Te Ika Whenua Rivers hearings before the Waitangi

Tribunal. I have used document banks and reports from both the Wai 46 and Wai 212

Records of Documents in this report. 11

Chapter One - Waiohau: The Land and the People

1.1 The Land

The Waiohau lands adjoin the eastern side of the Rangitaiki river in the north-western part of the Urewera district. The block is bounded to the north by the Tuararangaia block and to the south by the Kuhawaea block. The Rangitaiki River was used by local Maori as a gateway to and from the eastern Bay of Plenty coast and Te

Urewera for trading with coastal allies and later with Pakeha. 1 The Waiohau lands are gently sloping and criss-crossed by streams and creeks. These lands were fertile and valuable to local Maori and to Pakeha.

Waiohau is located on the border of Te Urewera in a place that Professor Judith

Binney has described as a 'transition zone'. She maintains that:

Te Urewera is not a single tribal territory. Its borders have been, and are, contested .... In the 'transition zones', particularly at the borders where the mountains descend towards the river valleys on the west and on the east, and towards the Bay of Plenty, the communities who lived there fought each other frequently, but they were also intertwined by multiple kinship links, forged through politically arranged marriages.2

Hirini Moko Mead of Ngati Awa discussed the concept of 'contested land' or 'whenua tautohetohe' in evidence before the Waitangi Tribunal in the Ngati Awa raupatu claim.3 Mead described 'whenua tautohetohe' as being the border areas between different iwi 'that is not so much like a surveyed line ... but rather is like a band of land which might be likened to a zone of no man's land.'4 The issue for Waiohau is that the whenua tautohetohe zone surrounding the borders of Ngati Awa and proposed by

1 Elsdon Best, Tuhoe: Children of the Mist, Wellington, AH & AW Reed, 1973, pp 555-6. 2 Judith Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part One: A History of the Urewera from European Contact until 1878, An Overview Report on the Urewera', April 2002, p 4. 3 H Mead and Te Roopu Whakaemi Korero 0 Ngati Awa, 'Whenua Tautohetohe: Testing the Tribal Boundaries', (Wai 46 # C7). The Waitangi Tribunal did not accept Mead's assertion of 'whenua tautohetohe' in the Ngati Awa raupatu hearings. However, the construct is useful in assessing different iwi perceptions of boundaries and borderlands. 4 Mead, p 13. 12

Mead goes straight through the claimed rohe of Tuhoe, through Ruatoki,

Tuararangaia and Waiohau. In comparison to Ngati Awa's view, Tuhoe argue that these locations are clearly within the rohe of Tuhoe. Evidence given by Tuhoe witnesses to the Native Land Court in the title investigation of Waiohau attests to the exclusivity of ownership that Tuhoe believed they maintained at Waiohau.

The Rangitaiki River was used for fishing and eeling as well as for transport. Many sources of food were also gathered from the bush. However, land and river use changed over time. Traditionally seasonal hunters and gatherers, Tuhoe began to grow cultivations to trade with Pakeha as Maori-Pakeha contact increased. The

inhabitants of the Rangitaiki River valley were considered by visiting Pakeha to be

using their lands productively. In 1862, the resident magistrate C Hunter Brown visited the Urewera area, noting that the inhabitants of the open country of Waimana,

Ruatoki and Rangitaiki 'plough their land, have sledges and drays and grow a little wheat, and have generally a steel mill at the kainga, and are dressed nearly up to the average Maori style.'s Canoe building was also an occupation of the local people as various witnesses confirmed in the Native Land Court in 1878.6

The ethnographer, Elsdon Best, noted in his description of Waiohau that there were

hot springs in the vicinity.? Claimants and counter claimants before the Native Land

Court in the title investigation of Waiohau described the cultivations, kainga and pa that were on the block. From approximately 1872 the principal Ngati Haka and

Patuheuheu settlement was the village of Te Houhi. 8 Te Houhi was located on flat

land on the banks of the Rangitaiki river near the hot springs. A meeting house,

Tama ki Hikurangi was built at Te Houhi in the late 1870s. Te Houhi was where most

5 Anita Miles, Te Urewera, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui series (working paper: first release), March 1999, p 80. 6 Title investigation of Waiohau block, Opotiki Minute Book 1 (hereafter OMB), 27·31 July 1878, pp 96·104. 7 Best, p 10. B Gwenda Monteith Paul, 'Te Houhi and Waiohau 1 B', (Wai 46 RoD, doc H4), p 3. 13

Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu owners of Tuhoe resided until they were evicted from the land by the Pakeha owners in 1907. There were also other significant places on the Waiohau lands. Both Tukutoromiro, at the entrance to the Waiohau valley on the boundary with Tuararangaia, and Aniwaniwa, had settlements and pa. 9 There was also a track from Ruatoki to Waiohau that ran along the base of the Tuararangaia block.10 Ngati Pukeko claimed to have pa named Tauheke and Whakamatau on the northern part of the Waiohau block, a fact challenged by Tuhoe at the investigation of title to Waiohau in the Native Land Court 1878.11

Waiohau's position on the edge of the Urewera and the perceived value of the land would be partly responsible for the occurrence of land leasing, surveying and title investigation in this block earlier than in the interior Urewera blocks. Another factor was the independence of hapu resident on the edges of Te Urewera. Wi Patene and

Mehaka Tokopounamu of Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu began leasing land at

Waiohau in about 1874 without the authority of the wider Tuhoe leadership.12

1.2 The People

A detailed discussion of the original occupants and customary relationships of

Waiohau is beyond the scope of this commission. It is envisaged that claimant evidence will address this issue in more detail. Accordingly, what follows is a brief summary of the customary interests in the Waiohau area, prior to title investigation of the Waiohau block in the Native Land Court in 1878. At the title investigation the principle groups represented were Tuhoe and Ngati Pukeko. In appeals and petitions after title investigation, the owners of Waiohau 1 variously identified themselves as

Patuheuheu, Ngati Haka and Tuhoe. While other groups also have traditions relating

9 Judith Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two: A History of th e Urewera, 1878-1912, An Overview Report on the Urewera', June 2002, p 15. 10 Peter Clayworth, 'A History of the Tuararangaia Blocks', a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, May 2001, (Wai 36 # A22) , P 18. 11 Opotiki MB 1, 11 July 1878, P 97. 14 to Waiohau, for the purposes of this report the origins of Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu of Tuhoe and Ngati Pukeko are related in more detail.

Best recorded that the earliest occupation of the area south of Te Houhi was by a people called 'Te Marangaranga', although no approximate date is given for this settlement. He also noted that 'about nine generations ago a portion of Nga Potiki

moved from Rua-tahuma [sic] and settled at Wai-o-hau and other parts.'13 Best claimed that '[i]n regard to that part of the Rangitaiki valley lying on the east side of the river, and from Wai-o-hau southwards to Te Houhi, it is not clear to whom it belonged in olden days.'14 He also described the conquering of Te Marangaranga by

Wharepakau and Tangiharuru. He said that the force stayed at Raepohatu (at

Matahina) and then crossed the river to Te Houhi , before going to Kuhawaea. 15 He also recorded Tikitu of Ngati Awa as saying that the descendants of Haeana (Te

Marangaranga), Tangiharuru and Wharepakau intermarried and in the time of Tu-te­

Ao dropped the name Marangaranga and assumed the name Nga Maihi. 16 Nga Maihi were recorded as living at Te Teko among Ngati Awa. 17

1.2.1 Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu of Tuhoe

Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu are hapu of Tuhoe and descendants of the eponymous ancestor, Tuhoe Potiki. 18 Patuheuheu descended from Toi, through Maru, Te

Warutua, Totarawahia and Te Hina. 19 Best described Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu as

being one and the same people. 20 For the purposes of this report I am not

distinguishing between them. In her discussion of the many independent Tuhoe hapu

12 Paul document bank, volume 3, p 2; Miles, pp 234-5. 13 Best, p 18. 14 Best, p 18. 15 Best, pp 128-9. 16 Best, p 134. 17 Best, p 134. 18 Angela BaHara, Iwi: The Dynamics of Maori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c. 1945, Victoria University Press, Wellington, p 290. 19 Best, p 221. 20 Best, 27. 15

Angela Ballara noted that Patuheuheu was considered to be one of the more important Tuhoe hapu in the nineteenth century.21 Indeed, Patuheuheu operated independently of the wider iwi in land leasing and dealings at Kuhawaea and

Waiohau from the early 1870s. It seems that patterns of hapu independence persisted although Tuhoe leaders attempted to unify their constituent hapu via Te

Whitu Tekau , the Council of Seventy.22

Patuheuheu was originally called Ngati Rakei of Nga Potiki. They became known as

Ngati Haka after an encounter between Pukeko of Ngati Rakei and Karia and Te

Onewatahi of Ngati Whare. 23 The name 'Patuheuheu' came about because some

Ngati Haka people fought with Ngati Awa at a place named Waipokaia, in an uru heuheu or thicket. Hence the name of the group was changed to Patuheuheu in reference to the slaying that occurred in the thicket. 24 Patuheuheu chief, Wi Patene, said that Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu were descended from Te Hina. Te Hina was a descendent of Toi that had been born, lived and died at Waiohau and had kainga and pa located throughout the block.25 Another ancestor, Tama-ki-Hikurangi, also descended from Toi. The wharenui on Waiohau was named after this ancestor and after Hikurangi, the sacred mountain of Patuheuheu.

Ngati Rongo was another hapu of Tuhoe that intermarried with and became united with Patuheuheu. Although most Ngati Rongo people lived at Tauarau and Ruatoki, a section of the hapu was said to live at Te Houhi but under other hapu names. It is likely that it was Patuheuheu that Ngati Rongo resided with and lived under the banner of at Te Houhi. 26

21 Ballara, p 292. 22 Miles, pp 234-5. 23 Best, pp 28-9. 24 Best, p 221. 250MB 1, 26 July 1878, P 106. 16

Population estimates recorded by government officials in the 1870s provide some indication of the Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu population that was resident at

Waiohau. It should be remembered though that such figures did not account for people being away trading, hunting or visiting when the figures were recorded. In

1874 106 people identifying as Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu were resident at

Rangitaiki-Horomanga.27 The 1878 census data recorded the Patuheuheu population at Waiohau-Horomanga at 132 people although this figure did not include those

Urewera people that may have been resident at Te Putere or other locations.28 (Ngati

Haka and Patuheuheu surrendered to the government in 1871 and were relocated to the coastal settlement of Te Putere. This is discussed below.)

Strategic relationships and whakapapa connections existed between Ngati Rakei,

Ngati Haka, Patuheuheu and Ngati Rongo, all independent hapu of Tuhoe, at

Waiohau. Furthermore, Best recorded that Ngati Haka, Ngati Hiki, Ngati Rakei , Ngati

Ruatore and Ngati Whakapuiru were all subdivisions of Patuheuheu.29 Whatever the case, in relation to Waiohau, particularly in negotiations connected with land and in appearances at the Native Land Court, these people identified themselves under the banner of Patuheuheu or under the broader term, Tuhoe.

1.2.2 Ngati Pukeko

Ngati Pukeko descends from T oroa of the Mataatua waka and from some of the crew of the Te Arawa waka. They are closely related to Ngati Awa but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Ngati Pukeko was regarded as having a quite separate identity to Ngati Awa. 30 Ngati Pukeko is now considered to be a hapu of Ngati Awa.31

26 Best, pp 219 and 221. 27 AJHR, 1874, G-7, P 8. 28 AJHR, 1878, G-2, P 5. 29 Best, p 214. 30 Clayworth, p 23. 17

Ngati Pukeko claims their authority at Waiohau from Marupuku, who they descend from. 32 Marupuku was claimed to have been responsible for the expulsion of Ngati

Irawharo from Waiohau and because of this Marupuku and his people were able to settle there. Ngati Irawharo was said to be the original inhabitants of Waiohau who descended from Toroa of Ohiwa. Toroa came from Ohiwa to Waiohau where he lived

'at the pa of Rakei, that is the Tauheke pa, which belonged to Ngati Rakei.'33 Best describes how Marupuku and his followers drove Ngati Irawharo away from Tauheke and looted a famous trumpet from them named Mauri-oho. 34

Ngati Pukeko later returned to the Waiohau area. It seems that there was a degree of co-operation between Ngati Pukeko and the other hapu resident at Waiohau. Best said that most Ngati Pukeko lived on the coast in the time of Tuarawhati. However, some Ngati Pukeko, such as Paekauri, Purikiriki, and others also lived at Waiohau with Ngati Haka. 35 He recorded that '[s]ome of Ngati-Pukeko appear to have lived at

Wai-o-hau, at Tau-heke [sic] and other forts, where they would be among, or living near, Ngati-Rakei, Ngati-Haka and Ngati-Hamua' and that these people were 'much mixed Up.'36 The relationship between Ngati Pukeko and Ngati Haka was tested when Mango, a Whakatohea chief, attacked these two groups at Waiohau. 37

There was internecine fighting between Ngati Pukeko and Tuhoe hapu throughout the 1700s and 1800s. Ngati Pukeko occupied Te Whaiti for a time in the early 1800s until Tuhoe chased them off. Best records that Ngati Pukeko then retired to the coast

'where they have lived ever since.'38 By about 1834, after many generations of

31 Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, 1999, pp 14-16. 32 Best, p 284. 33 Best, p 283. 34 Best, p 284. 35 Best, p 173. 36 Best 174 37 Best: p 174. 38 Best, pp 436-7. 18 fighting, a 'tatau pounamu' or peace agreement was negotiated between Tuhoe and

Ngati AwaiNgati Pukeko at Ohui. This agreement resulted in a lasting period of peace following negotiations between Te Purewa, of Tuhoe, and Ngati Awa leaders including Te Rangitukehu, Tamati Waka, and Apanui. 39

Ngati Pukeko's occupation of land at Waiohau became a contested issue before the

Native Land Court in the 1878 title investigation. Meihana Koata of Ngati Pukeko argued that Marupuku's descendant's continued to occupy Waiohau. However, his rival claimant, Mehaka Tokopounamu said that '[n]o tribe had ever conquered this land. Ngati Pukeko have never lived on it; have no dead buried there; no marks; and they live at Whakatane.,4o Joe Mason stated in evidence before the Waitangi Tribunal in hearings for the Ngati Awa raupatu claim that Ngati Pukeko had a presence in the

Rangitaiki valley and at Ohiwa harbour in the early nineteenth century.41

1.2.3 Other Hapu and Iwi

Ngati Hamua is a hapu with close ties to Warahoe. They originated from Ohiwa and moved inland to Otipa, north west of the Tuararangaia block. Ngati Hamua and

Warahoe were evicted from the Rangitaiki lands that they occupied by a combined force of Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko in approximately 1817. However, they were returned to the area by Rangitukehu of Ngati Awa in 1847. Kinship ties were established between Ngati Hamua and other hapu of Waiohau. 42

Like Tuhoe, Ngati Manawa descend from Toi and the important early tribal grouping,

Te Tini 0 Toi. Traditionally, Ngati Manawa's main area of influence was the Whirinaki,

Galatea, Heruiwi and Te Whaiti areas. Best recorded an occasion when Ngati

Manawa and Ngati Haka aligned for the purposes of attacking Ngati Pou at

39 Clayworth, p 32. 40 0MB 1, 29 July 1878, P 108. 41 Evidence of J Mason concerning Ngati Pukeko history, (Wai 46 RoD, doc A32), pp 1-6. 19

Pokohu. 43 While people did not directly identify themselves as Ngati Manawa in the title investigation of Waiohau, there were clear interrelationships between

Patuheuheu and Ngati Manawa in relation to Waiohau and particular Ngati Manawa leaders were included on the ownership list for Waiohau 1.

The relationship between Tuhoe and Ngati Manawa was complex. On the one hand, the two individuals that sold their interests in Waiohau 1 B to Harry Burt in 1886 were

Ngati Manawa. Yet, on the other hand, Ngati Manawa supported the Waiohau people when they were evicted from Te Houhi. Indeed, a combined petition from

Patuheuheu, Ngati Manawa and Te Urewera tribes resident at Galatea was sent to

Parliament in 1905.

This chapter has provided a description of the land at Waiohau and an introduction to the hapu and iwi that resided there. The relationships between these groups were complex and changing. They would be put to the test in the competitive area of land leasing and in the Native Land Court.

42 Best, pp 171-186. 43 Best, p 135. I

20

Chapter Two - Leasing, Surveying and Title Investigation

The lands at Waiohau were in a strategic position on the borderlands of the Urewera, along one of the major tributaries. Trade and contact with Pakeha brought the fertile

Waiohau lands to the attention of Pakeha. The natural flow on from this contact was land leasing and the beginnings of Pakeha encroachment into the Urewera district.

War with the government also touched the lives of the Waiohau people.

This chapter begins with a brief discussion of Tuhoe attempts to retain hapu autonomy and Crown attempts to break up the Rohe Potae of Tuhoe. The early leases and survey of the Waiohau lands that lead to Ngati HakaiPatuheuheu taking the land before the Native Land Court for investigation of title are also outlined. The chapter includes a synopsis of the title investigation and concludes with an analysis of the outcome of the court's decision.

2.1 Tuhoe and Land Leasing in the Rangitaiki Valley

The wars of the 1860s between the government and Maori and land confiscations in the eastern Bay of Plenty that followed war are beyond the scope of this research commission. However, both Steven Oliver and Peter Clayworth include some discussion of the intersection between Tuhoe autonomy and Crown rule in their block

reports for the Urewera inquiry. 44 Binney also discusses the processes whereby the

Urewera lands became 'encircled' due to roading, surveying, leasing, title investigation and eventually the alienation of blocks on the exterior of the rohe. This was the situation in which the Waiohau blocks came before the Native Land Court.

After aligning themselves with Te Kooti in the late 1860s some of the Tuhoe

leadership attempted to negotiate a peace agreement with the government. The

44 Clayworth , pp 35-43; Sleve n Oliver, 'The Rualoki Report', Draft 27 July 2001 , pp 19-36; Binn ey, 'Enci rcled Lands'. 21 government required that Tuhoe be relocated out of Te Urewera to coastal settlements under the protection of 'kupapa' Maori. Between June and September

1870 Ngati HakalPatuheuheu surrendered to the government and was relocated to

Te Putere, on the coast within the confiscated land district.45 Conditions at Te Putere were hard and attempts at cultivation failed. However, in March 1872 Ngati

HakalPatuheuheu successfully sought permission to return to Waiohau. They settled at Te Houhi.

