A HISTORY OF THE TUARARANGAIA BLOCKS Wai894 #A3 Wai36 #A22 Wai 726 #A4

PETER CLAYWORTH

A REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

MAY 2001 CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS ...... 5

LIST OF TABLES ...... 6

INTRODUCTION ...... 8 i.i Claims relating to the Tuararangaia blocks ...... 12

CHAPTER 1: THE TUARARANGAIA BLOCK: TE WHENUA, TE TANGATA ...... 16 1.1 Te Whenua, Te Ngahere ...... 16 1.2 Early occupation and resource uses ...... 19 1.3 Hapu and iwi associated with Tuararangaia ...... 22 1.3.1 Ngati Awa ...... 22 1.3.2 Ngati Pukeko ...... 23 1.3.3 Warahoe ...... 24 1.3.4 Ngati Hamua ...... 25 1.3.5 Tuhoe ...... 26

CHAPTER 2: THE NINETEENTH CENTURY BACKGROUND - CONFLICT BETWEEN TRIBES AND CONTACT BETWEEN PEOPLES ...... 28 2.1 The Impact of the Musket Wars: The Nga Puhi raids 1818-24 ...... 28 2.2 Two hundred years of conflict: Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko versus Tuhoe ...... 31 2.2.1 The fighting in the Rangitaiki area: The expulsion ofWarahoe and Ngati Hamua .. 33 2.3 The arrival of the Pakeha in the eastern bay of plenty: Early traders and missionaries. 35 2.4 Te Riri Pakeha: War and confiscation ...... 36 2.4.1 Te Kooti and Tuhoe resistance ...... 38 2.5 Tuhoe attempts to retain autonomy: Te Whitu Tekau me Te Rohe Potae ...... 39 2.6 Crown purchases of eastern Bay of Plenty lands ...... 41 2.6.1 Land debates in the Rangitaiki area: Matahina and Waiohau ...... 43 2.7 Conclusion ...... 46

CHAPTER 3: THE TUARARANGAIA BLOCK IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE NATIVE LAND COURT ...... 48 3.1 The survey ...... 48 3.2 The Whakatane Native Land Court sitting 1890-1891...... 50 3.3 Te Whaiti Paora's claims for Warahoe, Ngati Hamua and Tuhoe ...... 51 3.4 Pihopa Tamawhati Tamehana's evidence for Ngati Hamua and Warahoe ...... 52 3.5 Tuhoe support for the claim ofTe Whaiti Paora ...... 54

2 3.5.1 Summary of the Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and Tuhoe cases ...... 57 3.6 The Ngati Awa cases: Hire Wetere ...... 58 3.7 Penetito Hawea presents an alternative Ngati Awa claim ...... 61 3.7.1 Summary ofPenetito Hawea's case ...... 63 3.8 The Ngati Pukeko case ...... 63 3.8.1 Summary of the Ngati Pukeko case ...... 66 3.9 Conclusion ...... 66

CHAPTER 4: THE NATIVE LAND COURT DECISIONS ON THE TUARARANGAIA BLOCK ...... 70 4.1 Gudgeon's decisions on the Tuararangaia title ...... 70 4.1.1 Gudgeon's decisions on Ngati Awa's claim ...... 70 4.1.2 Gudgeon's decision on the Ngati Pukeko claims ...... 71 4.1.3 Gudgeon's decisions on the Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and Tuhoe claims ...... 72 4.2 Tuhoe are given title to Tuararangaia 1 ...... 75 4.3 Tuararangaia 2 awarded to Ngati Pukeko ...... 76 4.4 Tuararangaia 3 awarded to Ngati Hamua And Warahoe ...... 76 4.5 Conclusion ...... 78

CHAPTER 5: THE ALIENATION OF LAND BEGINS: PARTITION AND SURVEY LIENS, 1896 -1907 ...... 79 5.1 Alienation ofland: policies in the Liberal era ...... 79 5.2 The laws regarding partition and alienation in the 1890s ...... 79 5.3 The purchase of Tuararangaia 3A: The removal of restrictions on alienation ...... 80 5.4 The charging of survey costs for the Tuararangaia blocks ...... 82 5.4.1 The obstruction of Baker's survey, 1885 ...... 83 5.4.2 The Native Land Court makes orders for the survey charges, 1898 ...... 85 5.4.3 Land taken to cover survey costs, 1907 ...... 87 5.5 Issues arising from the survey charges ...... 90 5.6 Conclusion ...... 94

CHAPTER 6: THE GIFTING AND SALE OF LAND IN THE 1910s ...... 97 6.1 The education endowment from Tuararangaia 1B ...... 97 6.2 The gifting of northern Tuararangaia 1B to the War Fund ...... 104 6.3 The sale of Tuararangaia 2B ...... 107 6.4 Conclusion ...... 110

CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENTS ON THE TUARARANGAIA BLOCKS 1918-1970s112

3 7.1 Public Works takings: A road along the Rangitaiki ...... 112 7.2 Settlement plans on the Tuararangaia block ...... 114 7.3 Forestry developments on Tuararangaia 1B: The uses of funds generated by the education endowment land ...... 115 7.4 Logging of forests on the Tuararangaia 3B2 block ...... 118 7.5 The building ofthe Matahina dam ...... 119 7.6 The partition and amalgamation of Tuararangaia 3B2 ...... 122 7.7 The return of Tuararangaia 1b ...... 123 7.8 Conclusion ...... 126

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION ...... 128

BIBLIOGRAPHy ...... 137

4 LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Location of the Tuararangaia block...... 13 Map 2: Geographical features and traditional place-names ofthe Tuararangaia block .. " ..... 17 Map 3: Land divisions after the 1891 Native Land Court decisions ...... 74 Map 4: Cadastral map of Tuararangaia ...... 125

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Direction commissioning research

5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: The Charging Orders Sought Against the Tuararangaia Blocks ...... 83 Table 2: Survey Charges Imposed on Tuararangaia Block...... 88 Table 3: The Division and Alienation of the Tuararangaia Blocks, 1891-1983 ...... 98

6 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TEXT

AJHR- Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives CFRT- Crown Forestry Rental Trust CMSEA- Controller of Maori social and economic advancement DOSLI- Department of Survey and Land Information LINZ- Land Information New Zealand MB- Native Land Court minute book MLB- Maori Land Board MLC- Maori Land Court MT- Maori Trustee NA- National Archives NLC - Native Land Court NZJH- New Zealand Journal of History Wai-Waitangi Tribunal claim prefix

7 INTRODUCTION

Tena koutou. My name is Peter Clayworth. I am a Pakeha of English and Welsh descent. My hometown is Nelson in Te Wai Pounamu. I completed a first class BA(Hons) in History at Otago University in 1992. I am currently a Phd candidate at the History Department at Otago University, having submitted my thesis for examination in March of 2001. My Phd thesis examines the ideas of nineteenth century Pakeha ethnographers on Polynesian migration, with an emphasis on the origins of the so-called 'Moriori myth'. I have also studied Zoology and Ecology at Canterbury and Auckland Universities. I have worked as a tutor in history at Otago. I have also worked as a research assistant to Professor Erik Olsen and to Dr John Stenhouse, of Otago University's History Department.

This report has been commissioned independently by the Waitangi Tribunal as one of a series of block histories being compiled for the Urewera district inquiry casebook. The report is commissioned to cover the following matters: a) The reasons for this Tribunal commission, and the aim of this report. A review of any research on the Tribunal record of inquiry which is of relevance to this proj ect; b) Any comments regarding methodological approach, and what, if any, further research may be required in regard to Tuararangaia; c) An overview and analysis, where possible, on the Maori customary use and occupation of this land prior to title investigation; d) Any issues with regard to the survey of this block. Who initiated the survey and was it supported by all the hapu/iwi with connections to Tuararangaia? e) Any early efforts by either the Crown or private parties to secure a lease or freehold of the block; f) An overview of the title investigation of Tuararangaia block by the Native Land Court. Was the hearing contentious and were there any applications for re-hearing? g) A commentary on the political context of the 1880s and 1890s in which the Crown's actions regarding Tuararangaia took place; h) A brief history of subsequent partitions of the Tuararangaia block, and an alienation history of the major subdivisions from 1891 to the present; i) A brief survey of any major public works issues which may have affected this land;

8 j) A brief summary of current ownership of the block and commentary on how this land is currently utilised.

The Tuararangaia block is located in the eastern Bay of Plenty, to the north east of the Urewera National Park. The western boundary of the block is formed by the east bank of the Rangitaiki River, while the northern boundary is formed by the confiscation line. (See map 1.)

The title investigation of the Tuararangaia block was brought before the Native Land Court in November 1890, following the survey carried out in 1885. At the end of this hearing, in January 1891, the Tuararangaia block was divided into three sections. The eastern section, designated Tuararangaia 1, was awarded to the Tuhoe hapu of Ngai Tamatuhirae. The southern section, Tuararangaia 2, was awarded to Ngati Pukeko. The north western section, Tuararangaia 3, was awarded to Warahoe and Ngati Hamua, two hapu ofNgati Awa. These sections were further subdivided. In 1896, following the Crown purchase of a proportion of the shares of Tuararangaia 3, a section of the block, designated Tuararangaia 3A, was alienated into Crown ownership. The remainder of the block, Tuararangaia 3B, was subdivided in 1907, when areas of land from each of the Maori owned sections of the original Tuararangaia block were taken by the Crown to pay for survey costs. Tuararangaia 3B was divided into Tuararangaia 3B1, which was taken by the Crown for survey costs, and Tuararangaia 3B2, which was retained by its Warahoe and Ngati Hamua owners. Tuararangaia 1 was divided into Tuararangaia lA, taken by the Crown for survey costs, and Tuararangaia 1B, retained by its Tuhoe owners. Tuararangaia 2 was divided into Tuararangaia 2A, taken by the Crown for survey costs, and Tuararangaia 2B, retained by its Ngati Pukeko owners. (See map 3.)

In the 1910s, more land from the original Tuararangaia block was alienated. In 1912, a meeting of Tuhoe owners resolved to gift 1 000 acres in the southern part of Tuararangaia 1B to the Crown as an education endowment, to generate funds for setting up educational facilities in the eastern Bay of Plenty. The Crown finally acquired this land in 1918. In 1914, another meeting of Tuhoe owners resolved to sell the remainder of the Tuararangaia 1B block and to donate the profits to the War Fund. (See map 3.) A meeting of the Ngati Pukeko owners of Tuararangaia 2B, held in 1916, resolved to sell the block to the Crown for £240. Tuararangaia 3B2 remained intact in the 1910s, but lost ten acres to roading in

9 1925 and approximately 150 acres to the Matahina dam in 1968. (See table 3.) In the year 2001, only two areas of the original Tuararangaia block remain as Maori land. These are the area formerly known as Tuararangaia 3B2, which is now part of the larger Omataroa­ Rangitaiki 2 block, and the 1 000 acres of Tuararangaia IB that was gifted as an education endowment in 1912 and returned to Tuhoe in 1972.

This report will show how the various subdivisions of the Tuararangaia block passed out of Maori ownership. Particular emphasis will be placed on the actions of the Crown in the processes of alienation. The first chapter will provide a general description of the physical and biological features of the original Tuararangaia block, of the early Maori occupation patterns and resource use on the land, and of which hapu and iwi had connections with this land area. Chapter two outlines the nineteenth century history of the eastern Bay of Plenty area, with particular emphasis on how the events described affected the occupation and use of the Tuararangaia block. The third chapter of this report examines the arguments put forward by the various claimants at the Native Land Court title investigation hearing from November 1890 to January 1891. Chapter four gives Judge Gudgeon's decisions from the title investigation hearing and describes the sections into which the Tuararangaia block was divided for allocation to the various claimants. The report's fifth chapter discusses the issues involved with the Crown's purchase of part of Tuararangaia 3 and with the Crown's taking of areas of land from all three Tuararangaia subdivisions to pay for the costs of the 1885 survey. Chapter six deals the circumstances involved with gifting and sale of Tuararangaia lands in the 191Os, processes that led to most of the original block passing out of Maori ownership. The seventh chapter of the report outlines the economic developments on the Tuararangaia block from the 1920s onwards. The logging of native forest and the building of the Matahina dam are described. Particular attention is paid to the fate of the money generated from forestry on the 1000 acres of Tuararangaia IB that was gifted as an education endowment. The return of the education endowment land to its original Tuhoe owners is also described.

The report is not intended to be a definitive history of the Tuararangaia area, but rather an account of land alienation and the Crown actions relating to these processes. Oral sources have not been used, on the assumption that claimants themselves are better placed than I am to present oral and traditional evidence before the Waitangi Tribunal.

10 This report is largely based on archival documents, Native Land Court Minute Books, and secondary documents. Official documents from the Native Department and its successor the Maori Affairs Department have been used extensively. These were accessed from National Archives branches in Wellington and Auckland and from the Maori Land Court in Rotorua. A series of Forestry Department files, held at National Archives Wellington, were used to give background information on the geography, vegetation cover and economic uses of the Tuararangaia block. Two DOSLI files were loaned to me by the Hamilton office of LINZ. These obtained useful information on the surveying and public works on the Tuararangaia block and on forestry on Tuararangaia lB.

In the course of writing this report a number of works proved to be of particular use in gaining a broader view of the events surrounding the alienation of most of the Tuararangaia block. Two works in particular give the back ground to the alienation of the Matahina and Waiohau blocks, which border the original Tuararangaia block. The Waiohau hearing of 1878 and the Matahina hearings of 1881 and 1884 involved many of the same Maori individuals and hapu as those who were later to be involved in the Tuararangaia hearing of 1890 and 1891. The Matahina blocks are located on the western bank of the Rangitaiki River, opposite the western boundary of the Tuararangaia block, which is on the eastern bank of the Rangitaiki. (See map 1.) The alienation history of the Matahina blocks is described in a draft report written by Phillip Cleaver.1 The Waiohau blocks are located to the immediate south of the Tuararangaia block, with the northern border of Waiohau adjoining the southern border of Tuararangaia. (See map 1.). The alienation history of the Waiohau blocks is described in a draft report written by Wayne Taitoko.2

Two works were particularly useful in describing the events surrounding the building of the Matahina dam in the 1960s. One of these works was the written evidence of David Alexander concerning the Matahina power project, as presented to the Wai 46 Ngati Awa

1 P Cleaver, 'A History of the Matahina Blocks', (draft), report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for Wai 36, 1999 2 W W W Taitoko, 'Kaore Ano Kia Oti N oa: A History of the Waiohau Blocks', (draft), report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for Wai 36, 2000

11 hearing.3 The other work was David Young's book Matahina: Power in the Land, published in 1998.4

Among the works consulted for background information on the wider events occurring in the eastern Bay of Plenty in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the following were particularly valuable. Valuable information on the history of the Urewera country was provided by Anita Miles' Rangahaua Whanui report.5 This information was complemented by that provided by the two draft volumes of Judith Binney's Urewera report, which is yet to be released in its final form. 6 The background to the confiscation of the Ngati Awa lands immediately to the north of Tuararangaia was effectively summarised in The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report released by the Waitangi Tribunal. 7 The final work which must be mentioned as providing a great deal of information on the early nineteenth century history ofNgati Hamua, Warahoe and Tuhoe, is Elsdon Best's classic work Tuhoe: Children o/the Mist. Best's book can be seen to be a product of its time, which must be approached with caution as it contains many errors and what are now seen as unacceptable racial attitudes. Nevertheless, the two volumes of Tuhoe still contain enough information to make them essential source material for any student of Tuhoe and eastern Bay of Plenty history.8

i.i Claims relating to the Tuararangaia blocks

The consolidated Tuhoe claim, Wai 36, is a claim brought by Wharehuia Milroy for the Tuhoe tribe. This claim is managed by the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board. Wai 36 alleges a variety of Crown breaches of the Treaty regarding the Tuararangaia block.

The claim specifically alleges:

3 D Alexander, 'The Evidence of David James Alexander on the Matahina Power Project (Including Te Mahoe Village and Rangitaiki 60C Core Material Quarry)', report given as evidence, 1994, (Wai 46 record of inquiry, doc HS) 4 D Young, Matahina: Power in the Land, Wellington, Steele Roberts, 1998 5 A Miles, Te Urewera, Rangahaua Whanui District 4, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1999 6 J Binney, 'Urewera Overview Project: A History of the Urewera from European Contact unti11878' , (draft), a report commissioned by CFRT, 1999; J Binney, 'Urewera Overview, Pt 2: 1878-1912', (draft), a report commissioned by CFRT, 2000 7 Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, Wellington, Legislation Direct, 1999 8 E Best, Tuhoe: Children of the Mist, vols 1 & 2, Auckland, Reeds, 1996

12 Graphical Representation Only wr N.Harris may 2001 ",/36/1/0'" Map adapted from A.MOes, 'Te Urewera' Rangahaua Whanui report 1999, Fig 12. -'. Motuhora ~ Bay o f PIe n t y

Kaingaroa No.2

Pukahunui

SH.2

Haw k e Bay Urewera National Park 2p Urewera District Native Reserve '" ;p. 20miles

Map 1 LOCATION OF TUARARANGAIA BLOCK

13 • that the Native Land Court in 1891 wrongly awarded parts of Tuararangaia to Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko, as the Tuararangaia block had, before 1865, been exclusively the territory of Tuhoe; • that the Native Land Court in 1891 wrongly imposed survey costs on Tuararangaia 1 block, the area awarded to Tuhoe, and wrongly took 748 acres of land over and above the area of land required to pay for the survey costs; • that, in the case of the Tuararangaia 1 block, the Crown failed to properly value either the land or the timber on it; • that the Crown inflated the survey costs for Tuararangaia 1, and therefore the amount of land taken from the block, by imposing on Tuhoe the costs of surveying out the Crown's own interests; • that, in 1914, a resolution to sell 1 619 acres of the Tuararangaia IB block to the Crown and to pay the whole of the proceeds to the War Fund, was passed by twenty five owners and sixteen proxies, out of a total of 719 owners. The claim further alleges that Waiariki Maori Land Board's confirmation of this sale was an incorrect procedure; • that, in 1912, the owners of Tuararangaia IB block resolved to cede 1000 acres of this block to the Crown as an endowment for the building of a college for the children of Tuhoe, Ngati Awa and Te Arawa in the area of Ohiwa. No such college was built despite the land in question being transferred to the Crown in 1917; and • that the Crown failed to account to the owners for the income generated from the 1 000 acres during the 55 years it was held by the Crown, prior to the revesting of the land in its original owners in 1972.9

The other claims that either refer directly to the Tuararangaia blocks or to issues relating to the Tuararangaia blocks are as follows:

• Wai 40, is a claim brought by Tama Nikora, on behalf of the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Trust Board and the Tuhoe tribe, which alleges, among other issues, that the Crown acquired part of Tuararangaia IB with the consent of six of the over 700 owners. This claim is now consolidated with the broader Tuhoe consolidated claim, Wai 36. 10

9 The Tuhoe claims outlined are all from Wai 36 Consolidated Claim, 15 February 2000, claim 1.1 in the Wai 36 record of inquiry, Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, 2000, pp 23-4 10 Statement of Claim for Wai 40, claim 1.2 in the Wai 36 record of inquiry, Waitangi Tribunal, 2000

14 • Wai 46, the Ngati Awaleastem Bay of Plenty, was brought by Hirini Moko Mead and Cleetus Manu Paul, on behalf of Ngati Awa. This claim holds the Tuararangaia block was traditionally owned by Ngati Awa, as was the section of the Rangitaiki River bordering the west side of the block. The claim alleges that the Tuararangaia block was wrongly awarded to Tuhoe. It also alleges that the building of the Matahina dam cause the loss of an area of the Rangitaiki River as a fishing resource and the removal or destruction of Ngati Awa burial grounds. Finally the claim alleges that the Crown did not invite Ngati Awa to participate in the financial rewards generated by the dam

project. 11

Three further claims relate to the Rangitaiki River and therefore are connected with the Tuararangaia block:

• Wai 212, the Ika Whenua claim, was brought by H Waiti and K Porima, on behalf of

the Runanga 0 Te Ika Whenua. At the time the claim was lodged, the runanga claimed to represent Ngati Whare, Ngati Manawa, PatuheuheuINgati Haka and Ngati Huingawaka. Among many other issues, the Ika Whenua tribes lay claim to the

Rangitaiki River, which forms the western boundary of the Tuararangaia block. 12

• Wai 726, a claim brought by Robert Pouwhare and Janet Carson on behalf of Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu, claims the Rangitaiki River, the lands on either side of the Rangitaiki River and the Matahina dam for Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu. 13

The current report examines the historical events surrounding the alienation of most of the Tuararangaia block from Maori ownership. The principal focus will be on the actions of the Crown in the light of the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. It is intended that this report will help verify the accuracy of the allegations made against the Crown in the claims outlined above.

!1 Statement of claim, claim 1.3(d) in the Wai 46 record of inquiry, Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, 1999, pp 4, 26, 29-30 12 Statement of claim, claim 1.1 in the Wai 212 record of inquiry, Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, 1999 \3 Statement of claim, claim 1.1 in the Wai 726 record of inquiry, Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, 1999

15 CHAPTER 1 THE TUARARANGAIA BLOCK: TE WHENUA, TE TANGATA

1.1 Te Whenua, Te Ngahere

The area of land that came to be defined as the Tuararangaia block, is situated to the east of the Rangitaiki River, in the eastern Bay of Plenty (see maps I and 2). The original survey of 1885 defined the Tuararangaia block as the area bounded by the Rangitaiki River to the west and the confiscation line to the north. The eastern boundary was defined as a line running south-west from Tapapakiakia to Te Hiwera, then further south-west to the trig station at a point just south of the Tuketoromiro stream. From this station the southern boundary was drawn to the north-west, up to the Rangitaiki River.14 Prior to the 1960s the Rangitaiki River, over this stretch of its length, formed the Rangitaiki Gorge. Following the opening of the Matahina dam in 1967, Lake Matahina was formed and this now acts as the western boundary of Tuararangaia. The Matahina dam is located at the extreme north­ western comer of the Tuararangaia block. The northern border of the Waiohau block (defined in 1878), formed the southern boundary of the Tuararangaia block. The Matahina block (defined in 1881) was located to the west of the Tuararangaia block on the opposite side of the Rangitaiki.

The Native Land Court minute books contain several differing explanations for the origin of the name Tuararangaia and for which geographical features the name originally applied to. It is clear that prior to the 1885 survey, the name 'Tuararangaia' was not applied to the whole of the area that came to be defined as the Tuararangaia block. Hire Wetere, ofNgati Awa, maintained that Tuararangaia was a name that had originally been applied to the western part of the Tuararangaia block. IS Penetito Hawea claimed that the area designated as the Tuararangaia block had originally been known as Kohiroa. He claimed that Te Whaiti Paora, who initiated the block's survey, had given the name Tuararangaia to the whole block. 16 Werahiko held that 'Tuararangaia' was a rapid in the Rangitaiki River.17 Pihopa Tamawhati claimed the name 'Tuara-rangaia' applied to the north western comer of

14 Plan 5913, Tuararangaia block, Rangitaiki Lower Survey District, 2 July 1885, LINZ Wellington 15 Hire Wetere in Whakatane Native Land Court MB 3, 28 November 1890, fo1232 16 Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 5 December 1890 fo1273 17 Werahiko Tamaiarohi in Whakatane MB 3,6 December 1890, fo1280

16 Graphical Representation Only WI: N.Harris may 2001lVai3612topo Based on Survey Plan 5913, 1885, C.A.Baker, Surveyor

Norlh Ll

/ ~ / c / , I .... / / ",/

I I

o 5KM ~' ='~~~~~~~===T==~======~==~======~======~3~~ILES

Map 2 : GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES AND TRADITIONAL PLACE-NAMES OF THE TUARARANGAIA BLOCK

17 the block. The name was from a ridgeline named for the backbone of Rangaia, a descendant of Hoka and an ancestor ofNgati Hamua. 18

A series of appraisals carried out by Forest Service rangers in the late 1940s and early 1950s give a fairly detailed account of the natural features of Tuararangaia, prior to the clear felling of the native bush on the block. The soil over most of the block consisted of a layer of 'bush humus' covering a layer of Tarawera ash, a product of the 1886 volcanic eruption. Underneath this ash were layers of clay and pumice. The block was covered by mixed podocarp/broadleaf forest, with rimu and tawa being the dominant species. In the north-western comer of the block, tawa was the most common species but rimu predominated over the rest of the block. Other species found on the block included miro, matai, hinau, mangeao, pukatea, tanekaha, and rewarewa. Among the birds identified as living in the bush on the block were kiwi, pigeons, bellbirds, tui, tomtits, ruru (morepork), kaka and kakariki. 19 With regard to the quality of timber for milling on the Tuararangaia block, rimu were described as 'exceptionally large', 'excellent quality', and 'excellent tall timber'.2o

It is interesting to compare these appraisals from the 1940s and 1950s with the report made by the surveyor R F Mackenzie, in 1920. Mackenzie described the western area of the block, near to the Rangitaiki River, as being 'very rough and poor quality', while the areas further to the east were 'broken, but only rough in places'. The whole block was 'well watered by permanent streams' .21 Mackenzie wrote that the block was covered with 'light mixed bush' consisting of 'rimu, rata, hinau, tawa, miro, rewarewa, tawhero, tanekaha',

18 Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4, 11 December 1890, fo1125. See also E Best, Tuhoe: Children of the Mist, Auckland, Reed, 1996,vo12, chart 24. It should be noted that on this whakapapa chart, Rangaia is shown as a descendent ofTe Hoka 0 Te Rangi's brother, Te Kapo 0 Te Rangi, rather than ofTe Hoka himself. 19 A WWilliams, Forest Ranger to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 9 June 1948, F123/2/101l81, NA Wellington; W R J Morgan, Forest Ranger, to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 16 August 1948, F 1 23/2/1011100, NA Wellington; W R J Jensen, Forest Ranger to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 14 August 1950, F 1 18/2/132, NA Wellington; W R J Morgan, Forest Ranger to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 29 January 1951, F 1 23/2/1011135, NA Wellington; W R J Jensen, Forest Ranger to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 15 August 1952, F 1 18/2/152, NA Wellington; J Morgan, Leading Hand to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 20 May 1953, F Acc w3129 22/2/23, NA Wellington; J Morgan, Leading Hand to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 23 March 1954, F 1 23/2/1011185, NA Wellington; J Morgan, Leading Hand to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 5 August 1954, F 1 18/2/152/2, NA Wellington; H F Fitzgibbons, Forest Ranger to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 19 October 1954, F 1 23/2/1011194, NA Wellington 20 W R J Jensen, Forest Ranger to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 14 August 1950, F 1 18/2/132, NA Wellington; W R J Jensen, Forest Ranger to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 15 August 1952, F 1 18/2/152, NA Wellington; W R J Morgan, Forest Ranger to Conservator of Forests, Rotorua, 16 August 1948, F 1 23/2/1011100, NA Wellington 21R F Mackenzie to the Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 18 November 1919, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton

18 while a thick undergrowth was also present consisting of 'mahoe, kotukutuku, hangihangi, punga and supplejack'.z2 Mackenzie maintained that the forest had no value for milling.23

Mackenzie's judgment of the lack of value ofthe forest appears to have been strictly based on the fact that in the 1920s there was no road access into the block. By the late 1940s the provision of road access to the forests had turned them into a valuable asset for logging. But none of the observers in question appear to have considered values other than timber. Ecological or wildlife values were not seen as an issue and the Forest Service appraisals all considered that the forests had no scenic value because they were too far from the road to be seen.

1.2 Early occupation and resource uses

The rugged nature of the Tuararangaia block meant there were few permanent settlements on it. A map of the block, drawn by Charles Alma Baker in 1885, shows some pa sites.24 (Map 2 is based on Baker's survey and provides an indication of the geographical features and traditional placenames of the Tuararangaia block.) Evidence presented to the Native Land Court, during the title investigation of 1891, referred to kainga sites on the block, most of which appear to have been occupied on a seasonal, rather than a permanent, basis. A variety of hunting and gathering activities were described as traditional practices in the Tuararangaia area. Witnesses presented evidence on subjects such as the location ofkainga and the traditional access rights to particular resources, in such a way as to promote the claims of their own hapu to the land and its resources. Such evidence must therefore be approached with this knowledge in mind and treated with a degree of caution. While bearing this in mind, the Court record continues to provide a useful indication of the activities that took place on the block prior to the mid-nineteenth century.

All the witnesses spoke of parts of the block being used for cultivations, although it appears these cultivations were on a very small scale, simply providing extra food for the few people who went on to the block to hunt and gather wild foods. Kumara was grown in some areas of the block prior to contact with the Pakeha, with storage pits at particular

22 Descriptions of sections 1-5, Block III, and sections 1-3, Block IV, Rangitaiki Lower District, 6 August 1920, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton; The following plants Mackenzie refers to in his report can be identified thus: Tawhero = Towai = Weinmannia racemosa; Hangihangi= Hangehange = Geniostoma ligustroma. 23 Mackenzie to Chief Surveyor, 18 November 1919, DOSLI 6900/35, vol I, LINZ Hamilton

19 sites. Wetere, Penetito, and Pihopa referred to Raerua, near the Mangapapa Stream in the north west of the block (see map 2), and Matera, on the northern boundary of the block, as particularly important kainga with cultivations. In post-contact times potatoes were also grown on Tuararangaia. Penetito Hawea claimed that grass was sown for cattle and sheep at Matera. In addition to food plants, flax was cultivated for weaving on parts of the land in question. The Tuararangaia block contained a number of places, such as Raerua and Otutamakehu ( a site I was unable to locate on any map), which were known as sites for digging fern root. Karaka trees grew on the Tuararangaia block near Otipa. (Otipa itself is located on the western side of the Rangitaiki, just opposite the north western comer of the Tuararangaia block.) Some canoes were built on the block, presumably from totara. The Ngati Pukeko spokesperson Werahiko Tamaiarohi also mentioned that the masts of a boat built for the Ngati Awa chief Rangitukehu came from timber cut from Tuararangaia. There is no mention in any of the Native Land Court minutes, or any other record, of Pakeha logging on the Tuararangaia block in the nineteenth century. Therefore the mention, at the 1891 Native Land Court title investigation hearing, that a sawpit was located on the block, indicates that some logging by Maori had occurred before the 1890s. 25

The Tuararangaia block was also a site for a number of hunting and fishing activities. Eeling was carried out in some stretches of the Rangitaiki River and in some of the smaller streams running through the block. Specifically named trees were used for the catching of kaka, tui and pigeons. Witnesses mentioned the use of troughs to catch pigeons and the use of perch snares for kaka. Various ridges and pathways were used as sites for snaring kiore (Polynesian rats) for food. By the early nineteenth century, a considerable population of pigs was present in the Tuararangaia region and it appears that pig hunting became a common activity on the block.26

24 Plan 5913, LINZ Wellington 25 Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 1 December 1890, fo1234, 235, 2 December 1890, fo1246; Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3,4 December 1890, fo1261, 5 December 1890, fo1s 270, 273; Werahiko Tamaiarohi in Whakatane MB 3,6 December 1890 fo1s 279, 280,8 December 1890, fo1288; Werahiko Tamaiarohi in Whakatane MB 4,9 December 1890, fo1106, 10 December 1890, fo1s 114, 117; Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4, 11 December 1890, fo1119, 123, 12 December 1890, fo1s 127, 128, 129; Tamaikoha in Whakatane MB 4, 13 December 1890, fo1s 135, 140 26 Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 2 December 1890, fo1243; Werahiko Tamaiarohi in Whakatane MB 3,6 December 1890, fo1s 279, 280, 281, 8 December 1890, fo1288; Werahiko Tamaiarohi in Whakatane MB 4,9 December 1890, fo1s 106, 109; Hamiora in Whakatane MB 4, 10 December 1890, fo1s 112, 117; Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4, 11 December 1890, fo1s 120, 128, 12 December 1890, fo1129; Tamaikoha in Whakatane MB 4,13 December 1890, fol135

20 Hirini Mead and Te Roopu Whakaemi Korero 0 Ngati Awa, in a paper supporting the Ngati Awa raupatu claim (Wai 46), propose the idea of areas of land they refer to as 'whenua tautohetohe' or 'contested land', which they describe as border areas between rival iwi. According to this model, iwi would tolerate their rivals carrying out certain levels of resource use on these lands, such as hunting or the cutting of trees for canoes. More intense usage of these areas, such as large-scale agriculture and settlement, would not be tolerated.27 The indications from the evidence presented at the Native Land Court were that the Tuararangaia block was largely a site visited for seasonal hunting and gathering, while the cultivations on the block were of a relatively small scale. From a comparison of the evidence, Tuararangaia can be portrayed as being, during the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, an area of overlapping resource usage by a variety of rival hapu. This would have made the area less desirable as a residence because living there would have involved a considerable possibility of encountering groups of potential enemies. If the Ngati Awa concept of 'whenua tautohetohe' is accepted, then the Tuararangaia block, from the Native Land Court evidence, appears to have fitted the description of such an area. However it should be noted that Ngati Awa currently see the Tuararangaia block as firmly within their rohe,zs Tuhoe submissions, on the other hand, make no mention of the concept of 'whenua tautohetohe' and see Tuararangaia as being part of their rohe.29

It was not just the political situation between the large iwi groupings that influenced the human presence in the Tuararangaia area. The natural features of the area were also important factors in the relatively low level of human activities on the Tuararangaia block. The rough nature of the country, combined with the paucity of easily cultivatable land on the block, meant that large populations could not easily live in the immediate vicinity. This combination of being an area of relatively rough land, in an area of overlapping rival tribal groupings, meant that the Tuararangaia block was a place used primarily by small, relatively mobile groups for seasonal hunting and gathering. It was not an area of large permanent agricultural settlements, nor was it able to sustain large populations for any length of time.

27 H Mead & Te Roopu Whakaemi Korero 0 Ngati Awa, 'Whenua Tautohetohe: Testing the Tribal Boundaries', (Wai 46 record of documents, doc C7), pp 10-14 28 Ibid, pp 1, 25 29 J W Milroy, S Melbourne, & T R Nikora, 'The Bay of Plenty Confiscation and the Tuhoe Tribal Boundary', (Wai 46 record of documents, doc H2), pp 3-6

21 1.3 Hapu and iwi associated with Tuararangaia

By the late eighteenth century, the Tuararangaia area was a place where Ngati Awa Ngati Pukeko and Tuhoe iwi all had a presence. Smaller hapu such as Warahoe and N gati Hamua lived in the vicinity and had kinship connections, alliances, and rivalries with Ngati Awa and with Tuhoe. The following paragraphs give a brief introduction to the hapu and iwi who contested ownership of the Tuararangaia area in the nineteenth century, initially through warfare and later through the processes of the Native Land Court.

