h(f(i /15 - C i DUPlICATE YV~11 ,5tfD ~ ,Ail I

N gaiterangi and the Crown

An Overview Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for Ngaiterangi Iwi

by

RICHARD KAY HEATHER BASSETT

Bassett Kay Research June 1998 Table of Contents

Introduction 3 The Authors 3 The Commission 3 Structure of Report 4 Parameters of Report 6

Executive Summary 7

1. Ngaiterangi Before Raupatu 14 1.1 Ngaiterangi arrival in Tauranga 14 1.2 Ngaiterangi, Missionaries, Trading and Fighting 16 1.3 The Treaty ofWaitangi and the Crown's Authority 20 1.4 Summary 33

2. Ngaiterangi, Kingitanga, and War 35 2.1 Ngaiterangi and Kingitanga 35 2.2 Pukehinahina and Te Ranga 37 2.3 Summary 43

3. Confiscation 45 3.1 Making Peace 46 ~ 3.2 Land for the Crown 52 3.3 Land for Ngaiterangi 58 3.4 Summary 61

4. Alienation of Land Awarded to Ngaiterangi 63 4.1 Quantifying Land Loss 63 4.2 Removal of Alienation Restrictions 69 4.3 Summary 79

5. Ngaiterangi After Confiscation 81 5.1 Kingitanga 81 5.2 Socio-economic Impact of Raupatu 83 5.3 Ngaiterangi Grievances with the Crown 1885 95 5.4 Stout-Ngata Commission 103 5.5 Sim Commission 104 5.6 Development Schemes 105 5.7 Ongoing Attempts at Redress 105 5.8 Summary 108

1 6. Ngaiterangi Land Used for Public Works 111 6.1 The Public Works Act and Crown Policy on the Acquisition of Maori Land 111 6.2 East Coast Main Trunk Railway and Associated Takings 119 6.3 Tauranga - Te Maunga Motorway 129 6.4 Other Public Works 134 6.5 Total Impact 145 6.6 Summary 147

7. Control, Use and Management Issues 148 7.1 Harbour Issues 151 7.2 Sites of Significance 164 7.3 Summary 172

8. Rates and Urban Expansion 174 8.1 Rates 174 8.2 Urban Expansion 184 8.3 Summary 196

9. Ngaiterangi Iwi 198 9.1 Ko Mataatua te Waka 199 9.2 Te Heke 0 Rangihouhiri 200 9.3 Nga Hapu 0 Ngaiterangi 202 9.4 Summary 221

Maps 223

Bibliography 233

2 Introduction

The Authors

Richard Kay has a Bachelor of Arts degree, maJormg m history, from Otago University and a Master of Arts Honours degree, majoring in history, from Waikato University. He has a Diploma of Teaching (secondary) from the Auckland College of Education. He is based in Auckland as a contract historian.

Heather Bassett has a Bachelor of Arts Honours degree, majoring in history, from Waikato University. She is also studying for a law degree. From 1993 to 1995 she worked as a researcher for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, during which time she co-authored the Maori Land Legislation Manual. Heather was a staff member at the Waitangi Tribunal from June 1995 to October 1996. She is now working as a contract historian based in Auckland.

Together, we have written reports commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal on the Otawa No 2 blocks (Wai 210), and the urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini (Wai 342 and Wai 370); and for Wai 603: 'Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay'; and Wai 47; 'Mangatawa', 'Otawhiwhi Reserve and Bowentown Domain', 'Huharua, Pukewhanake and Nga Kuri a Wharei'.

The Commission

This report has been commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of Ngaiterangi iwi for Bassett Kay Research to prepare a comprehensive overview of the claims of Ngaiterangi iwi as a whole. The aim was to present the Ngaiterangi perspective on breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi in Tauranga Moana from 1840 to the present day. The report is intended as an overview only, which respects the individual hapu identities and their right to present their own story to the Waitangi Tribunal.

3 The overriding theme of the report has been identified by representatives of Ngaiterangi. This is that before their land was confiscated Ngaiterangi were the dominant iwi in Tauranga. The formal confiscation of land, and subsequent Treaty breaches that make up raupatu, have meant that today Ngaiterangi are alienated from their whenua and denied control (or tino rangatiratanga) of Tauranga Moana.

This report has been researched and written over a SIX month period which commenced in October 1997.

Structure of Report

This report follows a thematic structure, although generally within a chronological framework, and focuses on the period 1840 to 1997.

Chapter One looks at how Ngaiterangi lived before raupatu and concludes that despite external interference in their rohe they continued to exercise their tino rangatiratanga.

Chapter Two examines Ngaiterangi involvement in the Kingitanga and war with the Crown and stresses that this involvement was part of an ongoing battle for tribal autonomy.

Chapter Three looks at the implementation of the Crown's confiscation policy and finds that to a number of Ngaiterangi chiefs the peace was an acceptance of terms proposed by the Crown rather than a surrender to the Crown. What soon became evident to the two parties following the peace agreement was that they both had a very different interpretation of the process.

Chapter Four quantifies the alienation of 40,000 acres of Ngaiterangi land between 1886 and 1997 and finds that today Ngaiterangi hold only 9,755 acres ofland. This is only 19.28 percent of the land left to them after confiscation. It also examines why restrictions on alienation were ineffectual.

4 Chapter Five examines Ngaiterangi after the confiscation and finds that the iwi made \ Y numerous appeals to the Crown concerning the marginalised position they had been placed in as a result of the confiscation of their land.

Chapter Six examines Ngaiterangi land used for public works and finds that public works takings by Crown agencies showed no regard for Ngaiterangi interests, and no regard for ensuring that sufficient land remained for Ngaiterangi support and maintenance. The total amount of Ngaiterangi land used for public works is over 1,000 acres.

Chapter Seven looks at the control, use and management issues, particularly, the harbour and foreshore and their significance to Ngaiterangi. The development of the harbour saw Ngaiterangi denied access to their traditional rohe. It also examines the impact of the Crown's devolution of responsibility to local authorities and fmds that Ngaiterangi were adversely effected by the local authorities' failure to meet their , -, Treaty responsibility of consultation and pay due regard to Ngaiterangi values.

Chapter Eight looks at the role of local councils in the alienation ofNgaiterangi land, particularly in the form of rate demands and the pressure placed on Ngaiterangi lands to be subdivided for residential purposes.

Chapter Nine uses oral testimonies to establish Ngaiterangi identity androhe. It also looks at how Ngaiterangi exercised their mana over that rohe. The oral testimonies have been presented in the chapter as they appear in the transcripts, in particular in regard to the spelling of names, tribes, hapu and places of residence.

The main findings of this report can be found in the 'Executive Summary'. A full bibliography is also provided as guidance for the reader.

5 Parameters of Report

• The themes covered in this report were specifically identified by Ngaiterangi at a

meeting of Te Runanga 0 Ngaiterangi Iwi on 6 June 1997. The report is mainly about Ngaiterangi after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and up until the present day.

• The sources used to prepare this report are both written and oral. The oral interviews with representatives of the various hapu of N gaiterangi were carried out by Roimata Minhinnick and Paul Stanley. Roimata Minhinnick's brief was to carry out oral interviews with a focus on traditional perceptions of Ngaiterangitanga and raupatu. Paul Stanley was commissioned to carry out oral interviews on contemporary perceptions of Ngaiterangitanga and raupatu. The authors make no claim to have any expertise in the traditional histories and whakapapa of Ngaiterangi iwi. The principle written sources used for this project have been reports from the Waitangi Tribunal, local histories, general histories, Native Land Court records, and papers from the New Zealand Gazette and the Appendices to the Journals a/the House a/Representatives.

• The focus of this report is on providing an overview of the claims of N gaiterangi iwi. The focus is specifically designed to highlight a list of grievances, which are generic to the people of N gaiterangi. The approach has been to emphasise a broad range of grievances and the strength of feeling expressed by Ngaiterangi concerning these issues.

6 Executive Summary

The purpose of this report was to examine the rohe ofNgaiterangi and how the iwi has exercised their mana over this rohe with the advent of Crown interference in their territory. This was achieved by examining the position of Ngaiterangi prior to the Crown's arrival. The process of confiscation and its impact on the iwi were examined in a legal, social and economic context. Emphasis was placed on the inadequacies of Ngaiterangi reserves and the Crown's failure to protect the Treaty of Waitangi rights of the iwi. The Crown devolved their responsibility to the local authorities but failed to ensure that the iwi Treaty rights were protected.

The Crown's delegation of power to local authorities has had an obvious detrimental impact on the iwi, with an ongoing sense of· grievance towards the Crown for their failure to honour the Treaty by ensuring that Ngaiterangi could enjoy the control, use and management of their lands. Today there is a feeling amongst both the older and younger members of the iwi that Ngaiterangi have been marginalised socially and economically from their whenua, and therefore their future. Nevertheless, throughout this process of colonisation Ngaiterangi had fought to maintain their tribal autonomy and developed a culture of resistance towards the Crown.

This report has been compiled from written sources of primary and secondary origin and the oral testimonies from various hapu of Ngaiterangi concerning the traditional history and contemporary issues.

Chapter One looks at Ngaiterangi before raupatu took place and concludes that despite external threats, whether they were inter-tribal warfare or Crown interference in their rohe, Ngaiterangi continued to exercise their tino rangatiratanga. Ngaiterangi had settled and been a dominant iwi in the area which came to be known as the Bay of Plenty well before the arrival of the first Pakeha. They were a specific iwi who derived their origins from their ancestor Rangihouhiri and the waka Mataatua. They were concentrated in the eighteenth century along the eastern coastline of the harbour

7 and at the western end of the harbour. By the nineteenth century they had sufficient mana in the region to protect the new economic activity of trade for guns. They recognised the need to have weapons to ensure their tribal autonomy against aggressors.

Not all Ngaiterangi chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and those that did appear to have done so to gain an ally in the Crown against their traditional enemies while maintaining a degree of tribal autonomy. There was a clear and fundamental difference between Ngaiterangi understanding of the Treaty and that of the Crown. Those chiefs, such as Hori Tupaea who refused to sign the Treaty did so as an exercise in tribal autonomy and cultural resistance against Crown interference. There were those amongst the Crown officials who had doubts over the Crown's ability to exercise sovereignty in an area where strong opposition to the Queen's sovereignty existed. This period of initial contact with Pakeha was dramatic for the iwi and characterised by conflict and ambivalence about the value of changing their traditional way of life.

Chapter Two looks at Ngaiterangi involvement in the Kingitanga and stresses that their involvement in the movement was a continuation of their battle with the Crown for their tribal autonomy and the act of supporting a traditional ally Tainui. The Crown's occupation of Tauranga was designed to stop Ngaiterangi helping their Waikato ally. Ngaiterangi saw the arrival of Crown troops in their rohe as an invasion. This occupation resulted in two battles at Pukehinahina.and Te Ranga. The first of which saw the Tauranga iwi the victors and the second of which saw them defeated. The fighting had been exhausting for both the Crown and Maori and both desired peace.

Chapter Three examines the implementation of the Crown's confiscation policy. Tauranga land confiscation, being the cornerstone of Tauranga Waitangi Tribunal claims has been extensively researched, so the authors have aimed to raise questions about how the Crown and Ngaiterangi each interpreted the events of 1864-1866. Following the battles of Pukehinahina and Te Ranga, Ngaiterangi were left in a

8 vulnerable position. They had lost leaders as a result of the war. Similarly the Crown forces were exhausted and wanted peace. A number of historians have suggested this resulted in a failure to negotiate a proper peace settlement that clearly set out the terms of surrender. For the Crown the peace was clearly bound up with the idea of confiscation. To a number of Ngaiterangi the peace was an acceptance of terms proposed by the Crown rather than a surrender to the Crown. What soon became evident to both sides following the peace agreement was that they both had a very different interpretation of the process. In 1866 Ngaiterangi were surprised to discover that the Crown planned to confiscate 50,000 acres of land between the Wairoa and Waimapu rivers. The boundaries were subsequently adjusted because, there was insufficient land between the two rivers.

Although Governor Grey promised that only one-quarter of the total Tauranga lands would be confiscated, negotiations were going on to ensure that the Crown would acquire a much larger portion of the valuable Tauranga Moana lands. Out of the three­ quarters of land to be returned to Maori, the Crown immediately arranged to purchase a substantial area north of the Te Puna River, amounting to 93,188 acres. This area has become known as the Katikati - Te Puna purchase. The purchase was achieved by a series of deeds signed by various groups of Maori. Initially the purchase was made from only eight Ngaiterangi chiefs and was an issue of great contention amongst Ngaiterangi and other iwi.

Reserves were awarded to Ngaiterangi in a way that destroyed customary title. The result of the awards was the individualisation of tribal lands, and, in some cases, the dislocation of hapu from their ancestral rohe.

Chapter Four quantifies the alienation of 40,000 acres of Ngaiterangi land between 1886 and 1997. Today Ngaiterangi hold 9,755 acres of land, which is only 19.28 percent of the land left to them after confiscation. The restrictions on Ngaiterangi land did not cause it to be inalienable, they were intended as part of the Crown's pacification process. This was at best a paternalistic policy that would perhaps protect Maori from private speculators who would supposedly render them landless. Just as

9 confiscation had been exercised under a blanket proclamation, restricting the alienations of these lands was done the same way. Unfortunately for Ngaiterangi, restrictions on their land were no barrier to Crown purchasing, which suggests that the true purpose of the inalienable status was not to stop Maori from selling their land but rather to ensure that they did not sell land to private speculators. The Crown's purpose, therefore, in designating the land inalienable was to gain an advantage over private speculators. By failing to enforce the restrictions on alienation the Crown failed in its fiduciary duty to Maori.

Chapter Five examines Ngaiterangi after confiscation and finds that Ngaiterangi support for the Kingitanga had been reinforced by the Crown's confiscation of their land. Ngaiterangi found themselves with an increasingly marginalised land base which impacted on their ability to sustain themselves as an iwi. Their leaders made numerous appeals to the Crown to address these grievances. The Crown encouraged Ngaiterangi to sell further land to address their problems. Further land sales had the effect of placing Ngaiterangi in a dependent cycle of land sales and labouring work / '... - for Pakeha farmers. In 1885 Ngaiterangi leaders stressed at a meeting with John Ballance the idea of one people and partnership that the Treaty offered. This appeal, although acknowledged, was ignored by the Crown which in 1927, under the auspices of the Sim Commission, found that the confiscation was neither excessive or unjustified. The 1940s saw a wave of further petitions to the Crown which were again ignored.

Chapter Six examines Ngaiterangi land used for public works. It finds that public works takings by Crown agencies, in particular the Public Works Department, showed no regard for Ngaiterangi interests, and no regard for ensuring that sufficient land remained for N gaiterangi support and maintenance. Most of the land was taken under either the Public Works Act 1908 or 1928. These Acts created different procedures for the taking of general (European) and Maori land. The result was that Maori were given less protection than other land owners. A major factor in the way the Public Works Act affected Ngaiterangi was not the Act itself, but the way it was applied by Crown agencies. The policies, or unofficial practices, of government departments

10 tended to have the result of discriminating against Maori interests. The attitude of Crown officials was to protect the position of the Crown, rather than to carry out the Crown's fiduciary duty to Maori as expressed in the Treaty ofWaitangi. The taking of land for public works occurred through proclamations of individual small amounts taken from separate blocks. This gives a misleading impression of the total impact of the Public Works Act on Ngaiterangi land. In fact over 200 acres was acquired for the East Coast Main Trunk Railway line, and 124 acres for the Tauranga - Te Maunga motorway. When these figures are combined with other public works acquisitions the total amount ofNgaiterangi land used for public works isover 1,000 acres.

Chapter Seven examines the impact of the Crown's devolution of responsibility to local authorities and the effect on Ngaiterangi and the control use and management of their ancestral land. This includes their ancestral rights over Tauranga harbour. There has been a failure on the part of the local authorities to consult with Ngaiterangi or to recognise cultural differences between Maori and Pakeha over land tenure. The responsibility lies with the Crown for failing to ensure that the body to which it has devolved its powers and responsibilities must exercise those powers in a way that is consistent with the Treaty. The use of the harbour and pa sites around the harbour as public recreation facilities creates a conflict with Ngaiterangi cultural values. The result of such usage has been the desecration of significant wahl tapu. Ngaiterangi maintain that the foreshores were never sold to the Crown and remain Ngaiterangi land. Since at least 1885 Ngaiterangi have been requesting thattheir customary rights over these areas and the harbour as a whole be recognised.

The Crown's legislation vesting control of the harbour in the Tauranga Harbour Board failed to provide for Ngaiterangi representation. The large scale development of the international cargo port at Mount Maunganui has severely impacted on the ability of Ngaiterangi to exercise their customary rights over the foreshore. The development of the port was encouraged and facilitated by the Crown. The development was seen as being of national benefit, and the drive to develop the region took precedence over any Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities. The harbour has been polluted which has depleted fish and shellfish stocks. The discharge of sewerage is particularly offensive

11 to Ngaiterangi and the consultation processes have been inadequate. The Bowentown Domain is an example of a significant Ngaiterangi site being administered in a way that has damaged the pa and not taken the concerns of local hapu into account. Mauao is a very sacred maunga to all Tauranga iwi. Ngaiterangi wish ownership to be returned to Maori and to be involved in joint management of the domain.

Chapter Eight looks at the impact of rates on. Ngaiterangi land. The result of rate demands was often the alienation of Ngaiterangi from their whenua, and an inability to gain personal use and control of their land when it was placed in the hands of a Crown appointed agency that was intended tOdprotect the interests of the owners. As early as 1885 Ngaiterangi leaders took exception to the rate charges levied on their land, saying rates were too high for the amount of service that they received in return for their payment. The presumed failure of Maori to pay rates was the cause of considerable anger amongst the Pakeha community who called for more stringent action to be taken against rate defaulters in the 1930s. However, the non-payment of rates can also be attributed to a failure in local body collection methods. The council generally refused to spend money on services where rate defaulting took place, which assumed that all Maori were rate defaulters which had the effect of further marginalising the economic viability of the land. The council's response to rate defaulters was to seek charging orders where the land was placed under the control of the Maori Trustee.

The 1950s saw the economic potential of this land realised for residential subdivision. Individualising title for subdivision was seen as a means of giving Maori individual section title and a means of ensuring that the valuation rolls were kept up to date which would help in the collection of rates. In the 1960s and 1970s the council became more aggressive about collecting rates. At the same time Tauranga and Mount Maunganui were experiencing rapid population growth which placed enormous pressure on Ngaiterangi to subdivide their land for housing. To counter this pressure, land owners at Matapihi formed a trust to administer and protect their land. This is now the only remaining significant area of Ngaiterangi-owned land with the boundaries of the Tauranga District Council. In contrast the Maungatapu block, and

12 many others in Welcome Bay, were subdivided into residential subdivisions. A very small percentage of sections were vested in the Maori owners.

Chapter Nine finishes this report with the words of Ngaiterangi. The chapter ~ses oral interviews collected by Roimata Minhinnick with various representatives from Ngaiterangi hapu to establish the rohe and how mana was exercised over that rohe. The authors have interpreted the information supplied by Minhinnick with the intention of allowing those who supplied testimonies the opportunity to express their views. Therefore, with this aim in mind, the authors have, where possible, kept the testimonies largely intact with editing kept to a minimumand.their .own comment clearly identifiable. This meant that the oral testimonies have been presented in the chapter as they appear in the transcripts, in particular in regard to the spelling of names, tribes, hapu and places of residence. The themes that emerged were that today Ngaiterangi continue to express the importance of identifying their whakapapa, rohe and exercising their mana over their land.

13 1. Ngaiterangi Before Raupatu

This chapter will examine Ngaiterangi up until the time of the confiscation of their land when they lost the ability to control their own circumstances. The main point that should be taken from this chapter is: • Ngaiterangi, regardless of the external threat whether it was inter-tribal warfare or Crown interference in their territory, continued to exercise their tino rangatiratanga over their land.

It is intended as an overview of the interaction between Ngaiterangi and the Crown before confiscation. The period shortly before Pakeha contact and the period of Pakeha contact prior to the confiscation of Ngaiterangi lands is examined. This . involves looking at the implications of the Treaty of Waitangi for Ngaiterangi in their dealings with the Crown and with other iwi. It will also look at Ngaiterangi rivalry with other iwi, specifically Te Arawa, and the importance of trade for weapons. By examining how Ngaiterangi lived prior to the confiscation of their land it is possible to convey some of the changes brought about by confiscation.

1.1 Ngaiterangi Arrival in Tauranga

A full account of the migration of Ngaiterangi to Tauranga.is given in chapter nine. Vincent O'Malley and Alan Ward have said that Ngaiterangiarrived in Tauranga at about the tum of the eighteenth century (map nine):

The situation at about the tum of the eighteenth century, then, was that Ngati Ranginui occupied the area to the west of Maunganui and Waitaha a Hei held the eastern side, Maunganui pa itself was similarly divided, and further inland lived the ancient remnants of the ancient Ngamarama.

This equation was shortly to be upset, however, by the arrival on the scene of the Ngai Te Rangi, a Mataatua people who had previously lived at Opotiki, in the eastern Bay of Plenty. Ngati Rangihouhiri had been expelled from the Opotiki area by Ngati Ha (who later became Ngati Pukenga) and were subsequently reduced to a little more than the status of slaves by a Poverty Bay chief, Te Waho 0 te Rangi. After defeating their new masters in battle, the people of Rangihouhiri again sought to find a new home for themselves in the Bay of Plenty. However, even their Mataatua kin, the Ngati Awa, resented their presence in the region, and they found themselves being pushed increasingly westward until eventually taking Maketu from its Tapuika inhabitants. Although their eponymous chief Rangihouhiri was killed Ngai Te Rangi

14 (as they now became known) were able to hold Maketu against the combined weight of successive Arawa attempts to regain control of the area.

Mutual exhaustion brought peace, cemented by marriage alliances, to the region; but it was not long before Ngai Te Rangi were to be embroiled in another bitter struggle, this time with their Waitaha a Hei and Ngati Ranginui neighbours. After Kotorerua, a [grandson] ofRangihouhiri, had executed his plan to take the seemingly impregnable Maunganui pa, Ngai Te Rangi became the dominant tribe in the Tauranga region. Ngai Te Rangi dominance was reinforced when their chief displayed his disapproval of what he considered premature peace-making efforts by destroying the villages of those with whom peace had been made. I The main points that can be taken from this quote are that Ngaiterangi: • had settled the area well before the first Pakeha contact; • have been a leading and dominant iwi in the Tauranga district smce the early eighteenth century when they established themselves in the area; • were a specific and individual iwi, who traced their origins from their ancestor Rangihouhiri and the waka Mataatua. They were not originally a generic term for all Maori of Tauranga; and • originally they concentrated along the eastern coastline of Tauranga Harbour.

Ngaiterangi at this time were settled along the eastern coastline around the harbour at (map five): • Mount Maunganui • Whareroa • Te Tahuna 0 Rangataua • Te Papa • Otumoetai • Matakana • Motuhoa At the western end of the harbour they were located at: • Katikati 2 • Otawhiwhi.

I Vincent O'Malley and Alan Ward, 'Draft Historical Report on Tauranga Moana Lands', Crown/Congress Joint Working Party, June 1993, pp 7-8 2 Anthony Fisher, Keni Piahana, Te Awanuiarangi Black, Rahera Ohia, 'The Issues Concerning the Use, Control and Management of Tauranga Harbour and its Estuaries', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215 A50, June 1996, p 74

15 By the end of the eighteenth century Ngaiterangi had assumed a degree of dominance in Tauranga. The area at this time has been described as having a large population and 'extensive agriculture and involvement in, or readiness for, [tribal] warfare.'3

1.2 Ngaiterangi, Missionaries, Trading and Fighting

Early in the nineteenth century, Pakeha missionaries and traders began to settle coastal areas of the upper North Island. Missionaries Alfred Brown and William Williams decided on Te Papa as the site of a Church Missionary Society station because of its proximity to the local pa. 4 They found Tauranga to be densely populated. Tauranga Maori, including Ngaiterangi, became closely involved with the missionaries. Ngaiterangi tohunga Matiu Tahu of Ngai Tukairangi and Ngati Tapu hapu became a mission teacher and confidante of Brown's. He was also one of the leaders who sold the land on which the mission station was built at Te Papa. He accompanied Brown on missionary journeys to Taupo, Ruatoki, Matamata, and in April 1851 to Thames where, along with Hori Tupaea and other Ngaiterangi people, ~ "" ) he helped to make peace with Ngati Maru. Tahu was an important part of the Pakeha and Maori world, and a prominent spokesman for Ngaiterangi.5

Another prominent Ngaiterangi missionary teacher was Henare Taratoa who travelled extensively with Bishop Selwyn through New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. He was an outspoken Ngaiterangi leader for Maori rights. He opposed Governor Gore­ Browne's actions in Taranaki and Grey's system of indirect rule which brought Pakeha law and officials into Maori districts. In 1861 he returned to Tauranga to teach and organise a system of councils which controlled civil and religious matters for Maori. Taratoa was also involved with the King Movement, and was later killed at Te

3 Kathryn Rose, 'The Impact of Confiscation: Socio-Economic Conditions of Tauranga Maori', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, January 1997, Wai 215 A38, P 4 4 O'Malley and Ward, 1993, p 11 5 Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume One: 1769-1869, Bridget Williams Books, Department ofIntemal Affairs, Wellington, 1990, Alister Matheson, n, pp 414-415

16 Ranga. His involvement in the Pakeha christian world did not overshadow his commitment to Ngaiterangi autonomy.6

The first recorded trading between Ngaiterangi and Pakeha traders took place in the late 1820s and early 1830s when parties of Ngaiterangi were scraping flax to trade with Pakeha at Kawa and Waihi.7 This trade in flax was in return for guns. In the 1830s trade took place at Maketu:

There was .some debate over ownership of Maketu but it was a foregone conclusion that it belonged to Ngaiterangi by virtue of their conquest under Rangihouhiri. Tapsell bought the site of his-trading station for 'One Case Muskets, One Case Tobacco, One Case Pipes, Seven cwt Lead, Thirty~six Axes, and Thirty-six Tomahawks', paid to the chiefs Tupaeaand HikareiaofNgaiterangi. at Te Tumu. Tapsell had first visited Tauranga and purchased a large canoe from Tupaea for four muskets and was escorted to Maketu by a large number ofNgaiterangi.8 The main points are that: • Ngaiterangi in the early 1830s had sufficient mana in the region to establish and protect this new economic opportunity. • The principal chief of Ngaiterangi in 1840 was Hori Tupaea, the son of Te Warn

9 and his wife, Hine Te Oro, ofthe Whanau a Tauwhao hapu ; and • Ngaiterangi placed considerable value on weapons and tools.

Since about 1700 Ngaiterangi had been engaged in a territorial dispute with Te Arawa on the south-eastern boundary of Ngaiterangi rohe. By 1835 there was considerable inter-tribal rivalry as the significance of this. trading was beginning to be recognised by various iwi in the region. Te Arawa at this time were also .involved in preparing flax in return for guns. In order to be closely involved in this trade Ngaiterangi sold land at Maketu to trader Phillip Tapsell, and built a pa nearby at Te Tumu. In March . 1836 Tapsell's trading station was destroyed by Te Arawa. In May the Ngaiterangi pa at Te Tumu was attacked by Te Arawa and 200 Ngaiterangi were killed, including the

6 ibid, pp 430-431 7 Evelyn Stokes, A History oj Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980, p 53. See also A. C. Bellamy (ed), Tauranga 1882-1982: The Centennial ojGazetting Tauranga as a Borough, Tauranga City Council, Tauranga, 1982, p 10. 8 Stokes, 1980, p 53. See also Evelyn Stokes, 'Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands: A Report Prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal', University of Waikato, 1990, Wai 215 A12, pp 4-9 9 DNZB, 1990, Steven Oliver and Alister Matheson, TI12, pp 556-557

17 chief Hikareia. Te Arawa losses were light. Fighting between Ngaiterangi and Te

Arawa continued into the 1840s. to

Despite years of inter-tribal fighting Ngaiterangi continued to trade with Pakeha. In 1831 there had been four Pakeha traders at Maungatapu. As already mentioned, the 1820s to the 1840s was a period of inter-tribal fighting and strong competition to trade with Pakeha:

Contact with Europeans was stirring profound change in Maori life. The old religion was under attack from the missionaries and being replaced by new teachings. The mana of to hung a and ariki was being undermined. More efficient weapons and other merchandise were offered by traders. Some traditional foods were abandoned for introduced crops and European foods. Agriculture was reorganised· to cope with a cash economy .... The principle Maori villages, all strongly,Jortified, were at Maungatapu, Otumoetai,Matakana and Motuhoa, with several smaller settlements around the harbour shores. I I This quote indicates that, as well as being a period of tremendous social change, it was also a period of technical change in the form of weapons, farming methods, diet and currency. At the forefront of iwi embracing these changes was Ngaiterangi, who held the four major Tauranga pa of Otumoetai, Matakana, Te Papa and Maungatapu. 12

In the 1830s dressed flax was an important item of trade used to obtain weapons from Pakeha. The process of preparing the flax for trade was laborious and was soon replaced with easier and more profitable trading items such as pigs and potatoes. 13 There was a clear link for Ngaiterangi between military and economic development. Belich has said that:

Guns, potatoes and Europeans were new currencies of rivalry, ends in themselves. Their uneven distribution gave new advantages in traditional currencies such as feuding with kin and neighbours, and therefore intensified rivalry in them. They also encouraged raids on strangers, for slaves and mana. The use of guns and food supplies in this way moved through three phases. In the first, tribes acquired a few muskets, enough for a shock effect against those who had never faced them. They also acquired a sufficient economic surplus to use their new weapons more often and further from home than had previously been possible. In the second phase, the tribal armoury contained hundreds of muskets, and food and goods were sufficient to cobble together and maintain large armies. Hongi's return from Europe with his guns instantly projected him into this phase. In the third phase, Maori acquired more than

10 D.M. Stafford, Te Arawa: A History ofthe Arawa People, Reed, Auckland, Reprinted 1994, pp 239- 241 II Stokes, 1990, pp 8-9 12 W. H. Gifford and H. B. Williams, A Centennial History ofTauranga, Reed, Dunedin, 1940, p 23 13 Stokes, 1980, pp 58-59

18 one gun for every warrior - 'saturation '. Henry Williams wrote that Ngai Te Rangi of the Bay ofPlenty had a surfeit ofguns by 1831. 'Each boy had two or three and men ten. ' Tribes moved through the phases by improving their access to Europeans and guns, by developing agriculture - flax was important outside Northland - for trade and war supplies. [Emphasis added.]14 This quote indicates that economic and military developments were linked in a way that reflected and formed the other. Ngaiterangi survived this period of severe competition and were one of the dominant iwi at this time.

In 1838 a number of Ngaiterangi chiefs agreed to sell land at Te Papa to missionary Alfred Brown for the establishment of a Church Missionary Society station. At the time Ngaiterangi saw the deal as further trade; Brown complained that the sellers of this land drove a hard bargain:

My brethren and I have been occupied with the natives in trying to treat for purchase of the Papa but they are so exorbitant in their demands that I fear we shall not agree upon terms. 15 Two days later Brown said:

Engaged again with the natives respecting the purchase of the Papa. Their exhorbitance [sic] exceeds all I have yet met with on the part of natives in this country and I suppose we shall ultimately be obliged to seek some fresh site for the station. 16

Brown's comments suggest that Ngaiterangi were aware of the value oftheir land, and that they perhaps placed greater emphasis on making a good deal than pleasing their . maker. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that at this time Ngaiterangi were very inexperienced in land dealings with Pakehaand it· is certain that their concept of land tenure was very different from those of Brown.

Tureiti Stockman of Ngati Tapu, in an oral interview, said of this land purchase, and the subsequent establishment of the Te Papa settlement:

Well, that was pressure again. The actual township part, Otamataha there and Taumatakahawai, that area where the domain is, that was sort of gifted to the Reverend Brown when they established a eMS there. And, course they brought pressure to bear on a lot of our people, the only problem - they were talking to some

14 James Belich, Making Peoples: A History ofthe New Zealanders: From Polynesian Settlement to the End ofthe Nineteenth Century, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, Auckland, 1996, pp 161-162 15 Brown Journal, 22-24 March 1838, Alexander Turnbull Library (ATL), Wellington 16 ibid, 26-27 March 1838, ATL

19 of our wrong people and they said yeah, okay you can have it - and that is how we lost our land. They were talking to the wrong people and they sort of took over. 17

Stockman went on to say:

That was before the Treaty of Waitangi. Back in - they reckon they purchased two lots of land then which, I think, amounted to round about a thousand acres in the town area. From Otamataha there right up to Gate Pa - the CMS. So they say they purchased the thing but, these were forced purchases that they brought upon our people, but a lot of those people that signed those agreements, they didn't belong to our hapu really, there were other people involved. There were two purchases actually. Its pretty well documented, that part of it. That took place 1838-1839 - That was before they created the Treaty of Waitangi. 18

Apart from the initial Te Papa purchase there were just seven other pre-treaty purchases registered for the Tauranga district. The implication is that Ngaiterangi recognised the value oftheir land and wished to retain ownership and control.

1.3 The Treaty ofWaitangi and the Crown's Authority

The first contact Ngaiterangi had with Crown officials concernmg the Treaty of Waitangi took place in May 1840 when Major Bunbury arrived in the region to obtain signatures. At this time Bunbury discovered 21 Tauranga chiefs had already signed the Treaty:

He found that several Ngaiterangi chiefs, including all at Maungatapu, had already signed a version taken to them by C.M.S; missionaries on 10 April. There was some opposition at Otumoetai, particularly from· Tupaea.The.otumoetaipeople queried the nature of the treaty and the role of Queen Victoria. 19

The Treaty of Waitangi sheet which was presented at Tauranga in April 1840, was signed by the· missionaries Brown, Stack and Taylor. The following list of Tauranga signatures was compiled from Miria Simpson, Nga Tohu 0 Te Tiriti: Making a

Mark: 20

17 Oral interview with Tureiti Stockman/lhaka of Ngati Tapu conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 18 ibid 19 Stokes, 1980, p 62 20 Miria Simpson, Nga Tohu 0 Te Tiriti: Making a Mark: Signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi, National Library of New Zealand, Wellington, 1990, pp 130-134

20 / -" -\". Y

21 THE TREATY OF WAITANGI TAURANGA SIGNATORIES Te Wanake [Te Whanake] Huitao Tamaiwhahia [Tama-I-Wahia] TeHui Te Paetui TeKou Reko Tari [Nuka Taipari] Te Matatahuna Te Konikoni Tauarumia Nuka Te Tutahi Te Pohoi Putarahi Pikitia TeMako Te Peika Kapa Te Haereroa HoaniAneta WITNESSES HoaniAneta Henry Taylor James Stack

Three points should be made in regard to this list. The signature of Hoani Aneta appears as both witness and signatory to the Treaty .. Simpson was unable to give a date for this particular signing, presumably because the copy of the Treaty she was working from did not contain a date. Brown has been credited with collecting these signatures in April 1840, yet he is not identified as a witness. His role, like that of Hobson at Waitangi, was obviously to explain the Treaty, while the other two missionaries acted as witnesses to the document. Hobson's instructions to the missionaries were to explain the Treaty's 'principle and object' which Maori would have to understand before they would be allowed to sign. The missionaries were uncertain about the response of Tauranga chiefs:

For some months, the whole Bay of Plenty district had been disturbed by inter-tribal fighting. Moreover, Christian influence was not strong among the senior chiefs. Brown, however, decided to try for signatures . . . . But the major Ngai Te Rangi

22 chief, Tupaea, at Otumoetai pa, and other chiefs (mostly associated with Tupaea), would not sign. Probably for this reason Brown then put the treaty copy aside, hoping perhaps that the chiefs would change their mind. 21

This copy of the Treaty was returned to the Bay of Islands in May 1840 without Tupaea or his followers' signatures. Further copies of the Treaty were sent to Tauranga and it was hoped that Tupaea could be persuaded to sign one of these . copies. Bunbury tried to persuade Tupaea that signing the Treaty would ensure a 'fair price' for Ngaiterangi land:

On my speaking of the sale of lands, and of the right of pre-emption claimed by the Queen as intended equally for their benefit and to encourage industrious white men to settle amongst them, to teach them arts and how to manufacture those articles which were so much sought after and admired by them, rather than, by leaving the sale oflarge tracts ofland to themselves,they might pass into the hands of white men who would never come amongst them but to hamper by their speculations the industrious. The Queen, therefore, knew the object of these men, many of whom, I had no doubt, had counselled them not to ~ign the Treaty; but she would, nevertheless, unceasingly exert herself to mitigate the evils they sought to inflict on this country, by purchasing their lands herself at a juster valuation.22

This speech by Bunbury to Tupaea implied: • the Crown saw itself as a trustee for Maori; • the Crown promised a 'fair price' for Ngaiterangi land; and • Ngaiterangi would be able to take advantage of the introduction of British money and settlers to the region.

Despite these incentives Tupaea never signed the Treaty. He was first .offered the

Treaty on 10 April, and 12 May 1840 and'at least on one other occasion at Manukau. 23 This raises the question of just how significant the Treaty was to a number of Ngaiterangi hapu at this time. The significance of the Treaty to Ngaiterangi in 1840 is debatable when at the time of its signing Maori, not the Crown, were the dominant force in the area. The Crown wanted those iwi who had refused to sign the Treaty, including Ngaiterangi, to sign so that Britain's sovereignty over the country was

21 Claudia Orange, The Treaty ojWaitangi, Allen and Unwin Port Nicholson Press, Wellington, 1987, pp 70-71 22 Turton, H.H. An Epitome of Official Documents relative to Native Affairs and Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand

23 beyond challenge. This would enable British law to be applied to all British subjects in the colony, including Ngaiterangi.

Ngaiterangi did not see themselves as potential British subjects subject to British law. Of more immediate significance for Ngaiterangi was the continuing inter-tribal fighting. Therefore, the perception Ngaiterangi had of the Treaty should be examined in the light of this inter-tribal fighting. The value of the Treaty for Ngaiterangi was that it implemented a kind of 'pax britannica' between themselves and Te Arawa. 24 In other words, the Crown would protect them from a traditional enemy.

In 1842 Hori Tupaea was involved in raiding rival iwi who were also busy trading. Ensign Best, who was travelling with Bunbury at this time, said:

In the Morning some small Craft came also [carrying] Tupaieas party who turned out to be as I had supposed nothing but a war party consisting not as Mr Brown had . stated of 40 but of 120 men their object was not to fetch Ochre but to steal pigs belonging to Nga tiWaukaueofwhich they caught and killed 50. Determined not to make any mistake I questioned one of the Party who said they intended to cut off any stragglers they might have found but seeing none they had contented themselves with the Pigs. They had expected to have surprized (sic) some fishing parties.25 Best pointed out that Tupaea had little attachment or interest in being 'bound' to the Crown:

Canoes returned with large number of pigs caught on the island. These we heard were placed there by Ngatiwakaue to purchase a vessel. A large number were killed with their young. This act of Tupaia and Poipoi plainly shows the extent to which they consider themselves bound to us (viz: so far as it may suit their plans and interest) as the expedition was undertakenwithoutintimating to.us their intentions. 26 [Emphasis added.] Best described Tupaea as 'principal chief of Tauronga'and the 'prime promoter of all

disturbances. ,27

23 Lindsay Buick, The Treaty of Waitangi: How New Zealand Became a British Colony, Capper Reprint, 1976, p 229 24 Ian Wards, The Shadow of the Land: A Study of British Policy and Racial Conflict in New Zealand 1832-1852, Historical Publications Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, A. R. Shearer, Government Printer, Wellington, 1968, p 6 25 Nancy M. Taylor (ed), Journal of Ensign Best: 1837-1843, R. E. Owen, Government Printer, Wellington, 1966, p 391 26 ibid 27 ibid

24 Another Ngaiterangi chief, Taipari, described by Best as the '2nd man in Tauronga' behind Tupaea, gave Bunbury a gift of potatoes and pigs. Taipari had been one of the 21 Tauranga chiefs who had signed the Treaty in 1840. Bunbury refused to accept Taipari's gift which offended Taipari:

After we had sat without speaking a Maori custom for some little time Tai Pari said that his heart was very dark on account of Major Bunbury having refused his present That when the major was there before that he had given him (Tai Pari) a blanket & some other things and that a man who gave ought not to be too proud to receive. It was of no use our arguing that the present was from the Queen. That makes no difference said Tai Pari if he can give he ought also to receive on the Queen's part he will not do so and his fault is great. [Emphasis added.] 28

The point Best is making here is that the Queen did not permit her officers to receive gifts. This is perhaps an ironic idea considering the dealings of a number of her representatives in New Zealand, nevertheless it was the official position. More importantly however is that this situation shows that Maori and Pakeha in this instance did not understand each other's position. The quote above would appear to indicate that Taipari saw the relationship as being reciprocal between two equal partners. He seems to have seen his dealings to have been between two friends; an exchange of mana. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that in 1840 when signing the Treaty he had done so with a sense of partnership in mind rather than subjugating his mana to that ofthe Crown. By signing the Treaty he had acknowledged that the Queen was deserving of his mana. Bunbury, by refusing Taipari's gift, had insulted Taipari's mana. Bunbury was impatient with TaurangaMaori and did not allow adequate time for consultation concerning the Treaty and the evidence ofhis dealings with Taipari tends to support this contention.29

The following points should. be stressed from the quote above: • Ngaiterangi chief Taipari signed the Treaty ofWaitangi as an act of friendship and partnership; and • Taipari understood the Treaty of Waitangi to mean that Maori could retain a degree of autonomy and still be British subjects.