By the early 1870s Tuhoe chiefs had negotiated some semblance of peace with the government. In 1871 at a hui in Wellington between Donald McLean and Tuhoe chiefs an agreement was reached for the Urewera. The chiefs believed they had come to an arrangement whereby McLean had acknowledged their tribal authority over their people and their lands. These lands were named 'Te Rohe Potae'. The

Rohe Potae encompassed all the territory of the wider iwi, Tuhoe, and was bounded to the west by the Rangitaiki River. This arrangement with the government was made concrete from Tuhoe's perspective by the establishment of Te Whitu Tekau, the

Union of Seventy Tuhoe chiefs, in June 1872.46

The purpose of Te Whitu Tekau was to protect Tuhoe land and manage the affairs of the tribe. The union was against surveying, leasing or sale of land within Te Rohe

Potae. They also wanted to exclude the Native Land Court from Te Rohe Potae and prevent the building of roads into the district. Te Whitu Tekau has been described as

'a council appointed to guard the boundary of the Urewera people.'47 However, from the early 1870s those boundaries were beginning to fray, not just from Crown and

Pakeha interest but from the engagement of independent Tuhoe hapu in land leasing. The first leases at Waiohau and elsewhere in the Rangitaiki valley would test

45 Judith Binney, Redemption Songs: A Life of Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki, Auckland, Auckland University Press, 1995, p 26; AJHR, 1870, A No. 8B. 46 Judith Binney, 'Te Mana Tuatoru: The Rohe Potae of Tuhoe', NZJH, vol 31, 1, April 1997, pp 117-8. 22

the extent of Te Whitu Tekau's influence. Ngati HakalPatuheuheu's decision to

continue with lease negotiations despite Te Whitu Tekau opposition demonstrates

the tension between tribal authority and the traditional exercise of authority at a hapu

level. All of Tuhoe, Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko of the Rangitaiki area lost land

through the confiscations of the 1860s. As discussed above, these hapu had a long

history of competition and conflict. It was in this milieu that Ngati Pukeko and Tuhoe

began to compete in a new environment, the Native Land Court.

After peace was made between Tuhoe and the government, Patuheuheu came from

Raorapatate, Waiohau, Horomanga a Pou and Tawhiuau and settled at Te Houhi.48

The government had a clear political agenda in the 1870s of opening up districts

such as Te Urewera for purchase and Pakeha settlement. To achieve this the

government sent Henry Walker Mitchell and Charles Oliver Bond Davis to negotiate for the acquisition of lands in the Bay of Plenty and Taupo areas.

In August 1873 the government suspended the Native Lands Acts of 1865 and 1867

in the Rangitaiki district. The government was thereby free to negotiate for leases or

purchases of Maori lands before the owners of the land had been determined and

recorded on a certificate of title. 49 According to Bright in her report on the Kuhawaea

blocks, in September 1874 Section 6 of the Native Lands Act 1867 was used to

continue the suspension of the native lands legislation. This suspension was lifted in

February 1877.50 The Native Land Court's jurisdiction was thereafter, extended to

include the Rangitaiki district.

47 Ballara, p 297. 48 Best, pp 222 and 462; Nicola Bright, 'The Alienation History of Kuhawaea No. 1, No. 2A, and No. 2B blocks', (Wai 36 RoD, doc A 12), November 1998, p 32. 49 New Zealand Gazette, 1873, p 475; Bright, p 34. 50 Bright, p 34; New Zealand Gazette, 1874, P 632; New Zealand Gazette, 1877, p 187. 23

Mitchell and Davis began negotiating for leases in the Rangitaiki valley area in

September 1873. They met with Ngati Haka in November and were offered land on the western side of the Rangitaiki river for lease. However, they reported that 'lands on the East side they [Ngati Haka] would also lease bye & bye but at present the

Urewera had a voice in the matter, and they objected to any dealings in land.'51

Presumably these eastern lands were those of Waiohau and Kuhawaea. Clearly, Te

Whitu Tekau were attempting to protect the borderlands of Te Rohe Potae but Tuhoe was not united at this time.

Negotiations for leases of land in the Rangitaiki river valley continued late in 1873.

Davis and Mitchell negotiated for the lease of Pokohu (later known as Matahina), a block on the western side of the Rangitaiki River, in December 1873.52 One section of the Pokohu block was leased by the government, and the other section was leased by a private individual, a Lieutenant Bluett.53 However, Bluett withdrew from the lease as he understood it to be illegal at that time, given the suspension of the

Native Lands Acts in the Rangitaiki district, to enter into private arrangements with

Maori for land. 54

From late 1873 lease negotiations east of the Rangitaiki River and in the wider

Urewera area were led by J A Wilson, land purchase officer for the government. Te

Whitu Tekau still had substantial control over the interior of Te Rohe Potae. However, leasing on the borderlands showed that their control was limited. Miles has observed that '[w]hile Tuhoe might have expected this resistance to their sphere of influence from Ngati Manawa or Ngati Pukeko, the reluctance of Tuhoe's own hapu to abide by

Te Whitu Tekau's strictures was more directly threatening to the principle of tribal

51 Report of Davis and Mitchell, 14 November 1873, MA-MLP 1 1874/227, NA. 52 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part One', p 299. 53 Bright, p 35. 54 Kathryn Rose, 'The Bait and the Hook: Crown Purchasing in Taupo and the Central Bay of Plenty in the 1870s', CFRT, July 1997, pp 60-61. 24 authority.'55 By February 1874 Wi Patene was in discussions with Wilson over a potential lease over Waiohau.

At a hui in March 1874 at Ruatahuna between Te Whitu Tekau chiefs and other chiefs, also attended by H W Brabant (the Resident Magistrate at Opotiki), the borderland hapu defended their rights to lease their lands. Ngawaka of Patuheuheu said that he would not let his lease of land at Kuhawaea to Hutton Troutbeck be interfered with by Te Whitu Tekau. Wi Patene Tarahanga of Patuheuheu said that he had taken money from Davis and Mitchell for leases in the Rangitaiki district, but if Te

Whitu Tekau wanted the lease to be given up they should attempt to 'take' control of the lease from him.56 However, Te Whitu Tekau stressed unity and were genuinely concerned about the borderland hapu who were considered vulnerable to the government's pressures to lease.57 Kaperiere Tamaiarohe of Ngati Pukeko also attended the Ruatahuna hui. He said that he preferred the protection of the government over the confiscated land granted to Ngati Pukeko, to that of Te Whitu

Tekau. The land granted to Ngati Pukeko included Te Puketi at Opouriao, land that had been Tuhoe's.58

Around 1874 a Mr Fraser negotiated with Wi Patene and Mehaka Tokopounamu for a two year lease for some of the lands at Waiohau. The land was leased to Fraser through Bluett.59 A Mr W F Chamberlain also held a lease over some or all, of the

Waiohau block preceding Native Land Court investigation of title. Chamberlain was said to have instigated the initial investigation of title. 60 The details of these two leases are sketchy at best, but what can be surmised was the fact that Patuheuheu established the leases without Te Whitu Tekau approval. It is clear that leasing and

55 Miles, p 234. 56 AJHR, 1874, G-1A, P 4. 57 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part One', p 301. 58 ibid, P 302. 59 Inquiry re: Waiohau Block, 21 October 1889, p 1, MA 1/1920/218, vol 2, NA, in Paul Document Bank, vol 3. 25 title investigation by the Native Land Court went hand in hand, especially when

Pakeha leaseholders wanted ownership ascertained in order to pursue alienation of the land. These leases would return to haunt Patuheuheu in the Native Land Court investigation of title to Waiohau. Wi Patene had admitted Werahiko Tamaiarohi and

Penetito Hawea of Ngati Pukeko to appear on the lease with Chamberlain because of their persistence not, he later said, because they were admitted as owners.61

However, the Native Land Court would read some significance into the inclusion of

Ngati Pukeko names on the lease when deciding who had ownership rights to

Waiohau.

2.2 Survey of Waiohau

On 3 April 1878 Wi Patene, Mehaka Tokopounamu, Te Whaiti Paora and Pene Haua applied on behalf of Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka for a Native Land Court hearing to ascertain ownership of Kopuriki-Waiohau. 62 A survey of the block was completed before the title investigation but became a contentious issue during the hearing.

Questions of authority to allow the survey were raised, as well as payment received for the survey from the surveyor and the connection between the survey and leases over the land.

Penetito Hawea of Ngati Pukeko stated in evidence before the Native Land Court in

1878 that he had originally objected to the survey: 'I went with Meihana [Koata] to

Maketu to stay the survey of the northern portion of the land. The surveyor agreed not to survey that portion.'63 However, the surveyor, Edgecombe, paid Penetito and

Meihana Koata £10 and they agreed to let the survey proceed. They wrote to Wi

Patene and informed him that they had agreed to the survey.

60 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two', p 46. 610MB 1, 29 July 1878, pp 108 and 111 . 62 Waiariki Maori Land Court Closed File (hereafter WMLC/CF), Waiohau 304, Paul document bank, volume 7, p 1. 26

Hone Matenga of Ngati Pukeko said in evidence that '[w]hen the surveyor went on the land some of us went to Wi Patene and wished to be joined with him in the survey he replied "what I do is the same as if you had joined with me".'64 Thus, it seemed from Ngati Pukeko's perspective that Wi Patene was having the survey completed on behalf of both Ngati Pukeko and Patuheuheu.

However, Wi Patene disagreed on his intentions at the time of the survey, stating in evidence before the court that:

Ngati Pukeko came to Waiohau when the survey was commencing and we had a conversation about it. I have before said no one came to object to the survey. Edgecombe gave me a letter from Meihana and yourself consenting to the survey my reply was that you had nothing to do with ,it. You and Werahiko's name appear in the lease. Your name was not inserted because you were an owner but because you were so persistent. I put your name into the document because I was told by my Pakeha that it was not a Lease but simply a document having no effect. 65

It is likely that the surveyor simply paid Ngati Pukeko the £10 in order to get the survey completed. It can also be concluded that Wi Patene put a few Ngati Pukeko names on the lease in order that the lease arrangements could proceed. Given the history of conflict between Patuheuheu and Ngati Pukeko it is unlikely that he would have put the wider group of Ngati Pukeko on the lease. However, the court would hold the fact that Ngati Pukeko names had been included in the lease with

Chamberlain as an example of Ngati Pukeko mana over Waiohau.

The survey plan of the area was completed on 17 May 1878. Plan 4206, identified an area of 15,564 acres as the Waiohau block. 66 Investigation of title to Waiohau commenced.

63 0 MB 1, P 99. 64 0MB 1, 26 July 2878, P 103. Emphasis in the original. 65 0MB 1, 29 July 1878, P 108. 27

2.3 Title Investigation of Waiohau

The Native Land Court investigation of title to Waiohau began on 24 July 1878. The hearing was held at Matata, on the coast some distance from Waiohau and the rest of Te Urewera. Judge Henry Halse presided. Mehaka Tokopounamu asked that Wi

Patene be allowed to speak first. Wi Patene opened by stating that he belonged to

Tuhoe and lived at Waiohau. He claimed the Waiohau block on the basis of ancestry and occupation. Like the other claimants who followed him, Wi Patene identified himself under the banner of Tuhoe rather than under a hapu name such as

Patuheuheu or Ngati Haka.

Wi Patene provided the court with whakapapa from the ancestors Awarehu and Te

Hina, down to himself, noting that all the descendants of those ancestors living on the land had claims to the block. He said that:

My ancestors occupied this land and the land has always been in our possession to the present times. I have cultivated on the land and still cultivate it. I have leased it to a European, it was surveyed subsequent to the Lease no one objected to the Lease or the survey.57

The case of the counter claimants was opened by Meihana Koata of Ngati Pukeko.

Koata said that he lived at Poroporo and that he claimed an interest in Waiohau based on ancestry, conquest and occupation. He gave the court whakapapa from

Heni Te Ariki to Marupuku to Taiarahia and down to himself and said that the descendants of Taiarahia all had a claim to Waiohau. 58 Koata's claim to conquest over the northern part of the Waiohau block related to the defeat of an earlier tribe,

Irawaro (I rawharo) , by Marupuku. He said that Marupuku took possession of the land and his descendants continued to occupy it.

66 OMS 1, 24 July 1878, P 96. 67 OMS 1, 24 July 1878, P 96. 68 OMS 1, 24 July 1878, P 97. 28

To further his claim Koata outlined the cultivations and pa of Ngati Pukeko that were on the block. He stated that he had obtained canoes from Hokowhitu and

Matapungarehu on the block and that 'Ngatiawa never received any canoes made there without the consent of Ngatipukeko.'69

In cross-examination by Wi Patene, Meihana Koata argued that the northern part of the Waiohau block did not belong to Tuhoe:

I am not aware that the northern portion belonged to Te Hina or that you have any power over this land or ever occupied it, or that your ancestors had houses there. You came from Waiohau and have houses there but they are of a recent date .... 1 am not aware you have any dead buried on this land ?O

The next witness for Ngati Pukeko was Penetito Hawea. He said that he lived at T e

Teko. He outlined Marupuku's defeat of the Irawharo people and his subsequent possession of the land. He described his cultivations on the block but in cross- examination said that he was not cultivating there now. He stated that he had a good claim to the land and that his name was 'on the Lease'. He had received part of the money from the surveyor and had then agreed that the survey could proceed. It is unclear wh ich lease Penetito Hawea was referring to but two individuals of Ngati

Pukeko, including Penetito Hawea, had been included in the Patuheuheu lease with

Chamberlain, as Wi Patene and others would confirm in later evidence.71 A marriage between Wi Patene's sister and Penetito Hawea's brother was raised in cross- examination. However, Penetito Hawea argued that 'it was not in consequence of your sister being my brother's wife that I worked on the land. I worked there because

I was descended from the ancestors before named.'72

69 0 MB 1,24 July 1878, P 97-8. 70 0MB 1, 24 July 1878, P 98. 710MB 1, 29 July 1878, P 111 . 29

The next witnesses for Ngati Pukeko were Werahiko Tamaiarohi and Toma Te

Umuteraraua, both of Poroporo. Werahiko claimed the land on the same basis as the earlier Ngati Pukeko witnesses, that is, by conquest, ancestry and occupation. He also gave evidence of cultivations, pa and the oral tradition relating to Marupuku and

Irawharo. Toma said that his ancestors cultivated there but that he had no food growing there and no dead buried on the land, but that his ancestors had cultivated there.

Te Tihi Hamuera of Ngaitemoke (Ngai Tamaoki) gave evidence of Ngati Pukeko occupation on the block and Irawharo's alleged defeat by Marupuku. In cross- examination by Wi Patene, Te Tihi Hamuera said that:

Ngati Pukeko left this land and went to another place to live and the reason they did not turn you off was because they thought you would admit them as claimants, they are vexed because they received no intimation of the leasing of the land.73

He noted that he had no claim to the land himself. It appears from Te Tihi Hamuera's evidence that Ngati Pukeko had made an assumption that Wi Patene would admit them into the block as owners for the purpose of lease or sale of the land.

On Friday 26 July the court resumed with the evidence of Hone Matenga of Ngati

Pukeko. Hone Matenga summarised Ngati Pukeko's claim to conquest over the land as follows:

The whole of Ngatipukeko are descendants of Marupuku and he was the real owner of this piece of land. his [sic] pa was Tukoroheke. Meihana's other claim was conquest of Irawaru [sic]. Taueke was the first pa taken by Marupuku belonging to Irawaru the second pa taken was Whakamatau. After the taking of these Pas [sic] Marupuku then came into possession of a conch shell which was found in the Taueke Pa and its name was Mauri.74

72 OMS 1, 24 July 1878, P 99. 73 OMS 1, 24 July 1878, P 101 . 74 OMS 1, 26 July 1878, P 103. 30

In cross-examination Hone Matenga said that he did not know about the canoes that

Meihana Koata had alluded to in evidence. He said that he did not know that they had belonged to Wi Patene but that Ngati Pukeko were the only ones in control of the trees on 'that piece' of Waiohau. He stated that the reason that he allowed Wi Patene to take wood for canoes from the block was because Patuheuheu had been living at

Te Putere, the government reserve on the coast, at that time, and the canoes would enable Patuheuheu to make a living .75 This evidence closed the case of the counter claimants.

The claimant's case opened late in the day on 26 July. Wi Patene gave evidence first. He gave the history of the pa at Taueke and Whakamatau, described his cultivations of peach and other trees, and discussed his burial grounds on the block.

He stated that the land belonged to Te Hina alone and that he did not know where Te

Hina was living when Marupuku conquered Irawharo.76 He stated that 'I know nothing about Marupuku. Hina came here from Whakatane all the ancestors came from there. Whakatane did not belong to him he was searching for land'. However, he continued saying that 'Te Waruhua was Te Hina's father. Te Hina was born on this land, he was the only son .... Te Hina died on this land[ ... ]'.77 'Hina' and 'Te Hina' were two different people although that was not made clear at this point in Wi

Patene's evidence. However, Wi Patene noted later that he had mentioned two Te

Hina's in his evidence but had only mentioned one Te Hina in the whakapapa provided to the coures Wi Patene noted that he was living on the northern portion of the block during the Ngapuhi raids and that there were settlements of theirs on the northern part of the block, including Whakamatau and Karene.

75 0 MB 1, 26 July 1878, P 104. 76 0MB 1, 26 July 1878, P 106. 77 OMB 1, 26 July 1878, P 106. 31

The court resumed the hearing of Waiohau on Monday 28 July. In cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Wi Patene said that he admitted that Ngati Pukeko had obtained canoes from lands at Waiohau. However, he said that it was he who had given them to Ngati Pukeko. Wi Patene also contended that when Meihana Koata and Penetito

Hawea had said they consented to the survey of Waiohau he had said that they had nothing to do with it. Indeed, he stated that the only reason Penetito Hawea's name had been put on the lease was not because he was an owner but because he was

'persistent'. The lease document mattered little to Wi Patene anyway as he had been

'told by my Pakeha that it was not a Lease but simply a document having no effect.,79

Presumably 'his Pakeha' was the lessee, Chamberlain, who would have had his own motivations for assuring Wi Patene that the lease document had no effect. Like the surveyor, Chamberlain probably wanted to facilitate the lease agreement in the easiest way possible in order to get on with leasing the land.

Mehaka Tokopounamu gave evidence next. He said that he belonged to Tuhoe and that he lived at Waiohau. He made his claim to Waiohau on the basis of ancestry, occupation and cultivation. He also noted that Taueke pa was outside the surveyed area of Waiohau by four chains and that it had been excluded because there were burial grounds there. Bo He stated emphatically that:

No tribe has ever conquered this land. Ngati Pukeko have never lived on it, have no dead buried there, no marks, and they live at Whakatane. Ngati Pukeko have claims to land outside the northern boundary of this block.B1

In cross-examination by Penetito Hawea, Mehaka Tokopounamu said that his people had occupied the lands to the present time and that he never saw Penetito living

78 OMS 1 , 29 July 1878, P 107. 79 OMS 1, 29 July 1878, P 108. 80 OMS 1, 29 July 1878, P 108. 81 OMS 1, 29 July 1878, P 109. 32 there but 'my aunt was married to your brother & that was the reason of his coming to live there with his wife's tribe.'82

Te Whaiti, Makarini Te Waru and Kepa Te Ahuru, all residents of Waiohau, concluded the case for Tuhoe. Te Whaiti gave evidence of Te Hina's ownership of the land. He also described Tuhoe cultivations and burial grounds on the block.