1.3.1 Ngati Awa

In the late eighteenth century, Ngati Awa iwi identified as a group of hapu claiming descent from Awanui a Rangi, a son of the famous Bay of Plenty ancestor Toi Kai Rakau, also known as Toi Te Huatahi. Another very important ancestral line ofNgati Awa iwi was that back to the crew of the Mataatua waka, captained by Toroa. Ueimua, who was the great grandson of Toroa, and also a descendant of Toi, was another significant ancestor for Ngati Awa. Tanemoeahi and Tuhoe Potiki, the latter being an ancestor of the Tuhoe iwi, were brothers of Ueimua. Their action in murdering Ueimua can be seen as the symbolic beginning of the recurring conflict between the Ngati Awa and Tuhoe iwi.30

The hapu of Ngati Awa associated with the area around the Tuararangaia block included Nga Tamaoki, Te Pahipoto, and Nga Maihi. According to John Himiona Hunia of Te Pahipoto, Nga Tamaoki and Nga Maihi were themselves hapu ofTe Pahipoto. 31 In the mid­ nineteenth century, Rangitukehu, rangatira of Te Pahipoto, was also recognised by Ngati Awa hapu as being the principal chief of the Rangitaiki hapu. In the title investigation case of 1890 to 1891, the Te Pahipoto hapu put their claim to Tuararangaia under the general Ngati Awa claim. Penetito Hawea put a separate claim in for Nga Tamaoki and Nga Maihi as will be seen below. Ngati Pukeko, Warahoe, and Ngati Hamua were also were closely

30 Waitangi Tribunal, NgatiAwa Raupatu Report, pp 14 -16; Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 28 November 1890, fo1s 229-30, 231; Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 28 November 1890, fols 231-233 31 Evidence of J H Hunia concerning Pahipoto history 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc A37), p 6

22 related to Ngati Awa, but in the nineteenth century at least, they operated with a high degree of independence from other Ngati Awa hapu. 32

1.3.2 Ngati Pukeko

Ngati Pukeko are now regarded as a hapu of Ngati Awa. It appears that in the late eighteenth and in the nineteenth centuries the various hapu that made up Ngati Pukeko were regarded as having a somewhat separate identity from that of the broader Ngati Awa iwi. The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report suggests that Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko had largely been separate groups until the musket wars against Nga Puhi. These wars cemented the kin relationships that already existed between Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko, with Ngati Pukeko eventually coming to be regarded as a hapu of Ngati Awa. 33 In the evidence presented to the Native Land Court in 1890, Ngati Pukeko are referred to as being relatives and allies ofNgati Awa, but do not appear to have been seen at that time as being under the leadership of a wider Ngati Awa iwi. Ngati Pukeko presented a separate case for rights to the Tuararangaia block from that of the main grouping ofNgati Awa hapu. 34

Ngati Pukeko were made up of a variety of smaller hapu descended from Toroa of the Mataatua waka, as well as from the crew of the Te Arawa waka. Some of the Ngati Pukeko hapu traced ancestry to the eponymous Ngati Awa ancestor Awanui a Rangi, while others could trace descent to Ueimua, the Ngati Awa ancestor who was murdered by his brothers, Tanemoeahi and Tuhoe Potiki. Ngati Pukeko appear to have often been in conflict with Tuhoe as well as with some other Ngati Awa hapu. The shifting nature of Maori politics in the eastern Bay of Plenty area also meant that in certain conflicts Ngati Pukeko were allied with Tuhoe. In the early nineteenth century Ngati Pukeko had a presence around the Ohiwa harbour area, (between Whakatane and Opotiki), as well as in the Rangitaiki valley. 35

32 Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, pp 14 -16; Evidence ofR M Mead concerning Pahipoto hapu, July 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc A35), p 3 33 Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, p 23 34 Whakatane MB 3, Pene Te Ruki and Werahiko Tamaiarohi, 28 November 1890, fol 229; Whakatane MB 3, Werahiko Tamaiarohi, 6 December 1890, fo1280. Binney also follows the practice of referring to Ngati Pukeko, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, as a separate iwi from the closely related Ngati Awa. See J. Binney, History of the Urewera until 1878, (draft, chp 1, pp 32-33 35 Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, pp 15-16; Evidence of J Mason concerning Ngati Pukeko history, nd, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc A32), pp 1-6

23 1.3.3 Warahoe

Warahoe were a relatively small hapu living in the Rangitaiki area, near Te Teko, during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Warahoe were also sometimes known as Te Pohokotia. They could trace descent back to Toi through Mahutapoanui and to Toroa through Tuhoe Potiki. According to both Elsdon Best and to Onehou Phillis, daughter of the Ngati Awa rangatira Eruera Manuera and Warahoe historian, they were regarded as a hapu ofNgati Awa, although they had whakapapa links with both Ngati Awa and Tuhoe. 36 Despite being regarded as Ngati Awa, Warahoe appear to have often been in conflict with other Ngati Awa hapu. Best states that the hapu Warahoe took its name from 'Warahoe', an old name for the Orini stream, connecting the Rangitaiki and Whakatane rivers, and from the word 'Warahoe', meaning 'false', which reflected the reputation they had for being untruthful. Phillis relates the contradictory account by Horopapera Tatu, which holds that the name comes from the phrase 'Te Wawara te Hoe', meaning, 'the rustling sound of the paddles' . 37

Warahoe were closely linked by intermarriage and political alliance with Ngati Hamua, who lived in the same areas of the Rangitaiki catchment. At the end of the eighteenth century, Warahoe were based at the Tokitareke pa, to the north of the Tuararangaia block. They shared this pa with the Ngai Taipoti, another hapu ofNgati Awa. Warahoe were also closely linked with Tuhoe through inter-marriage, which may help explain why Te Whaiti Paora made his claim for Tuararangaia on behalf ofWarahoe, Ngati Hamua and Tuhoe. 38

Warahoe and Ngati Hamua were driven out of their respective pa at Tokitareke and Otipa during fighting against Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko in the early nineteenth century. The two hapu were forced to leave the vicinity of Tuararangaia, Matahina, and Waiohau. 39 In the 1840s Warahoe and Ngati Hamua were brought back to the district near to the Tuararangaia block, at the invitation of the Ngati Awa rangatira Rangitukehu. Onehou Phillis states that this arrangement was sealed by the marriage of Maata Te Taiawatea, the

36 Best, Tuhoe, vo11, p 167; 0 Phillis, 'Warahoe', evidence concerning the history of the Warahoe hapu, nd, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc A40), pp 1-2; Young, Matahina, pp 48-49 37 Phillis sees this name as being connected with a well-known whakatauki concerning Warahoe, 'Ko Warahoe te awa, ko Warahoe te tangata. Both the river and Warahoe are one'. See Phillis, 'Warahoe', pp 1, 3 38 Te Whaiti Paora in Whakatane MB 3, 28 November 1890, fo1 229; Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4, 11 December 1890, fo1121; Makarini Te Waru in Whakatane MB 4, 13 December 1890, fol134. 39 Best, Tuhoe, vo11, pp 172-185

24 daughter of Rangitukehu, to Te Haroto Whakataka Riini, the son of the Warahoe leader Manuera Te Pohokotia.4o There was considerable debate at the title investigation hearing of 1890 to 1891 over what rights Rangitukehu's invitation gave Warahoe to the land they settled on. It was also debated whether the invitation referred specifically to Tuararangaia or only to lands to the west of the Rangitaiki. These debates will be examined in more detail below.

According to Phillis, Warahoe lost their separate identity as a hapu following the death of their rangatira Manuera Te Pohokotia, in the late nineteenth century. They were integrated into other hapu such as Nga Maihi, Pahipoto, Ngai Tamao, Ngai Tamawera, and Ngati Whare. Phillis states that the Warahoe hapu were specifically revived, in 1989, at the behest of her father Emera Riini Manuera, the grandson of Rangitukehu and Manuera.41

1.3.4 Ngati Hamua

Ngati Hamua are a hapu who were very closely associated with Warahoe in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Best points out that this hapu were not the same people as the Hamua section of Tuhoe, nor were they identical to the Ngati Hamua of Waioeka, who were part of Ngati Ira, a people of the Whakatohea iwi. He goes on to say that, while Ngati Hamua were always identified with Ngati Awa, they were direct descendants of Te

Kapo 0 Te Rangi and Te Hoka 0 Te Rangi. Kapo and Hoka were brothers who, according to Best, were descended in the main from the ancestors Toi, Hape and Turanga. These ancestors lived in the Bay of Plenty area before the arrival of the Mataatua waka voyagers.42 Katene Iriaka of Ngati Hamua, stated in evidence presented as part of the Ngati Awa raupatu claim, that in an 1867 census Ngati Hamua were identified as a hapu ofNgati Rangihouhiri.43

Best writes that Ngati Hamua migrated to the Rangitaiki area from Ohiwa. In the early nineteenth century they were based at Otipa. The close association of Ngati Hamua with Warahoe led them to join with Warahoe in the interhapu fighting of this period. As noted above, these feuds led to the expulsion of both groups from the area by a combined force of

40 Phillis, 'Warahoe', p 6 41 Ibid, p 1 42 Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, p 171 43 K Iriaka, evidence concerning Ngati Hamua history, 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc A50), p 3

25 hapu from Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko. Ngati Hamua came back to the Rangitaiki area when Warahoe returned at the invitation of Rangitukehu.44 However, at the 1890 to 1891 Whakatane Native Land Court hearing, Pihopa Tamawhati, ofNgati Hamua, Warahoe and Tuhoe, alleged that not all the members of Ngati Hamua had been expelled from the area and that some had in fact remained there all along. 45

1.3.5 Tuhoe

The Tuhoe iwi is made of a number of hapu, all of which can trace ancestry from the earliest

Bay of Plenty tribes. Best described the three important early tribal groupings as: Te Tini 0 Toi, the tribes descended from Toi Kai Rakau, or Toi Te Huatahi; Te Hapuoneone, descended from

Hape Ki Tumanui 0 Te Rangi; and Nga Potiki, descended from Potiki. The other important line of ancestry for the Tuhoe iwi is their descent from the more recent arrivals on the Mataatua waka. The eponymous ancestor of Tuhoe, Tuhoe Potiki, was a descendant of Toroa, captain of the Mataatua waka, and of his daughter Wairaka. Tuhoe Potiki and his brother Tanemoeahi killed their brother Ueimua, who is identified as the ancestor ofNgati Awa. The descendants of Tuhoe Potiki intermarried with those of his brothers and with the descendants of the earlier Bay of Plenty tribes. 46

By the late nineteenth century, many interrelated hapu identified themselves as being part of the wider Tuhoe iwi. Those Tuhoe leaders who took part in the 1890 to 1891 Native Land Court hearing over the Tuararangaia block did so on behalf of the Ngai Tamatuhirae hapu, which was written into the Court records as Ngai Tamatuira. 47 Ngai Tamatuhirae, or Ngai Tama as they are often referred to, were, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, based around the Waimana area, directly to the east of the Tuararangaia block (see map 1). Best records that Ngai Tama are descended from the pre- Mataatua ancestors Te Hapuoneone and Toi Kai Rakau. The eponymous ancestor Tamatuhirae was himself a son of Te Hoka 0 Te Rangi. Te Hoka's name was to feature prominently in the evidence presented to the Native Land Court by Tuhoe witnesses.48

44 Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 171-186 45 Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4, 12 December 1890, fols 128-129 46 Miles, Urewera, pp 11-18; A BaHara, [wi: The Dynamics o/Maori Tribal Organisation/rom c. 1769 to c. 1945, Wellington, Victoria University Press, 1998, pp 290-294; Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 12-9,59-63,210-221 47 Whakatane MB 4, 29 January 1891, foll78; T Nikora, 'Tuararangaia No.1 Block', draft evidence forWai 36, 1999, section 6 48 Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 86-87

26 It can be seen that the hapu and iwi associated with the Tuararangaia block in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries all traced themselves back common ancestors. Despite having this common ancestry, there was a great deal of conflict between many of the hapu and iwi living in the area around the Rangitaiki River. A central point to this conflict was the so-called '200 years war' between two of the major iwi groupings in the Eastern Bay of Plenty area: Tuhoe and Ngati Awa. However, much of the feuding in the Rangitaiki district was in fact inter-hapu conflict between groups affiliated to the Ngati Awa iwi.49

Having identified the hapu and iwi contesting the ownership of Tuararangaia, we must now consider the context in which the 1890 to1891 hearing took place. In order to understand the events connected with this hearing, and the resulting processes of land alienation, it is necessary to first examine the major disruptions, in the eastern Bay of Plenty and Urewera areas, brought about by the events of the nineteenth century.

49 Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 355-356

27 CHAPTER 2 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY BACKGROUND - CONFLICT BETWEEN TRIBES AND CONTACT BETWEEN PEOPLES

This chapter provides background to the major nineteenth century events in the eastern Bay of Plenty and Urewera areas. Some of the events influencing the history of the Tuararangaia block were the result of inter-hapu conflicts going back to the early nineteenth century, before there was any substantial Pakeha presence in the eastern Bay of Plenty. Yet, even from this time, the arrival ofPakeha trade goods, weapons and ideas began to effect the interactions between Maori groups, including such conflicts. It is necessary to outline these processes in order to give the wider context of the historical events discussed at the Native Land Court Tuararangaia title investigation in 1890 and 1891.

2.1 The Impact of the Musket Wars: The Nga Puhi raids 1818-24

The eastern Bay of Plenty and the Urewen;t regions were areas that had only a very limited Pakeha presence in the first half of the nineteenth century. Pakeha traders did not become established in the eastern Bay of Plenty until the 1830s. Despite this fact, contact with Pakeha had started to have a significant impact on the area well before any significant numbers of Pakeha had settled there. Nga Puhi iwi had armed themselves with muskets by the 1820s. Nga Puhi had also adopted the use of Pakeha livestock, such as pigs, and Pakeha crops, in particular the potato. The development of large potato plantations enabled Nga Puhi to easily feed large groups of warriors and still have food left over for the people who remained behind when taua (war parties) went off on expeditions.5o

Nga Puhi made a series of raids on the eastern Bay of Plenty, beginning with the raid inland from Whakatane by forces led by Rongi Rika and Te Morenga in 1818. Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko retreated before the invaders, up the Rangitaiki River. Best describes the stand made by Ngati Pukeko at Okahukura, in the Rangitaiki Valley. Ngati Pukeko claimed to have defeated Nga Puhi at this site, at a battle known by the name of Manawawenewene, losing two of their own leaders: Tama a Te Rangi and Taumanu. Another party ofNga Puhi attacked people of the

50 J Belich, Making Peoples: A History a/the New Zealanders, Auckland, Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1996, p 159

28 Ngai Maihi hapu, of Ngati Awa, on the Matahina block (see map 1).51 Hire Wetere, of Ngati Awa, spoke of the Manawawenewene battle at the Tuararangaia hearing of 1891. His account was very similar to that of Best, except that he maintained that Ngati Awa fought alongside Ngati Pukeko against Nga Puhi. 52

Nga Puhi returned to the eastern Bay of Plenty in 1822, under the command of Pomare. This taua launched an attack from Whakatane, up the Whakatane river to Ruatoki. Nga Puhi clashed again with Ngati Pukeko and Ngati Awa, but Best records that the northern raiders made no contact with Tuhoe. Werahiko Tamaiarohi, of Ngati Pukeko, spoke at the Tuararangaia hearing, and described how a Nga Puhi taua killing some Ngati Pukeko on the Tuararangaia block. Best believed Werahiko was referring to the Nga Puhi expedition of 1822, but thought that Werahiko may have invented the story to enhance the Ngati Pukeko claim to the Tuararangaia block. 53

The 1822 Nga Puhi expedition was followed by a third, in 1823, led once again by Pomare. One party from this expedition went south of the Tuararangaia block, to attack Ngati Manawa and Patuheuheu people in the vicinity of Whirinaki and the Horomanga stream. Two members of Patuheuheu, a Tuhoe hapu, were killed. Ngati Awa, Ngati Pukeko, Ngati Manawa, and Tuhoe had all retreated into more remote country to avoid the musket-equipped Nga Puhi. Pomare, who was with the taua moving up the Whakatane River towards Ruatahuna, appears to have been on friendly terms with the Tuhoe chief Te Maitaranui. Pomare initiated a meeting with Te

Maitaranui at Ruatahuna, from which a lasting peace between the two iwi was arranged. 54

The Nga Puhi raids had long lasting effects on the eastern Bay of Plenty. The raids had created a situation of violence and disruption. People moved on and off lands to avoid the raiders, while at the same time trying to maintain their rights over such lands against the claims of other local hapu and iwi. This series of dislocations added impetus to already-existing disputes over the rights of rival hapu and iwi to areas such as Waimana, Opouriao (the plains around the Whakatane River directly to the east of the Tuararangaia block), and the Ohiwa harbour (see

51 Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 527-528 52 Hire Wetere, Whakatane MB 3, 2 December 1890, fols 245-246. The Manawa wenewene fight was also referred to by Werahiko Tamaiarohi, ofNgati Pukeko, Whakatane MB 3, 6 December 1890, fols 277, 279, by Pihopa Tamawhati, of Ngati Hamua and Tuhoe, Whakatane MB 4, 11 December 1890, fol126, by Makarini Te Waru, of Tuhoe, WMB 4, 12 December 1890, fol133, and by Erueti Tamaikoha, ofTuhoe, Whakatane MB 4, 13 December 1890, fol140. 53 Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 528-530; Werahiko Tamaiarohi, Whakatane MB 3, 6 December 1890, fo1279 54 Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 530-533; Miles, Urewera, pp 29-30; Binney, History o/the Urewera until 1878. (draft), chp 1, p 30

29 map 1). The advances and retreats of different parties over the Tuararangaia block during this period were to become the subject of heated debate in the 1890 to 1891 hearing, as each hapu tried to argue that their presence on the block at this time showed their rights of ownership. 55

The Nga Puhi attacks indicated to all the eastern Bay of Plenty iwi the necessity of acquiring as many muskets as possible. The quest for muskets boosted substantial economic changes in the area. More emphasis came to be placed on raising products such as flax, potatoes and pigs, that could be exchanged for muskets and other Pakeha goods. The development of these trading systems led to further shifts of population, as hapu moved closer to flax growing sites and to the coast, where contact could be made with Pakeha traders. Those hapu who did not live near the coast, including many of the Tuhoe hapu, had to trade with coastal hapu to obtain Pakeha goods. The establishment of permanent Pakeha trading stations will be examined in more detail below.56

The disruption caused by the Nga Puhi raids had considerable impacts on previously existing relationships between hapu, as well as encouraging the formation of new relationships. Coastal peoples such as Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko could largely control the trade in muskets in the eastern Bay of Plenty. Tuhoe, on the other hand, did not have the same degree of access to the coast, nor could they rely on trade with their traditional enemies, Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko, to obtain muskets. Tuhoe leaders therefore had to travel widely in their search for muskets, using their whakapapa connections with iwi such as Ngati Maru ofHauraki to initiate trade for the new weapons. The alliances built up in these trading processes involved Tuhoe warriors in more of the fighting that was being fuelled by the spread of the musket. 57

A picture emerges of the musket wars and the arrival of Pakeha trade goods stimulating conflict, economic changes, and the dislocation of populations. While new alliances were formed due to these new situations, in other cases older rivalries and conflicts were, for a time at least, exacerbated. Before examining the full impact of the arrival of Pakeha traders and missionaries into the eastern Bay of Plenty, we must briefly survey the long-running conflict between Tuhoe on the one hand and Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko on the other. The shifting alliances and

55 Miles, Urewera, pp 29-30; Binney, History ofthe Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 1, pp 30-32; Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 526-533; Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, p 23 56 Ibid., P 23; Miles, Urewera, pp 50-2, 59-61; Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 555-557 57 Ibid., pp 533, 542-547; Miles, Urewera, pp 50-51; Binney, History of the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 1, pp 30-31

30 conflicts between the various hapu of these iwi had a profound effect on the early nineteenth century history of the eastern Bay of Plenty, as well as more specifically on the history of the Tuararangaia block. Incidents from these conflicts were to be revisited at length in the hearing for the Tuararangaia block and the earlier hearings for the neighbouring Waiohau and Matahina blocks.

2.2 Two hundred years of conflict: Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko versus Tuhoe

As mentioned above, the many hapu of Ngati Awa and Tuhoe all traced their ancestry to the early tribes of the eastern Bay of Plenty and to the immigrants from the Mataatua waka. Despite sharing many ancestors in common, and despite continuing to inter-marry, the iwi of Ngati Awa and Tuhoe fought each other for almost two hundred years. Best calculated the date of 1650 as being the time this conflict began. He recounted the traditions that the killings ofMotumotu, Te

Iri 0 Te Ao and Takarehe, all from Ngati Awa, sparked off the fighting with Tuhoe. While revenge for such killings was, no doubt, a factor in both starting this conflict and keeping it going, the struggle for control of the resources of land and sea was probably the most important driving force behind the war. Miles sees the conflict as being focused around control of the Opouriao plains, which she describes as the 'epicentre' of the conflict. This area encompasses the catchments of the Whakatane River and the Waimana (also called the Tauranga) River, including the settlements ofRuatoki and Waimana, and is eminently suitable for cultivation (see map 1).58

It should also be noted that in this series of conflicts, hapu did not always fight for the iwi they were most closely identified with by whakapapa. As will be seen below, the Warahoe and Ngati Hamua hapu, both of whom were most closely connected by whakapapa to Ngati Awa, allied themselves with Tuhoe against their own Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko relatives.

The fighting that occurred in the early nineteenth century was the only period of conflict that was of direct influence on the events surrounding the alienation of the Tuararangaia block. Best recounts that around 1812, Ngati Pukeko fought against Ngati Whare and Ngati Manawa of the Te Whaiti area in the Whirinaki River valley (see map 1). Although Tuhoe and Ngati Pukeko had been enemies in the past, Tuhoe allied themselves with Ngati Pukeko, as Tuarawhati, a

58 Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 355-358; Miles, Urewera, pp 36-37

31 Ngati Pukeko killed by Ngati Whare, was also closely related to Tuhoe. Ngati Pukeko and Tuhoe had driven Ngati Whare and Ngati Manawa from the Te Whaiti area by 1818, but fighting soon broke out between the victorious former allies. By around 1822, Tuhoe had driven Ngati Pukeko out of the Te Whaiti area and occupied the area themselves, in association with Ngati Whare. Ngati Pukeko withdrew towards the coast, after further conflict with Tuhoe. Binney suggests that these conflicts, in which Ngati Pukeko came offbadly and lost land, influenced the decision they made in the 1860s, to ally themselves with the Government rather than Tuhoe. Binney believes Ngati Pukeko made this decision in the hope of gaining political advantage and land. 59

The 1822 and 1823 Nga Puhi raids led to the withdrawal inland of many of the eastern Bay of Plenty hapu. Incidents during these retreats led to a short outbreak of fighting between Tuhoe and Ngati Pukeko, followed by a quiet period from 1824 to 1832. From 1832 to 1834, Tuhoe fought against Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko, using muskets for the first time at the Te Kaunga (or Te Kauna) fight in 1832. (I have been unable to identify the exact location of this battle, but it appears to have been fought near the Waikare river to the north of Ruatahuna.) 60

Both Ngati Awa and Tuhoe were, by 1834, becoming sick of the constant fighting. The desire for peace would have been influenced by the fact that both sides now had muskets creating a balance of power and probably an increase in casualties on both sides. The potential increase in prosperity from the growing trade with the Pakeha would also have been a factor encouraging peacemaking. After a series ofhui, a 'Tatau Pounamu' or peace agreement was made at Ohui, a site on the west bank of the Rangitaiki River. This agreement brought about a lasting peace following further negotiations between Te Purewa, of Tuhoe, and Ngati Awa leaders including Te Rangitukehu, Tamati Waka, and Apanui. Melbourne writes that Te Purewa arranged a peace with the Ngati Pukeko leaders Tautari and Tamaiarohi at a further meeting at AwahoU. 61 Following the peace agreement, most of the major changes in occupation patterns in the eastern

59 Best, Tuhoe, yo11, pp 427-436; Binney, History of the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 1, pp 32-33; Miles, Urewera, p 21; S Melbourne, 'Te Purewa', in Dictionary ofNZBiography, yo11, 1769-1869, W H Oliver ed., Wellington, Allen and Unwin and Dept ofInternal Affairs, 1990, p 484 60 Miles, Urewera, pp 36-39; Binney, History of the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 1, pp 31-33; Best, Tuhoe,Yol 1, pp 355-387 61 Ibid, pp 387-391. It should be noted that at the time of writing the author of this current report was not aware of the exact location of the site of Ohui, the site where the peace agreement was made. Best describes Ohui as being located nine miles south ofTe Teko, See Ibid, p 388; Melbourne, 'Te Purewa' p 485; Miles, Urewera, pp 38-39; Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, p 23

32 Bay of Plenty were the result of interactions with Pakeha, first through trade and religion, and then through war and confiscation.62

2.2.1 The fighting in the Rangitaiki area: The expulsion ofWarahoe and Ngati Hamua

Before considering the impact of Pakeha settlement, we must first examine in more detail events that were central to the nineteenth century history of the Rangitaiki area around the Tuararangaia block. These events occurred in the first decade of the nineteenth century during the wars between Ngati Awa and Tuhoe. A series of battles were fought in the area around Te Teko and near the Tuararangaia block in the years around 1805 to 1810. These battles were fought between various hapu of Ngati Awa, while drawing in the larger forces of Ngati Pukeko and Tuhoe. The fighting was important to the history of the Tuararangaia block as it led to the expulsion of the Warahoe and Ngati Hamua hapu from the Rangitaiki area, which was to be a central point of debate in the evidence presented at the 1890-1 hearing. 63

The fighting around Rangitaiki was said to be the result of an incident that had occurred at a large tangi, held at the Puketapu pa, near Te Teko, and attended by people from many different hapu of Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko. Tuarawhati, of Ngati Pukeko made an insulting remark about Koraria, a woman of the Nga Maihi hapu of Ngati Awa. Koraria replied by placing a curse on Tuarawhati and others of Ngati Pukeko. Tuarawhati's response to this was to go to war against the Ngati Ahi and Ngati Tamaoki hapu, ofNgati Awa, who were the people of the Puketapu pa, where the original incident had occurred. The Ngati Pukeko, under Tuarawhati, defeated Ngati Ahi and Ngai Tamaoki. Tuarawhati was aware that these hapu would want to avenge their dead, but he kindly advised them that, for their own sake, they should take their revenge on his relatives at Waiohau, directly south of the Tuararangaia block (see mapl), rather than attacking him directly.64

Ngati Ahi and Ngai Tamaoki took Tuarawhati's advice and proceeded south, up the Rangitaiki River, to Waiohau to attack the Ngati Pukeko living there. At this time Warahoe were based around the Tokitareke pa, about seven kilometres south of Te Teko, while Ngati Hamua were

62 Miles, Urewera, pp 39-40; Melbourne, 'Te Purewa", p 485; Mead & Te Roopu Whakaemi Korero 0 Ngati Awa, 'Whenua Tautohetohe', pp 29, 31 63 Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 172-180 64 Ibid, pp. 172-173; Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 1 December, 1890, fols 237-238; Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, fols 257-258

33 based around Otipa, on the left bank of the Rangitaiki, directly opposite the north-western comer of the Tuararangaia block. This placed both hapu in the path of the Ngati Ahi and Ngai Tamaoki taua. A confused series of incidents occurred, which led Warahoe and Ngati Hamua to mistakenly believe that Ngati Ahi and Ngai Tamaoki had killed their relatives. Warahoe and Ngati Hamua attacked and defeated Ngati Ahi and Ngai Tamaoki, but in the process they killed the relatives of many other Ngati Awa hapu. After a series of battles, Warahoe and Ngati Hamua found themselves fighting against the bulk of the other Ngati Awa hapu, including warriors from

N gati Pukeko. 65

Both Warahoe and Ngati Hamua had links by marriage to hapu of Tuhoe. The two embattled hapu used these connections, and no doubt the ongoing Tuhoe animosity towards N gati Awa, to call Tuhoe in as allies in the fighting. According to Best, a battle known as Waikohua ensued on the banks of the Rangitaiki, the result of which was the defeat of Warahoe and Tuhoe. After a failed attempt at peacemaking by the Ngati Awa chief Te Rangikawehea, Ngati Hamua and Warahoe suffered a defeat at Otauawa pa. 66

Best relates that after these battles, the broader iwi ofNgati Awa had become thoroughly sick of the troublesome Warahoe and Ngati Hamua. The combined hapu of Ngati Awa therefore proceeded to drive Warahoe and Ngati Hamua out of the Rangitaiki area. Best maintained that this event occurred before the Nga Puhi raids on the eastern Bay of Plenty. The two defeated hapu scattered in several directions, with some of the refugees going to Opotiki, others to Taupo and to Maungapohatu, in the south eastern interior of the Urewera country (see map 1). The Warahoe were at first sheltered at Taupo, by Tuwharetoa. Eventually Warahoe offended their hosts and were expelled from the Taupo district. According to Best, one group of Warahoe and Ngati Hamua ended up settling at Te Whaiti around 1875, where they became connected through intermarriage with Ngati Whare. 67

In the 1840s, the Ngati Awa rangatira Te Rangitukehu invited Warahoe and Ngati Hamua to return to the Te Teko district. According to Hire Wetere, Te Rangitukehu was responding to requests from some of the leaders of Warahoe and Ngati Hamua. Te Rangitukehu gifted some areas of land to Warahoe and Ngati Hamua. At the 1890-1891 hearing there was considerable

65 Best, Tuhoe vo11, pp 172-176; Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 1 December 1890, fo1s 238-240; Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, fo1s 257-259, 5 December 1890, fo1276 66 Best, Tuhoe, vo11, pp 176-177

34 debate over exactly which areas ofland were given to Warahoe and Ngati Hamua and over what obligations the two hapu therefore had towards Te Rangitukehu. In particular the witnesses could not agree as to whether or not Te Rangitukehu's gift included the Tuararangaia block. These questions will be examined in more detail in the chapters covering the Native Land Court

Hearing and the findings thereof. 68

2.3 The arrival of the Pakeha in the eastern bay of plenty: Early traders and missionaries

The first permanent trading stations to be established by Pakeha traders in the eastern Bay of Plenty, were not set up until around 1830. The arrival of traders accelerated the economic and social changes that had been sparked offby the introduction of new food plants and animals, and by the desire to trade for muskets. 69 The importation of pigs and potatoes had, by the 1830s, already substantially altered the diet of the eastern Bay of Plenty Maori. For those peoples, such as Ngati Awa, who lived near the coastline, the establishment of trade with Pakeha also led to movement of their communities to new living sites. Hapu set up kainga in areas that were close to the Pakeha trading stations or near to large areas of flax that could be processed for trading. 70

By the 1860s there were still relatively few Pakeha living in the eastern Bay of Plenty. A growing number of Pakeha had moved to the area to trade with Maori, to exploit the area's timber (especially for shipbuilding), and to build water-driven flour mills for Maori hapu. The Maori economy had changed substantially. In the coastal areas large areas had been planted in crops originally obtained from the Pakeha. The coastal tribes had built up considerable fleets of trading schooners, operating between the Bay of Plenty and Auckland. Even the inland Tuhoe had seen their traditional economy transformed by the now widespread production and consumption of pigs and potatoes. The use of steel tools also made bush clearance for agriculture or timber a much easier exercise. In the eastern Bay of Plenty, the economic emphasis from the 1830s through to the 1860s, was on trade, based at the coast, and farming on areas of easily cultivated land. This meant that a rugged area like Tuararangaia, principally used for hunting and the gathering of wild foods, remained a backwater with few, if any, permanent inhabitants. 71

67 Ibid, pp 177-185. See also Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 1 December 1890, fo1s 238, 240 68 Best, Tuhoe, vo11, p 185; Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3,1 December 1890, fo1242; Penetito Hawea, Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, fo1259, 4 December 1890, fo1260 69 Best, Tuhoe, vo11, pp 555-561; Miles, Urewera, pp 60-61; Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, pp 23- 24 70 Miles, Urewera, pp 60-61; Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, p 24.

35 The period from the 1830s through to the 1860s also saw the introduction of Christianity and literacy into the eastern Bay of Plenty. By the late 1840s both CMS (Anglicans of the Church Missionary Society) and Catholic missionaries had established stations on the coast and missionaries from both denominations had ventured into the interior of the Urewera country. It is difficult to judge how much impact the introduction of Christianity had had on the people of the eastern Bay of Plenty by the 1860s. Maori now had access to information on a wide range of Pakeha religious and moral beliefs and customs. In particular Maori showed a strong interest in the adoption of literacy, with many learning to read and write to varying degrees of skill. Biblical accounts added a new fund of stories to the Maori world-view. These stories were used by Maori to develop their own ideas to help deal with the new situations of the nineteenth

century, as witnessed in the emergence of the Pai Marire and Ringatu movements. 72

The introduction of Christianity does not appear to have had much direct influence on events surrounding the Tuararangaia block. Penetito Hawea, ofNgati Awa, mentioned a burial cave at the Moetahanga Stream, in the north western comer of Tuararangaia (see map 2). This cave had been used for burials by Ngati Hamua and Ngai Taipoti, but was abandoned once Christianity was generally adopted. Werahiko Tamaiarohi, of Ngati Pukeko, mentioned that, once Christianity was introduced, Ngati Pukeko moved away from the Tuararangaia lands in order to be closer to Pakeha missionaries and traders.73

By the 1860s, there had been considerable economic and cultural changes in the eastern Bay of Plenty. A small but significant population of Pakeha traders, loggers, shipbuilders, carpenters and missionaries had settled in the area. Despite this fact, Maori were still in economic, political and cultural control of the eastern Bay of Plenty before the invasion by colonial armed forces and their Te Arawa allies in 1866.

2.4 Te Riri Pakeha: War and confiscation

In the early years ofthe 1860s there was no fighting in the eastern Bay of Plenty, although a taua of Tuhoe warriors went to support the King movement and played a significant role in the battle at Orakau in the Waikato, in 1864. The arrival, in 1865, of the Pai Marire missionaries Patara

7llbid.; Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 557-561; Miles, Urewera, p 64 72 Best, Tuhoe, vol 1, pp 561-564; Binney, History o/the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 3, pp. 2-10, 20-27; Miles, Urewera, pp. 65-71

36 Rakautari and Kereopa Te Rau set in train a series of events that culminated in invasion by Government forces, war and the confiscation of land. A party led by Kereopa executed the CMS missionary C S Volkner for spying, as he was known to have passed information on to Governor Grey. Shortly after the execution of Volkner, Pai Marire adherents killed James Te Mautaranui

Fulloon, a Government agent. 74

Despite the fact that these two killings were the actions of individuals not acting on behalf of Ngati Awa, the Government responded by sending colonial troops and their Te Arawa allies to invade of the eastern Bay of Plenty. The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report describes Ngati Awa resistance to this invasion as defence of land and property and resistance to arrest, rather than rebellion. 75

As a consequence of these events the colonial Government, in 1866, confiscated a large area of land in the eastern Bay of Plenty. This was carried out under the provisions of the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The technical details of the confiscation were arranged through a series of hearings of the Compensation Court, between 1867 and 1872. John Alexander Wilson, the Special Commissioner for the Bay of Plenty, conducted these hearings. In his land allocations, Wilson reserved much of the confiscated land for military settlers and for Te Arawa. Ngati Awa lost a large amount of their best agricultural land, severely disrupting the local economy. Tuhoe also lost valuable agricultural land and had their access to Ohiwa harbour disrupted. Ngati Pukeko also lost land, but appear to have been favoured by Wilson as a result of their official status as allies of the Government. They were able to regain some of their land through the Compensation Court.76

There was some mention of events connected with the wars of the 1860s at the 1890-1891 Native Land Court hearing on Tuararangaia. The information that was recorded from this hearing does not, however, give any clear picture of events in the Rangitaiki area during the war period. Hire Wetere, ofNgati Awa, claimed that most hapu in the area had joined the 'Hauhaus' (Pai Marire adherents), but that Te Rangitukehu and his Pahipoto hapu had been Government

73 Penetito Hawea, Whakatane MB 3,5 December 1890, fo1269; Werahiko Tamaiarohi, Whakatane MB 4,9 December 1890, fo1108 74Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, pp 27-28,38-39,41,44-49; Miles, Urewera, pp 98-105; Binney, History ofthe Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 3, pp 1-11, 14-15, 19-21 75Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, pp 53-64

37 allies. 77 Hamiora Tumutara claimed that after Te Rangitukehu had allowed Ngati Hamua and Warahoe to return to the Rangitaiki area, they had then turned against him by joining the fight against the Government forces. Te Rangitukehu forgave this action and allowed the hapu to continue living in the area after the wars.78 Pihopa Tamawhati mentioned that Warahoe had a cultivation at Matera, on the Tuararangaia block, but had abandoned it during the fighting with the Pakeha. 79

The conflict in the mid-1860s had several significant impacts on the later history of the Tuararangaia block. The block itself had its northern geographical border defined by the confiscation line. The land to the north of this line had been confiscated and then processed through the Compensation Court. The hapu of Ngati Awa, Ngati Pukeko and Tuhoe, living around the Rangitaiki area, had all lost land in these confiscations. The magnitude of these losses encouraged all of the hapu in question to compete for control of any land that remained out of Pakeha hands. Rivalries that had developed through centuries of conflict, including the recent struggles in the 1860s, were, from the 1870s through to the early 1890s, fought out again in the forum ofthe Native Land Court.