28 ibid, pp 391-392

25 Best went on to describe Taipari as:

the best of the Tauronga Chiefs (1 st Class) is peaceably inclined & keeps his Pah & people in good order he is most kindly disposed to white men & signed the Treaty which Tupaiea refused to do. 30

In 1842 the legal position ofiwi like Ngaiterangi which had refused to sign the Treaty became an issue when Taraia of Ngati Tamatera attacked Ngaiterangi at Ongare. Taraia attacked Ngaiterangi over a boundary dispute, killing eight Ngaiterangi, and taking twelve as slaves and committing acts of cannibalism that shocked the Pakeha community. Taraia, like Tupaea had also refused to sign the Treaty. The chief protector of Aborigines, George Clarke tried to settle the dispute by mediation, proposing that Taraia give up his prisoners and that the land in question be ceded to the Crown. Taraia refused this deal on the grounds that this was an affair between Maori concerning lands that had not been ceded in sovereignty.3! Clarke then recommended to Hobson that the Crown should use military force to show that it could back up its wishes. He was concerned that if the Crown failed to use force it would lose its influence with peaceful iwi and those who had signed the Treaty. The Executive Council decided to send a warship to Tauranga. Bunbury advised that he could supply and lead 53 men. However, the ship was held up by bad weather, during which time Clarke changed his mind, realising that the Crown had insufficient military strength to take such action:

So strong was this attitude that Clarke now thought the effective interference by the Government would be impossible with~theforceavailable, for the tribes involved . would certainly resist, and probably those tribes now at peace· would join in. The existing goodwill would change to defiance that might end in the destruction of the whole colony.32 The point that can be inferred from this quote is that Clarke noted Taraia's thinking that this incident was between Maori, not between Maori and Pakeha, and that Crown military interference would be a force to unite iwi which would result in war.

29 Orange, p 89 30 Taylor, p 393 31 Wards, pp 60-61 32 ibid, P 61

26 The attitudes of Pakeha officials is evident in correspondence between Clarke and Shortland:

In the whole of this unhappy affair, there is a fair exhibition of native character towards the Government; it is evident that there is still a large body of natives who dispute the right of sovereignty in cases purely native; much of this feeling arises, and I fear is on the increase, from the absence of proper authorities among them to represent the government. An efficient number of protectors would do more to prevent the recurrence of such scenes.33 As well as reflecting the climate of opinion held by Crown officials towards Maori issues, the main point that should be taken from this quote is: • There were clear and fundamental differences between the Crown and Maori as to the Crown's involvement in Maori affairs.

It was argued at the time by the Attorney-General William Swainson, that the Crown could not send troops against these feuding Bay of Plenty iwi because English law could not be considered to be in force where chiefs had not signed the Treaty of Waitangi.34 This raised the question of the effectiveness' of government authority. The

Crown did not have sovereignty over all the iwi of New Zealand, particularly In

/ '" - Tauranga. Best recorded the meeting between Crown representatives and Taraia:

Up at dawn and walked to Tararu where we embarked for Taraias settlement. At first our appearance excited considerable distrust and it was sometime before we could prevail on them to carry us'. on shore. On our frrstentering the Pa Taraia was not to be seen at length he came forth from his house dressed with much care but evidently disconcerted and ill at ease having seated himself he offered his hand which we refused to take saying that on his present behaviour depended on our treating him as a friend or enemy. Mr Clarke now informed him that Mr Shortland had come to enquire into the cause of his attack on the People of Tauronga,having been sent by the Governor. Taraia replied that the Governor was no Governorfor him or his people and that he had never signed· the Treaty nor would he· acknowledge his authority, That he had for years carried on War with Tauronga during which time nearly all his relations had fallen by their hands and that his present attack was to avenge his friends and drive his enemies off a piece of his land which they had occupied at Kati Kati. [Emphasis added.] 35

Taraia said that if the governor tried to take him by force he would fight. He was then told that the object of this meeting was to obtain peace, to which he assented. The peace party then went to Tauranga where they found Ngaiterangi keen for revenge. At

33 Taylor, p 62 34 Wards, p 61. See also Taylor, p 65. 35 Taylor, p 364

27 a second meeting Ngaiterangi agreed to peace. Ian Wards has said that 'an important factor, the reluctance of the Government to use force was interpreted as weakness, and the condescension was on the part of the Maoris, not of the Crown.'36

It can also be argued that, in light of the Crown's subsequent aggression in Tauranga, they did in fact feel the need to prove a point by use of force. The Crown were aware that they did not have the constitutional mandate of all iwi to.intervene, however, they did intervene because it was seen as being expedient and the most practical action at the time. The degree of intervention was once again determined by practicalities. As they were unable to gather sufficient military force to. take 'action against Taraia they decided on a more diplomatic or prudent approach. The view that the Crown were contemplating force in the future is evident in Best's presence when Shortland visited Tauranga. Best was a soldier and Bunbury wanted an expert in defensive fortifications to produce a report· on Maori fortifications at Tauranga, noting it was unwise to rely on the information supplied by missionaries and the public. During this visit Best was instructed by Bunbury to make a particular study of Maori fortifications. Bunbury himself was instrumental in requests for a permanent naval force because the lack of roads made it difficult to move soldiers and equipment.37

A second incident in the following months involving Ngaiterangi and Ngati Whakaue of Maketuonce again raised the issue of Crown authority. This incident involved the son of Ngati Whakaue chief Tohi te Ururangi. The boy, Ngakihad been involved in gathering potatoes on Ngaiterangi territory:

on 7 November, they were off Katikati, with the wind against them. They put in there, anchoring near the pa of Wanake, deserted since Taraia's attack six months before, and took away six or seven baskets of potatoes, which were highly tapu on account of the deaths at the pa ....the party was seen by the people of Matakana, who rushed upon them threateningly, stripping the Europeans and plundering the boat. The Maketu Maoris ran into the bush, and the boy, separated from the other two, was not seen again.38 The father of Ngaki, Tohi, went to Mount Maunganui to look for his son. Brown told him that a search had failed to find Ngaki. They left Mount Maunganui and went to

36 Wards, p 62 37 ibid 38 Taylor, p 64. See also Stafford, pp 289-292.

28 Tuhua (Mayor Island) where they killed four people and wounded a number of others. Following this incident both iwi looked to their allies for support: Te Arawa to Hauraki; and Ngaiterangi to Waikato. The threat of warfare was imminent.

At the request of Brown, a warning was issued by the Crown to the iwi involved in the fighting. Ward has said of this incident:

AtClarke's suggestion a notice was published in the Government Gazette that if the Maori 'got up' again, the Governor would 'get up' also. Five months later the Tauranga tribes were again receiving the worse end of feuding, this time from Ngatiwhakaue people of Maketu village, who killed and ate a number of Ngaiterangi to avenge the loss of their young ariki who had disappeared while gathering potatoes from the scene of Taraia's raid, nowtapu.ground.WilloughbyShortland,Acting Governor since Hobson's death in June 1842, proposed to land troops against the Maketu settlement but when Chief Protector Clarke, Chief Justice William Martin and Attorney-General William· Swainson voiced doubts about the government's legal position, they were landed instead at Tauranga and used to curb the luckless Ngaiterangi from exacting utu. 39 This quote indicates that: • the Crown at this time believed only those Maori who had acknowledged the Queen's authority by signing the Treaty of Waitangi could be considered British subjects, subject to English laws; • the troops were encamped not to take sides in a fight but rather as a barrier between the iwi; • the Crown tended to impose rather than negotiate terms of peace; and • Maori communities were, in certain circumstances, willing to accept a degree of 'police' power.

This situation did not particularly please either iwi. Nancy Taylor said:

This did not satisfy the aggrieved people of Tauranga. They clamoured for the Governor· to take action against Maketu and recalled the warning that had been published in the Maori Gazette in August and September after the Taraia affair: that if in future they should rise to fight one another the Governor would also rise and compel them to cease. They clearly showed,however, that while they wanted the government to coerce their enemies Gust as they had customarily made alliances with other tribes against foes) they themselves were willing to obey it only so far as obedience might suit their plans and interest.40 This quote suggests that Ngaiterangi at this time saw the Crown as:

39 Alan Ward, A Show of Justice: Racial 'Amalgamation' in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1995, pp 58-59

29 • a potential ally against their enemies; • an equal; • a potentially powerful military force; and • not as an enforcer oflaw for all Maori.

Ngaiterangi, therefore, saw the Treaty as something that could be used to their own advantage whether it be to foster trade or vanquish an enemy. Claudia Orange has said:

In untouched areas, such as the central North Island, the treaty was seen neither necessary nor desirable in order to protect land, at least from Pakeha.

The furthering of rival tribal interests in land, however,was .adetermining. factor both with Maori who signed and those who did not. This was apparent in the Bay of Plenty where some Maori would not sign.41 Taylor supports the idea that Ngaiterangi had little allegiance to the Crown:

It was clear that Tupaea of Otumoetai was the most war minded of the chiefs. Best describes him as a man corroded and embittered by the ravages his once powerful tribe had sustained. The pa Te Tumu, sacked by Rotorua in Waharoa's war seven years before, had been his, and Clarke wrote that he seemed determined to never forget this disgrace, for which he still demanded payment; instead, he had to endure new outrage on his relatives at Tuhua. He wanted the Governor to fight his enemies, but perceived no obligation to obey the Governor himself. Taipari of Maungatapu was far more pacific; his wife was from Rotorua and he was closely related at Tuhua.42

In December 1842 Bunbury arrived with soldiers who were deployed as a barrier to . both warring iwi. Bunburywasinstructed to.occupyground between the two iwi and 'confine his activities to the general preservation of the peace.' .These instructions annoyed Bunbury who felt he had sufficient men to deal with the iwi.43

Two points should be stressed about this incident: • The Crown felt they were being even handed in their dealing with the incident. • Ngaiterangi were aggrieved about the Crown's handling of the incident. There was no evidence to indicate they had done anything wrong.

40 Taylor, p 65 41 Orange, p 89 42 Taylor, p 66 43 Wards, p 67

30 The grievances felt by Ngaiterangi were still strongly felt even after a period of peace. Both incidents were significant from a Pakeha perspective because they were seen as an assertion of British sovereignty against any other nations interested in New Zealand. It was also seen as an opportunity to demonstrate a degree of military power after their inability to act against Taraia. Bunbury, on the other hand, believed that the relatively peaceful military intervention was a:

demonstration that lowered the standing of the armed forces in the eyes of the Maoris as they attributed forbearance to fear, died away without further tribal conflict but without coming any nearer to solving the problem of compulsion without force. 44

Therefore, well before the confiscation of Maori land in Tauranga; the Crown was debating the amount of force that was to be used against Maori. It was also seen by Pakeha officials as an opportunity to assess the 'contractual nature of the treaty and its effects within New Zealand. ,45 The Attorney-General William Swainson was: 'endeavouring to define the limits within which sovereign power and authority could be justly and effectively exercised. ,46

Swainson had been concerned about the constitutional implication of Crown intervention to deal with iwi who had not signed the Treaty, particularly so, when it was an issue between two such iwi. He argued they were not British subjects amenable to British law. Swainson subsequently suggested that some areas such as Tauranga could be constituted Native Districts where Maori custom could prevail. Possibly, such an arrangement may have been.closer to how Taipari had envisaged the Treaty working.47 At the time, the principles of law were seen as being expedient when dealing with the practicalities of the situation, and:

Shortland, whose mind was not trained to recognise a nice point at law or the practical application of recondite morality, decided to govern on the assumption that the whole country was British and all the Maori British subjects until he received

44 ibid, P 68 45 Orange, pIll 46 ibid 47 Wards, p 66. See also Orange, pp 110-111.

31 instructions from England.48

Swainson, as a Crown officer in tum was told to be silent.49 From a Ngaiterangi perspective the fact that they refused to recognise the Crown was a continuation of their exercising tino rangatiratanga over their land. It appears that the Treaty was only recognised by Ngaiterangi as a tool that could be used to aid their. position. Tupaea and his followers in particular tend to reflect this position. It can be argued that Ngaiterangi were willing to accept Crown involvement in their territory as long as they were able to exercise a degree of autonomy. Taipari, amongst Ngaiterangi chiefs who signed the Treaty, clearly reflected this position. It seems likely thatthe fighting with Te Arawa and the trade with Pakeha were ·ofmore .immediate significance to Ngaiterangi than the Treaty. The iwi involved in this fighting were willing to take any advantage that Crown intervention could provide over their tribal enemy. They perceived the Crown in the capacity of an ally, not as their ruler. Therefore, it seems likely that for Ngaiterangi the 1845 peace agreement between themselves and Te Arawa was of more significance than the Treaty of Waitangi. This peace agreement

~/ " .", /j ended hostilities that had been going on for decades:

September saw a series of peace-making gatherings culminating in meetings and feasts between Arawa and Ngaiterangi at Maungatapu and Otumoetai and subsequently at Maketu. 50 Brown'sjoumal stated:

A large feast was given consisting of 700 small baskets of cooked food and 80 pigs, two bags of flour and a quantity of tobacco;·Peace was concluded, butthe terms were not clearly defmed, as few speeches were made. It seems probable that neither tribe will go over to Motiti to plant, and thus all parties tacitly resign their claim to that much disputed. island. A large stone was brought over from Maunganui and placed on the spot where peace was made, to remain as a token between the tribes - another Mizpah. 51

The irony of this ceasing of hostilities between Ngaiterangi and Te Arawa was that prior to this peace settlement Tauranga had been an unattractive prospect for Pakeha

48 Wards, p 68. Recondite means dealing with obscure or little known matters from the Latin reconditus hidden. 49 ibid 50 Stokes, 1980, p 60 51 Cited W. H. Gifford and H. B. Williams, A Centennial History of Tauranga, Reed, Dunedin, 1940, p 146

32 settlers and much of the region remained in Maori hands. The threat of tribal war had discouraged settlers and made the existence of the missionaries uncomfortable and

uncertain. 52 O'Malley and Ward have said that:

For all its immense natural resources, Tauranga was not an attractive proposition to early European larld speculators or settlers in the pre-1840 or pre-emption waiver (1844-45) periods. Land disputed between warring parties hardly made an ideal investment and was even less appealing as. a suitable spot for settlement. Tauranga was constantly threatened by war on several fronts prior to 1845; and even after that date the uneasy peace that had been restored to the region was liable.to fall apart at the seams at any time, as it had done on several previous occasions. 53

The result of inter-tribal peace was a new .confidenceamongst Pakeha that the region could now be settled and farmed successfully. Inter-tribal politics continued to dominate throughout the 1850s, with a series ofhui·to discuss the establishment of a Maori King. The role of Kingitanga will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter of this report.

Following the peace agreement with Te Arawa Tauranga was a more suitable site for

~ the development of trade. During the 1840s and 1850s Tauranga Maori were well '" )/ established traders in the colonial economy. A prominent Ngaiterangi trader was Ruawahine Faulkner of Ngai Tukairangi hapu. She was also know as Puihi and was married to a Pakeha, John Faulkner. In 1840 they established a trading post at Otumoetai. Ruawahine was a tribal trading agent transporting cargoes of potatoes, onions, kumara, wheat, maize, fruit andpigs.to Kororarekaand the Auckland market, as well as New South Wales, Australia.. The status of Ruawahine as a Ngaiterangi woman· of mana gave the trading post the· protection it needed. Ruawahine was an . important link between the Maori and Pakeha world and perhaps surprisingly for a . Maori woman married to a Pakehaher 12 children were fluent in both Maori and English and retained an understanding ofNgaiterangi customs.54

52 The Land Claims Commission received only nine old claims to the Tauranga area. O'Malley and Ward, 1993, pp 19-22. 53 ibid, P 19 54 DNZB, 1990, Laurie Barber, F3, p 119

33 Ngaiterangi economic activity was a combination of traditional tribal structures and introduced Pakeha methods. Crops and vessels were communally owned in the 1850s.

The development of European-style trade and industry created problems in a way of life based on communal cooperation. If one or two Maoris constructed a flour mill, the rest of the village expected to share the profits and come and take the flour. If the mill broke down, or the owners could not afford to supply the whole village, the mill may be left idle. The rest of the village would not necessarily feel responsible for continuing the operation. The acquisition of a vessel was usually a village enterprise but again there were problems in communal ownership and operation. 55

This quote suggests that: • contact with Pakeha culture was causing dramatic

./ -'''-.. and -\ } • The village, despite these pressures, remained an integral part of Maori life.

1.4 Summary

• Ngaiterangi have been a leading anddominantiwiin the Taur.anga district since the early eighteenth century. • N gaiterangi were a specific and individual iwi, who traced their origins from their ancestor Rangihouhiri and the waka Mataatua. • Ngaiterangi at the time of first Pakeha contact were a significant military and trading force in the Bay of Plenty. • Ngaiterangi placed considerable value on trade for weapons and tools. • Ngaiterangi, in the early 1830s, had sufficient mana in the region to establish and protect their new trading opportunity.

55 Stokes, 1980, p 67

34 • The principal chief of Ngaiterangi in 1840 was Hori Tupaea. Tupaea never signed the Treaty ofWaitangi. • Ngaiterangi chief Taipari signed the Treaty as an act of friendship and partnership. • Taipari understood the Treaty ofWaitangi to mean that Maori could retain a degree of autonomy and still be British subjects. • There were clear and·fundamental differences between the Crown and Ngaiterangi as to the Crown's involvement in Maori affairs. • Ngaiterangi saw the Crown as a potentially powerful military force, an ally. Not as an enforcer of law for all Maori.

• Ngaiterangi, despite decades of inter-tribal war and Pakeha interference~ continued to exercise their tino rangatiratanga over their tribal lands. • For Ngaiterangi trading and feuding with traditional enemies were of more immediate importance than the Treaty. • The Treaty at this time was not seen as a threat to Ngaiterangi autonomy.

• This resistance to signing the Treaty can be seen as an exercise In tino rangatiratanga and the beginnings of a culture of resistance...... ,/' -". \,_ /1

35 2. N gaiterangi, Kingitanga and War

This chapter will outline Ngaiterangi involvement in the King Movement and their involvement in the wars in the Waikato and the subsequent battles of Pukehinahina (Gate Pa) and Te Ranga. It will be implied that both their involvement in the King Movement and New Zealand Wars were acts of cultural resistance to the threat of Crown interference to their autonomy. The main secondary source used has been James Belich's history of the New Zealand Wars because of his extensive use of official British military records of the Admiralty and War Office.

2.1 Ngaiterangi and Kingitanga

During the 1850s a number of inter-tribal hui were held to protect Maori land from alienation and generally protect the interests of .Maori. Alan Ward has described the movement as being concerned with a loss of autonomy:

Their real concern was that they were losing control of their destinies, and being subordinated to the political and economic power of the settlers. The official rhetoric of Waitangi, that Maori and settlers were one people, was increasingly considered false. Paternalistic legislation such as the restriction on sale of arms and liquor was considered discriminatory. Political advancement had included settlers but not Maori. As Te Hokioi later put it 'Look, your attempt to bring us under your rule [mana] without authority, is different from what you asserted. It shall not be so, men are of tall stature'. To retain their 'tall stature' the Kingites needed to retain the land which was the basis not only of their economy, but their social order and their freedom of choice.! The key point is that: • The Kingitanga was not just a land league, although land was a key concern.

The movement required a chief with considerable mana to be King. Ngaiterangi chief Hori Tupaea was approached for the position, but declined the offer.2 The Ngaiterangi spokesman in the movement was Hori Ngatai from Ngati He hapu. This chapter will

1 Alan Ward, A Show of Justice: Racial 'Amalgamation' in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Auckland University Press, Auckland, reprinted 1995, p 98 2 Tupaea did not fight for the King Movement during the wars but instead adopted a neutral stance and retired during 1863-1864 to Patetere, although he did subsequently declare himself a rebel. See Zealand Biography, Volume One: 1769-1869, Bridget Williams Books, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1990, Steven Oliver and Alister Matheson, T112, pp 556-557.

36 examine Ngatai and other Ngaiterangi chiefs' involvement in the movement. Ngatai will also be referred to in other chapters of this report because in later years he was a Ngaiterangi spokesman at numerous meetings with Crown officials.

The first Maori King was Potatau Te Wherowhero, a Tainui chief and ally of Ngaiterangi. Ngaiterangi involvement with Kingitanga was a continuation of their traditional resistance to Crown intervention in their tribal autonomy and their traditional alliance with Tainui. James Belich has stated:

Together with the rise in anti-land-selling feeling generally, it raised the profile of Maori independence from a level which: the British dislikedbuttolerated, to a level which many found entirely unacceptable.

The British were never happy about Maori control ofthe;inferior. They particularly objected to perceived Maori contempt for the government and its coercive power.3

Tauranga produced at least four incidents involving Ngaiterangi which were seen as a challenge to the Queen's sovereignty. These incidents were examined in Chapter One of this report. The Crown had very limited success in exercising influence over the

\ ) inter-tribal war and subsequent peace agreement between Ngaiterangi and Te Arawa in 1845. The successful end to these hostilities was due to tribal allegiances rather than Crown intervention. The two key points are that Ngaiterangi involvement in the King Movement was the result of: • a continuing battle with the Crown for their tribal autonomy; and • a traditional tribal allegiance with their Tainui ally.

The King Movement was an unprecedented example of Maori pan-tribalism, and a hardening of Maori attitudes towards independence. The movement did not unite all of Maoridom, yet the Crown saw it as a considerable threat to the colony. Belich has said 'they made it too obvious that British empire over Maori was false and

necessitated war to make it real. Conversion had failed; time to try conquest. ,4

3 James Belich, The New Zealand Wars: And the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1986, pp 78-79 4 James Belich, Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders From Polynesian Settlement to the End ofthe Nineteenth Century, Allen Lane The Penguin Press, Auckland, 1996, p 234

37 By 1859 Ngaiterangi links to the Kingitanga were openly acknowledged when the iwi published a letter in Te Hokioi, the movement's newspaper. Ngaiterangi welcomed Te Wherowhero as King and confirmed their support for the movement. Ngaiterangi allegiance to the movement was partly due to the support they had received from Waikato during their earlier fighting with Te Arawa. Their support was also the result of a growing awareness of the impact of land sales on tribal autonomy. Roimata Minhinnick has described the movement as symbolising:

the retention of authority and control within traditional structures. It was at the same time a new innovation and an extension of old values, a necessary development to deal with a process of bloody colonisation. The expression used at the time was 'Te Mana Maori Motuhake'which signified Maori .independence and self­ determination.5

Although formally neutral in the early stages of the war Ngaiterangi support for the movement in the early 1860s involved supplying food, weapons, ammunition and men over the Wairere track to their Waikato allies. In August 1863 Ngatai led a group ofNgaiterangi warriors to fight with the King's men in the Hunua and Wairoa ranges, south of Auckland. Ngaiterangi were also involved in fighting at Meremere and

:(1 / Rangiriri in 1863. Ngatai was based at Te Tiki-o-te-Ihingarangi pa, near Cambridge, waiting for the Crown forces to attack when he heard that troops had been landed in Tauranga.

2.2 Pukehinahina and Te Ranga

The Crown was aware ofNgaiterangi involvement in the Waikato and decided to land troops at Te Papa in January 1864. Initially the Crown's official position in sending troops to Tauranga was not to seize land, but to disrupt the ability of Ngaiterangi to supply the Waikato with food, weapons and warriors 'while cultivating in peace at home'.6 Tauranga Harbour was controlled by Colonel Greer which had the effect of blocking the Waikato front from receiving warriors from East Cape. Ngaiterangi, with

5 Roimata Minhinnick, 'A Report on Mauao/Mount Maunganui', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215 A49, P 30 6 Belich, 1986, p 177, fn 1, Cameron to War Office, Great Britain, 4 February 1864, Select Despatches, pp 187-9 Deputy Quartermaster-General Journals, p 87

38 their rohe occupied, had to assume they were under threat and therefore stay in the area and defend their homes. It should, however, be mentioned that the Crown up until this time had been unable to gain a decisive victory in the war, and this may have been seen as an opportunity. At any rate, stopping Ngaiterangi activity was seen as crucial to the Crown's chances of overall victory.

Although Grey had issued instruction that the troops were not to engage with Tauranga Maori, the landing of troops at Te Papa could only be interpreted by Ngaiterangi as a sign that the Crown intended to act as it had in the Waikato. The Crown's actions were seen by Ngaiterangi as being provocative, and the precursor to a fight, so warriors returned from the Waikatoandfortificatiorrs:werebuiltNgaiterangi interpreted the Crown's action as an invasion with the purpose being their destruction. This was a reasonable assertion, when subsequent events are taken into account, particularly the bombardment of Gate Pa.

Ngaiterangi chief, Rawiri Puhirake of Ngai Tukairangi hapu had refused to become

,/ -" - involved in the Waikato war in 1863 and 1864 because he wanted to avoid bloodshed in Tauranga. This neutral position ended with the arrival of Crown troops in Tauranga:

The official interpreter is said to have goaded him into rebellion by calling him a spy. There is no doubt, however, that he saw the arrival of Colonel G.J. Carey with about 700 men as a direct threat to Maori ownership of Tauranga lands. Once he made up his mind to fight, he determined to do his best to win.7

Ngaiterangi were heavily outnumbered initially, and they dispersed themselves to their respective villages: Once their warriors in the Waikato had returned home they developed a strategy designed to encourage the Crown's troops to attack specific positions. This was because Ngaiterangi were heavily outnumbered and could not maintain warriors on the field indefinitely, nor could they launch a substantial attack on the Crown's camp. Belich has described their strategy as 'tactically defensive but strategically offensive'. 8 The tactics initially were designed to provoke the Crown.

7 DNZB, 1990, Jinty Rorke, P30, pp 355-356 8 Belich, 1986, p 178

39 A series 'Of challenges, such as 'Offering tQ CQme and have breakfast at the troQPS' camp, were issued tQ the CrQwn. Offering tQ build a rQad tQ ease the CrQwn's access tQ MaQri fQrtificatiQns. A fQrmal written challenge. There was a clear strategy that lay behind Puhirake's actiQns. Puhirake was having difficulty in keeping his warriQrs mQtivated and therefQre hQped tQ provQke the Crown intQ an injudiciQus .. early attack. TQProtect themselves Ngaiterangi built several fQrtificatiQns. Puhirake rebuilt an 'Old pa knQwn as Te WaQku tQ which he invited the CrQwn tQ attack. He received nQ resPQnse frQm the Crown SQ anQther challenge was issued by a group 'Of leaders whQ gathered at PQteriwhi, Penetaka Tuaia'spa .Qn the IQwer.·.·WairoaRiver. At this meeting the leaders drew up a list 'Of rules:fQr the .fight and sent a message:tQ fight the battle at a IQcatiQn clQser tQ the CrQwn base at Te Papa. Puhirake mQved clQser tQ the CrQwn by fQrtifying a PQsitiQn at Pukehinahina, later called Gate Pa. This PQsitiQn allQwed MaQri tQ carry 'Out raids and interfere with the Crown's cQntrol 'Of the harbQur.

This war 'Of propaganda and small skirmishes and the establishment 'Of the Gate Pa fQrtificatiQn-promptedGeneral Cameron tQ reinfQrce the Crown's troQP numbers in Tauranga. By increasing the trQQP numbers frQm 700 tQ 1700 elite light infantry and a naval brigade which he led himself CamerQn dramatically changed the face 'Of the Crown's invQlvement in Tauranga. He nQW gave himself the QPPQrtunity tQ gain a 'decisive victQry.'9 As a strategist he had argued;that'One, 'decisive·victQry' CQuid change the entire CQurse 'Of the New Zealand wars.

TherefQre, 'Once Cameron had determined 'On increasing the trQQP numbers in Tauranga he had mQved frQm a defensive strategy 'Of containment tQ an 'Outright 'Offensive war. If CamerQn's intentiQns at Gate Pa had been as his earlier instructiQns suggested tQ merely cQntain the situatiQn in Tauranga he WQuid have used his 1700 men tQ surrQund and besiege Ngaiterangi intQ surrendering. His intentiQn hQwever was tQ destrQy the MaQri fQrce. 10

9 Belich, 1996, p 248 10 Belich, 1986, p 181

40 As a military objective he believed Gate Pa could successfully be taken because it was close to his shipping which would allow him to off-load troops, supplies and artillery. Tactically he had no interest in taking or occupying Gate Pa as a territorial victory. His objective was to either capture or kill large numbers of his enemy, thus ensuring a notable psychological defeat and, in turn, giving confirmation of British military supremacy.

The battle at Gate Pa took place in April 1864 and resulted in a victory for Maori. The site ofthe pa was on a narrow neck oflandabout300 metres wide that was flanked by tidal swamps. There were two redoubts.· The main redoubt was 90 by 30, yards in size. It contained about 200 warriors during the fighting.l1 The Crown forces consisted of 1700 men and artillery.12 Puhirake showed himself to be a good leader and a clever strategist. Although· outnumbered by Crown troops he managed to gain victory as a result of a maze of underground defences constructed by his engineer Penetaka which kept his warriors hidden and the Crown troops exposed to Maori fire.

Contemporary, and more recent, studies of the battle, are generally complimentary about the tactical abilities of the Ngaiterangi leaders. Belich has argued that the trap Ngaiterangi set at Pukehinahina was a remarkable tactical ploy:

The use of concealed or deceptively weak-looking fortifications to ambush attackers was . . . a major element of the tactical:repertoire. made

Puhirake told his warriors not to speak or fire a shot until he gave the order. No more than 15 Maori warriors were killed during the bombardment because a number of

II AJHR, 1864, E-3 12 The artillery included 15 mortars and canons, including an Annstrong gun projecting shells weighing 110 pounds. They each threw about 100 rounds into Gate Pa, AJHR, 1864, E-3. 13 Belich, 1986, pp 186-187

41 small bunkers or underground chambers had been built. The small size of these bunkers negated the potential damage from the bombardment because the warriors were dispersed throughout the fortification. That they did survive the bombardment and follow the instructions of their commander is evidence of their ability as warriors. To explain the extent of the Crown's intent to destroy Ngaiterangi at Gate Pa Belich has said:

The British fIred roughly twenty times the weight of shell per square yard at Gate Pa, on 29 April 1864, as they did into the Somme battlefIeld during the initial bombardment of 24 June-l July 1916. Even if generous allowance is made for the increased effectiveness of explosives, and for the fact that some shots fIred at the GatePa missed their target, it is clear that the Maoris underwent a heavier bombardment in one day than the Germans did in seven. 14

This suggests that the Crown's intentions at Pukehinahina were not merely to contain but rather to destroy the pa and its inhabitants.

A female Ngaiterangi warrior Heni Te Kiri-Karamu, amongst others, gave water to wounded and dying men. This chivalrous act is significant in defending the honourable actions of Ngaiterangi warriors. It has however, often been romanticised to such an extent that the prowess of the Ngaiterangi warriors and their tactical ability have not been fully appreciated:

We adhered strictly to the terms of the battle-covenant, and harmed not the wounded nor interfered with the bodies of the dead. The British Colonel (Booth) fell mortally wounded just inside the gateway, and there he lay all night. In the hours of darkness his voice could be heard calling for water. 'One 'of our people went and got some and ministered to his wants .... Another wounded offIcer left behind after his men had retreated dropped his sword a little distance away. A Maori. picked it uP' and went to restore it to the offIcer. The pakeha squared himself up as well as he could to meet his deathblow, but to his surprise the Maori turned the hilt toward him (the offIcer) and returned his weapon. 15

What this act and others,along with the Ngaiterangi rules of battle, do indicate is that although Ngaiterangi wanted to beat their enemy, they also wanted to maintain their own rules about how they would fight that enemy in their territory. Presenting their rules of engagement to the Crown was an act of self-determination that told the Crown

14 ibid, P 295 IS Gilbert Mair, Story o/Gate Pa: April 29th 1864, Bay of Plenty Times OffIce, Tauranga, 1927, pp 22- 28

42 that they were on Ngaiterangi land and therefore Ngaiterangi would make the rules. The Ngaiterangi rules of conduct included: • no cannibalism was to be practised; • the wounded would be spared; • the dead would not be mutilated; and • non-combatants and unarmed persons would be unharmed. 16

Belich has said that:

The Battle of Gate Pa was arguably the most important battle of the New Zealand Wars, in terms of both its political effects and its. wider implications for. military technology. Historians have failed to appreciate its, full significance because' the contemporary British interpretations; on. which they rely, were. dominated by the shock of defeat and the need to palliate. 17 ·Defeat at Gate Pa was a military disaster. for the Crown and terms of peace were under discussion. IS

Immediately following the defeat the Crown abandoned aggressive operations in Tauranga and Cameron withdrew 700 of his men to Auckland in May with instructions for more men to follow. This was acknowledgment of a change of tactics and the fact that he was unable to gain a decisive victory.19

The subsequent victory by the Crown at Te Ranga once agam hardened the government's.thinkingabouttheterms of surrender. In June 1864 the Crown troops unexpectedly came across Te Ranga before itha&·beencompleted.Rawiri's force of 500· men were in the process of fortifying the position which atthatstage was a series of incomplete rifle pits. Greer had a force of 500 men when he came across the position. He immediately sent for reinforcements and artillery. A further 220 troops arrived and Greer ordered a charge which was successful. Whereas at Gate Pa the Crown had used considerable artillery against Ngaiterangi in a full scale battle, at Te Ranga the fight involved much hand to hand fighting. Unlike Gate Pa there was a degree of chance and luck. Puhirake was killed during the battle.

16 ibid 17 ibid, P 179 18 AJHR, 1864, E-2, pp 66-68

43 Nevertheless, the Crown victory at Te Ranga was due to a change in policy, credited to Greer, of patrolling the area in strength and attacking the enemy unprepared. The official policy after the victory at Te Ranga was for Crown troops to patrol the region in strength with the aim being to destroy the enemy in unprepared fortifications. 20

The Maori defeat at Te Ranga was also due to the fact that the warnors were exhausted by months of fighting in the Waikato and Bay of Plenty. The Maori warriors at Te Ranga came from a number of iwi, not just Ngaiterangi, and, as such, no one tribe experienced too many casualties. This lack 'oftribal unity was a further reason for their defeat.

Ngaiterangi actions were those of self-defence from an iwi who felt threatened and had a tradition of defending themselves against outside interference in their territory. It is perhaps more difficult to accept that the Crown had no aggressive intent towards Ngaiterangi by landing troops in Tauranga than it is to believe that Ngaiterangi were defending themselves against an aggressor. It is important to remember that it was the Crown who attacked Ngaiterangi at Gate Pa and Te Ranga. The Crown had sufficient troops to surround Gate Pa and wait for Ngaiterangi to surrender, yet they bombarded the pa. In any event, what can be established without dispute is that the final peace settlement had a detrimental impact on Ngaiterangi.

2.3 Summary

• The Kingitanga was not just a land league, although land was a key concern. • Ngaiterangi involvement with Kingitanga was a continuation of their traditional resistance to Crown intervention in their tribal autonomy and their traditional alliance with Tainui. • The Crown moved to Tauranga with the specific task of stopping Ngaiterangi military activities.

19 Belich, 1986, pp 188-189 20 ibid, pp 190-191

44 • The landing of 1700 troops at Te Papa could only be interpreted by Ngaiterangi as an InVaSIOn. • Ngaiterangi were then placed in a position of fortifying and preparing for conflict. • The Crown unexpectedly were heavily defeated at Gate Pa. • The Crown had limited success at Te Ranga. • Both the Crown and Ngaiterangi wanted peace.

," ',,~ ~ '", }

45 3. Confiscation

After the two battles at Pukehinahina and T e Ranga efforts were made by both sides to restore peace to Tauranga Moana. For the Crown, this meant implementing its policy of land confiscation to punish those who had been in 'rebellion'. For Ngaiterangi it meant negotiating with the Crown to minimise the loss of ancestral land. The confiscation of Tauranga lands was accomplished by proclamation under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. It was then formalised under the Tauranga District Lands Act .1867 and 1868, but these Acts only legalised a series of previous negotiations. The negotiations included the agreements that one-qtlarter of the region would be confiscated by the Crown, that the large Katikati - Te Puna block would be purchased, and that the remainder would be returned to Maori ownership.

Tauranga land confiscation, being at the heart of the Tauranga Waitangi Tribunal claims, has already been exhaustively researched. This report does not seek to re-tell the full story that has already been written. It is therefore assumed that readers will already have some knowledge of the events described below, as full explanations are not given. l

The intention of this chapter is to raise questions about how the events of 1864 and the years following have been interpreted by the Crown. It is likely that the Ngaiterangi interpretation was very different, but that story is difficult to access today. The historical records do not include much material in Maori, and most of the .accounts of hui and events were written by government officers with their own agendas. Another problem is that often when recording Maori opinion they fail to identify who was speaking, or which hapu or iwi they were speaking for. However,

1 Full accounts can be found in: Hazel Riseborough, 'The Crown and Tauranga Moana 1864-1868', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, October 1994, Wai 215 A23; and Evelyn Stokes, 'Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands: A Report Prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal', University of Waikato, 1990, Wai 215 A12; and Evelyn Stokes, 'The Allocation of Reserves for Maori in the Tauranga Confiscated Lands', volume 1, University ofWaikato, 1997, Wai 215 A57.

46 despite these limitations there is enough material in the historical records to cast doubt on the Crown's story ofNgaiterangi unconditional surrender. 3.1 Making Peace

By the time Ngaiterangi and their allies had been defeated at Te Ranga, the resources of the iwi had been exhausted. They had fought two major battles to defend theirrohe, as well as supplying warriors to fight in the Waikato in support of Tainui. After peace was made, the Crown paid over £2,000 to provide Maori with food and seed cropS.2 . This indicates that the fighting had left Ngaiterangi vulnerable. The battles had also killed some important chiefs such as Rawiri Puhirakeand Henare Taratoa. As a result Ngaiterangi lacked some leadership at this vital peace-making stage.

It has perhaps not been sufficiently emphasised that the Crown troops were also somewhat worn out by this stage. The diary of William Baker, Resident Magistrate, provides some reasons as to why the Crown may have wanted a quick peace settlement: ~ \,., ) The military are tired of foreign service, and having no stake or interest in the country, care not for the future troubles and perplexities that may arise out of any error in the system by which terms of peace are negotiated. The war is unpopular with them, and their chief care is how quickest to get out of it. It is in this way that pressure has been brought to bear upon the question, and I feel daily more convinced that it is premature and not thoroughly understood, either by the rebel Maoris, or the parties engaged in the negotiations.3

. Baker concluded that the military's desire~to.fmish the fighting meant that not enough emphasis was being placed on negotiating a proper peace.

In an oral interview recently a Nga Potiki elder said that Ngaiterangi never surrendered:

No, they never surrendered. The Pakeha said we'll put down ours if you put down yours and yet they were feeding the Pakehas. There's stones over there where it shows the Maoris actually feeding them, feeding the wounded, the wounded Pakeha. So I suppose the Maoris were sick of fighting anyway, they weren't getting any satisfaction, so they put down theirs and the next thing the Pakehas wrote back to the government and said the Maoris surrendered. They never surrendered .... They just

2 James Belich, The New Zealand Wars: And the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1986, p 195 3 Cited Evelyn Stokes, A History ofTauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980, p 80

47 laid down their arms because they were sick of feeding themselves and feeding the enemy as well. 4

Belich has used military records to argue the peace agreement made was not in fact an unconditional surrender by Ngaiterangi. Although Ngaiterangi were weakened, Archdeacon Brown had informed Governor Grey that Ngaiterangi would continue to resist ifthe only option was unconditional surrender.5

It was after Brown's warning to Grey that the governor sent H.E. Rice to negotiate with Maori. Riseborough has shown that Rice's negotiations were done secretively. It is still not known who he negotiated with nor how those negotiations.were> carried out.

However, the criticisms made by Civil Commissioner dames > Mackay indicate that Rice was offering Ngaiterangi a compromise peace. Mackay disagreed with the way Rice was negotiating and said that, instead of the way Rice was handling it, Maori 'should come- in of their own accord and give up their Arms, powder, Land etc

unconditionally' .6 • This quote shows that Rice was not negotiating an unconditional surrender.

. This interpretation is supported by evidence from Baker's diary, which records a conversation with Te Amohau:

He told us plainly that the overtures of peace were made by friendly chiefs in the pay of the Government; that it was a case of 'tiki' (fetch), not 'kuhu noa mai' (creeping in of their own accord), thus confrrmmg our fears that the matter did not originate with the rebels. He laughed when we told him that we. expected. to have this thrown in our teeth at some future day. In fact his whole manner was such that! .inferred he was ignorant of or misunderstood the great question of confiscation and the disposal of their land. I could hardly imagine a Maori so cheerful in the prospect of surrendering for ever the mana of his paternal acres. When Mr Mackay came to bed he informed me that my surmises were correct; that Te Amohau had informed him that he knew nothing about the whenua part of the question and did not know that he was to lose his land.7 The points to note from this quote are: • To the Crown officials the most important aspect of peace negotiations was the 'whenua part of the question'. To the Crown peace was intrinsically bound up with

4 Oral interview with Nga Potiki elder conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 5 Belich, 1986, pp 195-196 6 ibid, p 196 7 AJHR, 1869, A-18, P 9

48 the confiscation policy. That is, the confiscation of land was required when Maori surrendered. • However, the Maori interpretation expressed above was more that they were responding to an offer from the Crown, mediated through certain Maori who were being paid for this service, to cease hostilities. • Te Amohau's view was that Maori were accepting terms from the Crown, not that Maori were surrendering to the Crown. • Mackay was aware that the nature of the peace settlement left the Crown open to further claims in the future.