Makarini Te Waru argued that '[n]o other tribe but us have occupied this land since the introduction of Christianity. The Surveyor was accompanied in making the survey by Wi Patene, Meihana and Te Whaiti. No one came to object to the Survey.'83 Kepa

Te Ahuru concluded his evidence by stating that 'Wi Patene, Mehaka [and] Te Whaiti accompanied the surveyor and pointed out the boundaries. Chamberlain leased this land. No one interfered with the survey.'84

Judgement was delivered by the court after two hours of deliberation on 30 July '

1878. The judgement is important and is recorded here virtually in full:

The Court has carefully considered the evidence by the Claimants and Counterclaimants to the Waiohau Block. The claimants based their claim on two points 1 Ancestry 2 Occupation With respect to the first, the advent of Te Hina on this land is not clear, nor is it in accordance with Maori usage, seeing that Wi Patene stated that Te Hina came from Whakatane in search of land and settled at Waiohau. With respect to occupation Wi Patene and his people appear to have had undisturbed possession ever since the introduction of Christianity into New Zealand and even to the present time. The Counterclaimants represented by Meihana Koata have produced contradictory evidence as regards 1 Ancestry 2 Occupation Meihana has stated that Hohaia was his father, whereas one of his witnesses (Hemi Matenga) states that Hauruia who married Kokoti was his father - consequently the "Whakapapa" on both sides is not clear to the Court. Meihana has also stated that his father did not occupy this land, and that Piopio was the last of the descendants of Takapari who occupied the land. He

82 0MB 1, 29 July 1878, P 109. 83 0MB 1, 29 July 1878, P 111. 84 0MB 1, 29 July 1878, P 111. 33

afterwards said that Penetito and Te Kahu ceased to occupy the land before Hauhauism commenced. The receipt by Ngati Pukeko of ten pounds from Mr Edgecumbe for their consent to the survey of the Block, and subsequent receipt of the deposit money paid for the lease of the land not having been rejected indicates that their "mana" over this portion of the Block was recognized. Wi Patene's claims to the Block from Whakamatau Pa, on the Western side, and the Taueke Pa, on the eastern boundary, down to the Southern boundary of the Block is not in any way disputed. The Court therefore awards to Wi Patene and his Co claimants one half of the Northern portion of the Waiohau block, estimated to contain 1100 acres .. . The Court further awards to Meihana Koata and his co claimants the remaining half of the Northern portion of the block estimated to contain about 1100 acres.85

Thus, 'Waiohau No.1' block containing 14,464 acres, including the northern portion of 1,100 acres, was awarded to Wi Patene and approximately 151 other owners. The court noted that Wi Patene, Mehaka Tokopounamu, Makarini Te Waru and Te Whaiti

Paora would be the appointed trustees to receive rentals for the owners of Waiohau

1.86 The owners were charged £3 in fees for the hearing and £1 for the memorial of ownership.

'Waiohau No. 2', a block containing 1,100 acres, was awarded to 81 owners including Meihana Koata. The owners were also charged £3 in fees for the hearing and £1 for the memorial of ownership.87

2.4 The Outcome of the Native Land Court's decision

This judgement awarded the majority of the lands at Waiohau to Wi Patene and the others of Tuhoe on the basis of their undisturbed possession of the land. Included among the owners of Waiohau 1 were some important leaders of Tuhoe such as Te

Makarini Tamarau, Tutakangahau, Netana Rangiihu and Kereru Te Pukenui. Also included on the list of owners were Ngati Manawa chiefs such as Harehare Aterea

85 0 MB 1, Judgement, 30 July 1878, pp 112-113. 86 0MB 1, 30 July 1878, pp 114-115. 870MB 1, 30 July 1878, P 115. 34

(Ahuriri), Pani Te Hura (Peraniko Pani) and Hira Te Mumuhu. 88 The inclusion of the

Ngati Manawa chiefs on the ownership list would have serious repercussions for the other owners in the future.

Included in the owners' list for Waiohau 2 were Wiremu Kingi Tutahuarangi, chief of

Ngai Tai, and Hapurona Kohi and Hamiora Potakurua, chiefs of Ngati Whare. The inclusion of Ngati Whare chiefs seems unusual given the distance of the northern

Waiohau blocks from Ngati Whare's traditional lands. However, their inclusion on the ownership list could be viewed as maintenance of an important strategic or political relationship with Ngati Pukeko.

The evidence relating to Te Hina was not as confused as the court seemed to make out. The court said that the advent of Te Hina was unclear and not 'in accordance with Maori usage.' Yet, Wi Patene had stated that he had mentioned two different people named Te Hina in his evidence, one that had come from Whakatane in search of land and one that had been born and died at Waiohau. However, the court overlooked the existence of the two ancestors of the same name.

The significance the court attached to Ngati Pukeko names being included in the lease arrangements with Chamberlain and their receipt of £10 from the surveyor 'for their consent to survey the block' also seem problematic. Penetito Hawea felt that he had a good claim to the block because his name was on the lease, but Wi Patene had said that he only included him (and Werahiko) because he was 'persistent' and because Wi Patene had been told that the lease document was unimportant. I have not been able to locate any written documentation on this lease and it is unclear whether Wi Patene included just those two individuals of Ngati Pukeko in the lease or

aa OMB 1, 30 July 1878, pp 114-115; Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two', P 49. 35 whether other Ngati Pukeko people were included, although the latter option seems unlikely.

Whatever the case, the court viewed the lease and the £10 payment as a manifestation of Ngati Pukeko mana over the northern section of the Waiohau area.

It is not clear from the evidence of either Wi Patene or Penetito Hawea that this was in fact the reality. Nor is it clear that the court should have attached such weight to an interest that was not of a customary nature. The question is whether the court took account of ancestral rights and current occupation, alongside the lease and survey.

From the evidence given in court it appears that the Ngati Pukeko witnesses predominantly lived at Poroporo or Te Teko. While there was a long tradition of conflict between Tuhoe and Ngati Pukeko in the area it seems that they hadn't actually resided at Waiohau for some time and many of the Tuhoe witnesses disputed their having lived at Whakamatau and Taueke at all.

In the end, the Tuhoe owners were deeply unhappy with the result of the Waiohau title investigation and the Ngati Pukeko owners objected to any talk of a rehearing.

Letters regarding a possible reinvestigation of title started arriving at the office of the

Native Land Court almost immediately. Another Rangitaiki block, Kaingaroa 1, also went before the court at this time (from July to September 1878) and many of the same people were involved in both title investigations.

On 31 July 1878 Meihana Koata and others of Ngati Pukeko wrote to Francis Fenton,

Chief Judge of the Native Land Court, regarding Waiohau. Meihana raised the issue of the division of the northern portion of the Waiohau block between Ngati Pukeko and Tuhoe. He stated that Tuhoe wanted the court to re-adjudicate the matter but 36 from Ngati Pukeko's perspective that would not be 'at all just' as the court had considered the evidence and made its decision.89

One day later Te Makarini Te Waru, Mehaka Tokopounamu, Kereru Te Pukenui,

Heteraka Te Wakaunua, Tutakangahau, Netana Rangiihu, Ngahooro Tarahanga and

16 other Tuhoe chiefs wrote to Fenton requesting a rehearing of the Waiohau title investigation. 90 Binney has commented that:

the Tuhoe leaders protested at this 'mingling' ('whakauranga') of their names with their opponents among Ngati Pukeko and Ngati Manawa, that is those who had taken money from the surveyors in 1878 without their consent. 91

The Tuhoe leaders argued that because of the lease agreement the court had awarded land, food, places and possessions belonging to Tuhoe to their opponents,

Ngati Pukeko. They also noted that money was taken by Ngati Pukeko from the surveyors for a survey that they, those particular Tuhoe chiefs, had not even been aware of.

On 14 August Wi Patene also wrote to Fenton requesting a rehearing for Waiohau because his houses, cultivations and dead were on the land that had been awarded to Ngati Pukeko. He said, moreover, that Ngati Pukeko had never cultivated the land and that an assessor of the Native Land Court, Mita Kaiwhakara, had become friendly with Ngati Pukeko during the hearing, implying some bias on the part of the court. 92 The letter was referred to the presiding officer of the case, Judge Henry

Halse, a month later. In a hand-written notation on Wi Patene's letter, Halse stated

89 Te Meihana Koata and others to Fenton, 31 July 1878, WMLC CF Waiohau 302, in Paul document bank, volume 6, ~p 32-33. o Makarini Te Waru and others to Fenton, 1 August 1878, WMLC CF Waiohau 302, in Paul document bank, volume 6, pp 37-38, 50-51 . 91 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two', p 49. 92 Wi Patene Tarahanga to Fenton, 14 August 1878, WMLC CF Waiohau 302, in Paul document bank, volume 6, pp 35-36. 37 that the case had already been carefully considered by the court and that he could see no reason for recommending a rehearing. 93

Between July 1878 and July 1880 there were several other Tuhoe applications for a rehearing . The number and language of the appeals demonstrates the strength of

Tuhoe's conviction that the court's decision was incorrect. However, all of these appeals were rejected by the Native Land Court. 94 The applications had been referred to Judge Henry Halse, who had presided, and to officials in the Native

Department who simply reiterated the fact of the original title investigation. From my reading of the archival material it seems that there was no thorough investigation of the requests for a retrial.

Conclusion

After the wars of the 1860s the peripheral blocks of T e U rewera were slowly opened up by the government through processes such as roading, surveying, leases and investigation of title by the Native Land Court. Leasing in the Rangitaiki valley area began in the early 1870s and by 1874 the Waiohau lands had been leased to two individual land speculators, Fraser and Chamberlain. The lease was spearheaded by

Patuheuheu leader Wi Patene Tarahanga. However, Ngati Pukeko names were also included on the lease and in early 1878 Ngati Pukeko individuals took money from the surveyor in exchange for their permission for a survey of the block to proceed.

In 1878 the Native Land Court adjudicated on the ownership of Waiohau in a decision that divided the northern part of the land between Tuhoe and Ngati Pukeko.

This decision found little favour with Tuhoe. Ownership of a 1,100 acre portion of the

93 ibid. 94 Wi Patene Tarahanga and others to Fenton, 13 November 1878, p 28; Mehaka Tokopounamu and others of Te Patuheuheu and Tuhoe Te Urewera to Fenton, 3 January 1879, p 26; Mehaka Tokopounamu and others of Patuheuheu to Fenton, March 1879; Mehaka Tokopounamu and others of Patuheuheu to Fenton, 14 September 1879, p 54; WMLC CF Waiohau 302, Paul document bank, volume 6, pages as noted. 38 northern block was granted to Ngati Pukeko largely on the basis of a lease rather than based upon customary or ancestral rights or current occupation of the Waiohau blocks.

Yet Tuhoe had retained ownership of the greatest share of Waiohau, that is, 14,464 acres, on the grounds of their undisturbed possession of the land. Tuhoe were not pleased with Ngati Pukeko's award and sought a rehearing by the Native Land Court.

It seems that the applications for a rehearing were not properly investigated and these applications were rejected. A greater threat to Tuhoe ownership of the land lay ahead, however, in the form of land speculator Harry Burt and the nefarious methods he would employ to acquire ownership of 7,000 acres of Waiohau land. 39

Chapter Three - Partition, Fraud and Alienation

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section briefly discusses the partition of Waiohau 1 in 1886 and the fraudulent alienation of half the block,

Waiohau 1B. Also discussed is the further partition of Waiohau 1A. The fate of

Waiohau 1B has been discussed in reports already commissioned by the Waitangi

Tribunal and so this section merely provides an introduction to the main area of discussion. The main part of this section is a discussion of the eventual compensation deal offered to the original owners of Waiohau 1B. The negotiations between the Waiariki District Maori Land Board and Pakeha land speculators and the eventual sale of Waiohau 2 in 1917 are discussed in the second part of this chapter.

3.1 Waiohau 1 Block: Subdivision and Fraud

There are many elements to the history of the eviction of Te Houhi, but two aspects stand out: the failure of successive governments to find a legal resolution for manifest injustice, identified through judicial processes; and a strong suggestion of a sustained vendetta directed against Te Houhi's community by an interconnecting network of local settlers and lawyers, all of whom knew [Harry] Burt.95

Binney and Paul have both written about the partition of Waiohau 1 and the sale of

Waiohau 1B in detail. This prelude to discussion of the compensation deal offered to the owners of Waiohau 1B is based largely upon their reports and Paul's document bank.

Pakeha land speculators, Harry Burt, Alfred Preece and Henry Mitchell, began making arrangements for the purchase of land in the eastern Bay of Plenty and

Rotorua districts for private investors in 1881. Burt was a mysterious figure. He was a licensed Native Land Court interpreter, known by many different names and who

95 Judith Binney, 'Te Umutaoroa: The Earth Oven of Long Cooking', in A Sharp and P McHugh (eds), Histories, Power and Loss: Uses of the Past, A New Zealand Commentary, Wellington, Bridget Williams Books, 2001, P 152. 40 falsely claimed descent from Ngati Toa leader, Te Rauparaha. 9s Burt concentrated his efforts on acquiring interests in the lands at Waiohau. Preece was the son of the first missionary stationed at Ahikereru (Te Whaiti) and he chose to advance sale negotiations for land in this area. Mitchell was a former Crown land purchase agent who concentrated his attentions on lands in the Rotorua district. This trio had also been involved on behalf of some Australian land speculators in negotiations at

Pokohul Matahina.97

Burt and Preece began purchasing interests from individual owners of Waiohau 1 in about 1881 or 1882. According to Binney, Burt 'often stayed at Te Houhi ... Iiving with a daughter of Wi Patene .... He acquired shares piecemeal, making payments in cash and alcohol. The latter was illegal.,9a Burt produced receipts when the purchase of the block was subject to formal inquiry in 1889. However, none of the deeds had any signatures on them but Burt's. He also seems to have ingratiated himself in to the Te

Houhi community by assisting with land problems elsewhere. For example, he translated a petition from the Waiohau people concerning a survey of Matahina that had been sanctioned by Ngati Awa. 99

In 1884 Wi Patene applied to the Native Land Court for subdivision of Waiohau 1. In

1885 Harry Burt also applied to the court under the alias, 'Hare Rauparaha'.

However, there were also meetings around this time of those who wanted to prevent the proposed subdivision of Waiohau 1 and who claimed that Burt had induced them to sell their interests in the block.1oO

83 Binney, 'Ie Umutaoroa', pp 148-9. 97 Paul document bank, (Wai 46 # H4 (b)), P 60-66. 98 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two', p 50. 99 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two', p 50. 100 Binney, 'Encircled Land, Part Two', p 51 . 41

On 11 September of 1886 the 14,464 acre Waiohau 1 block came before Judge

Henry Tacy Clarke at the Native Land Court at Ohinemutu, near Rotorua. Binney notes that only four of the owners were present at the court hearing; all were Ngati

Manawa and had been bribed by Burt. An area of 7464 acres of the northern part of

Waiohau 1 was set aside as Waiohau 1A for those owners who had not alienated their interests. Those who had sold their interests in the southern portion were also to be included but for interests of a 'lesser value' .101 Waiohau 1A was vested in 158 owners on a list provided to the court by Burt. The block remained largely intact until

1903 when applications were made to the Native Land Court for subdivision, and thereafter, when the block was included in the Ruatoki-Waiohau consolidation scheme. Discussion of Waiohau 1A is continued below.

At the 1886 partition hearing Burt provided the court with a list of 54 sellers, presumably of the southern portion. Waiohau 1B, an area of 7000 acres, was cut off and vested in two individuals of Ngati Manawa, Pani Te Hura (Peraniko Ahuriri) and

Hira Te Mumuhu, for the purposes of transferring the block to a Pakeha land purchaser. Title to the block was transferred immediately after the court sitting to

John L Soutter for the sum of £950. The transaction was so swift it occurred that very same day and was witnessed by Judge Clarke and Burt.102 The block was then transferred to Burt's wife, Margaret, after which half of the block was sold to a Henry

Piper in 1889.

Petitions, protests and requests for a re-hearing followed almost immediately. The owners argued that they had not approved of the sale of Waiohau 1B at all and that, moreover, they had not been informed of the court sitting. 103 A rehearing was not granted. Reinvestigation was sought via parliamentary petitions in 1887 from Akenihi

101 Paul, p 7; Rotorua Minute Book (RMB) 11, 11 September 1886, pp 225-227. 102 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two', P 54; Paul, pp 7-8. 103 Binney, Encircled Lands, Part Two', p 55. 42

(Agnes) Preece, wife of Alfred Preece, and from Mehaka Tokopounamu in 1889. The result of these petitions was an official judicial inquiry in 1889 conducted by Judge J

A Wilson.

Binney and Paul discuss the 1889 inquiry, the Supreme Court litigation taken against the Waiohau people, and their eventual eviction from Te Houhi (the Ngati

HakalPatuheuheu settlement located on Waiohau 1 B) in their reports. 104 These events are beyond the scope of this commission but are fundamental to understanding the compensation deal offered to the original owners of Waiohau 1 B.

Binney notes that the 1889 judicial inquiry found that:

[T]he Native Land Court's partition order had been based on evidence given by four Maori, who acted wholly under Burt's influence. No other owners had been present; and serious doubts existed as to whether they had been notified of the hearing .... The findings of the judge in 1889 were plain enough: 'If the information tendered to me is correct the whole of this charge is strictly true.,105

It seems that the government either did not or could not support this finding as they did little to resolve the situation in the following years. A caveat was placed on the title in 1890 but was lifted within a year. The section of the land belonging to

Margaret Burt was sold to Margaret Beale in 1904. Beale served written notice on the residents of Te Houhi that they must leave the land and in 1905 brought a private case against them in the Supreme Court in Auckland. Binney argues that this hearing

'utterly impoverished Te Houhi. The judgement reaffirmed that the order of original title 'had been obtained by fraud on the part of Burt', but the private freehold title remained valid.,106 Justice Edwards, who presided, found in favour of Beale, but stated that he regretted the hardship to the defendants:

104 Binney, 'Te Umutaoroa', pp 149-151 ; Paul, pp 14-53. 105 Binney, 'Te Umutaoroa', p 150. 106 Binney, 'Te Umutaoroa', p 151 . 43

That they have suffered a grievous wrong is, in my opinion, plain. It is doubly hard that this wrong should have resulted from a miscarriage, which certainly ought to have been avoided, in the very Court which was specially charged with the duty of protecting them in such matters. 107

The Supreme Court held that the original title had been obtained by fraud but that the freehold title remained intact. In the background was another purchaser, James

Grant, who was in negotiations with Beale for purchase of her share, 3500 acres, of

Waiohau 1B. Grant purchased the land for £2000 from Beale in February 1907.