2.4.1 Te Kooti and Tuhoe resistance

The wars of Te Kooti and Tuhoe against the colonial Government's forces, from 1869 to 1872, have been covered in detail in many other works. It is therefore unnecessary to describe them in detail here. In brief, Te Kooti and Tuhoe joined together in 1869 in an alliance of resistance against the colonial forces. As part of the covenant made between Tuhoe and Te Kooti, a large number of Tuhoe adopted the Ringatu religion. A long period of fighting ensued which led to a series of invasions of the Urewera by Government forces. The colonial forces carried out a brutal scorched earth policy that caused starvation among the Tuhoe people. The final result was that Tuhoe were forced to officially renounce their support for Te Kooti and, at least officially, to join in the hunt for him. Unofficially many Tuhoe remained sympathetic to Te Kooti and the Ringatu religion remained as a powerful influence among them. At the end of the fighting, in 1872, Tuhoe were left weakened, especially as they had lost their northern lands to the 1866

76 Ibid, pp 80-89. A total of 448,000 acres were confiscated, of which 124,060 acres were kept by the government, 87,000 acres were allocated to Te Arawa, 118,300 acres were returned to 'loyal' Maori, and 112,300 acres were allocated to 'rebel' Maori, see ibid p 89; Binney, History of the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 4, pp 20-21 77 Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 2 December 1890, fo1242, 3 December 1890, fol252 78 Hamiora in Whakatane MB 4, 10 December 1890, fol118 79 Tamehana in Whakatane MB 4,11 December 1890, fol127

38 confiscations. Donald McLean, the Native Minister, had however acknowledged Tuhoe authority over their lands in the interior. The leaders of Tuhoe were to use this recognition to try and retain control over these lands. This effort was to prove a very difficult task. 80

2.5 Tuhoe attempts to retain autonomy: Te Whitu Tekau me Te Rohe Potae

By 1872 the chiefs of Tuhoe had made peace with the Government. The chiefs saw this not as a total surrender but as an agreement whereby the Government, represented by Donald McLean, had acknowledged their authority over Tuhoe lands and people. To formalise this arrangement a political union, known as Te Whitu Tekau (the seventy), was established at a meeting at Ruatahuna, in June 1872. The chiefs informed the colonial authorities that they had set up a union of seventy chiefs to manage the affairs of Tuhoe. They also described the boundaries they regarded as encompassing the 'Rohe Potae', or essential territory, of the combined Tuhoe iwi. The area described included the mountainous Urewera country, the land around Lake Waikaremoana, the Waiotahe river and adjacent areas on the Bay of Plenty coast; the eastern Ohiwa Harbour, the confiscated lands around the Whakatane river to as far north as the Ohine Te Raraku Stream, and the lands along the Rangitaiki River including the Tuararangaia area. Te Whitu Tekau made it plain that they objected to surveys, leases, or land sales within these boundaries. They also did not want any operations of the Native Land Court to occur within this territory. 81

Binney argues that Te Whitu Tekau were not an isolationist group. While they wished to retain control of their own lands, they also made real efforts to maintain communication with the colonial Government, operating a mail service between the Rohe Potae and the world outside. Binney sees their mode of operation as being a group of leaders who sought to rule their own area by consensus agreement amongst themselves. They recognised the right of the Government to rule at least some of the areas outside their territory and took pains to inform the Government of their activities. At the same time they generally opposed road building and the leasing of land, while also demanding the return of confiscated lands. 82

80 Miles, Urewera, chp 4; J Binney, Redemption Songs: A Life ofTe Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki, Auckland, 1995, chps 4-10 81 Binney, History of the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 7, pp 1-7; Binney, 'Te Mana Tuatoru: The Rohe Potae of Tuhoe', NZJH, vo131, No 1, April 1997, pp 117-118; Miles, Urewera, pp 194-197. 82 Binney, History of the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 7, pp 8-13, 23; Miles, Urewera, pp 194-197

39 It was extremely difficult for Te Whitu Tekau to maintain a unified opposition to road building, leases and sales of lands. In a leadership system operating by consensus, there was no way of enforcing any ban on leasing land or building roads. After the wars of the 1860s, Tuhoe were left in an economically devastated condition, with very few opportunities to improve their situation. Therefore some hapu and some chiefs saw land leasing and road building as acceptable ways of generating income. The jealously guarded independence of different hapu was also a factor in preventing a completely united front against these activities. 83

Over the period from the early 1870s through to the early l890s, the Crown set out to try and break up the Rohe Potae. This involved a combination of leasing and buying land, while attempting to build roads through Tuhoe territory. Crown agents concentrated on areas at the margins of the Rohe Potae, where the overlapping interests of other iwi could be exploited to force Tuhoe into becoming involved in the processes of the Native Land Court. The first example of this process was in 1875, when Tuhoe were forced to sell their interests in land to the south-east of Lake Waikaremoana, having realised that the Crown had already arranged to buy the area from Ngati Kahungunu. 84

The process of encroachment on the borders of the Rohe Potae continued when the Native Land Court awarded Ngati Manawa the title to the Kuhawaea 1 block, to the south west of the Rohe Potae. The Kuhawaea 1 block was located north of Murupara, near Galatea, in the area between the Rangitaiki River and its tributary the Horomanga River (see map 1). The title was awarded to Ngati Manawa at the expense of the Ngati Haka and Patuheuheu hapu of Tuhoe, who also claimed rights to the area. By 1884, Ngati Manawa had sold the Kuhawaea 1 block to a Pakeha farmer. A group of Tuhoe leaders, including Makarini Te Waru, had petitioned the Native Minister, in 1882, seeking a rehearing of the case. The Crown rejected the petition on the grounds that Makarini Te Waru had been at the original Kuhawaea hearing and could have raised any objections then. Makarini Te Waru was later to be one of the two main witnesses for

Tuhoe at the Tuararangaia hearing. 85

83 Binney, History a/the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 7, pp 9-13, 14-15, 73-77; Miles, Urewera, pp 194-204. 84 Ibid pp 204-217; V O'Malley, 'The Crown and Ngati Ruapani: Confiscation and Land Purchase in the Wairoa­ Waikaremoana Area, 1865-1875', A Report for the Patunamu State Forest (Wai 144) Claim, pp 121-140 85Binney, History a/the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 7, pp 13-17,35-50; N Bright, 'The Alienation History of the Kuhawaea No.1, No. 2A, and No. 2B blocks', Report Commissioned for the Waitangi Tribunal, 1998, pp 70- 73

40 From 1874 through to 1885, Erueti Tamaikoha, a Tuhoe leader from the Waimana area, negotiated the sale or lease of a considerable amount of land in the Waimana valley to a Pakeha farmer. Tamaikoha was a leader who was renowned for acting independently of any authority, even that of Te Whitu Tekau. He was another who was to be an important witness in the 1890-

1891 Tuararangaia Native Land Court title investigation hearing. 86

By the late 1880s the union of Te Whitu Tekau still had substantial control over the interior of the Urewera. They were able to prevent surveying, prospecting or leasing activities in this area. On the other hand the events at Waikaremoana, Kuhawaea, and Waimana, had shown that Te Whitu Tekau were unable to prevent the leasing and even the sale of lands at the borders of the Rohe Potae. The Crown, meanwhile, was involved in a process of deliberately trying to break down the control of Te Whitu Tekau over the interior of the Urewera country. An example of this is provided by the work of J A Wilson who, in the 1870s, was a land purchase officer for the Crown. In 1875, under the specific orders of the Native Minister, Donald McLean, Wilson attempted to purchase land in Ruatoki, to the north of the Rohe Potae, Raungaehe to its north­ west, and Tauaroa to its south-east. 87

The Crown can be seen to have been using the land claims of iwi on the borders of the Rohe Potae to force Tuhoe into becoming involved in the Native Land Court processes. The Tuararangaia block in 1890 fitted this pattern. This land was at the edge of the Rohe Potae and was claimed by Ngati Hamua, by Warahoe, by a variety of other hapu acting under the umbrella of the Ngati Awa iwi, by Ngati Pukeko, and by Tuhoe. To maintain their claims to the area Tuhoe had to take part in the Native Land Court hearing, despite the initial opposition of some Tuhoe to any survey being carried out in the Tuararangaia area. Before examining the hearing itself we will briefly look at the background to the rival land claims in the Rangitaiki area to set the 1890-1891 hearing in its local historical context.

2.6 Crown purchases of eastern Bay of Plenty lands

In the 1870s the Crown initiated an intensive programme of buying up Maori land. This programme was linked to Julius Vogel's schemes where the Government borrowed money to initiate public works and encourage immigration. Maori land was to be acquired for Pakeha

86J Sissons, Te Waimana: The Spring ofMana, Tuhoe and the Colonial Encounter, Dunedin, OUP, 1991, pp 87-95 87 Binney, History of the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 7, pp 59-63

41 immigrants to farm in order to build up the economy. The settlement ofPakeha in areas formerly controlled by Maori, and the pushing of roads and bridges into such areas, also made it easier for the law and the military to keep potentially troublesome Maori groups under control.

As mentioned above, following the Bay of Plenty confiscations and the awards of the Compensation Court, Te Arawa, Ngati Pikiao, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko hapu had all been allocated lands. Such lands went to groups defined as 'rebels', as well as to those designated as 'loyal'. In both cases, however, the land returned was often not the same land the particular group had lived on before the confiscation. This meant that those people placed on land not traditionally theirs did not have the same whakapapa links to it and were thus often more easily persuaded to sell it. The land 'returned' was often not as suitable for agriculture as the land originally confiscated had been. Furthermore, the land was no longer held as communal hapu property, but instead had lists of individual owners on a title. These factors, combined with the poverty of the eastern Bay of Plenty people following the wars and

confiscations, all encouraged people to sell their lands. 88

In 1873, the Government sent the land purchase agents Henry Mitchell and Charles Davis into the Bay of Plenty-Taupo area, with instructions to purchase as much land as possible. Land purchase agents often exploited the differences and disagreements between owners to facilitate a purchase. Arrangements for the sale or lease of land usually led to other owners contesting these processes. As a result more areas were surveyed and brought before the Native Land Court. 89 These operations all involved costs, which usually ended up being paid in land. Under the Native Land Act 1873, the Native Land Court could order the partitioning of the land in question, dividing it into a proportion equivalent to the shares of those who wanted to sell land and a . proportion equivalent to the shares of those who did not. This law helped speed up the process of land alienation. 9o Thus the 1870s and 80s saw the Maori of the eastern Bay of Plenty coming under great pressure from Pakeha to alienate their lands.

88 Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, pp 89-93 89 Ibid, pp 92-97:T Wazl, 'Ngati Awa Land, 1870-1970', report connnissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, September 1996, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc MI8), pp 8-16 For more details on the activities of Mitchell and Davis see K. Rose, The Bait and the Hook: Crown Purchase in Taupo and the Central Bay ofPlenty in the 1870s, report connnissioned by CFRT, 1997 90 D Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua: The Native land Court, 1864-1909, Wellington, Huia Publishers, 1999, pp 167-169

42 2.6.1 Land debates in the Rangitaiki area: Matahina and Waiohau

The Pakeha acquisition of land in the Rangitaiki area near the Tuararangaia block, had already been an issue in 1867, when Wilson was making the arrangements for his recommendations to the Compensation Court. Wilson had carried out a series of negotiations with the Ngati Awa chief, Te Rangitukehu. Te Rangitukehu was the same leader who had invited Warahoe and Ngati Ramua back to the Rangitaiki area. Pakeha officials regarded him as a 'loyal' chief. Wilson arranged with Rangitukehu that his people would give up 10,000 acres of land between the Rangitaiki and Tarawera Rivers. In exchange Rangitukehu was guaranteed two reserves, at Putauaki and Kokohinau, to the north west of the Tuararangaia block, for the Te Pahipoto and Nga Maihi hapu, and another reserve at Omataroa, just north of Tuararangaia, for Te Pahipoto, Nga Maihi, Ngai Tamaoki, and other Ngati Awa hapu. 91

2.6.1.1 The Waiohau block, 1878

The Waiohau block was the area of land directly south of the Tuararangaia block. In 1878, Wi Patene Tarahanga ofthe Patuheuheu and Ngati Raka hapu of Tuhoe, lodged an application for a hearing regarding the block. Among the names on the original application was Te Whaiti Paora, a chief of Ngati Ramua and Patuheuheu, who also had Ngati Manawa connections. It was Te Whaiti Paora who was later to lodge the application for a hearing on the Tuararangaia block. The organisers of the initial survey of Matahina had been Wi Patene and Mehaka Tokopounamu, who was also to be involved in arranging the survey of Tuararangaia. The witnesses called to give evidence for Tuhoe included Mehaka Tokopounamu and Makarini Te Warn, who was to be a witness for Tuhoe in the 1890 to 1891 Tuararangaia hearing. The Native Land Court awarded 14,464 acres jointly to Ngati Raka and Patuheuheu, on the grounds of undisturbed possession. This block was to be known as Waiohau 1.92

The counter-claimants to this claim, led by Te Meihana Koata, all identified themselves as Ngati Pukeko. Among the Ngati Pukeko witnesses were Penetito Hawea and Werahiko Tamaiarohi, who also featured in the Tuararangaia case. The Native Land Court awarded Ngati Pukeko 1100 acres, in what became designated as the Waiohau 2 block. 93

91 Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, p 82 92 Taitoko, 'Waiohau', (draft), pp 12-15; Binney, Urewera Pt 2: 1878-1912, (draft),chp 1, pp 21-22 93 Taitoko, 'Waiohau', (draft), pp 14-15; Binney, Urewera Pt 2: 1878-1912, (draft), chp 1, p 22.

43 Both Patuheuheu and Ngati Pukeko were unhappy with this decision and asked for it to be reviewed. Meanwhile, Harry Burt, a Pakeha interpreter, began to buy up shares in Waiohau 1. Burt's purchases led to a series of petitions to Parliament from non-selling Maori owners, who pointed out a variety of fraudulent practices on Burt's part. By 1890, the Government had appointed the Native Land Court Judge J A Wilson, former special commissioner and land purchase agent, to investigate the proceedings. From his investigations, the Government agreed that Burt had obtained land fraudulently, but refused to take any action to assist the Maori non­ sellers to get their land returned. 94

2.6.1.2 The Matahina Block, 1881 and 1884.

In 1881, the area of land known as the Matahina block, was brought before the Native Land Court. This block included the land on the opposite side of the Rangitaiki River from the Tuararangaia block. The claimants were Nga Maihi, a hapu of Ngati Awa, represented in court by Penetito Hawea. Among the counter-claimants were the Patuheuheu hapu of Tuhoe, the Ngati Rangitihi iwi (part of the Te Arawa confederation), the Ngati Hinewai hapu of Ngati Rangitihi, and Ngati Hamua, the people who had been driven out of the area at the beginning of the nineteenth century (see sections 1.3.3 and 1.3.4). The Patuheuheu case was presented by Mehaka Tokopounamu, who was later to feature in the incidents surrounding the survey of the Tuararangaia block. Ngati Hamua's case was presented by Te Whaiti Paora, who was recognised as a chief of Patuheuheu, as well as of Ngati Hamua. He argued, under cross examination by Penetito Hawea, that his particular branch ofNgati Hamua had not been expelled from the block, only Warahoe and possibly some branches of Ngati Hamua that he was not closely related to. 95

Ngati Awa called Hamiora Tumutara, sometimes known as Hamiora Pio, as a witness. Hamiora was later to appear as a witness at the Tuararangaia hearing. In the Matahina case Hamiora disagreed with Te Whaiti Paora and stated that both Warahoe and Ngati Hamua had been defeated at Otipa and driven off the Matahina block. Te Rangitukehu also appeared as a witness for Ngati Awa. He stated he was the chief over Nga Maihi and over all ofNgati Awa and that he had the mana over the Matahina block. Te Rangitukehu spoke of his involvement in the fighting

94 Taitoko, 'Waiohau', (draft), pp 17-33; Binney, Urewera Pt 2: 1878-1912, (draft), chp 1, pp 22-34 95 Cleaver, 'Matahina', (draft), pp. 4 - 19; Wazl, 'Ngati Awa Lands', pp 19-21; Binney, Urewera Pt 2: 1878-1912, (draft), chp 1, p 22

44 in the early years of the century, as a result of which Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had been driven away. He maintained that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had asked him for permission to return, as he was the leader with mana over the area. He also claimed that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had supported the 'Hauhaus' in the hope that if they were victorious they would get their land back. 96

The Native Land Court's decision was that Ngati Awa and Nga Maihi had proved their case and the title to the land was theirs. Ngati Hamua and the other hapu had failed to prove their cases. According to the court the only members of Ngati Hamua entitled to land on the block were those who had become 'incorporated with Ngati Awa,.97

After lobbying by Patuheuheu the Matahina case was reheard in 1884. At this Court sitting Mehaka Tokopounamu represented Ngati Haka, Ngati Manawa and Ngati Hamua. Makarini Te Warn, who was to appear for Tuhoe in the Tuararangaia hearing, represented Ngati Rakei, a Tuhoe hapu with historical connections to the Matahina block. The witnesses for Ngati Awa included Hamiora Tumutara once again and Hire Wetere, who was also to be an important witness at the Tuararangaia case. 98

The decision of the Native Land Court was to once more award the bulk of the land to Ngati Awa. This decision, however, also involved making small awards to the other claimants. Among the awards were one of 2 000 acres to Patuheuheu and Ngati Haka and an award of 1 500 acres to Ngati Hamua in recognition ofTe Rangitukehu having gifted land to them. 99

The Waiohau and Matahina cases show that, in the 1870s and 1880s, different hapu and iwi were using the forum of the Native Land Court to contend for ownership of the Rangitaiki area. The Rangitaiki area was important to Ngati Hamua and Warahoe as an area they had lived in but been expelled from in the early nineteenth century. For Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko the loss of land through confiscation and sale had made it even more important to have their claims to land recognised. For Tuhoe, who had also lost land to confiscation, the Rangitaiki area had the added importance of being on the border of the Rohe Potae, the area they wanted to preserve form Pakeha land-buyers. The arguments that had emerged in the Matahina and Waiohau hearings

96 Cleaver, 'Matahina', (draft), pp 21-30 97 Ibid, pp 30-31 98 Ibid, P 37 99 Ibid, pp 44-45

45 were to be revisited in the Tuararangaia hearing, with the added dimension that many of the same people were involved in all three cases.

2.7 Conclusion

The nineteenth century, up to the l880s, had been a time of great change and disruption in the eastern Bay of Plenty. The introduction of plants and animals by Pakeha had led to economic changes, as pigs and potatoes, and later wheat, maize, and a variety of fruits and vegetables became staple crops. The desire to acquire muskets had driven this economic change. The raids ofNga Puhi, and the continuous conflict between Ngati Awa and Tuhoe had created movements of population that meant areas such as the Opouriao plains went through periods of being dominated by different iwi, as well as periods of being largely uninhabited. The change in the economy also led to population shifts as people moved to be nearer trading stations and resources such as flax.

A huge disruption to the way of life of the eastern Bay of Plenty occurred with the confiscations that followed the killings of Volkner and Fulloon. The changes to land ownership established after this, with the establishment of individual titles, made land alienation easier. The poverty and dislocation caused by war also encouraged the sale of land. War in the Urewera was followed by a period where the Tuhoe iwi tried to maintain their autonomy, despite the poverty they faced following the colonial force's scorched earth policies. The Crown saw the Rohe Potae as a challenge to its authority and attempted to break the control of Te Whitu Tekau over Tuhoe lands, by attempting to buy of land and to carry out surveys and road building.

In the 1870s the Crown instituted a major land-buying project as part of its plan to both create economic development for immigrants and pacify the remaining areas of potential Maori resistance. The Crown's acquisition of land in the Rangitaiki district can be seen as part of this broader land acquisition proj ect, which helped to undermine the integrity of the Tuhoe Rohe Potae by nibbling away at the land around its edges.

The land around the Tuararangaia block had been subject to a period of major fighting in the early 1800s. Ngati Awa, Ngati Pukeko, and Tuhoe had all been involved in this conflict. However the fighting had mainly been between hapu identifying as Ngati Awa. As a result of this fighting, two hapu, Warahoe and N gati Hamua, had been evicted from the area by the rest of

46 Ngati Awa. At some period around the 1840s, these two hapu were invited back to the Rangitaiki area by the Ngati Awa rangatira Te Rangitukehu. The exact nature and meaning of this invitation to return was to be the subject of much debate at the Tuararangaia hearing.

The areas of land around Tuararangaia, the Matahina and Waiohau blocks, had both become the subject of Native Land Court title investigation hearings in the 1870s and 1880s. It seems likely that both these cases were to some extent driven by the Maori knowledge that, given the Pakeha demand for land and the Maori experience of the operations of the Native Land Court, it was important to stake a claim to any area of land that was contested. In each case the hearing had involved arguments between Ngati Awa or Ngati Pukeko representatives on the one hand, and Tuhoe hapu on the other. In both cases Te Whaiti Paora who was seen as a leader of Ngati Hamua, had supported the Tuhoe case rather than that ofNgati Awa or Ngati Pukeko. It was in this context that the survey of Tuararangaia was conducted.

47 CHAPTER 3 THE TUARARANGAIA BLOCK IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE NATIVE LAND COURT

3.1 The survey

A survey of what was to become the Tuararangaia block was initiated in 1885. This survey was the result of an application on 27 November 1884 by Te Whaiti Paora of Ngati Hamua and others. Te Whaiti Paora was recognised as a chief of Ngati Hamua and of the Tuhoe hapu Patuheuheu. He also had connections with Ngati Manawa and his sister was the wife of Makarini Te Warn, a chief ofPatuheuheu. loo The survey was conducted by Charles Alma Baker. By 2 July 1885 he had completed the plan of the block and forwarded it to the Chief Surveyor of Auckland Province, (see map 2) The plan, number ML 5913, covered an area of 8656 acres, designated as the Tuararangaia block, in the Rangitaiki Lower Survey District. The problems arising from this survey illustrate the conflicting claims to the Tuararangaia block. 101

All had not gone smoothly with Baker's survey. He was later to claim that he had been subject to thirty-nine days of delays due to obstructions. Baker was guided over the Tuararangaia block by Te Whaiti Paora and by Mehaka Tokopounamu ofPatuheuheu. These two men had both been involved in the Matahina and the Waiohau hearings. The survey party also included two young Tuhoe men and another Pakeha. It appears that the other parties who laid claim to Tuararangaia had no prior knowledge of the survey, as they first heard of it when some young men out hunting pigs discovered the survey party and reported it to leaders ofNgati Awa and Warahoe.102

The fact that many leaders did not know of the survey shows that Te Whaiti Paora can not have been representing all Warahoe in his application. While he claimed, in his application to the Native Land Court, to be appearing for Warahoe as well as Ngati Hamua and Tuhoe, Te Whaiti was clearly not keeping Warahoe as a group informed of his activities. A party of Ngati Awa and

IOOJ Binney, Urewera Pt 2: 1878-1912, (draft), chp 1, p 22; Cleaver, 'Matahina', (draft), p 38 101 Whakatane MB 3, fo1229; Plan 5913, LINZ Wellington

48 Warahoe went to interrupt the survey. Among these people were Penetito Hawea of Ngati Awa, Hire Wetere ofNgati Awa, and Rini Manuera and Rawiri Tatu (Tato?) ofWarahoe. Penetito had opposed Te Whaiti Paora's claims at the Matahina and Waiohau hearings. Hire Wetere had appeared as a witness for Ngati Awa at the second Matahina hearing in 1884. Penetito later claimed to have been the leader of the obstructers. This group stopped the survey party north of the Moetahanga Stream and confiscated the survey instruments. Penetito stated that Rawiri broke the theodolite during the obstruction. Te Whaiti and the surveyors were escorted back to Te Teko, where they were detained. A process of negotiation must have ensued, as Penetito eventually agreed to allow the survey to continue. He accompanied the survey party, along with Makarini Pukuniarangi of Ngati Hamua, to mark out the eastern boundary of the block. The obstruction of the survey may thus have been a statement of rights to the land rather than a blanket rejection of either this particular surveyor of surveys in general. 103

Penetito declared that he intended to set the eastern boundary at the line from Kohiroa to Te Hiwera. The party were stopped again, this time by Tuhoe at the Kotorenui stream. 104 According to the Native Land Court record, Penetito declared: 'Tuhoe opposed Whaiti's eastern line and made him take it in further to the block than he was doing,.105 Makarini Te Waru of the Patuheuheu hapu of Tuhoe, stated with regard to the Tuararangaia survey: 'I confined myself to present boundaries because I know the antipathy of Tuhoe to surveys over their lands', while

Tamaikoha ofNgai Tama reportedly said: 'Tuhoe objected to the survey as a survey' .106 Penetito sent his son with the survey party to complete the eastern section. Despite his initial opposition to the survey, Penetito was reported to have declared in the Whakatane Native Land Court: 'The map belongs to Whaiti and me' .107

102 Hire Wetere, in Whakatane MB 3, 2 December 1890, fo1243; Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, fo1255 103 Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 2 December 1890, fo18 243, 248; Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, fo1255, 4 December 1890, fo18 262,264; Taitoko, 'Waiohau', (draft), p 14; Cleaver, 'Matahina', (draft), pp 10, 44 104 Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, fo1255 105 Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 4 December 1890, fo1262 106 Makarini Te Warn in Whakatane MB 4, 12 December 1890, fol131; Tamaikoha in Whakatane MB 4, 13 December 1890, fol138 107 Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 4 December 1890, fo1262

49 3.2 The Whakatane Native Land Court sitting 1890-1891

The claim by Te Whaiti Paora and others for the Tuararangaia block was heard at a sitting of the Native Land Court at Whakatane, held from November 1890 through to January 1891. The Native Lands Act 1865 had set up a situation where any Maori, no matter what their status, could initiate a hearing into an area of land. Once the Native Land Court had investigated an area of land, it was no longer considered held under Maori custom, but was given a title recognised by the Crown, with a list oflegal owners. A series of new Acts concerning Native land had been passed since 1865, yet the fundamental premises of the 1865 Act remained. These were that one person could initiate a hearing that would lead to the extinction of Maori customary ownership and the issuing of a title by the Crown to a list oflegal owners. Only those who turned up to the court hearing had any say in the process and, therefore, a chance to gain legal ownership of the land in question. The major change in legislation that was of concern in the Tuararangaia case was that brought in by the Native Land Act 1873. This Act allowed that there could be no set limit on the number of owners listed on a title. lOS

The presiding judge for the Tuararangaia hearing was Walter Edward Gudgeon, a competent speaker of Maori and an amateur ethnographer whose writings were published extensively in the Journal o/the Polynesian Society from 1891 onwards. The assessor for this case was Reha Aperahama. 109 Te Whaiti Paora claimed to be presenting his case on behalf ofWarahoe, Ngati Hamua and Tuhoe. As mentioned earlier he had whakapapa connections with all these groups. The specific hapu of Tuhoe involved in the case were Ngai Tamatuhirae, who were recorded in the court record as 'Ngai Tamatuira' or Ngai Tama. The bulk of the evidence for Ngati Hamua and Warahoe was presented by Pihopa Tamawhati Tamehana, while that for Tuhoe was presented by Makarini Te Waru and Erueti Tamaikoha.

A number of counter-claimants also presented cases. Pene Te Huka advanced a claim on behalf ofNgati Pukeko. Ngati Pukeko's evidence was presented by Werahiko Tamaiarohi and by Hamiora Tumutara (Hamiora Pio). Penetito Hawea presented a claim that he declared was on behalf of Ngati Awa. 110 Hurunui Te Apanui also made a claim that, according to his statement,

108 Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, PP 141-142, 161-169 109 The interpreter for these sessions of the Native Land Court was F W Carnachan and the clerk was R G Fountain. 110 Whakatane MB 3, 28 November 1890, fols 229-230.

50 was on behalf of Ngati Awa, 'but another division of it from that of the preceding claimant [Penetito] who appears for a very small portion of the tribe which is hostile to us' .111

3.3 Te Whaiti Paora's claims for Warahoe, Ngati Hamua and Tuhoe

Te Whaiti Paora gave what appears to have been a very short presentation on behalf of Warahoe, Ngati Hamua and Tuhoe. Te Whaiti presented his evidence to the Native Land Court on 28 November 1890. He began by presenting the map drawn from Baker's survey. He then described the boundaries of the land he claimed, mentioning a series of place-names to mark out the boundaries concerned. He made his claim through ancestry and occupation. The principal ancestor he mentioned was Te Hoka 0 Te Rangi, who he said was a descendant of those who came on the Mataatua canoe. According to Best, Te Hoka was also a descendant ofpre-Mataatua ancestors Toi and Hapuoneone, (see sections 1.3.1, 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 of this report). Te Whaiti claimed that he and his ancestors had occupied the Tuararangaia block for generations, living at a pa at Otamahanga, in the north western comer of the block, and at Otipa on the eastern bank immediately opposite the north-western comer of the block,112

Tiaki Rawiri, who was conducting one of the Ngati Awa counter claims for Hurunui Apanui, disputed the claim that Te Whaiti and his witnesses were presenting their claim on behalf of Warahoe. Tiaki Rawiri claimed that Warahoe supported his Ngati Awa counter-claim. He was supported in this statement by some of the Warahoe present in the court. This would indicate that some Warahoe affiliated themselves more with Tuhoe and others more with Ngati Awa. 113

The remainder of the evidence supporting Te Whaiti's claim for Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and Tuhoe was given by three other witnesses: Pihopa Tamawhati Tamehana, Makarini Te Waru and Erueti Tamaikoha. This evidence was presented to the court after the witnesses for the counter­ claimants had presented their claims.

Many of those involved in the Tuararangaia hearing had also been involved in the hearings for the Matahina and Waiohau blocks. The case might be seen as part of an ongoing contest over who would control the land at Rangitaiki. This was particularly important given the historical

III Hurunui Apanui in Whakatane MB 3, 28 November 1890, fo1230 112 Te Whaiti Paora in Whakatane MB 3, 28 November 1890, fo1 229; Best, Tuhoe, vo11, pp 81-82 113 Tiaki Rawiri in Whakatane MB 3, 1 December 1890, fo1231

51 rivalry between Ngati Awa and Tuhoe. It was also a critical issue in the early 1890s, as Te Whitu Tekau were still trying to keep surveys, roads and the Native Land Court out of the Rohe Potae. As Matahina, Waiohau and Tuararangaia were on the borders of the Rohe Potae, control of them was important for maintaining the integrity of the interior Urewera lands. Ongoing rivalries between tribes and individuals were continued in this hearing. Tuhoe probably saw the Tuararangaia block as dangerously close to areas such as Ruatoki, a main centre of Tuhoe occupation. Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko, on the other hand, had lost of a great deal of land through sale and confiscation. This would no doubt have enhanced their desire to prevent more land being lost, either to Tuhoe, or to those within Ngati Hamua and Warahoe who preferred to ally themselves with Tuhoe rather than Ngati Awa.

3.4 Pihopa Tamawhati Tamehana's evidence for Ngati Hamua and Warahoe

Pihopa Tamawhati Tamehana appeared as a witness in support of Te Whaiti Paora's claims. In presenting his evidence, Pihopa identified primarily with Ngati Hamua and Tuhoe, but also acknowledged his Warahoe ancestors. He claimed the western part of the block through ancestry and continuous occupation, and through the gifting of the land by Rangitukehu to Warahoe and Ngati Hamua. 114

Pihopa declared that right to the land was inherited from Te Hoka 0 Te Rangi. Te Hoka was a descendent on one side from Toi and Hape, who were from the early pre-Mataatua people, and on the other from Taneatua, a migrant on the Mataatua, (see sections 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 of this report). Pihopa maintained that both Warahoe and Ngati Hamua were hapu of the same tribe and therefore both had a right to the land through ancestry. He said that the two hapu had equal rights to the western part of Tuararangaia. Pihopa saw Ngati Hamua and Warahoe as independent from the wider Ngati Awa iwi, probably because at this particular hearing he was presenting a case that was in opposition to most other Ngati Awa hapu. He therefore denied that Ngati Awa had any claim to the land through their connections with Warahoe. He went on to state that if any Ngati Awa claim had existed in the past, it had been negated, prior to the 1840s, by Rangitukehu's gift of the land at Tuararangaia to Warahoe and Ngati Hamua. 115

114 Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4,11 December 1890, fol119 115 Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4, 11 December 1890, fo18 119, 120, 121, 122, 125

52 Pihopa acknowledged that the eastern side of the block was the property of Tuhoe. He stated that they had also inherited the land from Te Hoka, through their descent from Tama Tuhi Rae, eponymous ancestor of Ngai Tamatuhirae. Pihopa did not accept that Tuhoe had any mana over the western side of the block, which was strictly the territory of Ngati Hamua and Warahoe. Pihopa claimed that his people had been in undisturbed occupation of the western land from the time of Te Hoka, until Warahoe and Ngati Hamua left the area after the fighting with Ngati A wa. 116

Pihopa named a series of sites that he claimed were either kainga or cultivations ofNgati Hamua and Warahoe, along with sites these groups had used for hunting and gathering. He specifically named karaka trees growing on the block, sites where fernroot had been dug, and where birds were snared, rats trapped and eels caught. These descriptions were clearly an attempt to prove that Warahoe and Ngati Hamua had had continuous occupation and resource use on the Tuararangaia block. From his description, Tuararangaia was more important to Ngati Hamua and Warahoe as a source of wild foods than as a place for cultivations. 117 In addition to trying to prove occupancy by naming landmarks and by describing hunting and gathering activities, Pihopa also mentioned a series of burial sites. Most of these were actually situated on blocks of land immediately adjacent to Tuararangaia. The Otamahanga pa, which Pihopa described as a place where the dead had been buried, was one site that was located within the Tuararangaia block, in this case in the north western comer. 118

Pihopa claimed that it was Warahoe alone who sparked off the war with Ngati Awa, by killing some of their people. Ngati Awa drove Warahoe out as a result of this action, but did not conquer or expel Ngati Hamua. Pihopa admitted that Ngati Hamua had left the block after the loss of the Otipa pa, immediately to the west of Tuararangaia. He claimed that Ngati Hamua had chosen to go with Warahoe, due to the close links between the two hapu. Pihopa did admit that Ngati Hamua had been driven out of their pa at Otipa, but said they had not been driven out of the Rangitaiki district. Pihopa held that some Ngati Hamua people stayed on in the area when the Warahoe and most of the Ngati Hamua had left. Those Ngati Hamua who remained in the area had married into other Ngati Awa hapu. After a generation had passed, the Ngati Hamua exiles had been brought back by Rangitukehu. Pihopa held that Ngati Awa had no claim over

116 Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4, 11 December 1890, fols 120, 121 117 Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4,11 December 1890, fol119 118 Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4,12 December 1890, fo1128

53 Tuararangaia, as they had neither conquered Ngati Hamua nor established any settlements on the block. Ngati Hamua had, therefore, retained their mana over the area. 119

Pihopa also argued that N gati Hamua and Warahoe both had rights to Tuararangaia through the gifting of the land by the Ngati Awa chief Te Rangitukehu. This would seem to contradict his earlier statement that Ngati Awa had no rights to the land. According to Pihopa, Ngati Hamua and Warahoe returned to the TuararangaialMatahina area as the result of a request to Te Rangitukehu by Tamihana, who was the father of Pihop a and a chief of Ngati Hamua. Emera of Warahoe was also invited back but for some reason, did not return to the area. Pihopa said that Manuera, Emera's descendent, resettled in the area in the 1860s, at the time of the Waikato war. Pihopa described the return of Ngati Hamua as occurring well before the introduction of Christianity, around the time that 'peace was made'. This presumably referred to the Tatau Pounamu, the peace agreement that Ngati Awa and Tuhoe made around 1834, (see section 2.2). Pihopa believed that Rangitukehu had gifted back the land in order that Warahoe and Ngati Hamua could act as a buffer between Tuhoe and the main body ofNgati Awa. 120

3.5 Tuhoe support for the claim of Te Whaiti Paora

Two witnesses who principally identified as Tuhoe appeared in support of Te Whaiti Paora's claim. The first of these witnesses, Makarini Te Wam, had been a witness for Tuhoe at the first Matahina hearing. He claimed to have told the surveyor, Baker, of a number of sites on the block that had been food-gathering places for Tuhoe. Te Makarini also mentioned a number of abandoned cultivation sites on the block. He claimed that Tuhoe had used the area for food gathering and cultivations, but made no claim that they had built permanent settlements there. He stated that Tuhoe had remained in occupation of the land even when they had moved away to evade attacks by Nga Puhi. It is not clear from the Court record whether Te Makarini was indicating that Tuhoe literally 'occupied' Tuararangaia, in the sense of living on it. He may have meant that they continued to gather food from the block, or he may have been referring to Tuhoe remaining on the Waiohau land immediately south of Tuararangaia. 121

119 Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4, 11 December 1890, fo18 121, 122, 127, 12 December 1890, fo18 128, 129 120 Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4,11 December 1890, fo18 119, 121, 122, 12 December 1890, fo1128 121 Makarini Te Warn in Whakatane MB 4,12 December 1890, fo18 129,130, 132

54 Te Makarini believed that the mana over the Tuararangaia block remained with Tuhoe. Re based this claim on his version of the events surrounding the killing of the ancestor, Ueimua, an event he claimed had taken place at a place called Tapuitaru, on or near the eastern side of the Tuararangaia block. Ueimua and his brothers, Tuhoe Potiki and Tanemoeahi, were the sons of Tamatea Ki Te Ruatahi and Paewhiti. Through their father Tamatea, they were descended from Wairaka and Toroa of the Mataatua waka, as well as the early Bay of Plenty ancestors Toi and Rape. They were also descended from Toi through their mother Paewhiti. Ueimua was killed by Tuhoe Potiki and Tanemoeahi, in a dispute over land and mana. 122 Te Makarini claimed that this dispute had arisen from Ueimua's desire to claim all of the mana of the Bay of Plenty lands for himself. Te Makarini stated that after Ueimua's death, his descendants fled and all of the mana of the lands in the MatahinaiTuararangaia area passed over to Tuhoe Potiki.123

Te Makarini himself claimed land through Te Roka 0 Te Rangi, the descendant of Toi, Rape and Taneatua. Re stated that Te Roka had laid down the boundaries in the vicinity of the block in order to provide areas of land for his children. Te Makarini declared that the Tuhoe descendants of Te Roka had remained in occupation, in the sense of hunting and gathering on the land, since Te Roka's time. Te Makarini placed Te Roka as nine generations before himself, while Pihopa also traced nine generations from himself back to Te Roka. 124

Te Makarini rejected the claim, made by Rire Wetere on behalf of Ngati Awa, that the mana over the land belonged to the ancestor Taiwhakaea and his descendants. Wetere had claimed that Taiwhakaea had killed Marupuku, a descendant of Ueimua who was said to have rights to Tuararangaia. Wetere claimed Marupuku was killed in the vicinity of the Tuararangaia block, and that therefore all the rights Marupuku had over Tuararangaia passed to Taiwhakaea. Te Makarini dismissed this claim on the grounds that the killing of Marupuku, if it had happened at all, occurred at Oturangiahua, a long way from the Tuararangaia block. Te Makarini also denied Wetere's claim that Taipoti was one of the ancestors from whom Ngati Ramua and Warahoe had rights to the block, claiming instead that Taipoti had nothing to do with Tuararangaia. 125

122 Best, Tuhoe, vo11, pp. 242-245; Best, Tuhoe, Vol. 2, Tables 1,7,8. 123 Makarini Te Warn in Whakatane MB 4, 12 December 1890, fol130; See also Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4, 11 December 1890, fo1s 120-121 124 Makarini Te Warn in Whakatane MB 4, 12 December 1890, fol130; Pihopa Tamawhati in Whakatane MB 4, 11 December 1890, fo1s 120-121 125 Makarini Te Warn in Whakatane MB 4,12 December 1890, fol131; Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3,1 December 1890, fo1s 234, 236

55 Te Makarini stated that when Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko had driven Ngati Hamua and Warahoe from Otipa and Tokitareke, to the north-west of Tuararangaia, they had not conquered any of the Tuararangaia block. He also claimed that neither Ngati Pukeko nor the Ngati Awa hapu of Ngati Ahi, Nga Maihi, Ngai Taipoti and Ngati Mauki had ever lived on the block. Te Makarini held that the land Rangitukehu allowed Ngati Hamua and Warahoe to return to was on the western bank of the Rangitaiki and not even at Tuararangaia. He therefore held that Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko had never had any military control or authority over the Tuararangaia block. 126

Te Makarini supported the Ngati Hamua and Warahoe claim to the western part of Tuararangaia, while also asserting Tuhoe's claim over the eastern part of the block. He also maintained that Tuhoe had mana over the whole block, an idea that was not mentioned by either Te Whaiti Paora or Pihopa Tamawhati. Te Makarini had supported Te Whaiti's survey and spent some time with the survey party. He acknowledged, however, that Tuhoe were generally hostile to surveys and had personally helped to ensure that the survey was not taken too far to the east into Tuhoe territory. It may be that some Tuhoe leaders such as Te Makarini and Tamaikoha were prepared to support the survey of areas such as Tuararangaia, as the ownership of such places was disputed with other tribes. By being involved in the Tuararangaia survey, the Tuhoe leaders were able to have some say over which areas the surveyors went into and prevent them taking the eastern border too far into Tuhoe territory. 127

The second Tuhoe witness supporting the Ngati Hamua and Warahoe case was Erueti Tamaikoha of Te Waimana. He confirmed Makarini's statement that Te Hoka had been the ancestor who laid down the boundaries to divide the block among his children. Tamaikoha stated that he had a personal claim on the land as a descendent of Te Hoka. He set out his own connections with the Tuararangaia block through his links to Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and the Ngai Tama (Ngai Tamatuhirae) hapu of Tuhoe. He had not personally been on the block but claimed he had eaten birds caught there and could name places where his ancestors had hunted, gathered food and cultivated. Tamaikoha confirmed Pihopa's evidence regarding the kainga on the western part of the block and agreed that the west was the territory ofNgati Hamua and Warahoe. 128

126 Makarini Te Warn in Whakatane MB 4, 12 December 1890, fols 132, 134 127 Ibid, fols 131,132,134 128 Tamaikoha in Whakatane MB 4,13 December 1890, fols 134, 135, 137

56 Tamaikoha disagreed with Pihopa, but agreed with Te Makarini, over the gifting of land by Rangitukehu. Tamaikoha stated that Rangitukehu could not have gifted any land in the western section of the block as Ngati Awa had never conquered any of the Tuararangaia land on the east side of the Rangitaiki. Tamaikoha admitted that Ngati Awa had conquered the land on the west bank of the Rangitaiki but not on the east. He held that the whole of the Tuararangaia block was under Tuhoe mana, even though Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had the rights to the western section. According to Tamaikoha, when Warahoe and Ngati Hamua abandoned the west of Tuararangaia, the land was protected under his mana. This meant that, even though Warahoe and Ngati Hamua had gone from the area, the land did not then become the territory of Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko, despite their having defeated Warahoe and Ngati Hamua. 129

According to Tamaikoha, Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko had never lived on the Tuararangaia block and had no kainga there, not even temporary ones. He claimed that he had never seen Penetito Hawea, of Ngati Awa, on the block. He also claimed that the Ngati Awa ancestor Taipoti had never been on the block either. Tamaikoha denied that the Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko ancestors U eimua, Irataketake, and Marupuku had any connection with Tuararangaia. 130

3.5.1 Summary of the Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and Tuhoe cases

Te Whaiti Paora, Pihopa Tamawhati Tamehana, Makarini Te Warn and Erneti Tamaikoha all agreed on a series of points. They all agreed that the rights to the Tuararangaia block came through Te Hoka 0 Te Rangi, a descendent of Toi and of the Mataatua immigrants. They all agreed that Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and the Tuhoe hapu Ngai Tama had inherited these rights. They also all agreed that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had the rights to the western side of the block and that Tuhoe had the rights to the east.