Baker's diary also records Hori Ngatai'sversion ofthepeace"making:

Mr Rice fetched me, so I came, and peace has been made .... It was Mr Rice's maia in fetching us .... If Mr Rice had not come there would have been no peace ... he did not fear our threats, so I say let him remain. This is what I desire.8 This supports Te Amohau's description of the peace process.

As a result of Rice's negotiations Maori started to 'surrender their arms' in July 1864. /" --""1 / Belich has produced evidence to show that the Ngaiterangi agreement to 'surrender their arms' was a symbolic gesture:

The surrender of arms was also little more than a token. The 230 warriors who came in between 24 July and 29 August handed over only eighty-one guns. Given the casualties at Gate Pa and Te Ranga and the capture of British rifles at the former action, Ngai-te-Rangi probably had more guns than they had live warriors. Moreover, the quality of the weapons surrendered was poor" only seven or eightfrrst line guns (rifles and tupara) out of eighty-one.·Itwascommonknowledge. that most of the guns. were Ngai-te-Rangi's grandfathers' weapons rather than their· own> 'the rusty muskets were accepted ils a figure of speech, for submission'. It is highly likely that the Tauranga Maoris remained fully armed, and that the British knew this to be SO.9

By turning in their arms to the troops, Ngaiterangi had effectively made peace. They had ceased hostilities, and so had the Crown. The evidence suggests that those Ngaiterangi who had surrendered did so as a result of certain terms which had been promised to them by Rice, as agent for the Governor.

8 AJHR 1869 A-18, P 12, cited Riseborough, p 17.

49 The terms o,f peace were then fo,rmalised at a meeting in August 1864 which has beco,me kno,wn as the 'Pacificatio,n hui'. The proceedings were co,nducted in te reo" and translated fo,r Go,verno,r Grey and his ministers. Ho,wever, no, reco,rd o,f the Mao,ri ko,rero was kept and historians are So,lely dependant o,n the o,fficial acco,unt o,f H.T. Clarke who, acted as interpreter. Cautio,n must therefo,re be used when assessing what Ngaiterangi chiefs are reco,rded as saying. Belich has suggested that it was in the go,verno,r's interest to, Po,rtray the settlement as an unco,nditio,nal surrender, and that

there may have been 'tampering' with the translatio,ns o,f the nego,tiatio,ns. \0 Unfo,rtunately, Belich do,es no,t provide any evidence to, SUPPo,rt this allegatio,n, but maybe relying o,n later statements madebychiefswhnwere. at the huL It will be sho,wn that these statements do, no,t co,rrelate. with.the···:o,fficiaI.versio,n o,f the proceedings.

Acco,rding to, Clarke, Te Harawira and Eno,ka said that they gave up the mana o,f the land to, the go,verno,r. Te Harawira is reco,rded as saying:

/~ - "", What we mean by the mana of the land being given up to you is that you may

\ ./ consider the mana of the land yours. You may occupy it. Permit us to do so or not, as - you please ....

I mean that you are to hold the land as your own, and to do what you like with it. When we made-our submission to the Colonel, we gave up our arms and ourselves. The question about the land was left for you to decide; the decision therefore rests with youY

In reply, Grey said that because o,ftheir 'absolute andunconditio,nalsubmissio,n'they Wo,uld be 'generously dealt with'. The next day he to,ldthe,assembledMao,ri what the terms Wo,uld be:

At present I am not acquainted with the boundaries or extent of your land, or with the claim of any individuals or tribes. What I shall therefore do is this: - I shall order that settlements be at once assigned to you, as far as possible, in such localities as you may select, which shall be secured by Crown Grants to yourselves and your children. I will inform you in what manner the residue of your land will be dealt with.

But as it is in some manner to mark our sense of the honourable manner in which you conducted hostilities, neither robbing nor murdering, but respecting the wounded, I promise you that in the ultimate settlement of your lands the amount

9 Belich, 1986, p 195 10 ibid, P 195 II AJHR, 1867, A-20, P 5

50 taken shall not exceed one-fourth part of the whole lands.

In order that you may without delay again be placed in a position which will enable you to maintain yourselves, as soon as your future localities have been decided, seed potatoes and the means of settling on your land will be given you.

I now speak to you, the friendly Natives. I thank you warmly for your good conduct under circumstances of great difficulty. I will consider in what manner you shall be rewarded for your fidelity. In the meantime, in any arrangement which may be made about the lands of your tribe, your rights will be scrupulously respected. 12

The points to note from this speech are that: • it took place after the chiefs had already agreed to lay down their arms and negotiations had taken place; • Ngaiterangi were supposed to be grantedreserv.es,quickly;:and • the reason given for only taking one-quarter of the total land was that it was in return for the chivalrous conduct of Maori.

The terms of peace themselves suggest that there was not an unconditional surrender. Belich, and others, have argued that the agreement to only confiscate one-quarter of Tauranga land was not the Crown granting clemency for the way Ngaiterangi had conducted themselves, but rather indicated that the Crown had compromised. 13 In return for Maori agreeing to lay down their arms the governor promised that only one quarter of their land would be confiscated. Just what exactly was meant by 'one fourth' was also later questioned by Ngaiterangi chiefs.

In 1866 a Maori interpretation of the agreement made .. at the, pacification hui was presented. At a meeting in February Colonel Haultain asked if they knew the boundaries of the land which had been given up, to which Enoka replied:

Enoka: Yes we know them. All I gave at the surrender was for Katikati and along by the mountains to Wairake. I explained to the Government there were certain lands at Katikati disputed by the Thames natives. The Governor replied: Give me the land; bye and bye I will give you every third acre, and keep the fourth acre. The fourth acre was taken for the sin (hara) I had committed, my land only was taken because I had sinned: it was not taken from the men who did not fight. The Governor said let there be one piece. I objected, and said it would not be just that another should suffer for me: let me pay with my property at Katikati and Wairake. Also, those who own the forest, let them do likewise. Then the mana of the land was given to the

12 AJHR, 1867, A-20, pp 5-6 13 Belich, 1986, p 194

51 Governor, and the conversation ended; I have repeated all that was said then. Colonel Haultain: The Governor said, on making peace, that he required one quarter of the whole block of land, containing about two hundred thousand acres (200,000), therefore fifty thousand (50,000) remain to the Government. Enoka: No, the Governor did not say so to us, why has the Governor raised his demands? Why is the amount increased? Colonel Haultain: The Governor has not increased his demands; he said what has been told to you, and this will be adhered to. Pene Taka: How many men were in arms that the Governor should take so many acres? Tomika: Yes, this is for the people that fought; I, who did not fight, will do as I like with my own land. Colonel Haultain: The Government will require certain lands of friendly Natives, on which to put settlers for the protection ofcthedistrict. Whatthey,take theywiU!pay for. Pene Taka: When you have taken these, lands you will keep ,returning . and taking more and more. Colonel Haultain: The Government always adheres to what it promises. Pene Taka: I wish to live among the Europeans but I am afraid the want of land may prevent my doing SO.14

To briefly restate the main points to note from this quote:

( .',>~

-\, ,) • Enoka's account is significantly different from the official version of events. There was obviously much korero before the mana of the land was given to Grey. • Ngaiterangi understanding of the confiscation was that it would be inflicted on an individual basis, those who had fought against the Crown would lose one quarter of their own land, and those who had not fought would not be punished by confiscation. • Ngaiterangi clearly had no idea that the extent of the ,one-quarter required by the Crown would be equal to 50,000 acres. • By the end of the discussion Ngaiterangi were beginning to understand the profound impact of the pacification agreement. They expressed their fears that they would lose most of their land, which is not what they had expected. This realisation may have influenced later negotiations.

14 AJHR, 1867, A-20, pp 19-20

52 3.2 Land for the Crown

Confiscated Block

As referred to above, in February 1866 N gaiterangi. were surprised to discover that the Crown planned to confiscate a 50,000 acre block of land. The Crown wanted the land between the Wairoa and Waimapu rivers (map three). There is no record of why this area was selected, but it did include the already established settlement and mission station,. and good farmland with easy access to the harbour.

The next month Ngaiterangi received further bad news when Tauranga Maori were

" ." ~ "., )' told that there were insufficient acres between the two rivers. The western boundary of the confiscated block would therefore be extended across the Wairoa River, possibly as far as the Te Puna River:

They were rather excited by this, and said they would not consent; but upon being informed by the Governor that they had been treated better that any other tribe, but if necessary they should be put down by force of arms, they accepted the proposals made to them. The words of their principal speaker Enoka being -~Governor, we have consented to your acres'. 'E Kawanauawhaaaetiao eka' .15 The points to note from this quote are that: • the Crown's highest representative in New Zealand made a clear threat of force against Maori; and • Enoka therefore had little choice but to 'consent' to the confiscated block including land west of the Wairoa River.

Clarke later wrote that 'it was not until His Excellency told the Natives that he would resort to extreme measures if they would not comply that they succumbed and agreed

15 AJHR, 1867, A-20, P 53

53 to give up the 50,000 acres [emphasis added].'16 Ngaiterangi were resigned to the Crown extending the confiscation boundary rather than engaging in renewed warfare.

On the same afternoon a memorandum declaring that the boundaries of the confiscated block would be decided by Clarke was signed by Tareha, Ranapia, Hone, Rawiri Taipari, Arama Karaka and Matene. These signatories were described as 'the . principal Natives of Maungatapu', but, although they represented whanau of the Maungatapu - Hairini area, they could not be said to represent the agreement of all Ngaiterangi. Their signatures were also obtained after having been threatened with

'extreme measures'. One of the signatories, Ranapia~:(identified.as Ngai te Ahi by Stokes) was later paid by Clarke to accompany the survey party. 17

Riseborough has summarised Clarke's attitude towards the amount of land to be surveyed and confiscated as follows:

He had expected to have 'some hot work' because of obvious tensions in the district. But he was astonished by 'these natives ... all their bounce seems to be taken out of them. But if they can judge of their own interest they must see that they are great gainers by having their land taken from them' - so little of it was cultivated, and so much 'lying waste'. When an experienced native department officer showed such a lack of understanding, there was little chance the local people would be accorded their Treaty rights. 18 It is hard to fathom how Clarke truly believed that Ngaiterangi would be glad to lose their land. Clarke's attitude, in line with Crown policy, meant that Ngaiterangi had little chance of convincing the Crown to leave their ancestral lands in tribal ownership.

Katikati - Te Puna Purchase

At the same time as Grey promised that only one-quarter of the total Tauranga lands would be confiscated, negotiations were going on to ensure that the Crown would acquire a much larger portion of the valuable Tauranga Moana lands. Out of the three­ quarters of land to be returned to Maori, the Crown immediately arranged to purchase

16 AJHR, 1867, A-20, P 62 17 Evelyn Stokes, 1997, p 62 18 Riseborough, p 49

54 a substantial area north of the Te Puna River, amounting to 93,188 acres. 19 This area has become known as the Katikati - Te Puna purchase (map two).

The purchase was achieved by a series of deeds signed by various groups of Maori. Initially the purchase was made from only eight Ngaiterangi chiefs, as described by Keith Sorrenson:

late in Augusta party of chiefs visited Auckland to urge Grey to return their land. After discussions they returned home prepared to sell the Katikati Te Puna block to the Government. Clarke wasted no time in making a deal with these chiefs. On 26 August he paid them £1000 for the land. Only eight chiefs of the Ngaiterangi tribe signed this agreement - Enoka, Hohepa, ,Parere, Turere, Tomika, Reeia, Hamiora Tu and Tamati Hawao. Some of them had not:been engaged in the fighting and had 'little claim to the block. This could not be: considered a complete or valid purchase. Important Ngaiterangi chiefs including Tupaea, were not included; ',and other tribes who had claims to the block were completely ignored. The purchase created a great deal of dissatisfaction among left out claimants.2o

Stokes has written that Premier Whitaker and Colonial Secretary Fox, who negotiated the purchase, took advantage of the weakened state of Ngaiterangi to purchase the land. Ngaiterangi had lost a number of leaders and the records show that those remaining were not given any choice about selling the block. Fox later described the Katikati - Te Puna purchase as 'what is after all a forced acquisition of Native Lands

under colour of a voluntary sale. ,21

In 1865 Civil Commissioner H.T. Clarke wrote to the Native Secretary arguing that Maori saw advantages in the purchase. Ironically, however, Clarke's letter.reveals that Ngaiterangi had no choice but to sell the block to the Crown:

It was distinctly understood by the Natives at the time that peace was made, that Te Puna would be absolutely required by the Government, but that it should be paid for. The natives expressed themselves satisfied with this arrangement, as it would place an armed force of Europeans between themselves and the Thames people, who they greatly feared would take advantage of the weakened and disarmed condition to revive some of their old land feuds. [Emphasis added.]22

19 Vincent O'Malley, 'The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu', An overview report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1995, Wai 215, A22, P 5 20 M.P.K. Sorrenson, 'Tauranga Confiscation: Submission to Select Committee on Maori Affairs', 4 September 1978, reproduced in the Raupatu Document Bank, vol 139, pp 53355-53356 21 Cited Riseborough, p 32

55 Even though Clarke admitted that the sale was compulsory, he attempted to justify it by saying Ngaiterangi needed the Crown to settle the block as protection against invasion from Hauraki. Riseborough has pointed out the flaws in this argument:

If Ngaiterangi wanted a buffer state between themselves and old enemies, it would be enemies on the other side of them: Te Arawa. They had 'very old and bitter feuds with the Arawa on the southern boundary, and had actually been fighting with them for many years'. Peace had been made in 1845 after a decade of fighting, but they were almost in arms against each other again in 1852 over Motiti; and Arawa had fought as kupapa, had blocked the route to Ngaiterangi territory from further east, and had been armed by the government while Ngaiterangi had been disarmed. As Reale said, it was 'absolutely necessary to interpose continuously and effectively between Ngaiterangi and their bitter enemies the Arawas',23 In contrast, Taraia of Ngatimaru led a tauaof170mento Taurangaafter the battle of

Gate Pa to assist Ngaiterangi against the Grown~24. AtthetimeHaurakitribes were not an immediate threat to Ngaiterangi.

As Sorrenson pointed out, the sale· of the block by a few Ngaiterangi chiefs was hotly disputed by other iwi occupying the area, or with other claims to the block. Pirirakau chief Rawiri Tata told Mackay:

you shall have no land from me for my participation in rebellion, and none for your money ... I have not made peace with you, and do not mean to do so. I do not admit the right ofNgai Te Rangi to give up my land, even though I have been in rebellion .. . Let Ngai Te Rangi have your money, but I will not let you have my land. It is true that Rori Tupaea has a claim over our bodies, but he has not to our land.25 In this quote Tata acknowledged that, to some extent, Ngaiterangi were in a position of authority over Pirirakau, but this did not go as far as giving Ngaiterangi the right to dispose of the Pirirakau lands.

However, it was not only other iwi who denied that those who went to Auckland to sell the block had the right to do so. Members ofNgaiterangi themselves claimed that the sale had no validity. Despite Clarke's assurance that Ngaiterangi were happy to sell the block, prominent Ngaiterangi chiefs did not agree. Hori Tupaea was not a signatory and Enoka complained that the sale was only done by a few Ngaiterangi, and not the whole iwi:

22 AJHR, 1867, A-20, P 12 23 Riseborough, p 39 24 ibid, pp 39-40 25 ibid, P 28

56 If the matter of the one thousand pounds (£1,000). had been done by all the tribe, well - but it was the work of the men who went to Auckland. I know nothing of the arrangement to sell land at Katikati. Can you tell me where the boundaries are? Some of the people who lived peaceably on that land would object to being involved in that manner.26 The circumstances of the initial sale agreement, being conducted in Auckland, away from tribal scrutiny, are enough to cast doubt on the validity of the transaction. The sale did not have the consent of at least two leading chiefs, and hapu of both Ngaiterangi and Ngati Ranginui were not consulted with or paid for the sale.

As a result of protests and petitions by other Maori with claims to the Katikati - Te Puna area, Mackay and Clarke held a seri:esofarbitrationsontheKatikati - Te Puna block. Records of the commissioners' decisions can be found in Stokes, TeRaupatu of Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to Tribal.History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands.27 Asa result, payments were made to other iwi and more payments were made to members of Ngaiterangi. The commissioners also agreed to set aside as reserves certain urupa and kainga within the purchased area.

~. , -. The purchase from Ngaiterangi was formalised by a deed drawn up by Mackay on 3 November 1866, and further receipts and signatures were added on 10 December 1866, 24 June 1867 and 23 January 1868.28 The deed was written in both Maori and English, and the following summary is taken from the English language version. The deed was a 'full and fmal sale conveyance and surrender' by those chiefs whose signatures were attached, who:

by signing this Deed under the shining sun of this day parted with and for ever transferred unto Victoria Queen of England Her heirs the Kings and Queens who may succeed Her and their Assigns for ever.29 In return they were to receive£7,700 .. The deed included a description of the boundaries of the block and specified that the sale of the land included 'its trees minerals waters rivers lakes streams and all apertaining to the said Land or beneath the surface of the said Land.'

26 ibid, P 20 27 Stokes, 1992, pp 87-116 28 Te Puna and Katikati Block No.3, Tauranga, Bay of Plenty District, H.H. Turton, Maori Deeds of Land Purchase in the North Island ofNew Zealand, Wellington, Government Printer, 1877-1878, No 461

57 The deed was signed on 3 November 1866 by:30 Na te Maonanui, Na Hamiora Tu, Kepa te amohau, te Patu, te ninihi, Tuaere x his mark, Temi x, Harawira, Hohepa Hikutaia, Te Kuka Te Mea, Hori Ngatai, Wiremu Parera, Tahere, Enoka Make, te wharehera, Rotoehu x his mark, Mangapohatu x his mark, Tomika te Mutu, Karora, taraiti Wiripo x his mark, te puru, Hori Tupaea x his mark, rangawaka, Hatarira. The signatures were witnessed by Henry T. Clarke,Civil Commissioner, and H.N. Warner, survey department.

A receipt for payment of £700 was added on 10 December 1866, which was signed by: te moananui, Harawira, Enoka, Timi x his mark, Turere x his mark. The receipt was witnessed by W.G. Marr, Resident Magistrate, and R.J. Gill, Clerk.

On 24 June 1867 a receipt for £3,000 was signed by: Enoka, Turere, moananm, Paratoenga, Te Kuka Te Mea, te Wharenui, Huka Parera, ngatia, mere taka, rotohia, Tepuru, Wherama ananai, Wanakore Mangapohatu, HohepaHikutai, Timi xhis mark, tenara, Hohepa Te Kai, .Ruka, Harawira, Hori Ngatai. This receipt was also witnessed by Mair and Gill.

The final receipt, for £3,000, was signed on 23 January 1868 by: Enoka, te puru, Hamiora Tu, Timoti, te moananui, Hori Ngatai, Hemi Palmer, Kepa Amohau, Heta, Rotoehu, Tone, Riko, Hohepa Hikutaia, Harawira, Heroke, Pini Te Wharehera, Hamiora, HohepaKai,

29 ibid 30 The names have been capitalised, or not, depending on the spelling in the original.

58 Mere Taka, Kuka TeMea, Paikea, te hatiwira, Akuhata Tupaea, Wi Parera, Hamiora. This was again witnessed by Mair and Gill.

3.3 Land for Ngaiterangi

It had been intended that this report would include information on all the reserves awarded to Ngaiterangi individuals and hapu. However, the completion of 'The Allocation of Reserves for Maori in the Tauranga Confiscated Lands', by Evelyn Stokes has made that task unnecessary}l That report ..includes'. detailed lists of ownership and discussion of the grants. made. to hapuineach,area.ofTauranga Moana.

The most important aspect of the way reserves were allocated to Ngaiterangi was the destruction of customary title. The result was individualisation of tribal lands, and, in some cases, the dislocation of hapu from their traditional rohe.

i It has been shown that the disposal of the Tauranga lands was negotiated between the Crown and Maori in 1864, and at later meetings. Legally the confiscation took place through the 1865 proclamation of Tauranga as a confiscated district under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The effect of the proclamation, which confiscated the entire district, was to change the whole 290,000 acre block from Maori customary land to Crown land.

Ngaiterangi were therefore denied the ability to claim ownership of any portion of the district on the grounds of their ancestral rights to the land. Instead, the confiscation proclamation promised that 'three-fourths in quantity of the said lands shall be set apart for such persons of the tribe Ngaiterangi as shall be determined by the Governor,

after due enquiry shall have been made' .32

31 Stokes, 1997 32 New Zealand Gazette, 1865, p 187

59 Chief Native Land Court Judge Fenton wanted to hold a compensation court, as provided for under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, in Tauranga, but was overruled by the Attorney-General. If the compensation court had sat in Tauranga there would have been more guarantee that Ngaiterangi ancestral lands, as protected under the Treaty, would be returned to their ownership.

Instead,during the years' immediately after confiscation, the focus of the commissioners was on returning land to 'loyal' Maori and not rebels. As Stokes has pointed out, in most cases grants of reserves in the Katikati - Te Puna block and in the confiscated blocks were made to individual chiefs as fcompensation' oLior 'services rendered,.33 The commissioners also attemptedtoprovide,fof"ioyai:·Maori'whose land had been confiscated, by allocating them reserves outside the confiscated block. In this way: 'when the Raupatu you know, occurred people who didn't belong to that place were put in their place. And people who belonged to that place were put somewhere else. ,34 '.

Another factor to be taken into account when assessing how reserves were allocated is that the war itself had caused hapu and whanau to relocate. Recently a Ngaiterangi representative speculated that as the battles were being fought inland, Ngaiterangi retreated across the harbour to Matakana, where the injured were being cared for. This meant that many Ngaiterangi were occupying Matakana during the 1860s:

I just put the two together and we're saying how everybody seemed to end back at Matakana Island and that's why there"s so many, a lot of people got claims:there because that's where they escaped to. 35

In the decades that followed the question of who had been in 'rebellion' became less of a concern. In 1881 Commissioner Brabant wrote:

There is no direction in the Acts as to how the enquiry should be made, but the Commissioners have as far as I know always made it in an open court and have more or less closely assimilated their practice to that of the Judges of the Native Lands

33 ibid, P 13 34 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape B2 35 ibid

60 Court, the cases coming before them for decision being similar in character.36

Even though Brabant may have felt he was operating as a Native Land Court Judge, this was not the legal position. The fact that the commissioners were not required to make their awards based on customary rights was to have ramifications for later land court cases.

One example was the case of Lot 154 Parish ofTe Puna. Although this was not a case affecting Ngaiterangi, the decision of the court set a precedent that would be followed

in all Tauranga cases. The court's decision was:that.un..;surrenderedrebels~(and their descendants) were ineligible to be includedintheiCmwn grants.forJandreturned to Maori:

Apart from the fact that the Confiscated Land Act under which the Grant in question . was issued provides that land could be awarded only to loyal Natives or surrendered rebels, the Court does not think it reasonable to suppose that those members of the Pirirakau who were in rebellion and never surrendered are entitled to come in now and take advantage of an arrangement which they absolutely refused to at the time it was made: nor does the Court for a moment think it was ever intended by the 3 Commissioners that those who continue in rebellion should participate in the award. ?

While this case ruled out the possibility of 'rebels' being admitted to the title of their ancestral land, the case ofTe Umuhapukul block concluded that the awards made by . the Tauranga Commissioners were in the form of compensation for land confiscation only, and were not at all related to ascertaining. the customary owners:

The Court would like to add that the disputes with respecHo this Blockseem to;have arisen solely because a small minority of the owners, .who·would probably be entitled according to Native Custom if the land had not been confiscated, refuse to recognise the exact position and the fact that it was returned by the Crown as compensation to the persons in the list of owners .. They persist in asserting that the title has been decided .according to Native Custom and claim that on that account they are entitled to a larger share than the other owners. This contention has caused a considerable -. amount of unnecessary trouble and inconvenience both to the Court and the other owners.38

The impact of this judgment, as O'Malley puts it, was that: 'The original ruling of the Tauranga Commissioners could therefore never be appealed against on the basis that

36 Raupatu Document Bank, vol 127, pp 48670-48671 37 Tauranga Minute Book 7, fols 48-53

61 they had not correctly followed customary rights' .39 By appointing commissioners to allocate land, and requiring the commissioners to somehow 'balance' out the punishment of Tauranga Maori equally, the Crown failed to ensure that Ngaiterangi retained their ancestral lands. The next chapter of this report will show that the Crown then failed to protect from alienation the land that it did allocate to Ngaiterangi.

3.4 Summary

• Both Maori and the Crown were exhausted from the fighting and wished to make peace. .• Secret negotiations were carried out before NgaiterangiBurrenderedtheir arms to the Crown. • There is evidence to suggest that Ngaiterangi did not make an unconditional surrender. • At least some members of Ngaiterangi were not aware that surrender meant they would lose their land. • The official minutes of the Pacification Hui do not record all the Maori korero.

• The Crown's promise to only confiscate one-quarter of Tauranga lands IS an indication that Ngaiterangi did not surrender unconditionally . .• There is evidence that Ngaiterangi were not aware that the Crown would confiscate a 50,000 acre area. • There is evidence to suggest that thoseNgaiterangichiefswh0:so1dthe Katikati - Te Puna block did so because the Crown gave them no choice in the matter. • The Katikati - Te Puna purchase was not consented to b,iy Hori Tupaea and other owners of the block, and they did not receive any compensation. • The proclamation of the entire Tauranga Moana district under the New Zealand Settlements Act extinguished all Maori customary title. • As a result, the process of awarding reserves meant that some hapu were relocated from their traditional rohe.

38 ibid,157-159 39 Vincent O'Malley and Alan Ward, 'Draft Historical Report on Tauranga Moana Lands', Crown Congress Joint Working Party, June 1993, p 61

62 • Some reserves were awarded as compensation for those who lost land in the confiscated block, or in return for loyalty. Un-surrendered rebels were ineligible for land grants . • The Crown's instructions to the Tauranga District Lands Commissioners have meant that the decisions of the commissioners cannot be appealed against on the grounds that they failed to follow Maori customary rights.

63 4. Alienation of Land Awarded to N gaiterangi

Today many Ngaiterangi find it difficult to understand how land awarded to their tupuna after the confiscation and given inalienable status, was later allowed by the Crown to be sold. While it may seem obvious that large areas of Maori land have been alienated, exactly how much, and what percentage has not been collated. This chapter attempts to quantify the loss suffered by Ngaiterangi. It then analyses how the land could be alienated despite its supposed inalienable status.

In 1864, Governor Grey told those Maori assembled at;the 'pacificationhui' that they would· be granted inalienable reserves; .In 1878, the· Native Affairs . Committee instructed that all land returned to Maori would not be open for purchase. Some Crown grants of land to Ngaiterangi, issued under the instructions of the Tauranga District Commissioners, included the following restriction on the title 'inalienable by sale or by lease or by mortgage except with the consent of the Governor'.

This written restriction had little effect in retaining the land in Maori ownership . . Ngaiterangi today know that they now have only a fraction of the land that they were left with after confiscation. In many blocks the only area remaining as Maori land, if any, is a small section reserved as marae or urupa.

4.1 Quantifying Land Loss

The following table has been compiled to give an indication of the extent of land alienated from Ngaiterangi since 1886. In order to do this the size of blocks returned to Ngaiterangiunderthe Tauranga District Land Acts have been compared with the size of those blocks in 1997. Figures from the report of the Royal Commission on Native Lands and Native-Land Tenure 1908 (Stout-Ngata Commission) on Tauranga have also been included.

64 The following points should be noted when considering the figures used: • As the table is based on acreages listed in Commissioner Brabant's return to Parliament of 1886 it does not include reserves awarded to individuals or hapu of Ngaiterangi within the Katikati - Te Puna block. Most of these were sold soon after they were awarded. 1 • Some individual Ngaiterangi, and their hapu, were also granted small reserves in the Otumoetaidistrict, one of the main sites of Ngaiterangi settlement before 1864? However, most of these reserves were sold by the 1860s as hapu consolidated in other areas where they held larger reserves.3 The same applies for town allotments. • The blocks to be included in the table were.selectedon the,·grounds of their geographical location. The blocks are shown on map six. It may be that some . blocks awarded to Maori who were Ngaiterangi have not been included. It may also mean that the ownership lists for some of the blocks include members of other iwi as well as Ngaiterangi. • Unfortunately, it appears that the Stout-Ngata Commission of 1908 did not report ,/ "',,- ~ ~, / on all the Tauranga blocks. In particular many blocks on Matakana and Rangiwaea ,islands were not included in the return of the commission. As the figures still provide some indication of land' holdings they have been included, but a blank in ,the 1908 column does not necessarily mean that the block has been alienated. For this reason the 1908 figures have not been included, in any analysis of the total acreage. • The figures for 1997 are approximate only. They have been,-compiled from the Maori Land Court (Hamilton) current record sheets from the block order files. The figure for each block was arrived at by adding together the total acreage (or converting hectares) of separate partitions of the block which are currently still Maori land and administered by the Maori Land Court.

I Evelyn Stokes, 'The Allocation of Reserves for Maori in the Tauranga Confiscated Lands', volume 1, University ofWaikato, 1997, Wai 215 A57, P 277 2 ibid, pp 109-110 3 ibid, pp 234-236

65 • This means that blocks which were declared European (or general) land under the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 have not been included in the figures, though it is possible that some are still owned by Maori individuals. • A blank in the 1997 column indicates that no portion of the block is Maori land administered by the Maori Land Court. It has been totally alienated. • . In some cases the 1997 figures are larger than in 1886. This is the result of amalgamation. Where individual blocks have been amalgamated this is indicated by 'now part ... ', in line with the practise of the Maori Land Court. The amalgamation of all or part of a block does not rule out its later alienation as part of an alienation of the amalgamated block.

Area of Blocks Awarded to Ngaiterangi:

Karamuramu 300a Or OOp Kauaenui 34a Ir OOp 50a 3r I5p Kikoheke 4a Or OOp 4a Or OOp now part Matakana Kopuatete 59a Or OOp now part Matakana Kutaroa 54a2r OOp la Or lOp and part now Opureora Mahiwahine I4a Ir OOp 14a 1r OOp 13a lr 25p Mangakoheri 2la Ir 23p now part Tauwhao-Te Ngare Mangatawa 1,295a Or OOp 1,294a 2r OOp 1,315a3r 14p4 Matakana 1,999a Or OOp 1,513a lr 18p and part Whakatopo Matapihi 304a lr 37p 327a.Ir 27p 237a 3r 30p Matariki 5a Or OOp 5a Or OOp now part Tirohanga Maungatapu 327a lr 27p 399a Ir 27p 2la 2r 32p Mimihanui 8a 3r OOp 8a 3r OOp 8a 3r OOp Motukauri I4a 3r OOp Motungaio 234a Or OOp 234aOr OOp Motuotau 6a Or 30p la Or 23p Moturiki 6a Ir 20p N gai Tukairangi I42a lr 38p Ohinetama I,4I2a Or OOp Ohuki 227a 3r 32p 227a 3r 32p 155a lr 39p Okahu I4a Ir OOp 14a Ir OOp 5a2r OOp

4 Including Mangatawa-Papamoa block at 774a lr 13p.

66 Okotare 767a Or OOp Omanu 402a 3r OOp 402a 3r OOp Omanuwhiri 1,317a Or OOp Opounui 49a 2r OOp IOa2r OOp Opuhi lla2r OOp now part Matakana Opureora 346a Or OOp 237a Or 3Ip and now part Umuhapuku Orau 6a Or OSp 6a Or OSp Oruahine 46a2r OOp Oruamatua SOa Or OOp SOa Or Olp 2Ia Ir 13p and now part Ngai Tukairangi Otawa 6,5S0a Or OOp 2,3S0a Or OOp I,46Sa 3r 36p Otehotu 14a 2r OOp 4a2r 27p and now part Opounui Otuawahia 35a Ir 37p 35alr 37p 9a Ir OSp 'and nowpartNgai Tukairangi Otumoko 29a Ir 16p 29a Ir 16p 2Sa Or ISp Oturoa 206a Or OOp Paeroa 40Ia Or OOp Oa 2r OOp and part Tauwhao-Te Ngare Panepane 143a Or OOp Papamoa 12,763a Or OOp 4,6S7a 2r 35p I,45Sa 2r OOp Paretata I,530a Or OSp - Patete lOa 2r 32p now part Opounui and part Tauwhao-Te Ngare Pikirangi 6a 2r lOp now part Opounui and Tauwhao-Te Ngare Pukekahu I,3IOa Or OOp Pukekaroro 39a 2r OOp now part Matakana Purakau I,214a Or OOp

Puwhariki 40a2r 24p Ia Or OOp and now part Ngai Tukairangi Ranginui 311a 3r OSp 311a 3r OSp 250a 3r ISp Rangiwaea 20Ia Or OOp now part Tauwhao-Te Ngare Rangiwhakaoma 16a Or OOp Tahunamanu 25a Ir OOp 25a Ir OOp Tangoio 3a Ir 24p now part Tauwhao-Te Ngare Tapuaeotu 5Ia Or OOp 5Ia Or OOp lOa 3r 25p Tauranga 63a2r OOp 64a Or OOp now part Tauwhao-Te Ngare Tauwhao-Te Ngare 623a2r 37p Te Awa 0 Tukorako S3a 3r 30p 45a2r 2Sp Te Maire 539a Ir 3Ip Te Mara a Tatahau 2a Or OOp now part Maungatapu TeNgaio 43a Or 36p Oa 3r OSp and now part N gai Tukairangi

67 Tirohanga I42a Or OOp I42a Or OOp I63a2r OOp Tumatanui 55a Ir 30p 55a Ir 30p 7a2r I6p and now part Ngai Tukairangi Tutukeranga 99a Ir 22p Umuhapuku 64Ia Ir OOp 64Ia Ir OOp 499aOr OOp Waihirere 678a Or OOp 577a2r 13p Waikorire 7Ia Ir OOp Waikoura 824a Or OOp Waipapa I5a 2r 24p now part Kaitimako-Waipapa Wairaka 713a Or OOp Waitaha2 8082a Or OOp Waitaia 25a2r OOp 3a Ir 03p Whakarau 2Ia Ir OOp Ia Or OOp and now part Opureora Whakatopo 70a Or OOp I69aOr 17p Wharawhara 442a Ir 30p 3I9aOr OOp Oa3r 23p Whareroa I ,263a Or OOp 1,180a Or OOp 23a Ir 33p TOTAL 50,592a lr 08p 9,755a 3r 23p

A simple comparison of the total 1886 and 1997 figures reveals that during that 110 year period Ngaiterangi were alienated from 40,837 acres ofland.

/~"",,- -'''. j Today, Ngaiterangi hold only 19.28 percent of the land which was left to them by the Crown after confiscation.

To get an understanding about the condition of the land which has been alienated, and of the land remaining, an analysis of the.block figures grouped according to their location provides further information; The descriptive terms.for the ,locations have been chosen by the authors along geographical lines. Footnotes list the blocks included in each district.

District Breakdown:

District 1886 1997 Acreage lost % remaining Matakana5 13,829a 2r 08p 3,254a 3r Olp IO,565a 24%

5 Including the following blocks - Awakopuku, Kauaenui, Kikoheke, Kopuatete, Kutaroa, Matakana, Matariki, Motungaio, Ohinetama, Okotare, Omanuwhiri, Opuhi, Opureora, Oturoa, Panepane, Paretata, Pukekahu, Pukekaroro, Purakau, Tahunamanu, Tirohanga, Umuhapuku, Waihirere, Waikoura, Wairaka, Whakarau, and Whakatopu.

68 Rangiwaea6 821a Or 31p 645a lr 32p 176a 78% Mt Maunganui 16,088a 3r 20p 1,528a 2r 04p 14,560a 9% - Papamoa7 Matapihi8 935a 3r 28p 680a Or 15p 255a 73% Rangataua9 18,916a 3r 01p 3,647a Or IIp 15,269a 19%

Today, over 40 percent of the land Ngaiterangi have managed to retain is on Matakana Island, but this represents only 24 percent of the island itself. Much of Matakana was alienated almost immediately after confiscation as the result of large scale private land purchases. Indeed, Brabant's 1886 return notes that private purchases had been .allowed of eight Matakana blocks, totalling 7,312 acres. These alienations have been examined in detail by Suzanne Woodley in 'MatakanaIsland'.lO

Maori ownership has been less compromised on Rangiwaea Island, but this is probably due to the fact that Rangiwaea itself is even less accessible than Matakana, and has not been subject to the same pressures of farmland or forestry development.

Anyone even vaguely familiar with the Mount Maunganui district would not be surprised to learn that Ngaiterangi have retained very little land there. Indeed, if the 1,458 acre Papamoa block is excluded from the Mount Maunganui figures today there is only 70 acres of Ngaiterangi land, mainly marae reservations. Mauao itself, one of . the most important sites to Tauranga Maori, is a public reserve, the coastline from Mauao to Papamoa is virtually all residential land,. while the harbour side of the peninsula has been developed into a significant economic asset for the Bay of Plenty, being the site of an international port, cargo terminals, and the Tauranga airport.

6 Including the following blocks - Aonganui, Iwituaroa, Mangakoheri, Opounui, Orau, Otehotu, Paeroa, Patete, Pikirangi, Rangiwaea, Tangoio, Tauranga, and Tauwhao-Te Ngare. 7 Including the following blocks - Awaiti, Hopukiore, Horoipia, Hukitawatawa, Motukauri, Motuotau, Moturiki, Omanu, Oruahine, Papamoa, Rangiwhakaoma, Te Awa 0 Tukorako, Te Maire, Waikorire, Wharawhara, and Whareroa. 8 Including the following blocks - Ahipouto, Hungahungatoroa, Mahiwahine, Matapihi, Mimihanui, Ngai Tukairangi, Ohuki, Okahu, Oruamatua, Otuawahia, Otumoko, Puwhariki, Te Ngaio, and Tumatanui. 9 Including the following blocks - Hikutawatawa, Kaitimako, Karamuramu, Mangatawa, Maungatapu, Otawa, Ranginui, Tapuaeotu, Te Mara a Tatahau, Tutukeranga, Waipapa, Waitaha, and Waitaia. 10 Suzanne Woodley, 'Matakana Island', Waitangi Tribunal, July 1993, Wai 215 A8

69 The Matapihi district is an area where the land is still predominantly Maori land. This was largely the result of a concerted effort to resist alienation pressures during the 1950s and 1960s. This is explained in Chapter Eight.

To some extent the retention of Maori land on the Matapihi peninsula during the 1950s and 1960s came at the expense of land on the other side of Rangataua harbour, . especially in Maungatapu and other Welcome Bay blocks which, due to rates and other pressures, became residential subdivisions. A large proportion, 8,000 acres, was also lost in the 1880s when the Waitaha block was sold privately. Of the land remaining around Rangataua, it is virtually.· alL part .. of. the Mangatawa block or Mangatawa-Papamoa incorporation.

4.2 Removal of Alienation Restrictions

This section looks at how nearly 30,000 acres of Ngaiterangi land came to be alienated when the legal titles to those blocks specified that the land was inalienable. Before dealing with specific instances, the general nature of alienation restrictions and how the restrictions could be removed needs to be understood. It will be seen that in practise the restrictions on alienation were ineffectual in retaining the land in Maori ownership.

O'Malley provides the fullest examination of the way'restrictions were removed in Tauranga.ll This report does not seek to:cover the same ground. Instead the intention

is to try to understand how, what seemed on the face of Crown grants to render the land inalienable, were actually only words which the Crown allowed to be ignored if certain conditions were supposedly met.

All Tauranga lands returned to Maori ownership were declared to be inalienable as the result of a recommendation from the Native Affairs committee. Commissioner Wilson was instructed:

II Vincent O'Malley, 'The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu, 1864-1981', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, June 1995, p 65

70 to inform the Natives that all the lands returned to them in the Tauranga District, the titles to which you are now investigating, including Otawa and Waitaha Blocks, are inalienable. The Native Affairs Committee has advised that the Natives should not be allowed to dispose of these lands; that, should they desire to lease them, they must do so by auction or public tender. 12

The people of Tauranga, both Maori and potential land buyers, were notified of this decision by means the publication ofthe above telegram in the Bay ofPlenty Times on 12 November 1878. This was the only public notification of the inalienable status of the land.

As a result, when Crown grants were ;eventually issued to Maori .for the blocks

investigated by the Commissioners, thegrants'containedthe.following:',~inalienable by sale or by lease or by mortgage except with the consent of the Governor'. This was in line with the usual conditions imposed on memorials of ownership under the Native Land Act 1873. Although. restrictions on alienation were an expression of Crown policy to protect Maori land, the Commissioner of Native Reserves, Charles Heaphy, put forward another reason why Maori owners of reserves in confiscated lands should not be able to sell them:

It is desirable that the natives who come in should experience the advantage of civilisation - of roads and markets in settled districts - and that their improvement in circumstances should be apparent to those who hold themselves aloof. This can only be effected by making the lands inalienable, and by issuing Crown grants to those who have improved their holdings and fulfilled a prescribed term of residence. 13 This shows that making lands inalienable could also be part of the Crown's pacification and colonisation policies .