Binney discusses the forced eviction of the Waiohau people from Te Houhi by James

Grant and the local constabulary in 1907. Some members of the Te Houhi community were arrested and imprisoned for their peaceful resistance to the eviction.

Grant refused to let the Waiohau people take their schoolhouse and wharenui, Tama­ ki-Hikurangi, with them from the land. 10B

In 1905 the Waiohau issue came to the attention of James Carroll, the Minister of

Native Affairs. The Waiohau people had pleaded their case through a petition from

Patuheuheu, Ngati Manawa and Te Urewera and a deputation to Wellington by

Mehaka Tokopounamu and Wharepapa Peita. The petition was passed to Carroll in

October 1905. The following year the Native Affairs Committee recommended that action be taken to reach a settlement between the parties. 1og Both the Supreme

Court and the government agreed that the government should buy the land back for the Waiohau people for the sum that Grant had offered, that is, £2000. However, the land was transferred to Grant and he refused to deal with the government. 110 The government then tried to acquire the land under the Land for Settlements

Consolidation Act but they were unable to find their way through the legal mess and were unsuccessful.

107 Paul, p 44; Binney, 'Te Umutaoroa', p 151. lOB Binney, 'Te Umutaoroa', p 151. 109 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two', p 344. 11 0 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two', p 345. 44

By the close of 1907 the Te Houhi community had been forced off the block and the bones of their dead had been reburied at Waiohau in the Waiohau 1 A block.

3.1.1 Compensation for Waiohau 1 B The government failed to purchase or acquire Waiohau 1 B back from Beale and

Grant for the original owners. Thus, the government began discussing the issue of suitable compensation for the loss of Waiohau 1 B. Cabinet voted in 1905 that £2000

be set aside to buy Beale out .111 In 1907 that same sum was still set aside set aside

under the Native Miscellaneous Vote of the Consolidated Estimates.112 The sum of

£2000 was the market value of the land and was based upon the amount that Grant

had paid Beale for the 3500 acres of Waiohau 1 B.

In October 1907 the Department of Lands and Survey began looking for suitable

Crown lands in the district up to the value of £2000 to use as compensation for the

land 10st. 113 If no Crown land was available the Commissioner of Crown Lands wished to know from the District Officer what other lands in the district might be suitable. No suitable Crown land was found to be available in the area. However, in

March 1908 James MacKenzie, the Chief Surveyor and Commissioner of Crown

Lands, reported to the Under-Secretary for Lands that there was a piece of private

land at Te Teko owned by a Mr McGarvey that was available for the purchase price of £2000.114 It was agreed that a surveyor, Tai Mitchell, be instructed to go to

Waiohau and consult with the original owners of Waiohau 1 B about the compensation land. Mitchell was also instructed to inspect and report on the Te Teko

111 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two', P 337. 11 2 Under-Secretary for Lands to the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, 28 August 1908, MA 1/1920/218, volume 4, fP 20-22, (Wai 46 # H4 (e)) . 13 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Under-Secretary for Lands, 17 October 1907, ibid, P 6. 11 4 Chief Surveyor to Under-Secretary for Lands, 19 March 1908, ibid, P 9. 45 land or any other land in the district considered suitable for use as compensation. 115

MacKenzie reported back to the Under-Secretary of Lands and to Native Minister

Carroll that Mitchell considered that efforts should be made to buy back the original

Waiohau 1 B block and to 'let the natives have it.'116

Mitchell reported back to MacKenzie in April 1908 on his inspection of the Te Teko lands. He noted that the land was within half a mile of the Te Teko Post Office and hotel and three quarters of a mile from Te Teko Native School. Mitchell commented that:

I consider the block a most suitable one for Native occupation in every respect, i.e., if the question at issue was devoid of all sentiment and was purely a question of selection but as I have already pointed out this is not the case, and in the following report it would be as well that that aspect - consulting the Natives - is not entirely lost sight of.117

The McGarvey lands comprised sections 61 and 118 and the southern portion of sections 119 and 120 in the Rangitaiki Upper survey district. The land was partly improved and consisted of approximately 190 acres of flat land, 60 acres of hill land and 50 acres of swamp land. Mitchell described the soil on the flat land as being:

of a sandy nature and light, freely mixed with fine scoria probably from the Tarawera eruption .... At present it is a good deal covered with a short growth of fern, a fair amount of grass running through it. It is free from manuka and affords no serious obstacle for ploughing and instant handling. At the N.E. corner there is a patch of Wi and rushes which is indicative of fairly good land. Judging by the adjacent paddocks the land ... when taken in hand should carry a sheep to an acre comfortably. The soil being light is easily worked, and is well adapted for kumara cultivation. [The] Hill land 60 acres: - This rises to an elevation of about 300 feet, same kind of soil as the flat land .... In the event of exceptional floods affording a safe retreat for stock .... [The] Swamp land 50 acres: - Two drains have been run through the swamp some years ago, but have been allowed to go back .... The land should be second to none when drained properly .... On the S.W. corner Lake Rotorua drains itself through the property. The Lake is a celebrated spot for eels.118

115 ibid. 116 Commissioner for Crown Lands to Under-Secretary for Lands, 3 April 1908, ibid, P 10. 117 Re Waiohau No 1B Block, 11 April 1908, ibid, P 13. 118 ibid, pp 13-14. 46

Mitchell valued the land at £1300 and noted that the value he ascribed to the land was the very maximum that he could recommend.

An area of land at Galatea was also suggested as suitable for use as compensation.

The Wylie family, who had been the teachers at the Te Houhi Native School, had an

Occupation with Right of Purchase over 1,352 acres of land that had been part of the

Rangipo reserve originally owned by Ngati Manawa. 119 Mitchell reported back to the

Lands Department in August 1908 that Wharepapa Peita, on behalf of Kereru and others:

have [sic] just inspected the Block at Te Teko offered by Mr McGarvey to the Government for Patuheuheu, and are satisfied that the blocks would be suitable in every way, more so than Wylie's land at Galatea. They therefore respectfully ask the Government to complete the purchase of McGarvey's land as soon as possible. 120

It was also agreed at this time that £140 should be set aside to pay Grant for the removal of the wharenui , Tama-ki-Hikurangi, from his lands to the property at Te

Teko. Mitchell was instructed to discuss the removal of the wharenui with Grant and arrange the transfer. He was also asked to begin negotiations with McGarvey 'to obtain the lowest price at which he will sell because .... £2000 is an extreme price.'121

Negotiations with McGarvey commenced but in October 1908 Mr J Wylie wrote to the

Under-Secretary for Land informing him that the original owners of Waiohau 1 B preferred the Rangipo lands at Galatea and that Wharepapa Peita had negotiated without the consent of the people. 122 I have found no record of a response to Wylie and the Te Teko deal was concluded in late October 1908.

119 Blocks 1, 2, 5 and 6, Galatea survey district, Paul map, p 56. 120 LS 1/22128477, P 14, (Wai 46 # H4 (h)) 121 ibid, P 16. 122 ibid, P 20. 47

Mr McGarvey was paid £1230.15.11 for the land and Grant was paid £140 for Tama- ki-Hikurangi. £80 was also allotted for the removal of the wharenui. The whole transaction totalled £1450.15.11.123 The Statement of Accounts in the Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives for 1909 lists the sum of £1440 paid for the purchase of 'land to provide for the wants of Native owners of Waiohau No.1 B of which they were deprived by fraudulent means.'124 Although a sum of £2000 had been approved as part of the Estimates of the Native Department (Miscellaneous) vote in 1907 for compensation for Waiohau 1B, it is unclear what, if anything, the government did with the remaining £560. There is no record of any cash payments being paid to the original owners of Waiohau 1B at the time the Te Teko land was purchased and they would not forget the total sum approved for compensation.

The purchase of the McGarvey lands at Te Teko was a fait accompli. In compensation for their loss of 7000 acres of land they received 310 acres approximately 18 kilometres distance from their traditional lands at Waiohau. There was little consultation with the original owners of Waiohau1 B over the selected compensation lands and none at all regarding the level or adequacy of compensation. To make matters worse it would be some years before title and relative interests to the Te Teko lands was determined for the beneficial owners due to legal and administrative mix ups.

The government considered three ways in which title to the land might be held:

(a) The land might be purchased by the Crown and Crown granted to the Natives concerned, subject to such restrictions as would ensure its inalienability, or (b) it might be purchased by the Crown and transferred to the Waiariki Maori Land Board, which could hold it as a reservation for the Natives, or

123 Under-Secretary for Lands to Under-Secretary of Native Affairs, 17 October 1908, MA 1/1920/218, vol 4, P 24 (Wai 46 # H4(e)). 124 AJHR, 1909, 8-1, P 39. 48

(c) it might be purchased straight away in the name of the Board, as trustee for the Natives.125

The government considered the third option to be the best. It was decided that the lands would be vested in the Waiariki District Maori Land Board to hold in trust 'for the Natives who appear on the title of the land of which they were dispossessed, and in the same relative share and proportions.'126 Making the land inalienable seems to have been the government's chief concern in terms of administration of the Te Teko lands. More important though was that none of the options considered by the government even came close to a direct transfer of the land to the original owners of

Waiohau 1B. The people were not given the compensation land. In a blatantly paternalistic move the land was transferred to the Waiariki Maori Land Board to be

held in trust. Perhaps because of this or because of the distance of Te Teko from

Waiohau and the fact that Te Teko was clearly within Ngati Awa country, it is not surprising that few of the Waiohau people chose to live on the new lands. Indeed, in

September 1909 the wharenui, Tama-ki-Hikurangi, was moved from Grant's land to the settlement of Waiohau on Waiohau 1A block, rather than to Te Teko. This is an indication that the people never really considered the Te Teko lands as adequate

replacement for the land that they had lost.

Bureaucratic and administrative bungling between the government and the Waiariki

District Maori Land Board added to confusion over the status of the lands at Te Teko.

In September 1910 the Waiohau people asked the Native Minister to ascertain the owners of the Te Teko land. The Under-Secretary for Lands asked the President of the Waiariki Maori Land Board to report to him regarding the owners on the title.127

Judge Browne replied that the Board had no records relating to title and that 'as far

125 Under-Secretary for Native Affairs to the Native Minister, 8 November 1908, MA 1/1920/218, vol 4, p 30 (Wai 46 # H4(e)). 126 Memorandum for the Under-Secretary for Lands, 8 November 1908, MA 1/1920/218, P 31 (Wai 46 # H4(e)). 127 Under-Secretary for lands to President of the Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 22 September 1910, ibid, P 48. 49 as I recollect this is the first I have heard of it.'128 Judge Browne was not aware of what land had been purchased and had received no Certificate of Title. An exchange of letters between the Native Department and the Department for Lands and Survey reveals that neither agency had actually communicated the purchase to the District

Land Board that was supposed to be administering the land for the owners.

Meanwhile, the original owners of Waiohau 1 B were harassed by Mrs Beale to meet her costs incurred in the earlier Supreme Court action, as well as by their own lawyer, Earl, to pay his fees of £500. This could have been settled had the original deal of £2000 been honoured as the owners could have met at least some of these costs with the remaining money. In 1912 Wharepapa Peita, Hetara Te Wakaunua,

Erueti Peene (also known as Edward Biddle) and Paora Rangiaho wrote to Native

Minister, Apirana Ngata, inquiring as to the whereabouts of the money left over from the Te Teko purchase:

[y]our predecessor has not explained to us to position of the balance of money from the purchase of Te Teko .... What we desire is to know the position of this balance and that it be made available to pay this (lawyer's) account .... We want the Title of the land referred to herein to be put through the Court and confirmed by Registrar to Patuheuheu.129

A deputation of Patuheuheu, led by a Edward Biddle (Peene), approached the Hon.

W D S MacDonald who was visiting Taneatua in June 1912. The group wanted to know to whom title to the land at Te Teko had been granted.130 When MacDonald took up the issue on his return to Wellington the Under-Secretary for Lands responded that the land was vested in the Waiariki District Land Board and that further, there had been a misconception over the Te Teko compensation. He said that the government had agreed to acquire an area of land as compensation to be

128 Judge Browne to Under-Secretary of Native Department, 8 October 1920, ibid, P 50. 129 Wharepapa Peita and oth ers to the Native Minister, 16 April 1912, ibid, P 65. 130 Report of Native Deputation to Hon W D S MacDonald (Native Minister) at Taneatua, 24 June 1912, ibid, P 68. 50 vested in the Board but he saw no connection between the purchase of land in compensation and the payment of solicitors fees and other associated costS.131

It was clearly difficult for the Waiohau people to live on, cultivate or develop the land at Te Teko when title to it had not been established. Erueti Peene wrote to the Native

Minister in October 1912 stating that the non-completion of title was preventing the owners from utilising the land. 132

Months of correspondence between the Waiariki Maori Land Board, the Department for Lands and Survey and the Native Department, and appeals from the original owners of Waiohau 18, finally resulted in the Certificate of Title being sent from the

Commissioner for Crown Lands to the Board.133 Although this was some progress,

Judge Browne wrote back to the Native Department and asked what the documents were for as the earlier correspondence had now been mislaid! After further delays confirmation was sent to the government that Lot 61, Parish of Matata, parts of

Section 119 and 120 Parish of Matata (Land transfer Certificate, vol 158, Folio 178), and Section 118 Parish of Matata (Land Transfer Certificate, Vol 158, Folio 286) had been vested in the Waiariki District Maori Land Board.

It is unclear what happened to the land over the next seven years. In 1919 the

Registrar of the Waiariki Maori Land Board wrote to the Native Department. He noted that 'there was nothing among the Board's records to show to what Natives these lands were to be transferred by the Board, and I would be obliged if you could let me know if there is anything on the Native Office File indicating the particular

Natives to whom the Board is now holding the land in trust.,134 Again there was a

131 Under-Secretary for Lands to Native Minister, 2 July and 21 August 1912, ibid, pp 69-70. 132 Erueti Peene and 4 others to the Native Minister, 25 October 1912, ibid, P 71. 133 Assistant Under-Secretary to Under-Secretary for Lands, 5 December 1912, ibid, P 79. 134 Registrar of the Waiariki District Maori Land Board to the Under-Secretary of the Native Department, 11 February 1919, ibid, p 104. 51 flurry of correspondence, this time between W H Herries of the Native Department, the District Land Board, and various arms of the government. 135

In June 1920 the Crown finally acknowledged that the original owners of Waiohau 1B had been 'wrongfully dispossessed' of their lands. 136 In July 1920, by Order in

Council of the Governor-General, the Native Land Court was empowered to inquire into and ascertain the beneficial owners of the lands at Te Teko. 137 Special jurisdiction was granted to the court so that the shares could be allotted to those who had been evicted from Te Houhi. A court sitting required the original ownership of

Waiohau to be re-opened some forty-two years after the initial title investigation. One of the original protagonists of the claim, Mehaka Tokopounamu, died in July 1920, just prior to the hearing.

On 5 October 1920 the beneficial ownership of the land at Te Teko was investigated by Judge Hugh Fraser Ayson at the Native Land Court in Whakatane. William Bird opened the case for the Patuheuheu owners with a history of the application and discussion of how people of Ngati Manawa and Tuhoe had been included in the ownership list for Waiohau 1 in 1878. He emphasised, however, that:

Those of Patuheuheu in the list suffered mostly. Some were imprisoned ... .They had a lawyer act for them (Mr Earl). To find money to pay him, they had to sell cattle etc. They sold everything. 138

Bird presented a list to the court based on the original ownership list of 158 names.

He noted that not all the names had been included: '42 [are] excluded for the reasons, 1 They have no 'take' to Waiohau; 2 Were put in thro' aroha. They are

135 ibid, pp 105-120. 136 New Zealand Gazette, 28 June 1920, p 2064. 137 New Zealand Gazette, no 64, 1 July 1920 in Paul document bank, (Wai 46 # H4(e)), p 122. 138 Whakatane MB (WMB) 19, 5 October 1920, p 273. 52

N'Manawa and Tuhoe who came in thro' aroha. All N'Manawa sold, some Tuhoe's and some Patuheuheu's.'139

Ngati Manawa representative Hohepa Poia gave evidence saying that he recognised that Patuheuheu had suffered the most but that Ngati Manawa had an ancestral right to the land. He said that he was content to leave it to the court to determine what

Ngati Manawa's share in the land should be.140

Binney notes that Te Pouwhare of Tuhoe and Patuheuheu gave evidence stressing that the land belonged to Patuheuheu, that those of Tuhoe included in 1878 had been included only out of 'aroha' and that Tuhoe had not assisted in the long running dispute over Waiohau 1 B. She argues that:

The evidence ... shows, rather, that Te Whitu Tekau made considerable efforts to mediate, and that some crucial leaders of Tuhoe - Numia Kereru and Hetaraka Te Wakaunua - pleaded with the government to help Te Houhi right to the end. 141

At the conclusion of the evidence a list of 117 names was submitted to the court for ownership of Matata blocks 61 , 118 and parts 119 and 120 in the township of Te

Teko, an area of approximately 310 acres. Ownership was based on the original ownership and interests of the owners of Waiohau 1 B. The allocation in Waiohau 1A was used as a measure and succession from the original owners was also decided at this time. 142 Final orders regarding ownership of the Te Teko lands were made in the

Native Land Court at Rotorua before Judge Ayson in December 1920. There had

139 WMB 19, 5 October 1920, p 274. 140 WMB 19, 5 October 1920, p 276. 141 Binney, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two', p 349. 142 WMB 19, 7 October 1920, pp 286-298. 53 been no objections to the list set aside in interlocutory orders in October so that order was made final by the court at Rotorua. 143

The descendants of the original owners of Waiohau 1 B were not all satisfied with the outcome however. In 1945 Rikiriki Mehaka Tokopounamu and others of Waiohau petitioned the government asking for an investigation into the £2000 set aside for compensation as this was considered insufficient.144 The petition was considered by the Maori Affairs Committee and the Cabinet but no recommendations were made.145

The compensation lands were subdivided on 8 June 1921 into subdivisions A to G.

Subdivision E was further divided on 7 October 1925 into numbers 1 and 2.1 46 In terms of ownership and use of the compensation lands at Te Teko, it does not seem that the Waiohau people ever resided there. Besides, any decision over residence, use or ownership of the lands took a new turn when the lands were included in the

Te Teko series of the Ruatoki consolidation and land development schemes. This is discussed below.