It is interesting that Pihopa emphasised his Ngati Hamua ancestry over his connections with Warahoe. He then stated that Ngati Hamua had not been driven off the land whereas Warahoe had. This may have had some connection to the fact that some Warahoe appear to have been throwing in their lot with the broader Ngati Awa claim, rather than supporting the Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and Tuhoe claim. Warahoe seem to have been split according to whether people held

129 Ibid, fo1s 137, 138 130 Ibid, fo1s 136, 137

57 more to their Tuhoe or their Ngati Awa connections. Both Te Whaiti Paora and Pihopa had strong links with Tuhoe.

Pihopa made two seemingly contradictory claims. He stated that Ngati Hamua had maintained their rights to the west side of the block through occupation as they had always had a presence there. In connection with this, he stated that Ngati Awa had never had any rights to the block. At the same time, he held that Te Rangitukehu's invitation to the two hapu to return gave them rights to the block.

The position of both Makarini Te Wam and Tamaikoha was somewhat different. They fully acknowledged the rights of Ngati Hamua and Warahoe to the western part of the block. However they held that the whole block was under the mana of Tuhoe, who acknowledged and protected the right of Ngati Hamua and Warahoe to be there under their mana. At the same time, they completely denied any right of other Ngati Awa hapu, including Ngati Pukeko to be on the Tuararangaia block at all.

3.6 The Ngati Awa cases: Hire Wetere

Two separate cases were put forward for hapu identifying themselves as Ngati Awa. Hurunui Te Apanui made a counter claim on behalf of a number of Ngati Awa hapu. The hapu that he claimed to represent in this claim were: Ngati Nuku, Patuai, Whanau 0 Taiwhakaea, Te Pahipoto, Ngati Ahi and part ofNgati Hokopu. Several other hapu were also mentioned, but it is difficult to work out their identity accurately due to the illegibility of the writing in the Whakatane minute books. As stated above, Tiaki Rawiri, who conducted the case for Hurunui Apanui, claimed that

Warahoe also supported their case, a claim that was disputed by Te Whaiti Paora's witnesses. 131

The principal witness called to support Hurunui Te Apanui's counterclaim was Hire Wetere te Motutere. Wetere stated that Warahoe and Ngati Hamua were the owners of the Tuararangaia block. Despite this, Wetere opposed Te Whaiti's claim and had been involved in stopping the survey in 1884. He claimed that Warahoe had now joined the Ngati Awa counterclaim, but that N gati Hamua had not. Wetere was prepared to support N gati Hamua and Warahoe rights to the land as long as they came under the authority of Ngati Awa. Wetere produced a whakapapa

131 Hurunui Te Apanui in Whakatane MB 3, 28 November 1890, f01 230; Taiki Rawiri in Whakatane MB 3, 1 December 1890 fol 231

58 tracing Hurunui Apanui back to Toroa of the Mataatua canoe, and claimed that this proved Hurunui's people had been in constant occupation of the land. Wetere also told the story of the killing ofUeimua by his brothers, Tuhoe Potiki and Tanemoeahi. Wetere claimed that Ueimua's brothers had fled from the district after the killing, while Ueimua's children remained on the land. This meant that Ueimua had not lost his mana over the land, including over the area of the

Tuararangaia block. 132

Wetere described a later conflict that broke out between Marupuku and Taiwhakaea, both of whom were descendants of Ueimua. According to Wetere the result of this conflict was that Taiwhakaea defeated Marupuku, chased him across the Tuararangaia block and then killed him. Before these events, Marupuku had held the mana over the eastern part of the block. Wetere claimed that Taiwhakaea inherited this mana once he had defeated and killed Marupuku. Wetere's claim was significant as Hamiora Tumatara, a counter-claimant for Ngati Pukeko, claimed that Ngati Pukeko had inherited the mana over the land from Marupuku. Wetere, on the other hand, claimed descent from Taiwhakaea. Wetere maintained that as Taiwhakaea had never been conquered, he continued to retain the mana over the block. He thus dismissed Ngati

Pukeko's claim to the block. 133

Wetere divided the block into two sections for Hurunui Apanui's claim. Hurunui claimed both the eastern and the western sections. Wetere stated that neither Te Whaiti nor his hapu had any claim over the eastern portion of the block, which, according to the court minute book, he referred to as 'Rangaihe'. (The area to the east of Tuararangaia is marked on the map of Elsdon Best's book Tuhoe as Raungaehe.) Wetere also rej ected Tuhoe' s claim to this area. Instead, he held that Ngati Awa had the eastern part of the block through continuous occupation from the time ofUeimua up to the present. He declared that all Ngati Awa were descendants ofUeimua and therefore had rights to this 1and. 134

Wetere claimed that the western part ofthe Tuararangaia block had belonged to four hapu: Ngati Ahi, Ngati Hamua, Ngati Hamua ki Te Whaiti and a hapu recorded in the minute book as 'Arahoi', which may actually have referred to Warahoe. Wetere stated that all of these hapu had

132 Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3,1 December 1890, fols 231, 232, 233 133 Ibid, fols 234-235, 236 134 Ibid, fo1236

59 inherited mana over the land from their common ancestor, Taraihikoia. 135 Ngati Awa had taken the mana of the land from them by conquest. This was a result of the fighting of the early 1800s set in train by the curse of Koraria. According to Wetere, Ngati Awa drove Ngati Hamua and Warahoe away and then occupied the land. Wetere held that Ngati Awa had the rights to Tuararangaia through conquest, as well as through their descent from Taiwhakaia, and through Taraihikoia, who appears to have been an ancestor ofHurunui Apanui.136

Wetere said that Te Rangitukehu had allowed Ngati Hamua and Warahoe to settle on pieces of land in the Tuararangaia area, following requests from Tamihana ofNgati Hamua and Te Here of Warahoe. Rangitukehu had obtained the agreement of Hurunui Apanui to this action before proceeding. Wetere stated that Tuhoe had no mana over the block and were therefore not involved in these events. N gati Hamua and Warahoe were settled back in the area near Tuararangaia because Ngati Awa had the mana over the land. It was Ngati Awa alone who gave

Ngati Hamua and Warahoe permission to live there. 137

Wetere stated that Warahoe had a right to live on Tuararangaia as they had respected the authority ofTe Rangitukehu and of himself. He held that even though Warahoe had been allowed to return, they only kept the right to live on the land by acknowledging the mana of Ngati Awa. Wetere specifically mentioned that while he supported the rights of those Warahoe who acknowledged Ngati Awa in this case, he had opposed Warahoe when they went against Ngati Awa in the hearings at Waiohau. In a similar vein, Wetere denied that those Ngati Hamua under Te Whaiti Paora had any right to the land. Wetere's first argument was that they had abandoned the land during the time of the wars of the 1860s. Te Rangitukehu had stayed loyal to the Government, whereas Ngati Hamua had joined the 'Hauhaus'. Wetere claimed that this gave Ngati Awa the right to, in effect, 'confiscate' the land of these 'rebels'. An even stronger reason for Wetere's opposition to Ngati Hamua was that they had made an independent case in the hearings on the Matahina block. Wetere maintained that this opposition, along with their absence from the Tuararangaia block, negated any ownership rights Ngati Hamua had gained through Rangitukehu's gift. l38

135 Ibid, foI237 136 Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 1 December 1890, fois 237-240, 2 December 1890, foI245 137 Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 2 December 1890, fois 241, 242, 252, 253 138 Ibid, fois 242, 248, 252, 254

60 Wetere's overall presentation of the counter-claim for Hurunui Apanui was that Ngati Awa had the mana over Tuararangaia, through both ancestry and conquest. Wetere argued that Tuhoe had no rights over the area at all. His view was that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had some ancestral rights to the block, but these only applied when the smaller hapu recognised that the mana over the land was held by the wider iwi ofNgati Awa.

3.7 Penetito Hawea presents an alternative Ngati Awa claim

Penetito Hawea presented another counter-claim on behalf of Ngati Awa, claiming to represent the Ngati Awa hapu of Nga Maihi, Ngai Taipoti and Ngai Tamaoki. Hurunui Te Apanui and Tiaki Rawiri maintained that the people Penetito represented were only a very small section of Ngati Awa. Penetito stated that he had led the group that had obstructed Baker's survey, confiscated his instruments and then escorted the survey party back to Te Teko. Penetito claimed that he had ordered them to stop, using his position of authority as the owner of the land. He had then agreed to allow the survey and had guided it himself over the eastern portion of the block. This enabled him to have some influence over the survey, although this would have been somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that Te Whaiti Paora also accompanied the survey party to the east of the block. As mentioned above, the survey party was stopped at the Kotorenui stream by a group of Tuhoe, who had refused to allow surveying any further eastward of the stream.

Penetito was later to send his son to help complete the survey. 139

Penetito restricted his claim to the western side of the block, saying the eastern side belonged to Ngati Pukeko. Penetito laid claim to the land west of a line from Te Hiwera in the south to a point named as Tokitoki on the northern boundary of the block. 140 Penetito based this claim on ancestry, conquest and continuous occupation. He claimed the land through his ancestor Taipoti, who in tum inherited the land through his ancestors Toroa, Wairaka, Ueimua and Irataketake. Penetito also claimed it through another ancestor: Maru Te Reinga. Penetito presented a whakapapa to the court, which showed that Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and Ngati Ahi, all traced descent back to Taipoti. Penetito also claimed constant occupation of the land by his ancestors saying that they had lived at Raerua, and that Taipoti and Hamua had some of their dead in a burial cave near the Moetahanga Stream, (see map 2). He stated that he, by which Penetito

139 Penetito Hawea in Whakatane ME 3, 1 December 1890, fo1231, 3 December 1890, fo1255; Hurunui Apanui in Whakatane ME 3, 28 November 1890, fo1230; Taiki Rawiri in Whakatane MB 3, 1 December 1890, fo1231 140 Court judgement, Whakatane ME 4, 20 January 1891, fo1147

61 probably meant his ancestors, had been the only one to build a pa on the block, a pa called Tukuhaha. (The site of this pa is not indicated in the Native Land Court minute books or on survey plan 5913, the plan from the 1885 survey of the Tuararangaia block.) Penetito declared that his ancestors had never been driven offthe block. 141

Penetito denied that Warahoe had any connection with the block at all, stating that they had only held land on the other side of the Rangitaiki. He admitted that Ngati Hamua had held some land on the north west of the block, but it is not clear whether he believed this land was within the boundaries of the Tuararangaia block. 142

Penetito went into some detail describing the fighting which resulted from the curse of his ancestor Koraria. As a result of this fighting, Warahoe and Ngati Hamua were driven from the area and their land divided amongst others. Penetito held that Ngai Taipoti had been on the Tuararangaia block since ancient times. He stated that Ngai Taipoti and a few Ngati Hamua were the only ones who had been on Tuararangaia during the fighting, which they had managed to avoid. Penetito mentioned that Rangitukehu had invited Warahoe and Ngati Hamua back into the area, but claimed that the land Rangitukehu had gifted was on the west bank of the river, not at Tuararangaia. The land that was given in the Tuararangaia area was to people with connections to Taipoti, as claims over Tuararangaia came through Ngai Taipoti, not through any other Ngati Awa hapu. 143

Penetito claimed he had never seen any kainga of Hire Wetere, Tiaki Rawiri or Hurunui Apanui on the Tuararangaia block, nor had he seen any Tuhoe kainga. He therefore denied that any of them had ever lived on the land. 144 Penetito believed that Ngati Hamua had some rights to the land in the north west comer of the block by the Rangitaiki, because they were very closely related to Ngai Taipoti. On the other hand, he believed that the gift of Rangitukehu did not apply on the eastern bank of the Rangitaiki, only to the lands on the west bank, such as Matahina. Those Ngati Hamua who were on the Tuararangaia block were only there because they had come to live with the three hapu who were the rightful land owners, that is Ngai Taipoti, Nga Maihi

141 Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, fols 255, 256, 257 142 Ibid, fol 257 143 Penetito Hawea, in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, fols 257-259, 4 December 1890, fo1260 144 Penetito Hawea, in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, fols 260, 261,5 December 1890, fo1275

62 and a hapu described m the Whakatane court minute book as 'Ngai Te Mauki'. (Ngai Tamaoki).145

3.7.1 Summary ofPenetito Hawea's case

Penetito's main argument was that the ancestor Taipoti had been the principal owner of the land and that the land passed from him down to his descendants, Ngai Taipoti, Nga Maihi and Ngai Tamaoki. He denied that Warahoe or Tuhoe had any rights to the land at all. Ngati Hamua only had rights to the land through their relationship with Ngai Taipoti. The issue of the expulsion of the Warahoe and Ngati Hamua was therefore irrelevant to the question of who had rights to Tuararangaia. The issue of Te Rangitukehu's gift was also irrelevant, as he did not have the authority to place people on the Tuararangaia block anyway.

3.8 The Ngati Pukeko case

Pene Te Huki made a counter-claim, on behalf of Ngati Pukeko, for the entire Tuararangaia block. He argued that Ngati Pukeko had rights to Tuararangaia through ancestry, constant occupation and conquest. The ancestor through whom the Ngati Pukeko claimed rights to Tuararangaia was Marupuku, a descendant ofIrataketake and Ueimua. 146

Werahiko was the first witness called for Ngati Pukeko. Werahiko talked of his ancestor Irataketake, the son of Ueimua and Tapa. Werahiko agreed that Ueimua had been killed by Tanemoeahi and Tuhoe Potiki, but did not believe that this had occurred on the Tuararangaia block. Werahiko went on to claim that Irataketake had avenged his father's death by defeating his uncles and driving them out of the area. He believed that Irataketake had obtained mana over the Tuararangaia block, not from Ueimua, but from the fact that he had occupied the block and had the power to keep it as his own possession. Werahiko claimed that Irataketake had obtained the mana over the land from his mother, Tapa, who was a descendent of Toi, and had further shown his mana over the land by building two pa on the block. 147

145 Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 4 December 1890, f01s 261, 262, 265, 267,268, 5 December 1890, f01s 274, 275,276 146 Pene Te Huki in Whakatane MB 3, 28 November 1890, f01229 147 Werahiko Tamaiarohi in Whakatane MB 3, 6 December 1890, f01s 277, 278, 282,8 December 1890, f01285, Whakatane MB 4, 9 December 1890, f01 107

63 Werahiko told of how Marupuku, the great-grandson of Irataketake, drove away his rival, Irawharo, and occupied the land, including the Tuararangaia block. Murupuku had gone away at various times to help Ngati Awa fight against Tuhoe, but had eventually returned to Tuararangaia. Werahiko claimed Ngati Pukeko had been there ever since, and were the only people who had lived permanently on the block. He named a number of kainga and wahi tapu, which he claimed had been used by Ngati Pukeko. Among the sites he mentioned were fishing areas, sites for tattooing and canoe building sites. He also mentioned trees for bird snaring which he said had been used since the days ofMarupuku.148

Werahiko denied that Te Hoka, the ancestor set up by Ngati Hamua, had any mana over the block. Werahiko maintained that Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and Taipoti had all lived on the western side of the Rangitaiki and had not been on the Tuararangaia block at all. Werahiko also denied that Tuhoe had any rights to any of the land on the Tuararangaia block. When Warahoe and Ngati Hamua had returned from exile, Te Rangitukehu had settled them on land on the western bank of the Rangitaiki. If any had lived in the vicinity of Tuararangaia after their return, they had lived there without the right to do so. Werahiko admitted that there were now no settlements on the block that were occupied by Ngati Pukeko, but neither were there any of Ngati Awa, Ngati Hamua, nor Tuhoe. Werahiko accused Te Whaiti of making the survey in order to take the land from the Ngati Pukeko. 149

Werahiko mentioned a series of victories in battle that he believed gave Ngati Pukeko the rights over Tuararangaia by conquest. The first of these was the defeat of Irawharo when he came from Ohiwa to try and take the Tuararangaia block. Then there was the Ngati Pukeko defeat of Tuhoe at a battle called Otukaimarama, fought to the north of the Tuararangaia block on the banks of the Rangitaiki River. Finally, he claimed that it was Ngati Pukeko who had defeated Nga Puhi when they came into the Rangitaiki area. ISO

Werahiko stated that he had lived on this block, hunting pigs and catching eels. He claimed that he had come to live on the land when he was a young man. This was at some time before the Taranaki war but after the peace was made between Tuhoe and Ngati Awa, between about 1835

148 Werahiko Tamaiarohi in Whakatane MB 3,6 December 1890, fo1s 278, 279, 280, 281,8 December 1890, fo1 286. 149 Werahiko Tamaiarohi in Whakatane MB 3, 6 December 1890, fo1s 281, 283, 8 December 1890, fo1284; Werahiko Tamaiarohi in Whakatane MB 4, 9 December 1890, fo1106 150 Werahiko Tamaiarohi in Whakatane MB 4, 9 December 1890, fo1s 106, 109, 111

64 and 1860. Werahiko named a series of landmarks to add substance to his claims to the land. He admitted that he no longer lived on the block, but was adamant that Ngati Pukeko still had exclusive rights to it. He claimed that he and other Ngati Pukeko had left the block in order to be closer to the Pak6ha for trading. He stated that they still maintained their rights to the land through occupancy, conquest and descent from Marupuku. 151

The second witness called for Ngati Pukeko was Hamiora Tumatara, sometimes known as Hamiora Pio. He had been a witness for Ngati Awa in the first Matahina hearing. Hamiora identified himself as being from Ngati Awa, 'Ngai Te Mauki' (Ngai Tamaoki?) and Nga Maihi. He was a descendent of Pukeko and appeared as a witness for Ngati Pukeko in this case. Hamiora did not base his argument around occupation so much as around Ngati Pukeko's descent from Marupuku, who, according to Hamiora, had held the mana over the land. Hamiora claimed that Tanemoeahi and Tuhoe Potiki had been driven away from the TuararangaiaIRangitaiki area after the murder ofUeimua. Later, Irawharo and his people came to the Tuararangaia block but were conquered by Marupuku. Hamiora was able to trace his own descent from Irawharo. He declared that the evidence given by Werahiko agreed with the version ofthe past that his own old people had told him. 152

Hamiora claimed to know the block as he had hunted pigs on it. He also claimed that he had lived in the general vicinity of the Tuararangaia block for several years during his early teens. His foster father, Moari, and other Ngati Pukeko people had fished for eels in the Rangitaiki River. Hamiora had been told by Moari that Ngati Pukeko had kainga on the block but had never seen them himself. 153

Hamiora said that he had never heard ofNgati Hamua and Warahoe living at Raerua, toward the north west of the Tuararangaia block (see map 2). He stated that in fact Ngati Hamua, Warahoe, and Ngai Taipoti had never lived on the Tuararangaia block at all. Instead Ngati Hamua had been based at Otipa (just outside the north west comer of the Tuararangaia block), while Warahoe and Ngai Taipoti were at Tokitareke (to the north of the Tuararangaia block on the right bank of the Rangitaiki River). Ngati Awa and Tuhoe were also not on the Tuararangaia block. He claimed that when Rangitukehu had brought the two hapu back into the area they had been away for two

151 Ibid, fols 110, 111 152 Hamiora in Whakatane MB 4, 10 December 1890, fols 111,112,113, 117,118 153 Ibid, fols 112, 113

65 generations. Ngai Taipoti had also been driven away at around the same time as Ngati Hamua and Warahoe. Hamiora held that when Warahoe and Ngati Hamua were brought back they settled in areas outside the Tuararangaia block I54

3.8.1 Summary of the Ngati Pukeko case

The Ngati Pukeko case as presented by Werahiko and Hamiora Tumatara was different from all the other evidence presented to the court. They claimed that none of the other hapu or iwi had been on the Tuararangaia block at all. Thus Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and Tuhoe had no rights to the block at all. Werahiko and Hamiora both claimed that Ngati Pukeko had rights to the land through their ancestor Marupuku. They also claimed that Ngati Pukeko had been using the resources of the block for generations, which gave them occupancy rights. Werahiko also claimed that Ngati Pukeko's victories in war gave them rights to the land through conquest.

3.9 Conclusion

The claimants and counter-claimants for the ownership of Tuararangaia had all presented a set of arguments based around the concepts of ancestry, occupation and conquest. These arguments reflected the criteria that the Native Land Court considered to be valid for showing a claim to land. These were discovery and first occupancy; continuous occupancy or ahi ka, conquest or take raupatu; ancestry or take tupuna and gift or take tuku. The claimants and counter-claimants in the Tuararangaia case were well aware that these were the concepts the court took notice of, and therefore employed arguments that fitted with them. 155

Te Whaiti Paora and Pihopa Tamawhati Tamehana had used the argument of ancestry in maintaining that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had inherited the land from the ancestor Te Hoka 0 Te Rangi. They acknowledged that Tuhoe had rights to the eastern side of the block through descent from the same ancestor. They used the argument of occupancy in claiming that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had been on the land continuously. Pihopa mentioned that the two hapu had left the area after the fighting with Ngati Awa, but maintained that only Warahoe had been defeated by Ngati Awa. Ngati Hamua had remained unconquered and some of them had remained behind on the land. Pihopa also claimed that N gati Hamua and Warahoe had been

154 Ibid., fols 112, 113, 114, 118

66 gifted the Tuararangaia block by Te Rangitukehu, when he brought them back from exile. This would appear to contradict the other statements he made, where he claimed that Ngati Awa had no rights to the land as they had not occupied it and had not conquered Ngati Hamua.

The two Tuhoe witnesses, Makarini Te Waru and Tamaikoha, supported the Ngati Hamua and Warahoe claim to the western part of Tuararangaia, but maintained that Tuhoe had the mana over the whole block. Therefore Ngati Hamua and Warahoe were on the land with Tuhoe's permission. Both witnesses used the argument of ancestry, claiming the block through their descent from Te Hoka 0 Te Rangi. Makarini also claimed the block through descent from Tuhoe Potiki, who had killed his brother Ueimua and thereby gained mana over a wide area of Bay of Plenty lands. The killing of Ueimua might be seen as a version of take raupatu or right by conquest as well.

Makarini and Tamaikoha both used the argument of occupation. They claimed that Tuhoe had used the Tuararangaia area continuously for hunting and gathering and had set up cultivations on it, despite having no permanent settlements there. A negative version of the right to land through occupancy was given in the sense that both witnesses denied that Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko had lived on the land. Tamaikoha also denied that Ngati Awa ancestors had any connection with Tuararangaia.

Hire Wetere, a witness for Ngati Awa, presented arguments under the categories of ancestry and conquest. He acknowledged that Warahoe and Ngati Hamua had some ancestral rights to Tuararangaia, but denied that Tuhoe had any such rights. Wetere argued that the Ngati Awa victory in the fighting around Rangitaiki gave them the rights of conquest over Tuararangaia. Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had only been allowed to return under sufferance. Wetere claimed that Warahoe still had some rights to the area as they still acknowledged the authority of Ngati Awa. Ngati Hamua, on the other hand, had forfeited their rights by going against Ngati Awa in cases such as the Matahina hearing and in this current Tuararangaia case.

Penetito Hawea presented his case specifically for the Ngai Taipoti, Nga Maihi, and Ngai Tamaoki hapu of Ngati Awa. Penetito only claimed the western side of the block, but regarded the eastern side as being the property of Ngati Pukeko. He claimed the western part of

155 Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, PP 187-189; A Ward, National Overview, vol. 2, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 1997, P 226

67 Tuararangaia through ancestry, saying that all rights to the block came from the ancestor Taipoti. He also claimed a right through continuous occupancy. Penetito accepted that Ngati Hamua had some rights to the block through their descent from Taipoti, but denied that Warahoe had any connections with the block.

Ngati Pukeko made a case for rights to the whole block. Werahiko, their first witness, made the case on the grounds of ancestry and conquest. He claimed that the Ngati Pukeko ancestor Irataketake, son of Ueimua, had obtained mana over Tuararangaia and many other areas by defeating his uncles, Tanemoeahi and Tuhoe Potiki, and by imposing his control over the land. Ngati Pukeko had further gained the block by right of conquest through defeating Tuhoe at Otukaimarama, a battle fought near Te Teko in the early 1830s. Werahiko also claimed that Ngati Pukeko had Tuararangaia by right of occupancy as they were the only people who had lived there continuously.

Hamiora Tumatara, Ngati Pukeko's second witness, claimed that Ngati Pukeko had the right to Tuararangaia through ancestry, due to their descent from Marupuku. He claimed rights of occupancy, through Ngati Pukeko's use of the block for hunting and gathering. He denied that Ngati Hamua, Warahoe, Tuhoe or any Ngati Awa hapu, other than Ngati Pukeko had lived on the Tuararangaia block.

The debates that occurred at the Tuararangaia hearing can be seen as part of a larger set of contests to gain control of blocks of land around the Rangitaiki River. Up until the early nineteenth century, the various hapu of Ngati Awa, Ngati Pukeko and Tuhoe had fought each other in war to gain control of these lands. In the late nineteenth century the Native Land Court was serving a similar purpose. Many of the same people including Penetito Hawea, Makarini Te Warn, Hire Wetere, and Ern Tamaikoha had been involved in the court cases for the Matahina and Waiohau blocks. For Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko the loss of land and the economic and social deprivation caused by war and confiscation meant that land, if they could get hold of it, was a precious resource. Tuhoe had also suffered the effects of war and confiscation but had retained much more land at this point in their history. They were, however, faced with a concentrated campaign by the Government to acquire their lands and break up the autonomous area they had control over. Therefore the retention of land was of great political, as well as cultural, importance to Tuhoe.

68 The other factor that stands out in the Native Land Court title investigation of the Tuararangaia block is the evidence of an inter-hapu struggle occurring among Ngati Awa. Ngati Pukeko were asserting their independence from the rest of Ngati Awa, making their own bid for control of Tuararangaia and giving no support to the broader Ngati Awa case. They had apparently done rather better than Ngati Awa in the Compensation Court awards in the 1860s and 1870s. This may have led them to believe they were better off taking a case on their own rather than under the umbrella ofNgati Awa.

The hapu of Ngati Hamua and Warahoe were principally identified with Ngati Awa but had strong connections and historical alliances with Tuhoe. Te Whaiti Paora in the Tuararangaia case, and earlier in the Matahina case, appears to have been using the land claim process as a way of asserting Ngati Hamua independence from Ngati Awa, while emphasising Ngati Hamua's links with Tuhoe. He appears to have had some support from Warahoe, but other members ofWarahoe seem to have stuck with emphasising their links with Ngati Awa. We will now proceed to examine the decisions made by the Native Land Court and the impact these decisions had on the alienation history of Tuararangaia.

69 CHAPTER 4 THE NATIVE LAND COURT DECISIONS ON THE TUARARANGAIA BLOCK

4.1 Gudgeon's decisions on the Tuararangaia title

On Tuesday 20 January 1891 Judge W E Gudgeon gave his judgement on the title to the Tuararangaia block. Gudgeon announced his findings on each claim in what he described as, 'the inverse order of their importance' .156 The first claim Gudgeon dealt with was that of Penetito Hawea, who had claimed for the Ngai Taipoti hapu of Ngati Awa. Gudgeon noted that while all the other witnesses disagreed on many points, the one thing they all denied was Penetito's claim that Ngai Taipoti had an exclusive right over the western side of the Tuararangaia block. Gudgeon described Penetito's evidence as 'conflicting and unreliable'. He declared that there was nothing to show Ngai Taipoti had any claim to the Tuararangaia block, other than any rights they might have held under a general Ngati Awa claim. He therefore dismissed Penetito Hawea's case. 157

4.1.1 Gudgeon's decisions on Ngati Awa's claim

Gudgeon then summarised the case for Ngati Awa as presented by Hire Wetere. According to Gudgeon, Wetere had admitted that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had held rights to the Tuararangaia block, but Wetere stated that they had lost these rights once they were driven out of the area by Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko. According to Gudgeon's summary of Wetere's evidence, Ngati Awa had settled on parts of the block after expelling Ngati Hamua and Warahoe. They had also allowed Ngati Pukeko to settle on parts ofthe block, but under the mana ofNgati Awa. Gudgeon noted contradictory statements from other claimants. Ngati Hamua admitted being defeated on the western bank of the Rangitaiki, but stated that they had never been conquered on the Tuararangaia block. The Ngati Pukeko witnesses denied that Ngati Awa had occupied the block at any time. Gudgeon noted that Wetere admitted Te Rangitukehu and Apanui had brought Ngati Hamua and Warahoe back to the Tuararangaia area. These two hapu had reoccupied the land, after Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko had left the area. Wetere argued that the

156 Claim Judgement, Whakatane MB 4, 20 January 1891, fo1147 157 Ibid, fo1148

70 land had not been returned to Ngati Hamua and Warahoe, but was still under the mana of Ngati Awa. 158

Gudgeon considered that the important issue for the Hire Wetere's version of the Ngati Awa case, was whether authority over the Tuararangaia block had been returned to the Ngati Hamua and Warahoe. Gudgeon interpreted Wetere's argument as saying that Ngati Hamua had lost their rights to Tuararangaia. This loss of rights was the result of leaving the block to join Tuhoe to fight against the Government, and of making claims, independent from those of Ngati Awa, to the Matahina and Tuararangaia blocks. Wetere considered that these actions by Ngati Hamua were enough to give Ngati Awa the right to resume control over the Tuararangaia block. Gudgeon was unconvinced by Wetere's argument. He stated that Wetere's evidence showed that Ngati Awa had given the rights to the land to Ngati Hamua and Warahoe on their return. Gudgeon did not consider that the ownership rights of Ngati Hamua and Warahoe had been negated by their second departure from the Tuararangaia area. Gudgeon therefore dismissed Wetere's claim that the rights to the land had reverted to Ngati Awa. 159

4.1.2 Gudgeon's decision on the Ngati Pukeko claims

Gudgeon then assessed Ngati Pukeko's claims to Tuararangaia. Their claim was through descent from Marupuku, through conquest over the Irawharo people, and through the capture of the Otamahanga and Otamarakau pa, on the Tuararangaia block. Gudgeon pointed out that Penetito had asserted that these pa were built by Taipoti, while Ngati Hamua claimed that the pa were built by their ancestor Te Hoka 0 Te Rangi and his descendants. Ngati Pukeko also claimed that they had defeated an invading party of Nga Puhi, while they were living on the Tuararangaia block. But, as Gudgeon pointed out, Ngati Hamua claimed that Ngati Pukeko had fled to the Tuararangaia block to escape from Nga Puhi, and had then turned and fought Nga Puhi on that land. Gudgeon stated that the only evidence that Ngati Pukeko had lived on Tuararangaia was Werahiko's claim that they had been there since the time of Marupuku. All that Werahiko had been able to show was that he and a few other Ngati Pukeko had lived there for a few years. Gudgeon's opinion was that Ngati Pukeko had not lived permanently on the Tuararangaia block, but that they had exercised some rights to the resources on the block. 160 Gudgeon wrote in his

158 Ibid, fols 148-149 159 Ibid fo1149 160 Ibid: fols 149-150

71 judgment that: 'the evidence as to occupation is most unsatisfactory throughout this case, but particularly so in the case of Ngati Pukeko, who would appear to have had no fixed home for many generations' .161

4.1.3 Gudgeon's decisions on the Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and Tuhoe claims

Gudgeon proceeded to sum up the evidence presented by the witnesses for N gati Harnua, Warahoe and the Ngai Tama (Ngai Tamatuhirae) hapu of Tuhoe. Gudgeon thought that Pihopa had admitted the conquest by Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko. On the other hand, he noted that Te Makarini and Tamaikoha had denied that Ngati Harnua were conquered by Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko, but the two witnesses had admitted that Warahoe had been driven away. Tamaikoha in particular pointed out that Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko took possession of the lands of Ngati Hamua and Warahoe on the west bank of the Rangitaiki, but not of any lands to the east of the river. Gudgeon also pointed out that all of the witnesses for Ngati Hamua denied that Werahiko or any other Ngati Pukeko had lived on the block. 162

Gudgeon concluded in his final judgment that all of the evidence that had been presented to the court was 'unsatisfactory' .163 He saw it as evident that the Tuararangaia block had been largely unoccupied in the fifty years before 1890. Gudgeon considered that at no time over that period were there more than one or two people residing permanently on Tuararangaia. He judged that the bulk of the evidence indicated that Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and Ngai Tama (of Tuhoe) were the 'rightful owners', but he also declared that, 'the Court is unable to say that the N'Pukeko have no claim' .164

Gudgeon wrote up his judgement on the ownership of the Tuararangaia block as follows:

The Court therefore awards to N'Pukeko 1000 acres on the Waiohau boundary of Tuararangaia, and the remainder of the block to such of the Hamua, Warahoe, and Ngai Tama tribes as shall be found entitled to these lands. The lands of the Ngai Tama to be cut off from those of Hamua and Warahoe if it is possible to do so without a survey. 165

161 Ibid foll50 162 Ibid' foll5l 163 Ibid: foll5l 164 Ibid foll52 165 Ibid: foll52

72 The decisions Gudgeon made on the titles for the Tuararangaia block were made under the Native Land Court Act 1886. Section 18 of this Act specified that no investigation into an area of land could occur unless a map had been drawn up. Thus, Te Whaiti Paora was able to initiate proceedings by bringing forward the map that had been produced from Baker's 1885 survey. As will be seen in the next chapter, this survey was to prove expensive for all the landowners concerned. 166

Section 40 of the Native Land Court Act 1886 followed the same principles as the Native Land Act of 1873, in naming on a certificate all those deemed to be owners and setting out their respective shares in the land. Those named as successors were also deemed to be owners when the shares in the land were passed on to them. Section 47 of the 1873 Act had brought in the device of schedules naming multiple owners and their proportions of shares. This had in its tum been a change from the Native Land Act 1865, which had only allowed any block ofland to have ten owners. While the system in the 1873 and 1886 Acts appeared on the surface to be more democratic, the sections in these Acts concerning partition made it easier to alienate land. Under section 23 of the 1886 Act any 'Native owner ofland' or any person who had bought undivided shares in the land could apply to have that land partitioned. Therefore, it was possible for either a purchaser or a group who wanted to sell land to apply to have the proportion of land representing the proportion of shares they owned, partitioned off and alienated. 167

The system of ownership set up under these laws bore no resemblance to customary ownership of land. Prior to land going through the Native Land Court, it was held communally with a wide variety of complex use rights. Traditional leaders held some right of veto having the potential to prevent individuals selling off land that was seen providing physically and spiritually for wide groups of people. Under the system of titles administered by the Native Land Court, all owners simply had a proportion of shares in an area of land. Every one of these people could become prey to land buyers. Any group of sellers could initiate a partition that would lead to some of the land being alienated. As nobody had any legal right of veto on behalf of the hapu, no owner was legally in a position where they could act as a guardian for the interests of the wider group. 168

166 Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, p 311 167 Ibid, pp 290, 343; Ward, National Overview, pp 243-247 168 Williams, TeKooti Tango Whenua,pp 167-169, 175-177

73 Graphical Representation Only WT: N.Harris may 20011V,1361311V1

North 11

18 Approximate present day lake \~ :.., Approximate 28 i old river \\ course TUHOE 1A 18

NGATI PUKEKO 2A 28

WARAHOE &NGATI HAMUA 3A 381 382

o 1 5 KM ~'l~!~!~:~!~!~11~il~I=T==~==~======~~====~======~iI 3 MILES APPROXIMATE OLD RIVER COURSE COMPARED TO LAKE MATAHINA (Hydro lake filled in 1967)

Map 3 : LAND DIVISIONS AFTER THE 1891 NATIVE LAND COURT DECISIONS

74 Gudgeon regarded the evidence that he had heard at the Tuararangaia hearing as being contradictory and unreliable. Despite this, he accepted, to an extent, the case presented by Ngati Hamua, Warahoe, and Ngai Tama (Tuhoe) awarding the largest section of the block to these three groups. He was less satisfied with the evidence presented by Ngati Pukeko but still awarded them 1 000 acres. Gudgeon rejected completely the two cases presented by Penetito Hawea and by Hire Wetere for their respective sections of Ngati Awa. Following Gudgeon's decision, any Ngati Awa rights to the Tuararangaia block had to be asserted through connections with Ngati Hamua, Warahoe, or Ngati Pukeko. There was no recognition by the Native Land Court of a wider Ngati Awa right to the block.