. The policy of making lands inalienable was not truly intended to stop those lands from being sold, but rather to control the conditions of sale transactions. It was a paternalistic policy to prevent Maori being exploited by private speculators, and protect against Maori being rendered landless, and therefore dependant on the state. Under the Native Lands Frauds Prevention legislation commissioners were established to investigate the bone fides of sale transactions, and approve or decline applications for the removal of restrictions. Similarly, in Tauranga the commissioners

12 O'Malley, 1995, p 65

71 appointed under the Tauranga District Lands Act were later given instructions as to the conditions to be met for alienation restrictions to be removed. Brabant was advised by the Native Minister in 1882 as follows:

The points upon which you require to be satisfied before advising His Excy. to consent to alienations are generally these: o That the natives have amply sufficient other land for their maintenance or that from the unsuitability of the land to be alienated for native occupation or other consideration it is to their interests to dispose of it. That the owners of the land proposed to be alienated are unanimous in their desire to sell.

2 That the price proposed is prima facie fair and reasonable. 14

Just as confiscation in Tauranga had been executed under a blanket proclamation . covering the entire district, and then certain blocks returned to Maori ownership, restricting the alienation of those lands was done in the same way. The whole Maori land holding was rendered inalienable by public advertisement, but then certain blocks would be exempted if the Crown thought fit.

,/ ~\ - However, as the system was put in place by the Crown over a period of about five years, by the time the commissioners had finished awarding titles, many alienations had already taken place. Many of the dealings which have been written about in reports such as O'Malley's occurred in the late 1870s and early 1880s, that is, before Crown grants, containing the restrictions, had even been issued for the blocks.

During this time land speculators, Maori, and even the Crown's own:agents were unsure what the Crown's policy would be. In 1881 Brabant had to seek advice on the matter from the Native Department:

You are aware that the alienablility or otherwise by the natives of the Tauranga Lands dealt with by the Commissioners has long been a vexed question. The instructions to me when I formerly held office as Commissioner were that I was to use my discretion in regard to lands not actually in use by the natives but some time ago, while Mr Wilson was Commissioner Government issued instructions that all Tauranga lands were to be made inalienable (except by leave of the Governor first obtained). I found that speculators continued dealing with these lands and assumed that these

13 AJHR, 1871, F-4, P 4, cited Stokes, 1997, p 121 14 Lewis to Brabant, 9 December 1882, cited O'Malley, 1995, p 70

72 instructions which I have referred to have been revised. IS

This point was later picked up by Commissioner Barton, who was appointed in 1885 to investigate certain applications for the removal of restrictions. In his 1886 report Barton made the point that the 1878 advertisement that Maori land could not be sold had had little effect, and.by approving sales the Crown had given the impression that the restrictions no longer applied:

Notwithstanding this advertisement, much speculation in Tauranga Native lands took place in 1878, 1879 and 1880, and purchasers seem not to have been in the least deterred by it - if, indeed, they were aware of its existence. The Government, too, treated the advertisement as a deadletter:'His.Excellency was' advised to remove; and did remove, restrictions on many purchases made subsequently to its, publication; 16

Barton considered that despite the advertisement: the Crown's actions in permitting sales meant that actual Crown policy, as opposed to the stated policy, was to permit Maori land to be sold.

Nevertheless, in 1882 Brabant was informed that the Crown still wished lands returned to Maori in Tauranga to be inalienable. But, in practice the alienation restrictions still resulted in. a situation where Brabant was allowed to use his 'discretion' when it came to removing restrictions.

This was because the process to have restrictions removed meant thatthe Governor (in fact the Native Minister) usually granted. or declined applications un the basis of the advice received. from district officers. In Tauranga atthis.. time; itwas-Brabant who reported to the Native Department, and his reports were generally along the lines of whether the Maori selling land had sufficient other holdings. According to Murray, Brabant would support applications to alienate blocks which were not being 'used' by the owners.17 In other words, blocks which Brabant considered unoccupied or unsuitable for development. As O'Malley has pointed out these rough, bush covered blocks may actually have been important mahinga kai for Maori.

IS Brabant to Lewis, 16 March 1881, cited O'Malley, 1995, pp 68-69 16 AJHR, 1886, G-ll, P 2

73 Having made an across the board decision that Tauranga lands should be inalienable, the Crown then delegated responsibility to district officers to approve land purchases. While there were conditions that had to be met, the policy relied on how well the district officers investigated each sale, and what land holdings they considered suitable or sufficient for Maori:

As long as the Government accepted advice from its agents in the field that owners could not use the lands 'productively' themselves, and that they had other property, and provided all agreed and the price was fair, then restrictions would be taken of[.18

Commissioners Wilson and Brabant both seem to have 'believed that Tauranga Maori had surplus land which could be alienated. In 1882 Brabantreported: 'no doubt the natives have more land ... than they will ever utilise'.I9 O'Malley doubts that either commissioner had looked at the question in a comprehensive way, taking the full needs of hapu and iwi into account.

Indeed, by 1886 there was a growing perception that alienation restrictions were being ...... , " ''- __ ~ .}i removed too easily. Ballance, as Native Minister, appointed Barton as a commissioner to· look into some of the cases where applications to remove restrictions had been granted. The best analysis of the commission and the cases it investigated can be found in O'Malley, and it is not intended here to go over the same material, largely because the. blocks investigated by Barton were not. any of those listed in the table above. Suffice to say that the Barton commission revealed serious weaknesses in the Crown's policy on'restricting alienations and the way the policy was administered.

The Barton commission inquired into land transactions made by private purchasers. The most significant sales ofNgaiterangi land to private buyers occurred on Matakana Island in 1869, before titles to the blocks had been issued. It appears that grants for the blocks purchased by William Daldy, totalling 8,079 acres, were not issued to Maori at

17 lE. Murray, 'Crown Policy on Maori Reserved Lands, 1840 to 1865, and Lands Restricted From Alienation, 1865-1900', Waitangi Tribunal, February 1997, p 69 18 ibid, P 69 19 Cited O'Malley, 1995, p 58

74 all, but rather recorded on Daldy's Crown grant.20 This meant that the blocks were not formally restricted from alienation. Nevertheless, it would seem that at the time of confiscation it had been generally agreed that Matakana would be an inalienable native reserve. 21 Woodley cites several official documents which refer to Matakana as a native reserve. Despite this, Daldy's purchases were approved by Brabant, after instruction from the Native Department to reach an 'amicable' settlemene2

This may have been because Daldy already held a Crown grant to the blocks, which gave him an incontestable ownership in law. That he was able to acquire clear title indicates that Commissioner Clarke, who~investigated: the'blocks; did no1.'make them inalienable. This is supported by the fact·that grants wereprobably.dated,1877, before the Crown advertised that Maori blocks were not to be sold.~3 However, despite the fact that Daldy held legal title, there were valid reasons to question the correctness of Daldy's transactions. In the 1880s Maori were still living on parts of the land. They claimed they had not sold it all to Daldy and that not all the purchase money had been paid.24 Brabant lacked sufficient information to truly judge whether the sales had been bona fides, but following instructions, the transactions were approved anyway, even though Brabant, and the Native Department, knew that Ngaiterangi did not agree.

Alienation Restrictions and the Crown

Of more importance to Ngaiterangi than how restrictions. were :removed, is the question of how the Crown treated land with alienation. restrictions. In short, alienation restrictions were no barrier to the Crown purchasing Maori land. This illustrates that the true purpose of making land inalienable was to 'protect' Maori from private land speculators, rather than ensure the retention of Maori land in Maori ownership. The Crown purchased a significant amount of the 'inalienable' property of N gaiterangi.

20 Woodley, p 23 21 ibid, PP 10-11 22 ibid, P 25 23 ibid, P 23 24 ibid, PP 24-25

75 Many of the blocks returned to Ngaiterangi became the immediate target of Crown land purchase agents. By the time Brabant reported in 1886, the Crown had already completed the purchase of nearly 400 acres of Ngaiterangi land set out in the following table:

Lands Purchased by the Crown 1886:25 Block Area Oruahine 46a2r OOp Rangiwhakaoma No 1 2a 1r OOp Rangiwhakaoma No 2 laIr OOp Rangiwhakaoma No 3 2a 1rOOp Rangiwhakaoma No 4 2alrOOp Rangiwhakaoma No 5 1a 1r OOp RangiwhakaomaNo 6 2a 1r OOp Rangiwhakaoma No 7 4a2r OOp Awaiti 30a2r OOp Houpukiore No 1 97a2r OOp Houpukiore No 2 9a 2r 16p TeMaireNo 2 179a Or OOp ./ ", - Awa-o-Tukarako No 2 17a Or 30p Total Purchased 396a 1r 06p

As ·well as the completed purchases, ·several blocks, totalling nearly 14,000 acres, were under negotiation at that time.

Crown purchases still to be completed 1886:26 Block Area Waikorire 71a 1r OOp Huketawatawa 24a2r 23p Motukauri 14a 3r OOp Houpukiore No 1A 43a2r OOp Te Maire No 1 179a 1r OOp Te Maire No 3 181a Or 31p Awa-o-Tukarako No 2A 17a Or 30p Moturiki 6a 1r 20p Motuotau 6a Or 30p

25 From Brabant, 'Lands Returned to Ngaiterangi tribe under Tauranga District Land Acts', AffiR, 1886, G-I0, P 4 26 ibid, P 5

76 Karewa 8a 3r 13p Horoipia 222a2r OOp Papamoa 12,763a Or OOp Wharawhara No 1 393a Or OOp Total Under Negotiation 13,936a 2r 26p

These blocks are all in the Mount Maunganui district where very little N gaiterangi land exists today.

The Crown made a conscious effort to acquire the Mount Maunganui peninsula, and especially Mauao itself.· This has been demonstrated in Minhinnick 's research reports on Mauao, Moturiki, Motuotau and Karewa. Minhinnick's'reportsshow that the Crown showed no regard for the concept of keeping those:landsin':Maori:ownership, and that the government ignored its own stated policy on those matters.

Mount Maunganui, the adjacent blocks, and the small islands on the shore were seen as ideal sites for a public recreation reserve. Despite statements that Maori land was to

/~ -~'\. be inalienable, the Crown was anxious to purchase these blocks, and concerned that

'\, }' - private purchasers might also negotiate with the owners. As a result, in 1880, the Crown's intentions were advertised in the Bay ofPlenty Times:

It is hereby notified for public information that no Crown grants will issue at present for the land known as the Maunganui Mountain at Tauranga, nor for any land adjacent thereto and further should Crown grants ultimately issue for any of the said lands, such lands be made inalienable?7

Only later was it made clear that this meant 'inalienable except to the. Crown' .28 The notice demonstrates two important points: the Crown's sole purpose in this case for making grants inalienable was to secure its own advantage over private purchasers; and that one way the Crown could circumvent alienation restrictions was to not issue the Crown grants at all.

27 Bay afPlenty Times, 26 February 1880, cited Minhinnick, 'A Report on MauaolMount Maunganui', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215, A49, P 61 28 New Zealand Herald, 5 November 1880, cited Minhinnick, 'A Report on MauaolMount Maunganui', p 63

77 The chief surveyor was instructed 'to detain the proposed certificates for a time' because 'no steps should be taken which would lead to any private person acquiring any part' .29 This policy was soon followed by the Tauranga District Commissioners. The commissioner's certificates for the Te Maire blocks, issued in 1883, contained the following restriction:

That as these lands are lands adjacent to Mount Maunganui the owners should not be permitted to dispose of them in any way except to the Crown, & no Grant need issue.3o This notation raises the question of whether the Maori owners of the block were aware of. the. particular way that the title was restricted, and that they would not be issued with a title. Notes from Brabant's minutebook~suggest thatthe owners did not have any say in the matter. During that hearing on the Waikorireblock{partof Mauao) Brabant noted:

Enoka wishes the land made inalienable.Commr. says Govt. have put an embargo on this land and that the Commr. has no authority to prevent the Govt. purchasing.3l This is a clear indication that the Crown had no intention of protecting Maori land ownership in the Mount Maunganui area.

Nevertheless, the Crown's stated policy that Tauranga lands were inalienable still applied, and Ngaiterangi had been told they would have inalienable reserves. In this case however, the Crown considered that the public purpose of acquiring a reserve outweighed the need for Ngaiterangi to retain their land. As a result the commissioners appointed by the Crown did not'restrict~the '·alienationof blocks the Crown wished to purchase, except in so{aras topreventthem:beingsoldprivately.

Not only did the Crown not grant these blocks the protection of alienation restrictions, but the land purchase officers also did not follow the usual conditions set down by the Crown for a fair alienation. It will be recalled that before alienation restrictions could be removed the following conditions had to be met: that the vendors had sufficient other land;

29 Surveyor General to Chief Surveyor, 2 December 1880, cited Minhinnick, 'A Report on MauaolMount Maunganui', p 63 30 Te Maire block order file, Tl78, Maori Land Court, Hamilton 3l Cited Minhinnick, 'A Report on MauaolMount Maunganui', p 85

78 that the owners were unanimous in their desire to sell; and that the price proposed was prima facie fair and reasonable.

Minhinnick has shown that in the blocks purchased by the Crown the owners were not unanimous in their desire to sell. 32 In fact, Brabant, in his capacity as Native Land .Purchase Officer, was well aware that Hori Ngatai and others were opposed to selling the blocks. Instead of respecting the wishes of the chiefs, and making the blocks inalienable, Brabant commenced to purchase the individual.shares of other owners, in the hope of eventually acquiring the full block. Minhinnick has produced evidence relating to several blocks which show that, the

Restricted Alienation Post 1909

Those blocks which survived in Ngaiterangi ownership into the twentieth century faced different circumstances when it came to restricting alienation. By section 207 of the Native Land Act 1909 all restrictions on alienation were automatically removed. Thus Ngaiterangi lands were no longer inalienable. The 1909 Act instead substituted processes which had to be followed for land transfers. Blocks with more than ten owners could only be alienated by a resolution··ofthe· assembledowners,'or with the approval of the Maori Land Board (section 209). It -isalsoworth'noting·that section 360 stated that restrictions on alienation of Maori land did not apply to alienation to the Crown.

In reality, many of the remaining Ngaiterangi blocks were controlled by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board. To some extent the blocks were protected from permanent alienation because they came under the provisions of Part II of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907. This was the result of the recommendation by the Stout-N gata Commission that these blocks should be reserved for Maori settlement, generally by

79 arranging for them to be leased to Maori farmers. More information on this system can be found in Richard Kay's report 'Case Studies of Crown Administration in

Welcome Bay' .33

The Maori Land Board generally did little to alienate the blocks until after World War II. At this time growing local authority concern about rates and noxious weeds meant . . that pressure was brought on the owners to make money from the blocks. The result was usually that a lease to a Maori farmer was arranged. However, by the late 1960s and 1970s rate increases and other problems meant that many of the leases were not renewed or were terminated. This led tofurtherpressureomthe. owners to sell the

land, and in fact many blocks were subdividedintoresidentiahsectionsas~a.result.

4.3 Summary

Between 1886 and 1997 over 40,000 acres of Ngaiterangi lands have been alienated by various means. The result has been that only 9,755 acres remain in Ngaiterangi ownership today, representing 19.28 percent of the land left to them after confiscation. It is not true to say that all land returned to Maori in Tauranga was inalienable. While this may have been· the language bandied about by government agents, what the policy really meant was that the Crown wished to control private sales. Although the published notification that MaoriJand at Taurangacould not be sold gives the impression that all· lands returned were to be inalienable, this was not the case. Restrictions were not imposed on the title to all the blocks, particularly if the Crown was interested in acquiring the land. Even where restrictions were written into the title this was not protection against alienation. The Chambers English Dictionary defines inalienable as 'not capable of

being transferred or removed' .34

32 ibid, pp 43-44 33 Richard Kay and Heather Bassett, 'Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A Report on the Papakanui Trust Claim', Waitangi Tribunal, Apri11997, Wai 215 A51, pp 5-8

80 In Tauranga, rendering land inalienable really meant that it could not be sold to private purchasers without certain conditions being met. In practice those conditions may not always have been carefully investigated and were subjective, in that they relied on the judgement of Crown officers as to what lands were needed by their Maori owners. Under the Treaty of WaitangiMaori were guaranteed undisturbed possession of their lands. The Waitangi Tribunal has also found that this guarantee also required an active duty by the Crown to provide for the protection of Maori land.35 The tino rangatiratanga of Ngaiterangi over their land had already been severely disrupted

by confiscation, and this was followed,-by;a;Crown~policywhichfailedto achieve its stated object of preventing the sale,ofthe,remaininglands,of:"Ngaiterangi.

,/- -">." -""> )

34 Chambers English Dictionary, 7th ed, Chambers, Edinburgh, 1990 35 Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau Claim, Wellington, Government Printer, 1985, pp 90-95

81 5. N gaiterangi After Confiscation

This chapter will look at the negative impact that the Crown's alienation of Ngaiterangi land has had on the iwi. For a more comprehensive study of the socio­ economic impact on Tauranga Maori see Kathryn Rose, 'The Impact of Confiscation.,j This chapter will also look at how Ngaiterangi leaders tried to have these difficulties addressed by the Crown, particularly in 1885 when the iwi met with John Ballance and in 1907 when they met with Robert Stout and Apirana Ngata and in 1927 when the SimCommission. investigated the confiscation. The meeting Ngaiterangi had with Ballance in 1885 is:.cov.eredinsomedetail as .it-identified past issues that concerned Ngaiterangi and forms the basis for their current grievances. In most instances it will be seen that the Crown's response was unsatisfactory. The Crown's attempt to address these problems with land development schemes in the 1930s was too little too late and led to a situation of continuing dissatisfaction.

5.1 Kingitanga

Ngaiterangi support for the King Movement was reinforced by the Crown's actions in confiscating their land. This was a traumatic time for Ngaiterangi as they saw the encroachment of Pakeha settlers on their land. The Crown, not wishing to encourage the King Movement, had since the 1860sgenerally.described.themovement as a.spent force. Support for the movement however· was· still :evident .inthe .1880s when the second Maori King, Tawhiao visited Tauranga: Commissioner Brabant reported that the effect of these visits was 'a reluctance to individualise title or sell land.,2 The ongoing involvement of Ngaiterangi with the movement can be interpreted as a means of resisting the threat to their land and culture from Pakeha. R. T. Mahuta has said of the movement that:

His [Tawhiao] travels, throughout the land of the. Tainui people and beyond, brought him into contact with people desperately seeking hope and deliverance from settler encroachment. Many Maori communities have retained accounts of Tawhiao's visits

I Kathryn Rose, 'The Impact of Confiscation: Socio-Economic Conditions of Tauranga Maori', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, January 1997, Wai 215 A38 2 AJHR, 1887 Sess II G-l, P 9

82 and sayings, in varying versions and with differing interpretations. The people were suffering from anxiety, deprivation, frustration and alienation. If deliverance was not to be found on earth, then perhaps assistance for Maori could be sought on another plane.3

In 1888 R.S. Bush, the Resident Magistrate for Tauranga, said Tawhiao's 'mana as

King of the Maoris is simply nominal. ,4 In 1889 Bush stated that, with the exception of Pirirakau, very few Tauranga Maori were influenced by the King Movement. He described Tawhiao as:

now only a man of very small importance, I presume the adherence ofthese people is . simply a matter of principle, with no ulterior object in view, as they are most law abiding.5

However, in 1890 Bush reported that a 'considerable number of Maori from Tauranga and Maketuattended Tawhiao meeting at Waikato.,6 In 1891 he stated that there was the 'usual excitements in the shape of Kingite meetings'. He claimed there were several Maori who called themselves Kingites and generally attended themeetings.7

Throughout the 1890s the Kingitanga continued to struggle for Maori autonomy, and Ngaiterangi remained active participants in the movement. In February 1892, Bush said that Ngaiterangi were boycotting the Native Land Court. He said that as far as Tauranga Maori were concerned: 'Hori Ngatai, and other leading men have always been Kingites and generally attended all the meetings ... Hori Ngatai, Te Mete Raukawa and others have only recently returned .from the Whanganui meeting .

Hori Ngatai, I understand is the leading representative. ofthe Kingjnthis district' .8

3Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume Two: 1870-1900, Bridget Williams Books, Department ofIntemal Affairs, Wellington, 1993, R.T. Mahuta, T14, pp 509-510 4 AJHR, 1888, G-5, P 6 5 AJHR, 1889, G-3, pp 5-6 6 AJHR, 1890, G-2, P 7 7 AJHR, 1891, Sess II, G-5, P 7

83 5.2 Socio-economic impact of Raupatu

It is generally accepted that there is a link between land loss and socio-economic damage.9 The social and economic base ofNgaiterangi was damaged to such an extent that the cultural practices of the iwi were under tremendous pressure to adapt and change, often with severely negative consequences for future generations who were . not only alienated from their land but also from their traditional practices.

The confiscation of N gaiterangi land weakened their ability to remain independent of Crown interference:

Raupatu sort of put a lot of people in our backyard illegally,:.and ata;costto:our,own self-esteem because it was the way Raupatu, it was the, the label they put on, on Maori people who were previously proud, who were previously tied to their land, who previously had their hapu, iwi all those links, their leadership links were attached to the land and where they lived.1O Another Ngaiterangi spokesperson suggested that the change following raupatu was so dramatic that it impacted on all areas ofNgaiterangi life:

/ ''-... Now when you take away the basic unit that they use for that, the Raupatu, took -- away the land and all of the other affects you were talking about, what's the connection between one and the other, well that is the connection. You know when you take away the basic unit, the land which is always been, then you start having those other problems like ill health, bad education.ll

Despite being placed in a marginal situation Ngaiterangimanaged to survIve and develop as an iwi. Although, not to the.-extent .they would have wished. This was made largely possible as a result of traditionally·.strongandiTesilient-.Ngaiterangi leadership.

8 MA 1 189211432 9 M.P.K. Sorrenson, 'Land Purchase Methods and their Effect on Maori Population', Journal of the Polynesian Society, LXV, 3, 1956, pp 183-199. See also M.P.K. Sorrenson, 'Colonial Rule and Local Response: Maori Responses to European Domination in New Zealand since 1860', The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, IV, 2, 1976, pp 127-l37. See also Ian Pool, Te Iwi Maori: A New Zealand Population Past and Present and Projected, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1991, p 62. 10 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape Bl II ibid

84 Initially, following confiscation, Ngaiterangi were once again actively participating in the settler economy, unfortunately this situation was short lived as they were forced to address further demands to sell what remained of their land base. In the early 1870s Ngaiterangi still maintained their villages around the harbour. The Pakeha township was all in the Te Papa area and consisted of a military camp of raupo and timber huts. The beach-front, now known as 'The Strand', consisted oftwo hotels and a number of shops. A mechanic's institute, resident magistrate's court, telegraph office, library, two churches, a school and military hospital all existed. 12 Towards the turn of the century a pattern of increasing marginalisation was becoming apparent to most N gaiterangi leaders. The consequences of this-situationare still felt· byNgaiterangi today. The point to note:

Ngaiterangi land loss had, and continues to have, a detrimental impact on all aspects of their lives.

This chapter will show that the detrimental impact of this situation was evident in the /" "\ -\, ./ most fundamental aspects of existence: settlement patterns; health; employment; and education.

Farming

Ngaiterangi had to confront a number of obstacles in their attempts at farming in the post-confiscation period. Not least of these obstacles was their limited land base. They, like the Pakeha, were subject to the boom bust effects of the settler economy. Their experience of trade with Pakeha was limited. Tauranga lands had been abandoned as farms since 1862.13 Previously when selling food to Pakeha they had a

12 Stokes, 1990, p 181 13 AJHR, 1873, G-1, P 7

85 clear advantage, particularly between 1830 and 1860 when Pakeha settlers were largely reliant on Maori for produce. The extent to which Maori accepted this socio-economic conversion has perhaps been exaggerated. Some individual Maori entrepreneurs did adapt to the situation successfully. Ngaiterangi men like Hori Ngatai are obvious examples. Traditional . tribal ownership of land and organisation of work was more common than the individual entrepreneur. The Maori shearing gang were a more readily identifiable group than the Maori farmer. Similarly profits were both for individual and tribal use. 14

In the post confiscation period Ngaiterangi .. hadto'dealwith,theirlossc'Of land and a number of their iwi to war. During this period there was an economic depression, which saw government loans made available to Pakeha farmers through the

Department of Agriculture and the Advances to Settlers scheme. IS The Native Department was of little help to Maori and was eventually reduced and then

abandoned altogether. When Maori crops failed they had no agency to turn to for help so they were forced to go gum or gold digging or work on the roads.

Despite being in a vulnerable position; Ngaiterangi were forced to address the pressure of Pakeha settlement in their territory. These new settlers wanted their own land to farm so ·there was further pressure on Ngaiterangi to sell more land. Selling more land was to worsen the situation for Ngaiterangi.by lessening·theidand base and creating a cycle of dependence on further sales of land.

In the 1860sNgaiterangi cultivated what remained of their land. These cultivations were insufficient for their needs and a number ofthe iwi were involved in the building of roads through the district, other Maori were involved in gum-digging. Gum-digging was a short lived economic opportunity, during which time crops were neglected. 16 In 1886 when crops had failed Brabant said 'they will have to depend more on gum-

14 Belich, 1996, p 215 15 Keith Sinclair, A History ofNew Zealand, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1959, pp 149-185 16 AJHR, 1870, A-16, P 7

86 digging; and some will probably wish to sell land to tide them over the winter season.'17 Work on the gum or gold fields was sporadic and tribally organised, as was work as labourers on Pakeha farms.

The growing of crops throughout the 1870s and 1880s had mixed success. In some years production was relatively good but in other years, such as 1873 and 1874, there . were potato crop failures that resulted in food shortages for Ngaiterangi. 18 In 1876 all wheat and oat crops were lost. 19 In 1881 crops failed due to rain damage and in 1886 they failed due to drought.20 The unreliability of crops necessitated that Ngaiterangi continue to build roads and work as farm1abourers.forPakeha:settlers.Commissioner Brabant reported in 1877 that Ngaiterangi continued to work forPakeha at seed planting and harvest time. 21 This indicates that the work was seasonal and was necessary to supplement iwi existence. Maori labouring work towards the end of the century became increasingly common. Brabant stated in 1879 that Maori were showing an increasing desire to work as farm labourers and on the road gangs. 22

This pattern continued into the twentieth century. In an interview conducted recently with a kuia from Ngai Tamawhariua hapu it was explained why raupatu had made work on the road gangs necessary:

Had to go work on the roads and whatever, making all those roads around here ... All around Whangamata and putting roads in, doing the railway up. They had to go out because there was no money aroundhere .. But Lreally think they had to have money because there was schools andwe:had·to;·have·- well the Pakeha-itwas a Pakeha world then wasn't [it] can't just'behave;y:ourself likeaMaoriall.the,time. You know half the time I thought I was Pakeha and not the Maori.23 The points to note are that Ngaiterangi: were becoming involved as labourers to supplement their income; and tribal identity is connected with the land.

17 AJHR, 1886, G-l, pp 10-11 18 AJHR, 1874, G-2, P 5 19 AJHR, 1876, G-l, P 25 20 AJHR, 1881, G-8, P 11 and AJHR, 1886, G-l, pp 10-11 21 AJHR, 1877, G-la, pi 22 AJHR, 1879, Sess I, G-l, P 18 23 Oral interview with Ngai Tamawhariua conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997

87 The Crown's attitude towards Maori labouring was that it was of value because 'even if the Natives divest themselves of land, the young men would be able to support themselves. ,24

Hori Ngatai was involved in a number of farming ventures and was, by the 1880s, the first Maori sheep farmer owning 500 sheep.25 In Tauranga Maori sheep farming was important until the 1880s. The sheep were farmed for their meat. The negative aspect of this type of farming was that more land was put into pasture which put an end to the seasonal use of this land by Ngaiterangi. It also placed more pressure on Ngaiterangi to sell land for pasture.

Selling land was seen by both Maori and the Crown as another means for Maori to supplement their income. The increasing number of Pakeha settlers provided both sale and employment opportunities. Selling land left Ngaiterangi in a dependent economic position. A decreasing land base was to further marginalise Ngaiterangi and their ability to sustain themselves as an iwi. An example of this dilemma is evident in 1896 ~ " j when Ngatai requested aid from the Crown for crop failure:

Kua mate katoa aku kai Rawi tetahi lora whakaaetia mai tetahi purapura maku ko aku purapura poki kua mate nei ki tere te utu mai

All my crops have been destroyed by a flood, nothing at all is left. Let some seed be given to me, as all my seed is spoilt too. Please reply quickly. The Minister replied:

Friend - I am very sorry for your loss but theGovt.havenomoney~:fromwhich they could assist you. I would advise you to ·see. Mr Brabant who: win purchase.some of your surplus lands such as your interest in Mount Maunganui. 26

This reply indicates where the Minister's .concems lay. Ngatai' s plight was secondary to the Crown's wish to obtain Mauao.What is evident is that there few avenues for Maori farmers to apply to for farm aid. For the Crown answer was for Maori to solve their financial problems through further sales of their land.

24 AJHR, 1879, Sess 1, G-l, P 18 25 AJHR, 1885, H-ll, P 9 26 MAIMLP, 1907/9, 25 NLP 82/392, cited Roimata Minhinnick, 'A Report on MauaolMount Maunganui', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215 A49, P 86

88 Inadequate Reserves

Ngaiterangi found themselves in a marginalised position as a result of having an insufficient land base. This situation was exacerbated in later years by an increasing population (map four). The following example illustrates the marginal position that a number ofNgaiterangi hapu found themselves in following confiscation.27

In the 1880s and 1890s Reneti Te Whauwhau petitioned the Crown a number of times about the Katikati - Te Puna block on 'hehalfof Ngati Remu, TeUrangawera and Whanau a Tauwhao. Te Whauwhau., had written a -number ofletters to the Native Department about Aoangatete in the Katikati block. Brabant dismissed the claim saying that their claim should have been made at the time of the sale and that furthermore they still had sufficient reserves in the block. Te Whauwhau made further petitions in 1880 and 1881 to the Crown pleading that their rights should be protected under the law as the Treaty of Waitangi promised:

Friend, this is the third year that we have petitioned the Ministers and we have not received satisfactory answer. Weare greatly concerned on account of our orphans, widows wives and ourselves who are wandering about on the face of the earth, our 28 land being. occupied by Europeans. Where is there any for US.

In 1884 Te Whauwhau petitioned the Crown again. The Native Affairs Committee requested that the government should investigate., as to whether their were any people who were destitute amongst the petitioners.· Brabant said: that'Ngat:LRemu were un­ surrendered Kingites and Te Whauwhau supposedly acknowledged that they had sufficient lands for their support. Yet, as Rose has pointed out the petitions consistently stress the inadequacy of the land holdings of Te Whauwhau's people which had left them in a marginal position and forced them to leave their immediate home for survival. Te Whauwhau was obviously fairly desperate to help his people for he again persevered with petitioning an unsympathetic government in 1900. He was again told that the government would not reconsider the issue. The loss ofNgaiterangi

27 This example is taken from Kathryn Rose, 'The Impact of Confiscation: Socio-Economic Conditions of Tauranga Maori', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, January 1997, Wai 215 A38, pp 30-32.

89 land forced many of the iwi to look for alternative means of survival, whether it be to leave the area or labour for a Pakeha farmer.

Health

Ngaiterangi were faced with health problems that the Crown failed to adequately provide for, despite the fact that the causes for this poor health were well known. Gum-digging for example, was an arduous activity that forced those involved to live in temporary shelters and be exposed to weather that resulted in poor health and deaths.29 The attitude of the Crown was thatthesehealthproblems.were::self imposed by Ngaiterangi and not the result of landloss.Yet Ngaiterangiwerefotcedto go gum­ digging because they were unable to utilise their entire land base. At this time there was a high mortality rate amongst Ngaiterangi hapu. In 1875 Ngati He suffered 17 deaths most of whom were young or old, which indicates that the most vulnerable . members of the iwi were susceptible to these problems. Pakeha diseases and Maori living conditions and health practices were credited as causes for these deaths.30 In 1876 Hopkins Clarke said:

There have been more deaths in the district than in the previous year, some of them being attributed to that fearful Maori superstition Makutu . Within the last two years 3 it seems to have quite regained its old influence on the Native mind. ! In 1877 Brabant reported:

There is little change to remark on the physicaL condition, of the Natives·of this district. A considerable number of deaths .have tak:en~placeiwhilebut few::children have been born, and of these a large proportion die ininfancy.32

The 1878 Census figures show that Ngati He had a total population of 47 with 23 males. 33 In 1879 Brabant reported that a 'good many children have died during the past year ... generally of whooping cough. ,34 The assistance Ngaiterangi received was limited to a military hospital which closed in the 1870s. Well into the 1930s

28 MA I 1913/305, cited Rose, p 31 29 AJHR, 1887, Sess II, G-I, pp 8-9 30 AJHR, 1875, G-Ia, p 3 31 AJHR, 1876, G-I, P 25 32 AJHR, 1877, G-Ia, pi 33 AJHR, 1878, G-2, P 20

90 medical treatment was most accessible to those who lived in Tauranga township. This was said to be the situation with Maori vaccination where Brabant reported in 1882 that Maori would not travel to the town for vaccination. The Crown allowance for travelling doctors was too small to allow them to vaccinate Maori settlements.35

In the 1890s it was the job of native school teachers to provide health care to these settlements. The task confronting these teachers was often daunting, with limited access to medicines. Teachers were officially allowed to treat only school children, which was unrealistic because they were seen as part of a larger Maori community and the health expert of the community outside'ofthetraditionaltohunga;.

When doctors or Crown officials visited Maori communities inTauranga at the turn of the century they generally commented on the poverty and poor living conditions. In ·1896 for example, a policeman visiting Katikati reported that there was much sickness and that two men had died. It was common for most hapu of Ngaiterangi to lose members each year, who went untreated. In 1896 after the costs of sending a medical

( """ - ) officer to the settlement had been worked out, a visit was approved. The doctor reported that he saw 16 Maori who were suffering from some type of fever, which he believed was the result of bad food and exposure. He advised the government to build a large shed near Waihi or Tauranga so that they could be near a doctor. No shed was built.36 The Crown's tendency to blame Ngaiterangi for their own health problems was evident in 1891 when the resident magistrate::statedthat "the'general

life. ,37

What this report does show is that nineteenth century doctors in Tauranga were aware of the part that poor living conditions and bad food played in health problems. This was not a case of some incurable disease but was the consequences of poverty. The Crown was aware of this situation as a number of reports and Crown inquiries

34 AJHR, 1879, Sess I, G-l, P 18 35 AJHR, 1882, G-l, pp 5-6 36 J 1 1896/854, cited Rose, p 70 37 AJHR, 1891, Sess II, G-2, P 3

91 consistently made the link between poor health and living conditions. The Crown blamed Maori for their situation saying that their plight was due to tribal or individual mismanagement of land or cultural factors, such as the use of tohunga, rather than as a direct result of the Crown actions.38

An interview conducted with elders of Ngai Tamawhariua hapu found that Maori health at the turn of the century was still largely taken care by the tohunga:

My mother, we never ever went to doctors, never, only when I went up to Auckland. Now let me say this, leprosy, you wondered why there was none. But it was known to us because my Aunty was cured of leprosy by the tohunga. And I can remember Doctor Muffant, he undressed her and looked at her.' Hesaid,~were, you. a liar?; she said, 'no', you had to go into the ngahere,with the tohunga.Tohnnga told. you what to take and what to do. 39

.Another speaker agreed saying that if they got sick they were taken care of by their own people using traditional methods:

Kumara was another form of medicine, you can cut your foot and they used to scrape the kumara and put it on like a poultice, wrap it up and you bet your boots that it will just heal, through the skin. Its been proven that kumara is a flesh healing medicine.40

.Another speaker said that the loss of land, particularly forests had an adverse effect on Maori health:

It stopped us from being clean when they wiped out the ngahere, when they put us into a little place. We became slovenly because we could not do what we normally do ,in the circumstances. We had the river, :to,feedourselves with,do a lot with. When I went to school I wanted togmtot,the', toilet;, the water, rushed.'down,T got frightened, and I ran outside to thebamboo,tominlL Somekidssawand:started pointing. I called .them a·pokokoha, and got my mouth :washed':out'for,speaking Maori. First introduction into a public school. They talked to me [and] made me stand in a comer, I don't even know what she said. I walked home.41

Education

38 The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 is a clear example of the Crown laying the problems of Maori health at the feet of Maori. This Act was designed to curb the practices of the tohunga in dealing with Maori illnesses. 39 Oral interview with Ngai Tamawhariua conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 40 ibid 41 ibid

92 This is intended to provide a brief idea of the difficulties facing Ngaiterangi in educating their children shortly after confiscation, when arguably they were in the most need of some form of empowerment to address their dramatically changed circumstances. It uses both the written record and the oral testimonies of Ngaiterangi to convey the ongoing sense of grievance concerning education.

In 1873 a Maori school existed in Tauranga at Te Papa. The school was criticised for the teacher' suse of the Maori language and 'fondness' for the township of Tauranga.

Once again th~ Crown argued that it was the fault of Maori that their children were not attending the school in greater numbers,although,-thereports.,generally state that attendance numbers were good apart from'iwhenthe:childrenwereworkingoin the gum fields:

The master appears to be competent as far as his own knowledge goes, but his heart does not seem to be in his work, and unfortunately for the pupils he has acquired some knowledge of their language, in which his instruction, or rather explanations are given. There is no committee such as the Schools Acts provide, but there is a nominated committee of some two or three; but excepting the chief Hori Ngatae, [sic] no one has taken any interest in the school, which he says has not been visited for two years . . . . There is altogether an air of languor and depression about the establishment42

By 1876 this teacher had been replaced by one who received a favourable review, after which he promptly resigned from the job because of difficulties with the local Maori population,. which suggests that the Crown and the local Maori community had very different ideas about who was agobd teacher;43 'By 188.1.theschool had been closed for a number of years, however, in4hat year there was talk:of opening a native school in Tauranga.44 By 1886 there were three schools for Maori in Tauranga at Maungatapu, Huria and Paeroa.

The significance of native schools in Tauranga was recently expressed by a Ngaiterangi spokesperson who mentioned during a discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives that:

42 AJHR, 1873, G-l, P 7 43 AJHR, 1876, G-l, P 25 44 AJHR, 1881, G-8, P 11

93 I started off in schooling in a native school and I was happy in that environment and the social impact, as far as I was concerned, when they done away with the native school, sort of type of education, and into a Pakeha system, so to speak, was another culture shock to me, and then I get back to the present time now, where the introduction of kohanga reo and all that sort of thing, we have, we've done the full complete circle, so to speak. Because now, we've been indoctrinated back into the Maori system, like how I started off at that particular time.45 Another speaker suggested that education was traditionally often provided in a Maori way by Ngaiterangi elders:

J learnt Maori, not by being told, recite this or, follow after me. That was not the way I was taught how to speak Maori. I sat, I listened to the kuia talk the kuia says things, and I ... watch her.hands and say, 'what is she telling me to do' so you, [see] that was how I learnt, my Maori.46 This view was shared by another speaker who stressed chow much things had changed:

She learned her Maori by sitting with'herkuia,.andl'mjusbtryingto.thinki,the number, of, of our own people in Tauranga ..whohave actually had the . luxury to sit beside their kuia. You know when they've had to move to work, they've had to move for education they've had to move, so they could build a house because there's no land.47 Another Ngaiterangi speaker felt that Maori education should be provided by Maori:

Why do we have to go to school, to learn our Maoritanga, why do we have to do that. That says to me, we're not even in control of that, cause we have to go to school to learn it. I feel we are not in control of it any more, because as soon as the kohanga reo were, were sort of established, in they came with a curriculum, you had to do it this way and do it that way, otherwise it will not get this.48

Puhirake Ihaka in an interview recently expressed resistance to the European educational pedagogy that he had been forced to suffer:

This to a certain extent was pushed in.my.head,oh you mustgrowupina;Pakeha world, you must know the Pakehas ways,you,hav~to become educated ....,and-it's a lot of rubbish. What for? Why do you have to get a'Pakehawayoflife?ldid.;But at the end of the day it didn't change me. For 45 years it did,but.then it didn't 19uess. At the end of the day it really didn't. And what did I gain from having all this Pakeha involvement? What did I really, personally gain? That I couldn't have got in a different way ... in terms of real worth, I don't believe that it has helped me in that sense. What did 1 miss out when you compare it. I'll tell you what I missed out on, what I missed out on I am now searching for. And this is why I've always been trying to get my people to come home, kia hoki mai ki te kainga aye.49

45 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape Bl 46 ibid 47 ibid 48 ibid 49 Oral interview with Puhirake Ihaka of Ngati Tapu conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997

94 All the speakers express a sense of frustration over the direction of education for their young. The implication is that Maori language and control over their education has always been important to Ngaiterangi and that the significance of education has been recognised and accepted when they have had some control over how it was to be delivered. These testimonies also indicate that traditional links with family are significant for Ngaiterangi in providing, amongst other things, education. Unfortunately, Ngaiterangi land loss meant that many people were, and still are, forced to leave the area for work, which has often impacted detrimentally on their knowledge of their traditions and language.