3.1.2 Waiohau 1 A Waiohau 1A remained largely intact after partition in 1886. It had been vested in 158 owners who had not sold their shares in Waiohau 1 B and those who had sold their shares also retained an interest but of a lesser value. The block came to the attention of the Native Land Court in February 1903 when Penetito Hawea and others applied for a partition hearing. Hearings commenced on 9 February 1903 but were adjourned

143 Rotorua minute book (RMB) 69, 18 December 1920, p100. 144 Petition of Rikiriki Mehaka Tokopounamu and others of Waiohau, no 35/1945, pp125-7, (Wai 46 # H4 (e)). 145 Minister of Maori Affairs to Rikiriki Tokopounamu, 1 August 1946, ibid, p 138. 146 Registrar of Waiariki District Maori Land Board to Under-Secretary, Native Department, 18 November 1929, MA 1 570 29/4/6/1, NA. 54 almost immediately because an important witness could not be present for the sitting. 147 The application was subsequently withdrawn.

In 1907 the block came before the Native Land Court again. The community had been evicted from Te Houhi by this stage and were now living on Waiohau 1A. On 16

October 1907 Akuhata T akatua appeared before the court in respect of an application for partition of Waiohau 1A, an area of 7,464 acres. The court encouraged the owners to 'make some arrangement to settle the matter outside.'14B

Over the next few months there were no fewer than seven adjournments to allow the owners to discuss the partition arrangements.

On 21 October 1907 an agreement was reached for the division of the block. It was decided that Wi Teremoana and his people would take the northern portion and Wi

Patene and his people would take the southern portion. Some days later, the owners had agreed final divisions of the block. 2 acres would be set aside for a burial place,

2 acres for a school site and 70 acres for a papakainga for the benefit of all the owners.149 It was explained to the court that Waiohau 1A should be divided to give fair access to both the useful, arable land and the land of lesser quality:

We have decided upon a boundary line dividing the inferior land from the good. We have done this because we recognise that to divide the block fairly every one must have a share of good land and of inferior. 150

The court approved a road to be laid off from the Rangitaiki River to the main road, thus allowing access between Waiohau and Te Teko. Land for a road was also set aside between Waiohau 1Band Oputea.151

147 WMB 5, 9 February 1903, pp 272-273. 148 WMB 9, 16 October 1907, p 224. 149 WMB 9, 27 October 1907, p 247. 150 WMB 9, 27 October 1907, p 247. 55

In January 1908 partition orders were issued for the Waiohau 1A block. The block was divided into 19 smaller blocks of varying sizes and with various sized groups of owners. 152 However, in 1914 the existing partitions were cancelled and the block was divided in to 15 partitioned sections. Further partitions were ordered within these larger subdivisions until all subdivisions in Maori (and Crown) ownership were included in the Waiohau series of the Ruatoki Consolidation Scheme. Before this though there would be some attempts by the Crown and private individuals to purchase individual interests in some of the subdivisions. These purchases are discussed in Chapter 4 below.

3.2 The Sale of Waiohau 2

As discussed above the Native Land Court awarded title to Waiohau 2 to Meihana

Koata, Wiremu Kingi Tutahuarangi and approximately 80 owners of Ngati Pukeko in

July 1878. 153 The block contained an estimated 1,100 acres of land and was located in the north of the Waiohau blocks bordering Tuararangaia. There is very little information in the archival or the Maori Land Court records as to what happened to

Waiohau 2 in the years immediately after title investigation. It is not even clear whether the Ngati Pukeko owners resided on the block immediately after title was awarded.

In November 1898 Tamati Waaka and others applied for a determination of relative interests and shares in Waiohau 2, under the Native Land Act 1894. An order declaring the relative interests of the 117 owners of Waiohau 2 was decided on 29

November 1898.154

151 Paula Berghan, 'Block Research Narratives 01 the Urewera, 1870-1930', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, July 2001, P 702. 152 Berghan, p 702. 153 Memorial 01 Ownership, Waiohau 2 Block Order Files 2050 and 2050/A, MLC, Rotorua. 154 Order declaring relative interests, 29 November 1898, BAJJ 1119211241, NA Auckland. 56

In 1908 Waiohau 2 was investigated by the Stout-Ngata Commission as the body was sitting in Whakatane at that time. It seems that Ngati Pukeko wished to lease the block to Patuheuheu because it adjoined their land and '[t]hat tribe has little land. It is good land. They have stock running over it, sheep etc.'155 It is not certain from the written records if the land was leased to Patuheuheu at this time or not, but over the next few years the Ngati Pukeko owners would become involved in negotiations for sale of the Waiohau 2 block.

In 1913 Tamati Waaka and 15 others wrote from Whakatane to the Minister of Native

Affairs offering to sell Waiohau 2 and Tuararangaia 2, a block immediately to the north-east of Waiohau, for £2 per acre. 156 Tamati Waaka said that the area of the two blocks was approximately 2,100 acres in total. Later that month a solicitor, Charles M

Buckworth of the firm J Thornes, House, Land and Estate Agent, wrote to the

Minister of Native Affairs about a possible sale by Ngati Pukeko. He noted that:

The Crown has already purchased a portion of the Tuararangaia block which is situated between Ruatoki and the Rangitaiki River, it is very good bush land and if cut up into suitable sized portions would be readily taken up. The Waiohau block adjoins it and contains flat land of good quality.157

Judge Browne of the Waiariki District Maori Land Board wrote to the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs shortly after regarding the proposed purchase of Waiohau 2 and

Tuararangaia 2. He said that as far as he was aware the land was of a poor quality and that the 'native owners' were not making much use of it. However, to make sure,

Browne decided to send in the District Valuer, J H Burch, to assess the land in question. 158

155 Berghan, p 703. 156 Tamati Waaka and others to Minister for Native Affairs, 7 July 1913, MA-MLP 1, 1913/44, in Berghan, 'Supporting Papers for Block Research Narratives of the Urewera', Volume XVI, p 5505. 57

Burch reported on the quality of Waiohau 2 in March of the following year. He noted that the block contained about 75 acres of alluvial flat and swamp and that the balance of the block was open fern hills with a few steep spurs covered in Manuka and Rewa Rewa. He considered Waiohau 2 to be 'of very poor quality and has a very heavy deposit of Tarawera scoria upon it.'159 A valuation dated 20 March 1914 put the capital value of Waiohau 2 at £600 (£550 for the unimproved value of the land and £50 for improvements).16o The £50 valuation for improvements indicates that someone had lived on the block and built the one dwelling, the fences, cleared land and planted grass that the valuation was based upon. However, the government valuation was considerably less than the owners considered the land was worth.

Their offer of £2 per acre put the value of the block at £2200, almost four times the value of the government valuation.

In February 1914 an application was made to summon a meeting of owners under the Native Land Act 1909 to consider sale of Waiohau 2 to William Grubb of

Auckland 'at a price equivalent to the government valuation,.161 A meeting of owners was held on 24 April 1914 but only 16 owners attended and the meeting was adjourned to allow the owners to discuss the proposal amongst themselves. Grubb offered 10/6 per acre for the land. The following month the Crown also made an offer to purchase Waiohau 2.

Thereafter, there was something of a bidding war over Waiohau 2 between the

Crown, William Grubb, and two other interested purchasers, Henry Gerald Reardon and Arthur Mervyn Wadmore. The competition increased the sums offered and offers varied between 26/ per acre offered by Wadmore and 35/ per acre offered by both

157 Charles Buckworth to Minister for Native Affairs, 13 July 1913, ibid, P 5509-5510. 158 Judge Browne to Under-Secretary, 6 September 1913, ibid, P 5487. 159 J H Burch to Officer in Charge, Valuation Department, Auckland, 15 March 1914, ibid, P 5503. 160 Certified copy of Entry in Valuation-Roll, 20 March 1914, BAJJ 111921124f, NA Auckland. 161 Application to summon a meeting of owners, 9 February 1914, ibid. 58

Reardon and Grubb (an increase from Grubb's first offer a few months earlier). At a meeting in June 1914 between the owners, the Waiariki District Maori Land Board and the interested parties, the offers of all four were considered. Peraniko

Wharepapa stated that he did not wish to sell. Pouawha Meihana said that as a proxy holder for various owners he had been instructed to decide in favour of Wadmore.

However, Wadmore had withdrawn from the bidding as the price had increased and

Pouawha Meihana asked the owners to decide in favour of Reardon over Grubb, as he was 'the man who bumped the price Up.'162 There was unanimous support for

Reardon's offer when a vote was taken by the owners.

However, the Crown had not yet fully played its hand. Mr Bowler, the Land Purchase

Officer, moved a resolution that the land be sold to the Crown at £1.15.6 per acre on the condition that if the Native Land Purchase Board would not pay that price that the land would be sold to Reardon at £1.15.0 per acre. 163 Bowler reported the resolution back to the Under-Secretary for Lands observing that:

[I]t was apparent from the outset that competition for the land was keen. The rival purchasers increased their price by half-crowns .... The natives refused to deal with Grubb, which left only Reardon in the running. I got a resolution carried in favour of the sale to the Crown at 35/6 per acre ... The price appears high in comparison with the Government valuation (£875 in 1913 and £600 in 1914) but in view of the keen competition it would certainly appear that this valuation is too low. 164

But in subsequent meetings the Land Purchase Board considered the price too high and the Crown offer was not confirmed. Reardon's offer also fell through. In October

1915 his brother wrote to the Waiariki District Maori Land Board stating that while the

162 Meeting of owners, 26 June 1914, ibid. 163 ibid.

164 Bowler to Under-Secretary, 26 June 1914, MA-MLP 1, 1913/44, in Berghan, 'Supporting Papers' p 5495. 59 finance for purchasing the block had been arranged by him, now that the Great War had started the money was no longer available. 165

In 1916 various applications for meetings to consider sale of Waiohau 2 were called.

This time the interested purchasers were Douglas Larnach of Wellington, James

Cochrane Cleland and Richard Turpin. Larnach offered 35/- per acre on condition that one third of the money be paid on execution of the agreement of sale, one third be paid within twelve months and one third be paid within eighteen months. Cleland and Turpin, who were working together, put in an offer of 30/- per acre. At a meeting of owners in June 1916 at Whakatane a resolution was put to the meeting to sell to

Cleland and Turpin for the sum of £1.15 per acre. 166

There were some difficulties in completing the acquisition. Fleming, legal counsel for

Cleland and Turpin, wrote to the Registrar of the Waiariki District Maori Land Board saying that he was having difficulties obtaining information required for a schedule of lands with 'very few of the owners being resident in this district.,167 A sale was concluded, however, and the land was transferred by the Wairariki District Maori

Land Board to Cleland and Turpin on 19 July 1917. Shortly thereafter Waiohau 2, an area of 1,876 acres and 23 perches, was transferred to Thomas Trumper, a farmer of

Gisborne. 168

Conclusions

Waiohau 1 was partitioned into Waiohau 1 A and 1 B in 1886. Waiohau 1 B was sold almost immediately thereafter in a fraudulent sale by two of the Ngati Manawa owners that were bribed and who did not have the mandate of the wider Waiohau community. After years of peaceful protest by the Waiohau people, costly litigation

165 Reardon to Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 27 October 1915, BAJJ 11192/1241, NA Auckland. 166 Resolution 01 meeting, 6 June 1916, ibid. 167 Fleming to Registrar, 15 August 1916, ibid. 60 and a formal inquiry, the government set aside £2000 to purchase the land back.

However, when attempts at purchase were unsuccessful the government brought an area of land at Te Teko as compensation. A government valuation of the Te Teko lands by surveyor, Tai Mitchell, recommended that further efforts be made to purchase back Waiohau 1B for the owners. This did not happen and 305 acres at Te

Teko was purchased as compensation.

There was no valuation of the land lost (7000 acres) compared with the land used in compensation (310 acres). Moreover, there was no consultation over the level or adequacy of the compensation and little meaningful consultation over the actual lands selected.

The Crown purchased the compensation lands for £1440 and the owners never saw the remaining money. The owners were not compensated for their considerable legal costs, for the poverty, arrests, imprisonment and disruption to their community economy that ensued. A further factor was the location of the lands in Te Teko, some distance from Waiohau, in the rohe of Ngati Awa. The lands at Te Teko lay idle for many years while title was ascertained. Due to administrative and bureaucratic mix ups title was not determined until 1920, over thirty years after Waiohau 1B was lost.

Waiohau 2 was awarded to Ngati Pukeko at the 1878 title investigation but there is no Ngati Pukeko 'voice' in the archives and Maori Land Court files relating to

Waiohau. It is even unclear whether Ngati Pukeko resided on Waiohau 2 immediately after title was ascertained and most of the correspondence from Ngati Pukeko in the following years came from settlements on the coast such as Poroporo and

Whakatane. It is plain though that there was considerable pressure upon Ngati

168 Certificate of Title 287/164 for Waiohau 2. 61

Pukeko to sell the block by the many offers from individual Pakeha and the government. The block was eventually sold to a Pakeha farmer in 1917. 62

Chapter 4 - Land Sale, Consolidation and Development

This chapter begins with an assessment of Crown and private purchases of individual interests in Waiohau. However, the main focus of the chapter is the Waiohau and Te Teko series of the Ruatoki consolidation and land development schemes. The impact of the schemes is also briefly discussed.

It is my understanding that David Alexander was commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust to research and write a report specifically on the land development schemes of Te Urewera. This section of the Waiohau block report should therefore be read alongside Alexander's in-depth study of consolidation and development.

4.1 Purchases of Individual Interests By the early part of the twentieth century the compensation lands at Te Teko and

Waiohau 1A were still largely owned by the original owners of Waiohau 1, although it seems that a small number of sections were sold individually. These are detailed below.

In 1915 blocks Waiohau 1A 11, 1A 12 and 1A 13 were brought before the Native Land

Court for further partition. Mika Te Tawhao said that the owners wanted to sell the blocks to the Crown at government valuation and that 'we agree to areas of land

[being] cut out from each block to satisfy the costS.,169 The orders were suspended for six months pending a meeting of the owners and a resolution to sell. In August the following year the Under-Secretary of the Native Department wrote to the Lands and

Survey Department noting that the various owners meetings had failed to get a quorum. He wished to know an estimate of the highest price that would be offered to the owners if the land was considered suitable for settlement purposes. 170

169 Extract from Whakatane MB 14, 1 December 1915, pp 199-202, AAMK 869/898c, NA. 170 Under-Secretary for Native Affairs to Under-Secretary for Lands and Survey, 8 August 1916, MA-MLP 1 1916/6, Berghan, 'Supporting Papers', p 6093. 63

The District Surveyor inspected the three Waiohau sections and reported:

[t]hat the land traversed by the road through Waiohau 1A goes through very poor country for about four miles - just short scrub with lower parts covered in Tarawera ash, and that it is broken and no use for settlement. 171

The Native Land Purchase Department decided not to take any further action regarding the purchase of Waiohau 1A11, 1A12 and 1A13 at this time. However, in

1933 there was correspondence over whether or not the original orders had been carried out and whether the blocks should be included in the consolidation scheme.

In 1921 Te Whaiti Paora sold Waiohau 1A9 block, an area of 18 acres, to Edward

Fitzgerald for the sum of £40. Te Whaiti Paora had written to the Waiariki District

Maori Land Board in August 1920 saying that the land was of no use to him as his kainga and cultivations were on the other side of the Rangitaiki River. He said that he needed the purchase money to improve his other landholdings and that because

Fitzgerald had occupied the land for some years he was anxious to give him title to it.172 A memorandum of transfer was signed in August 1920.

Waiohau 1A6A was gifted to the Trustees of the Presbyterian Church in December

1925. The block consisted of 5 acres. The consideration provided to the owners,

Mika Te Tawhao and Repo Ewa, by the purchasers was the erection of a Mission

House and hospital. 173

In September 1929 Waiohau 1A4A2 was sold in fee simple to Frederick Cook, a

Rabbitter, of Waiohau. The sole owner of the 75 acre block was Rangikotua

171 Under-Secretary for Lands and Survey to Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, 2 October 1916, ibid, P 6092. 172 Te Whaiti Paora to Waiariki District Maori Land Board, (English translation completed by Tai Mitchell, Licensed Interpreter), 2 August 1920, BAJJ A73/3081 , NA. 173Minutes of Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 25 May 1926, BAJJ A73/4360, NA. 64

Wharepapa. Wharepapa sold the block to Cook for the sum of £75 on 30 January

1930. 174

At the same time, Frederick Cook was involved in negotiations for the purchase of

Waiohau 1A4A1. The sole owner of the block, Kie Kie (also know as Konaho), wrote to the Native Department in May 1930 saying that:

Waiohau No. 1A no. 4A Sec. 1 ... is my sole property and I have entered into negotiations for the sale of the same to a European at £3 per acre which is double the present Govt. Valuation. There is however a proclamation prohibiting alienations in view of a consolidation scheme .... It is my wish to have this sale completed to enable me to buy land elsewhere.175

The consolidation officers reported that there were no objections to a removal of the prohibition against private alienation of the block and the Order-in-Council was adjusted. Kie Kie sold the 75 acre block to Cook on 19 April 1930 for £225.

These sales of smaller subdivisions within Waiohau 1A seem to have been made on the basis of individual need and decision. The blocks had simple titles with few owners and the sales were for reasonably small blocks of land. The remaining

Waiohau lands and Te Teko compensation lands were made inalienable except by sale to the Crown in 1930 and 1933 respectively. This is discussed further below.

4.2 The Ruatoki-Waiohau Consolidation and Development Schemes Maori land development and consolidation schemes were established in the early part of the twentieth century. In this period it was thought that small scale, intensive agriculture was the most efficient use of land. Miles has argued that the Native

Minister, Apirana Ngata was convinced that 'land development and the corporate management of Maori land was a preventative solution to further alienation.'176

174 Minutes of Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 30 January 1930, BAJJ A73/4939, NA. 175 Kie Kie alias Konaho to Under-Secretary, Native Department, 3 May 1929, MA 1 57029/4/6/1, NA. 176 Miles, p 417. 65

Consolidation and development schemes were trialled on the East Coast (for example, in the Waipiro blocks) before the Ruatoki Consolidation Scheme began.

Governmental and legislative support for the consolidation of fragmented Maori interests in land were given in the Native Lands Act 1909, whereby 'scattered

interests could be exchanged and consolidated into a block so that an individual, or a group, could utilise the land more effectively.,m The intended outcome of consolidation was that an individual would receive an award based upon the total value of their shares within the consolidation scheme area. Debts such as title fees and survey liens would be taken out of this award. However, the awards were not based on the customary interests of particular individuals to an area. The larger concern was to create economically viable titles where previously they had been fragmented, and to satisfy issues such as road access, fencing, water supply and boundaries.

Maori land development schemes were carried out under the provisions of section 23 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1929.

Section 23 provided for the facilitation of development and settlement of Maori- owned land.