On 24 January 1891, Paora Haupa, who had conducted the case for Ngati Hamua, proposed at the Native Land Court at Whakatane, that a partition line should be drawn through Tuararangaia. This line would divide the territory in the east of the block, awarded to Tuhoe, from that in the west, awarded to Ngati Hamua and Warahoe. Paora Haupa suggested the partition line should be, 'a straight line from Tapapapounamu or below it to Ikawhenua'. (Neither of these sites are shown on Baker's survey plan 5913, of 1885, but 'Ikawhenua' presumably referred to the Te Ika Whenua Range, in the northern part of the Tuararangaia block, as shown on map 2.) The Whakatane Native Land Court minute book records that such a line was drawn on the survey plan of the Tuararangaia block. A memo relating to a 1982 survey plan of the Tuararangaia 1B block clearly states that no survey of internal boundaries had previously been carried out within the original Tuararangaia block. 169

4.2 Tuhoe are given title to Tuararangaia 1

The first subdivision of the block was designated Tuararangaia 1, and was allocated to the 'Ngai Tamatuira' (Ngai Tamatuhirae) hapu of Tuhoe (see map 3 for subdivisions and map 2 for placenames). The subdivision was described in the Whakatane minute book as:

Commencing at a point on the northern boundary of the block (confiscation line) west of the Kaihape stream, described on the map as the Ikawhenua Ridge, thence in a southerly direction along the watershed between the Rangitaiki river and South Eastern boundary of the Tuararangaia Block to that point where the South Eastern boundary crosses the watershed, thence north along this boundary to the Point marked on plan as Te Hiwera, thence along same boundary to the extreme Eastern

169 Paora Haupa in Whakatane MB 4, 24 January 1891, fo1159; K W Walsh, Chief Surveyor, Hamilton, to The Registrar, Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 2 September 1982, Survey File Tuararangaia, MLC Rotorua.

75 point Tapapakiekie, thence Westerly by the confiscation line to point of commencement. 170

The portion of the block amounted to 3500 acres. The description of the land was followed by a list of 715 people who were declared to be the owners of the Tuararangaia I Block and were allocated shares in the block. None of those on the list had more than four shares each and the majority had only one share. Erueti Tamaikoha himself had three shares and Makarini Te Waru had four. The list of names presented by Paora Haupa for the Ngai Tamatuhirae hapu of Tuhoe went unchallenged by any objector. The Native Land Court order setting out the list of owners, also declared that a restriction was placed on the land making the share of each owner inalienable. 171

4. 3 Tuararangaia 2 awarded to N gati Pukeko

The Tuararangaia 2 block was cut out of the extreme southern end of the Tuararangaia block. The southern boundary of the Tuararangaia 2 block was formed by the 'Tukitoromiro' (Tuketoromiro) Stream, the western boundary by the Rangitaiki River, and the north by 'a surveying line from the Rangitaiki River to that part of the western boundary of Tuararangaia

No. 1 that shall enclose 1,000 acres'. 172 This was the part of Tuararangaia designated for N gati Pukeko (see map 3). Four hundred and six members of Ngati Pukeko were designated as shareholders of Tuararangaia 2. No objections were recorded to any of the names on the ownership list and no restrictions were placed on the title to Tuararangaia 2. 173

4.4 Tuararangaia 3 awarded to N gati Hamua And Warahoe

An order in favour of Ngati Hamua and Warahoe was made for the subdivision of the block designated as Tuararangaia 3. This subdivision was defined as the place where:

The boundaries commence at that point on the Rangitaiki river where the confiscation line crosses it, then go south along the Rangitaiki to that point where the

170 Whakatane MB 4, 29 January 1891, foll78. A note on the spelling of Tapapakiakia. In the minute book entry quoted above the site is spelt as 'Tapapakiekie'. However on the Survey Plan 5913 the place-name is spelt Tapapakiakia, as also seen on the DOSLI map 260-WI6, compiled December 1986. 171 Ibid, fols 178-199; Native Land Court Order, 29 January 1891, Block Order File 17921B, Box 1251 ,MLC Rotorua. 172 Whakatane MB 4, 29 January 1891, fol199 173 Native Land Court Order, 29 January 1891, Block Order File 1793/c, Box 1252, MLC Rotorua; Whakatane MB 4,28 January 1891, foll77

76 northern boundary of Tuararangaia No.2 leaves the river, thence goes east along the said boundary to its junction with the western boundary of Tuararangaia [No 1], thence north following the boundary to its junction with the confiscation line and thence west along that line to the point of commencement. 174

The area of land designated as Tuararangaia 3 covered 4,156 acres. The list of names for Ngati Hamua went unchallenged. By way of contrast, there were a number of objections to some ofthe names put forward for the list of Warahoe owners. Several of those who were named were challenged as not belonging to Warahoe and were subsequently removed from the list. A day and a half of court time was spent debating the issue of whether Paora Patu, Tieni Waiti, Kerena and Ruatoi belonged to Warahoe. Te Haroto Manuera, Pihopa Tamawhati, and Tamaikoha challenged them on the grounds that, while they might have some Warahoe connections, they were not descendants of Te Hoka 0 Te Rangi and were therefore not entitled to land at Tuararangaia. The court accepted this argument and struck their names off the list. The final list according to the Whakatane Native Land Court minute book included 297 owners. Restrictions were placed on the title to make the shares of each owner inalienable. 175

Unlike the Tuararangaia 1 block, there were forty-two owners who had a hundred or more shares each. This included Te Whaiti Paora, with 180 shares, Tamawhatu Tamehana with 180 shares and Te Urukehu Hipiriu, with 1500 shares. 176

Gudgeon's decisions were objected to by some of the claimants. Within three months of the Native Land Court title investigation hearing, two applications for a rehearing were made. One application was by a group led Te Hurunui Apanui, who had made the earlier claim for the majority of the hapu ofNgati Awa. The second application was by 'Tama Waaka and others'. On 7 February 1893, in a decision made in open court at Rotorua by Judge G B Davy, both applications were dismissed. l77

174 Whakatane MB 4, 29 January 1891, fo1200 175 Whakatane MB 4,29 January 1891, fo1s 200, 268-276; Native Land Court Order, 29 January 1891, Block Order File 17941b, Box 1254, MLC Rotorua. The Whakatane Minute Book records 293 owners whereas the Native land Court Order mentions only 287 owners. 176 Whakatane MB 4, 29 January 1891, fo1s 200, 268-276 177 Native Land Court Order, 7 February 1893, Block Order File 1792/c, Box 1251, Tuararangaia No 1, MLC Rotorua

77 4.5 Conclusion

Gudgeon had considered all of the evidence presented to him at the Tuararangaia hearing to have been confused and unsatisfactory. He did not accept the claims of Penetito Hawea on behalf of the Ngai Taipoti, Nga Maihi and Ngai Tamaoki to the Tuararangaia block, on the grounds that Penetito's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable. Gudgeon also rejected the claim that Hire Wetere made on behalf of a large number of other Ngati Awa hapu. He rejected Wetere's claim that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe were only on the land under the mana ofNgati Awa.

Gudgeon was not convinced by the argument that Ngati Pukeko were the only people with a right to Tuararangaia, as advocated by Werahiko and Hamiora Tumatara. Gudgeon was of the opinion that Ngati Pukeko had been a largely nomadic people for most of the nineteenth century and therefore had not resided in anyone place for any length of time. Despite this judgement Gudgeon was unable to say that Ngati Pukeko had no rights to Tuararangaia and therefore awarded them 1000 acres in the south-west comer of the block.

Gudgeon accepted that Ngati Hamua, Warahoe and the Tuhoe hapu of Ngai Tama (Ngai Tamatuhirae) all had legitimate claims. He therefore awarded 4156 acres in the north-west of Tuararangaia to the two hapu of Warahoe and Ngati Hamua, and 3500 acres in the east to Ngai Tama. From this point in time, the only way open for the wider iwi of Ngati Awa to have ownership rights over the Tuararangaia block was to be through the Ngati Awa connections of Ngati Hamua and Warahoe.

78 CHAPTERS THE ALIENATION OF LAND BEGINS: PARTITION AND SURVEY LIENS, 1896 -1907

5.1 Alienation of land: policies in the Liberal era

The period of rule of the Liberal Government, from 1891 to 1910, saw a push to acquire more Maori land for Pakeha settlement. From 1892 through to 1900, 2,729,000 acres of land were purchased by the Government. A further 4,223,184 acres were purchased privately, under the auspices of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895. The area of land purchased constituted almost a third of the area ofland in Maori ownership at the beginning of the 1890s. 178

The Liberals were eager to obtain more land for the settlement of immigrants and to further develop the agricultural economy. The adoption of refrigeration technology had led to an agricultural boom as the exporting of meat became a viable exercise. The Liberal Government tended to follow the philosophy that landowners only had a right to retain land if they put that land to suitable economic use. They therefore followed a policy of 'busting up' the estates of big landowners and settling many small farmers on the same land. The theory behind this was that the land was best used when it supported a larger group of people, while at the same time contributing productively to the economy. The Liberals considered that Maori owned a far greater area than they needed for survival or were able to use productively. Rather than assist Maori to develop this land, the Liberals followed a policy of purchasing as much Maori land as possible to be used for the settlement of Pakeha small farmers. This policy was very similar to the idea of 'busting up' the estates of large landowners, with the important difference that the

Crown paid much more money to the Pakeha runholders than to any Maori land owner. 179

5.2 The laws regarding partition and alienation in the 1890s

In their efforts to make it as easy as possible to purchase Maori land, the Liberal Government put through a succession of Acts of Parliament in the years from 1892 to 1896. The Native Land

178 Ward, National Overview, vo12, pp 245-246. Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, pp 60-62, 224-225 179 Ward, National Overview, pp 245-248

79 Court Act 1894 was of particular importance. Section 117 of this Act reimposed the Crown's right of pre-emption, thus giving the Crown an effective monopoly in land buying. Sections 3 and 4 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895 allowed exemptions from the rule of pre­ emption, but the general policy of pre-emption resulted in a speeding up of land buying by the

Crown as a result ofthe simplification of the purchasing processes. 180

Under section 14(2) of the Native Land Court Act 1894 the Native Land Court had the jurisdiction to determine what area of land was equivalent to the number of shares purchased by a specific land buyer. This process of determining the area of land to be alienated could be set in train, under section 17 of the Act, by the application of any person interested in the land. In the case of the Crown, section 78 of the Act allowed that a minister of the Crown could apply to the Native Land Court to have any interests acquired by the Crown defined by the Native Land Court. Once the Native Land Court had defined the area of land purchased, in proportion to the percentage of shares purchased, a partition order was made. Under section 41 of the Act, once the partition order was made, the land in question was deemed to be alienated.

5.3 The purchase of Tuararangaia 3A: The removal of restrictions on alienation

The first alienation of land from the Tuararangaia block was the purchase by the Crown of part of the Tuararangaia 3 block. I was able to locate only minimal documentation of the sale in question, but it is possible from the extant records to piece together the basic details. On 11 May 1896, at a sitting of the Native Land Court at Opotiki, R J Gill, the Under-Secretary of the Native Land Purchase Department, appeared on behalf of the Crown to ask for a partition of Tuararangaia 3 in the Crown's favour. Gill explained that the Crown had purchased 5136 of the 9854 shares held by the 287 owners of Tuararangaia 3. Of these owners, 122 had sold their shares leaving 165 non-sellers. According to the Crown's calculations, 5136 shares were equivalent to 2166 acres. The non-sellers were left with 1990 acres. Gill asked that the land partitioned off for the Crown should be on the south side of the block, adj acent to the boundary with Tuararangaia No. 2. 181

On the Liberal's philosophies regarding land ownership, land use and the acquisition of Maori Land see T Brooking, '''Busting up" the Biggest Estate of All: Liberal Maori Land Policy 1891 to 1910', NZJH, voI26, no 1, April, 1992, pp 78-98 180 Ward, National Overview, vol 2, p 247; Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, pp 337-338 181 Opotiki MB 14, 11 May 1896, fois 160-161

80 The Native Land Court, presided over by J A Wilson, with K K Tarawhiti as Assessor, agreed to the Crown's request. An area of 2166 acres was cut off from the southern section of Tuararangaia 3 and was gazetted as Crown land. This area was henceforth designated as Tuararangaia 3A (see map 3). The remaining 1990 acres of the Tuararangaia 3 block was designated as Tuararangaia 3B, and was allocated to 167 shareholders. 182

It should be noted that the Native Land Court had placed a restriction on the alienation of the shares of each landowner, on the title issued for Tuararangaia 3. I was unable to locate any documentation showing a removal of the restriction in question from the Tuararangaia block. However, the Court's partitioning of the block indicates that the restrictions must have been removed or ignored, as was commonplace. 183

Restrictions were placed on some land blocks to ensure that Maori did not become landless as a result of land sales. According to Williams, the legislator's idea of restrictions was that they were not meant to stop the land in question ever being sold. Rather they were intended to slow down the sale of the land until such a time as Maori had adopted Pakeha economic methods and work habits, and were therefore able to provide for themselves on smaller areas of land. The Native Land Court Act 1894, provided, in section 14(6), for the Native Land Court to be able to impose or remove restrictions. Section 52 of the same Act provided for the Native Land Court to be able to remove restrictions on alienation if one third of the owners agreed and the Court believed that each individual owner had enough land left for their own support. 184

I was unable to locate any evidence that indicated that the Native Land Court had made any effort to ascertain whether one third or more of the owners of Tuararangaia 3 agreed to the removal of restrictions on alienation. The fact that over one third of the owners sold their shares to the Crown might, however, be taken as an indication that over one third of the owners agreed to the removal of alienation restrictions. I was also unable to locate any evidence that the Native Land Court went to any effort to determine whether the individual owners who had sold their shares had enough land left to support themselves, as the court were required to do under section

182 Ibid; Native Land Court Order, 11 May 1896, Block Order File 17941b (Titles), Box 1254, MLC Rotorua; Native Land Court Order, 11 May 1896, Block Order File 1794/c, Box 1255, MLC Rotorua; NZ Gazette, 1896, vol 2, No 52, P 1076 183 Native Land Court Title Order, 29 January 1891, Block Order File 17941b (Titles), Box 1254, MLC Rotorua. 184 Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, pp 275-276, 280-281.

81 52 of the Native Land Court Act 1894. If the Native Land Court did indeed make no effort to ascertain the situation of these individual owners, than it can be stated that the court failed to meet its legal obligations when it approved the partition and alienation of Tuararangaia 3.

5.4 The charging of survey costs for the Tuararangaia blocks

From the time of the Native Lands Act 1862, it was a standard legal requirement that a survey must be carried out before a certificate title could be issued by the Native Land Court. Surveying could be an expensive business, especially when it involved working in rough and remote country, as was the case with the Tuararangaia block. Delays caused by obstructions could add substantially to these costs. The fees for surveys were generally charged to those who were recognised by the Native Land Court as the legal owners. Surveyors usually recovered these fees by applying to the Native Land Court for a lien to be registered against the title. In those cases where the costs could not be paid in cash, land to the value of the fees charged could be vested in the person to whom the survey fees were owed. I8S

In 1898, the Chief Surveyor of the Auckland district applied to the Native Land Court for survey charging orders against the Tuararangaia blocks. In that year, the relevant legislation, section 65 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895, allowed that land vested in the Surveyor General in satisfaction of survey charges could be designated Crown land. The costs to the landowner were increased by the interest charged on survey costs. The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895 allowed 5 percent per annum interest to be charged for a maximum of 5 years. For the majority of Maori landowners, including the owners of the various Tuararangaia blocks, the only asset they had available to pay any of these fees was the land itself. Therefore, those Maori who were awarded title to land following an investigation by the Native Land Court, could virtually guarantee they would have to sell or give up some of that land in order to cover survey costs and any other costs imposed by the court. In the case of the Tuararangaia blocks, the owners of each of the block's subdivisions were eventually forced to give up some of the land they had gained title to in order to pay the costs arising from the survey of the block. 186

185 Ward, National Overview, vo12, pp 324-325, 327-329; Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, pp 192-194 186lbid, pp307-310,313-314.

82 5.4.1 The obstruction of Baker's survey, 1885.

Charles Alma Baker had, in 1885, carried out the survey of Tuararangaia at the request of Te Whaiti Paora and others. It was not until 1898 that W Kensington, acting on behalf of Gerhard Mueller, the Chief Surveyor of Auckland, applied to the Native Land Court for orders charging survey fees against all three blocks. The applications for survey charging orders were heard before Judge J A Wilson at the Whakatane Native Land Court on 8 December 1898. It appears that the Survey Department had calculated a fee for the survey of the entire block, then divided up the survey costs proportionate to the area of land allotted for each subdivision. Tuararangaia 1, an area of3500 acres, had a charging order against it of £140 8s 3d. Tuararangaia 2, an area of 1000 acres, had a charging order of £40 2s 4d, while Tuararangaia 3B, an area of 1990 acres, had a charging order of £79 16s 9d against it. The Survey Department was therefore asking for a total fee of £240 7s 3d. By 1898 Tuararangaia 3A had been acquired by the Crown, so the shareholders who had sold their shares in Tuararangaia 3 were not required to pay any survey charges. 187

Table 1: The Charging Orders Sought Against the Tuararangaia Blocks BLOCK HAPU IIWI AREA CHARGING ORDER Tuararangaia 1 Tuhoe (Ngai Tama) 3500 acres £140 8s 3d

Tuararangaia 2 Ngati Pukeko 1000 acres £40 2s 4d

Tuararangaia 3B Ngati Hamua & 1990 acres £79 16s 9d Warahoe

Total 6490 acres £260 7s 3d

187 NZ Gazette, 1898, vol 2, No 79, p 1796; Whakatane MB 6, 8 December 1898, fols 114-116; Certificate under Section 65, Tuararangaia 2, 19 August 1898, Closed Order File, Box 269, File 989, MLC Rotorua; Charging Order, Tuararangaia 2, 19 August 1898, Closed Order File, Box 269, File 989, MLC Rotorua; Certificate under Section 65, Tuararangaia 3B, 19 August 1898, Closed Order File, Box 269, File 990/1, MLC Rotorua; Charging Order, Tuararangaia 3B, 19 August 1898, Closed Order File, Box 269, File 99011, MLC Rotorua

83 A controversial aspect of these charging orders was that each of the sums mentioned above included extra costs, added on to cover the delays that had occurred during the making of the survey. In 1885 Te Whaiti Paora guided Baker's survey party onto the Tuararangaia block. According to Penetito Hawea, the party was accompanied by Mehaka Tokopounamu, of Patuheuheu and Ngati Hamua, and by two young men of Tuhoe. The survey was initially carried out in relative secrecy, as shown by the fact that other claimants to the Tuararangaia area only found out about the survey by accident. A group of young men hunting pigs discovered the survey party and reported it to Ngati Awa and Warahoe elders. (As mentioned above, in section 3.3, pages 47 to 48, some Warahoe were involved with Te Whaiti Paora's claim, while others had closer links with Ngati Awa). A group of people, with Ngati Awa, Warahoe and Ngati Pukeko connections, was organised to go and obstruct the survey. According to Hire Wetere, this group included himself, Penetito Hawea, Rawiri Tatu (Tato), Rini Manuera, Penehaua Te Urukehu and Te Whakamakaka. Wetere told of how that this group had stopped the survey just north of the Moetahanga stream (see map 2). Wetere stated that a theodolite was broken during the incident, indicating that some degree of force was used by the obstructers. Both Wetere and Penetito agreed that their party took the surveyor's instruments and escorted the survey party off the block and back to Te Teko. 188

Penetito Hawea's evidence indicated that he had changed his attitude to the survey following the first obstruction. Penetito claimed that he began by leading the party that detained the surveyors, but then ended up guiding the surveyors around the Tuararangaia block. Thus, when the survey party returned to the Tuararangaia block, after being detained in Te Teko for some time, they were guided by Te Whaiti Paora, Makarini Pukuniarangi and Penetito. It appears that Penetito opposed the survey as long as he had no control over it. Once he was acting as a guide, with some influence over where the survey party went and what it recorded, his opposition to it vanished. By guiding the survey party, he could observe its activities and present an alternative opinion to any information given to the surveyors by Te Whaiti Paora and Mehaka Tokopounamu. 189

188Hire Wetere in Whakatane MB 3, 2 December 1890, f01s 243, 248; Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December1890, f01s 255, 264. 189 Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, f01s 255, 262.

84 Once the survey party moved into the eastern part of the block, they experienced further obstruction. Penetito told the Native Land Court that he had intended to get the surveyors to mark out the line from Hiwera to Kohiroa as the eastern boundary of the block. (Hiwera is on the south eastern border of the Tuararangaia block, whereas Kohiroa is presumably a range of hills that cuts through the northern boundary of the block, as seen on map 2.) Instead the surveyors were stopped by a group of Tuhoe at the Kotorenui Stream, to the east of the block (see map 2). It is not clear whether any force was used in this second obstruction, but the survey party returned once again to Te Teko. Penetito sent his son as the main guide for the survey party, on a third mission in which the survey of the eastern boundary of the Tuararangaia block was finally completed. 190

5.4.2 The Native Land Court makes orders for the survey charges, 1898

These incidents in 1885 had their sequel thirteen years later, in August 1898, with the lodging of the applications for survey charges. l9l At the Native Land Court hearing of 8 December 1898, George Kallender appeared before Judge Wilson, to make these claims for the Survey Department. Kallender claimed extra costs to cover the delays caused by the detaining of the survey party for 39 days. He asked for an additional £105 6s split proportionately between the various blocks. This amount was included in the £260 7s 3d that made up the entire amount charged against the subdivisions of the Tuararangaia block. The Chief Surveyor was holding all the owners of all three sections responsible for any delays, rather than making any effort to ascertain who had actually caused the delays and charging them those individuals. In response to these extra charges, the owners of each of the respective sections lodged objections. I92

Akuhata Te Kaha, of Tuhoe, objected to the extra charges placed on Tuararangaia 1. The extra amount claimed by the Chief Surveyor from this section was around £39, which was included as part of the £140 8s 3d charged against Tuararangaia 1. Akuhata Te Kaha objected on the grounds that the surveyor had come on to the eastern part of the block before the traditional owners had consented to have the land surveyed. Akuhata Te Kaha therefore considered that the

190 Penetito Hawea in Whakatane MB 3, 3 December 1890, fols 255, 262; Makarini Te Waru in Whakatane MB 4, 12 December 1890, fol131 191 Certificate under Section 65, Tuararangaia 2, 19 August 1898, Closed Order File, Box 269, File 989, MLC Rotorua; Charging Order, Tuararangaia 2, 19 August 1898, Closed Order File, Box 269, File 989, MLC Rotorua; Certificate under Section 65, Tuararangaia 3B, 19 August 1898, Closed Order File, Box 269, File 99011, MLC Rotorua; Charging Order, Tuararangaia 3B, 19 August 1898, Closed Order File, Box 269, File 990/1, MLC Rotorua

85 obstruction was justified. Judge Wilson was obviously unconvinced by this argument as he upheld the Chief Surveyor's claim. Later in the hearing Wilson added an extra £5 15s 5d to the charges against Tuararangaia 1. This extra amount appears to have been part of the Chief Surveyor's charge of £12 7s for delays, made against Tuararangaia 2. As will be described below, Judge Wilson refused to charge the owners of Tuararangaia 2 for this amount, but instead charged some of it against Tuararangaia 1 and Tuararangaia 3. The additional £5 15s 5d against Tuararangaia 1 brought the total survey charges for the subdivision up to a total of £146 3s 8d. 193

Kallender claimed a survey lien of £40 2s 4d against the Ngati Pukeko owners of Tuararangaia No.2. Included in this charge was an extra £12 7s, being the proportion of costs the Chief Surveyor claimed that Ngati Pukeko owed for delays to the survey. Tamati Waka argued that Ngati Pukeko could not be held responsible for any delays to the survey as they had not applied to have the land surveyed, and had, in fact, not even known that the survey was taking place. Judge Wilson accepted this argument and exempted Ngati Pukeko from paying the additional £12 7s, charging them only £27 15s 4d in total. Wilson instead maintained that 'the Uriwera tribe', were responsible for the delays, although he presented no evidence to back up his allegations. It appears that Wilson added additional extra costs onto both Tuararangaia 1 and Tuararangaia 3B to cover the extra costs for delays, that he had declined to order against the owners of Tuararangaia 2. 194

The claim Kallender made against the owners of Tuararangaia 3B, was for £79 16s 9d, which included £53 9s charged for delays to the survey. Rini Manuera, one of the landowners, challenged this charge. He argued that he should not have to pay this charge, as he did not have any involvement in obstructing the survey. Judge Wilson rejected this argument on the rather spurious grounds that Rini Manuera had been living next to the Tuararangaia block at the time of the survey. Wilson argued that this meant that Manuera and his people shared the responsibility for the obstruction that had occurred. The full charge of £79 16s 9d was made against the owners of Tuararangaia 3B. This was then altered to £83 Is 7d. An extra £3 4s 10d was added to the survey charge, probably to help cover the costs from the survey obstruction that had been asked for and declined against Tuararangaia 2. This left an additional £3 5s 9d claimed by the Chief

192 Whakatane MB 6, 8 December 1898, fols 114-116. The Assessor for this case was K K Tarawhiti and the Clerk/Interpreter was E Hammond 193 Whakatane MB 6, 8 December 1898, fols 114-115; Charging Order, Whakatane NLC, 8 December1898, Block Order File 1792/c, Tuararangaia No.1, Box 1251, MLC Rotorua.

86 Surveyor as a charge for delays, that was not awarded by the Native Land Court to be paid by any of the land owners. 195

5.4.3 Land taken to cover survey costs, 1907

No further action was taken to collect the money charged for survey costs until 1907, nine years after the Native Land Court had made its decision on costs. On 27 September of that year, a Mr Ballantine appeared before the Whakatane Native Land Court on behalf of the Chief Surveyor of Auckland. He appeared before Judge W G Mair, who was assisted by the assessor, K T Wharepurangi, and by Ben Keys, acting as clerk. Ballantine told the court that he had invited the landowners of a number of blocks, including Tuararangaia, to pay their survey costs. He stated that he had waited for several days and had in that time received no indication from any of the owners that they would pay the charges. Ballantine therefore asked the court to cut out an area of land from each of the Tuararangaia blocks, to be awarded to the Crown in satisfaction of the survey charges. 196

The court ordered that an area of land be cut out from each of Tuararangaia 1, Tuararangaia 2 and Tuararangaia 3B, in order to pay these charges. These orders were made on the basis of a valuation of each section at five shillings per acre. It is not clear how the figure of five shillings per acre was arrived at. I was unable to find any reference, in the Whakatane minute books, or elsewhere, to anyon-site valuation of the Tuararangaia block prior to 1914. Judge Browne, of the Waiariki District Maori Land Board, had no knowledge of any valuation of the land having been carried out previously, when writing in 1912 with regard to the southern 1000 acres of Tuararangaia lB. He simply estimated a figure, 15 shillings to £1 an acre, from the value of other land in the immediate vicinity. When a valuation was carried out of Tuararangaia 2B, in 1914, no reference was made in the relevant correspondence to any earlier valuation inspection. Nor was any reference made to earlier valuations when the Government valued a number of Rangitaiki blocks in 1916. It should be noted that when part of Tuararangaia 1B was sold as a donation to the Patriotic Fund in 1915, the price was set at 10 shillings an acre (see below, section 6.2). On the other hand, a 1916 Government valuation of selected Rangitaiki blocks set

194 Whakatane MB 6, 8 December 1898, fo1115; Charging Order, Whakatane NLC, 8 December 1898, Block Order File 1793/c, Tuararangaia No.2, Box 1252, MLC Rotorua 195 Whakatane MB 6, 8 December 1898, fo1116; Charging Order, Whakatane NLC, 8 December 1898, Block Order File 1794/c, Tuararangaia No. 3-3b, Box 1255, MLC Rotorua 196 Whakatane MB 9, 27 September 1907, fol177

87 the value of the Tuararangaia lands at no greater than five shillings an acre. It seems that the value set on the Tuararangaia lands in 1907 was an arbitrary figure arrived at by guesswork, rather than a figure calculated from an official valuation exercise. 197

The following table, table 2, sets out the various charges made against each of the subdivisions of the original Tuararangaia block and the acreage of land taken by the Crown in lieu of the money owed by the land owners.

Table 2: Survey Charges Imposed on Tuararangaia Block Tuararangaia 1 Tuararangaia 2 Tuararangaia 3B Totals

Acres 3500 1000 1990 6490

Initial survey charge, £140 8s 3d £40 2s 4d £79 16s 9d £260 7s 4d 19 August 1898 Order made by court, £146 3s 8d £27 ISs 4d £83 Is 7d £257 Os 7d 8 December 1898 Interest charged, 27 £36 lOs lId £6 18s 10d £20 ISs 5d £64 ISs 2d September 1907 Cutting off fee, 27 £30 £17 £30 £77 September 1907 Total charges, £212 14s 7d £5114s 2d £13317s £398 ISs 9d 27 September 1907 Acres taken in lieu 881 207 536 1624 of payment at 5s per acre

The survey charges on each of the Tuararangaia sections were recalculated with some new charges added. On 8 December 1898 Judge Wilson had charged the owners of Tuararangaia 1 survey costs of £146 3s 8d. This consisted of £101 8s 3d for the initial survey, £39 for survey delays and an additional £5 ISs 5d, apparently to compensate the Survey Department for no charge being ordered against the Ngati Pukeko owners of Tuararangaia 2 for survey delays.

197 Whakatane MB 9, 27 September 1907, fo1s 177-179 Judge Browne, Waiariki District Maori Land Board, to Under Sec, Native Department, 5 July 1912, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; J H Burch, District Valuer, Tokaanu, to Officer in Charge, Valuation Office, Auckland, 15 March 1914, MA-MLP 11913/44, Wellington NA; Under Secretary Native Dept to President Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 13 May 1915, BAJJ A73, 1914/303, Box 51, Auckland NA; Commissioner of Crown Lands to Under Secretary of Lands, 23 March 1916, MA-MLP 1 1916/30, Wellington NA; Under-Secretary Native Dept., C B Jordan, to Native Minister, 18 September 1916, MA-MLP 1 1916/30, Wellington NA

88 Wilson considered that the 'Uriwera' were responsible for the delays to the survey and therefore should pay extra compensation to the Survey Department. 198

At the September 1907 Native Land Court sitting, Judge Mair added several additional charges to those mentioned above on the Tuararangaia 1 subdivision. A further £36 lOs lId was added for interest, at the rate of five percent per annum, calculated for five years from 31 October 1895. Five percent per annum was the standard rate of interest on survey charges and could only be charged for a maximum period of five years, as set out in section 46 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act 1901. The Survey Department's representative, Mr Ballantine, had requested that, as the landowners had failed to pay in cash, an equivalent area of land, from each block on which money was owed, should be cut out to cover the survey costs. These areas would become Crown land. The landowners were expected to pay for the cost of the surveys to cut out the blocks of land that were to go to the Crown. Therefore, an extra £30 was charged against the Tuararangaia 1 section to cover the cutting out of land to pay for survey costs. The total charge added up came to £212 14s 7d. With the land valued at 5 shillings per acre, this resulted in 881 acres being lost to the Crown to cover all the costs associated with the 1885 survey. This figure, as will be discussed below, was in fact a miscalculation. The correct area at five shillings an acre was 851 acres. Of the 881 acres taken from Tuararangaia 1, 120 acres was to pay for the survey cutting out the land awarded by the court to the Crown as payment for the original survey costS. 199

Judge Wilson ordered £27 15s 4d as the costs for Tuararangaia 2. This sum was solely a survey charge, as Wilson had decided that the Ngati Pukeko owners had not been responsible for the delays to the survey. At the 1907 sitting of the Whakatane Native Land Court, Judge Mair added to this sum £6 18s 10d in interest and an extra £17 fee to cover the costs for the cutting out of land to pay the survey charges. This sum added up to £51 14s 2d, which at a valuation of five shillings an acre meant the Crown took 207 acres from Tuararangaia 2 in survey liens.20o

The charge that Judge Wilson had made against Tuararangaia 3B was for £83 Is 7d. This amount included an extra £3 4s 10d (presumably added on to help cover the costs, arising from delays to

198 Whakatane MB 6, 8 December 1898, f01s 114-115; Order for discharge of mortgage, Whakatane NLC, 27 September 1907, Block Order File 17921b, Tuararangaia No.1, Box 1251, MLC Rotorua 199 Whakatane MB 9, 27 September 1907, f01179

89 the original survey, that had been asked for but declined against Tuararangaia No.2). In 1907, Judge Mair added £20 15s 5d interest to the total sum, along with £30 costs for the cutting out of land to pay for the survey costs. At a valuation of five shillings per acre, this amounted to an area of 536 acres. 201

5.5 Issues arising from the survey charges

A number of issues arise from the allocation of survey costs for Tuararangaia. Perhaps the major issue is that of survey charges themselves. In order for Maori to gain title to land the title to the land in question had to be investigated by the Native Land Court. Since the Native Lands Act of 1865, it was a legal requirement that any land being investigated by the Native Land Court had to have been surveyed by a surveyor authorised by the governor's warrant, unless the court specifically decided to dispense with a survey. The land owners were legally obliged to pay for the survey once the title to the land was issued to them by the Native Land Court. A surveyor who had not yet been paid for the survey of land could hold a lien on the land in question until the survey charges were paid.