Leading Men

The discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives said that traditionally effective leadership was equated with mana and control of the land:

What's the use of a leader without people to lead, you know and what's the use of a leader if you've got no land to feed to people with, that come to visit you or to come and, how can, you know, that's how they would [have] equated it. If you've got no land to, to food to feed your visitors well, visitors aren't gonna come to share. 50 Another speaker stressed the need for a leader to have mana:

When you lose a leader in Maoridom, it's not just a matter of replacing one person with another person. You're talking about loss of mana and, and the shrivelling up of the whole person. 51

In the 1880s Ngaiterangi leaders begantospeakoutaboutthe>plight oftheir iwi. The table following shows the leading men of Ngaiterangi in the 1870s. These were the leading men in the eyes of Pakeha observers. The list was compiled by Sergeant Major Philip Putnam of the Armed Constabulary of Tauranga in 1872. The copy of the list produced below is taken from Stokes and the spelling of names, iwi, hapu and residence are as they appear in Stokes:52

50 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape B2 51 ibid

95 Hapu Place Leaders Ngai Tukairangi Otuawahia Enoka Te Whanake, Hohepa Hikutaia Ngatikuku (Matewaitai) Whareroa Hori Ngatai Te Materawaho (Ngatitapu, Tapukino) Matapihi Hamiora Tu, Raniera Te Hiahia Te Ngare Opounui Te Haereroa Ngaituwhiwhia Motuhoa TeKuka Ngaitamawhariua Matakana Hohepa Te Kai Ngatimakamaka Opureora TeHarawira Ngapotiki Oruamatua Pine Te Urungawera Tuhua Rotohiko, Tiwai N gatikahurere Opoutea Ihaka

Te Papaunahi (Whanau 0 Tauwhao) Rangiwaea Hori Tupaea Ngatihe * (Ngatihoko) Maungatapu Kiharoa

* Ngati He are included in Putnam's Ngati Ranginui list.

At the forefront of attempts to improve the situation of Ngaiterangi was Hori Ngatai. Ngatai was involved in a number of projects to help Ngaiterangi and was a leading . . . spokesman for. a number of years when the iwiexpressed these grievances to the Crown.

5.3 Ngaiterangi Grievances with the Crown 1885

On 21 February 1885 the Minister of Native Affairs, John Ballance, met with Ngaiterangi. The chiefs welcomed Ballance saying that they wished he would spend some time listening to their grievances because they had many to express. The first point to note about this meeting is that many of the grievances expressed at the time had been going on for many years prior to this meeting, and although acknowledged by the Crown as being genuine and in need of redress they would go unanswered:

52 Stokes, 1990, p 164

96 some of the grievances expressed in 1885, particularly, the issue of rates are still a thorn for Ngaiterangi today; and there is a clear message from Ngaiterangi to the Crown for their tribal autonomy to be recognised.

Ngatai told Ballance that he no longer believed that Maori and Pakeha were living together as one people:

I do not know that any love has been shown to the Maori people, or that they are living in a state of prosperity. I do not believe in the statement which is so often made, that.the Maoris and Europeans are living. together as .one people. I do not believe there is any truth in it. 53

Wiremu Parera had a similar view ·of Maori - Pakeha relations. He said that Tauranga was the land and Ngaiterangi were the people and in the past Ngaiterangi had been a great iwi, but trouble came in the. form of the land wars, since which time they had been living peacefully, but had nevertheless been badly treated by Pakeha:

This is not a new saying: that the Maoris and Europeans should be as one people; .( ''\ --, that is an old word. I have always held to that word, and treasured it up in my heart. But I am not sure that such is the case. I think that we are not yet living together as one people, for when the Europeans are in the house we stand outside the door, and instead of being invited to enter, weare told to go away. When the Europeans call to us and tell us to come into the house and sit down with us, and live with us under one roof, as it were, then I will know for the fIrst time that we are really living as one people. 54 . Another Ngaiterangi chief, Tareha said 'Let there be one law for both races, and show that same love that is extended to the Europeans;'. Te PuraTemeaexpressed a similar sentiment 'Of course we, the Maoris, think that.theMaorisshowgreater:affection to

the Europeans than the Europeans to the Maoris. ' 55

The key point is that Parera, Ngatai, Tareha and Temea had a clear understanding of Hobson's message concerning the intent of the Treaty. They stressed the idea of one people and partnership that the Treaty and Hobson promised. They reminded Ballance of this idea of partnership and stressed that Pakeha were not keeping to the Treaty principle of partnership and that the relationship was unequal.

53 AJHR, 1885,0-1, P 58 54 ibid

97 Ballance replied that he believed the Native Minister should be the 'friend and guardian' of Maori and pledged that as long as he was the Native Minister he would consider it his duty to 'understand and hear what the people have to say, in order that I

may know their wants, and be able to meet them and redress their grievances. ,56

Ballance said that he wanted to see the two races brought together as one and wanted to protect Maori from 'unworthy [land] dealings'. He also told them about the government's intention to establish native schools so that their children could take the 'same position as Europeans.' He went on,tosaythat.heintended to offer Maori greater powers in local government:

It is our desire to extend to you larger powers of local government, so that you may be able to protect yourselves to a large extent, that is to say, to have the right through Committees to do certain things through the law of the colony. 57 Very little came of Ballance's promises, particularly those concerning Maori contribution to local government. The problems Ngaiterangi have with local authorities are discussed in more depth in Chapter Seven. . :, \. /

The following concerns were mentioned by the chiefs: the Rating Act; the power of road boards; the. authority of Crown extending below the high water mark; the government restrictions on sales ofNgaiterangi.land; the delays in issuing Crown grants; the right to possess weapons; their own district committee; their own separate district; their own member in the Legislative Council; and

they opposed the Thermal Springs Act which extended over their lands. 58

55 ibid 56 ibid, P 59 57 ibid

98 These issues raised the following discussion:

Rating Act; powers of road boards. Te Mete Raukawa, of Ngati Ranginui was the first Tauranga leader to address the .grievances that effected Maori people in the region. He did not speak just for Ngati Ranginui but often referred to Ngaiterangi and their grievances. He said that these laws regarding Maori were largely passed by Pakeha, and that Maori saw the Rating Act as being very unjust because they were unable to pay because they were poor. He wanted it repealed. The issues of rates and 'mad ,.boards ,·was;; also, covered.by Ngatai.

Ngatai said thathe was made liable for rates' totheroad.:board~on:communal land because it was his· name.that appeared on the title. 59 The issue of rates and Ngatai's experience' is examined in greater detail in Chapter Eight.

Crown authority extending below the high water mark. This issue was addressed by Ngatai. He said that Ngaiterangi considered the foreshore to be part of their customary land and that Ngaiterangi had specific fishing grounds within Tauranga Harbour and that their tribal authority over these fishing grounds was . recognised by other iwi. He went on to say that these fishing grounds gave the iwi a sense of mana and that the Crown failed to acknowledge Ngaiterangi customary rights. He said that the authority to use these fishing grounds came from ancestral traditions and Ngaiterangi wanted to exercise·their.kaitiakitangaovertheir fishing grounds.60

Ballance responded by saying the authority extending below the high water mark was a question of law and depended orr the construction that was placed on the Treaty of Waitangi:

It is an important question, and I shall submit it to the Law Officers of the Crown upon my return to Wellington. If those rights were ceded by the Treaty, they are in the Queen; if they were not distinctly withheld they are also in the Queen, for the Queen in all her dominions owns the land between high-and low-water mark. It is

58 ibid, pp 59-60 59 ibid, p 60 60 ibid, P 61

99 not the wish of the Government to restrict or to curtail Maori customs, unless the Natives wish it themselves; and therefore I shall make careful inquiry into the subject. 61 Ngatai's speech shows that Ngaiterangi had a different perception of how these resources should be managed. For a more detailed examination of the concept of kaitiakitanga the reader should refer to Chapter Seven where N gatai' s speech and other related issues are discussed in greater detail.

Government restrictions on sales ofNgaiterangi land. Te Mete requested that restrictions on the sale of Maori land should be removed so that the chiefs were able to control the disposaLofland;He.:explainedthis.. request in terms of the agreement made with GovemorGreythat'it was.'.·;understood.and it was mentioned. at the time by the various N gaiterangi chiefs that they were· to retain the

disposal of the land in their own hands. ,62

. Ballance explained his· view that restrictions. on alienation were necessary to protect Maori, as the sale by individual Maori of their interests in land to Europeans had z ~ '\ -"" / caused many 'evils'. He also explained that it was his intention to institute a committee system to control land sales.

Delays in issuing Crown grants. This grievance related to Maori desire for control of their land. Te Mete complained that he could not understand why it wastaking;:solong ior:Crowngrants:to be issued once the ownership of blocks had been'decided. :He: mentionedin;particular the Tauwharawhara and Peaengaroa blocks. He felt that once ownership had been established, then, unless survey charges were owing, the owners should be issued with their grants. In reply Ballance said that he would inquire into the reasons for the delays.

Ngaiterangi and weapons.

61 ibid, p 62 62 ibid, P 60

100 Ngaiterangi believed that any member of their iwi who wished to own a weapon should be able to do so because Ngaiterangi had 'held to the peace.' Te Mete Raukawa said:

The whole of the people of Ngaiterangi have heard that in other districts the restrictions are not so strict with regard to the issue of licenses for arms and ammunition; that is why Ngaiterangi now request that the regulations may be relaxed.63 Ballance responded by saying that he believed there was some confusion over this issue. He said the Crown regarded Ngaiterangi as a loyal iwi and this was evident in their honourable actions· at Gate Pa and their subsequent actions in keeping the peace. . .. He went on to say that Ngaiterangi couldp,havec·as.many.guns as.they..wanted by applying to the resident magistrate.64

Ngaiterangi desire to have their own district committee . . . Ngaiterangidesire to have their own separate district. Ngaiterangi argued that the boundaries of the present native district were too extensive and wanted a separate committee of their own. Ballance replied that he believed such a district as proposed by Ngaiterangi would be too small, but he did ask whether any other iwi would join them in this committee. Te Mete said that the people of Te Aroha and Whakatane, including Tuhua Island would join the Maori people of Tauranga. Ngatai added that the district was not too small saying that it extended into Te Arawa territory, and that Te Arawa acted as though they controlled the present

committee. Te Mete, the sole Tauranga~;representative.:onthe 'committee confirmed this,saying that TeArawa being a distinctiwiwanted their;own:,committee, and looked on Te Mete as an outsider. Ballance said he wanted to help but that first he needed to know the opinion of Te.Arawa. Ngatai responded 'I do not think it matters much what they think, because it would not do them an injustice in dividing the

district. I think that we ought to be considered. ,65

63 ibid 64 ibid, P 62 65 ibid

101 Ballance agreed and said that he thought this a 'very good answer.' Te Mete warned that Te Arawa may not consent to such a proposal because they may want to maintain control over the whole district. He reminded Ballance that Ngaiterangi and Te Arawa were:

two distinct tribes, with conflicting interests. As the election took place at Ohinemutu, the Ngatiwhakaue were able to obtain a majority. We do not have a sufficient voice in the matter. I do not think that the Arawa should be consulted. 66 Ballance agreed that N gaiterangi had insufficient voice on the committee to determine their own affairs:

Ngaiteranginumber a thousand people, I am told, and out of twelve members they have only one. According to population;. they.wouldbe entitled to havethree·or:four; and as it is your wish to have a separatec.committee,lshalbee ifthatcan.bedone.' 67

Ngaiterangi opposition to the Thermal Springs Act which extended over their lands. Ngaiterangi wanted the Act to only cover iwi who had hot springs on their land, saying that there were no springs on their blocks of land that came under the Act.

/ \ Ballance said that the Act did not prevent Ngaiterangi from leasing their lands. He }' - said that the Crown believed that this land should not be sold but rather managed for the benefit of the Maori owners, saying the Act protected the owners from themselves and the possibility that they would want tosell.68

N gaiterangi wanted a member in the Legislative Council. Ngaiterangi wanted a tribal member in' the upper house ofRarliament,.so that they could get some 'relief concerning their.: grievances. Ballance asked them to abandon this idea saying the Maori population as a whole were entitled to two or three members, and thought it was of little consequence whether or not they had more members in the house. He also said that ifNgaiterangi, a tribe of 1,000 Maori, wanted their own representatives this would mean that 40 other iwi would want their own

66 ibid 67 ibid 68 ibid, pp 62-63

102 representative and 'the house itself would not hold one-tenth of the number; there would be no seats for them, and they would be standing in the streets. ,69

A number of private grievances were brought forward by individuals. Many of these grievances related to dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Tauranga District Land Commissioner. Ballance said he was unable to' answer these individually as he had appointments to keep in town. He said in many cases the commissioners had the right by law to decide the merit of a claim. Others cases should be decided by the . government. He also said that issues regarding land should be sorted out amongst Ngaiterangi or by the Native Land Court.70

Some of the individual grievances included a Pakeha who fenced off more than his surveyed land. Ballance said the Crown would investigate. Another speaker complained about the failure to pay compensation for a railway line. Ballance replied that land cannot be taken without payment, but if the Maori concemedgifted the land that was another issue. Another speaker, Marata spoke about Matapihi No 3 and how the commissioners had awarded the land, yet there had been a number of re­ hearings.71 Ballance responded that 'these rehearings are in the hands of the Commissioner; he will hear both sides and decide fairly.,72

Pane Titipa referred to an island near Katikati called Te Hoa saying that this island should have been awarded to him. The· island was:·nearly·underwater 'at:spring tides. He also asked that sandbanks between Whareroa·and·Katikatimightbe·awarded to Ngaiterangi 'as the birds rested on them, as at that time of the year they were covered with curlew.,73 He went on to say that he could not agree to the island, Te Hoa or the sandbanks being taken by the Crown, as they came to him from his ancestors. This illustrates the different ideas that Maori and Pakeha had about land and tenure. It is likely that the land referred to would at the time have been of little consequence to the

69 ibid, P 63 70 ibid, p 65 71 ibid 72 ibid, p 66 73 ibid, P 65

103 Crown, although subsequently many of the sand dunes were mined to build the port, and the small offshore islands were destroyed during harbour developments. Ballance made no response to this question.

Reneti Ngatai spoke about land at Tawhai called Ongari, Lot No.5. Ngatai said that Enoka Te Whanake had this 100 acres of land excluded from being sold so that Ngatai could have it. The land had subsequently been leased to George Vesey Stewart for 99 years at £12 per year. Ngatai wanted this block investigated because the lease situation meant the land would not return to him in his lifetime. He also asked if the payment of the 99 year lease might bepaiddn advance.74·Ballance replied that lease terms lay with the owner of the land who had sold the land ,to Vesey.'Stewart. He admitted the lease situation was for too long but said the fault was not the government's.

The meeting was concluded with Ballance reiterating that most of these questions would be dealt with by the commissioners and the court. He said he was glad to be able to help Ngaiterangi and finished by saying 'I wish the tribe great prosperity, and that it may become strong again' .75

5.4 Stout-Ngata Commission

At the beginning of the twentieth century Pakehademandsforlandwefe growing. Under the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900thegovernmenthad'set'up a system of land councils that encouraged the leasing of Maori land. By 1905 a new Act had resulted in an increased volume of Maori land passing into Pakeha hands. These concerns over the resumption of land sales resulted in the appointment of the Commission on Native Lands and Native-Land Tenure in 1907. The commissioners were Robert Stout and Apirana Ngata. The Stout-Ngata Commission (as it came to be called) was to set up ways to utilise Maori land in a way that would be beneficial to both Maori and Pakeha.

74 ibid 75 ibid, P 66

104 In June 1908 the commission reported back to the government on Ngaiterangi land in Tauranga (map seven). They found that Tauranga Maori were productive and involved in both farming and labouring:

The bulk of the lands in the Tauranga County (central portion) were confiscated, and the lands now owned by the Maoris were handed back to them for their sustenance and support. There are 2,040 Maoris in the county, and 1,999 Europeans. When the lands in the northern part are dealt with it will be found that the area of land left to the Maoris for their own occupation, and leased to Europeans, will not amount to 90,000 acres, or less than 45 acres each. The area possessed by Europeans per head will be at least three times as great as that left to the Maoris. The Maoris on the whole seem active and energetic. Most of the county work and of the farm labour of the Europeans is done by the Maoris, andbutfor.thesupply of this Maori labour it would be impossible to carry on farniing: The',Maoris" are.also-:employed in agriculture for themselves, and produce)maize,wheatoats, androot~crops;;They have been successful in dairying and have on oneblockof~land··,four, hundred milking~cows.There is, however,little attempt to carry on farming on individualistic lines, and the incorporation system has not yet been tried. They have, however, come to amicable arrangements amongst themselves, so that there is some security of title to the occupants.76

At this time most of the Ngaiterangi blocks were being intensively utilised as small

/ '''< farming blocks involved in maize, oats, wheat, timber and dairying. Despite the \. ) - commission's positive tone little was done for Maori farmers and any improvements in Maori farming came from communal activities. By the 1920s with a growing Maori population there was increased pressure on this land. Maori farmers were told by the Crown that they had to become more efficient. Ngaiterangi problems were not only caused by inefficiency but also because they had. insufficient lands for their needs.

These problems were exacerbated by the clepression, i which often saw Maori labourers . the first to be laid off. This dependence onfarming'wouldbecome more 'difficult for .' Ngaiterangi to sustain in succeeding decades as it became increasingly uneconomic.

5.5 Sim Commission

The Crown continued to ignore Ngaiterangi grievances, which were still evident in 1927 when the Sim Commission met. For a comprehensive study of the Sim Commission the reader should consult Vincent O'Malley, 'The Aftermath of the

76 AJHR, 1908, G~l, pp 1-5

105 Tauranga Raupatu, 1864-1981.' The commission was appointed to investigate the grievances of Maori resulting from the confiscation of their land. The commission's hearing in Tauranga lasted only two and a half days, and did not include the Katikati - Te Puna purchase in its investigation. This commission heightened the sense of grievance that Ngaiterangi and other iwi felt towards the Crown. It found that the Crown's confiscation of Tauranga land was neither unjustified or excessive. The commission found that the main reason for the military campaign against Tauranga Maori was their involvement in the Waikato war. The conclusions of the commission were unsatisfactory for Tauranga Maori. Tauranga iwi were inadequately represented to the commission which saw the Crown?sversion of.events.go largely. unchallenged. In the 1940s the Crown was still claiming that the SimCommission had fully investigated the Tauranga confiscation and that there was nothing more to investigate.77

5.6 Development Schemes

In 1929 the Crown, for the first time, provided financial support for Maori freehold land through development schemes. These schemes usually had the effect of limiting the control that Maori owners had over their land. The Tauranga scheme began in the 1930s and by the 1950s involved between three and four thousand acres of Maori land. There were a number of problems for the owners involved in these schemes. The land was of marginal agricultural value Withinfestations ofnoxious weed. which often created problems with meeting rates payments; The MaorLowners.hadlimited control over their land and were at the mercy of an appointed Maori Trustee as to how their land was utilised. The situation that usually resulted was that the Maori Trustee leased the land to a third party. This meant that Ngaiterangi lost the ability to use and control their land.

5.7 Ongoing Attempts at Redress

77 Vincent O'Malley, 'The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu, 1864-1981', Crown Forestry Rental

106 The 1940s saw a new wave of petitions to Parliament. In 1946 Ngaiterangi sent a

petition. The government had decided by 1947 that none of the petitions had merit. 78 O'Malley has argued that:

the Sim Report provided a convenient escape route for Governments seeking to avoid the bother and expense of conducting a truly detailed investigation of the Tauranga confiscation.79

In the 1960s the Tauranga iwibegan to unite in their attempts to seek redress against the Crown. A Ngaiterangi deputation in 1960 told Prime Minister Walter Nash that it was inconsistent for the Crown to compensate Waikato for their land loss but not N gaiterangi. They also said that the government of the day ,had' purchased the land from those who were not the true owners:

The. Prime Minister's subsequent written response to the. representations made was the by now all too familiar stock reply that 'substantial justice' had been done; a . Commission had already considered. the arguments made and no point would be served by a further enquiry into the matter.80

Petitions to the Crown in the 1960s often rejected the concept that a distinction could / \ -! be made between Kingite and Kupapa. In 1961 the four tribal executives of Ngaiterangi, Ngati Ranginui, Matakana and Katikati united to form the Tauranga Tribal Executive. In 1975 Tauranga iwi told Prime Minister Bill Rowling that they had been acting in self-defence and that the Katikati - Te Puna purchase had been made 'under duress'. The Tauranga Moana Trust Board Act 1981 was an attempt to address the grievances of the Tauranga.iwi'whotook up arms:againstthe Crown at Gate Pa and Te Ranga and lost their land as a result of their involvement in those

8 battles. ) The claim was put to the Crown as a united effort by the Maori people of Tauranga, including both Ngaiterangi and Ngati Ranginui. Unfortunately the outcome for the executive was unsatisfactory when they found themselves forced to accept a monetary settlement that was considerably less than they had negotiated. This struggle

Trust, June 1995, Wai 215 A22, pp 103-143 78 O'Malley, 1995, pp 139-140 79 ibid, P 142 80 ibid, P 145 81 Vincent O'Malley and Alan Ward, 'Draft Historical Report on Tauranga Moana Lands', Crown/Congress Joint Working Party, June 1993, pp 100-102

107 to gain recognition from the Crown failed to remove the bad feeling between the iwi and the Crown. 82

The bad feeling that the Crown created with Ngaiterangi is still evident today. In a recent discussion group ofNgaiterangi hapu representatives the grievance towards the Crown was strongly expressed. The loss of Ngaiterangi land was seen as a contributing factor in alienating landless Ngaiterangi from their own people:

There are families who just come back there as visitors now ... they don't have any ·links there are some whose families [who] have actually sold their land and, they have been, I suppose for want of a better word, they have been closed out of the community ... there are a whole lot offamilies like·that.83 There is an understanding amongst younger members of Ngaiterangi that the issues that have·faced previous generations since'raupatuareanongoing legacy for their own generation:

It took away my rights to feed my family the way that I would have loved to have fed them. It took away my rights to educate my children or even ourselves in a way that I would have been able to. It took away a lot of other issues as well that's relevant to this particular world at this moment, and it took away my right to plan for the future. 84

In an oral interview with Puhirake Ihaka of Ngati Tapu the impact of raupatu on Ngaiterangihistorically and currently was said to be:

When you look at the time that has elapsed since then, the numbers in this area have not greatly increased. From 1865 to 1997, which is a hundred and thirty-two years under normal population increases, the numbers should have increased substantially, but when you look at the same area whichNgatLTapu.occupiedasitdid:way;back then and look at the number of people thatarelivingherenow,:you,haven:t,.got that many more than was living here then.

However, during that time there was obviously a lot of families that had a lot of children ... so the normal population increasing process was taking place, but the people didn't stay here. Why didn't they stay here? And this is where .the impact comes in. This is where the things like social impact, economic, cultural, religious - haahi, those sort of effects took place.

Which meant firstly, did the people have enough land to stay? From that period on? Probably not. Secondly, were social conditions such that they felt comfortable [enough so that] they were able to stay and have a reasonable standard of living, to be able to [have] a reasonably normal life? Probably not.

82 O'Malley, 1995, pp 152-173 83 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape B2 84 Discussion group ofNgai Tukairangi conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997

108 Education. You have to look at the history of my own whanau. I only have to go back three generations to my grandfathers time. Out of a family of nine, there was probably one or two educated uncles. Out oftupunas family? (Not very many. Well there was no schools here anyway.) School was limited. The schools that were here were probably more interested in educating European than Maori .... So therefore those opportunities weren't available.

Then you look at the economical effects and impacts. They didn't have the land base. I hear stories from my father and from my grandfather and from those generations of people, about how certain things were grown down here and sent up to Auckland. Kumaras, potatoes those sort of things. But [following confiscation] all they were able to do was to grow enough to sustain the whanau who weren't living here. There . was no way that they ·could produce anything· on any type of economic potential. There was just no way. Why? They didn't have enough land. They didn't have . enough resources in terms of technology, know-how, education etc and they didn't have enough capital, money, so their economic development was very limited.

Culture just went vvvunk! [In] 1864 NgatiTapu ;and:Materawaho'.had . about 78 population yeah that's what I thought 75 t078totahAnd:so the':effects spread·'over that period of time ... they must've known. at some stage ,they ,had:to, senrl.their children away or they had to go away to get work, to eke out a living, to get whatever education they could and to survive, to live. 8s

Ultimately. the consequence of raupatu was that many Ngaiterangi were forced to leave Tauranga. Ihaka has said:

So, consequently, the families went to the cities. They went to Auckland, they went to Hamilton, Rotorua ... history now tells us what happened in places like Auckland and the other bigger cities.86

Ihaka had returned to his people in Tauranga after living in Auckland most of his life . and stressed the strong ancestral links he felt for Tauranga:

I have for 45 years [lived] in a house in Auckland. AndlthoughUo.:myself, there's something wrong - is there something wrong with me?iAndthen:!:thoughtabout it 'afterwards you know, [it] took a while to:work all this out'andTthought hah that's [what's] wrong. I was in the wrong [place, Auckland] in the first place. The only reason· why you ended up there is because we were suppressed by tauiwi and we weren't given our land back at that time.87

Unfortunately returning to Tauranga and their people has been difficult for many Ngaiterangi who have lost contact with their culture. A kuia from Ngai Tamawhariua hapu said:

8S Oral interview with Puhirake Ihaka of Ngati Tapu conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 86 ibid

109 1 wish 1 had learnt a lot of things in that time, taha Maori. It took me all that time until 1 come back here and got married then 1 tried to korero Maori, start to korero Maori and boy it was hard. And [I] learn[t] about all their tikanga and what they do

\ f because you learn nothing up in Auckland. So 1 had a hard time really and then when 1 was made a kuia down here and didn't even know what the heck 1 was doing. That made it worse. From out of the frying pan straight into the flre. 1 used to stand on the marae and shake.88

5.8 Summary

Ngaiterangi leaders made numerous appeals to the Crown to address the tribe's increasing marginalisation. The ability of Ngaiterangi to sustain.itself.asan; iwi was ,dramatically effected . following the Crown's confiscation of their land. The social and economic base of Ngaiterangi was severely damaged resulting in immense pressure to adapt and change. Pakeha settlers wanted their own land to farm so there was further pressure on Ngaiterangi to sell more land. / .. "\, In the 1860s Ngaiterangi cultivated what remained of their land. These - J cultivations were insufficient for their needs and many worked as labourers. Growing crops throughout the 1870s and 1880s had mixed success, for Maori farmers who received no farm subsidy if crops failed. Ngaiterangi were becoming labourers to supplement their income. Selling land was seen by bothMaoriandtheCrown,as.anothermeans·for Maori to supplement their income. The attitude of the Crown towards Maori health problems was that they were self imposed by Ngaiterangi and not the result of land loss. The Crown and the local Maori community had very different ideas about education. Ngaiterangi land loss meant that many people were, and still are, forced to leave the area for work, which resulted in a loss of traditional education.

87 ibid 88 Oral interview with kuia from Ngai Tamawhariua conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997

110 Ngaiterangi leaders in 1885 stressed the idea of one people and partnership that the Treaty and Hobson promised. Hori Ngatai in 1885 stressed Ngaiterangi traditional fishing grounds gave the iwi a sense of mana and the Crown had failed to acknowledge Ngaiterangi customary rights. In 1885 Ngaiterangi requested more voice in the local district committee and the legislative council. The 1927 Sim Commission found that the Crown's confiscation of Tauranga land was neither unjustified or excessive. The 1930s development schemes resulted in Maori owners' having limited control over their land. The 1940s saw a wave of petitions to the Crown. In 1981 the Tauranga Moana Trust Board Act was an attempt to address the grievances of the Tauranga iwi who took up arms against the Crown. The executive of· the trust found themselves forced to accept a monetary settlement that was considerably less than they had negotiated. The consequences of confiscation are still strongly felt and articulated by Ngaiterangi today.

111 6. Ngaiterangi Land Used for Public Works

Individual claims about the compulsory acquisition of land for public works have been lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal by separate Ngaiterangi hapu. Often these relate to relatively small areas of land. The result may be that a false impression is given of the overall impact of Crown public works policy on the land holdings that were left to. Ngaiterangi. after confiscation and the initial. Crown purchasing spree . . This chapter is an attempt to collate figures for the total amount of Ngaiterangi land that has been used for public works.

Some of the individual public works claimshavealready.been;researched for the Waitangi Tribunal. Where this is the case, these reports are referred to in the text, and this chapter does not go into detail on these claims. Instead, an attempt has been made to identify the main gaps in research and draw out common issues. This is particularly the case in regard to the East Coast Main Trunk Railway. Most of the reports already compiled date from the period when the Maori Trustee negotiated compensation on behalf of the owners. This report, instead focuses on the compensation awards that were made in the Native Land Court. The method has been to locate references from .. block title memorial schedules. Court minutes and New Zealand Gazette notices have then been compiled in order to get an accurate picture of the whole story.

After· discussing some general themes.this-report.examines jndetaiL~themajor large scale public works undertakings that impacted on Ngaiterangi.

6.1 The Public Works Act and Crown Policy on the Acquisition of Maori Land

Research into public works takings of Maori land in Tauranga shows that Crown agencies, in particular the Public Works Department, showed no regard for N gaiterangi interests, and no regard for ensuring that sufficient land remained for Ngaiterangi support and maintenance. The Waitangi Tribunal has found that 'the

112 compulsory acquisition of Maori land by the Crown cuts right across the guarantee of

tino rangatiratanga in article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi' .1

Most of the land discussed below was taken under either the Public Works Act 1908 or 1928. As will be explained, these Acts created different procedures for the taking of general (European) and Maori land. The result was that Maori were given less protection than other land owners.

A large factor in the way the Public Works Act affected Ngaiterangi was not the Act itself, but the way it was applied by Grown; agencies. The.policies, ;orunofficial practices, of government departments tended to . have, the"result of; discriminating against Maori interests. The attitude of Crown officials was to protect the position of the Crown, rather than·tocarry out the Crown's fiduciary duty to Maori as expressed in the Treaty ofWaitangi.

Briefly, from a Ngaiterangi perspective, the following points concerning public works ...... / \ should be stressed: the Public Works Act had the same result as confiscation; physical access to, and use of, the land stopped when Works entered the block; it could be years before compensation was paid; during this period there was little, if any, contact made by government departments to inform Ngaiterangi oftheprogress'ofcompensation.agreements; this meant that the former owners of theblock.could· easily;',assume;;that the land had been taken from them without payment; and when compensation was paid, it was not usually what the former owners considered the land to be worth.

Consultation with Owners

The Public Works Act contained requirements for consulting with the owners of land before it was taken. The Act was divided into 14 Parts, with Maori land to be dealt with

I Waitangi Tribunal, Te Maunga Railways Report, Wellington, Brooker's Ltd, 1994, P 4

113 under Part IV. However, this Part distinguished between Maori customary lands and land owned by Maori under a title derived from the Crown (Maori freehold land). While Part IV established a separate procedure for the taking of Maori customary land, section 103(b) said that where title was derived from the Crown the provisions of Part II would apply. As all the Ngaiterangi blocks derived their title from the Tauranga District Lands Acts,they were all Maori freehold land and, therefore, the taking procedure was' the same'as that for general land under Part II, with some important distinctions.

Section 22 laid out the procedure to be followed when lands were required for public works. A survey was to be made whichshowedthenames":of.theowners:ofsthe land, and .a notice of intention to take land was tobe:gazetted,statingtheplacewhere,:the plan was open for inspection. Forty days were to be given for the receipt of objections, and the notice was to be served upon the owners of the land. However, subsection (3) of this section stated,that the provisions requiring the names of owners to be shown on the plan and notices to be served to owners would not apply to any Maori. owner 'unless his title to the land is registered under the Land Transfer Act, 1915' with entry on the Provisional Register being insufficient. In the case of unregistered Maori interests, a copy of the notice of intention to take land should be published in the Kahiti. When, however, publication of the Kahiti stopped in 1931, it was provided that publication of the notice in the New Zealand Gazette was sufficient. 2 At this time it was common for title orders made by the Native Land Court to not be recorded on the Land and Deeds

Register, either because the registrationfees:.had not'been paidor~ecause:the land had not been surveyed.3 After the notification process, if there were no objections and other .conditions were met, section 23 provided that the land could be taken by proclamation of the Governor-General.

When implementing the consultation provisions of the Act the result was often that the Public Works Department made little effort to consult with owners. The general assumption seems to have been that the nature of Maori land ownership made it too

2 Finance (No 2) Act 1931, No 5 s 47 3 'The Maori Land Courts: Report of the Royal Commission ofInquiry', AJHR, 1980, H-3, pp 38-47

114 difficult for the owners to be consulted. Multiple ownership, unregistered successions, and unreliable address lists meant that public works officials considered it more expedient to notify the Maori Affairs Department and let them notify owners. However, Maori land ownership had only been complicated by those factors as a result of the land court system imposed on Maori by New Zealand law.

Most of the Ngaiterangi cases which have already been researched reveal that very little, if any, consultation took place with Maori owners. Any consultation that did occur was usually only with 'leading owners', as identified by Maori Affairs, and took the form of notification rather than consuitation;:Whenmeetings'-were: held between Public Works officials and owners, these:were usually the'result'ofNgaiterangi requesting information from officials rather than the departments trying to keep Ngaiterangi informed.

One Ngaiterangi representative had the following to say about the way that government departments could get away without following consultation requirements:

How Pakeha, or how the electricity department or department of electricity at the time, used to. build their power pylons, and they built them and they deliberately avoided Pakeha land and built them over Maori land, because when a Maori saw a truck on his land, with all this working, they assumed that they have all the authorities to do it, and yet it was all bluff, and they just went ahead and did it. 4

Compensation

Under the Public Works Act both Maori customary land arid Maori freehold land were excluded from the Part III provisions for compensation that applied to general land. Under section 104 all land owned by Maori, regardless of title, was to have compensation assessed by the Native Land Court, which was given the powers of the Compensation Court established under Part III, as well as being able to exercise its normal powers. The procedure was that the taking authority (ie. the Public Works Department), not the dispossessed owners, had to apply, within six months of the publication of the taking proclamation, to the Native Land Court for compensation to be

115 assessed. Subsection (d) of section 104 provided that, once compensation had been awarded, it should be paid as soon as possible, with five percent interest payable from one month after the date of the award.

Despite the legislative requirement that an application for the assessment of compensation should be made within six months, the reality was that it was often years after the proclamation before compensation was awarded. This was because, although the Public Works Department might first apply to the court within the specified time, that did not necessarily mean that the application was prosecuted straight away. This is illustrated below in the. case ·of land. taken from Te N gaio and other blocks. There are also other examples.in other.reportsofitbeingup,to 20 years before compensation was paid.5 It should also be noted that compensation proceedings could not even start until after the proclamation taking the land had been issued. In the case of both railways and motorways there was no legal requirement for the taking to be gazetted before the Public Works Department actually started working on the land. In most cases the proclamation was made some years after work had started, usually ~ \., .- ~/ because the exact areas of land needed were not known until construction was complete.

The Public Works Act 1962 changed the procedure for assessmg compensation. Under section 6 the Maori Trustee was appointed statutory negotiator for Maori land

with multiple owners, and the practice of having ;compensationas~essed'iby the Maori Land Court was discontinued. The 1962 amendment allowed for' compensation for Maori land taken for public works to be sought in the same manner as for general land. This included using the procedure under section 46 of the Public Works Act 1928, which allowed the Minister to offer a sum of compensation, and if that offer was not accepted then the Compensation Court (later the Land Valuation Court) would ascertain the amount to be paid. The effect of the 1962 amendment on Ngaiterangi was that, in most cases negotiations for compensation were taken out of

4 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape Bl 5 See Heather Bassett 'Otawa Scenic Reserve', Waitangi Tribunal, August 1996, Wai 215 A2

116 their hands, and conducted by the Hamilton staff of the Maori Trustee and the staff of the Hamilton Ministry of Works.

This change in procedure did nothing to speed up the process. In fact, it became easier for the Ministry to stretch out negotiations and delay payments. This was clearly illustrated during compensation negotiations for Maungatapu land taken for the Tauranga-Te Maunga motorway. In these cases Maori Trustee staff frequently expressed their frustration at the seeming unwillingness of Works staff to reach a settlement. Comments such as 'I feel that for the past 12 months or so, we have been

6 given the run around by the Ministry ofWorks':arecommon incthecorrespondence.

In regard to land taken from Maungatapu B in 1968, the district officer of the Maori Trustee commented in 1973:

These negotiations for these two blocks, and others, have been going on for far too long. We seem to have an almost endless exchange of correspondence and there seems to be a great reluctance on the part of the taking department to reach a compromise figure. The taking laws are difficult enough and obnoxious to the owners i~ "\ without having a prolonged argument over compensation . . . . We have to resist - pressure from owners and they simply will not accept the fact that we cannot reach agreement with the Ministry of Works. I think it is high time that these matters were settled.7 [Emphasis added.] . This quote illustrates two important aspects of the compensation negotiations: the Public Works Department was reluctant to make a settlement; and the interests ofthe owners of the land were.not being protected.

Throughout the official records of Taurangacompensationnegotiations 4he voice of Ngaiterangi is missing. The 1962 amendment took away all input Ngaiterangi could have into the compensation process. Instead compensation was decided by two government departments, often resulting in lengthy delays before compensation was paid. This was detrimental to Ngaiterangi and contributed to a perception that the acquisition of land for public works was little different from confiscation.

6 Cited Heather Bassett, 'Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini, Tauranga', Waitangi Tribunal, July 1996, Wai 215 A26, P 18 7 Maori Trustee to Ministry of Works, 31 May 1973, cited ibid, p 33

117 This perception was enhanced by the amount of compensation Ngaiterangi were paid for their land. Evidence is presented below which shows that it was generally expected that the valuations prepared by the Valuation and Works Departments were lower than the actual price the land could have sold for on the open market. This was not just a Ngaiterangi perception, but was a view shared by judges, lawyers and valuers.

The legal interpretations of the way land should be valued were inflexible and did not take into account the value of the land in Maori terms. Crown valuations were usually based on the value of the block as farmland. This,was,detrimental.to

Another .aspect of. compensation payments which meant that Ngaiterangi were not fairly compensated was the Crown's inflexibility. For example, it was a fixed policy that interest was paid at a rate of five percent. However, inflation and the increase in land values in Tauranga meant that five percent did'llotadequatelycoverthe owners' loss in terms of market value:

The land was entered six years before the taking as in the case of Hairini 2A2 but the owners have been deprived of their land ever since the take and are now offered compensation on 1966 values notwithstanding or recognising the rampant inflation which has since taken place. This is something which should be faced and a proper allowance made on the value of the dollar from the date of entry until the date of payment. In stable times interest may be adequate but this is not the case today and I think the Maori Trustee has an absolute responsibility to ensure that the owners are properly compensated. This is not an isolated case and approaches to the Ministry of Works on the subject are simply brushed aside.8

8 Maori Trustee District Officer to head office, 20 October 1972, cited ibid, p 29

118 All of these factors combined to give Ngaiterangi the valid impression that the Public Works Act had the same effect as confiscation. Physical access to and use of the land stopped when Works entered the block, but it could be years before compensation was paid. During this period there was little, if any, contact made by government departments to inform Ngaiterangi of the progress of compensation agreements. This means that the former owners of the block could easily assume that it had been taken from them without payment. Often compensation was paid to the District Maori Land Board or to the Maori Trustee to be distributed. However, the distribution process was dependant on having up to date information on the owners, which could mean that compensation moneywas.held by the trustee'as}unc1aimed'.When'compensation was paid, it was not usually whatthe former owners 'considered the land tobtnlVorth.

Land No Longer Required for Public Purposes

Under the Public Works Act 1928 there was no legal requirement for the Crown to offer land back to the original owners if it was no longer needed for a public purpose. This was changed in the Public Works Act 1981, whereby the land must first be offered to those from whom it was taken. However, because compensation was paid at the time of taking, the original owners are usually required to pay current market value for the land. This often makes buying back the land out of reach for most Maori. The implications of the policy in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi were discussed in the Te Maunga Railways Land Report by(the:Waitangi Tribuna1.9 The Tribunal found that the Crown had failed in its duty to Maori hyrequiring :marketvalue:.to -be paid for the block.

The Te Maunga railway land is the one example of Ngaiterangi land taken for public works that has been considered by the Waitangi Tribunal to date. It was part of the East Coast Main Trunk Railway, which is examined below. There are also other examples of Ngaiterangi land which was taken for public purposes but is no longer used for those purposes today.

119 Rachael Willan has researched the Papamoa school site, in which case the block was transferred to the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic without being offered back to the descendants of the original owner. to In the case of 103 acres taken from Kaitimako B and Cblocks for the Hairini substation, only 58 acres were actually required for that purpose. 11 The remaining 46 acres were eventually offered back to the owners at a market cost of $436,000. The Waitangi Tribunal's finding in the Te Maunga case supports the Wai 465 claim to have the Kaitimako land returned without payment.

Willan's report on the Katikati railway station land shows the inadequacy of the offer back provisions of the Public Works ActP Whenthe,Whakatuwhera.Trust attempted to purchase the disused Katikati railway station land Landcorp· was ,unwilling to recognise Maori claims to the land based on the confiscation. The land had been in European ownership at time of taking. The trust argued that the way the Crown had originally acquired title to the land, through the Katikati - Te Puna purchase, meant that· Maori had valid claim for it to be returned to them. Landcorp did not accept this argument.

6.2 East Coast Main Trunk Line and Associated Takings

Mount Maunganui to Papamoa

Work on constructing a railway line from MountMaunganuito Te-Puke,as part of the East Coast Main Trunk line, was begun in 1910. The line was operational in 1913. The first proclamations officially taking the land under the Public Works Act were not gazetted until 1913, and compensation was awarded in the Native Land Court in 1915. The railway line, and roads constructed to provide access to it, cut through those blocks on the peninsula that remained in Ngaiterangi ownership after the Crown's nineteenth century land purchases.