On 29 November 1924 the Native Minister applied to the Native Land Court to prepare a Scheme of Consolidation for Ruatoki and other blocks in the Urewera area.

Titles to Ruatoki blocks were consolidated in 1929-30 and from this scheme Ruatoki

A, B, C and other titles were created. 17B The Ruatoki owners became farmers on areas of approximately 40 acres that the schemes were subdivided into. The farmers were predominantly engaged in dairy farming and were equipped with materials for

177 Miles, p 417. 178 Oliver, pp 95-96. 66 fencing, fertilising and upgrading housing and milk sheds. Oliver notes that by the end of March 1932 'there were 120 settlers on the Ruatoki scheme. Of these 68 had commenced milking.' Within two years the scheme was providing a livelihood for 310 adults and 402 children.

Consolidation at Waiohau arose from the operation of the scheme at Ruatoki. There was a considerable overlap in ownership between the two blocks and many owners had shares in both blocks. The consolidation officers found it difficult to arrange shareholdings at Ruatoki without affecting Waiohau. Thus, Waiohau was brought under the scheme. Between 1929 and 1931 the government also purchased interests in land in the Ruatoki valley valued at £4,358.13.10. 179 For its acquired interests in the Ruatoki consolidation scheme the Crown transferred an area valued at £595.11.7 to the Waiohau series. 180 Thus, the Crown's interests from Ruatoki were taken from the Waiohau lands.

In 1929 the government had encouraged the Waiohau owners to put their lands into the Ruatoki Consolidation Scheme. The Registrar of the Waiariki District Maori Land

Board had a valuation completed on lands comprising the 'Arawa Consolidation -

Waiohau Series' .181 The areas valued included all of Waiohau 1A and Lots 61, 118 and parts 119 and 120, Matata, and the many subdivisions of these blocks. Also included were the Whirinaki 2 and Matahina C blocks. The valuations included the acreage, ownership (Crown and European owned blocks were identified), the unimproved value and the value of improvements for each of the subdivisions.182

In August of the same year, the Native Land Purchase Board came to an arrangement with the Whakatane County Council over rates owed by the Waiohau

179 T R Nikora, 'Waiohau B9 Block', 26 September 2000, p 2. Copy in author's possession. 180 Nikora, 'Waiohau B9 Block', p 2. 181 Registrar to Under-Secretary for Native Department, 26 April 1929, MA 1 57029/4/6/1, NA. 182 Arawa Consolidation - Waiohau Series, ibid. 67 owners. Minutes of a meeting of the Board note that the Native Land Court had certified that during consolidation proceedings it 'would vest Native freehold land in the Crown for the purpose of liquidating liabilities for rates due to the Whakatane

County Council.' 183 This land would be taken out of the Waiohau series of the Arawa

Consolidation, whenever this was created. It was resolved at the meeting that £22 would be paid to the Waiariki District Maori Land Board to the council for rates owed by the owners.

Many of the owners were keen to be part of the consolidation scheme. William Bird of

Ngati Manawa stated at a consolidation hearing that it was now

the age of transition and the younger members of the tribe are now awake to their responsibilities and seek a claim to prove themselves. Patuheuheu and N'Whare are also anxious that consolidation should be hastened so as to give them an opportunity to farm. At present their holdings ... are scattered and are of little use in their present state owing to multiplicity of owners.184

In January 1930 Waiohau 1A and its subdivisions were made inalienable except by alienation to the Crown. 185

However, Tuhoe still had general concerns over the consolidation scheme. The

Waiohau owners set out certain requirements before they would agree to a consolidation scheme for Waiohau. At a Consolidation Court sitting at Ruatoki in

February 1930 Hori Aterea stated that 'Tuhoe is here to assist the kaupapa of

Consolidation to enable farming to proceed .. .We ask that the Crown area when consolidated be made available for settlement by US.'186 Te Hata Waewae reiterated what Hori Aterea had said about land 'purchased' (consolidated) by the Crown being

183 Minutes of Meeting of Native Land Purchase Board, Wellington 14 August 1929, ibid. 184 Consolidation Minute Book 1, 14 June 1929, p 174. 185 NZ Gazette, 2, 16 January 1930, p 91, MA 1 570 29/4/6/1, NA. 186 CMB 1, 19 February 1930, p 261 . 68 made available for settlement by Tuhoe. He also noted that Tuhoe did not wish outsiders to work among them.

Erueti Peene (Biddle) reported the kaupapa for consolidation laid down at a hui of

Tuhoe people held at Puketotara Pa. He said that, firstly, the hui had decided that where the Crown had purchased interests where there had been river erosion that the Crown should bear the loss. Secondly, he stated that lands purchased by the

Crown should be made available for settlement by Ruatoki residents. Thirdly, he said that owners should be permitted to repurchase from the Crown those interests bought by the Crown with their subdivisions. 187

Later on in the consolidation hearing Te Iki Pouwhare asked that the consolidation officers consider including Waiohau and Te Teko in the scheme. Te Hata Waewae conceded that the owners did not object to the consolidation scheme but 'desire certain matters rectified before proceeding with the work'.188 Thus, the Ruatoki and

Waiohau owners had mixed feelings about the consolidation scheme and very clear requirements about what should occur when the scheme was begun.

There was correspondence in early 1931 over whether the compensation lands at Te

Teko were suitable for consolidation and inclusion in a development scheme. Kapa

Ehau, Officer in Charge of Consolidation, sent a report and schedule of lands to the

Registrar in early 1931. The schedule showed the 'Patuheuheu sections' at Te Teko.

Ehau noted that the Crown value was £595.11.0, from interests transferred to the

Waiohau area. He proposed that '[s]ubject to the consent of the Crown, there is no reason why this value should not be located in the Patuheuheu Sections, or why the

Crown should not take this area over and evacuate the whole of the owners into

l B7 CMB 1, P 263; Nikora, 'Waiohau B9B Block', P 6. lBB CMB 1, 22 February 1930, p 295. 69

Waiohau ... .This latter proposal is one advanced two years ago to the Consolidation

Officers by the Ngati Whare, Ngati Manawa and Patuheuheu.,189 However, in the end these interests were transferred to Waiohau.

The Under-Secretary reported to the Minister of Native Affairs that the Te Teko lands had been inspected but were unoccupied. The inspectors had commented that '[T]he

Patuheuheu sections appear to have been in grass at one time but have partly reverted to bracken. If fenced this land would provide a fair amount of grazing pending its active development. The lands are practically all flat and ploughable .. ..

They appear to be eminently suitable for development.,19o A prohibition of all alienation other than alienation in favour of the Crown was applied to Lots 61, 118 and parts 119 and 120, Parish of Matata and all subdivisions (the compensation lands) in May 1933.

Te Iki Pouwhare and 80 others of Patuheuheu (and one person of Ngati Whare descent) wrote to the Native Minister in April 1933 submitting their lands to be worked under a land development scheme. The lands included 7000 acres of

Waiohau (1A) and 310 acres (the compensation land) at Te Teko. Pouwhare stated that consolidation of their interests 'would greatly assist in the Development of our lands.'191 On 20 April Erueti Peene also wrote to Ngata. He explained that at a meeting of the Waiohau owners held the previous day, the owners had resolved to

'place the whole of Waiohau under the Native Minister's scheme ... The people of

Patuheuheu will heartily appreciate if the Minister will institute and [sic] early start of this [development] scheme at Waiohau.' 192

189 Kapa Ehau to Registrar, and Schedule of Patuheuheu Sections at Te Teko, AAMK 869/898c, 63/56/1, NA. 190 Under-Secretary to Minister, Native Affairs, 26 May 1932, ibid. 191 Te Iki Pouwhare and others to the Native Minister, 19 April 1933, ibid. 192 Erueti Peene to Native Minister, 20 April 1933, ibid. 70

Waiohau differed from Ruatoki in that the development scheme commenced before the consolidation scheme was completed. This meant that improvements were made to the land before the owners of particular sections were established.

The Native Land Settlement Board met on 11 May 1933 to decide whether the

Waiohau and Te Teko lands should be included in the development scheme. Judge

Jones proposed that Waiohau 1A and all it's subdivisions, Lots 61, 118 and parts 119 and 120 and subdivisions, and the Matahina C blocks should be brought under the provisions of section 552 of the Native Land Act 1931. It was proposed that these

lands would be included in the Ruatoki Development Scheme and 'that development of developable areas would be undertaken by the Native Department.,193 This proposal was gazetted on 18 May and 8 June 1933.194

However, there was some confusion among the owners as to whether the Te Teko sections had been included in the scheme. On 3 July 1933 Mere Te Wharekohuru

Mita and others wrote to Ngata regarding the Te Teko lands that they called

'Pukahu'. She explained that:

We are under the impression that this land is under your scheme. We are therefore asking you whether this report is correct or not. Previously we lived at Waiohau and other sections of land in the Waiohau District in which we had interests which we had consolidated and exchanged for interests in Pukahu Matata 118 Block .. . Kepa Ehau ... told us that the Sections at Waiohau in which we had interests had been brought under your development scheme .... We wish you to enlighten us on this matter, to enable us to work on this land Matata 118 because some of our interests in Waiohau have been taken for your development scheme. If this be so what land in Te Teko can we work. We are keen to work this land. 195

There is no response on file to this letter.

193 Extract from Minutes of Native Land Settlement Board, 11 May 1933, ibid. 194 NZ Gazette, 37, 18 May 1933, p 1373, ibid; NZ Gazette, 42, 8 June 1933, p 1539, ibid. 195 Mere Te Wharekohuru Mita to Native Minister, 3 July 1933, AAMK 869/898e, NA. 71

In 1935 the government reported that the area of the Waiohau scheme was 7,425 acres. 960 acres of this land was said to be ring-fenced and under development. In the previous year 297 acres had been ploughed, 140 acres sown in turnips and 157 acres sown for pasture. Fencing had also been bu ilt in order to develop six blocks.

The report commented that 'the health of the settlers appears to be quite good and their living quarters are fair. The scheme provides a living for twenty-nine workers, nineteen other adults, and fifty-nine minors who belong to the Patuheuheu Tribe and who are industrious and keen.'196

In 1935 the Consolidation Court sat at Waiohau to discuss survey liens over Waiohau

1A 11, 1A 12 and 1A 13 and the definition of individual holdings in the scheme. Erueti

Peene argued that the owners wanted their holdings defined so that the units could personally assist in development work in the respective sections allotted to them.197

He also commented on the desire of some of the Te Teko owners to lease sections to a Pakeha so that some income could be derived from the land that had been lying idle for some years.19B Rangi Royal , the consolidation officer, replied that he was present only because of the insistence of the owners and that he had no authority from the government in Wellington to carry on with the consolidation of interests. 199

Some progress was made at consolidation meetings though. A Consolidation

Committee for the Waiohau series was appointed at the next meeting. The committee was made up of Erueti Peene and eight others.20o The owners also reached agreement over the establishment of a papakainga reserve and appointed a number of successors to the various subdivisions of Waiohau lands.201

196 'Native Land Development', nd, AJHR, 1935, G-10, P 15. 197 Consolidation Minute Book 1 A, 25 October 1935, p 110. 198 CMB 1A, 25 October 1935, p 110. 199 CMB 1A, 25 October 1935, p 111 . 200 CMB 1A, 12 November 1935, p 114 and 10 December 1935, p 127. 201 CMB 1A , 26 October 1935, p 112. 72

The definition of Crown interests in Waiohau 1A11, 1A12 and 1A13 was heard by

Judge H Carr in the Native Land Court at Rotorua in late 1935. Judge Carr noted that tentative awards of land to the Crown had been made in 1915 but had never been finalised. The valuations of the land had been 14s and 9d per acre in 1915 but by

1935 the valuation had fallen to 2s and 6d per acre, meaning that the Crown could now take more land in satisfaction of its interests. Rangi Royal had reported the previous year that the owners were outraged by this and he recommended that the original orders from 1915 should be made.202 However, this did not occur.

The Native Land Court awarded the following portions of land to the Crown in satisfaction of the earlier survey liens:

Waiohau 1A11A 83.0.00 acres Waiohau 1A12A 120.0.00 acres Waiohau 1A 13A 102.0.00 acres203 TOTAL 305 acres

Thereafter, Waiohau 1A 11, 1A 12 and 1A 13 were included in the Waiohau series of the Ruatoki Development Scheme.

The government report for 1936 commented that satisfactory progress had been made in the development of the Waiohau series of the scheme. There were 410 acres in permanent pasture, approximately 100 acres planted in rough feed, 70 acres in turnips, and 50 acres in maize. 900 acres had been cleared for ploughing and it was proposed that in total, 3290 acres, would be developed.204

The consolidation scheme was completed on 18 October 1936 and final orders were made at this time. The Minister for Lands and Survey applied to the Native Land

202 Royal to Registrar, Native Land Court, Rotorua, 26 'July 1934, AAMK 869/898c. 73

Court seeking orders in respect of the Waiohau and Te Teko blocks. Mr Darby, representing the Crown, confirmed that ministerial approval had been given to the scheme and that an equitable arrangement had been established for the government and the owners. Royal also confirmed that the interests of the owners had been accounted for and that there were no objections from the owners to final orders. The court was asked to cancel all existing titles and create new title orders. New appellations were allotted to the new titles and a series of new blocks were created including papakainga blocks for example, where the wharenui Tama-ki-Hikurangi was located, and urupa reserves.

The new titles given were Waiohau A 1 to 11, B1 to 11, C1 to 27 and D1 and D2.

These titles are the basis of the present day titles. New titles for Lots 61, 118 and parts lots 119 and 120 Parish of Matata were also issued; Te Teko A 1 to A5.

At the 1936 sitting the court also made allowances for the laying off of roadways within the Waiohau blocks. Based on the subdivisional plans submitted it was proposed to take land from a number of the blocks, including Waiohau 1A2A, 1A2B,

1A3 , 1A5, 1A6B, 1A6C, 1A7 and 1A 10. The area of land eventually taken for roadways was 41 acres 2 roods and 18 perches.205

4.2.1 Crown Awards

The Native Land Court orders also identified the Crown's interests in the Waiohau and T e T eko blocks.

Te Teko A5, an area of 25 acres and 25 perches was awarded to the Crown. The government was taking back part of the compensation land only 16 years after title

203 Extract from Rotorua MB 86, 1 November 1935, p 143, AAMK 869/898c, NA. 204 'Native Land Development', nd, AJHR, 1936, G-10, P 23. 205 Rotorua MB 87, 1 October 1935, pp 63-70. 74 had finally been awarded to the original owners of Waiohau 1B. Thus, almost fifty years after the original fraud and loss of land at Waiohau 1 B the government saw fit to award itself some of the land it had purchased for the Waiohau people for compensation.

The Crown's interests in Waiohau, which were largely based upon awards of land in lieu of purchases, survey liens and rates, were consolidated into a single block,

Waiohau B9. Waiohau B9, was an area of 2073 acres 1 rood and 32 perches. It was the largest block taken by the Crown for the £595.11.7 of the Crown interests in the

Ruatoki consolidation scheme which was transferred to Waiohau. The block was declared Crown land by gazette notice in 1943.206 Waiohau B9A was awarded to a group of Maori owners in 1964 as a result of an exchange order of the Maori Land

Court. The remaining land, Waiohau B9B, is still in Crown ownership. Waiohau C25, an area of 44 acres, 1 rood and 24 perches was also awarded to the Crown at this time. 207

These two blocks were awarded to the Crown from the Waiohau lands but as a result of consolidation activities at Ruatoki. Thus, Waiohau carried much of the burden for the larger consolidation and development schemes at Ruatoki. Moreover, the

Waiohau owners understanding when they committed their lands to the scheme in the first place was that Crown sections would be offered back to them for their settlement. This did not eventuate and these lands awarded to the Crown in the

1930s remain Crown lands today.

4.3 The Development Scheme

206 New Zealand Gazette, 1943, p 1223. 207 RMB 87, 1 October 1936, p 70. Claims to Waiohau C26 were heard as part of the Ngati Awa Raupatu hearings. 75

The owners of the Waiohau and Te Teko lands submitted the blocks into the development scheme in 1933.

The Waiohau lands were classified in the same way as the Ruatoki series. The

Waiohau "A" Scheme comprised all the Waiohau A sections between the main road and the Rangitaiki River; an area totalling 1108 acres and 24 perches. The Waiohau

"B" Scheme was a total area of 2574 acres, 2 roods and 18 perches, comprising

Waiohau B sections 1-8, 10 and 11. The land was hilly country suitable as a sheep and cattle run rather than for dairy farming. The Waiohau "C" Scheme comprised

Waiohau C sections 1-24, 26 and 27, being all the flat land and low ploughable hills, east of the main road . This area totalled 1434 acres 2 roods and 14 perches and was suitable for dairying.208

In 1937 the Registrar reported to the Under-Secretary for the Native Department that a number of the units had been actively engaged in milking operations that year. In

May Te Iki Pouwhare wrote to the Native Department requesting that Waiohau be connected to the Te Teko or Murupara telephone exchanges for the development scheme. He also reported that the scheme had supported the following people in the early months of that year: January 1937, 20 workers and 13 adult and 24 minor dependants; February 1937, 24 workers, 17 adult and 56 minor dependants, and;

March 1937, 21 workers, 13 adult and 40 minor dependants.209 However, on 23

December 1937 Frank Langstone wrote on behalf of the Native Minister that '[a]s a result of careful investigations made by the Post Office officials, it has been found that owing to the distance from Waiohau to Kopuriki in one direction of Te Teko in the other, the cost of building a circuit to either of these places would be very high.' The

208 Report on Waiohau scheme, Ruatoki - Reports Portion of Scheme Approved, Box 10/10, Maori Land Court, Rotorua. 209 Te Iki Pouwhare to Native Department, 4 May 1937, AAMK 869/898c, NA. 76 work of the scheme was commended but a telephone line was considered too expensive for the government to commit to.210

According to Leah Campbell by 1937 the Ruatoki scheme was supporting 959 people, but over 80% of these were dependants.211 The aim of both the Native and

Lands Department through the schemes was to increase the productivity and viability of land so that the whole of the population could be maintained by the return from their lands on the Ruatoki and Waiohau blocks. This was never really achieved.

In later years there were changes in the way that the schemes were managed based on the experiences of the 1930s. Part of the Waiohau Development Scheme had been in individual holdings and part had been run as a general farm. In early 1949 the government decided that the general farm should be divided into unit farms on which individual farmers could be placed to farm their own areas. In July 1949 a scheme of subdivision for the settlement of the Waiohau units was being prepared.