In 1890, when the Tuararangaia block came before the Native Land Court, section 18 of the Native Land Court Act 1886 specified that a certified map or survey plan was necessary for a title investigation, although the same section also allowed that a sketch map could be used in place of a certified map if officially approved. By 1898, when George Kallender, the Auckland Chief Surveyor's representative, appeared before the Native Land Court to ask for the survey fees for the Tuararangaia block, the operative Act was the Native Land Court Act 1894. Section 65 of this Act stated that the court could make a mortgage order to secure payment of survey costs or could vest a portion of the block surveyed in the person to whom the survey costs were owed. As land was often the only resource Maori possessed the law meant that land was forfeited to pay for the costs of surveys.202

200Whakatane MB 6, 8 December 1898, fol115; Whakatane MB 9, 27 September 1907, fo1178; Order for discharge of mortgage, Whakatane NLC, 27 September 1907, Block Order File 17931b, Tuararangaia No.2, Box 1252, MLC Rotorua 201 Whakatane MB 6, 8 December 1898, fol116; Whakatane MB 9, 27 September 1907, fo1178; Order for discharge of mortgage, Whakatane NLC, 27 September 1907, Block Order File 17941b, Tuararangaia No. 3-3Bl, Box 1254, MLC Rotorua. 202 Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, pp 192-194,307-315

90 In order gain legal title to areas of land Maori were forced to bring the land in question before the Native Land Court. In order to commence the title investigation for an area of land, those Maori seeking to gain legal title were usually compelled to initiate a survey to draw up a certified map. This was the case with Te Whaiti Paora bringing surveyors on to the Tuararangaia block. Furthermore, as all those who were declared to be legal owners were liable to pay the survey costs, Maori landowners could end up losing land to pay for a survey they had either opposed or been completely unaware of. Again this can be seen to have occurred in the case of the Tuararangaia block. Tuhoe lost the land in Tuararangaia 1A to pay for a survey that Akuhata Te Kaha stated Tuhoe had not consented to, while Ngati Pukeko lost the land in Tuararangaia 2A to pay for a survey that Tamati Waka claimed they had never heard of until it was finished?03

In the case of blocks such as Tuararangaia where ownership was disputed, the resulting conflicts increased the costs to those designated as legal owners. In 1898, Kallender applied to the Native Land Court for costs to be paid for thirty-nine days of delays. There is no indication in the Native Land Court records that he presented any evidence to show who was responsible for the delays or to show where on the Tuararangaia block any obstruction had occurred in. Kallender clearly expected all of the owners to pay for the actions of groups or individuals which the other owners mayor may not have supported.204

Judge Wilson ruled that the Tuhoe owners of Tuararangaia 1 and the Ngati Hamua and Warahoe owners of Tuararangaia 3B were collectively responsible for the delays and the extra survey costs resulting from them. Wilson rejected Rini Manuera's argument that he, Manuera, should not have to pay for delays to the survey of Tuararangaia 3B, as he had not been among those obstructing the survey. Wilson also rejected the argument put forward by Akuhata Te Kaha of Tuhoe, that obstruction of the survey was justified as the surveyors had come on to Tuhoe land without consulting the owners. Wilson did accept the argument put forward by Tamati Waka of Ngati Pukeko, who argued that Ngati Pukeko could not be held responsible for delays caused to a survey they were not even aware of. 205

Wilson may well have been influenced by recent events in which sections of Tuhoe had tried to block surveys on their lands. In 1893, an attempt to survey the Ruatoki block was set in train at

203 Whakatane MB 6,8 December 1898, fo18 114-115 204 Whakatane MB 6, 8 December 1898, fo18 114-116 205 Ibid, fo18 114-116

91 the request of Numia Te Ruakariata, (Numia Kereru), a rangatira of the Ngati Rongo hapu of Tuhoe. This attempt at a survey resulted in protests by many Tuhoe leaders, including Erueti Tamaikoha, which led to a series of arrests, including that of the prominent chief Makarini Tamarau (Tamarau Waiari). Although the dispute was resolved through the intervention of Te Kooti, bitter argument was stirred up between the various leaders and hapu of Tuhoe. This incident, and the so-called 'small war' of 1895, where police and troops were sent to support a survey party blocked by Tuhoe, may well have influenced Wilson to believe that Tuhoe were obstructionists and troublemakers who should be made to take responsibility for delays to the . 206 Tuararangala survey.

Wilson's decision meant that all of the owners of Tuararangaia 1 and Tuararangaia 3B had to pay for the delays caused to the survey. It is clear that most of the 7161ega1 owners of Tuararangaia 1, and the 167 legal owners of Tuararangaia 3B, had not participated in the obstruction of the 1885 survey and that many did not know at the time of the surveyor of any plans to obstruct it. Wilson did not ask for any further evidence from Kallender as to who was responsible for the delays to the survey. Furthermore, Wilson did not ask for any witnesses to appear to describe the obstruction of the survey party. Instead he appears to have accepted without question the version of events given by the Chief Surveyor's representative. 207

A series of issues were raised by the decisions made in the 1907 Native Land Court sitting. The Survey Department's representative, Mr Ballantine, stated that he had invited the landowners to pay the money owed on survey charges, but after 'several days' he had got no response?08 No evidence was given of any steps Ballantine may have taken to make contact with the 716 owners of Tuararangaia No.1, the 406 owners of Tuararangaia No.2, and the 167 owners of Tuararangaia No. 3B. Nor is it clear whether any steps were taken by the Survey Department or the Native Land Court to collect the relevant fees from the landowners of the Tuararangaia blocks in the years between 1898 and 1907. The 'several days' that Ballantine had allowed for the owners to respond to his request for payment would appear to be a very short time in which to contact such large groups of people, who may have been scattered over a wide geographical

206 Binney, History a/the Urewera until 1878, (draft), chp 2, pp 1-13; Binney, 'Te Mana Tuatoru', pp 120-121 207 Whakatane MB 6, 8 December 1898, fo18 114-116; Native Land Court Order, Opotiki NLC, 11 May 1896, Block Order File 17941b, Tuararangaia No 3-3Bl, Box 1255, MLC Rotorua; Native Land Court Order, Whakatane NLC, 29 January 1891, Block Order File 17921b, Tuararangaia No.1, Box 1251, MLC Rotorua. 208 Whakatane MB 9, 27 September 1898, fo1177

92 area,z°9 Tama Nikora has pointed out that it would have been very difficult for any individual owner to collect the survey fees from all the co-owners of any particular section. He argues that the Crown was aware of these difficulties and in cases such as that of Tuararangaia deliberately used survey charges to acquire Maori land. 210 It is clear that the impossible tasks of informing large numbers of collective owners of the survey fees due and then of collecting those fees from them, meant that the forfeit of land to pay for these charges was inevitable.

On top of this the Native Land Court ordered that the landowners had to pay for the survey and the cutting out of the areas of land taken to pay for the initial survey charges. This added fee meant that the landowners had to hand over additional land to the Crown. This additional land was incorporated in the sections Tuararangaia lA, Tuararangaia 2A, and Tuararangaia 3B1, all of which became Crown land in 1907 in lieu of the money to pay for survey costs. It appears that a second series of surveys to cut out these areas of land were not actually carried out, despite the fact that landowners were charged for these surveys in land. Letters of the surveyor, R G MacMorran, written in 1911, show that no survey had been carried out in the Tuararangaia block since that of C A Baker in 1885. MacMorran was sent on to the block by the Lands and Survey Department with the aim of surveying out the boundaries of the areas of the block now designated as Crown land. He began the survey of the boundaries, but the job was never completed. The ruggedness of the block would have made the survey job a slow one and MacMorran was transferred to the Drainage Engineers Staffbefore getting very far on it. A 1915 document from the Auckland office of the Lands and Survey Department clearly shows that the boundary lines of the subdivisions within the original Tuararangaia block were drawn on the 1885 plan without benefit of a proper survey,zll A memo from the Chief Surveyor of the South Auckland district, written in 1982, also clearly states that the original subdivision of Tuararangaia 1B was drawn up without a survey. These facts all indicate that the landowners of the various sections of Tuararangaia were charged for surveys that were planned but never

209 Whakatane MB 9, 27 September 1898, fols 177-179; Native Land Court Order, Whakatane NLC, 29 January 1891, Block Order File 17921b, Tuararangaia No.1, Box 1251, MLC Rotorua.; Native Land Court Order, Whakatane NLC, 29 January 1891, Block Order File 17931b, Tuararangaia No.2, Box 1252, MLC Rotorua; Native Land Court Order, Opotiki NLC, 11 May 1896, Block Order File 17941b, Tuararangaia No. 3-3Bl, Box 1255, MLC Rotorua. 210 T Nikora, 'Tuararangaia No.1 Block (Draft), Part 1, Survey Charges and Land Taken', unpublished, 1999, Section 16. 211 The subdivisions referred to separated out the parts of the original Tuararangaia block that were to go Ngati HamualWarahoe, Ngati Pukeko, and Tuhoe, as well as the land that was to go to the Crown to pay for surveys and as a result of the purchase of Tuararangaia 3A.

93 carried out beyond the initial stages. The landowners lost acres of their land simply to pay someone to draw lines on a map.212

The final payments charged in land against the owners of the various sections of the block were as follows. A section of207 acres, designated as Tuararangaia 2A, was cut off to pay for the £51 14s 2d owed for that section. A 536 acre section designated Tuararangaia 3B1 was cut off from Tuararangaia 3B to cover the £133 17s owed for that section. A block of 881 acres, designated as Tuararangaia lA, was taken from Tuararangaia 1 in lieu of the £212 14s 7d charged against it. A quick calculation shows that at five shillings an acre the amount of land cut off from Tuararangaia 1 should have been 851 acres rather than 881 acres. It appears that this was either a miscalculation or a case of someone mistaking a '5' for an '8' in the written record. In either case, Tuhoe were penalised, losing an extra 30 acres of land as a result of a Crown official's mistake.213

It can be seen that the laws relating to survey charges forced Maori to lose land as part of the process of participating in the Native Land Court system. This aspect of the Native Land Court process appears to have been designed to guarantee that some Maori land would be alienated no matter what decision the court made. It also guaranteed that even those owners who had completely opposed both the survey and the sale of land, lost land to pay for surveys they did not approve of. Such laws bring into question the how well the Crown met its obligations, under the Treaty ofWaitangi, to guarantee continued Maori ownership of their lands.

5.6 Conclusion

Charles Baker had conducted a survey of the Tuararangaia area in 1885, at the invitation ofTe Whaiti Paora. This survey was obstructed at least twice by different groups of traditional

212 Whakatane MB 9, 27 September 1907, fols 178, 179; R G MacMorran to Chief Surveyor, 5 April 1911, DOSLI 6900/431, LINZ Hamilton; Commissioner of Crown Lands to ?(unclear), 9 May 1912, DOSLI 6900/431, LINZ Hamilton; Chief Surveyor to Under Secretary of Lands, 1 April 1915, DOSLI 6900/35, LINZ Hamilton; Commissioner of Crown Lands to Under Secretary of Lands, 23 March 1916, MA-MLP 11916/30, Wellington NA; K W Walsh, Chief Surveyor, Rotorua, to the Registrar, Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 2 September 1982, Survey file, Tuararangaia, MLC Rotorua 213 Native Land Court Order, Tuararangaia lA, Whakatane NLC, 27 September 1907, Block Order File 17921b, Tuararangaia No.1, Box 1251, Rotorua MLC; Native Land Court Order, Tuararangaia 1B, Whakatane NLC, 27 September 1907, Block Order File 17921b, Tuararangaia No.1, Box 1251, Rotorua MLC; Native Land Court Order, Tuararangaia 2A, Whakatane NLC, 27 September 1907, Block Order File 17931b, Tuararangaia No.2, Box 1252, Rotorua MLC; Native Land Court Order, Tuararangaia 2B, Whakatane NLC, 27 September 1907, Block Order File 17931b, Tuararangaia No.2, Box 1252, Rotorua MLC; Native Land Court Order, Tuararangaia 3B1, Whakatane NLC, 27 September 1907, Block Order File 1794IB, Tuararangaia 3-3B1, Box 1254, Rotorua MLC

94 landowners, who had not been consulted prior to the survey being carried out. In 1898, at the request of the Chief Surveyor of the Auckland district, the Whakatane Native Land Court, with Judge J A Wilson presiding, set the survey charging orders for the various subdivisions of land in the Tuararangaia block. In 1907, the Whakatane Native Land Court, presided over by Judge Mair, allocated areas of land from each of the subdivisions to be handed over to the Crown in lieu of cash for the amounts owed for survey charges. Extra areas of land were taken to pay for the cost of surveying and cutting out the land taken for payment. It appears that these surveys of the subdivisions made to pay for the survey liens, were never actually carried out.

Several issues are raised by the decisions regarding survey costs made at the Whakatane Native Land Court sittings in 1898 and 1907.

• In 1898 the owners of Tuararangaia 1 and 3B were penalised for delays to a survey which had occurred almost 13 years before. No attempt was made by the Crown to try and show who was responsible for these delays, instead all the owners of these two sections of the block were held responsible.

• The Tuhoe owners of Tuararangaia 1 were penalised by a clerical error, having 881 acres taken from them rather than the 851 acres which should, at five shillings an acre, have been taken to cover their charges. Tuhoe lost 30 acres ofland as a result of this error.

• On the evidence available, it seems probable that the valuation of Tuararangaia land at five shillings an acre was made without a thorough valuer's inspection being carried out.

• A further issue is that of the extra charges for surveying the boundaries of those areas to be cut out in lieu of the payment to the Crown for the 1885 survey. The survey of these boundary lines was never carried out, meaning the owners paid an extra fee for work that did not happen. The land in question was, however, still transferred to the Crown.

It can be seen that once those trying to claim ownership of the Tuararangaia block had become involved in the process of asking for or challenging surveys, and then going through the processes of the Native Land Court, the charging of costs against them was an inevitable result. The way Native Land Court legislation operated guaranteed that as many costs as possible fell

95 on those who gained title to the land rather than on the purchasers or the Crown. (During the period from 1885 to 1907, when the events described above occurred, the Crown right of pre­ emption did not apply to the Tuararangaia block. It does not, however, appear that any private buyers showed any interest in buying land on the block.) As the landowners had no real assets other than land, some of the land had to be given over to the Crown to cover the costs of gaining title to it. Therefore, the very process of gaining legal recognition of land ownership inevitably led to the loss of some of that land to the Crown.

96 CHAPTER 6 THE GIFTING AND SALE OF LAND IN THE 1910s.

By the end of 1907 the combined impact of land sales and survey liens meant that almost half of the original Tuararangaia block had passed out of Maori ownership. Ngati Hamua and Warahoe retained ownership of Tuararangaia 3B2, an area of 1454 acres in the north-eastern comer of the original block. In the south-eastern comer of the original block, Ngati Pukeko still owned the 793 acres of the Tuararangaia 2B section. The Tuhoe hapu Ngai Tamatuhirae had ownership of 2619 acres of Tuararangaia1B, on the eastern boundary of the original block. Within ten years, all of these areas of land, with the exception of Tuararangaia 3B2, had been transferred to the Crown. We will examine below how this land passed out of Maori control through the processes of sale and gifting.

6.1 The education endowment from Tuararangaia 1B

In 1910 the Native Minister made an application to the Native Land Court, under Part 17 of the Native Land Act 1909, for the incorporation of Tuararangaia 1B. Incorporation meant that a management committee for the block was set up under the incorporation rules as set out in sections 325 to 329 of the Native Land Act 1909, with the powers of incorporated owners as set out in sections 330 to 337 of the same Act. If this committee decided to alienate the land in question, the decision could only be carried out with the approval of the local Maori Land Board or the Public Trustee. At a sitting of the Native Land Court at Whakatane on 12 October 1912, Judge J W Browne issued an order of incorporation for the block. Erueti Pene who attended this sitting of the court, claimed to represent the owners of Tuararangaia lB. On their behalf, he gave approval to the order of incorporation. As a result, after some delays in assembling a meeting of owners, a management committee was elected to manage the block on behalf of the owners. Those elected were: Erueti Biddle, Miki Te Wakaunua, Te Ranui, Mika Rangitaiki, Akuhata Te Kaha, Natana, and Te Purewa. The management committee was officially appointed by Judge J W Browne on 17 February 1911.214

214 Whakatane MB 10, 12 October 1910, fols 163-164; Opotiki MB 20, 26 November 1910, fo161; Incorporation Order, Whakatane Native Land Court, 12 October 1910, Block Order File 17921b, Box 1251, MLC Rotorua; Order appointing management committee, Taupo NLC, 17 February 1911, (English and Maori versions), Block Order File 1792/c, Box 1251, MLC Rotorua; Judge Browne, Waiariki District Maori Land Board, to Under Secretary Native Department, 5 July 1912, MA-MLP 1 19l3/67, Wellington NA

97 Table 3: The Division and Alienation of the Tuararangaia Blocks, 1891-1983 Blocks awarded at 1891 Division of Blocks up to Land alienation or division Whakatane NLC Survey Liens of 1907 after 1910.

TUARARANGAIA 1 Tuararangaia lA, taken by Southern 1000 acres of Ngai Tamatuhirae, Tuhoe. Crown for survey costs, 27 Tuararangaia 1B gifted for 3500 acres Sept 1907, 881 acres education endowment, 20 August 1912. Tuararangaia 1B, retained Northern 1619 acres by owners, 2619 acres Tuararangaia 1B, gifted for War Fund, 20 Nov 1914. TUARARANGAIA 2 Tuararangaia 2A, taken by Tuararangaia 2B sold to Ngati Pukeko Crown for survey costs, 27 Crown, 27 Nov 1916. 1000 acres Sept 1907,207 acres. 793 acres sold for £240.

Tuararangaia 2B, retained by owners, 793 acres.

TUARARANGAIA 3 Tuararangaia 3A, sectioned Tuararangaia 3B2 retained Ngati HamualWarahoe off to become Crown land by owners. 4156 acres. after sale of shares, 11 May Public works takings: 1896,2166 acres. 1925, roading 10 acres. ~~~----~~~~--~~Tuararangaia 3B1, taken by 1968, Matahina dam, c. 150 Crown for survey costs, 27 acres. Sept 1907, 536 acres Block was divided into 3B2A and 3B2B, 10 Apr 1970. ~~------~~~--~~~Tuararangaia 3B2, retained 3B2B amalgamated with by owners, 1545 acres Omataroa-Rangitaiki 1 on 10 Apr 1970. 3B2A amalgamated with Omataroa-Rangitaiki 2 on 26 Oct 1983.

On 8 June 1912 W W S MacDonald, the Native Minister, while visiting Taneatua in the eastern Bay of Plenty, was given a letter signed and sealed by the management committee for Tuararangaia 1B, with the request that it should be passed on to the Minister of Education. The letter, in Maori, proposed to cede 1000 acres of the 2619 acre Tuararangaia 1B block, to be used as an endowment to raise money for Maori Colleges. The letter stated that the committee was acting on the authority of the incorporated owners of the block. They proposed that 1000 acres be cut off from the southern end of the block. It is interesting to note that the letter specified that the Government should pay for the survey that would be necessary to designate the 1000 acres

98 endowment.215 MacDonald passed this letter to the Under-Secretary of the Native Department, who set in train the legal processes necessary to carry out the wishes of the management committee,z16At this time the management committee were proposing to cut up the northern part of the section into dairy units to be operated by Tuhoe from the Ruatoki area; a questionable plan given the rugged nature of the northern part of the block.217 It is likely that they saw the gifting of the southern section for an education endowment, as a way of helping gain access to the Pakeha school system, especially secondary education.

The Native Affairs Department insisted on summoning a meeting of owners, under Part 18 of the Native Land Act 1909, to verify the assertion that the endowment idea had the approval of the assembled owners. In the application to summon a meeting of owners the following resolution was put forward to be discussed by the assembled owners. 218 The resolution, written in English, was as follows: That a portion to the south end of the [Tuararangaia IB] block, containing 1,000 acres, be ceded to the Crown, to be set aside as a permanent endowment for Native Schools or Native Colleges.219

At the meeting, held on 27 August 1912 at Tauarau, Ruatoki, a motion written in Maori was put forward to the assembled owners. This motion was carried by an unknown majority, as no records have been located telling us how many people attended the meeting.22o To consider what the Tuhoe landowners thought they were agreeing to at this meeting, it is necessary to examine the Maori text they voted on. Among those who attended the meeting was Hemana Pokiha, a representative of the Waiariki District Maori Land Board. On 4 September 1912, he sent a report on the meeting to the President of the Board, within which he set out the motion, in Maori, voted on by the meeting. The report stated,

215 Te Komiti Whakahaere 0 Tuararangaia lB ki te Minita mo nga Kura, 25 May 1912, MA-MLP 119l3/67, Wellington NA; Management Committee, Tuararangaia lB to the Minister of Education, 25 May 1912, (English Translation of above letter), MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA 216 Native Minister to Under Sec Native Department, 9 June 1912, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA. McDonald was replaced as Native Minister by W H Herries innnediately after this, following the formation of a new Government by W F Massey on 10 July 1912 217 Judge Brown to Under Secretary Native Dept, 5 July 1912, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA 218 Ibid; Application to Summon Meeting of Owners, Tuararangaia No. lB, 15 July 1912, BAJJ A 73/1914/303, AucklandNA 219 Ibid. 220 No record has been found of how many owners attended the meeting at Tauarau on the 27 August 1912. Therefore we have no written indication of what proportion of the owners voted in favour or against the endowment, and what proportion took no part in the process. There is no record of any opposition to the proposal, but this does not rule out the possibility that some of the owners may have been against it. At least five people must have been present at the meeting as, under Part 18, section 342 of the Native land Act 1909, five assembled owners constituted a quorum.

99 Te Huinga 0 nga tangata no ratau te whenua iraro iwahi xviii, Ture Whenua Maori 1909. Mo Tuararangaia No. 1B

Ko te motini, "te whakaarohia ana te pito ki te tonga 0 taua whenua 1000 nga eka, kia tukua ki te Karauna hei oranga mo nga Kura me nga Kareti Maori". He nui nga rangatira 0 Tuhoe i tu ki te whai kupu i taua huihuinga, a whakaaetia ana te motini, Hemana Pokiha. Rep. of Board

I whai kupu ano aua rangatira 0 Tuhoe kia tino whakapumautia te whakatu e te Kawanatanga tetahi kura ara Kareti mo nga tamariki 0 Tuhoe 0 N' Awa me te Arawa ki te takiwa Ohiwa.221

I have set out below two different English translations of Hemana Pokiha's original Maori version of the resolution made by the assembled owners. One of these translations is by Tama Nikora, the current claims manager for the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board. Wayne Taitoko, official translator at the Waitangi Tribunal, also made a translation into English of the text, as it was considered appropriate that a neutral translation should be available. As I am not qualified to judge the accuracy of the two slightly different translations, I have set them both out in full below. Mr Taitoko gives the following English meaning to the Maori text: In the matter of the meeting of the people from whom the land came [to whom the land belongs] under section xviii, The Maori Land Act 1909

In Respect of Tuararangaia No. 1B The Motion; "It is proposed that a portion of that land [Tuararangaia 1B] 1,000 acres in area, be given to the Crown in support ofthe schools and Maori colleges".

Many of the Chiefs of Tuhoe spoke at that meeting and agreed to the motion, [signed] Hemana Pokiha Rep of Board

Those Chiefs of Tuhoe also discussed the commitment made by the Govermnent to erect schools, that is colleges, for the children of Tuhoe, Ngaati Awa and Te Arawa III. t h e d·IStrict . 0 fOh·lwa. 222

Mr Taitoko points out in his commentary on the translation notes that we cannot be sure that the Pokiha letter is an exact record of the motion passed at the meeting. He also notes that several interpretations are possible for the resolution as it is worded in the letter, but emphasises that the resolution clearly states, that the Tuhoe leaders who voted at this meeting wanted to give land to the Crown in order to support the education of their children. 223

221 Hemana Pokiha to President Waiariki District MLB,4 September 1912, BAJJ A73/1914/303, Auckland NA 222 Translation by W W W Taitoko, Waitangi Tribunal, June 2000 223 Ibid

100 Mr Taitoko comments on two of the key phrases used in the motion presented in the Maori text. He notes that he believes the phrase 'kia tukua ki te Karauna', which he translated as 'be given to the Crown', actually implied a reciprocal arrangement between the giver and the receiver with binding obligations on both parties. He also notes that the phrase 'hei oranga mo nga kura', which he translates as 'in support of schools', would, in his opinion, have meant much more than mere support. Taitoko points out that funds generated from land gifted to the Crown could be used for scholarships to send children to schools, as well as for the building of schools. The word 'oranga' was broad enough to mean this type of 'support' for education as wel1.224

Tama Nikora's translation of the Hemana Pokihi's Maori text varies slightly in emphasis from the translation made by Wayne Taitoko. Nikora translates the text into English as follows: The motion, 'That a portion of the block containing 1,000 acres be let to the Crown as sustenance for Native Schools and Colleges': There were many chiefs of Tuhoe who stood to have a word at that meeting, and the motion was agreed to. Those chiefs of Tuhoe also added and emphasised that the Government must establish a school, that is a college, for the children of Tuhoe, N' Awa and Te Arawa in the Ohiwa area,z25

Nikora makes a point of noting that the term 'tukua', used to refer to the passing of the land to the Crown, 'kia tukua ki te Karauna', does not mean to 'sell' the land. He also places a greater emphasis on the postscript in which the subject of a college to be established at Ohiwa is raised. In Maori this passage reads:

I whai kupu ano aua rangatira 0 Tuhoe kia tino whakapumautia te whakatu e te Kawanatanga tetahi kura ara Kareti mo nga tamariki 0 Tuhoe 0 N' Awa me te Arawa ki te takiwa Ohiwa.

Nikora translates this as: Those chiefs of Tuhoe also added and emphasised that Government must establish a school that is a college, for the children ofTuhoe, N' Awa and Te Arawa.226

This can be compared with Taitoko's translation of the same passage: Those Chiefs of Tuhoe also discussed the commitment made by the Government to erect schools, that is colleges, for the children of Tuhoe, Ngaati Awa and Te Arawa in the district of Ohiwa.227

224 Ibid 225 T Nikora, 'Tuararangaia Pt 1B Block of 1,000 acres', Pt 3, 6 December 1999, (Draft), Section 26 226 Ibid

101 Both of the above English translations show that the Tuhoe leaders believed that the Government had some responsibility to establish a Maori college in the Ohiwa area. Nikora interprets the Pokiha letter, perhaps with the benefit of traditional knowledge, as saying that the landowners regarded the Crown as having an obligation to establish such a college in return for the gifting of the land.

It seems that, whatever the meaning intended in the original resolution in te reo Maori, no mention of a college at Ohiwa was put into the contemporary English translations of the motion passed at the August 1912 meeting. For example the initial 'Confirmation of a Resolution passed by Assembled Owners', was released on 12 October 1912 by Judge Browne and Tai Mitchell on behalf of the Waiariki District Maori Land Board. This document presented the owner's resolution as saying: 'A portion to the South-End of the Block containing 1000 acres be ceded to the Crown to be set aside as a permanent endowment for Native Schools or Native Colleges' .z28 A number of other official English language documents referring to the transfer of the southern 100 acres of Tuararangaia 1B were found in the course of this study. None of these documents contained any reference to the establishment of a college at Ohiwa. If the idea of a college being set up at Ohiwa did not make it into the English language official documents, it is probable that the idea remained unknown to the English speaking Government Department bureaucrats who dealt with processing the endowment. 229

The clear impression gained from both translations is that the landowners of Tuararangaia 1B wanted to establish a reciprocal relationship with the Crown. This relationship would involve the Tuhoe people providing economic assets to the Crown to be used directly to help sustain primary and secondary education for Bay of Plenty Maori children, with the emphasis being placed on secondary education. Thus in a direct relationship between the Crown and Tuhoe, specific benefits would be exchanged between each party. At this period of time, Tuhoe had very few economic assets, so land was one of the few things they could use for bargaining power in any economic exchange.

227 Translation by W W W Taitoko, Waitangi Tribunal, June 2000 228 Confirmation of Resolution, 25 October 1912, BAJJ A73/1914/303, Auckland NA. 229 T Nikora, 'Tuararangaia Pt 1B Block of 1,000 acres', Pt 3, 6 December 1999, (Draft), Sections 26 and 27

102 The legal processes involved in the gifting of the 1000 acres took several years to complete. The Under Secretary of the Native Department wrote to the Solicitor General in November 1912, to ask about the legal implications of going ahead with the ceding of the land to the Crown. The Assistant Law Officer of the Crown Law Office replied that the Native Department should proceed, but that the boundaries of the block must be defined by survey before anything could be done. A few half-hearted attempts were made over the next few years to carry out a survey of the land in question, but no progress was made. In the meantime, the Education Department made intermittent enquiries as to when the endowment land would come under Crown title.23o Finally in 1915, the Head Office of the Lands and Survey Department decided to carry through the transfer of the 1000 acres, along with the rest of Tuararangaia 1B, to Crown title without benefit of 'useless and unnecessary survey work'. (In 1914 the land owners had gifted the remainder of Tuararangaia 1B to the Crown for the War Fund. See below section 6.2.) The boundaries of the 231 block were defined from the already existing plan and no survey was carried OUt.

A memo from the Under Secretary of the Native Department to the Registrar of the Waiariki Native Land Court, dated 15 October 1917, explained that the title of the land had still not been transferred to the Crown. This was explained as being the result of the more complicated processes involved in the gifting of land, compared to those in a straightforward purchase. The Under Secretary advised that the quickest way to transfer the title of the land to the Crown was for the Waiariki Maori Land Board to execute the transfer, with a condition attached that the land be set aside as a permanent endowment for Native Schools or Native Colleges.232 The Waiariki Land Board carried out this process. The certificate of title for the 1,000 acres was finally issued on 10 January 1918. The certificate contained the note that the land was set aside 'for the purposes of a permanent endowment for Native Schools or Native Colleges.' Once again there was no mention on the title document that any money made from the block was to be used for establishing a Native college at Ohiwa. There was also no stipulation that any of the money

230 Under Secretary Native Dept to Solicitor General, 310ctober 1912, MA-MLP 11913/67, Wellington NA; Assistant Law Officer to Under Secretary Native Dept 20 December 1912, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; Sec of Education to Under Secretary Native Dept, 9 August 1913, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; Under Secretary Native Dept to Valuer General, 24 March 1915, MA-MLP 11913/67, Wellington NA. 231 Under Secretary Lands & Survey Dept to Chief Surveyor Auckland, 15 January 1915, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; Under Secretary Native Dept to Valuer General, 24 March 1915, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; C Brown, Certifying Officer Native Department to Under Secretary Native Dept, 17 April 1915, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA. 232 Under Secretary Native Dept to Registrar Waiariki NLC, 15 October 1917, BAJJ A73/1914/303, Auckland NA

103 from the endowment would go specifically for the education of Tuhoe or any other Bay of Plenty Maori children.233

It appears clear that the aim of the Tuhoe leaders in gifting the profits to be made from the southern 1,000 acres of the Tuararangaia 1B block, was to provide education, in particular secondary education, for their own children and for the children of Ngati Awa and Te Arawa. While it is not completely clear that the gift was contingent on the establishment of a college at Ohiwa, the mention of such a college in the Pokiha letter indicates that the Tuhoe leaders were aiming at setting up educational facilities in their own area. The vague nature of the terms under which the Crown set up the endowment made it much less likely that the Crown would use money made from the land specifically for the education of Tuhoe children. As will be shown below, this was in fact exactly how things worked out over the next forty years.

6.2 The gifting of northern Tuararangaia IB to the War Fund

In August 1914, New Zealand joined in the conflict that became known as the Great War. The Tuararangaia 1B management committee moved very quickly to make their own contribution to the Empire's war. While the committee may have been moved by feelings of loyalty to the British Empire, it is also likely that they hoped to gain some political leverage with the Government through this action. On 5 September 1914 the Management Committee sent a telegram in Maori to Prime Minister Massey offering to donate the remaining 1619 acres of Tuararangaia 1B to help the war effort. A note attached to the English translation of the telegram explained to Massey that: 'Tuhoe is the tribal name of the Urewera Natives. They are well endowed with land but have no money, in fact [they are] practically penniless ... .'234

Two letters were sent to Massey. Both were dated 3 September 1914 and both were written in Maori. One of these was a resolution signed by 39 Tuhoe leaders, agreeing to cede 1619 acres of Tuararangaia in order to raise funds to help the war effort. The other letter explained that a meeting of landowners had been held to consider the proposition put to the management committee by Akuhata Te Kaha and Numia Kereru. They had proposed that the remaining land of Tuararangaia 1B should be given to the Government, to be sold to raise funds in order to send

233 Certificate of Title 2741158, LINZ Hamilton 234 Telegram, Powhare to W F Massey, 5 September 1914, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; Translation of Telegram, ? September 1914, MA-MLP 11913/67, Wellington NA

104 soldiers to Europe. Those present at the committee meeting voted unanimously to support this resolution.235

In a memo to the President of the Waiariki Maori Land Board, the Under Secretary of the Native Department explained the legal difficulties involved in the Crown accepting the gifted land. The only course available to the Government was to purchase the land and then have the Waiariki Maori Land Board donate the money paid for it into the War Fund. The Crown therefore made a formal offer to purchase the land in question.236

A meeting of owners was held at Whakatane, on 20 November 1914, under Part 18 of the Native Land Act 1909. Twenty-five owners attended this meeting, with an additional 16 owners being represented by proxy. The legal requirement for quorum, under section 342 of the Act, was that five people had to attend any meeting of assembled owners. Two motions were put to the meeting. The first was that the remaining 1619 acres of Tuararangaia 1B should be sold to the Crown, the second that the Waiariki Maori Land Board should donate the entire sum of the purchase money to the War Fund. Both resolutions were passed with only one dissenter, Te Oti Tutakangahau, who voted against both. It should be noted that at this time, there were 719 legal owners of Tuararangaia lB. The owners who voted at this meeting represented a tiny proportion of the owners and held 55 116 shares. Therefore, the vote at this meeting consisted of 54 1/6 votes for the sale and one share, that ofTe Oti Tutakangahau, against.237

The Waiariki District Maori Land Board confirmed the decision of the meeting.238 Judge Browne, the president of the board, wrote on behalf of the owners, to T W Fisher, the Under Secretary of the Native Department, requesting that a valuation of the land be made as soon as possible. This would enable him to inform the owners how much they were contributing to the War Fund. He also mentioned: 'The meeting was well attended and there was only one

235 Resolution from meeting, 3 September 1914. MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; Management Connnittee to W F Massey, 3 September 1914, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; English Translations of Above, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA. 236 Under Secretary Native Dept to President Waiariki Land Board, 20 October 1914, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; Crown Offer to Purchase Land, 7 October 1914, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA. 237Minutes, Meeting of Assembled Owners, Tuararangaia lB, 20 November 1914, BAJJ A73/ 1914/303, Auckland NA 238 Confirmation of Resolution of Assembled Owners, Tuararangaia lB, 11 December 1914, BAJJ A 73/ 1914/303, AucklandNA

105 dissenting owner viz. Te Oti Tutakangahau. He owns a very small interest and the amount payable to him on account can easily be protected but I do not think he will ever claim it' .239

By 1914, the surveying of the boundaries between the various subdivisions of the original Tuararangaia block (Tuararangaia lA, Tuararangaia 1B, Tuararangaia 2A, Tuararangaia 2B, Tuararangaia 3A, Tuararangaia 3B1 and Tuararangaia 3B2), had been discussed, but no progress had been made in carrying out any internal survey of the block. (See above, section 5.5). The processing of the gifting of both the southern and northern sections of Tuararangaia 1B was held up by the lack of a survey. This omission also placed difficulties in the way of getting a proper Government valuation of the northern section. After some discussion between officials of the Native Department and the Lands and Survey Department, the two departments decided that the acquisition of the land from Tuararangaia 1B should not be delayed any longer. Therefore, the Lands and Survey Department went ahead with compiling a plan of the boundaries on the Tuararangaia block from existing documents,z4o

From the plan compiled by the Lands and Survey Department, a valuation of the northern 1619 acres of Tuararangaia 1B was carried out by the Valuation Department. This was carried out without benefit of inspecting the land in question. Despite the fact that, at the 1907 hearings to decide survey charges, the value of the Tuararangaia land had been set at five shillings an acre, J H Flanagan, the Valuer General, advised the Native Department that the land was now worth 10 shillings per acre. The Crown therefore purchased the northern part of Tuararangaia 1B for £809 lOs Od, a sum that was eventually donated to the War Fund. A proclamation declaring the northern part of Tuararangaia 1B to be Crown land was issued on 6 October 1915.241

The major issue raised by the alienation of this land as a donation to the War Fund is that of whether a vote by 41 owners out of719 can be regarded as a fair representation of the wishes of the owners. There is no written evidence of any major opposition to the donation of the land. This does not, however, mean that most of the owners either knew about or supported the transaction that occurred. However, section 342 of Native Land Act 1909 held that at any

239 President Waiariki MLB to Under Sec Native Dept, 21 December 1914, BAJJ A73/ 1914/303, Auckland NA 240 Under Secretary, Lands & Survey Dept, to Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 15 January 1915, MA-MLP 119l3/67, Wellington NA; Under Secretary Native Dept to Valuer General, 24 March 1915, MA-MLP 1 19l3/67, Wellington NA; Certifying Officer Native Dept. to Under Secretary Native Dept., 17 April 1915, MA-MLP 119l3/67, Wellington NA.

106 meeting of assembled owners of Native freehold land, five owners would constitute a quorum. It can therefore be seen that the sale was legally valid at the time that it occurred There are, however, strong moral questions concerning the fairness of this sale. There is also a strong argument that the system of land administration that the crown set up under the Native Land Act 1909 and under similar pieces of legislation, facilitated the easy alienation of Maori land. Such systems of administration ran contrary to the Crown's fiduciary obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to protect the Maori right to retain their land. 242

It appears that Tuhoe leaders may have regarded the Tuararangaia 1B block as a sort of 'land bank' to be used instead of cash. Tuhoe were financially very poor in the 1910s. The Tuararangaia block was an area of rough country that was not valuable for agriculture. It had no settlements on it and was mainly used for hunting. It was also located on the geographical margins of the territory that was still in Tuhoe possession. It may be that some of the leaders of Tuhoe saw this area as one that was expendable and that could be sacrificed in lieu of cash to gain benefits for Tuhoe such as access to secondary education.