9 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Maunga Railways Land Report, Wellington, 1994 10 Rachael Willan, 'Papamoa School Site', Waitangi Tribunal, June 1997, Wai 215 A52 II Roimata Minhinnick, 'Report: Kaitimako Band C Wai 465', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215 AI2 12 Rachael Willan, 'Katikati Railway Station Report', Waitangi Tribunal, September 1996, Wai 215 A30

120 As well as acquiring land over which the railway track was laid, the Public Works Department used Ngaiterangi land to provide construction material. At the end of 1911 Moturiki 2, being an area of 1 rood 12 perches was taken for a ballast pit for the East Coast Main Trunk Railway.J3 Compensation was awarded by the Maori Land Court in February 1912.14 The compensation was £20. It should be noted that at this time Moturiki 2 represented the remaining Maori interests on the island, after the Crown had been awarded Moturiki 1 in 1888. Although rock from Moturiki was definitely used in construction of the railway, the compulsory acquisition of Moturiki 2 allowed the Crown to complete its title to the whole island. It may. well have been possible for rock to be extracted from Moturiki J, without the Public Works Department needing to acquire Moturiki 2.

Land for the Maunganui Bluff [Mount Maunganui]- Te Puke section of the East Coast Main Trunk Railway was proclaimed as taken on 8 May 1913.15 The Gazette notice listed the following land taken under section 188 of the Public Works Act 1908. As / ---'" p the table shows some land was taken for the railway track and other land for a road --'" / running alongside the track:

Land Taken 1913 Block Area Taken Purpose Whareroa lOa lr08:0p Railway Whareroa Oa lr33.6p Road diversions Omanu Sa lr 26.0p Railway Omanu 3a lr 3S.2p Road diversions Papamoa 2 Sec 11 21a lr 21.0p Railway Papamoa 2 Sec 11 3a 3r 27.3p Road diversions Papamoa 2 Sec 10 6a Or 10Ap Railway Papamoa 2 Sec 10 3a2r 23.9p Road diversions Papamoa 2 Sec 9 2a2r 34.6p Railway Papamoa 2 Sec 9 3a Or 01.4p Road diversions Papamoa 2 Sec 8 Oa 3r 38.8p Railway

13 New Zealand Gazette, 1911, p 3691 14 The hearing is described in Roimata Minhinnick, 'The Alienation of Moturiki, Motuotau, and Karewa Islands: Wai 540', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215 A48, pp 25-29. 15 New Zealand Gazette, 1913, fols 1594-1595

121 Block Area Taken Purpose Papamoa 2 Sec 8 Oa 3r 38.8p Road diversions Papamoa 2 Sec 7 Sa 2r 19.9p Railway Papamoa 2 Sec 7 7a lr 21.0p Road diversions Papamoa 2 Sec 6 Sa lr 13.4p Railway Papamoa 2 Sec 6 la 3r 10.9p Road diversions Papamoa 2 Sec S lla 2r 32.8p Railway Papamoa 2 Sec S 3a Or 02.0p Road diversions Papamoa3A 2a 3r 08.8p Railway Papamoa3B 12a2r 09.0p Railway Mangatawa 1 Sa2r 26.0p Railway Mangatawa 1 Oa Or 06.0p Road diversions Mangatawa2 la Or 19.3p .Railway Mangatawa3 la 3r21.9p Railway Mangatawa3 OaOr28.Sp Road diversions Mangatawa4 2a Or 29.7p Railway Mangatawa4 Oa lr 13.3p Road diversions Mangatawa8 2a Or 17.3p Railway Mangatawa8 Oa lr 29.9p Road diversions Mangatawa9 3a2r 29.9p Railway Mangatawa9 la Or 34.4p Road diversions Mangatawa 10 4a Or 32.1p Railway , Mangatawa 10 la2r20.6p Road diversions I - Mangatawa 11 7a2r 03.8p Railway Mangatawa 11 Oa lr 08.6p Road diversions Total Area Taken 145a Or 18.1p

In order to provide a site for a station near Mangatawa, and road access to the station more land was taken from the Mangatawablock in June 1915: 16 Block Area Taken Mangatawa 11 Oa 3r 38.3p Mangatawa 9 lOa 3r 27.6p Mangatawa8 4a 3r 36.4p Mangatawa 7B Oa lr 04.0p Mangatawa 7C Oa 3r 12.1p Papamoa 2 Sec 2B 3a 2r 21.1p Total Area Taken 21a 2r 19.5p

The Native Land Court hearings to award compensation for all the above blocks were held in October 1915.

122 The Mangatawa blocks were the first to be considered. I7 One owner for each partition of the block appeared in the court as a representative. The Crown was represented by Mr Bold from the Public Works Department. Bold told the court that the title to the Mangatawa block was a Crown grant under the Tauranga District Lands Act, and that the grant reserved to the Crown the right to make roads through the area granted. Bold pointed out that under section 35 of the Public Works Act 1908, any right to layout roads also included the right to lay railways. He explained that while the grant contained no limitation on the amount of land that could be used for roads or railways, the general principle had been up to five percent. The total area of the Mangatawa block was 1295 acres. Bold argued that the terms of the Crown grant meant that the Crown should not have to pay compensation for any of the land taken for the railway and roads. In regard to the extra land taken in 1915, Bold explained that it had not been intended to put a station there, but as a result of a petition from locals a station had been established. In reply to this, one of the Maori owners said that when he signed the petition requesting a station he did not intend that the land would be taken without payment. The judge reserved his decision until a copy of the Crown grant was produced.

The case of the 8 acres 3 roods 21.2 perches taken from the Omanu block was heard

next. 18 Bold called three witnesses to support his case that the land had been worth 15 shillings an acre in 1910. John Hannah, an engineer with the Public Works Department, explained that before work commenced the block had been swampy, and that drainage work carried out for the railway had greatly improved the .block since then. J.H. Perston, a local valuer and farmer, and Robert Dowell, a local farmer, both testified that in 1910 the block was poor sandy soil and it was their opinion that the railway had improved the value of the block. The owners were represented by Rewiti Ngatai who said he was claiming £20 per acre. Again the judge reserved his decision

16 New Zealand Gazette, 1915, p 2007 17 Tauranga Minute Book 8, f01s 355-358, 4 October 1915 18 ibid, 367-362,4-5 October 1915

123 Proceedings were largely the same for the Whareroa block. 19 Dowell described it in similar terms to Omanu and said it would only have been worth 10 shillings an acre in 1910. However, Ngatai said that the land taken for the railway was part of a pasture which had not been used for a number of years. Again, Ngatai claimed £20 per acre for the land.

Lastly the Papamoa blocks were assessed. 20 A representative of the owners of each Papamoa block appeared in court and submitted their claim for the per acre value for each block, which can be found in the table below. Bold, appearing for the Public Works Department explained that before the;construction ofthe railway the Papamoa block's only access was an unformed road along the beach. Sections 7 and 11 would have stations built alongside, and he argued that this would increase their value substantially.

Valuation evidence was presented by Dowell. His valuations were as at 1910 and are listed in the table below. According to Dowell most of the blocks were sandy, though sections 5 and 6 were swampy. He argued that the railway and drains which had been laid had greatly increased the value of the blocks. In reply to a question about flax growing on the block, Dowell admitted he did not know if there was any there in 1910, but if there was it would have been oflittle value. Both parties agreed to leave the matter in the hands of the court for decision.

As regards Papamoa3B Bold told the court that the lesseeand'sublessee had agreed to give the land in return for construction of railway crossing. 21 No mention was made of the owners being involved in this agreement, but the court accepted it and ordered that no compensation would be paid. The court may have assumed that the railway crossing was fair compensation in terms of improving the value of the land.

19 ibid, 363-364, 5 October 1915 20 ibid, 365-370, 5 October 1915 21 ibid, 370, 5 October 1915

124 The judge issued his compensation awards a week later, and the awards were mostly in line with the values submitted by the Crown. The difference between the amount claimed by the owners and the amount awarded is so large that it is hard to understand today. The court must have been of the opinion that the owners had a totally inflated view of the value of the land in terms of its soil and farming potential. However, the fact that the owners made such high claims indicates that the land had an intrinsic value to them regardless of assessments made as farm land.

Compensation for Land taken 1913 and 1915: Block Claimed by Assessed by . Awarded by Owners Valuer Courf2 Omanu £20 per acre 15s per acre 15s per acre Whareroa £20 per acre lOs per acre lOs per acre Papamoa 2 Sec 11 £20 per acre 15s per acre 15s per acre Papamoa 2 Sec 10 £20 per acre 15sper acre 15s per acre Papamoa 2 Sec 9 £20 per acre 15s per acre 15s per acre Papamoa 2 Sec 8 £20 per acre 15s per acre 15s per acre Papamoa 2 Sec 7 £25 per acre £1 per acre £1 per acre

\ Papamoa 2 Sec 6 £25 per acre £1/10 per acre £1/10 per acre - Papamoa 2 Sec 5 £20 per acre 17s 6d per acre 17s 6d per acre Papamoa 2 Sec 2B nil £1/10 per acre nil Papamoa3B nil not valued nil Mangatawa £20 per acre no payment nil

Oral evidence from a Nga Potiki kaumatua describes the impact the railway lines had on his people:

The Public Works was another one that actually killed our people. That's the railway lines and the amount of land they needed at every station. They had about six to eight acres for the railway station and they had another 20 acres for holding paddocks for cows and things like that. They used to drove a lot and then they used to park them at the different railway stations overnight and the. next day they carry on. But they owned all that land, so we did lose a hell of a lot with that?3

Te Maunga Section

22 Tauranga Minute Book 9, fo153, 13 October 1915 23 Oral interview with Nga Potiki conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997

125 The Te Maunga section of the East Coast Main Trunk Railway linked the Matapihi rail-bridge with the Mount Maunganui - Te Puke line. This meant going through the largely Maori-owned Matapihi peninsula. Construction on this section started in 1914, the land was proclaimed as taken in 1918, and compensation was awarded in 1922.

Land was proclaimed as taken under section 188 of the Public Works Act 1908 on 25 February 1918 for the Te Maunga section of the East Coast Main Trunk Railway?4 This case for compensation was heard in the Native Land Court on 19 September 1922. At the hearing the evidence of Perston, a local valuer for the Valuation Department, regarding the land taken for the railway was heard:

I know the Matapihiblock & have made several valuations of subdivisions' of it. Have a good idea as to its value in 1914. Some portions taken for the railway would be better than others. The la Ir 33.9p taken from Matapihi 1B No I is low lying and wet. My valuation of this land in 1914, without the prospect of a railway is £8 per acre. I value the other portions taken in Matapihi also at £8 per acre. IBI would now be worth £50 per acre & the higher sections would now be worth [?]. 2r 07p taken from Hungahungatoroa is about half gully and half flat. Value 1914 would be about £6 per acre. I admit a portion of this block was sold about a year ago for £60 an acre, but values have greatly increased since 1914. The road and the bridge are greatly responsible for the inflation of values. This is good land.

3a 3r 33p taken from Hungahungatoroa No I is a long strip of high land on the edge of a gully. Value in 1914 £6 per acre. A concrete overbridge to provide access from the road has been erected. I would value this block now at £18 or £20 per acre. (To Court) - In every case I consider that the construction of the railway has atleast doubled values. 1 a 2r 27p taken from Hungatoroa [sic] no 3 is valued at £6 per acre in 1914. This block has been improved, but has gone back into gorse a good deal. Present value under £20 per acre. (To Court) I consider that the block has suffered by reason of the fact that the railway has deprived it of access. ' Re Otuawahia ... [list takings from various parts] I admit that the railway has entirely deprived No 4 of road access, but cannot say what amount of damage has been done to it in consequence. My valuation of each of these blocks is £6 per acre (1914). Re Ohuki No 3 - 2 portions - 2r 15.4p & O1.5p. Land practically all flat and dry. My valuation £6 per acre. Re Ohuki No 2A (la 2r 14.5p taken) similar land. Same value.

24 New Zealand Gazette, 1918, pp 598-599

126 (Re Ohuki No 2D - portion taken lr 24.1p Mr Bold offered in exchange lr 27.9p being portion of No 2A lying to south of railway line) This area has been acquired by P WDept. Re Ohuki No 2C (portion taken 2a 3r 23.2p). My valuation of £5 per acre. If the railway has cut the greater portion of the land off from access to water it would certainly be to the detriment of the block. Re Ohuki No 2B (portion taken 3a 2r ISp). Land similar in value. My valuation £5 per acre. Re Wharawhara No 3. Area taken.3 ofa perch. Of no value. ReWharawhara No 2 - Area taken 4a Or 20p (Land purchase by C McNoughton. Price £6 per acre.) (Mr Tudhope appears for McNaughton) My valuation £6 per acre in 1914. To Tudhope - There is a good spring of water on the land taken for the railway.

Re Wharawhara No 1B - area taken la lr 06.3p: Mr Bold offers in exchange Oa 3r 23p being part of No [?] under the P W act lying to the S of railway. Case adjourned in order to enable the Court to inspect the land taken.25

Points to note from this evidence are: While the blocks were proclaimed as taken in 1918, the valuations are as at 1914. This indicates that the Public Works Department actually started working four years before legally acquiring the land. Virtually all the blocks were described as good land. The value of the land in 1922 when compensation was finally being paid was considerably greater than in 1914, the date being used to assess the value. Although some of the increase in value resulted from the improved access provided by the railway, Perston also said that road access to the peninsula had been a factor. Perston stated that the construction of the railway had doubled values, but the examples in his evidence show a much greater increase. Although land values as a whole had risen, some blocks had actually been detrimentally affected by the railway hampering access to all or part of the block. It does not appear that evidence on behalf of the owners was presented or that the owners were represented at the hearing. However, the final compensation awards do suggest that at least some owners were present and agreed with the proceedings.

127 A separate application for 5 acres 3 roods 0004 perches taken from Papamoa 2 Sec 10 for a post and telegraph storage shed was heard in the court at the same time?6 Bold told the court that the block had been leased from 1920 at 10 shillings an acre. 27 He described the portion taken as a 'flat sandy ridge of very poor quality'. The Valuation Department had assessed the value at £30.

After inspecting the land taken the court made its compensation awards. 28 In most cases the judge awarded a per acre value of one or two pounds higher than the price recommended by.Perston. The judge made no comment on this when making his award. The judge stated that the court had been asked '(presumably by the representative of the Public Works Department) to make its award as at 1914, when the Crown entered the properties. As noted above the land value at 1914 was significantly lower than in 1922, and perhaps even 1918 when the takings were officially proclaimed. The judge said that he accepted the principle of using the earlier date, provided five percent interest was paid from that time. The compensation monies were directed to be paid to the Waiariki Maori Land Board for distribution to the owners.

Compensation for Land Taken in 1918 Unless otherwise stated all compensation would be plus eight years interest at five .percent.

Block Area Taken Purpose Compensation Matapihi 1B 1(?) 1a 1r 33.9p Railway purposes £8 per acre Matapihi (?) 2a 2r 24.6p Railway purposes £10 per acre Matapihi 1A(?) Oa 2r 04Ap Railway purposes £10 per acre Matapihi 1Al B Oa 3r 13.5p Railway purposes £10 per acre Matapihi 1A2 Oa Or 30.0p Railway purposes £10 per acre Matapihi 1A3D2 2a 3r 08.0p Railway purposes £10 per acre Hungahungatoroa 2 Oa2r 07.0p Railway purposes £8 per acre Hungahungatoroa 1 3a 3r 33.0p Railway purposes £8 per acre Hungahungatoroa 3 1a2r 27.0p Railway purposes £8 per acre

25 Tauranga Minute Book 11, fols 91-93, 19 September 1922 26 New Zealand Gazette, 1921, pp 2553-2554 27 Tauranga Minute Book 11, fol 91, 19 September 1922 28 Tauranga Minute Book 11, fols 106-107, 23 September 1922

128 Block Area Taken Purpose. Compensation Otuawahia4 Oa Or 29.6p Railway purposes £8 per acre (plus £S for loss of access) Otuawahia3 Oa Or 07.0p Railway purposes £8 per acre (plus £S for loss of access) Otuawahia2 Oa Or IO.3p Railway purposes £8 per acre Ohuki (?) Oa 3r IS.4p Railway purposes £6 per acre Ohuki (?) Oa Or Ol.Sp Railway purposes £6 per acre Ohuki2A Ia 2r I4.5p Railway purposes £6 per acre Ohuki 2D Oa Ir 24:Ip Railway purposes to be adjusted by exchange Ohuki2C 2a 3r 23.2p Railway purposes £S per acre Ohuki2B . 3a 2r I8.0p Railway purposes £S per acre Wharawhara 3 Oa Or OO.3p Railway purposes nil Wharawhara 2 4a Or 20.4p Railway purposes £6 per acre Wharawhara IB Ia Ir 06.3p Railway purposes to be adjusted by exchange Ohuki 3 Oa Ir OS.Ip Road diversion £6 per acre Otuawahia2 OaOr 36.7p Road diversion £6 per acre Papamoa 2 sec 10 Sa 2r OO.4p Post/Telegraph £30 (plus 2 years interest Storage shed atS%) Matapihi (?) Ia Or I9.2p Road nil (with the acquiesence of native owners present) Matapihi (?) Oa Or 27.0p Road diversions nil (with the acquiesence of native owners present) Matapihi (?) Oa Or 33.Sp Road diversions nil (with the acquiesence of native owners present) Matapihi (?) Oa 2r 08.0p Road diversions nil (with the acquiesence of native owners present) Matapihi (?) Oa 3r IO.Op Road diversions nil (with the acquiesence of native owners present) Matapihi (?) Oa Or 27.6p Road diversions nil (with the acquiesence of native owners present) Matapihi (?) 2a Ir 00.8p Road diversions nil (with the acquiesence of native owners present) Tumatanui Oa Ir 04.0p Road diversions nil Oruamatua Oa Or 01.7p Road diversions nil Oruamatua Oa Or 29.1p Road diversions nil Total area taken 41a lr 04.8p

Although individually it looks like small amounts of land were taken, the total reveals a significant land loss. What should also be considered is that although each block may only have lost a small amount of land to the railway, the effect of the railway

129 traversing the block may have been considerable through hampering access to the land, or bisecting fields.

Later Acquisitions

Although most of Ngaiterangi land used for the East Coast Main Trunk Railway was . acquired in. the first quarter of this century, two small portions were later acquired for works associated with the railway.

In 1929 yet more land was taken to construct aroad approach to theline:29

Block Area Taken Papamoa 2 Sec 10 2a lr 07.1p Papamoa 2 Sec 9 A la Or 19.2p Papamoa 2 Sec 9B Oa 3r 06.3p ~ \ ,/ Total Area Taken 4a Or 32.6p

In 19551 acre 2 roods 00.0 perches was taken from Papamoa 2 Sec lOB for railway purposes and used to provide housing for railway workers.30 A full history of this block can be found in Te Maunga Railways Land Report by theWaitangi Tribuna1. 31

6.3 Tauranga - Te Maunga Motorway

The construction of the Tauranga-Te Maunga motorway was part of large scale public works in the 1960s to develop the infrastructure of Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty to serve an international cargo port being built at Mount Maunganui. Further background to the motorway and its particular effects on the Maungatapu block can be found in

29 New Zealand Gazette, 1929, P 823 30 New Zealand Gazette, 1955 p 1222 31 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Maunga Railways Land Report, Wellington, Brooker's Ltd, 1994

130 Heather Bassett's report, 'Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini,

Tauranga' .32

From the early 1950s Ngaiterangi were concerned about the possibility of a motorway being put through their land, and made those concerns known to Crown officials . . When the possibility became a reality, some Maori owners did manage to negotiate the exact route of the motorway, but these negotiations were controlled by the Ministry of Works, which had already decided the rough locations needed. The provision of a modem transport system was seen, at that time, as a matter of national importance, and the Public Works Amendment Act 1947 gave special priority and exemptions to the construction of motorways. This meant that there was very little possibility of Maori successfully objecting to the motorway proposals.

Te Ngaio, Tumatanui and Oruamatua

The construction of the motorway through the Matapihi peninsula was one of the first - j stages. The necessary land was proclaimed as taken in March 1962, however it was determined in the Maori Land Court that the blocks had actually been used by the Ministry 'of Works since July 1958. Compensation was not awarded until March 1966, at which time Judge Brook strongly criticised the Ministry of Works for being solely to blame for the eight year delay between the time the land was entered and the date of the award: This application was filed in the Waiariki.District Registryon,18 April 1962 and it is proper that those reading this decision should be made aware of the reasons for the inordinate delays - mainly the inaction of the Ministry of Works - between that date and the date of this decision for which delays the Court accepts no responsibility whatever. The history of this application is briefly as follows:- 18.4.62 filed, advertised at each sitting hereunder. Sittings 21.8.62 } 30.1.63 } not prosecuted. And 30.4.63 } Sittings 23.7.63 Not prosecuted, Court adjourned and urged prosecution. " 22.10.63 Not prosecuted despite above request. " 4.2.64 Not prosecuted despite two requests above. " 28.4.64 Adjournment requested and granted. " 28.7.64 Not prosecuted, despite reminders.

32 Heather Bassett, 'Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini, Tauranga', Waitangi Tribunal, July 1996, Wai 215 A26

131 " l3.10.64 Mentioned by Counsel for owners, not prosecuted; Court minuted urgent and definite requirements. " 2.2.65 Prosecuted as to definition of "specified date" and as to zoning only. " 18.5.65 Not prosecuted, adjourned because of delay in furnishing of valuations. " 10.8.65 Prosecuted on 12.8.65 and 25.8.65, submissions to be filed and decision then given. It will be seen from the foregoing that it was necessary for the Court on numerous occasions to require the Ministry of Works to move in the matter - but for the fact that the owners would have been thereby prejudiced, the application would have long since been struck out for non-prosecution. 33

This quote shows that the Ministry of Works was not concerned with following the instructions of the Native Land Court, or with ensuring that the owners received timely compensation.

There was a substantial difference between the valuations submitted by the Crown and those submitted by the owners. It would appear that the reason for the difference derived from a sharp increase in the value of land in proximity to urban Tauranga due to its residential potential. However, in 1958 (the date the land was entered, and therefore the date for compensation to be assessed from) the land was zoned as rural land. The owners submitted evidence of land sales in the area dating from 1961 to 1964 and the court refused to accept their valuation because it did not relate to the 1958 date. This may have been similar to the earlier Whareroa case (see below) whereby the owners received a compensation that did not match the potential value of the land. They were, in fact, not compensated for the lost oppoftunity,and the five percent interest that would have been paid for the eight years from 1958 to 1966 would not have been equivalent to the actual rate of increase in the value of the land during that time. This was also to be a factor in the Maungatapu block.

In general the compensation awards made by the court favoured the valuations submitted by the Crown, on the basis that the Crown's evidence of other land sales related more closely to the specified date. However, the judge did make the amounts slightly higher that the Crown valuations following the edict of Adams J:

33 Tauranga Minute Book 27, fols 69-76, 10 March 1966

132 In cases of expropriation, while it is always wrong to give excessive compensation, it is a greater wrong to award an inadequate sum. The primary duty is to ensure that the compensation is reasonably adequate to meet the 10ss.34 The fact that the judge thought it necessary to add more to the Crown's valuations indicated that he felt the Crown was not offering compensation 'adequate to meet the loss.'

The amount of land taken, and compensation (excluding interest) awarded is laid out in the following table: Block Area taken Compensation for Land Taken .... Injurious Affection Te Ngaio 1 Oa lr 24.0p £ 80 TeNgaio 2 28a2r 1O.Op £2865 £ 380 Tumatanui IB2 Oa lr OO.Op £ 50 Tumatanui IBIB Oa lr 17.0p £ 75 Tumatanui lA2 Oa 3r 1O.7p £ 165 Oruamatua 2A2B 2a 3r 32.0p £ 300 Oruamatua 2B2 6a2r 16.0p £ 760 £ 400 Oruamatua 1B Oa Or 01.6p £ 5 £ 275 Oruamatua3 Oa Or 19.2p £ 20 £ 1230 - } Oruamatua lA £ 575 Total 40a Or 10.5p £8620 £2860

The delay between the Ministry of Works entering the land and compensation being settled, which was described as 'inordinate' in the Maori Land Court, was to become commonplace with later stages of the Tauranga - Te Maunga motorway through the Maungatapu block.

Maungatapu

Today, the motorway bisects the Maungatapu peninsula. In the 1950s this was still a rural Maori area that was isolated to some extent from Tauranga. As a result of the motorway link, and other pressures on the land owners, Maungatapu has been developed into a residential suburb where very few Ngaiterangi live. Construction of the motorway also desecrated Maungatapu pa.

34 ibid, fol 71. The quote is from Adams J in Randall v Licensing Control Commission, 1956, NZLR 37, P 42.

133 The motorway was not built until a number of years after work first started on clearing the site. Numerous proclamations taking the land were issued over a number of years. Any reader requiring more infonnation should consult Bassett's report. The table below shows the total amount of land taken from each Maungatapu subdivision, and was compiled from the gazette notices.

Land Taken from the Maungatapu Block: Block Area taken Maungatapu B 18a3r 10.3p Maungatapu lK Sa2rOS.7p Maungatapu IJB 1 OaOrlS.6p Maungatapu Z la Ir 34.6p Maungatapu ID 7a Or 3S.6p Maungatapu lK2A 3a 3r 23.0p Maungatapu 1C 1 Oa 2r 22.6p Maungatapu 1C2B Oa2r 28.5p Maungatapu 1C2C2 3a2r 38.8p Maungatapu lA I4a 2r 34.2p Total 56a 3r 08.9p

Other Blocks Taken for the Motorway

Although the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of land in the Maungatapu blocks have been fully researched, other blocks, particularly on the Matapihi peninsula, were also affected. As these blocks were taken in "1970 compensation would have been negotiated between the Maori Trustee and the Ministry of Works. Further research of departmental files would be required to find out the total compensation paid and other circumstances surrounding the acquisition.35 This report only records the amount taken as listed in Gazette notices, for the purpose of compiling a total figure.

35 The files from the Hamilton office of the Maori Trustee are now held at National Archives, Auckland, under the series reference BBHW.

134 In December 1969 a total of 3 acres 2 roods 32.3 perches was taken from the Waitaia 1C block for both motorway and road construction purposes.36

On 22 April 1970 the following areas were declared to be taken for the Tauranga-Te Maunga Motorway:37 Block Area Taken Ohuki2D 3a Or lOp Ohuki2C2B la lr OOp Ohuki2B 8a lr OOp Wharawhara 1B 7aOr 25p Total 19a 2r 35p

In early 1971 afurther4 acres 2 roods 06;6 perches was taken from Wharawhara IB.38 This final acquisition meant that the entire Wharawhara 1B block had been taken under the Public Works Act for either the railway or motorway. In 1918 1 acre 1 rood 06.3 perches had been taken for railway purposes, which left a block of 11 acres 2 roods 33.7 perches. The seven acres taken in 1970 combined with the four acres taken in 1971 meant that the land left after the railway went through was all taken for

\ ;; -- motorway purposes. The history of land acquisition in the Maungatapu block suggests that it was likely that the Ministry of Works took the remaining four acres from Wharawhara 1B precisely because it was all that remained and was perceived to be useless to its Ngaiterangi owners.39 It is likely that the line of the motorway had cut across the block and left it with no access to .the road. In this case it probably would have cost the Ministry of Works more .incompensation for injurious 'affection (to compensate for the loss of access) than it did in compensation for the value of the land itself.40

6.4 Other Public Works

36 New Zealand Gazette, 1969, pp 2537-2538 37 New Zealand Gazette, 1970, p 831 38 New Zealand Gazette, 1971, P 570 39 For example see the history of Maungatapu 1A5 where the severance was taken for 'better utilisation', in Richard Kay and Heather Bassett, 'Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A Report on the Papakanui Trust Claim', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215, pp 30-39. 40 For example see the case of Hairini 2B, Bassett, July 1996, p 31.

135 Papamoa 2 IAI and others - road construction

In general, land taken for roads, other than the Tauranga - Te Maunga motorway have not been included in this survey. This is largely because the Crown had the right, under the Tauranga District Lands Acts and various native land legislation, to layout roads on blocks, usually over up to five percent of the block, without paying compensation. The reason behind this was to ensure that individual blocks of land would have road access. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that most Ngaiterangi blocks were reduced in· size by a small proportion to provide roads. In fact, it was

usual for Native Land Court judges to layout road lines~whentheymade block orders, and the Tauranga District Lands Commissioner, Brabant, requested the same powers.

However, the case of the following Papamoa blocks was one where compensation was due, and has been included because it is a clear illustration of the attitude that local authorities and the· Public Works Department displayed towards Maori land. The compensation award was made in April 1961 for blocks which were taken on 29 September 1959, under the Public Works Act 1928, for road construction. However, the minutes of the compensation hearing record that the land had actually been formed . into a road for some time. The background was recorded by the judge when making his award:

The prior history is that many years ago the County physically performed some roading improvement works but the legal· work attendant thereon was left in abeyance. The owners were not represented although the Ministry, of Works representative stated that he had discussed the matter with the member of a fIrm well versed in these matters but the member did not believe that the costs of representation would be warranted.41

Points to note from this are: Exactly how many years previously the work had been done is not specified in the minutes, it is even possible that the date was not known for sure by the council.

41 Tauranga Minute Book 23, foll02, 17 April 1961

136 The county council acted illegally by carrying out road construction work without regard to meeting legal requirements. The question has to be asked whether the council would have acted this way if it had been general land? Interest was only to be paid from the date of the compensation order, the owners would not receive interest for the period since the road construction work was undertaken; The compensation was presumably calculated on the 1961 value of the land, but this is not specified by the court. The Ministry of Works did not allow the owners a chance of representation, this attitude also.makesit probable that the owners were not consulted before the road works either. The Ministry of Works claimed that legal costs meant:the owners would not want representation, however if the owners had engaged a lawyer costs could have been awarded to them. What the Ministry of Works really meant was it did not want to pay legal costs.

The amounts ofland involved and compensation awarded were as follows:

Compensation for land taken for road 1959: Block Area Taken Compensation Papamoa 2 Sec lAI Oa2r26.2p £25/--/- Papamoa 2 Sec ID Oa lr 04;Op £16110/- . Papamoa 2 Sec 2B 1 OaOr 29.2p £9/--/- Papamoa 2 Sec 2B3C la lr 08.2p £33/--/- Papamoa 2 Sec 2B3C Oa Or 14.5p £5110/- Total 2a 2r 04~lp £89/--/-

Rifle Range / Land Taken for Defence Purposes

In April 1941 139 acres 2 roods 18 perches was acquired by the Public Works Department for defence purposes.42 The land was Papamoa 2 Sec 7 A. Although the land was taken for a rifle range, for most of the years since then it was only used by

137 the Crown for grazing. In 1967 its status was changed by a proclamation which declared the land taken for 'general government buildings,.43 In 1980 Stokes wrote that while the portion between the road and the beach was designated as a reserve the block was still being used for grazing.44 Since that time the Mangatawa-Papamoa Incorporation have regained ownership of the block on the grounds that it was not being used for the purpose for which it had been taken.45

Although this block has since been returned to Maori ownership, it is still worthwhile examining the minutes of the Native Land Court compensation hearing because they reveal the way that the Ministry of Works tried to pay as little -as possible for land it acquired.

At the compensation hearing on 16 February 1944 the district valuer, Meredith, gave evidence for the Ministry ofWorks.46 Meredith had given a 1941 capital value for the block at £1,005, of which the owners' interest was calculated to be £743, and the lessee's at £262. Under cross-examination from Cooney, the lawyer representing the - l owners, Meredith admitted that he had assigned no value for the 14 acres of sandhills '. on the beach front, and had valued. the remainder of the block 'purely for farming purposes' .47

Cooney disputed the way that the Ministry of Works had valued the land purely on its worth as farming land. He also argued and that because the Ministry had excluded the beach front portion as being worthless from a.farmingpoint of view, it was actually .excluding the most valuable part of the land from its calculations. This was because of the value of coastal lands for residential purposes:

We start off with a clear understanding of Crowri case. That valuations of land were made on a purely farming basis. We have two disputes. (l)Even on that basis

42 New Zealand Gazette, 1941, pp 965-966 43 New Zealand Gazette, 1967, p 1738 44 Evelyn Stokes, 'Tauranga Moana: A Study of the Impact of Urban Growth on Rural Maori Communities', Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, Occasional Paper No 7, June 1980, p 33 45 For more infonnation see Waitangi Tribunal, Te Maunga Railways Land Report, pp 77-78. 46 Tauranga Minute Book 15, fols 15-25, 16 February 1944 47 ibid, fol 16

138 valuation too low. (2)That PWD has eliminated most important factor. Land on peninsula which terminates at Mount - occupation there has proceeded apace. Buying has been away from Mount and enquiries have moved along the beach. Whole beach in value has a seaside value out of all proportion to farming value of land and by eliminating all beach value Crown hopes to receive land from natives at a figure that in conscience is too low. 48 Cooney backed up his argument with extensive evidence from local real estate agents and solicitors about the value of recent residential subdivisions on the coast along from the Mount, as well as their evidence that they could sell the farmland portions of the block for a higher price per acre than submitted by the Crown.

When Judge Harvey gave his decision on the. case he agreed thatthe values submitted by the Crown were too low:

It appears to the Court from the evidence before it that this land could reasonably be expected to sell in 1941 on the open market for a much greater sum than the amount of the Government Valuation. The amount of Compensation payable to the owners of the land for present value of reversion plus present value of rents under lease and interest is assessed at an amount of £1,523.49

The rifle range case is an example ofNgaiterangi land being acquired for a public -. ) purpose, and then being used by the Crown in other ways. It, along with other research into the Tauranga-Te Maunga motorway, also clearly illustrate that it was common practise for the Valuation Department and, the Public Works Department to seek a low compensation award to Maori.

The solicitor, Cooney, was involved in many Ngaiterangi public works cases and negotiations. It was probably experiences such as the rifle range case which led the law firm of Cooney Lees and Morgan to later advise the Maori Trustee that:

When we have obtained our own valuations, these have always been higher than those of the Valuation Department and discussions have usually followed giving a figure between the two. For this reason, we feel that we should employ valuers right from the beginning and that unless we do this we are for all practical purposes committed to accept the Crown valuation which we do not believe will be as high as it might be.50 [Emphasis added.]

48 ibid, fol 17 49 Tauranga Minute Book 15, fo134, 28 February 1944 50 Cooney, Lees & Morgan to Maori Trustee, 27 October 1965, cited Bassett, July 1996, p 28

139 This advice was given 20 years after the rifle range case, which suggests that the Ministry of Works had consistently sought to pay as little as possible for Maori land for at least two decades. In another compensation case in 1961, Chief Judge Prichard commented that he was adding 20 percent to the land values supplied by the Valuation Department, because it was his experience that the Crown valuations were likely to be lower than the sale price could have been. 51 It was common practise for the Maori Land Court to award a compensation figure that was between the valuations supplied by the Crown and the owners. It therefore does not appear that the Court carried out its own assessment of the value of the land taken.

Throughout Tauranga, and indeed nationally ,there is plenty ·of .evidence to suggest that the Public Works Department and other Crown agencies sought to pay as little compensation as possible to Maori landowners. The compulsory acquisition of Maori land under the Public Works Act is seen by Ngaiterangi as a breach of the Crown's duty under the Treaty of Waitangi to protect Maori land. This Treaty breach was then compounded by the fact that Crown agencies were not exercising care to ensure that Maori received fair compensation for the land taken.

Other Papamoa Proclamations

As well as the East Coast Main Trunk· Railway running through·the block, and the land taken for defence purposes the Papamoa block has been the site·ofseveral other public works. Today a large part of the block has been amalgamated into the Mangatawa-Papamoa block, administered by the Mangatawa-Papamoa Incorporation. Kupapa McLeod, a member of the committee of management for the incorporation, recently prepared the following report on the land alienations in the Mangatawa­ Papamoa area:

Successive local body administrations have justified this alienation as being in the interests of the wider community. Certainly if one were to view things as a civic minded citizen, then one would have to be proud of the way that Mangatawa has

51 Tauranga Minute Book 23, fols 188-190, 18 May 1961. The comment was made in the hearing on land taken for the Otawa Scenic Reserve.

140 served the wider community. Land has been taken for roads, railways, rubbish dumps, water pipelines, sewerage pipelines, gas pipelines, reservoirs, and of course the most pleasing civic contribution of all, the quarry. And again, one would have to be proud of the way the authorities ignored our pleas to site the sewerage ponds elsewhere but chose to put them right on our doorstep thus ensuring that Mangatawa should continue to do their bit for the 'good of the community' .52 [Emphasis in original.]

The following table lays out some other public works acquisition in the Papamoa area, many of which were listed by McLeod. Block Area Taken Purpose Year Papamoa 2 Sec 6B1A 4aOrOO.Op School 194253 PapamoaA12 32a 3r OO.1p Rubbish Disposal 196754 Papamoa 2 Sec 9A 23a3r37.0p Electricity Works 197755 Papamoa 2 Sec 9A 5a 2r 16.9p Rubbish Disposal 198456 Papamoa 2 Sec 10A2C5 59a Or OO.Op Rubbish Disposal 198557 Total Area Taken 125a lr 14.0p

\ - / Mangatawa

Previous reports by the Waitangi Tribunal on public works takings have criticised the Crown for acquiring the freehold of blocks without allowing for the possibility of leasing the land from Maori.58 This could provide land for the public good and also retain the freehold in Maori ownership, which would be a preferable outcome for Maori. It would also protect Maori land holdings under .article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. However, two public works on the sacred maunga Mangatawa show that despite Maori insisting on leasehold agreements, the land has still been effectively alienated from its owners, whose interests were not actively protected. The full history

52 'The Reservoirs - More Alienation', Kupapa McLeod, Committee of Management, Mangatawa- Papamoa Incorporation 53 New Zealand Gazette, 1942, p 5 54 ibid, 1967;p 1926 55 ibid, 1977, p 3144 56 ibid, 1984, P 3620 57 ibid, 1985, P 4842 58 For example see, Waitangi Tribunal, Turangi Township Report 1995, Brookers 1995, p 312.

141 of public works on Mangatawa can be found in Heather Bassett's report,

'Mangatawa' .59

Mangatawa was used as a quarry to build the Port of Tauranga, and a large part of the roading infrastructure. The Crown acquired under the Public Works Act the freehold of a small area for the quarry in 1946. As the Public Works Department wished to enlarge the .quarry the Mangatawa-Papamoa Incorporation, which now administered the land, insisted on retaining the freehold, and negotiated an agreement granting quarry rights for 33 years. The Mangatawa-Papamoa Incorporation was fortunate in being able to retain the freehold of land on Mangatawa. However, while the quarry rights were for a 33 year period, the very activity of quarrying hasmeantthat the land itself has been physically removed, even if a freehold title on the map remains. The . .sacred maunga, with its extensive fortifications has been destroyed, which is an insult to all Ngaiterangi and other Bay of Plenty iwi. Further evidence is presented in Chapter Seven regarding the removal of koiwi from the site.

In 1973 the Mount Maunganui Borough Council built a large water reservoir on Mangatawa, above the Tamapahore marae. After it was built the council started negotiations with the incorporation to buy the site. The incorporation again insisted on retaining the freehold, and in 1980, after much negotiation, and many threats from the council, a 999 year lease was signed. The lease to the Tauranga District Council still has 982 years to run, and the fact that the council paid the full:yalueof the land in return for the lease illustrates that the true nature of the:,transaction was a sale. The . incorporation, when insisting on a lease, were asking for a fair annual rental to be paid, and it was only after a Notice of Intention to acquire the land was issued that the incorporation agreed to leasing the land for a peppercorn rental. This also demonstrates how land supposedly taken under section 32 of the Public Works Act, which provided for agreements rather than compulsory acquisition, was still in effect a compulsory agreement.

Public Works Transactions on Mangatawa:

59 Heather Bassett, 'Mangatawa', Waitangi Tribunal, December 1996, Wai 215 142 Purpose Area Title Quarry (1946) 5a lr 11.6p compulsory acquisition Quarry rights (1957) 6a Or OO.Op 10 year right (expired) Quarry rights (1963) 9a Or OO.Op 33 year right (expired) Reservoir Site (existing) Oa 3r 19.9p 999 year lease Reservoir Site (proposed) la 2r 06.1p 999 year lease Total Area Used 22a 2r 37.6p

Whareroa and Te Awa-o-Tukorako

Perhaps the most well known public works case in Tauranga relates to land taken from the Whareroa and Te Awa-o-Tukorakoblocks. The determination of fair compensation was a matter that went to the Privy Council forde.cision, and that decision has had a major influence on Ngaiterangi perception of public works takings as confiscation by another name. The compensation hearings are fully detailed in Kere Cookson-Va's report, 'Te Awa-o-Tukorako & Whareroa Blocks.'60 The following tables are compiled from Cookson-Va's report.

-\ J During World War II 192 acres of Maori-owned Whareroa land was taken for the Tauranga airport. Questions still remain about what, if any, consultation took place with the owners beforethe land was taken. Compensation was awarded in 1941.