Regarding the Te Teko series, it was noted that the property had not been developed as it should have been because of 'war and other causes'.212 J Dillon, Registrar, suggested that the supervisor be permitted to develop the property into a 5 farm proposition as 'it cannot be allowed to continue as a share milking outfit.,213

The Field Supervisor of the Waiohau Scheme discussed the proposed unitisation of

Waiohau in a letter to the Registrar:

The present debt on Waiohau Scheme of approximately £22,000 less amount realised for sale of stock and plant, will require to be apportioned on a valuation basis ... There will doubtless be opposition to this scheme from owners who object to existing boundary lines being disregarded, but it is useless establishing settlers on uneconomic areas ... Of the present units of Waiohau only one has

210 Frank Langstone to Te Iki Pouwhare, 23 December 1937, AAMK 869/898c , NA. 211 Leah Campbell, 'Land Alienation, Consolidation and Development in the Urewera, 1912-1950', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, July 1997, p 133. 212 Registrar to Under-Secretary, Native Affairs, 19 July 1949, AAMK 869/903c, NA. 213 ibid. 77

demonstrated any real ability in pasture management. ... In the case of five present unit holdings, namely:- Iki Pouwhare, Te Po Rangitauira, Tohaia Tupe, Mohiti Taipeti, and Parau Nuku, additional area has been allotted to ensure economic farms.214

Meetings were held in late 1949 between the Waiohau series owners to discuss unitising of scheme lands. In October the Under-Secretary reported to the Minister of

Native Affairs that 'a large measure of agreement had been reached' with the owners.215 However, any division of the land into 'economic farms' required a readjustment of the subdivisional boundaries.

By the following year unitisation of the scheme had still not been achieved. Te Iki

Pouwhare met with Mr Ropiha, Under-Secretary, in November 1950 regarding the

Waiohau scheme. Pouwhare made his case very clear:

I as an owner ... along with my co-owners are anxious to see arrangements made many years ago are given effect to ... .The original arrangements amongst the owners was that they should press for settlement to take place so as to begin milking in August 1951 .... Our request and our desire is that settlement should take place as soon as possible .... We also want to have, for our community use, water supply from scheme supply for the marae. 216

The following year, an application under section 529 of the Native Lands Act 1931 for orders re-adjusting the boundaries of Waiohau 1A and its subdivisions, was heard by the Native Land Court. G Leach, the consolidation officer, told the court that the old orders had been made under consolidation on the basis that 40 acres was an economic holding. However, experience had shown the owners and administrators that 40 acres was too small to maintain the occupiers and was not an economic holding, especially for dairy farming. 217 On 7 and 8 February 1951 the Native Land

Court made the following orders regarding amalgamations of smaller blocks:

214 E H Morice, Field Supervisor to Registrar, 25 May 1949, ibid. 215 Under-Secretary to Minister of Maori Affairs, 17 October 1949, ibid. 216 Extract of Mr Pouwhare's speech, 10 November 1950, ibid. 217 Extract of Minutes from Whakatane MB 29, 7-8 February 1951 , P 150, ibid. 78

Combined area Waiohau A9 and C5 112 acres Waiohau C8 and 15 acres of C7 61 acres Waiohau 83 and balance of C7 175 acres Waiohau C10 and C15 93 acres Waiohau C14 and C15 96 acres Waiohau C13 and 85 127 acres218

In 1957 it was recognised that, as the consolidation scheme had been completed in

1936, the prohibition on alienation except to the Crown was no longer required. The

Secretary for Maori Affairs noted that retention of the prohibition was 'hindering the registration of housing mortgages and other alienations.'219 An Order-in-Council in the NZ Gazette in November 1957 revoked the prohibition on alienation over

Waiohau and other blocks.220

8y the 1960s and 1970s many of the areas in land developments schemes around the country were released from the schemes, with the owners establishing land trusts under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. These trusts allowed for the greater participation of owners in management and utilisation of the lands. In some case lands were leased and in others lands they were partitioned to provide homes for the owners. More recently many of these lands have been brought under the provisions of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, with ahuwhenua and whanau trusts being created.

There has not been time in this short commission to complete a search of the amount of lands from the Waiohau-Te Teko series of the Ruatoki consolidation scheme that remains in Tuhoe ownership in 2002.

218 Waiohau Settlement, 15 April 1951, ibid. 219 Secretary for Maori Affairs to Minister of Maori Affairs, 4 November 1957, MA 1 570 29/4/6/1, NA. 220 NZ Gazette, 89, 28 November 1957, p 2219, ibid. 79

4.4 Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe

In the 1960s and 1970s the notion of an amalgamation of Tuhoe lands was mooted.

'Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe' is an amalgamation of 58 blocks of land with approximately

1200 owners of Tuhoe descent.221 It is one of four large amalgamations in the

Urewera area. Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe was an amalgamation of 21,225 acres 1 rood and 28 perches and included several Ruatoki blocks and approximately 2000 acres of Waiohau land. Waiohau blocks included were Waiohau B1, B2, B4, B6, B8, B9A,

B10, B12B2 and B14. Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe is currently vested in the Tuhoe­

Waikaremoana Trust Board on behalf of the owners. The land has been used for forestry and other purposes.

4.5 Legal Access to Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe Lands As discussed, at the conclusion of the Ruatoki consolidation scheme new titles were issued over the subdivisions of Tuhoe lands. A major issue from Tuhoe's perspective was the Crown 's failure to ensure that the new survey titles had legal access. Tama

Nikora and Keith Locke's report on legal access to Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe A block discusses one particular instance of this problem .

The Urewera lands consolidation schemes contemplated that non-sellers to the

Crown would be given sections of land with legal access, a requirement of the land transfer legislation. In 1926, an area of 1,857 acres of land, valued at £697, was

221 Oliver, p 141. 80 taken by the Crown for roading purposes from the Papapounamu, Tukutoromiro,

Onapu and Mokorua blocks. At the same time an area of 1,960 acres, valued at

£697, was also taken to pay for survey costs. The Urewera consolidation scheme proposed that arterial roads be built up the Whakatane River to Ruatahuna and the

Waimana valley to Maungapohatu. However, the land taken from the Papapounamu and other blocks was used to pay for the Ruatahuna and Maungapohatu arterial roads and not for access to the blocks from which the land had been acquired. 222

A survey of the Papapounamu access road in 1923 provided for an area of 12 acres

1 rood and 30 perches. The survey plan produced by Hosking and Goodwin allowed access for the Papapounamu, Tukutoromiro, Onapu and Mokorua blocks over

Waiohau 2 block to the main Te Teko-Galatea road.223 The survey plan of the road was approved by the Chief Surveyor in 1924 and by the Urewera Commissioners in

1926. The Papapounamu Access Road land (ML plan 13352) was proclaimed as a public road in July 1930.224

This 'paper road' has never been constructed despite the fact that the government took land in payment for the survey and roading costs. Nikora and Locke noted in their report that under the Maori Purposes Act 1958 the Crown was required to pay compensation where it had failed to construct roads through the Urewera. However, this did not affect the legality of roads proclaimed by gazette in 1930 as public

22S roads. As a consequence the owners of Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe have had to obtain

226 access across the block themselves at their own COSt. Nikora and Locke argue that the Crown should be required, at its cost, to complete its obligation to have the "road

222 T R Nikora and K R Locke, 'Report on Legal Access to Te Manawa-o-Tuhoe A Block Across Waiohau No 2 Block', June 2000, p S. Copy in author's possession. 223 ibid, P 3. 224 ibid, P 4. 225 ibid, P S. 226 ibid, P S. 81 of access" across Waiohau 2 block as proclaimed by Gazette notice in 1930 registered on the Certificates of Title for Waiohau 2.

It is my understanding that the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Trust Board has completed some further research on access issues in this area. These issues should be addressed in claimant evidence to the Waitangi Tribunal.

Conclusions

The history of land consolidation and development at Waiohau is complex and this chapter can only be viewed as an introduction to these issues from the archival material that I have had access to. Reports prepared by Tama Nikora for the Tuhoe­

Waikaremoana Trust Board and Alexander's report provide context on the broader land consolidation and development scheme issues for Ruatoki and Waiohau.

As has been seen, some sales of individual interests in Waiohau 1A lands occurred in the early part of the twentieth century. However, the most significant change for

Waiohau landholdings was through the involvement of the Waiohau owners in the consolidation and development schemes. Waiohau lands became part of the consolidation scheme because of the overlap in ownership between the Ruatoki and

Waiohau blocks. Many of the same people had interests in both blocks.

The owners had concerns about the consolidation scheme. At consolidation hui in

February 1930 the owners of the land set out specific conditions that they considered should be met with the consolidation scheme. Briefly, the owners wanted the Crown area when consolidated to be made available for settlement by Tuhoe from Ruatoki; they did not want outsiders working amongst them ; they wanted the Crown to bear the cost of erosion in blocks; and they wanted owners to be allowed to repurchase

Crown interests from the Crown. The Crown sections were not made available for settlement by Tuhoe. 82

A significant part, 585.11.7 acres, of the Crown's acquired interests in the Ruatoki consolidation scheme was transferred to Waiohau and located at Waiohau B9 and

C25. Thus, the Waiohau owners lost a large portion of land attributable to activities that the Crown had largely carried out at Ruatoki.

A further issue that distinguished Waiohau from Ruatoki was that the development scheme commenced at Waiohau before the consolidation scheme had been completed. This brought about complications as improvements were made to the land before title to it had been established. By the 1950s it was also realised that small 40 acre farm units were not economic and most of the units became larger trust lands after the scheme was ended in the 1960s.

The blocks remaining in Tuhoe ownership are now managed in one large landholding called Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe. Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe is managed by the Tuhoe­

Waikaremoana Trust Board. Legal access to these blocks is a live issue for the Wai

36 claimants. 83

Conclusions

The Waiohau blocks are located in a contested zone, on the north-eastern perimeter of Te Urewera. Both Tuhoe and Ngati Pukeko regarded the northern part of Waiohau

(in particular) within their sphere of influence and mana. Ngati Awa too, claims an interest in the Waiohau and Tuararangaia area, identifying it as 'whenua tautohetohe' or no man's land. Within that context of inter-iwi rivalry there was also competition between the various hapu of Tuhoe. In the 1870s Te Whitu Tekau was established as a union of Tuhoe chiefs, united to maintain Tuhoe authority in Te Rohe Potae.

However, older patterns of hapu independence persisted. At Waiohau and

Kuhawaea, Patuheuheu leaders engaged in land leasing to local Pakeha in the

1870s, to the displeasure of Te Whitu Tekau. They also took their lands before the

Native Land Court an act that was against Te Whitu Tekau policy.

In the 1870s the government initiated an intensive land leasing, surveying and buying programme in the Bay of Plenty and Taupo areas. In 1878 the Native Land Court investigated title to Waiohau. Inter-iwi rivalries of the past were played out in this competitive environment. All iwi attempted to gain control of the lands through the court.

Title to Waiohau 1, the largest block, was awarded to individuals of Tuhoe and Ngati

Manawa in July 1878. Waiohau 2, a block of 1,100 acres in the northern part of

Waiohau was awarded to individuals of Ngati Pukeko, Ngai Tai and Ngati Whare.

There were several applications to the Native Land Court by Tuhoe for are-hearing but one was not granted.

Waiohau 1 was awarded to Tuhoe and Ngati Manawa on the basis of their undisturbed possession of the land. In 1886 Waiohau 1 block was partitioned into two 84 parts, Waiohau 1A and Waiohau 1B. Waiohau 1B, an area of 7000 acres, was vested by the Native Land Court in two Ngati Manawa individuals and was transferred immediately thereafter to a Pakeha land purchaser. The Tuhoe owners were not told of the hearing and therefore did not attend it. The Ngati Manawa owners were coerced and bribed by Harry Burt into selling Waiohau 1B.

Appeals to the government and the courts over the legality of this purchase consumed Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu in particular, and Tuhoe generally, for over forty years. In July 1905 the Supreme Court observed that the sale of Waiohau 1B had been unjust. However, the judgement also held that the freehold title remained valid. The original owners were forcibly evicted from their lands in 1907.

Negotiations for compensation between the Crown and the original owners of

Waiohau 1 B took many years to reach a conclusion. Even then, questions remained as to the usefulness and adequacy of the compensation that the original owners of the block received. A sum of £2000 was set aside in 1905 by the government for the purchase of compensation lands. An area of 310 acres of land at Te Teko, some 18 kilometres from Waiohau, was purchased for the original owners as compensation for the loss of Waiohau 1B (7000 acres). The land cost the government £1440 and the remaining money was not made available to the original owners to pay their not inconsiderable legal costs. Moreover, there was no valuation of land lost compared with the compensation land.

The compensation lands were not actually transferred to the owners when purchased but were vested in the Waiariki District Maori Land Board to be held in trust for them.

Title to the Te T eko lands was not ascertained until 1920. 85

In the early 1930s the owners of Waiohau 1A submitted their lands into the Ruatoki­

Waiohau consolidation scheme. Land was alienated from the original owners via this scheme and by purchases of individual interests in the land. The Crown was awardect Waiohau B9, an area of 2073 acres 1 rood and 32 perches, in satisfaction of Crown purchases, survey liens and rates, valued at £595.11.7 transferred from the

Ruatoki series of the consolidation scheme. Te Teko A5, an area of 25 acres and 25 perches, and Waiohau C25, an area of 44 acres, 1 rood and 24 perches, were also awarded to the Crown.

Tuhoe's understanding was that once the Crown interests were isolated those lands would be offered back to Tuhoe. The lands were never offered back to Tuhoe. The

Crown also acquired 45 acres of land from Tuhoe under the Ruatoki consolidation scheme for roading purposes. However, when new titles were issued after consolidation the roads, although appearing on maps, were never actually constructed. The situation today is that a number of Tuhoe owned blocks are land­ locked and the owners have had to organise and pay for the building of roads themselves.

The Tuhoe Waikaremoana Trust Board currently manages land remaining in Tuhoe ownership after the Ruatoki-Waiohau consolidation and development scheme was concluded. This land is called Te Manawa 0 Tuhoe.

Waiohau 2, an area of 1,100 acres, was awarded to individuals of Ngati Pukeko (and some Ngai Tai and Ngati Whare chiefs) after title investigation in 1878. The land was awarded on the basis of Ngati Pukeko names on a lease prior to title investigation, rather than on the basis of customary rights or current occupation. There is little recorded information about Ngati Pukeko's use of the land and whether or not they resided on Waiohau 2 after title was awarded to them. There is a distinct lack of a 86

Ngati Pukeko voice in the written record relating to Waiohau. It is hoped that Ngati

Pukeko traditions relating to Waiohau after 1878 will brought out in claimant evidence to the Tribunal. The descendants of the original owners succeeded to the land and in

1913 negotiations for sale of Waiohau 2 began. Various Pakeha applied to the

Waiariki District Maori Land Board for meetings to ascertain ownership of Waiohau 2 in order to advance alienation. Waiohau 2 was sold to a Pakeha farmer in 1917. 87

Bibliography

The bulk of the archival research had been completed when I was commissioned to write the Waiohau report. Thus, the author is not accountable for any inaccuracies in referencing.

Primary Sources

L1NZ, Wellington Survey Office plans Certificates of Title

National Archives, Wellington Native Land Court Minute Books Opotiki Minute Book 1 Whakatane Minute Books 3, 5, 9, 15, 19 Rotorua Minute Book 11, 69

Maori Affairs MA-MLP 1 1874/227 MA 1 570 29/4/6/1 MA 1/1920/218 (various volumes)

Lands and Survey LS 20/527 (volumes I-V) Waiohau

National Archives, Auckland Maori Affairs BAJJ 11192/124f Waiohau BAJJ A73/3081 Waiohau 1A9, 1A9A, 1A9B BAJJ A73/5059 Waiohau 1A4A1 and 1A4A2 BAJJ A73/4939 Waiohau 1A4A2 BAJJ 4945/1484c Waiohau C4 BAJJ A 73/2984 Waiohau 1A 11 BAJJ A73/4360 Waiohau 1A6A AAMK 869/898c (volumes 1-6) Ruatoki Development Scheme - Waiohau Series ABJZ 4942/9989 Waiohau B9 BAAS A269/33a Waiohau Roadways BBFZ 5015/52c Owhakatoro Block BBFZ 49421154d Waiohau Development Scheme 1959 BBFZ A 1115/63c Waiohau Marae BBFZ 5013/31 b Waiohau Rates BBFZ 4929/503b Waiohau A7B2

Maori Land Court, Rotorua Waiariki Maori Land Court Closed File, Waiohau 304 Waiariki Maori Land Court Closed File, Waiohau 302 Waiohau Block Order File 2050 Waiohau Block Order File 2050A Urewera Consolidation Minute Book 1 Urewera Consolidation Minute Book 1A 88

Waitangi Tribunal Wai 36 Record of Documents, reports and document banks Wai 46 Record of Documents, reports and document banks Wai 212 Record of Documents, reports and document banks Wai 726 Record of Documents Wai 819 Record of Documents

Official Sources New Zealand Gazette Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives

Secondary Sources

Unpublished Berghan, P, 'Block Research Narratives of the Urewera (Rangahaua Whanui District 4) 1970-1930', A Resource Document for Urewera District Treaty Issues, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, July 2001 .

Binney, J, 'Encircled Lands, Part One: A History of the Urewera from European Contact until 1878, An Overview Report on the Urewera', April 2002.

Binney, J, 'Encircled Lands, Part Two: A History of the Urewera 1878-1912, An Overview Report on the Urewera', June 2002.

Bright, N, 'The Alienation History of the Kuhawaea No.1, No. 2A, and No. 2B Blocks', a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1998.

Campbell, L, 'Land Alienation, Consolidation and Development in the Urewera, 1912- 1950', a report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, July 1997.

Clayworth, P, 'A History of the Tuararangaia Blocks', a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, May 2001.

Mason, J, Brief of evidence concerning Ngati Pukeko history, nd, (Wai 46 RoD, doc A50)

Mead, H M & Te Roopu Whakaemi Korero 0 Ngati Awa, 'Whenua Tautohetohe: Testing the Tribal Boundaries', a report commissioned by Te Runanga 0 Ngati Awa, (Wai 46 RoD, doc C7)

Miles, A, Te Urewera: Rangahaua Whanui District 4, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1999.

Nikora, T R and Locke, K, R, 'Report on Legal Access to Te Manawa-o-Tuhoe A Block Across Waiohau No 2 Block', June 2000.

Nikora, T R, 'Te Houhi Searches (Waiohau 1B)', January 1998.

Nikora, T R, 'Waiohau B9B Block', September 2000.

Oliver, S, 'The Ruatoki Report', a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, July 2001. 89

Paul, G M, Te Houhi and Waiohau 1 B', (Wai 46 RoD, doc H4) and document banks, 1995.

Rose, K, The Bait and the Hook: Crown Purchase in Taupo and the Central Bay of Plenty in the 1870s' a report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, July 1997.

Published Books

Ballara, A Iwi: The Dynamics of Maori Tribal Organisation c 1769-c 1945, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 1998.