6.3 The sale of Tuararangaia 2B

On 21 July 1913 Mr Charles M Buckworth, country travelling representative of the firm of J Thomes, House, Land and Estate Agent, wrote to the Native Minister concerning an approach that had been made to him by 'a large deputation of Ngati Pukeko Natives' at Whakatane. The group had told Buckworth that they were eager to sell the Waiohau 2 block, along with the block adjacent to it, Tuararangaia 2B.As Mr Buckworth's firm did not deal in Native lands, he had passed this information on to the Native Minister. The Ngati Pukeko delegation had, on Buckworth's advice, already made an offer of these lands to the Government. Buckworth's letter arrived at the Native Department a few days after a letter from Tamati Waka and fifteen other Ngati Pukeko, in which they offered Tuararangaia 2B and Waiohau 2 for sale to the Government for £2 per acre. 243

241 Valuer General to Under Secretary Native Dept, 8 May 1915, MA-MLP 119l3/67, Wellington NA; President Waiariki MLB to Under Secretary Native Dept, 12 July 1915, MA-MLP 1 19l3/67, Wellington NA; Proclamation proclaiming area Crown Land, 6 October 1915, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA. 242 Native Land Act, 1909, Pt 18, section 342. 243 C M Buckworth to the Native Minister, 21 July 1913, MA-MLP 1 19l3/44; Tamati Waka and others to the Minister of Native Affairs, (English translation),7 July 1913, MA-MLP 1 1913/44; Notice of Crown Offer of

107 In response to these letters, the Department of Native Affairs called in the District Valuer J H Burch, who made an appraisal of the blocks in question, in March 1914. Burch was not impressed with the Tuararangaia 2B block and set a value on it of five shillings an acre. At 793 acres, he calculated the value of Tuararangaia 2B at £240. The Crown made an offer to the owners, under section 355 of the Native Land Act 1909, to purchase the block for £240, as calculated by the district valuer. This offer was rejected at a meeting of owners held on 26 June 1914 at Whakatane. Thirty-six owners were present at this meeting, holding 113 out of 1008 shares. (At this time there were over 406 owners of shares in Tuararangaia 2B.) The owners who attended the meeting voted unanimously to reject the Crown's offer on the grounds that the price offered was too low and should have been £1 per acre. 244

The Crown made an effort to acquire Tuararangaia 2B in late 1915. Having acquired the bulk of the original Tuararangaia block, the Native Land Purchase Board decided to attempt to purchase some 12,450 acres of land around Tuararangaia 1B.245 W Marsh, the Chief Surveyor of the Auckland district, explained this policy:

It is ... only a question of time when a main road must be constructed along the East bank of the Rangitaiki to Te Teko, and as the major cost of any such road would probably be borne by the government, it would be satisfactory to know that some of the 'unearned increment' was coming our way?46

Marsh was asked to arrange a report on the quality of the blocks of land in question. The Survey Department sent ranger F C Ewen to inspect the areas of land. Ewen looked at fourteen blocks of land in the Rangitaiki/Omataroa area, including Tuararangaia 2B and Tuararangaia 3B2. He reported that the land was very hilly and rough, with mixed bush and thick undergrowth. He considered it to be of very poor quality and to be unsuitable for farm settlement. Ewen believed that five shillings an acre was the maximum price that should be paid for the land, thereby

Purchase, 25 May 1914, MA-MLP 11913/44; Land Purchase Officer Whakatane to Under Secretary Native Dept, 28 June 1914, MA-MLP 1 1913/44. 244J H Burch to Officer in Charge, Valuation Dept, Auckland, 15 March 1914, MA-MLP 1 1913/44; Offer by Crown to Purchase Land, 25 May 1914, BAJJ A73/ 1059 box 66, Auckland NA; Minutes of Meeting of Owners, Tuararangaia 2B, 26 June 1914, BAJJ A73/ 1059 box 66, Auckland NA. 245 Under Secretary Native Dept to Under Secretary Lands & Survey, 7 December 1915, MA-MLP 1 1916/30, Wellington NA 246 Chief Surveyor, Auckland, to Commissioner for Crown Land, 18 October 1915, MA-MLP 11916/30, Wellington NA

108 agreeing with the 1914 valuation ofMr Burch. Ewen did not recommend buying the land, even at this price.247

Mr Burch, who was now district valuer at Opotiki, carried out a special valuation of the two Tuararangaia blocks that remained in Maori ownership, along with a series of sections of the Omataroa 60 block, to the immediate north of the Tuararangaia blocks. He reported that both Tuararangaia 2B and Tuararangaia 3B2 were: 'Chiefly open fern country of very poor quality '" very steep poor ridges of pumicious formation, with a heavy coating of Tarawera scoria'. 248 The final valuations on these two blocks were £240 for Tuararangaia 2B and £545 for Tuararangaia 3B2.249 The Under Secretary of the Native Department decided that the only reason to purchase these blocks was: '(1) To fit in with portions of the Tuararangaia block already Crown Land, and

(2) because the proposed main road [along] the Rangitaiki will pass through these blocks' .250

In October 1916, the Native Minister made offers of purchase to the owners of twelve sections of Omataroa 60, and to the owners of Tuararangaia 2B and 3B2. A series of owners meetings were called to vote on whether to sell their blocks of land. The meeting of the owners of Tuararangaia 3B2 was held at Te Teko on 22 November 1916. Only eight of the over 165 owners were present at this meeting, but between them they held 620 shares in the section. At this time there would have been over 4700 shares in Tuararangaia 3B2. Seven of the owners, holding 600 shares between them, voted against the sale. Te Mokohawera Rangitukehu and Te Unukehu Hipirini, two of the owners who voted against the sale, were both recorded as saying the price offered by the Crown was too low and that they would only agree to a price of £1 per acre. They claimed that the land was valuable as it had good bush cover.251

In October 1916, the Crown repeated the offer of £240 for Tuararangaia 2B. On 22 November 1916, a meeting of owners was held at Whakatane. This meeting was attended by 17 owners, a

247 Under Secretary Lands to Chief Surveyor Auckland, 9 December 1915, MA-MLP 11916/30, Wellington NA; F C Ewen to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, 18 March 1916, DOSLI 6900135, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton; Commissioner of Crown Lands to Under Secretary of Lands, 23 March 1916, MA-MLP 1 1916/30, Wellington NA 248 J H Burch, District Valuer to Officer in Charge, Valuation Office, Auckland, 28 August 1916, MA-MLP 1 1916/30, Wellington NA 249 Valuer General to Under Secretary Native Dept, 14 September 1916, MA-MLP 1 1916/30, Wellington NA 250 Under Secretary Native Dept to Native Minister, 18 September 1916, MA-MLP 1 1916/30, Wellington NA 251 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, Tuararangaia 3B2, 23 November 1916, MA-MLP 11916/30, Wellington NA. No evidence was found indicating the number of shares and shareholders in Tuararangaia 3B2, in 1916. However twenty years earlier, in 1896, there were 165 owners and 4718 shares, see Opotiki MB 14, 11 May 1896, foll60. In October 1939, there were 184 owners and 4718 shares, see Acting Registrar, Rotorua to Under- Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 17 October 1939, MA-MLP 1 1913/44, Wellington NA

109 small proportion of the over 406 owners registered at that time. Between them, these owners held 48 of the 1008 shares in Tuararangaia 2B. The vote was extremely close. Seven owners, holding 22 % shares between them, voted against the sale. Nine owners, holding 23 shares between them, voted for the sale. One owner, Te Tawhero Tiare, who held 2 Y4 shares, was absent from the room when the vote was taken. He was counted as voting in favour of the sale. The result of the vote was recorded as 10 owners in favour of the sale and seven against it. The sale was approved of by a majority of 2 Yz shares, which was considered legally binding. Thus, Tuararangaia 2B was sold to the Crown for £240.252

The obvious issue arising from this sale is that only a very small number of landowners attended the meeting at which the sale was discussed and that the sale was approved by a tiny minority of 2 Yz shares. The fact that one of those counted as voting in favour of the motion was not even present when the vote was taken, further clouds the issue. While the vote was legally binding under section 342 of the Native Land Act 1909, it is highly questionable whether such a small group of owners had any real authority to alienate the land on behalf of all the other owners. On the other hand there is no record of any significant opposition to this sale. Once again the issue is raised of the role of the Crown in establishing a system of land administration that encouraged the alienation of Maori land. The Native Land Act 1909 allowed a quorum of five at meeting of owners to alienate land on behalf of any number of other owners. The Crown in setting up such a system of administration was not meeting up to its obligations under the Treaty to protect Maori rights to their traditional lands.

6.4 Conclusion

With the sale of Tuararangaia 2B, the only land in the Tuararangaia block remaining in Maori hands was Tuararangaia 3B2. The sale of Tuararangaia 2B and the sale and donation of profits from the northern 1619 acres of Tuararangaia 1B, both raise similar issues concerning the right of meetings of owners to dispose of land. The supplementary issues are raised of whether the Waiariki Maori Land Board and the Native Land Purchase Board should have accepted the offers of sale from such small groups of owners. In both of these cases, an extremely small number of owners, controlling a very small proportion of shares in the lands in question, made

252 Offer by Crown to Purchase Land, 16 October 1916, BAJJ A73/ 1059 box 66, Auckland NA; Minutes of Meeting of Owners, Tuararangaia 2B, 22 November 1916, BAJJ A73/ 1059 box 66, Auckland NA; Confirmation of Resolution, 22 December 1916, BAJJ A73/ 1059 box 66, Auckland NA

110 the decision to alienate the blocks of land. The process carried out was, in each case, legally binding, under Part 18 (in particular section 342) of the Native Land Act 1909. It can be argued that the legal system of that time was structured in such a way as to make the alienation of Maori land an easy process. This was particularly so in the case of the Native Land Act 1909, under which land owned by hundreds of people could be sold by a meeting of as few as five listed owners. As argued above, such systems of land administration conflicted with the Crown's duty under the Treaty of Waitangi to the rights of those Maori who wished to retain their traditional lands.

The Tuhoe leaders involved in alienating Tuararangaia 1B for an education endowment and a donation to the War Fund, may have regarded the block as expendable land. Tuararangaia 1B was rough land with no permanent habitations or cultivations and seems to have largely been used for hunting. Tuhoe leaders may have seen this block as one they could use as capital, as they had very little money. The land could be used instead of money for purposes such as fostering secondary education and for making a contribution, for whatever reason, to the war effort. This does not, however, remove the issue of whether the people who made these decisions had the authority to alienate the land without the input of a representative group of the other owners.

The other issue to arise from the gifting of the southern 1000 acres of Tuararangaia 1B, was that of the conditions attached to the education endowment. According to Tama Nikora, claims manager for the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board the meeting of owners had made the gift of land on the condition that the money from the endowment be used to establish a Maori college in the Ohiwa district. This condition did not even get spelled out in the English translation of the owners' resolution. Aside from the specific issue of a college at Ohiwa, it is clear that the gifting of land was made on the condition that specific educational benefits accrued to the children of Tuhoe and other Bay of Plenty Maori. In none of the Government department documents on the 1000 acre educational endowment was this condition spelled out. At the end of the 1910s, it remained to be seen how the Education Department would use any money they made from the area of land and whether that money would be used for Maori schools and colleges. The economic uses of the Tuararangaia block, from the 1920s onward, will be examined in the next chapter.

111 CHAPTER 7 DEVELOPMENTS ON THE TUARARANGAIA BLOCKS 1918-1970s

By 1918, all of the Tuararangaia blocks had passed into Crown hands with the exception of Tuararangaia 3B2, of 1545 acres, in the north western comer of the original Tuararangaia block. A series of public works were to lead to more loss of land from the last remaining section still in Maori ownership. The Crown land on the Tuararangaia block was to stay unused economically until after the Second World War. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the native forest on these sections attracted the attention of timber companies. The clearing of these forests and their replanting in exotic pines was the main economic activity on the Tuararangaia block in the post­ war period. The questioning of the usage of the educational endowment land in the southern part of Tuararangaia 1B was to lead to a Tuhoe campaign to have this land returned to them. In the meantime, on the western side of the Tuararangaia block, the building of the Matahina dam in the 1960s led to land loss and substantial environmental changes.253

7.1 Public Works takings: A road along the Rangitaiki

In August 1914, surveyor Thomas Reardon wrote to H M Skeet, the Chief Surveyor of the Auckland district, to discuss work to be carried out on the Tuararangaia block. He mentioned that the Whakatane County Engineer had told him that the Whakatane County Council intended to prospect for a road to connect Whakatane to Rotorua. The Whakatane Harbour Board was another major backer of the road project, as they believed it would lead to trade benefits for Whakatane. The council planned to build a road that would be shorter than the already-existing Whakatane-Rotorua road and would follow the Rangitaiki River, passing through the Tuararangaia 3B2 block.254 The road project was dependent upon the Lands and Survey

253 With regard to the Maori owners of Tuararangaia 3B2 it should be noted that the descendents of the people who had in the nineteenth century largely identified with the hapu ofWarahoe and Ngati Hamua, appear by the 1920s to have identified more with the larger iwi ofNgati Awa. By the mid twentieth century the Warahoe hapu appears to have largely disappeared as a separate political unit, although it was revived in the 1970s. The present day descendants ofWarahoe and Ngati Hamua are, no doubt, better placed than this researcher to unravel the complexities of changing hapu and iwi identity. See 0 Phillis, 'Warahoe', Wai 46, A40, pp 1-2, and K Iriaka, evidence, Wai 46 record of documents, doc A50, p 3 254 T Reardon to Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 29 August 1914, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton; H 0 Garaway, Whakatane County Clerk to the Chief Surveyor, 24 November 1914, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton

112 Department carrying out the survey necessary for road construction. The Whakatane Harbour Board and the County Council were therefore very unhappy with the decision of the Lands and Survey Department, in October 1914, to defer the survey of the Tuararangaia block, due to the high cost of surveying such a rugged area. 255

Some work on the road project had been carried out before 1914. The surveyor R G MacMorran, who had begun but not completed a survey of the Tuararangaia block in 1911, had surveyed a paper road down the east bank of the Rangitaiki up to Tuararangaia 3B2. Another surveyor, R F Mackenzie, surveyed a road from the Rangitaiki valley road to the Mangapapa Stream, up the Mangapapa Stream and into the back sections of the block (see map 2).256 By August 1921, the Whakatane County Council had begun the construction of a road that was planned to follow the Rangitaiki River and to connect Te Teko and Galatea (further up the Rangitaiki near Murupara, as shown on mapl).257

The Rangitaiki road was surveyed and laid off to pass through the Omataroa 60 B, C, and D blocks (immediately north of Tuararangaia) and through the Tuararangaia 3B2 block. This was done under the provisions of sections 48, 49, and 50 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1913. In accordance with this Act, a sitting of the Whakatane Native Land Court was held on 29 October 1924, at which objections to the proposed new road were called for. The owners conceded that the road was 'a public necessity', and therefore raised no objection. Following this, on 30 October, the Whakatane Native Land Court proclaimed this a public road and compulsorily purchased the required areas of land from each block. The area of land taken from the Tuararangaia 3B2 block amounted to 10 acres, 3 roods, and 2 perches.258

255 Under Secretary Lands & Survey to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 30 October 1914, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton; 0 Garaway, Secretary Whakatane Harbour Board, 3 December 1914, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton 256 Chief Surveyor to R F MacKenzie, 10 October 1919, DOSLI 6900/35 vol 1, LINZ Hamilton; R F MacKenzie to Chief Surveyor, 18 November 1919, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton 257C S Kensington, Crown Lands Ranger, to Commissioner Crown Lands, 30 August 1921, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton. 258 Whakatane MB 21, 30 October 1924, fo1354; Proclamation of Public Road, undated, File BOAB A1D76/379d19/754, Auckland NA; Under Sec Lands & Survey to Comm for Crown Lands, 30 May 1925, File BOAB A1076/379d19/754, Auckland NA; NZ Gazette, vol. 3, no 62,1925, p. 2509

113 7.2 Settlement plans on the Tuararangaia block

The rangers and surveyors who had inspected the Tuararangaia block in the 19l0s and early 1920s all looked at the land with an eye to its potential for fanning settlement. In 1920, the surveyor R F Mackenzie reported that the Tuararangaia block could be divided up into eight sections. Of these sections, the three that bordered the Rangitaiki River were rough country unsuitable for farming. Mackenzie considered that the other sections were rough in places but contained some land that would make good grazing country. The land had many rivers and streams, and plenty ofhinau that could be used for fencing timber. Mackenzie thought the block did not contain enough timber to be worth milling, but he was to be proved wrong on this point.259

The question of opening the Tuararangaia block up for farm settlement was raised several times in the period between the wars. In 1919, the Bay of Plenty Development League held a meeting at which they passed a resolution that both sections of the Tuararangaia 1B block should be opened for settlement. In the early 1920s, two separate studies were made of the whole Tuararangaia block, in order to gauge its suitability for conversion to farmland. One study was carried out by C S Kensington, a Crown lands ranger, and one by Russell Dick, staff surveyor of the Auckland district Lands and Survey Office. The Education Department put some pressure on the Auckland Lands and· Survey Office to open up the Tuararangaia 1B block for farm settlement. Dick made a report on the area that suggested it was unsuitable for such settlement and would be better utilised as either a state forest reserve or a water conservation reserve. In 1927, in a letter to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, accompanying a series of field inspection notes on the sections of the Tuararangaia block, Field Inspector M Galvin declared that the land was so poor overall as to make it unsuitable for farm settlement.260

In 1937 the issue of farm settlement was raised again, this time from a Maori source. During a visit by the Acting Native Minister to Ruatoki on 16 March, Rewi Petera, of Ruatahuna, approached the Minister, with a plan concerning the Tuararangaia 1B block. Petera's suggestion

259 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Under Secretary for Lands, 9 April 1920, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton 260 C S Kensington, Crown Lands Ranger, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, 30 August 1921, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton; R G Dick, Staff Surveyor, Auckland, to Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 25 August 1922, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton; R G Dick, Staff Surveyor, to Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 9 September1922, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 1, LINZ Hamilton.; M Galvin, Field Inspector, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 27 March 1927, MA-MLP 11913/67, Wellington NA

114 was that the block should be given over to Maori ex-servicemen, to be developed as dairy farms. Petera was reported as claiming that the Tuararangaia block had been donated for soldier settlement. Following a study by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, the Under Secretary of Lands rejected Petera's idea. The study held that no authority existed to open the land specifically for Maori ex-soldiers, that it was many years since land had been put aside for soldier settlement, and that the land itself was unsuitable for this purpose.261 Apirana Ngata raised the idea again, in 1944, but put it aside after a discouraging reaction from the Native

Department. 262

The idea of Maori soldier settlement on the Tuararangaia 1B block was raised agam m September 1949, at a meeting between the Controller of Maori Social and Economic Advancement, Rangi Royal, and the West Tuhoe Tribal. Executive. The executive referred specifically to the idea of settling Tuhoe ex-soldiers on the 1619 acres that had been gifted for patriotic purposes. Royal wrote that he was told at the meeting that the entire Tuararangaia 1B block had been donated on condition that it would be available for soldier settlement. On investigation he found out that profits from the educational endowment land were tagged for educational purposes, while the remaining land had been donated to the Crown unconditionally. He promised to investigate the potential of the block for soldier settlement but feared that it would not be suitable. The idea of soldier settlement appears to have been completely abandoned after this time.263

7.3 Forestry developments on Tuararangaia IB: The uses of funds generated by the education endowment land

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Lands and Survey Department and the Forestry Department carried through plans to begin logging the native forest on the Crown Land on the Tuararangaia block. In 1948, logging began in a part of what was then designated State Forest 101, but had formerly been part of Tuararangaia 3A. Logging continued through the various sections of the Tuararangaia block, until at least March of 1957, when logging ceased in a part of State Forest 101 that had formerly been southern section of Tuararangaia 2B. As most of this

261 Under Secretary Native Dept to Under Secretary Lands, 21 April 1937, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; Under Secretary Lands to Under Secretary Native Dept, 11 June 1937, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; Under Secretary Lands to Under Secretary Native Dept, 7 July 1937, MA-MLP 11913/67, Wellington NA. 262 Native Dept official (unspecified) to A Ngata, 11 October 1944, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA

115 land was now under a clear Crown title, no difficulties had been involved in having them declared provisional state forest for the purposes oflogging.264

The legalities of logging the 1000 acre education endowment in the south of Tuararangaia were a more complex case. The Under Secretary of Lands wrote to his counterpart in the Native Department stating that if the Tuararangaia 1B block were made provisional state forest, it would become unavailable for soldier settlement until the timber had been logged. The Native Department's reply was to the effect that the proceeds from any logging on Tuararangaia 1B should go toward the educational purposes for which the land was donated. It was suggested that money from logging on the northern part of Tuararangaia 1B might be used for Maori soldier settlement or some similar patriotic purposes. 265

In early 1948 the Forest Service were inspecting the Tuararangaia block to determine the value and extent of timber on each section of the block. The Tunnicliffe Timber Co Ltd, of Edgecumbe, applied for cutting rights to the education endowment lands on Tuararangaia 1B in February of the same year. The Lands and Survey Department supported this application but only on condition that the revenue generated should be tagged and used for educational purposes. The educational endowment land could not technically be designated as provisional state forest due to its special status. The unusual circumstances of the educational endowment land meant that the Forest Service had to carry out a special appraisal of its forestry values. It was further suggested that Forestry should supervise the timber extraction. The Department of Lands and Survey had to also gain the agreement of the Maori Affairs Department and the Education Department before they could give the go ahead with the logging.266

263 Extract from Notes of Meeting, CMSEA and W Tuhoe Tribal Exec, 29 September 1949, MA-MLP 11913/67, Wellington NA; CMSEA to W Tuhoe Tribal Exec, 11 November 1949, MA-MLP 11913/67, WellingtonNA 264 I was unable to locate all the Forest Service records for all sections of State Forest 101 on the Tuararangaia block. I did, however, locate the following records in the Wellington National Archives; F 1 23/21101181 (Referring to a 215 acre western section of Tuararangaia 3A);F 1 23/2/1011100 (Referring to a 287 acre central section of Tuararangaia 3B1); F 123/2/101/135 (Referring to a 341 acre eastern section of Tuararangaia 3B1);F 1 23/2/1011194 (Referring to a 170 acre southern section of Tuararangaia 2B); F 1 23/2/101/197 (Referring to a 29 acre western section of Tuararangaia 3A; and F 1 23/21101/210 (Referring to a western section of Tuararangaia 3A) 265 Under Secretary Lands to Under Secretary Native Dept, 6 October 1947, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA. Includes hand written comment from Under Secretary Native Dept, undated; Under Secretary Native Dept to Under Secretary Lands, 3 November 1947, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA 266 Tunnic1iffe and Co Timber Merchants to Maori Affairs Dept., 16 February 1948, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA; Under Secretary Lands to Under Secretary Maori Affairs, 20 February 1948, MA-MLP 11913/67, Wellington NA; Under Secretary Lands to Under Secretary Maori Affairs, 25 February1948, MA-MLP 11913/67, Wellington NA; Under Secretary Lands to Director of Education, 3 April 1948, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA.

116 A series of negotiations were carried out between officials of the Department of Lands and Survey, the Forest Service, the Department of Maori Affairs and the Education Department. As a result, an agreement was reached that the Forest Service would act as the agent for the Education Department in arranging the milling of the native forest. The Education Department would make the money earned from the education endowment land available for Maori education. Fifteen percent of the timber cut on the Tuararangaia 1B block would be given to the Maori Affairs Department for purposes of Maori development.267 By the end of 1950, the native forests had been appraised and divided into two sawmill areas. The cutting rights were sold to the Tunnicliffe Timber Co Ltd of Edgecumbe. The logging contract ended up lasting from 1951 to 1954, being renewed in 1952. In January 1951, the timber cutting rights on the first of these areas, were sold to the Tunnicliffe Timber Co Ltd for £5330. A second sale of cutting rights occurred in July 1953, when the Tunnicliffe Timber Co Ltd bought the cutting rights to the area S A 169 for £4870. The sums both included appraisal costs and the 10 percent commission on timber value taken by the Forest Service. This left some £8410 that was handed over to the Education Department. The Education Department paid this money into their own consolidated fund?68

The Education Department's payment of the money made from the education endowment land into their own consolidated fund raises some serious issues regarding the conditions attached to the gifting of the southern 1000 acres of Tuararangaia lB. The Tuhoe land-owners who originally gifted the area to the Education Department had stipulated that the profits should go specifically to Maori schools and colleges, with the clear intention that secondary education should be provided for eastern Bay of Plenty Maori children. They may also have specified that a Maori college be established in the Ohiwa district. The Education Department failed to meet the conditions attached to the gift of land made by Tuhoe, yet still kept and used the money generated by the endowment land.

267 Director of Forestry to Conservator of Forests, 11 May 1950, F 1118/2/132/ Wellington NA; Conservator of Forests to Director of Forestry, (letter accompanying newspaper advertisement), 18 December 1950, F1I18/2/132. Wellington NA; J J Dillon, Registrar, Rotorua to Under Secretary, Dept of Maori Affairs, 7 August 1952, MA-MLP 1 1913/67, Wellington NA 268 Conservator of Forests to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 14 September 1971, DOSLI 6900/35, vol. 2, LINZ Hamilton

117 7.4 Logging of forests on the Tuararangaia 3B2 block

By the early 1950s, the only area of land still under Maori ownership on the original Tuararangaia block was Tuararangaia 3B2 in the north-west. Timber millers also had their eye on the native forest that covered this block. In 1951, the company Whakatane Sawmillers Ltd applied for access and cutting rights to Tuararangaia 3B2, for a period of ten years. The proposal was that the company would either pay royalties of £6650 or the value of all accessible millable timber as appraised by the Forest Service. Whakatane Sawmillers would pay whichever of the two sums was the greater. It was also agreed that the millers would pay for the Forest Service appraisal. 269

A meeting of owners was held at Te Teko on 8 February 1952 to discuss this proposal. Eighteen owners were present, along with Messrs Otley and Sullivan, who represented the company, and the chairman of the meeting, Rini Paraire, who attended as representative of the Waiariki Maori Land Board. The figure of £6650 was questioned, but the millers argued that the landowners were guaranteed that the company would pay more if the accessible timber removed was of a higher value than this sum. On questioning, the company also gave an assurance that the land would be returned to the owners as soon as it was cleared of millable trees. The resolution was passed unanimously, that cutting rights and access rights should be granted to Whakatane Sawmillers for a period often years.270 Tuararangaia 3B2 was estimated to contain eight million board feet of timber from rimu, tawa and pukatea trees. In the final agreement, Whakatane Sawmillers agreed to supply 12 Yz percent of any rimu, matai or miro taken off the land, for Maori housing. The agreement was confirmed at a sitting of the Maori Land Court at Rotorua on 14 October 1952?71

In July 1961 Whakatane Board Mills Ltd proposed to buy the Tuararangaia 3B2 block. The company was planning to use the block for planting pines, as by this time the native forest on the block was logged out. They proposed to purchase the block for £2285, plus the value of any

269 Notice of Meeting, 11 January 1952, MT 12/13797, MLC Rotorua 270 Minutes, Meeting of Owners Tuararangaia 3B2, 8 February 1952, MT 12/13797, MLC Rotorua; Resolution from Meeting, 8 February 1952, MT 12/13797, MLC Rotorua; See also F 1 18/2/152, Wellington NA, and F 1 1812/152/2, Wellington NA.

118 millable timber still on the block as assessed by the Forest Service. This offer was based on the Govermnent valuation of the block. The company also offered to buy the Rangitaiki 60B 12, 60C and 60D10 blocks, also for the planting ofpines.272

A meeting of owners to consider the question of the sale of the blocks in question was held on 9 October 1961, at Kokohinau Pa, Te Teko. The meeting was attended by around 30 owners who, with proxy votes, represented 111 owners. The minutes did not record how many of those present had shares in Tuararangaia 3B2. Messrs Bridges, Clavis and BuddIe attended the meeting on behalf of Whakatane Board Mills Ltd. The company outlined their proposal to the assembled owners, suggesting that if the land was planted in pines it would be a national asset and provide employment for many Maori. They emphasised that little else could be done with the land. After considerable discussion, the owners rejected the company's offer. Their argument was that the blocks were some of the last ancestral land left to Ngati Awa and that the price being offered was far too low. Instead, they preferred that the Govermnent offer assistance to the owners so they could develop the land themselves. The vote against the sale was carried unanimously.273

7.5 The building of the Matahina dam

During the 1950s, there was a sharp increase in the demand for electricity. This problem was particularly acute in the North Island before the completion of the Cook Strait electricity cable. The Kawerau Pulp and Paper mill created an especially high electricity demand in the Bay of Plenty region. At the same time, the Govermnent was looking to create job opportunities in the area, especially for Maori. In 1957, the idea of building a hydro-electric dam either on the Kaituna River or on the Rangitaiki River, was put forward in 'The Report to the Combined Committee on the New Zealand Electricity Supply' .274 The decision to go ahead with a dam on the Rangitaiki was made by the Planning Committee on Electric Power Development, in 1959. Investigative work on the dam had already begun back in 1957. The site selected for the dam, to be known as the Matahina dam, was at the extreme north-west comer of the Tuararangaia block, on the confiscation boundary, near the site of the Otipa Pa (see map 4). Construction work was

271 District Officer, Rotorua, to Under Secretary Maori Affairs, 13 November 1952, MT 12/13797, MLC Rotorua; Certificate of Confirmation, 16 March 1953, MT 12/13797, MLC Rotorua 272 Application to Summon Meeting of Owners, 4 September 1961, MT 12/13797, MLC Rotorua; Govt Valuation of Bay of Plenty Blocks, 1 September 1961, MT 12/13797, MLC Rotorua 273 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, Tuararangaia 3B2, 9 October 1961, MT 12/13797, MLC Rotorua; P W Patrick, for Registrar, to Bergin & Cleary, Barristers and Solicitors, 3 April 1962, MT 12/13797, MLC Rotorua. 274 Young, Matahina, p 18

119 underway on the dam by 1962. The project took much longer than originally planned due to the fact that the dam site was built on a major active faultline and on very fractured, porous ignimbrite rock. These factors led to many engineering problems. The Matahina dam, still the largest earth dam in the North Island, was opened in 1967. 275

During the process of dam construction the Ministry of Works acted under the Public Works Act 1928. Section 107 of this Act gave them the legal right to enter Maori land for purposes of survey. An order in council, issued in 1959 under section 311 of the Act also gave them the legal right to enter Maori land. The Public Works Act 1928 allowed for Maori land to be taken for public works including roading and quarrying. The Act also stipulated that if no prior market existed for the material extracted from a quarry, then it was not necessary to pay royalties on the extract. The Crown proposed to compensate owners after the public works had been carried out, following the idea that by this time the level of encroachment on properties would be known. The formal legal taking of lands for public works did not occur until 1968 after the dam was largely constructed. 276

Several areas from Tuararangaia 3B2 were taken under the Public Works Act 1928. An area of 4 acres, 1 rood, and 4.3 perches was taken for the building of an access road to the core material quarry on the Rangitaiki 60c block, immediately to the north of Tuararangaia 3B2. In 1965, before the surveying of this area had been carried out, Eruera Manuera, Ngati Awa leader and Warahoe descendent, asked when the landowners could expect to be paid compensation. He was informed that the owners would not be compensated until after the survey plans had been received by the Ministry of Works and the proclamation had been made to formally take the land. The original aim, as stated by the Ministry of Works, was to buy the land but later return it to Maori. The Ministry of Works believed the price paid for the original purchase of the land to be sufficient compensation for any damage done to it. The Rural Valuer at Rotorua placed a valuation of $45 on the area taken. This amount was paid to the Maori Trustee in December

1971. 277 After some legal dispute, which is examined in detail by David Alexander in his study

275 Ibid, pp. 10-11, 17-20,42; D Alexander, 'The Matahina Dam Project', Wai 46 record of documents, Doc H5, pp 11-12; Report of the Combined Committee on the NZ Electric Power Supply, 19 March 1957, AJHR, 1957, D-4 , in Supporting Papers, Wai 46 record of documents, doc H5A, vol 1, Waitangi Tribunal, Nos 1-9, see in particular Nos 6, 7; R F Deans Ritchie to the Chief Engineer, Report on the Matahina Power Project, 24 July 1959, in ibid, Nos 14- 15; Report of Planning Committee on Electric Power Development in NZ, 14 September 1959, AJHR, 1959, D-4B, in ibid. Nos 10-13 276 Alexander, 'The Matahina Dam Project', pp 4-6 277 Minister of Works to Eruera Manuera, 10 September 1965, Works & Development Head Office File, 92/12/75/6/5, in Supporting Papers, Wai 46 record of documents, doc H5A, vol 1, Waitangi Tribunal, No 348;

120 of the Matahina dam, the four acres taken for quarry roading was revested in the owners of the

Tuararangaia 3B2A block. 278 The partitioning of the Tuararangaia 3B2 block into 3B2A and 3B2B will be described below.