Land Taken for Aerodrome 1942:61 Block Area Taken Comllensation Whareroa 2G IB 21aOrJ6p £ 318 Whareroa 2G1B3 25a2r 37p £ 360 Whareroa 2G2A 21a Or 30p (House) £ 286 (Land) £ 20 Whareroa 2G2B 42a lr 19p £ 593 Whareroa 2G2C 52a 3r 38p £ 741 Whareroa 2E6B 1a 3r 29p £ 17 Whareroa 2E7 16a 2r 26p £ 150 Whareroa 2G 1B4 2a 3i lOp £ 42 Whareroa 2G 1A 2a 3r 24p £ 31 Whareroa 2G 1B 2a 3r 06p £ 10

60 Kere T. Cookson-Ua, 'Te Awa-o-Tukorako & Whareroa Blocks', Waitangi Tribunal, June 1996, Wai 215 A27 61 New Zealand Gazette, 1940, p 628

143 Part Whareroa 2E2B Oa 2r 07p £ 50 Part Whareroa 2E7 Oa 3r 38p £ 50 Total 192a Or 20p62 £2668

Hori Ross, of N gai Tukairangi, believes that because the airport land was taken from Ngaiterangi, they should have a say in how the land is used:

We've got a claim in for it and that was another part of it that was taken under the Public Works Act and it was never ever returned to us because they changed the rules again so we couldn't get it back, now the blimmin Tauranga Airport Authority want to expand the airport and we think that they should come and talk to us and involve us in all the goings on there too. Oh, yeah the Pakehas they run all over you if you don't watch it. I'm not against Pakehas .but I at least think that they should have the decency to come and talk to us, after all it'was 'our land before it was ever theirs.63

In September 1952 around 100 acres were taken from Whareroa and Te Awa-o­ Tukorako for 'better utilisation'. The power to take land for 'better utilisation' was an incredibly wide definition of a public work created by section 30 of the Finance Act (No 2) 1945, which empowered the Governor-General to take land under the Public Works Act 1928 for 'subdivision, development, improvement, regrouping, or better , / -­ utilisation'. Presumably 'better utilisation' could be interpreted by the Ministry of Works to mean.that any Maori land not being developed or cultivated could be made subject to the Public Works Act. In this case, it was anticipated that the WhareroaiTe Awa-o-Tukorako area would be used for port development work. As well as the Whareroa land, land was taken for better, utilisation in association with works on the Tauranga-Te Maunga motorway. In those,>cases it was often used to acquire portions of blocks which had been left without access once the motorway cut through. They were therefore deemed to be useless to the Maori owners. The compulsory acquisition of.·land for no specific .purpose would seem to ·be a clear breach of the guarantee . contained in article 2 of the Treaty that Maori would retain their land. The taking of land for 'better utilisation' also cuts across the usual Crown argument that public works acquisitions were necessary for the public good.

62 Cookson-Ua only states the total as 192a Or OOp. 63 Oral interview with Ngai Tukairangi conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997

144 Land Taken for Better Utilisation 1952:64 Block Area Taken Te Awa-o-Tukorako IA2 2a lr 25.0p Te Awa-o-Tukorako IBIB la Or OO.Op Te Awa-o-Tukorako IBIC 3a lr 11.3p Te Awa-o-Tukorako I B2 and Whareroa 2E I 3a 3r 07.6p Whareroa 2E2 lla2r 05.0p Whareroa 2E3A 12a Or OO.Op Whareroa 2E4 2la 2r 24.0p Whareroa 2E5 26a lr IO.Op Whareroa 2E6B 19a 3r 25.0p Total lOla 3r 27.9p65

Before the land was taken the blocks in. question were part of a.! plan- for subdivision and development by the Maori Land Board. The object of the development was to sell .. both residential and commercial sections, and then use the proceeds to improve the living conditions of Maori in and around Matapihi.66 However, the Minister of Maori Affairs delayed giving final approval to the development while the Ministry of Works was finalising its plans for port development in the area. As a result, when compensation came to be decided, the Maori Land Board development scheme was not official, and the Crown argued that the residential and commercial value of the land was a potential value only, and should not be taken into account when assessing compensation. It was this point of law which was taken to the Privy Council, and the Maori owners lost their case that they should be compensated for the value of the land as if it had been developed. The Privy Council said that because the development scheme had not been implemented then the value of the land was only a 'potential' value. However, although the development scheme itself was still only a 'potential', the fact that the land·was to be used for a port shows that it already had a clear actual commercial value.

The Privy Council result left Ngaiterangi feeling that the compensation awarded was totally inadequate and coloured Ngaiterangi perceptions of the likelihood of gaining

64 New Zealand Gazette, 1952, p 1468 65 Table taken from Cookson-Ua's report. Correspondence in the report refers to the total taken as 91a 1r 24p. There is no explanation of why this figure differs from the total of the table compiled by Cookson-Ua.

145 fair compensation awards under the provisions of the Public Works Act. Certainly, in 1958, when the Mangatawa-Papamoa Incorporation was negotiating quarry rights on Mangatawa their lawyer, Cooney, said that they felt their 'hands were tied' by the Finance Act 1944. It was this Act which set out the considerations to be taken into account by the Maori Land Court when assessing compensation, and indicates that the owners did not think they would be awarded fair compensation if the matter proceeded under the Public Works Act.67

In 1959 the secretary of the Ngaiterangi Tribal Executive, W. Ohia, wrote to the Secretary for Maori Affairs expressing concern aboutthe :Whareroa decision:

the result of which has prompted my people to searchevery.'avenue,fora· safeguard against a possible recurrance [sic] of a' virtual confiscation of this nature, over their remaining acres of land surrounding the Whareroa Block mentioned earlier. The spread of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui Borough Councils have created amongst my people a major concern based on the following reasons.- o Fear of confiscation. The unfair basis for compensation, taking the Whareroa Block as the example.68 This quote clearly shows that to Ngaiterangi the basis by which compensation was -- assessed was unfair, and explains why Ngaiterangi see the acquisition of land for public works as 'virtual confiscation.'

Kaitimako - Hairini Substation

In November 1967 103 acres 0 roods 38 perches were taken from Kaitimako Band C under the Public Works Act 1928 for the 'development of water power (Hairini substation).69 It appears that no attempt was made to consult with the owners. Readers wanting further information about this taking should consult Roimata Minhinnick's

report 'Kaitimako B and C' .70

66 Cookson-Ua, p x 67 Bassett, December 1996, p 15 68 W. Ohia to M. Sullivan, 23 March 1959, MA 1 29/4111, National Archives, Wellington 69 New Zealand Gazette, 1967, P 2160 70 Roimata Minhinnick, 'Report: Kaitimako Band C Wai 465', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215 A12

146 6.S Total Impact

The total figures compiled in the following tables represent a conservative estimate of the total amount of Ngaiterangi land compulsorily acquired for public works. The figures are estimates only because it is by no means sure that all the relevant Gazette notices have been identified, It also does not include reserves owned by Ngaiterangi in the Katikati-Te Puna block which would also have been affected by the East Coast Main Trunk Railway.

Total Ngaiterangi Land Taken for East Coast Main Trunk Railway and Associated Works: Block Area Taken Hungahungatoroa 6a Or 27.0p Mangatawa 54aOr 20.8p Matapihi 13a 3r OO.5p Moturiki Oa lr I2.0p - Ohuki 9a2r 21.8p Omanu 8a 3r 21.2p Oruamatua Oa Or 30.8p Otuawahia Oa2r 03.6p Papamoa 92a lr 32.0p Tumatanui Oa Ir 04.0p Wharawhara 5a lr 27.0p Whareroa lOa 3r01.6p Total Area Taken 202a 2r 02.3p

Total Ngaiterangi Land Taken for the Tauranga-Te Maunga Motorway: Block Area Taken Mangatapu 56a 3r 08.9p Ohuki 12a 2r IO.Op Oruamatua 9a Ir 18.8p Te Ngaio 28a 3r 24.0p Tumatanui la Or 27.7p Waitaia 3a 2r 32.3p Wharawhara Ila 2r 33.7p Total Area Taken 124a Or 35.4p

147 Total Ngaiterangi Land Taken for Other Public Works (Not including general road construction): Block Area Taken Kaitimako 103a Or 38.0p Mangatawa 22a 2r 37.6p Papamoa 264a 3r 32.0p Te Awa 0 Tukarako lOa 2r 03.9p Whareroa 283a 2r 04.0p Total Taken 684a 3r 35.5p

Total Land Taken from Each Block for Public Works: Block Area Taken Hungahungatoroa 6a Or.27.0p Kaitimako 103aOr38.0p Mangatapu 56a 3r 08.9p Mangatawa 76a 3r 18.4p Matapihi 13a3r 00.5p Moturiki Oa lr 12.0p Ohuki 22aOr 31.8p Omanu 8a 3r 21.2p Oruamatua 9a 2r 09.6p Otuawahia Oa 2r 03.6p Papamoa 357a lr 24.0p Te Awa 0 Tukarako IOa2r 03.9p TeNgaio 28a 3r24.0p Tumatanui lalr31.7p Waitaia 3a 2r 32.3p Wharawhara 17aOr20.lp Whareroa 294a Ir05.6p Total Area Taken 1,Olla2r 33.2p

It is only after calculating a total amount of Ngaiterangi land taken for public works that the true impact on Ngaiterangi can be readily appreciated by outsiders. The lines on a map representing the railway and motorway, for example, do not show significant land loss, and it is surprising to reveal that over 200 acres of Maori land was used for the railway, and its associated works.

6.6 Summary

148 The Public Works Department showed no regard for ensuring that sufficient land remained for the support and maintenance ofNgaiterangi. The policies and unofficial practices of the government departments tended to have the result of discriminating against Ngaiterangi interests. Consultation requirements under the Public Works Act were less stringent for unregistered Maori freehold land. As a result there was very little consultation with Ngaiterangi about public works takings. Delays of several years before. compensation was paid were commonplace. There are numerous examples of Crown valuation being lower than the actual price the land could have sold for on the open market.'T:his was not just a Ngaiterangi perception but was a view shared by judges, lawyers;: and valuers. Valuation criteria did not take into account the special significance of the land to N gaiterangi. The piecemeal nature of proclamations taking land for public works make it easy to disguise the total impact. The fact that over 1,000 acres, at the very least, have been alienated from Ngaiterangi for the 'public good', shows that Ngaiterangi land holdings have been sharply effected by the Public Works Act. This is especially true when one considers that today Ngaiterangi own only 7,500 acres of the land that was left to them after confiscation. All of these factors have combined to give Ngaiterangi the belief that the Public Works Act was another form of confiscation.

149 7. Control, Use and Management Issues

The control, use and management of Tauranga's resources is part of the ongoing legacy of raupatu, and is an issue that generates strong feeling:

The laws have been to suit them, so we have to adjust, we're always reacting to Pakeha laws, always. And a Pakeha coming into Tauranga doesn't have to worry about ... any adjustments to their culture, to their education to their health, there's no adjustment needed. They buy our land, they'll get the permission of the council, doesn't matter if it impacts on our values. 1

This chapter will examine the impact of local authorities on Ngaiterangi and the control,use and management of the Tauranga Moana environmenLItisimportant to note that Treaty obligations and any failure to execute these obligations lies with the Crown who must ensure the body to whom it devolves or delegates its duties exercises this authority in a way that is consistent with the principles of the Treaty.

The geography of the Tauranga Moana district is such that most pa and urupa were on the harbour's edge. As a result, issues relating to the harbour are closely linked to issues relating to wahl tapu. The geography of the region also means that public recreation areas created by local councils and domain boards are on the water's edge, to provide access to water sports, and frequently on pa sites for the panoramic view they provide .. This raises. a direct conflict between public recreation facilities and Maori cultural values. There are manyexamplesoLsuch conflict around Tauranga Moana, .and this chapter only provides a few case studies that illustrate the Ngaiterangi perspective. It will use oral testimonies collected by Roimata Minhinnick and Paul Stanley, as well as written records.

While this section focuses on the harbour and significant sites, it should always be remembered that to Ngaiterangi their role as kaitiaki applies over their whole rohe. A Ngai Tukairangi kaumatua explains what kaitiakitanga means to him:

We've just carried on from what was left to us by our tupuna. And that's the land.

1 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape Bl

150 We're only caretakers of the land ... well that's the way I look at it. I'm only a caretaker till someone else comes along and then it's, by consensus ... he doesn't take ownership of the land, he just works the land. To me, that's what ties us to the land the ongoing caretaker-ship of it. The mana that goes with it, your heritage that goes with it, all your whakapapa. Whakapapa in the sense that, okay, there would've been a tupuna who owned that land before you but then it's coming down the line. And really, I think that that epitomises what ties we hold with the land. 2

In 1982 the Tauranga Moana District Maori Council made a submission to the Tauranga County Council and Bay of Plenty Harbour Board, pointing out the places of significance to Tauranga Maori. That submission identified the way that significant sites had been desecrated in a manner that denied the cultural values of Maori:

There have been many instances of deseeratioIiofsuch'sites, ranging from people in their ignorance picnicking on an old -burial ground;.to deliberate fossicking for artefacts, and disturbance of old bones. While this is difficult to 'police there are 'provisions in the Historic Places Act 1980 for protection of such sites, and penalties for infringement. Old burial grounds tend to be in two sorts of localities around the harbour shores - inside the earthworks of old pa, or in swampy or sandy areas often at or near high water mark. . . such areas should not be included in any form of public recreational use. In such cases where an adjacent beach is used for public recreation, there should be clear signs that wahi tapu are not part of the public area, and that penalties for trespass or damage to such a site may be invoked. Maori complaints about such infringements should also be taken seriously by the County Council and Harbour Board.3 The points to note from this quote are that: desecration can occur through ignorance, and this could be avoided by the use of signs; all urupa should be excluded from public recreation areas; legal penalties do exist, but are notenforced; and Maori complaints about infringement have not been taken::..seriously by local bodies.

, A Nga Potiki kaumatua explains how Ngaiterangi used to bury their dead around the water's edge, and the way in which modem developments have caused the bones to be disturbed:

They called it the Papamoa burial reserve, and its 36 acres along there. The Maoris are creating a reserve. The place is full of dead, I've been down there several times burying the bones that've been actually dropping from the side of the sand dunes.

2 Oral interview with Ngai Tukairangi conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 3 Evelyn Stokes, 'Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to the Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands', University ofWaikato, 1992, Wai 215 A18, P 38

151 Cops ringing me up, 'got some bones, go out there and bury them.' We have a karakia, we have a korero then bury them. Even around here. Now where is it? That little spit there. This is where the road goes to Maungatapu ... right at the bottom here, there's a sort of sandspit. Well the police told me they had these bones. So I went in to bury them. So I said, 'where were they picked up?' The police said, 'on that sandspit.' So I went along and had a look over there and the place was full of dead. They created a road around there, and its fairly fast, there's a bit of a hill there and because they go around that comer very fast the bouncing has actually worked the bones to the surface, and the place is full of them. Anyway I've been to the . district council and I said, 'Well I ain't digging them up. What you should do is bury them. You go along and take fill and bury them.' Most of the land around here used to be quicksand, and Maoris; being very energetic, they used to just throw them on and trample their dead into the ground. There are a lot of areas like that where they used to trample them into the ground. Or at the beach all they used to do was throw them up, hard up against the sand dunes and drop the sand on them. They started to work out, it's usually on the second sand dune, thefrrst sand dune, that's for the sea, the sea will stop there. The second sand dune is alwaysthe'one.that's.goHhe dead on it, and its actually full. And that's why we actually made areservethere.lwouldn't build there anyway. There's a lot of jokers down here that's actually::built down this way, and the Pakehas in this area have .... They been getting people in to exorcise their sections and do everything, and they're Pakehas.4

While Ngaiterangi have been protesting their loss of tino rangatiratanga over the harbour for more than 100 years, the level of impact on the harbour and wahl tapu has grown sharply in the last 50 years, as illustrated in the above quote. This was a period of rapid industrial and residential expansion in the Bay of Plenty. The expansion was actively encouraged by the Crown, and controlled by local councils and the harbour 'board; which did not provide any scope for Maori input. For Ngaiterangi this period of rapid development caused a sense of frustration and further alienation:

And just makes you a weaker person when .. you're, trying to handle, Pakeha things, handle the impact of Pakeha rules, laws etc. Ithink it makes you a weaker person, I'm just trying to fight for land, and.Lthink; and when we lookatthat,all the adjustments to. tauiwi being in here, taking over the land, 'all the adjustments ,have been made by Maori There have been no adjustments at all made by Pakeha.5

'.. It has been contended that the. failure to consult with Maori has been due to failings within Maoridom, whether it be the limitations imposed by Maori 'cultural protocol' or a 'leadership vacuum' within Maoridom.6 The authors of this report, while acknowledging that these may be extenuating factors, when dealing with the process

4 Oral interview with Nga Potiki conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 5 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape Bl

152 of consultation, do not however accept the onus of initiating consultation lies with Maori. The developments to the harbour were initiated by the local authority with the encouragement of the Crown. Therefore, the duty to initiate consultation on the developments lay with the Crown.

7.1 Harbour Issues

.Ngaiterangi have consistently argued that they have a strong association with the harbour. Hori Ngatai said:

My mana over these places has never been'taken away. I have:alwaysheldauthority over these fishing places and preserved them and no tribe is allowed to come here and fish without my consent being given.?

Ngaiterangimade no distinction between areas above and below the high water mark. Both were important resources. The harbour for Ngaiterangi was an invaluable resource as a food source and communication linle The foreshores or mudflats around the harbour, as well as being significant food gathering and growing resources, were also used for settlements. The coastal sands and swamps were valued as food sources. Because the harbour and the surrounding lands played a part in the daily existence of Ngaiterangi it has therefore been considered a source of mana that deserves and requires protection. A desire to protect the harbour is evident in the customs that have developed that recognise the relationship·Ngaiterangi.havewiththe.harbour and their sense ofkaitiakitanga. Ngaiterangi have increasingly felt theloss··ofthis kaitiakitanga over the harbour and foreshores .

. This chapter will also examine Ngaiterangi loss of kaitiakitanga. Since the 1950s the customary relationship of Ngaiterangi with the' harbour has been threatened by the harbour and port developments at Tauranga and Mount Maunganui. The construction of the port facilities and its later operation limited the access of Maori to the harbour

6 Des Kahotea, 'Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy Cultural Resource Inventory, Features of Significance to the Maori Community (tangata whenua): A Report for the Tauranga District Council', June 1992, Wai 215 A17, P 34 ? Hori Ngatai address to Native Minister John Ballance, AJHR, 1885, G-I, P 61

153 for gathering kai moana. A further issue which affected Maori use of the harbour was sewerage pollution. The discharge of sewerage directly influenced the health of Maori as well as destroying traditional fishing areas. These port developments have resulted m: the destruction of traditional fishing grounds; the denial of access to traditional fishing grounds; the acceleration of tribal change; a failure by the Crown to consult; and a loss of mana.

What is clear from an examination of these points. isthatdevelopmenttook precedent over Maori traditional rights. The Crown has done little to protect areas of importance to Maori, or to protect the kaimoana resource of this area.

At no time have Ngaiterangi given up their duty of kaitiakitanga over the harbour, although in recent times they have been precluded from exercising this right by a legislative and consultative process which failed to recognise the Treaty principle of partnership. It can be argued that Ngaiterangi were acting in good faith when arguing for. their rights, and within the explicit terms of the Treaty ofWaitangi that stated that no land was to leave Maori hands without Maori consent. If this principle is adhered to then:

all title to land in New Zealand is indirectly,> derivative of Maori. title and, accordingly, necessarily devolves at the 'most fundamental level into .aninquiry into Maori custom andthe identity of those entitled thereunder to consent to .alienation. But this conclusion exposes the problem: how to get from Maori customary title to individually held English freehold under a new order that has been arrived at contractually? The difficulty might not have been insuperable were there some congruence between Maori and English concepts of land rights. However, there was no such congruence, even atthe fundamental levels of who can have rights and what sorts of rights· can be had.' Where English law sought final judicial determinations of individual freeholds (and predicated an edifice of rights on those determinations), Maori custom tended towards recognition and active demonstration of use, occupation and mana over land. [Emphasis in original.] 8 The main point to note from this quote is that Maori and Pakeha had fundamentally different concepts of land ownership and it did not suit Pakeha interests, particularly

8 Alex Frame, Salmond: Southern Jurist, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 1995, p 131

154 in regard to individualisation of land title, to acknowledge traditional Maori concepts about land.

These issues will be discussed in greater detail later after looking at the association of Ngaiterangi with the harbour. The value of the harbour has been recognised and fought over by a number of iwi and as a result:

many cultural and historical associations have been developed with local landmarks, harbour features, fishing grounds and shellfish beds, wahi tapu (sacred places), urupa (burial grounds), pa (fortified villages) and kainga (unfortified villages). These associations remain, regardless of present ownership ofland.9

Therefore, well before the arrival of Pakeha in the area Ngaiterangi were guided by custom in their relationship with the harbour. These customs established territorial and accepted usagepattems between iwi and hapu. These customary rights or rules were the lore· that established the law about where and when fish could be gathered and by whom. This had the effect of protecting the resource and maintaining the balance of power between iwi:

The kai of a region reflects the mana of the people of that region. The Tauranga Harbour has a particular value as a food source which has the capacity to enhance the mana of the people of the Tauranga area both historically and currently. It symbolises the ability of the iwi and hapu of the Tauranga District to retain their mana by feeding people' with the bounty and delicacies of the area. For Ngati Pukenga, Nga Potiki a Tamapahore and Ngati He (the latter two being hapu ofNgai Te Rangi), their particular delicacy is the tiitiko (mud snail). Amongst the hapu of Ngai Te Rangi, Ngati Tapu's particular delicacy is the puupuu (cat's eyes) and Ngati Kuku's is the kuku (mussel) with which theirnamds associated directly.lo

The value of the lowlands surrounding the harbour were also recognised by Pakeha settlers for farming. Despite the development of this lowland for farming and the subsequent port developments Ngaiterangi have continued to exercise their rights to the harbour, and the mana of a tribe is:

still measured by their ability to provide a wide variety of seafoods [sic] at marae gatherings. Visitors from other tribal areas expect to be able to enjoy this traditional form of hospitality when they visit Tauranga marae. It is a matter of tribal honour

9 Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to the Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands', University ofWaikato, 1992, Wai 215 A18, P 35 10 Anthony Fisher, Keni Piahana, Te Awanuiarangi Black, Rahera Ohia, 'The Issues Concerning the Use, Control and Management of Tauranga Harbour and its Estuaries', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215, June 1996, p 28

155 that this should be maintained. 11

This quote indicates that, despite tremendous change and destruction of traditional Ngaiterangi kaimoana gathering places, the iwi has resisted Crown imposition on their customary rights and retained something of their traditional pattern. As well as providing mana as a result of kaimoana that was associated with a specific iwi, the harbour was an important waterway link. Brian Dickson of Ngaiterangi cites as an example of the high usage of the harbour as a transport route the fact that at the time of Pakeha arrival in the harbour there were said to more than a 1000 waka on the beaches between Otumoetai and Te Papa. 12

Stokes has said that the commissioners dealing with Tauranga lands mostly avoided the issue of customary rights to waterways. She cites an 1888 claim by Tawaha Te Riri and Timi Te Rua of Ngai Tamawhariua to the shark fisheries off the western entrance to the harbour. The commissioner, Brabant wrote to the Native Minister saymg:

The letter of the Katikati natives is intended to open a very large question. Ever since I have acted as Commissioner to decide titles within the Confiscated Block I have been from time to time asked by. various natives to decide the native title to 1) Salt water marshes (where birds and eggs are obtained) & 2) Fisheries within the harbour. Ihave always replied to such applications, that I did not understand my Commission to extend to anything below high water mark. Mr Commr. Clarke's letter of Decr. 6, 1871 was brought to me to prove (as the natives thought), that he was of a different opinion - when I pointed out however that Mr Clarke had only given the right of fishing to them subject to Sir D. McLean's'approvaL(which had never been given) they asked me to forward a letter of theirs to Mr .Ballance enclosing MrClarke's letter which I did without remark. In order that the:importance·ofthe, question may be understood I may point out that anyrecogni"tion of these fishery claims of the natives would result 1) in their preventing all fishing by Europeans in the harbour & 2) in the various hapus quarrelling amongst themselves as to the right to fish in particular spots. 13 The Crown responded that it was not going to address the issue ofNgaiterangi fishing

rights because it was a 'vexed one' .14 Curiously the instruction was to tell Ngaiterangi that Clarke's intention was to allow the iwi to fish for one season only. This

11 Stokes, 1992, p 39 12 Fisher, Piahana, Black, Ohia, p 31 13 DOSLI file 5/28 cited Evelyn Stokes, 'The Allocation of Reserves for Maori in the Tauranga Confiscated Lands', volume 1, University of Waikato, 1997, Wai 215 A57, pp 206-207. See also Vincent O'Malley, 'The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu, 1864-1981', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, June 1995, Wai 215 A22, pp 100-102.

156 suggestion would appear to be an attempt to put a less than honest 'spin' on what Clarke had actually intended.

Giselle Byrnes has also examined this incident and has said that it is an example of Maori actively voicing their concerns about their rights to the harbour, particularly before the tum of the century:

Between 1873 and 1889 close to forty petitions were presented to Parliament from Tauranga Maori in relation to their lands. While the majority of these petitions referred to land confiscated or specific land purchases, issues concerning fishing were also raised. In 1888, for instance, Ngaitamawhariua protested that their right to fish for shark in the Tauranga harbour had. not been recognised. In,response;Brabant, Commissioner for Lands in Tauranga,believedthata favourable ,response ,to such a request would literally lift the lid off a Pandora's box. IS

Byrnes goes onto stress the point that Brabant had been presented with ~lnumber of claims concerning the harbour and fishing rights which he refused to accept, thus ending thematteratthat time~ However,itcouldalso be contended that the number of petitions made by Ngaiterangi are in fact evidence of an ongoing involvement over control in the harbour which was again stressed in 1885.

In 1885, at a meeting between Ngaiterangi and Native Minister John Ballance, Hori Ngatai, made a speech explaining the significance of the harbour, foreshore and their resources: .Now with regard to the land below high watermark immediately in front of where I live, I consider .that as part and parcel of my own land ... part of my own garden. From time immemorial I have had thisJand,and,had,:authorityover,all the food in the sea. Te Maere was a fishing ground of mine; Onake,that is.'a.plac.e.fromwhich I have from time immemorial obtained pipis. The Rona is,anotherpipi bed, TeKaraka is another place. I am now speaking of the fishing grounds inside the· Tauranga Harbour. My mana over these places has never been taken away. I have always held authority over these fishing places and preserved them and no tribe is allowed to come here and fish without my consent being given. But now in consequence with the work of the Europeans that all the .land below high water belongs to the Queen, people have trampled on our ancient Maori customs and are constantly coming over here whenever they like to fish. I ask that Maori custom shall not be set aside in this manner, and that our authority over these fishing grounds may be upheld. The whole of this inland sea has been subdivided by our ancestors, and each portion belongs to a proper owner, and the whole of rights within the Tauranga Harbour have been apportioned among our different people; and so with the fishing grounds inside the heads; those are only small spots. I am speaking of the fishing grounds where hapuku and tarakihi are caught. Those grounds have been handed down to us by our

14 ibid 15 Giselle Byrnes, 'A Preliminary Report on the Use, Control and Management of the Tauranga Harbour', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215 A36, P 41

157 ancestors. This Maori custom of ours is well established and none of the inland tribes would dare go and fish on these places without obtaining the consent of the owners. I am not making this complaint out of any selfish desire to keep all the fishing grounds for myself; I am only striving to retain the authority which I inherited from my ancestors. 16 For the purposes of this report the main points to note from Ngatai's speech are: Ngaiterangi considered the foreshore to be part of their customary land; they had specific fishing grounds within Tauranga Harbour; tribal authority over these fishing grounds was recognised by other iwi; these fishing grounds gave the iwi a sense of mana; the Crown failed to acknowledge Ngaiterangi customary rights; authority over these fishing grounds camefrom:ancestraLtraditions; they wanted to exercise their kaitiakitangaovertheirfishing'grounds; they voiced their grievances directly to a Minister of the Crown; and Ngaiterangi had a different perception of how these resources should be managed.

This speech by Ngatai is a clear and direct assertion to the Crown of Ngaiterangi rights concerning the harbour, foreshore and its resources. What these attempts by Ngaiterangi to have their grievances acknowledged by the Crown do suggest is that in terms .. of getting any redress it was an exercise·· in pointlessness, particularly when those involved· agreed that a question of rights did exist but would not be addressed because it was too problematic. These petitions therefore have merit because they • show a persistent attachment by Ngaiterangito the harbour and its foreshores. An attachment that was consistently thwarted by a Jack.ofpolitical wilLratherthan a legal interpretation of the issue.

The Crown failed to recognise these rights. Once the economic potential of the harbour and foreshores began to be realised then, of course, any claims Ngaiterangi made to the harbour would face a considerable obstacle. Yet it should be stressed that Ngaiterangi were making claims to the harbour and foreshore in the nineteenth century and the response was that it was put into the legally too hard basket.

16 AJHR, 1885, G-I, P 61 158 Port Developments

Over the years there have been many changes to the harbour, notably the construction of bridges, sewer pipes, the drainage ofland, and the clearance offoreshores:

,In a broad sense,the succession of harbour wQrks projects ... served to further alienate Tauranga Maori from the waters and foreshores they had traditionally considered as their own resource. Land reclamations and the expansion of existing port facilities ensured that the port of Tauranga could no longer be considered as a taonga for Maori, as it was transformed into a rapidly developing nexus of commercial activity. I?

One of the most noticeable areas of change. has been the Tauranga.Harbollt.and Mount Maunganui foreshores. The port facility has to date been the main factor causing the overall changes to the Bay of Plenty since the 1950s. The changes to the ports between 1950 and 1970 were the result of changes in the hinterland of the region during the same period. These changes happened throughout the region. Areas such as Bowentown and Otawhiwhi illustrate the implications of development on outlying communities. For Ngaiterangi the development of these areas happened without consultation from the various harbour boards and local bodies. 18

The first statutory provision that impacted upon the ownership of coastal areas was the Harbour Act 1878. Byrnes has said that:

- the fact that many of the lands and waterwaysvested.:inboards weJ;'eof:enormous significance to Maori communities was :immaterial-,to-.successive:govemments. Among all the legislation vesting land in Harbour Boards; in only one instance was there any attempt to protect Maori property interests in harbours and estuaries. 19 The following points should be noted from this quote: the foreshore, harbour and surrounding waterways were important to Maori; and the Crown has ignored Maori interests as regards to waterways.

Therefore, when the development of the region took place· in the 1950s there was already a well established tradition of the Crown neglecting Maori interests.

17 Byrnes, p 37 18 ibid

159 For example, the harbour board under the Tauranga Harbour Act 1912 made no provision for local iwi or hapu representatives to be considered for nomination or appointment to the board. Similarly, the Tauranga Harbour Amendment and Foreshore Vesting Act 1917 extended the board membership requirements but again, .. no provision was included for the election or appointment of Maori members.20

This suggests that failure to consult with local Maori was evident in the legislation from an early stage. This resulted in Maori interests being ignored, resulting in their exclusion from the planning stages of proje.cts which. hadtheeffecL.of alienating Maori from areas they had traditionally regarded as their own.

Stokes has identified the following reasons for the· development of the Tauranga port facility: a high population· growth was equated with a potential work force and regional development; the 1950s saw the maturity of exotic timber forests that required an export market; the agricultural sector at this time required fertilisers and other raw materials in bulk; and future needs, such as building fertiliser and freezing works, required access to markets.

The decisions to develop the region and. the port facilities were. determined by central government. The Ministry of Works determined where the port was to be located in the region on the basis of serving the national as well as the regional interests.21

These decisions by the Crown resulted in the alienation of Ngaiterangi from the foreshore as the result of harbour building projects, particularly, land reclamation and expansion of the port facilities. Byrnes has said:

19 ibid, P 22 20 ibid, pp 18-19 21 Evelyn Stokes, A History ofTauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980, P 358

160 The aspirations of the Tauranga Harbour Board were to a large degree realised by ... legislative measures .... More importantly, however, the philosophy of 'progress' underlying these harbour works was confIrmed as the prevailing ethos by its legislative status. Needless to say, this attitude left little room for the acknowledgment of traditional Maori rights within the harbour.22

The prevailing mood was one of progress which was assured by laws that supported development at the cost of Maori cultural needs. As a result of the Tauranga port developments· Mount Maunganui was also seen as an inevitable area for development. Mount Maunganui was seen as a continuation of the Tauranga port developments and necessary for the development and progress of the region and the country. Because these developments were seen as being inevitable and vitally necessary they outweighed any traditional or culturalimperativesofthelocalMaoriowners.23

The council's policy of regional development and growth was actively encouraged by the Crown, and in this respect they were doing nothing illegal, they were working within the existing legislation ofthe time. Unfortunately, for Ngaiterangi much of this legislation failed to protect their interests in the land. The drive to develop the region / " - seems to have taken precedence over any recognition of the Crown's Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities.· Because the Crown gave these local bodies sufficient power to carry out this development without providing any recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi, ultimate responsibility for this abuse of Treaty rights lies with the Crown.

In 1953, work on the port facilities at Mount Maunganui began,,~Thatsame year the Crown made an agreement with Tasman Pulp and Paper Company to sell logs to the company's Kawerau mill, as well as provide land, power, rail, road and housing opportunities to the company. By 1960, the port was the fourth largest in New Zealand. In the 1970s work on dredging the shipping channel in the harbour had been completed?4 Byrnes has said that the implications for Tauranga Maori were:

The development of the port at Mount Maunganui had mUltiple effects for Maori resident at Tauranga. The most immediate impact was during the construction stage, where the scheme provided employment potential for the local labour force. It must

22 Byrnes, p 37 23 ibid, P 21 24 ibid, pp 46-47

161 be noted that the development project had beneficial economic effects for the wider Tauranga community. The longer term effects were, however, much more insidious. The construction of the port facilities and its later operation - which introduced a higher volume of water traffic into the harbour - severely limited the access of Maori to the harbour for gathering kaimoana.25

The development of the port of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui beginning in the 1950s has been considered to have been one of the most dramatic events to impact upon traditional Ngaiterangi life. Anthony Fisher, Keni Piahana, Te Awanuiarangi . Black, Rahera Ohia, in their combined report on the harbour single out the port:

as the single most significant development to occur on the harbour because it precipitated an acceleration of change· in',the traditional and customary. associations for the hapu of the area?6

They argue that the impact on Ngaiterangi was particularly dramatic because the iwi relied on the harbour, as an essential food source that involved considerable tribal knowledge. To support this point they cited Ngaiterangi kaumatua, Hohua Tutengaehe, who stressed the empathy that Ngaiterangi had with the harbour:

they could tell by the ripple or the crease in the water just what kind of fish were about. The kahawai, tamure, haku, pioke all made their own distinctive ripple above the surface of the water. They could also determine the kinds of fish by the breed of bird that rushed to the sea. Certain birds have their own tastes for certain fish. Imagine if you will, these people choosing the kind of fish for their next meal because of their affmity with the sea.27 A similar view was expressed at a discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley in Tauranga in November 1997:

Well for me health, when we lived by the sea, wehadourkai,itwas'.fresh: Butnow we make us go and live in the city, our kaiisnotfresh;.thatfishisabouttwoiw.eeks old before it gets to the town, and what happens to it, it goes in the freezer before it gets to you .... You know it, we've changed our way ofliving.28 This illustrates that the harbour was important in the daily existence of Ngaiterangi and that fresh sea food was recognised as being a significant factor in the tribe's health and lifestyle. Examples of the use made of kaimoana by various hapu can be found in Chapter Nine of this report

25 ibid, P 48 26 Fisher, Piahana, Black, Ohia, pp 46-48 27 ibid, P 75 28 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape Bl

162 A contemporary view of what this loss of access to the harbour means to Ngaiterangi is expressed by Brian Dickson who has said:

They destroyed and denied access to a very rich part of the harbour for kai moana ... . It was abundant there .... Tauranga has developed into major import/export port and it was all at the expense of the hapu here. Also, in doing this, they destroyed our mataitai areas. And the Crown just let it happen. Consideration given to hapu was non-existent in terms of the rights under Article II ... The point is that it was the Crown who had the responsibility to make sure our rights were protected.29

Dickson clearly establishes that Ngaiterangi have a traditional association with the harbour which was 'destroyed' by the:portdevelopments;;encouraged by: the Crown which failed to allow Maori undisturbe&.-possession·under·,article2 of.·the Treaty of . Waitangi. He is well aware of the fact that Ngaiterangi have lost control and access to a resource that has had traditional significance.

Another Ngaiterangi spokesperson said that as well as being of traditional value, the harbour was vital for the future of Ngaiterangi arguing that 'our past has been on the sea and our future should be on the sea and that any development or provisions for

development should be marine based, for US.,30 This idea was strongly supported by a number of other Ngaiterangi who maintained that with control over the harbour Ngaiterangi could secure a future for following generations. A Ngai Tuwhiwhia kaumatua said:

I'd like to sit down with the Port Authority.and .saythesethings;'-One·percent of your revenue per annum or ten percent ofyour :revenue per annum? ; not-only from now on, butretrospectively.31

Pollution

Ngaiterangi are today concerned about the deteriorating quality of the water in the harbour. This concern is on both a practical and spiritual level: practically pollution

29 Fisher, Piahana, Black, Ohia, p 48 30 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape A3 31 Oral interview with Ngai Tuwhiwhia conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997

163 and dredging have decreased the fish and shellfish populations; spiritually and the discharge of sewerage into the harbour is offensive to Ngaiterangi.

The sewerage issue is a current conflict between the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Ngaiterangi. A Ngai Tuwhiwhia kaumatua explains:

The other argument ... that we're having with them now, is to do with the sewerage that they're pumping out. The background to that was that the milk factory in Katikati, put in this pipeline, it cost them a million dollars. Ran it across the harbour and ran it across the forest up there and out to sea. Six hundred and forty metres out to sea. And then not long after they put it in, they closed the factory down and sold the pipeline to the local body and the local body has, since then, has in that time been pushing out raw sewage, through that pipeline.You know winds like this - and I was going to take you down to the beach and havealook atitbecause.this will be a:good wind to have a look at it because youcan.. see the brown streaks along.,the;beach, all the way along. Because of the' wind: blowing .northerly and' it 'sweeps .the waves inwards along .the beach rather than into the beach. When you get a straight easterly, it just blows it in, in that periphery of the pipeline. But when it blows from a northerly, a north-easterly, it just blows it right along the banks of the beach and we're telling them to take it out or we'll take it out. We've threatened to blow it up and it isn't an idle threat and the. end of next week is when we have the hearing for the [mal consent for it and they've already gone over their time for setting up the treatment process. They were supposed to have completed it by November of last year, 96. They haven't even started it .... They will be treating it and it'll be of a standard better than the river water that flows into the harbour.

They say that it's 90 percent [clean] and I say to them, Why don't you go the other ten percent and put it back in your water supply', and they say, 'oh no we can't do that.' There you are, see, they defend their action with our argument and it really kind of ... it's a chicken and egg sort of situation. But then that's why the two issues that is argued on is cultural. .. that it's just abhorrent to have that water washing over our shell fish because there's some good tuatua out there. Beautiful beds, thickbeds. And of course the iwi is looking at maybe developing some sort of . sustainable harvesting of things like .tuatua orsurfclams. to generate some interest through the hapu and through the iwi for some,sort·ofenterprise. Well you can't have any of that happen while this persists.32

Ngaiterangi feel that their cultural values, which are offended by any human waste in .food sources,arenot being taken seriously:

We've told them that we'll blow it, we've made it public that we'll blow it up, and we will, simply because nobody's listening to us. I suppose I've been involved in this process for too long. You go to these meetings, public meetings in Katikati, and you say ... and they say, 'yeah but we're diluting it, one part per million!' And I say, 'I don't care if it's one part per ten billion, it's still offensive to me.' And they seem to indicate if it's one part per million what's your gripe, what are you on about! They don't see the fact that they put it in, it's their shit .and we've got nothing to do with it and they still bloody carry on and they still question our right to argue against it. 1

32 ibid

164 don't know, its a weird set Up.33

Not only are Ngaiterangi offended by the sewerage discharge itself, but the consultation process used by the district council has tainted the relationship between the council and the iwi:

And the second issue that we argue on is the issue of communication because they continue to argue that when they fIrst changed the designation of the pipeline from waste milk to waste, human waste, they say, 'we went through the right processes because we advertised it in the local paper ....' Our counter argument to that is, a simple notice in the shop would have got all the natives and their taiaha all ready and you wouldn't have been able to do it anyway. And they knew that by doing that they would incur the anger of the locals, their wrath. See there's that, they went through their own processes to do it knowing full well ... nobody.outherewasigettingany one of the local papers anyway. It was, 'oh but we went through the right processes, we went through the right channels, we didthe.rightthingandinotifIed.:everybodyby public notice in the paper.' The fact was, nobody read the paper and from that point to now we've used that as our argument for not accommodating any of the things that they want, which are a lot. 34

During recent interviews Ngaiterangi members have expressed their opinion that fish and shellfish are less plentiful than before the harbour was developed. Not only were shellfish grounds destroyed, but Ngaiterangi claim that the dredging and changing of channels has affected the fish population and fishing grounds.

In November 1997 Paul Stanley surveyed 460 Ngaiterangi about gathering kai moana today with the following results: 93 percent had eaten kaimoana from. Tauranga Moana. OULof,these,.70.8 percent had eaten kaimoana in the previous sixmonths; lL6percenthad eatenkaimoana in the previous 12 months; and of those who had eaten kaimoana from Tauranga Moana in the past six months, 68 percent felt it was harder to get than the previous 12 months and 22 percent felt that it was the same.