Belich, J, Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders, Auckland, Allen Lane, 1996.

Best, E Tuhoe: Children of the Mist, 2 volumes, A H and A W Reed, Wellington, 1972.

Binney, J Redemption Songs: A Life of Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki, Auckland University Press and Bridget Williams Books, Auckland, 1997.

Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, Wellington, Legislation Direct, 1999.

Williams, 0 V. Te Kooti Tango Whenua: The Native Land Court, 1864-1909, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 1999.

Williams, H W, Dictionary of the Maori Language, seventh edition, Wellington, GP Publications, 1971.

Articles

Binney, J, Te Umutaoroa: The Earth Oven of Long Cooking', in A Sharp and P McHugh, eds, Histories, Power and Loss: Uses of the Past, A New Zealand Commentary, Wellington, Bridget Williams Books, 2001.

Binney, J, Te Mana Tuatoru: The Rohe Potae of Tuhoe', New Zealand Journal of History, 31 , 1, April 1997...... '

'...... ) .: . >~~. ,: .

. - .. - ':.'. '

' .. "

, . ~ i,, , . ! . I . , \ 1 4 • i . ' I., . 'J. :) .. :~ . '\' - ' ...... ' : .' ' \ ,' ", .\. . ). ,. I' \ ' .) , \ , .! \ , : " , ,~. , .' I, " .

i • ~~ ". ~ \ ~ \ ~. .. ~j '1 ~ l I .,. : \e: !': ',' ,:. f' . ' . .,' . i . ... . ~. c.O C.;;J C'• .,.~ / ~. - oc

.fl;ltl1lorial of @roncrsDip,

Coul'l 11011 • . THE HTl\'E LA;'\D CQUIlT QF THE ]llSTHICT OF rut. / Futiu ('1<.( d,j·(:u r cX.--.

I~ the mattcr of a Parcr! of 1.'0<1 al

in thc l:'ro\'wci::il Distrid of , called

A.. T a sitting of j1Lt;,

the satl>factiou of thc Court, and 'hc C"",i uolh hercby adjl\(l<:e, Ihat the ~ati\ 'C:; whuse uaml'S arc U1Taob,,-"t! a<",o"lill<: to Ih"ir

t.,hle Ill'rcillaftn euulaillcd arl' Ihe ownl'r> "eccmliu!,! lu );aliyc' custOlll of all tlnl I,i<,'o IIf bll'\ at , ill the Di,(ril'l of ,/3(7 '11 1%11 {Y" ill tl,,· 1'ru\·i",·ial Distrid uf !1(A.-r./-< .Jl41~ kuowu by the uallle of 1¥w~(..u v~ I. . eUlllainiu:; I,y :"lmeu,urrlllcul III,,~ (" I", r; C·!./.··:

be thc same more o~ Irs" hOllllllcd ~ 1ii..uIt~d!' itR-.)(;/I1., tJlj (/ii f1/~tuuv.Rz. f3&c-k . ~o g't If '5 ~ 1/:(10 hl-r/c!' ~N/t1ItA-1A ItI'. ft,tu-i,' /J;f ;;J~f, /J.liol i3.1.(./r--{' : ~ ii/ "l 7" ///N) l.t~rJ!;, 1dfJ1tP 1l1-r-«-!' l~tJ,~/ tUtkA. !(~h,Z161-r'{-.6 ,fL-xd ~h~!7 ;;;.,-«.(, JdtA."£1J'{' -it;, ..1~~ 11''V.A.-- /",/ \ S&.L<~~ tlz.p . /(/,,/::.o ,~--a"AZ It/. f:Y'.(j'(":/~ 1/15 U·~,/( · !, /U-r.d'/

-frS(J 7 ftlt:lt-. ..t, t? 1 (d /(1U'11.!i.dA IAt. i'lw..-~:I- I~j..' fe/MiL) l/.-/j ';"~-i- ' 1U"z-¥..t, ~/ o./L ffd, a/~~ ~~-!

t?klH tU ci. /:,6/.

S,.,!....

S(! I :: 160 CHAINS TC, : L':~." fVITH. A&S :!UlflllJllEl. : ~lItJEYE.D BY f 11 f

i :\~ 1hc &aml' is d('liD(':tteu (11\ tIle' plan dr~J\nl hCIl.'lIU U1' hct", 'uutl, :1lll14..'):\,,1, tll~Ctil(·l' with all thc l"ight5- and appuncuaul."c~ tlll'n'uuto

belonging, • ! ... Il it i: 1,.,,1...- abu d.lj ...l"ttl lh~( (JIt IIl8f'arlid'ldlc .b",,, of Ihc Mid Cllnc!s in thc said l'il'w or tam1 Ul'C ,C(

And it is hereby ordcred tbat the aUo\'c-lIamcd owuc,', lInder Il,is )[cmnrial D\.~y not sell or lUalie any otbpr dispositiun of the

:-:.aid hillel Cl:ccpt that the'.\" )U;t~· k:\:,.(I' tlac.· said land 1'01' :tlIy ternl 1101 ('xc:rcdinz lwcnt.\" '''{llH' ~{-:II"'~ ill 1'():j!')('~~iol1 aud uot lit J"I·\ · l'l' ~ II1I1.

trithout tillC, prellliulll: or fun:;ift t ;lIlti without a;l"eemcut 01' t'on'IHlut Jor n'ue\\"l, U1' fur l'ur("ll:t~l' at a fu{un' time. 00

-(. - -,

iHcmorial of <[l~Ul\mDip,

TIlE ;'i ,\TlI'f; LUll (OlBT OF THE IIlSTltlCT OF I"ul, Fuliu : ,'{ (It{ (If fa/If&'

1:< thr matlrr of n Parcel of L:II"I at iu t~e District of /611 :f in the Proyillcinl Di:stric:l of , raUed ltz-uo It.o. (<-- ,A~:<-

AT a sittiug of the "ative Laud Court, heg"" and holclen ' at 'l1-ta.~-iLi _ ' 011 tbc IhJ.{ljL"'{ Ib," uf ;, 9l~(t ' li.ilcil ; aud coueluded ou tIlt, Iii. 'i' l t.ii: . I:~ <1".'" 01' Jf'/JC.11-'Lu..:..-u , bic? , il \

tlte s."lti:-:f;lctiou of tLe CO\l1"I~ :tnd the COlt 1'1 110th hl're1Jy :uljlHl=.... .·: 1ilat tile ;;atin~~ wlHlsc U:'\HH"S arc al"mllg\.·,l :H,"t'Ul,lill:; tu tl, .·;!'

Lapus and l1'iul'::' :n the 1:lhk hCl'cillaft\'l' l' ,1:(ailll'o ~t !'t' till.' u\\"11I-r;o. ;tl.'l·',rtiiu:: to ~atiYt,~ l'ustOUl or :\11 th:ll (lit."t·~ or lawl al lJlil i (' {~b ( 0 • ill thc Di;,trict uf I 3fi 1/ {,{ /101 (1 ' iu (hc I'M'iurial lJistl'icl lOr i( (~ (' lc 0{( 11f.( /

kllOWIl lly thc llamc of J1 I( ~{: · ft ('j .t..~~ , (~ ,z,. I , l'olltailliug I).'" "ulllca,urcUlcllt / / C{i ('j ('~.f!. !..

/ .

it It Ii?!/: (J

I?cr/o/JOU /310Ck

as thl' same is ddiuealeu 011 the I'I:1n dr~wll hereull or IICI'ClIllt" aunc'''I',I, tugether with all the rights and al'l'llrteuance> tlcLTcunto

beltlnging. .. AlUl it it; hQl'chr ',]~(J 'Hljwl1:)dl tiUil tIle tnefHutiauHlt! shales of tke ..

.4..nd it is hereby ordcl'eci tbat the auo,'e-ualllcd ownors uncleI' (hi< ::'[emorial Illay not sell or make any other disposition of the

!'aid bnd except. that th('," ma," Il'~I::'c the said 1:I1·ul for any tl'rm 110t l''xl'('cclill:: t\\cnty-ollc ~ ' l-;U-:-' ~ ill l'~s~ioll :mel 110t ill 1't'\CI'':>i'Hi ,

,,;tilOut fiue, pl'Cmium, or furegift, aJl(I withuut agI'C'l'lUcnt 01' L'OYco:wl for l'coc\I.1, or fur llurdm"" at a fulun: litue, -'i

Q ( •.• . ) l ' ...

'! ~ -'. , '';

' .. . H.II'C., ------.------(~ lau>t.t. . .Y{l'tt'- '~t(~ 1~C<- . jt!(ll;{'!.c . 'a,;aaHu'uL -.J. Z. YctU/t<7 aSt-£U ,;Ua 't~ v(,tftCu'.-italk I;> . yo • !.-'cIt'!I/' !Jl£tU'U.u ItJ.jLtl IU <.(.., "a~ a ~La J~. a, j!at£hL/v Halt.£, t/{'/l4r iI({t tz.ll ...(:J/1..~ ~\ {d:, I . , • ,I. . l(r [t- IUNU) a I<. au 7L l Ii a liz J1 L hra'r,a 't.t7.

/.' /I/li.a;. ~~,- . (II {i/~ a I to 1/1''';/1 (t 'I'Ll; l(. \. r' A({ <0 ..l {{ /,; {(, .... ~ .. '( I .~ /1 ••.'i:( ( ,.

.: ,I 1/ ( II Ii. I'll t I( i! Ii o .. / 1( {{ !\.ct- ," U J I I .. ; c I(I( ~ 1'.... IMII 1', ~r. J . . v . { I _·~il •.u II a. 'LG (0 {{ "' ., ( /I'Ut G .. I).fi " /II [{i-Ifl (l '(1/ jl~-'LlL /{t·1j. (." J:/a. 'LC /G j t!" ;':.{l ~ a U II£<-

~'fIe)l& ;r/Il {( Ie.· l it-ht'- IlIt1u.tJ.

y ~ I I v' \. £,- .!('t{ I/A:L' Ie' I l'U'- \ c, .. (,,({ JU,;.o «,,~Ic"(l('1i(ll4.. - . - .. - { I Al~J{jal"I' <-'-- .Ja u (t ~ fC-(7.. (( I( f< i ... 'c./(!lC) Ite·} I (,L lUll {/-<. ''! i.. \.6 Id /U{(''W 'Ui" I(~ {1(/'{( (0:. ~'c.,a. 'l..£L I.(d-<.tc-(i.u· Itt: [J.u..fatM Ji:r1uj'INt.Il(tJH l4 .l:!alti tal-<£.... /L~{..ka ~ ! c}-(~ t"i.. (It ( ( /, ((0 110.0. \..C./-<..aH 'I.i ·k JIr. ~t1 , (f. ·· ./('U'/..(IU:" ,-l. il'IlJU,,';;/Ut \~/(O((/I.~(: II/UHf:- ..l;'!;/Cc Ih(7Ill!IC'l.(<; Id/'{·~{..· l i((JU;lr1~ k /c/{ilk

... ~ .fo((ijl '~lj,{ lI.. :fa. W·l.l £0... la ... c.. (C 1 I (., h'a lin 1..(1, t.b . Y(( 't.ru Je, ~'>.M ~ . k l"tlliu.· ;rJ. IKtll<-d~(I.. 'l~<- , ill ( . ~w L. Uti Kl{' heed\.;' e.. (. ~~ U·t;.a ,vfLl;~ fl.a Jc, ...tofu., ... \/;;::(\ () iE 'll.'tt ~ .k:!o. \( I.b ;fa 1J'l-U.IIl'! ;, (), .Jl {t; JCHl(, YCha.l1dua, ~fwit n\.al~~ (E {{nt.t<1u~ .k r'u.ioJ J1t.Jz~ fL- ro. ,\C((,/1 uo... h~ .k-(l., fi: U'u.<. ....{;{ja..f1.t{·wi {c J(ll.tlt1t. .ka'tol:ko {£ If~'wi'tti h{CU'\-I...OCHA.k<... 1f(..\~1 · vt0 J-Rd.fu f(auLo:'r.tl. ntUl... Ifui.f,.-w : 1m. ~NJ1 ~ lE'ffl..((I.!h-tLl/to..'Ul. W~H~(.t(-ttA.o _~e-_ 'H(Cu 0-'\..0 . If£fw .-{, II ~ Jfn. H~rv J7.ll~ 'L l a .1I (..cu J«tYt 1l <> /t"l-v.!u.- .I

J{&CtOv li 'l1ift.a·kltJt,t,v/-u..(.. :Ie- ~1()('" &; /(riaka.Ul11.UI • ~.tt~lAjtA- 1a't£.v-l~ ~ JfLl:'~<.A.i"'(J· . ~ .foIa.n . .)f[l<{)-t.£u :fuk..u-'l.n I Jfl t..{/IC. {~ lfa{v';l-t.i~ Jake'l..o. Jye -i.e -Jrt./f tiu.U;J~k~Cj-i> f{{yrz..aIw _.. __ . )~ ~ak

. , );.\TI\"E IIW S Ell ~ II .He; TlHUE:;. • PitlI 1'0 ItTiO\' .\ If: ,IIAHE:;

. "efl?((I . ,/lidkz. /ll(.I{<'t.i ~ ,i((1kl~(ill ' it , :a~t'- _ " /i d, C H H 0 J c. nit f...,(1 U 1 II V(L

,( 1(.. ./cf{/.«(L httlLf< k(<., If '''f))t(,/ri. .Ie ::~(},('ill{{', XI ''tllU .ft..1- «( ,,'\ (, Ii, • . ,: ('-Ii, ( J I /(' I'. !I'-. J ,/f, ~/I; (((ill .{~ ( J'cu /; (( , ,.'e(/ illtl (~(' .-;, 1tl((, (,. .fa/ltli, !J/{).I(IlYL /(((/(;£0

. ~ //i;(U/r /~;( ~ (7 /111/1;1{ ("/ ::"// '(II fI,

;i1f"IL _\('(I'l..a JI( ' ~a (f' ill/(} It I( i;((, ,'1 >0 .A ~ li( "/I, /~/;/I;I; .{(-{('ttL I'AA( 't(, .t1C\", {tla ~ () ';(t/ttft y ~ , ·,rldiuL(l(l., 'I, ... ,U, L

d 'l(' fll \ 6C (e t il{{(/~_ ,~( fu i f(l .i ,'f-r) i , / v . \ (i ) . ( 0 ;{c, OI:'r.L/1 Iw /JLll 'I dt c II l('h ( a Ht (I., Rr. (I(( 1"6 J6/Wdt; ,tc..ft~ <. kt"'\(J h'(d;:' hlllliL /'(d-a. \""c.. •.f .. ~ . ":.,-, -Jdi'(jlta.lil~ Il1lild-<.i.ti.('tO ill'/,o'ui "'~ {q.Ji k .{/. nifu:', ;:G7'«(lllltik.c i M«((' .#l'ft i ;'f(\,«({ V.v /U'(j, ((".f{(,ulu{/Ii Ii '(I ka. {(, It~dj, k (i.,

,riri'l'wW. It '{t/e.. l V({u,u>f\«lo ,'. '-. I \ l( ':l " k O-UI.., "0 nCiv('l-u.; Ii I /(; 1.£ lWv/u( u ·lI Uft .1:1'" cLu It:{ifu '/utd< to-

'ldiu [.~,;' Nit (I (U{1.. It1'1-1l.. J(ndlUif'v l[(d<...cd-,{~ l~ {(leu ,'Yc. .k'c/ll;•. {c:akHll.ll, l! l i.t\l:1 l'\.L(( ~l-1l(1 It'ftr..I<..ct'tAi.u, /lc , }'fm KH\,/L (£, Jkw.lill .re. :re0.('lJ (£' Jr:'U'LC,-- 1I'(itl:1u:t l{1tui.l(~ J£lilH/L }W~I../'}~l'(~((, J.{{ll

GITEX under the hand oC jclcilVIA I .'Ia~ ' ~' lU-,''t1J , Judge oC the said Court, and sealed with the Seal thereof, this Iti~ ·'/Iii {~al/k dllyof ?ll.tfl. • lsr£~ I /I fI I

y. 1$ ' / 1 ,. l " .- -'_C _ ~. ~ < • • • ) r< __ , e·-- i \ "B --;,

-;." J t\ ,~ ... 0" (.f\: I _ (~ .... '\ .-of- ~ ~ r r, ~ .'\.'.; E ~ . I i , I s .... 0-.[..' " -.!. r:'Jili~lliilill! 1 ..i !i

C-L !r',~r~ 1 ' .. 2.1"9"'1 I J J Joti ...r .. r ..i _ i I I " . DO "'" .... ;:~ ~' ;J ' J~ : ~ iii iii iii i Ii i 1 .. I i:,. .. ' • "..,• U I.

I - ., ' .... :': t . ~! ... ~? ~ : ( ;:,.;,.: 1- ;-j'. ~ I ...~ : .. ... :1;.. :. .; .·}0

...; ' ,

!: t*i .~

15721& \ o -~~~ ------I-

~1ij-~ Ar~~ 6".378·2 ·32 J • . 2.,pC..-o,vn A..,ral .2!42 . 3 . .2 / ~::.}J::;=-r:-- i ------. _··_··· __·_ ·_-···Z: .....:;l:: -~.~{:. ~ - -\ ;10 1 ~ c.> jf~JJY ~.J ,.- ,~

;i ': NO I " NO 1/6 j f'f',tJ"" j C-7.) 0 00 ,'\." --dt~---0.4. .sllr)'t'jO~i;~;':::;" l:_-.~·:· -.--~) .. - \

I ;, L' , 'tJ.,-;',i /, Ii..: '( JYJY \ l ~1' { CrowLlj-AlYa.rd 85ec.5 1 ':'075" ./ -']2 ~. l ... ,,{ C !kc2S, -'H:.I ' 21 !. ' ~·,rvc,." hltlre TIlt: /Y",t.in: L7l1d CavrC.C . I : ,1 . Rdcorv.:/ on COn/i;·'" ,II,.,iI" "'''d R", ...~ / CirJ'''',:T ~ " of RU.;t.a;,Ji:"(I1'.1lcP--l~ _Tc lCh~ s;'~nc.y .c , ; : / ConfO//d'~I"o,... Sc/I~ ";nc ,'/(...... 1(, __ "'-.:/d.- - :/ 1 ~< ~ ("/~-D Tr ';'_A j.I, "1 -c: ~ ~ / ~ <3 . ~ { C3 ~ ~ ~ , ·1 x ~v ~ '- R //;'/J.r ~ "l< \) 1~~\':l: ~ ~ i­ \'\-:.' (~. ~ ~ \ ~~ ~ .'., r·_.n ...... I

<9 By 0 f <::7 P I e n t y

Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui districts

Aud

Figure 1: Location map, Te Urewera (Rangahaua Whanui district 4)

xx