Additional areas of land were taken from the Tuararangaia 3B2 block under the Public Works Act 1928. An area of 19 acres and 18 perches was taken for road deviation in order to replace the section of the Te Teko-Galatea road covered by the lake created by the Matahina dam. An area of 2 acres, 2 roods and 10 perches was taken for the dam abutment and the lake; an area of 100 acres and 14 perches for the lake and the riparian strip; and another area of20 acres, 3 roods and 15 perches was taken for the lake. There do not appear to have been any objections to these takings. The legal processes involved in proclaiming these areas Crown land were delayed, due to a shortage of staff at the Hamilton Office of the Ministry of Works. This meant that the final proclamation was not issued until August 1968. Compensation was paid to the Maori Trustee for the owners, in December 1971 and the interest on these payments was paid in February 1972.279

A series of issues were raised by the building of the Matahina dam. Of significance is the fact that the Crown did not officially take land for the hydro-electric scheme until the initial work on the dam was largely completed. The dam was officially opened in 1967 but the Crown proclamation of public works takings did not occur until August of 1968. According to David Young, in his book Matahina: Power in the Land, the landowners were concerned that no real effort had been made by the Crown to negotiate with them before the Public Works Act 1928 was invoked. He argues that this meant the owners had to accept the level of compensation they were offered through the Act, without any opportunity to negotiate a better deal. The dam also disrupted the migration of eels and thereby disrupted the traditional fishing on the Rangitaiki. Other species such as trout and freshwater mussels were also affected by the construction of the dam. 280

Eruera Manuera to Minister of Works, 15 February 1967, Works & Development Head Office File, 92/12/75/6/5, in ibid. No 349; Minister of Works to Eruera Manuera, 3 March 1967, Works & Development Head Office File, 92/12/75/6/5, in ibid. No 350; Commissioner of Works to General Manager NZE, 9 December 1968, W &D Hamilton File, 92/12/75/6, in ibid., vol 2, Nos 377-8; Rural District Valuer Rotorua to District Commissioner of Works Hamilton, 14 April 1970, Works &Deve1opment Hamilton File, 92112/75/6/9, in ibid., Nos 387-9 278 Alexander, 'The Matahina Dam Project', pp 92-105 279 NZ Gazette, vol. 2, no 53, 1968, pp 1399-1400 Alexander, 'The Matahina Dam Project', pp 120-121, 124-125 280 Young, Matahina, pp 56-58

121 In 1968 Eruera Riini Manuera made a further accusation with regard to the dam building process. At the Maori Land Court in Whakatane, he stated that the Ministry of Works had taken rock from a quarry on the Tuararangaia 3B2 block. Manuera stated: 'I complained to an engineer at Matahina and he told me it had been "taken" under the P.W. Act'. The court declared that there was nothing on the record of any taking for quarrying on the Tuararangaia 3B2 block. Manuera went on to say that he had complained to Jack Chesterman, the acting engineer, who had told him that nothing could be done as the dam building was almost finished. At a later sitting of the Whakatane Maori Land Court, A W Tassell, engineer to the Whakatane County Council, confirmed that material from the quarry on the Tuararangaia 3B2 block had been used in the Matahina dam.281

7.6 The partition and amalgamation of Tuararangaia 3B2.

At a sitting of the Whakatane Maori Land Court on 7 May 1968, upon the application of Eruera Manuera and others, the Tuararangaia 3B2 block was vested in the Maori Trustee. Following this, Charles William Jarrett, a public accountant of Whakatane, who had previously acted for Manuera, applied for a mineral grant to operate the ignimbrite quarry on the block. This grant was issued on 7 February 1969, being for a period often years and covered an area of 58 acres, 1 rood and 20 perches. At a further sitting of the Whakatane Maori Land Court on 10 April 1970, the block was partitioned. The section over which the mineral grant had been issued was partitioned off as Tuararangaia 3B2A. The remaining 1238 acres and 6.7 perches were designated as Tuararangaia 3B2B. The title was immediately cancelled, on 10 April 1970, and the Tuararangaia 3B2B block was amalgamated with the larger Omataroa Rangitaiki 1 block. The owners of Tuararangaia 3B2 therefore become shareholders in the larger Omataroa Rangitaiki 1 block .282

At a meeting of owners, held on 31 August 1979, it was declared that the ignimbrite quarry had been a financial failure. The failure was blamed on the inability of the operators of the 3B2A quarry to compete with the operators of a rival quarry. The commercial rival, unlike the operators of the Tuararangaia quarry, did not have to pay royalties on the material removed. It was also reported that the metal from the rival quarry was more easily removed. At the August meeting, the Maori Trustee suggested that the area should be leased to Caxton mills, who had

281 Whakatane MB 44,8 April 1968, f01s 141-142, copy inMT file 12/13797, Tuararangaia 3B2, MLC Rotorua 282 Whakatane MB 44, 7 May 1968, f01s 194-198; Whakatane MB 47, 10 Apri11970, f01s 332-350

122 already leased the Omataroa Rangitaiki 1 block for pine plantations. It was reported that Caxton had already planted pines on the Omataroa Rangitaiki 1 block under the mistaken impression that it was part of their leaseholding. On 26 October 1983, the Tuararangaia 3B2A block was amalgamated with the Omataroa Rangitaiki 1 (which included the remainder of the old Tuararangaia 3B2 block) and part of Rangitaiki 60c to become a new block called Omataroa Rangitaiki 2.283

7.7 The return of Tuararangaia Ib

During a visit to Ruatahuna in April of 1972, Tuhoe representatives gave a submission to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Among other requests in this submission was the plea for the return of lands that had been donated to the Crown for educational purposes and were no longer being used for that purpose. Among the areas mentioned was the southern 1000 acres of Tuararangaia lB. The submission stated that the land had not been developed and that no benefit had come to Tuhoe from the endowment. This request on the part of Tuhoe led to an investigation, by the Maori Affairs Department, of the contemporary situation of the education endowment land.284

In the process of this investigation, the Education Department enquired of the Commissioner of Crown Lands as to what had happened to the proceeds from the milling of timber from the southern 1000 acres of Tuararangaia lB. The Head Office of the Forest Service acquired the relevant information on this transaction from the Lands and Survey Department. The information showed that the Forest Service had dealt with the timber on the Education endowment on behalf of the Education Department. A percentage of the timber was given over to the Maori Affairs Department for development. It was shown that the proceeds from the logging, minus appraisal costs and 10 percent commission for the Forest Service, were paid into the Education Department's consolidated fund. By 1954, a total of £8410 was paid into this account. As discussed above, there is no evidence that this money went directly to help the establishment of Native schools or colleges in the Bay of Plenty area. As also mentioned earlier, the idea of a Maori college at Ohiwa, discussed in the original resolution to donate the land, did not even make it into the English translation of the endowment resolution.285

283 Whakatane MB 70, 6 December 1979, fo1 85; Whakatane MB 75, 26 October 1983, fo1144 284 Photocopy of page 16 of Tuhoe submission, undated, DOSLI 6900/35, vol. 2, LINZ Hamilton; H P Martin, Deputy Registrar, to District Officer, 4 May 1971, DOSLI 6900/35, vol. 2, LINZ Hamilton 285 R Lander for Regional Superintend of Education to Comm of Crown Lands, 25 August 1971, DOSLI 6900/35, vol. 2, LINZ Hamilton; LA Skudder for John Ure, Conservator of Forests to Commissioner of Crown lands, 14

123 The Department of Lands and Survey appear to have been in favour of returning the land to its original owners. They advised the Education Department that an application under section 267 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, would be sent to the Minister of Lands to set in train the revesting of the land in its Tuhoe landowners. The Minister of Education approved and put in an application for the revesting of the land in its original owners, on the grounds that it was no longer required for educational purposes. At the 1 November 1972 sitting of the Whakatane Maori Land Court, the land was revested in the original owners under section 436 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953,z86

The revesting of Tuararangaia 1B was connected with an exchange of land that had been agreed on by the Crown and the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board. The Trust Board agreed to exchange the Tahora 2G2 block, over which it had control, with areas of State Forest 101 adjacent to the Tuararangaia 1B block. Following the exchange the Tahora 2G2 block, which was located on the north western border of the Urewera National Park, was incorporated into the national park. Tuhoe held two general meetings concerning Tuararangaia 1B before the revesting of the land. One was held at Rewarewa marae, Ruatoki, on 27 August 1972, and one on 7 October 1972, at Tauarau marae, Ruatoki. At these meetings, it was decided that, due to the large number of people descended from the original owners of the block, it was best for the block to be vested in the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board. Therefore, when the land was revested on 1 November 1972, the southern 1000 acres of the Tuararangaia 1B block was alienated to the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board as owner absolutely. The land is currently being partly utilised for pine plantations, while the remainder is still covered by native forest. 287

September 1971, DOSLI 6900/35, vo12, LINZ Hamilton; Connnissioner of Crown Lands to Regional Superintendent of Education, 21 September 1971, DOSLI 6900/35, vo12, LINZ Hamilton; R Lander for Regional Superintendent of Education to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 7 March 1972, DOSLI 6900/35, vol. 2, LINZ Hamilton 286 Connn of Crown Lands to Regional Superintendent of Education, 5 May 1972, DOSLI 6900/35, vo12, LINZ Hamilton; Commissioner of Crown Lands to Messrs Hingston & Charters, 19 May 1972, DOSLI 6900/35, vo12, LINZ Hamilton; Application for Order Revesting Land, Min of Education, 22 June 1972, DOSLI 6900/35, vo12, LINZ Hamilton; Application for Vesting Order, Min of Lands, undated, DOSLI 6900/35, vo12, LINZ Hamilton; Whakatane MB 52, 1 November 1972, fo1s 290-1 287 Connnissioner of Crown Lands to Regional Superintendent of Education, 5 May 1972, DOSLI 6900/35, vo12, LINZ Hamilton; Commissioner of Crown Lands to Messrs Hingston & Charters, 19 May 1972, DOSLI 6900/35, vol 2, LINZ Hamilton; B Briffault for Connnissioner of Crown Lands to T R Nikora, 31 July 1972, DOSLI 6900/35, vo12, LINZ Hamilton; Commissioner of Crown Lands to Conservator of Forests, 26 January 1973, DOSLI 6900/35, vo12, LINZ Hamilton

124 Scanned cadastral map wr N.Harris may 2001lVai3614cadas

North 11

2811 PT1 2 260.2078 247.2629 514.4035

f!

13 999.1700

Pt 636.

PAPAPOUNAMU 416.3203 \

I TUKUTOROMIRO

NOTES 999.1700 = Areas given in hectares To convert hectares to acres multiply by 2.4711 o 5KM ie: One hectare = 2.4711 acres

i='=' ~=\='='='=*~=;===T==~======'==r====='======;-3-'~ILES One hectare = 100 metres x 100 metres

Map 4 CADASTRAL MAP OF TUARARANGAIA

125 The original Tuararangaia block is now divided into the sections shown on the cadastral map reproduced in this report as Map 3. The area that was formerly the block Tuararangaia 3B2 (including Tuararangaia 3B2A), now forms part of the much larger block Omataroa Rangitaiki 2. This block is Maori land, whose owners principally identify as Ngati Awa. This land is currently being utilised for pine plantations. The area designated Part 1 Block III, Rangitaiki Lower Survey District, is now owned by Raweka Farms Ltd. This area was formerly the western section of Tuararangaia 3B 1 and the north western section of Tuararangaia 3A. The titles to Part 2 and Part 13 of Block III, Rangitaiki Lower Survey District, are held by the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board. This land is held as general land rather than Maori land and is principally being utilised for pine plantations. Part 2 was formerly the eastern section of Tuararangaia 3B1 and the north-eastern corner of Tuararangaia A. Part 13 is the land that formerly made up most of the remainder of Tuararangaia 3A and the southern section of Tuararangaia lA, along with nearly all of the land of Tuararangaia 2A and 2B. A strip of land along the eastern shore of Lake Matahina is Crown land, held for water power development and State Forest. The areas designated as Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5 of Block IV Rangitaiki Lower Survey District were formerly the northern sections of Tuararangaia 1A and lB. These areas are all currently State Forest and remain in native forest cover,zss

7.8 Conclusion

By 1918, the only part of the original Tuararangaia block still in Maori ownership was Tuararangaia 3B2. The remainder of the Tuararangaia block had become Crown land, although the southern 1000 acres of Tuararangaia 1B was a special case, being held by the Crown as an educational endowment gifted by Tuhoe. In the years between 1918 and 1948, there seems to have been little activity concerning any sections of the original Tuararangaia block.

In 1924, a small area of Tuararangaia 3B2, consisting of 10 acres, 3 roods and 2 perches, was taken for roading under the Native Land Amendment Act 1913. There appears to be no record of any compensation being paid for this.

288 LINZ Wellington database; Terraview mapping system, LINZ; Cadastral map NZMS 261 Tarawera V16, 1983; Cadastral Map NZMS 261 Waimana W 16, 1983; DOSLI Topomap 260 V 16, Tarawera, 1996; DOSLI Topomap 260 W 16 Waimana, 1994

126 Between 1919 and 1949, a number of schemes were proposed for the establishment of farms on parts of the original Tuararangaia block. In each case, on inspection of the land in question, Crown authorities decided the land was too poor for farm development.

The major economic development to occur on the Tuararangaia block was the logging of native forests in the late 1940s and early 1950s. This led to the complete transformation of the natural environment of most of the Tuararangaia block, especially as most of the logged area was replanted in pines. In the case of Tuararangaia 1B, logging led to a major potential grievance for those Tuhoe who had donated the land as an educational endowment. As stated above, the Education Department placed the funds earned from the logging of the southern 1000 acres of Tuararangaia 1B into the consolidated fund for general educational purposes. This was a clear breach of the conditions of the original endowment as it had been clearly indicated that the donors of the land wanted any profits from it to be used for the education of Tuhoe and other eastern Bay of Plenty Maori children.

The other economic development from which some potential grievances might arrive was the building of the Matahina dam in the 1960s. The building of the dam resulted in the taking of land under the Public Works Act 1928 and the substantial alteration of the Rangitaiki River making significant impacts on eels and other traditional fisheries.

127 CHAPTERS CONCLUSION

The Tuararangaia block does not appear to have been an area of major permanent human settlement. It is located in an area of rugged country that, until the early 1950s, was mostly covered in native forest. A few kainga were located there, but these appear to have been settlements that were occupied at particular times of the year, for specific hunting or gathering activities. A wide range of resources were obtained from the block including birds, kiore, fern root, karaka berries and trees for canoe building. After Pakeha arrival in New Zealand, the Tuararangaia block became an important site for pig hunting. In the nineteenth century, there were no permanent villages situated on the block. Small cultivations of kumara and potatoes were planted on some parts of the block, but it was never a major agricultural area. The cultivations on the block probably served as much to assert the various hapu rights of ahi ka, or continuous occupation, as to provide food for hunting and gathering parties.

The original Tuararangaia block was in an area around the Rangitaiki River where the resources and territories claimed by a range of rival, but often related, hapu and iwi overlapped. It was land that was both marginal economically and contested politically. Tuhoe and Ngati Awa, who fought each other on and off over a 200 year period, both regarded Tuararangaia and its resources as being under their mana. This situation was further complicated by the internecine strife between different hapu of Ngati Awa, which had occurred during the early nineteenth century, centred around the MatahinalRangitaiki area. The Ngati Awa hapu of Warahoe and Ngati Hamua came into conflict with Ngati Pukeko and with a wide group of other Ngati Awa hapu. In the process of this fighting, Ngati Hamua and Warahoe drew on their connections by marriage with Tuhoe to bring that iwi into the struggle as allies against their rival Ngati Awa hapu. Ngati Hamua and Warahoe were defeated and either some or all of the members of these two hapu were driven out of the Rangitaiki area, in the early years of the nineteenth century.

The exiled Warahoe and Ngati Hamua returned to the Rangitaiki area at some time around the late 1830s or early 1840s. This was a period of rapid economic and cultural change for the people of the eastern Bay of Plenty. The Nga Puhi raids of 1818-1823 had highlighted to the eastern Bay of Plenty tribes the necessity of acquiring muskets. The quest for muskets encouraged these tribes to trade with other iwi and with the Pakeha. This trade, along with the

128 continuing introduction of new plants, animals and technology, had led to the development of an economy based around growing food and producing flax for trade. At the same time the acquisition of muskets heightened the ongoing conflict of Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko against Tuhoe. Once both sides were armed with muskets, a type of 'balance of terror' was achieved. The long years of fighting, along with the increase in casualties caused by the use of muskets, brought a sense of war weariness to the combatants. This in tum prompted negotiations and peace agreements in 1834 between Tuhoe and Ngati Awa, and between Tuhoe and Ngati Pukeko.

At some time not long after the peace agreement between Ngati Awa and Tuhoe, known as the Tatau Pounamu, the Ngati Awa rangatira, Te Rangitukehu, invited the Warahoe and Ngati Hamua hapu back to the Rangitaiki area. The meaning of this invitation became a major issue of debate at the Native Land Court hearings for both the Matahina and the Tuararangaia blocks. The Ngati Hamua leader, Te Whaiti Paora, argued that not all ofNgati Hamua had been driven out of the Rangitaiki area and that they had therefore retained their rights to land there. The Ngati Awa leaders, Te Rangitukehu, at the Matahina court hearing in 1881, and Hire Wetere, at the Tuararangaia court hearing in 1890-1891, both maintained that all Ngati Hamua had been driven off the land. Both held that Ngati Hamua and Warahoe only had rights to land in the Rangitaiki area under the mana ofNgati Awa.

The period from the 1840s through to the early 1860s saw a small amount of Pakeha settlement in the eastern Bay of Plenty, along with some missionary activity. It is debatable as to how successful the work of the missionaries was in the area over this period, but clearly Maori gained some familiarity with the ideas of Christianity and keenly learned the art of literacy. By the 1860s, the eastern Bay of Plenty had become a relatively prosperous area. Changes in the Maori economy were reflected by the large-scale production of crops for trade, the widespread use of iron tools, and the adoption of such technological innovations as water driven flourmills and fleets of trading schooners. Despite the presence in the eastern Bay of Plenty of a small but significant population of Pakeha traders, loggers, shipbuilders, carpenters and missionaries, the political and economic control of the area was still very much in the hands of Maori.

The series of wars, Crown military invasions and confiscation of land that occurred in the eastern Bay of Plenty from 1865 onwards severely disrupted the autonomy and prosperity of all the eastern Bay of Plenty tribes. Ngati Awa ended up having a large amount of their most

129 valuable land confiscated by the Crown and, in the process, lost a considerable section of their economic base. Ngati Pukeko also lost land, but managed to recover a certain amount through the Compensation Court process. They were probably helped in this process of recovering land by the fact that they were seen, nominally at least, as being allies of the Government. Land returned through the Compensation Court was, however, placed not under traditional ownership but under Crown-derived title, which made it much easier for Pakeha land buyers to acquire. The poverty of the eastern Bay of Plenty tribes, with remaining land as one of their few assets, meant there was also a much greater temptation to selL

Tuhoe had suffered the invasion of their lands and a scorched earth policy by colonial troops in response to Tuhoe support for Te Kooti. These events, along with the loss of their access to the lands and harbour in the Ohiwa area and the confiscation of their lands in Opouriao, had left Tuhoe in an impoverished condition encircled by the forces of the Pakeha State. Through the 1870s and 1880s, Tuhoe tried to maintain their autonomy in the area known as Te Rohe Potae, under the control of the body of chiefs known as Te Whitu Tekau. Tuhoe leaders were, simultaneously, trying to deal constructively with a Pakeha Government that regarded them as dangerous rebels. The Government at this time looked on Tuhoe as people whose land needed to be 'opened up', in order both to bring Tuhoe fully under Government control and to exploit the resources of the area.

In the 1870s the colonial Government initiated an intensive programme of land buying, with particular attention paid to the Taupo-Bay of Plenty areas. The confiscation and return of lands to iwi such as Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko, had been accompanied by the imposition of individualised titles. This factor, combined with the poverty and dislocation resulting from the wars, meant that the purchase of Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko land was made easier. Government land purchasing agents also concentrated on trying to purchase or lease lands on the edge of the Tuhoe Rohe Potae, with the aim of splitting pieces of land away from the control of Te Whitu Tekau.

It was in this context that the lands in the Rangitaiki area, including the Matahina, Waiohau and Tuararangaia blocks were to see a series of rivalries fought out in the Native Land Court. In the period from the late 1870s to the early 1890s, hapu of Ngati Awa, Ngati Pukeko and Tuhoe all attempted to gain control of one or more of these blocks through the Native Land Court. Hapu leaders such as Penetito Hawea, Hamiora Tumutara, Werahiko Tamaiarohi, Te Whaiti Paora and

130 Erueti Tamaikoha, turned up in more than one of these cases. Te Whaiti Paora, who initiated the survey on the Tuararangaia block, had previously been involved in both the Waiohau and Matahina claims. The Tuararangaia claim can be seen as part of an ongoing struggle between a number ofhapu connected with Ngati Awa, Ngati Pukeko, and Tuhoe, who were attempting to use the Native Land Court to gain control of the lands around the Rangitaiki area.

In both the Matahina and Tuararangaia cases, Te Whaiti Paora sought to align Ngati Hamua, and to a lesser extent Warahoe, with the Tuhoe power block rather than with Ngati Awa. He was also connected to the Patuheuheu hapu of Tuhoe and his brother-in-law was the Tuhoe leader Makarini Te Waru. Te Whaiti Paora presented his case for ownership of the Tuararangaia block on behalf of the Ngai Tamatuhirae hapu of Tuhoe as well as for Ngati Hamua and Warahoe. On the other hand, some of those people who identified as Warahoe supported the broader Ngati Awa claim to Tuararangaia. The N gati Pukeko hapu also made a separate claim for the Tuararangaia block, rather than operating as part of the Ngati Awa iwi.

The Native Land Court title investigation resulted in the Tuararangaia block being divided into three sections; Tuararangaia 1, awarded to the Tuhoe hapu of Ngati Tamatuhirae; Tuararangaia 2, awarded to Ngati Pukeko; and Tuararangaia 3, awarded to Ngati Hamua and Warahoe. This report is unable to comment on the justice of the awards of Tuararangaia land to different hapu. The report is therefore also unable to comment on the validity of the allegation in the Tuhoe consolidated claim, Wai 36, (see Introduction section i.i of this report), that land in the Tuararangaia block was wrongly awarded to Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko. All that can be stated is that the evidence presented to the Native Land Court suggested that the Tuararangaia area had long been one that was both used and contested by a variety of different hapu.

It is likely that Te Whaiti Paora initiated the survey of the Tuararangaia block with the intention of gaining some control over it for himself and the Ngati Hamua and Tuhoe people he represented. There is no indication that he tried to get a Native Land Court title to the land simply in order to sell it. However, once the survey was initiated it set off a train of events that led to the alienation of most of the Tuararangaia block.

It is difficult to comment in detail on the 1896 sale of Tuararangaia 3A as so little information has been uncovered on it. The purchase would appear to have been part of the Liberal party's push in the 1890s to acquire more Maori land. The individualisation of title and the creation of a

131 list of owners, as established under the Native Land Court Act 1886, made it eaSIer for Government land purchase agents to buy shares of the land from individual owners. The Native Land Court Act 1894, allowed that a section of the land in question could be partitioned off and alienated, once the Native Land Court had determined the area of the land that was equivalent in proportion to the amount of shares purchased. The same Act also provided for the Native Land Court to be able to easily remove restrictions on alienation. It can be seen that, once the title to an area of Maori land had been determined by the Native Land Court, the laws were structured in such a way as to facilitate the purchase of that land by Pakeha.

A variety of potential grievances arise from the loss of land resulting from the survey charges placed on the Tuararangaia block.

• The entire system of land administration with regard to survey costs can be seen to have facilitated the loss of land by Maori. Those Maori who were granted legal title to land were solely responsible for paying the survey costs on the land in question. Legal title to land could only be granted by the Native Land Court. Under most circumstances the Native Land Court required a certified map or survey plan to be presented to the court before the title to an area of land could be investigated. The Crown were legally able to take land from the block that had been surveyed, in lieu of the money owed for the survey charges. (In 1898, when the survey costs were allocated for the Tuararangaia blocks, the relevant piece of legislation was section 65 of the Native Land Court Act 1894.) As land was often the only resource Maori possessed, they often ended up losing land to pay for the survey of land they were trying to gain legal title to. The system of administering the payment of survey costs went against the Crown's fiduciary responsibility under section 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi to guarantee Maori rights to retain taonga, including land, as long as Maori should wish to retain them.

• The system described above all those recognised as land owners by the Native Land Court were made responsible for paying the survey costs for the blocks of land in question. This applied whether or not those landowners had asked for or approved of the survey. Therefore landowners who had actively opposed a survey of the land, on the grounds that a survey would lead to them losing land, ended up losing land to pay for the survey they had opposed. Tuhoe lost the 881 acres of Tuararangaia 1A to pay for a survey that many of them had

132 opposed. This situation would appear to add some weight to the allegation made in the Tuhoe consolidated claim, Wai 36, that survey charges were wrongly imposed on Tuararangaia 1, (see Introduction, section i.i).

• The multiple ownership system set up by the Crown, under section 40 of the Native Land Court Act 1886, made it extremely difficult for survey costs to be collected from large groups of owners, or for the owners to even be informed of what was happening to their land. Given this situation and given the poverty of many of the landowners, the imposition by the Crown of interest on the survey charges appears to have been yet another system by which the Crown easily acquired more Maori land. In the research for this report no evidence was found of any effort being made to collect survey fees from landowners before 1907. If this was indeed the case, then the imposition of interest on the uncollected survey fees seems particularly unfair. The owners of Tuararangaia 1 lost an additional 146 acres, the owners of Tuararangaia 2 lost an additional 27 acres and the owners of Tuararangaia 3B lost an additional 83 acres to pay for the interest on their respective survey charges.

• No evidence was found of anyon-site valuation of the original Tuararangaia block being carried out before the 1910s. Despite this, the Native Land Court, in 1907, accepted without question the value of five shillings per acre suggested by the surveyors. This figure appears to have been an arbitrary one, reached by estimation rather than investigation. The low monetary value set on the land meant that just over one quarter of the original block was taken by the Crown to pay for survey liens. There is no evidence that the Native Land Court considered the value of the timber on the land when making this valuation. On the other hand the value of the timber may have been considered minimal due to the difficulty of access to forests on the Tuararangaia block during the early years of the twentieth century. (The lack of an on-site valuation of land and timber on the Tuararangaia block supports the allegation made in the Tuhoe consolidated claim, Wai 36, that the Crown failed to properly value the land and timber on Tuararangaia 1, as set out in the Introduction, section i.i, of this report.)

• In the 1898 Native Land Court judgement on survey costs, all the owners of Tuararangaia 1 and Tuararangaia 3B were penalised for delays caused to the survey in 1885, without any proof being offered of who was actually involved in the obstruction at the time. Judge Wilson stated that Tuhoe were responsible for the delays involved but the Native Land Court

l33 minute book contains no evidence that proves this allegation. Wilson imposed £39 additional costs on Tuhoe for what he saw as their role in causing delays. He also held the Ngati Hamua and Warahoe owners of Tuararangaia 3B responsible for the delays and charged them an additional £53 19s for this. Wilson accepted the argument put forward by the Ngati Pukeko owners of Tuararangaia 2 that they had not been involved in obstruction of the survey and instead imposed the extra costs on the Tuhoe owners of Tuararangaia 1 and on the N gati Hamua and Warahoe owners of Tuararangaia 3B. The owners of Tuararangaia 1 had an extra £5 15s 5d added to their costs, bringing the total amount they were charged for survey delays to £44 15 5d. At five shillings an acre this meant the loss of an additional 176 acres. The

owners of Tuararangaia 3B had an extra £3 48 10d added to their costs~ bringing the total they were charged for survey delays to £57 3s 10d. At five shillings an acre this amounted to the loss of an additional 228 acres. It can be seen that the owners of Tuararangaia 1 and Tuararangaia 3B were penalised without any proof being provided of their responsibility for the survey delays in question.

• The charge for the delays to the survey was set without any breakdown of costs to explain how the figure was arrived at. The figures arrived at as penalties for survey delays appear to have been derived arbitrarily.

• The Tuhoe owners of Tuararangaia 1 were penalised by a clerical error. They were charged £212 14s 7d for survey liens. At five shillings an acre this should work out at 851 acres. Instead they had 881 acres taken to cover their survey costs, being the loss of an additional 30 acres.

• An extra charge was added to the survey liens, in order to cover the cost of cutting out the land taken to pay the Crown for the costs of the original survey. No evidence could be found to indicate that extra surveys were actually carried out to cut out the land taken for survey costs. Instead it appears that the areas taken for survey liens were simply drawn up on the map of the Tuararangaia block. Therefore the landowners were charged in land for three surveys that never happened. (This evidence supports the allegation in the Tuhoe consolidated claim, Wai 36, that the Crown inflated survey charges by adding on to them the costs of paying for the Crown's own interests.)

134 The sale of Tuararangaia 2B and the gifting of the two sections of Tuararangaia 1B, illustrate the effect of the ownership system set up under the Native Land Act 1909. The decision to sell Tuararangaia 2B was made on 22 November 1916 by a majority vote at a meeting of only 17 of the over 406 registered owners of the block. The sale was approved by a majority of nine people who held a majority of 2 Yz shares. In the case of Tuararangaia 1B, I have located no record of how many people attended the meeting of owners, held on 27 August 1912, that voted to gift 1000 acres as an education endowment. It can be safely assumed, however that the number of people attending this meeting was a definite minority of the 719 registered owners. The vote, held on 20 November 1914, at which the decision was made to donate the remaining 1619 acres of Tuararangaia .1B to the War Fund, was attended by 25 owners with a further 16 proxy votes.

They held 55 1/6 shares in the block. 24 owners, holding 54 116 shares, voted to gift the land to the War Fund.

Section 342 of Native Land Act 1909 allowed that a meeting of owners only needed a quorum of five in order to be able to vote on whether or not to alienate the land concerned. If those voting in favour of a sale controlled a larger number of shares in the land than those voting against, the sale was legally able to go ahead. Again we see an example of legislation that appears to have been deliberately designed to encourage the sale of land. Thus five people could legally decide the fate of land that might belong to hundreds of owners. While not illegal, such legislation raises serious doubts as to how seriously the Crown took its obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to facilitate the retention of land for as long as the Maori owners should desire to retain it.

In at least one example of alienation the Crown completely failed to live up to its obligations. In the case of the educational endowment land at the southern end of Tuararangaia 1B, a set of conditions were stipulated by the owners when the land was given over to the Crown. The owners specified that that money generated from the block should go for the education of Tuhoe and other eastern Bay of Plenty Maori children, with an emphasis on secondary education. According to Tama Nikora the stipulation was made that a Maori College should be established in the Ohiwa district for the children of the eastern Bay of Plenty iwi. No such College was built at Ohiwa. £8410 made from logging operations on the Tuararangaia 1B education endowment lands was placed into the Education Departments general consolidated fund. This meant there was no guarantee that the money in question actually ended up going to fund Maori education, let alone the education of the Maori children of the eastern Bay of Plenty. Such an action was

135 clearly contrary to the original wishes of the donors of the land. (The findings of this report agree with the allegation made in the Tuhoe consolidated claim, Wai 36, that the Crown failed to use the money from this education endowment specifically for Maori education.)

The building of the Matahina dam in the 1960s (see section 7.5 of this report), had an impact on the land of Tuararangaia 3B2, the one part of the original Tuararangaia block that was still Maori land at that time. Several different areas ofland were taken under the Public Works Act 1928. Approximately 123 acres of land were inundated by water from the dam. Another 23 acres were taken for roading. This current report involved only a limited amount of research into the .Matamna dam project. FrDm this research it appears.thereis some justification to the allegation by the Wai 46 claimants that the dam seriously affected the fishing resource in that part of the Rangitaiki River. It also appears that Ngati Awa did not fully participate in the financial rewards generated by the dam. However this current report did not involve enough research on the subjects mentioned to allow definitive statements to be made concerning them.

It can be seen that the history of the Tuararangaia block, since the time of the title investigation in 1891, is one of relatively rapid alienation of Maori land. By 1916, just 25 years after the decisions made at the title investigation, only 1545 acres remained as Maori land, out of the original 8656 acres of the Tuararangaia block. A significant proportion of this land had been alienated to cover the costs involved in the original survey, including costs imposed for delays and interest charged on the sums owed. This was in turn the result of a land administration system that imposed all the costs of surveys on the Maori land owner. The subsequent sales and gifting of land were also made easy by a system of land administration that enabled very small numbers of owners to make decisions on the fate of areas of land that legally belonged to large numbers of people. In the years subsequent to 1916, a further 160 acres (approximately) were lost to public works takings. With the return of the 1000 acres education endowment land to the descendants of the owners of Tuararangaia 1B the current situation sees approximately 2388 acres of the original 8656 acre Tuararangaia block still remaining as Maori land.

136 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Unpublished

Official

LINZ, Wellington Survey Plans Plan 5913, Tuararangaia block, 2 July 1885.

National Archives, Wellington Native Land Court/Maori Land Court minute books Opotiki Native Land Court minute book 20 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 3 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 4 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 6 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 9 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 10 Whakatane Native Land Court minute book 21 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 44 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 47 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 52 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 70 Whakatane Maori Land Court minute book 75

Maori Affairs MA-MLP 11913/44 MA-MLP 1 1913/67 MA-MLP 1 1916/30

Forest Service Fl 23/21101181 F 1 23/2/1011100 F 11812/132 F 1 231211011135 F 1 18/2/152 F Acc w3129 22/2123 F 1 23/2/1011185 F 1 18/2/152/2 F 1 23/2/1011194 F 1 23/211011197 F 1 23/211011210

National Archives Auckland Maori Affairs BAJJ A73/1914/303, Box 51 BAJJ A7311059, Box 66

137 Lands and Survey BOAB A1076/379d191754

Forest Service BAJJ 5015, 74d.

LINZ, Hamilton Office DOSLI 6900/35( originally LS20/35) DOSLI6900/431

Maori Land Court, Rotorua Block Order File 17921b, Box 1251 Block Order File 1792/c, Box 1251 Block Order File 17931b, Box 1252 Block Order File 1793/c, Box 1252 Block Order File 17941b, Box 1254 Block Order File 1794/c, Box 1255 Block Order File 1795/a, Box 1256 Block Order File 1796/a, Box 1256 Closed Correspondence File, Tuararangaia Closed Order File, Box 269, File 989 Closed Order File, Box 269, File 990/1 MT 12/13797, Tuararangaia 3B2 Title Order Binder, 77c, No.4, Omataroa-Rangitaiki 2 Title Order Binder, 222A, Tuararangaia

Waitangi Tribunal Wai 36 Record of Documents Wai 40 Record of Documents Wai 46 Record of Documents Wai 212 Record of Documents Wai 509 Record of Documents Wai 726 Record of Documents Supporting Papers, Wai 46 record of documents, doc H5A, vols 1 and 2

Published

New Zealand Gazette, 1896, 1898, 1925, 1968.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Unpublished Alexander, D, 'The Matahina Power Project (including Te Mahoe Village and Rangitaiki 60C Core Material Quarry)', a report commissioned by the Crown, 1994 (Wai 46 record of documents, doc H5) Bennion, T. and A Miles, 'Report on the War and Confiscations and the extent of Ngati Awa Interests in the Lands West and South of the Confiscation Boundary, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1995, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc 11)

138 Binney, J, 'Urewera Overview Project: A History of the Urewera from European Contact until 1878', (draft), Urewera Overview Project, a report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2000 Binney, J, 'Urewera Overview Pt 2, 1878-1912' ,(draft ), Urewera Overview Project, a report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2000 Bright, N, 'The Alienation History of the Kuhawaea No.1, No. 2A, and No. 2B blocks', a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1998. Cleaver, P, 'A History of the Matahina Blocks', (draft), a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1999. Hunia, J H, 'Pahipoto History', brief of evidence, 1994, ( Wai 46 record of documents, doc A37) Iriaka, K, 'Ngati Hamua history', brief of evidence, 1994,(Wai 46 record of documents, doc A50) Mason, J, concerning Ngati Pukeko history, brief of evidence, nd, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc A32). Mead, H M, 'Pahipoto hapu', brief of evidence, July 1994, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc A35) 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 record of documents doc C7), Miles, A, Rangahaua Whanui District 4: Te Urewera, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1999. Milroy, J W, S Melbourne, & T R Nikora, 'The Bay of Plenty Confiscation and the Tuhoe Tribal Boundary', a report commissioned by the Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board (Wai 46 record of documents, doc H2). Nikora, T, 'Tuararangaia No.1 Block', draft evidence for the Wai 36 inquiry, 1999. Nikora, T, 'Tuararangaia No.1 Block: Part 1, Survey Charges and Land Taken', draft evidence for the Wai 36 inquiry, 1999. Nikora, T, 'Tuararangaia Pt IB Block of 1,000 acres' Pt 3, draft evidence for the Wai 36 inquiry, 1999. O'Malley, V, 'The Crown and Ngati Ruapani: Confiscation and Land Purchase in the Wairoa­ Waikaremoana Area, 1865-1875', a report for the Patunamu State Forest (Wai 144) Claim, October 1994 Phillis, 0, 'Warahoe', brief of evidence, nd, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc A40) 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. Taitoko, WWW, 'Kaore Ano Kia Oti Noa: A History of the Waiohau Blocks (draft), Wai 36, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, April 2000. Wazl, T, 'Ngati Awa Land, 1870-1970', a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, September 1996, (Wai 46 record of documents, doc M18)

PUBLISHED SECONDARY SOURCES

BaHara, A, Iwi: The Dynamics of Maori Tribal Organisation from c. 1769 to c. 1945, Wellington, Victoria University Press, 1998. Belich, J, Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders, Auckland, Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1996 Best, E, Tuhoe: Children ofthe Mist, vols 1& 2, Auckland, Reed, 1996. Binney, J, Redemption Songs: A Life of Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki, Auckland, Auckland University Press/Bridget Williams Books, 1995.

139 Binney, J, 'Te Mana Tuatoru: The Rohe Potae of Tuhoe', New Zealand Journal of History, vol 31, no 1, April 1997. Melbourne, S, 'Te Purewa', in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 1, 1769-1869, W.H. Oliver ed., Wellington, Allen and Unwin and Dept ofInternal Affairs, 1990. Brooking, T, "'Busting up" the Biggest Estate of All: Liberal Maori Land Policy 1891 to 1910', New Zealand Journal ofHistory, vol. 26, no. 1, April, 1992, pp 78-98. Sissons, J, Te Waimana: The Spring of Mana, Tuhoe and the Colonial Encounter, Dunedin, Otago University Press, 1991 Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, Wellington, Legislation Direct, 1999. Ward, A, National Overview, vol. 2, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 1997. Williams, D, Te Kooti Tango Whenua: The Native Land Court, 1864-1909, Wellington, Huia Publishers, 1999. Williams, H W, Dictionary of the Maori Language, seventh edition, Wellington, GP publications, 1971. Young, D, Matahina: Power in the Land, Wellington, Steele Roberts, 1998.

140 RlW 04 #:5. /2

W AITANGI TRIBUNAL

CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

AND CONCERNING the Urewera district inquiry

DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH

1. Pursuant to clause 5A of the second schedule of the Treaty ofWaitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal authorises Peter Clayworth of Wellington to complete, on behalf of the Tribunal, a research report in respect of the Tuararangaia Block in the eastern Bay of Plenty, covering the following matters:

(a) the reasons for this Tribunal commission, and the aim of this report. A review of any research on the Tribunal record of inquiry which is of relevance to this project; (b) Any comments regarding methodological approach, and what, if any, further research may be required in regard to Tuararangaia; (c) An overview and analysis, where possible, on the Maori customary use and occupation of this land prior to title investigation; (d) Any issues with regard to the survey of this block. Who initiated the survey and was it supported by all the hapuJiwi with connections to Tuararangaia? (e) Any early efforts by either Crown or private parties. to secure a lease or freehold of the block; ~- (f) An overview of the title investigation of Tuararangaia block by the Native Land Court. Was the hearing contentious and were there any applications for re-hearing? (g) A commentary on the political context of the 1880s and 1890s in which the Crown's actions regarding Tuararangaia took place; (h) A brief history of subsequent partitions of the Tuararangaia block, and an alienation history of each of the major subdivisions from 1891 to the present; (i) A brief survey of any major public works issues which may have affected this land; A brief summary of the current ownership of the block and commentary on how this land is currently utilised.

2. This commission commenced on Monday 8 November, 1999 and finishes on Monday 20 March, 2000, at which time one copy of the report will be filed in unbound form and on diskette together with indexed copies of any transcripts or other supporting documents.

I () 0 Q f -. .~ ""',... J._ .... RIW 04 Clayworth.

3. This report may be received as evidence and the author may be cross-examined on it.

4. The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to:

Peter Clayworth Anita Miles, Wayne Taitoko, Waitangi Tribunal Tama Nikora, Aubrey Te Mara, Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board Dr H Mead, Te Runanga 0 Ngati Awa (Wai 46) Rachel Paul, counsel for Te Ika Whenua claimants (Wai 212) James Goldsmith, Ngati Whare Iwi Claims Committee (Wai 66) Vernon Winitana, Ruapani Lands Claim (Wai 144) Norma Moetu Pakau (Wai 509) Te Whitu McGarvey (Wai 560) Counsel for Roland Mason Stevens (Wai 724) Hiraina Ngatima Hona (Wai 725) Counsel for Ngati Haka-Patuheuheu (Wai 726) Peter Keepa, Urewera Lands and Waters Claim (Wai 761) Tame Iti, Opouriao Lands and Resources Claim(Wai 794) Anam and Hirini Paine, Lake WaikaremoanaITumatawhero claim (Wai 795) Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Secretary, Crown Forestry Rental Trust Chief Executive, Te Puni Kokiri

Dated at Wellington, this ~Y of March 2000.

~lJ~__ Deputy Chairperson WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

f q. 0 q f ') " tin II (