33 ibid 34 ibid

165 7.2 Sites of Significance

Otawhiwhi and Bowentown

Otawhiwhi and Bowentown are an example of the local body's failure consult Maori on ancestral and urupa sites. As well as being important to N gaiterangi, they have also been identified by scientists, archaeologists and historians' as being of national significance. Maori cultural values were ignored.'This is evident ,in the desecration and destruction of their places of living and burial. It also illustrates the extent or reach of developments happening in Tauranga and Mount Maunganui.

Bowentown and Otawhiwhiare located at the northern entrance of the Tauranga Harbour, overlooking Matakana Island. Otawhiwhi was granted as a reserve for Whanau a Tauwhao out of the Katikati block, and the area has a long history of occupation by Ngaiterangi hapu, interrupted by frequent warfare with Hauraki. Otawhiwhi marae is closely situated to the northern boundary of Ngaiterangi at Nga Kuri a Wharei.

F or most of the last 100 years the surrounding beach ,peninsula has been a public recreation reserve, known as the KatikatiDomain,or, the Bowentown' Domain, this

includes the pasite Te Kura a Maia and other wahi tapu. Since the tum of the century the domain has been an increasingly popular holiday destination. The pa site has been used as a viewing platform and, occasionally,asa picnic area by tourists.

Throughout most of its local body administration the interests of local Maori have been ignored:35 Ngaiterangi have had no involvement in decisions made on the use ofthe domain; little effort has been made by the local body to protect the pa site; and

35 Richard Kay and Heather Bassett, 'Otawhiwhi Reserve and Bowentown Domain', Wai 215, 1996

166 little effort has been made by the local body to respect the rights of their neighbouring Ngaiterangi land owners.

The relationship between Ngaiterangi and the varIOUS bodies administering the domain has been characterised by conflicting views on how the reserve should be used, and by increasing pressure being placed on this land as a result of the economic and population growth of Tauranga since the 1950s.

As mentioned above, the interests of Ngaiterangi were ignored by local bodies administering this area. Since the Resource. Management Act 1991 there has been consultation which has often amounted to little more than payingdip-"service to the Act on the part of the council.

The way in which local bodies have treated various pa sites on the domain is evidence of their failure to consult or respect the wishes of local Maori. The pa sites are all easily accessible to the public. The various domain boards over the years have generally neglected the pa sites. Although acknowledging the existence of these pa in their yearly plans, and being made aware of their cultural, historic, archaeological and scientific· significance by various concerned parties the board continued to damage these sites. The damage to the Bowentown pa sites included: building a car park on the lower terraces of a pa; building a toilet block on the lower terraces of apa; creating roads on pa sites; creating fire breaks on pa sites; allowing the pa sites to become covered with noxious weeds; and redesigning pa sites to provide lawn mowing ramps.

The damage to these sites was clearly evident in 1972 when archaeologist Janet Davidson inspected the domain:

A large impressive and very important pa adjacent to the parking area on the eastern headland overlooking Anzac Bay and extending from it down the tip of the headland. If cleared and grassed this pa would be a very interesting one to members of the public. However machinery should not be used as this would damage the earthwork o/the pa. Similarly, any extension o/the parking area would damage it badly.

167 Possible small pa on access road to parking area mentioned above. Bulldozing of the access track has exposed and so badly damaged this site that it is probably beyond redemption. Extensive shell midden deposits visible all along the edge of the dunes behind Anzac Bay. Most of the deposits are probably safely se~led under the grassed parking area on the flat. If artifact [sic] bearing layers should ever become exposed a proper archaeological exploration authorised by the Minister of Lands should be made to recover information before it is lost through the normal process of erosion and curio hunting. Appears to be a small but strongly fortified pa on the ridge to the north of the waterskiing Beach but covered in thick scrub and difficult to see. The bulldozed track in the vicinity has cut through the ditches ofthe pa at the western and eastern ends of the site and along its northern side causing considerable damage. Shell midden deposits on the flat immediately behind the waterskiing Beach may relate to a village or pa site on the ridge above, although there is no defmite indication of this. Further investigation is required to assess the value ofthis area. Disturbed shell midden deposits where the track from Anzac Bay,tothe waterskiing Beach crosses the main ridge between' the two beaches. A bulldozed track or firebreak down the main ridge from this point has probably destroyed much of what appears to have been an undefended village or hamlet. [Emphasis added.p6

Further damage to these sites happened as recently as October 1993 when more damage was done to Te Kura a Maia, the first pa Davidson mentions in her report. The damage to this pa happened much in the way that Davidson had, envisaged 20 years earlier:

You will remember our earlier discussions about minor earthworks carried out by one of your employees last summer on Bowentown Heads to provide easier and safer lawnmower access from one terrace to another. Any earthworks on an historic site are termed a'modification under the Historic Places Act and accordingly require an authority from the Historic Places Trust. In this instance, the site works were carried out without Council instruction and;so)! no-, Historic Places Trust Authority was applied for or obtained. The ReserveslManagerPlanner was placed in an embarrassing position when queried by two archaeologists about the unauthorised earthworks.37

The points that emerges from both these quotes are that: work on pa sites was carried out at will over the years with little or no consultation with interested parties; the council ignored expert advice about maintenance and protection of sites; that extensive damage was done to these pa sites with heavy machinery;

36 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Secretary Katikati Domain Board, 12 July 1972, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC, Western Bay of Plenty District Council 37 Reserves ManagerlPlanner to Environmental Services Group, 27 October 1993, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

168 the council had little interest in these sites; no signs were erected to prevent further desecration; and the council were more .concerned with the embarrassment that damage to these sites caused rather than the fact that the sites had been damaged.

There is no record of local Maori being consulted over how the sites should be managed. The board failed to recognise the cultural value of these sites other than as viewing platforms of the harbour, or as picnic places for tourists.

With the passing of the Resource ManagementAct 1991 consultation has taken place, however, it can best be characterised asthe.locaIbody.payingJip'-service.'to the Act, rather than any genuine concern to recognise the wishes of Maori.

The inadequacies of the process were evident in 1995 when discussions were being held on the new site for a toilet at Anzac Bay below the summit of the pa Te Kura a Maia. Ngaiterangi interests were represented by·the Otawhiwhi Marae representative Wayne Tawhiti. Tawhiti said:

The area is wai tapu and is within one kilometre of the site. As well, the kaimoana (mussles, [sic] kina, paua) in the channels of the harbour were to be protected under . the resource management Act. 38 Tawhiti was reported in the Waihi Leader as saying:

He did not understand how the toilets had ever come ,to be built there in the fIrst place. He indicated the tangatawhenua;[sicl wanLa.ctefmite say_.~onwhere any . replacement facility goes.'Mr Tawhiti pointed.outthere are threeurupa or.burialsites in close proximity of the toilets.39 Tawhiti was told the plans were at the 'conceptual stage', despite the fact that the funds had been set aside and the design plan had been secured.40

The reserves technical officer was concerned about the present site 'because it was three metres from a past slip and there was a possibility of sewerage leaking into the harbour.' He went on to say: 'When people come over the hill to the bay the first thing

38 Meeting of Waihi Beach Community Board, 3 August 1995, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC 39 Waihi Leader, 15 August 1995 40 ibid

169 they see is the toilet. I would like it to be the sea. ,41 At this stage the issue of where the toilet block would be situated centred on cultural, health and environmental concerns. In November 1995, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council reported that:

In the 1995/96 Budget there is a sum of $85,000 to be used to replace the existing toilet block at Anzac Bay. The initial design of the toilet has been drawn (copy attached.) Iwi were invited to consider the proposal at a meeting held on the Otawhiwhi Marae and were satisfied with the proposed sites. Progress on the detailed design of the toilet can begin shortly, but before this takes place a site must be decided on.42

This council report indicated that the money and design for the toileVblock was allocated well before the process of consultation began. After having consulted with interested parties about the proposed sites the board then decided to build the new toilet block on the site of the existing block. The decision to leave the toilet on its present site showed a disregard for the expert advice of council staff and an architect:

The board had been told that the present site was not an option because of sewage problems and the local iwi supported the two alternatives proposed. Board members appeared to be less enthusiastic about either alternative.

Starting the ball rolling, Mrs De Luca (Chairperson) said she had looked at the toilet herself that morning and did not believe there were any sewage leakage or erosion problems.43

Even though the board had already voted 'on ,where to build the toilet block there was still talk of discussing the site with the local hapu. Thedecision;todiscuss4he issue of where the block would be located after the board had already made a decision raises , some interesting questions regarding the consultation process. The board chairperson

stated that 'the Maori people were happy with the toilet block in its present spot' .44 This was clearly contrary to what Tawhiti had said a few months earlier. The actions of the various boards in altering pa sites and urupa, without any reference to Maori

41 Waihi Advertiser, 8 August 1995 42 Meeting of Waihi Beach Community Board, 20 November 1995, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC 43 Waihi Leader, 20 February 1996 44 ibid

170 clearly illustrate a failure by the Crown to provide for the control and management of sites of special significance.

Mauao

The sacred status of Mauao is expressed in this Ngaiterangi whakatuaki, which show that Mauao is an intrinsic part ofNgaiterangi identity:

Ko mauao te Maunga Ko Tauranga te Moana Ko Tupaea te tangata

As explained in Chapter Four, the Crown 'purchased MountiMaunganuilast century. Minhinnick has shown thatthere was considerable opposition to the sale of the blocks among Ngaiterangi chiefs. The reason the Crown purchased the maunga was to provide a recreation area for the local council.

-. In 1982 the Tauranga Moana District Maori Council gave the following explanation of how Maori would like to see Mauao managed:

The fact that the Mount is now Crown land, part of Mount Maunganui Domain, in no way diminishes the traditional moana tribal area. The Maori people wish to share the enjoyment of the Mount with all people who live in or visit Tauranga Moana. Because of the significance of Mauao as the sacred mountain of Tauranga Moana, Maori people of the district are resolutely opposed to any kind of "development", any kind of commercial use of the Mount, its shoreline and adjacent harbour.45

. The Wai 540 claim lodged with the WaitangiTribunal by KihiNgatai'on behalf of Ngaiterangi seeks the following relief concerning Mauao: the ownership of Mauao be vested in 'nga Iwi of Tauranga Moana' namely Ngaiterangi, Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga; any development undertaken on Mauao must obtain the express approval of the above iwi; Mauao should remain a reserve for recreational purposes;

45 Stokes, 1992, pp 52-54

171 the Tauranga District Council should pay rent to the three iwi for the camping ground, swimming complex or any other enterprise generating income from Mauao; and the Tauranga District Council and the three iwi should negotiate terms and conditions for the daily care and management of Mauao.46

Maungatapu Reserves

A clear conflict between cultural values about access to the harbour and foreshores has occurred at the Ngati He marae at Maungatapu.47 Directly adjacent to the marae is a public access used by the public to launch boats from the beach., However, in recent years people have taken to driving cars along the beach in front of the marae, and the advent of the jetski has meant that the noise level has risen considerably. The impact on N gati He has been that events taking place on the marae, such as tangi, are disturbed by the noise of the access way and beach. After attempts to regulate noise levels failed, Ngati He took direct action and placed a log across the access.

Recent housing developments have resulted in the ancient Te Auwe pa site being cut through with a road, and houses being built on the foreshore in an area used as urupa. This was described in oral testimony by Ngati He kaumatua:

Speaker 1: You see all these Pakehas they putting all these big flash names ne, ae instead of putting a Maori name, I arahiteurupaki akoe, TeAuwe is it. Well they've got another name before you get there.

Speaker 2: Fantail Drive or something.

Speaker 3: Pleasure Point or something.

Speaker 1: Well that is that urupa that ridge you know, and then they cut the blimmin thing in half, those Pakehas, we went to have a look at it there is a ridge that runs through that pa but they cut the thing right through it. Retaining walls on either side.

Speaker 3: What I can't get over, you think that they would put something there to mark the place where you know, where there was an urupa and marae, there was a big cutting, coming straight through.

Speaker 1: Ae oh you can see it. Bloody Pakeha and then they tell us after, after they

46 Brian Dickson to Waitangi Tribunal, 11 December 1995 47 Bassett, 1996, pp 63-66

172 cut it.

Speaker 3: The thing that is happening now is that they've mowed the grass on the bottom side there, and what they are doing is they have got their boundary fence but are putting all their wood and their boats on the other side. So they keep their section open, so they got a big open section see, using the reserve as the place to store things, but of course they have gone out to the front as well you see, and that is that constant thing of encroaching aye. 48

Ngati He have also become alienated from public reserves which were created on the Maungatapu B block. These reserves were vested in the council as part of the residential subdivision of the block. The subdivision was managed by the Maori Trustee, and it was the trustee and the council who decided on the extent ,and location of the reserves. The owners of the block were not involved inthesede.cisions, and feel that because it was Ngati He land, Ngati He's rights should be taken into account. These land dealings today have created a relationship of distrust between Ngaiterangi and the local council:

The current conflicts between Maungatapu Maori and the Tauranga District Council generally stem from the land alienations that took place in the 1960s and 1970s. The . Council had a legal right (delegated by central government) to impose conditions on '\ - i subdivisions and require reserves to be vested in the city. Misunderstandings resulting from cultural differences have since occurred over the ownership of these reserves. The council saw the reserves as having been obtained by legal right, with no interests of, or obligations to, the former owners remaining. On the other hand, Maori, were not closely informed about the alienations by the Maori Trustee, and , saw the reserves as having been 'gifted' to the council, with all the rights and obligations that would be implied by a gift. In regard to these issues it is important to note that while the claimants may be incorrect in their understanding of how the council came to own and control those reserves, the fact that they do not know how it happened is further proof that the creation of.thesubdivision was done without the owners being closely involved. As a result, NgatiHe and Ngaite-Ahiare left not knowing exactly what happened to the land that used to' be theirs.'The'claimants also feel that the council and the Maori Trusteefailed·toensureithaticertainwahi tapu were protected from the residential expansion.49 The following points can be taken from this quote: the legacy ofland alienation in the 1960sand 1970s Ngaiterangi distrust of local bodies; there was a failure to acknowledge differing cultural attitudes towards land tenure; confusion over land ownership was the product of the council's failure to consult with Ngaiterangi; and

48 Oral interview with Ngati He conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 49 Bassett, 1996, pp 75-76

173 the council's failure to consult has resulted in the desecration and destruction of wahi tapu.

Mangatawa

As explained in Chapter Six of this report, the Mangatawa and Papamoa blocks have been the site of numerous public works. Most of these took no account of the significance of the land to Ngaiterangi. This is particularly true for Mangatawa itself. The highest point, Maungamana, which was an ancient pa site .and the burial place of important tupuna, has been almost completely destroyed bythequarry.-The fill from the quarry was used to build the wharves at Mount Maunganui, and koiwi were excavated along with the soil:

They took the front bit of it and the amount of bones that's gone to build up that wharf down there and that overbank. A lot of my tipuna are under that wharf, so they're going for compensation for that wharf, because most of our people are under that wharf. We had an uncle, our uncle Tommy Mack he use to be over there and he , use to count the trucks, and everytime they blast he use to go and get the bones of - our people and take it down the urupa but there was many more that went into that mea. so

Mangatawa has been further desecrated by the council construction of a water reservoir above the marae. In the 1980s the Mangatawa-Papamoa Incorporation held a series of-meetings with the Historic Places Trust, the Ministry of Works and the council to stop any further desecration. iHowever, .at the meetings the Ministry and the council both displayed an unwillingness to find alternative solutions, despite the protests of the incorporation.

7.3 Summary

If local authorities have failed to protect Maori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi the responsibility lies with the Crown for failing to ensure that the body to which it

50 Oral interview with Nga Potiki conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997

174 devolved its power and responsibilities must exercise that power in a way that is consistent with the Treaty. The use of the harbour, and pa sites around the harbour, as public recreation facilities creates a conflict with Ngaiterangi cultural values. The result of such usage has been the desecration of significant wahi tapu. Ngaiterangi hapu had clearly established rules governing the harvesting of kaimoana. At no time have they given up their role as kaitiaki ofthe harbour. Ngaiterangi maintain that the foreshores were never sold to the Crown and remain Ngaiterangi land. Since at least 1885 Ngaiterangi have been requesting that their customary rights over these areas, and the-harbour as a whole; be recognised. The Crown's legislation vesting control ofthe harbour in the Tauranga Harbour Board failed to provide for Ngaiterangi representation. The large scale development of the international cargo port at Mount Maunganui has severely impacted on the ability of Ngaiterangi to exercise their customary rights to the foreshore. The development of the port was encouraged and facilitated by the Crown. The development was seen as being of national benefit, and the drive to develop the region took precedence over any Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities. The harbour has been polluted which has depleted fish and shellfish stocks. The discharge of sewerage is particularly offensive to Ngaiterangi and consultation processes have been inadequate. The Bowentown Domain is an example of a significant Ngaiterangi site being administered in a way that has damaged thepa and not taken the 'concerns of local hapu into account. Mauao is a very sacred maunga to all Tauranga iwi. Ngaiterangi wish ownership to be returned to Maori and to be involved in joint management of the domain.

175 8. Rates and Urban Expansion

My father was told by the council, 'Look George if you don't pay the rates they are going to put you in jail, and take the land off you.' And as a little kid. I remember all that and now when the council say do this and you do that. I think, 'No!', you are using your own rangatiratanga. 1

This chapter will examine the impact of local authorities on Ngaiterangi and the use of their land. It is important to note that Treaty obligations and any failure to execute these obligations lies with the Crown who must ensure the body to whom it devolves or delegates its duties exercises this authority in a way that is consistent with the principles of the Treaty.

Local government represents a delegated arm of central government, and exercises a remarkable range of powers over land and its use. For Ngaiterangi, the most important impacts of local government have been the implementation of the Rating Act, and the controls on the subdivision of land. Underlying this impacts has been an ethos of - expansion and development in line with regional parochialism. 8.1 Rates

Rates are a tax on property levied by local authorities to raIse money to fund community services. The rateable value of a property is estimated at so much per .pound or dollar of the assessed value ofbuildings or landowned.or,leased.

This chapter examines the impact of rates on Ngaiterangi as an iwi and land owners . . Unfortunately Ngaiterangirate payers in the Bay of Plenty in many instances did not receive a fair return for their contribution to community rates. It will be shown that the actions of local bodies contributed to a climate of distrust between the Pakeha and Maori community. It will also be shown that crippling rate payments resulted in forced sales of Maori land.

1 Oral interview with Ngai Tamawhariua conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997

176 A more comprehensive examination of Maori and the experience of rating is Tom Bennion, 'Maori and Rating Law'.2 Bennion identifies three essential points regarding rates: rates were levied by local authorities rather than central government; rates were assessed on land or buildings; and the money collected was applied to providing services for the local community

rather than any national project. 3

These points indicate that the essential component of rates was to provide local authorities with funds to maintain and 'develop services for'the people of their community. This raises the question of whetheror not Maori land owners received the same level of service or value as other rate payers. Regardless of the amount paid by individual rate payers, all rate payers must be acknowledged to be in the same class, that is as rate payers, which therefore entitles them to use of the services that rate paying provides.

, - The problems caused by local authority demands on Ngaiterangi for rates are varied, and this report will use a range of examples to illustrate the breadth of impact that rate demands had on Maori life. However, these examples generally identify the same outcomes or issues: alienation ofNgaiterangi from the administration of their land; an inability to gain personal use andcontroloftheir land; and a failure by Crown appointed agenciestoprotecttheiowners'interests.

The impact of rate paying on Ngaiterangi was dramatic. In February 1885 Native Minister John Ballance held a series of meetings with Maori in the central andeastem North Island. At Whareroa, Te Mete Rauwkawa told Ballance that Ngaiterangi thought that the Rating Act was unjust because:

2 For an examination of the historical and legal implication of rates on Maori land see: Tom Bennion, 'Maori and Rating Law', Rangihaua Whanui National Theme I, Waitangi Tribunal, July 1997. 3 ibid, P 2

177 the Natives, being an impoverished people are not able to pay either the rates on the land, or the property tax. We ask that these laws may be repealed to the extent that 4 they affect Native lands. . It was also contended by leaders such as Te Mete that Maori would never be able to pay rates and therefore it was inevitable that more land would be taken from them. He asked for some 'relief from the Crown.

Ngaiterangi chief Hori Ngatai was not opposed to paying rates but felt that the levy was inconsistent, arguing that he should not be paying rates when other Maori owners had not been billed. Ngatai's name appeared on the Crown grant which saw him rated as an individual land owner. Lands with multiple owners'werenotrated'at this time. Ballance told Ngatai and Te Mete that if.rateswere notpaid,thentheroads':would not be repaired and farmers would be unable to get their produce to market.

Ngatai accepted the principle of paying rates but said he took exception to the rate charges that the council expected him to pay when he was faced with other fees concerning his land from the Maori Land Court and the government. - " Another Tauranga leader, Piahana, complained that the law regarding rating was inconsistent, ashe held his land with two other owners. He also contended that he got little service for his rates:

I own a back section, with a European between the road and myself; I have no access to the road. Beyond me, again, is the .land belonging to· anotherhapu, lying between me and the beach. I have been summoned by the Road Board forratesforthatpiece of land. There are three of us on the Crown grant for the land. 5

Both men argued that rates were too high for the amount of service that Maori were receiving in return for their payment. A considerable amount of Maori land did not have access to the roads that Maori were being levied to pay. Ngatai contended it was an injustice for Maori when they had no road access to their land.

4 AJHR, 1885, G-I, P 60 5 Evelyn Stokes, A History ofTauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980, pp 321-324

178 In 1895 Richard Seddon and James Carroll made a tour of Maori areas similar to the tour made by Ballance in 1885. They received complaints concerning rates that were remarkably similar to those that Ballance had received a decade earlier. There was however little sympathy amongst the Pakeha community for the plight of Maori land owners. Rather, the feeling amongst local bodies, particularly in back-block districts was that they were at a disadvantage in having to maintain roads with minimal contribution from Maori who were users of these roads.

In 1904 the Native Land Rating Act was passed. Prior to this Act Maori lands with many owners were not rated. This Act placed .rates on communally 0wned land. Briefly, the Act made Maori land liable for full rates: if there was a European occupier; if it was in a town or borough or within ten miles of one; if it was within five miles of any public road; if it had at any time been liable for full rates; or if it was incorporated under the Native Land Act 1894.6

Land owned by Ngaiterangi met all of the above criteria. The Act was, according to the Native Minister Carroll, the result of considerable lobbying from Pakeha to see that Maori 'contribute what is considered their full share.,7. The purpose of the Act was 'to increase the rating burden on the Native owners of land'.8 There were those amongst Members of Parliament who foresaw future difficulties with: the Act:

the whole of this country did originally belong to the Natives, althoughiHs now occupied by Europeans. This land belonged to them, and now we are going to make them pay rates. I do not believe they will do this. There will be more trouble in bringing the Natives into Court and compelling them to pay these rates than there was in compelling them to pay the dog-tax.9

Significant amongst the lobbyist for reforming the rating laws dealing with Maori land was the Member of Parliament for Tauranga William Herries. Herries had made two

6 Heather Bassett, Rachel Steel, David Williams, The Maori Land Legislation Manual: Te Puka Ako Hanganga Mo Nga Ture Whenua Maori, vol 1, Crown Forest Rental Trust, 1994 7 NZPD, 1904, vol 128, P 197 8 ibid 9 NZPD, 1904, vo1131, P 808

179 earlier unsuccessful attempts in 1902 and 1903 to introduce a private member's Bill to expand rates on Maori land. \0 Herries played an extensive role in the alienation of Maori lands. As Native Minister (1912 to 1921) he oversaw the alienation of approximately 2.5 million acres of Maori land. l1 As far as Ngaiterangi have been concerned Herries has been overrated.

Herries' motivation for advocating the expanSIOn of rates on Maori land was an Increase in Pakeha settlement of Tauranga between 1900 and 1920 and the accompanying need to develop the area's infrastructure. The Pakeha population of Tauranga County between 1901 and 1921 went from 2,665 to 7,725. In contrast, the Maori population of Tauranga County during,thesame:periodincreased'from 1,303 in 1901 to 2,190 in 1921. 12

Herries was reflecting the concerns of his Pakeha constituents who felt it was unjust that Maori failed to pay their rates. Bennion when commenting on the Maori perspective to this issue, has said that Maori during the 1930s:

generally tended not to question the principle of paying rates, but pleaded for exemptions for various reasons. Some made complaints that they were not getting a good level of service from the councils - they were not happy to pay rates when there . were no roads or other facilities. Conversely, others thought they should not pay because a lot of rates demands were for services such as roads and drainage which were required only by Europeans. Others noted that they had already given land for roads, and that land should be considered as a rates payment. In some cases, there were objections to the valuations issued for land. Some claimed that they were not getting their rents from land boards to pay the rates. Others said. they did not .know they had to pay rates, they had neverreceived.notices.It was a minority who went further than this and said the Treaty of WaitangimeanUhatrates'did·not have to be . paid. i3

According to Stokes the county council minute book made regular mention of the failure of Maori to pay rates. 14 Stokes has said:

The problem remained for the Chairman and County Clerk went off to a Special conference to discuss the 'Native Rating Problem' in Rotorua in 1934. Legal avenues

10 Bennion, p 30 11 Kathryn Rose, 'The Impact of Confiscation: Socio-Economic Conditions of Tauranga Maori', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, January 1997, Wai 215 A38, P 74 12 Stokes, 1980, p 170. See also Rose, p 74. 13 Bennion, p 60 14 Stokes, 1980, p 323

180 to extract rates from unwilling Maori owners were explored but the County Solicitor's report in 1934 made it 'clear that native lands cannot be sold under provisions of the Rating Act, whether the titles have been individualised or not'. It also noted that 'European occupiers of native lands are liable personally for payment of rates'. A few Maori were taken to court but such actions usually failed as it was rarely possible to prove title to the property. The County Clerk explained how difficult it was to locate actual owners. Rate demands sent by mail often came back unclaimed. Numerous properties were listed in the assessment rolls simply as 'Natives'. Other properties gave one or two names and 'Others'. In practice, access roads to Maori villages were often not maintained. An application for assistance to improve the access to Katikati Pa in 1937 received a reply to the effect that if they paid their rates then the Council would be prepared to spend some money on the road. Matakana residents received a similar response the following year, although in a later discussion in 1943 the County Chairman commented that 'a visit should be . made to Matakana'. Maori farms were productive there and rates could be paid 'but it was a duty of the Council to provide roads as an urge for them to do so' . 15 The following points emerge from this quote: there was a strong desire within the,Pakehaccommunitytotake.Maori land from owners who failed to pay rents; there was a desire to prosecute Maori who failed to pay rates; the problem with rate defaulting was largely the fault of the council as a result of poor collection methods and information about Maori land ownership; the council were unwilling to spend money on services where Maori lived because of non-payment of rates; and the council, by maintaining the position that Maori must first pay rates before they got any roads, implied that all Maori land owners were rate defaulters.

The idea that all Maori were rate defaulters was wrong. The percentage of rate paying Maori land owners was not high but,itwas'isignificantandjncreasing during the 1940s and 1950: 16 Maori Rate Collection 1946-1952 Percentage 1946-1947 30.0 1947-1948 30.3 1948-1949 35.6 1949-1950 38.2 1950-1951 42.1 1951-1952 (estimated) 45.0

15 ibid 16 Tauranga rates clerk to the chairman and councillors, 2 November 1951, MA 1 20/1/33, National Archives, Wellington

181 The overall situation was that the council found themselves in an absurd position. By 'lumping' Maori rate defaulters with rate paying Maori the council found themselves in the situation of denying rate paying Maori their entitled services. That is, road access to their land. The council seemed to be unwilling, or unable to recognise the ongoing consequences of such a position. Those Maori who did pay rates got nothing for their payment. They complained about getting nothing for their levy. By not getting anything for their levy they were in effect encouraged to stop paying rates. Those Maori who were rate defaulters saw that Maori who paid their rates got no service for their payment. The rate defaulters were unlikely to pay rates when they saw that rate paying Maori got nothing: for their-payment. The council failed to recognise that insisting that Maori musCfirst payrates-before-theygotroads created a cyclical situation where non-rate paying Maori were unwilling to pay for services, and existing Maori rate payers were discouraged from continuing their payment.

The actions of the council in not providing roads to Maori-owned land made the land economically vulnerable because it made getting produce to market difficult, which in

turn made raising revenue to pay rates difficult. The long term consequences of such a position was that rates on Maori land would -build up and then, after a period, be written off as a bad debt. The effect of this was that a culture of non-payment existed -where the council expected to receive limited rate payments on Maori-owned land, and therefore were unwilling to improve services to Maori. This had the effect of creating a situation of alienating Maori land by degrees as it continued to be less accessible to roads, and therefore unattractive and uneconomic to farm. Maori in short, were being cut out of the loop of economic deVelopment of their land by the council's actions.

Kathryn Rose has identified a number of factors for non-payment of rates by Maori:

Non-payment of rates was often attributed to an unwillingness on the part of Maori to pay. However, Maori inability to pay rates was directly tied to the economically marginal position they continued to fmd themselves in. Not only had the land base of Tauranga Maori been severely depleted by the process of confiscation and later the Native Land Court, but the land that they did retain was generally uneconomic. Land holdings were mostly small and scattered and development was hampered by multiple ownership and a lack of access to capital. Maori in Tauranga that did continue to be involved in agriculture did so from a disadvantageous position. Reliance on employment on European farms or in European industry became an

182 increasingly dominant feature of Maori economic activity .17

As an example of the council's neglect of Maori needs, Rose cites living conditions at Matapihi from the 1940s to the 1960s. She notes that the council received 'only about one eightieth of the rates from Matapihi, as partitioning over the years had resulted in most sections being under ten acres in size.' Since 1945 Matapihi Maori had sought assistance in building a foot bridge over Tauranga Harbour. Rose has said that the council would .not increase its contribution to the project because of non-payment of rates by Matapihi Maori. 18 What is interesting about this situation is the lack of council support for Maori to develop their'ownneedsat:Matapihi;ata time when there was growing support for the development of infrastructure,. within Tauranga. By not aiding Matapihi Maori who had pressing needs to develop the area that they lived in the council were consigning their land to the future threat of residential urban development and subdivision.

Rose's contention that Tauranga Maori found' themselves in a marginal position appears to be borne out when rate arrears for Tauranga Maori land are compared with other Maori land in nearby regions. The following figures are based on the 1949 to .. 1950 rating year. They give some indication of the magnitude of the problem of rates for Maori in Tauranga compared to Maori in other nearby.counties containing a large

proportion of Maori land: 19

County Number £ % -~ % 1949-1950 Assessments Struck 'Collected Written Arrears Off ClFwd. Tauranga 1280 11,687 38 54 8 Whakatane 1000 4,230 69 --- 31 Rotorua 680 4,552 46 --- 54 Waitomo 660 6,771 19 71 10 Whangarei 564 2, 183 17 --- 83 Raglan 502 4,694 28 --- 72 Hobson 213 1,835 15 --- 85 Ohinemuri 165 649 18 62 20

17 Rose, p 75 18 ibid, pp 157-161 19 Tauranga County Council report on Maori rating, 2 November 1951, MA 1 20/1/33, National Archives, Wellington

183 These figures show that: Tauranga County has both the largest number of assessments and the highest amount of rates struck on Maori land. Tauranga Maori rate payers were paying considerably more in rates for a similar number of assessments than close neighbours in Whakatane. Tauranga County was not the worst area for collection percentage. Five other counties had a worse collection record. Both Rotorua and Whakatane had higher collection percentages. In Whakatane at this time a specifically appointed Maori rate collector existed. Tauranga wrote off all rates not collected.

At this time the council began to pursue a number of avenues to encourage the payment of rates. They aimed to encourage rate payments by: updating valuation rolls concerning land .partitions, vesting and alienation of Maori land; prosecuting applications made to the Maori Land Court for charging orders; using circulars to inform Maori occupiers that charging orders would be made if rates were not paid; liaising with the Department of Maori Affairs and Maori groups and bodies; and meeting with occupiers at the arrangement of the Maori. Welfare Officer to discuss rating and land occupancy.

The result of these actions was that the registrar of the Maori Land Court supplied minutes of Court proceedings relating to the partition, vesting or alienation of Maori land within the county to the council. This action suggests that the council, on many occasions, were ill informed as to the status of Maori-owned land, which in turn brings into doubt the professionalism or accuracy of their operating procedure, if not the validity of some of their rate demands on Maori occupiers:

Demands have been addressed to persons who are deceased - in one case the so called occupier died over 30 years ago. In some cases the Court was able to find owners willing to pay the rates but the County Council will continue to labour under insuperable difficulties in its duty of rate collection until the Valuation Department's valuation roll shows a realistic attitude towards an urgent present day problem which

184 springs from the fact that an ever increasing Maori popUlation is continously [sic] requiring more separate titles. European ownership of land is comparatively static and demands reach living persons who by their protests, if wrongly assessed, keep the European valuation roll in order. The Maori on the other hand is not reached when demands are sent to deceased owners and are in too many cases not particularly concerned even if the demand is properly made. Still from yesterdays experience it appears that many of the rates included in the council's application would have been collected had the demands been sent to the proper persons ... too many individuals are avoiding payment of a legal and moral debt just because the valuation roll provides a loophole for evasion of that debt.20 The council blamed the following factors for its inability to gather Maori rates: Valuation Department for not maintaining rolls; growing Maori population; Maori wanting separate land titles; and Maori not informing the council of their situation.

This quote suggests that the onus was on Maori, rather than on the council and other bodies to make an effort to improve their collection methods. It also implied that Maori were being dishonest, despite the fact that it acknowledges the point that many individuals were willing to pay their rates if they received a demand with the correct details.

The council's response towards ongoing rate defaulters was to seek charging orders. These orders usually meant that land was vested in a trustee to generate revenue. The long term result was often the sale of the block. However, not all the action taken against Maori owners was punitive. The counciL did attempt to ~!?C the carrot with the stick, particularly if this meant serving council interests as well as those' of Maori:

It was most evident at this meeting that the owners are willing to make the necessary effort but that, naturally, they expect something in return. The state of their roads is at present extremely poor and while the owners are of a mind to make adequate payment I would respectfully suggest that a little grading now would increase their willingness to meet their obligations. (It may at least save the odd spring on a County vehicle used to attend further meetings).21

This magnanimous suggestion does raise the question of what exactly the council perceived as their responsibility to their Maori rate payers, as well indicating that

20 Tauranga Minute Book, vol 19, fol 116, 17 November 1955

185 those Maori who failed to pay their rates had some justification for not doing so when they would receive little service for their payment. The irony of the council's position is that they speak of 'Maori people showing a greater realization of their responsibilities', yet the council failed to meet its own responsibility to its Maori rate payers with roads to their land.22 As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, regardless of the amount paid by individual rate payers all rate payers must be acknowledged to be in the same class, that is as rate payers, which therefore entitles them to use of the services that rate paying provides.

Generally the council's inability to collect rates on Maori land went through three distinct phrases. Each new direction was presented by the council as an opportunity to gather more rates. In reality it was a gradual process of forced alienation: In the 1930s Maori were encouraged to farm their own Jand. Failure to pay rates and maintain the land to Pakeha standards saw punitive legal action taken against Maori rate defaulters. In the 1950s much of this land was placed under the control of the Maori Trustee as agent for the owner, and was farmed by a third party who had little interest in the , - rights of the owners. The problem with rate defaulting continued to exist. In the 1960s and 1970s the answer to rate problems was thought to be to partition and subdivide the land as residential housing, with the hope that Maori housing would be made available and that they would take up individual titles to their property, and accept individual responsibility for their rates. Unfortunately, most of the sections made available in these residential developments were sold toPakeha buyers.

8.2 Urban Expansion

In the 1960s and 1970s Tauranga city and Mount Maunganui borough experienced rapid residential expansion. As a result urban Tauranga encroached on Ngaiterangi lands which had been isolated settlements. Ngaiterangi land holdings on the fringes of the city were now vulnerable and seemingly ideal for residential development. From

21 Tauranga rates clerk to the chainnan and councillors, 2 November 1951, MA 1 20/1/33, National Archives, Wellington 22 ibid

186 the council perspective they were 'idle', uneconomic, untidy Maori lands that could be utilised in the interests of the city. From a Maori perspective it was the same old story of alienation of their whenua when it was wanted by Pakeha. The irony of the situation was that the councils, by not gathering rates, were unwilling to develop roads to these areas. This had made it difficult for Ngaiterangi to fully develop the economic . potential of their land, and by not doing so it was left in a state of seeming isolation for future generations of councils to regard as 'idle' and therefore 'ripe' for breaking up into housing subdivisions.

When prosecuting rates charges through the Maori Land Court in 1955 the Tauranga County Council favoured the idea of subdividing blocksiand individualising title. It also recognised the residential potential. The following quote gives a complete

statement of the council's position and intention for' the future of Maori land In Tauranga:

It is apparent that areas of land in Matapihi, Maungatapu and Hairini may be visualized as potentially residential. That potentiality however obviously varies in remoteness, being governed by provision of roads and other amenities and governed also by the date when a market is available for residential sites; but from the Maori point of view, bearing in mind the number of co-owners in much of their lands, and the danger of a sprawling pattern if done piecemeal, it would be of advantage now to individualise thus affording each owner the opportunity of building himself a suitable home close to the market for his labour i.e. the port of Tauranga and its industries in course of establishment. Such partition is at present handicapped by roading requirements. It may well be that after making due provision for housing areas, a portion of the land should be alienated and the proceeds wisely used. The Council would fmd thaton partition of the these, lands the difficulties ·ofrate collection would largely disappear; the individual Maori would gladly pay hisdueswb~n he knew that what he paid represented only his fair share of civic :burden on ,what heO\~med. The danger inherent in.thisscheme of general partition is that the Valuation Department may take the partition as evidence of a market for subdivisional sales and place an immediate residential value on a remote potentiality. If some realistic method of valuation for rating purposes is adopted following the inquires now being made by the Local Government Commission we may' fmd that this danger of present overvaluation of remote potentiality has been removed. It is manifest that some system encouraging partition of Maori land in the locations named by the Council will ultimately bring a volume of rate return in place of the present poor supply extracted with difficulty. Proper provision for Maori Housing is a matter of both National and local concern. There is a large and increasing population in the Tauranga Suburban area and it is important to encourage soundly planned partition as a basis of such provision. The Maori is becoming a vital part of the industrial army marching therein as honourably as in times of National peril he marched to war. The imporvment [sic] of his domestic environment will further promote the happy relationship between the associated peoples. Such improvement, to adopt and apply the language of the Town and Country Planning Act "will contribute to the

187 pleasantness harmony and coherence" of the environment of Tauranga and to its better enjoyment.23

The main points that emerge from this quote are: as early as the 1950s this land was recognised as being potentially residential; the council argued for individualisation of title as a way for Maori to obtain individual housing sites, but also as a means of ensuring that valuation rolls were kept up to date, hence more likelihood that rates would be paid; the costs of subdividing and roads, were to be met by selling sections. This would achieve the council's objective of residential expansion; at this stage the plan was for housing for Maori, but the counciL seemed to be suggesting that Maori had more land than they needed and that they would be able to sell the surplus; the council linked the· idea of housing development for Maori to their place in the industrial future of Tauranga. Communal title was seen as backward whereas individual title was linked to moving into the modem world; and the council recognised that there was a risk that rates would rise even further. This 'remote potentiality' became the reality, as Maori lands were rated on their value as residential subdivisions.

Two key points begin to emerge. Firstly, that the council saw 'individualisation' of land titles as the remedy for rate defaulting. Secondly, that there was an underlying disapproval of the Maori lifestyle and use ofland. These points in turn raise questions about the concept of ownership. The council clearly opposed mUltiple ownership because they saw it creating problems with rate collection and land utilisation. The . council's position failed to acknowledge the cultural emphasis that Maori placed on communal ownership of land. It would be worth investigating whether this attitude from the council was shared by lending institutions when faced with Maori requests for finance to develop their land.

23 Tauranga Minute Book 19, fo1116, 17 November 1955

188 The table on page 181 showing the rate collection figures on Maori land for 1949 to 1950 also shows that problems with rates existed in the Bay of Plenty well before the infrastructure developments of the 1960s and 1970s. This suggests that it was closely linked to the marginalisation of Maori in this area as a result of land confiscation. Nevertheless, there would appear to be little doubt that the building boom in Tauranga in the 1960s and 1970s placed renewed pressure on what remained of Maori-owned

land. 24

During the 1970s, with increased pressure for Maori land to be made available for development, there were public threats from the council that 'Maori .land could be sold to recover rate arrears' and that 'the ,council decided to sue the owners concerned

and take any other steps necessary to obtain payment. ,25

Ngaiterangi leader, William Ohia, responded by saying that 'any move to recover rate arrears by selling Maori land under present joint-ownership land titles would be unsatisfactory and unfair.' He argued that:

the onus was on the Government to re-arrange Maori land titles throughout the country to provide sole ownership to Maoris. This would provide incentives for individual owners to keep up with rate payments instead of the present situation where possibly 20 owners were involved, with each unwilling to pay rates unless the others contributed. Ohia went on to say that:

he was disappointed with the county council for considering selling Maori land. At this time, and under the present titleconditions;'whatthe council:plansis;really a legal form of confiscation. If any landis sold without. the.' GovernmenLconsidering the title 'situation, it is obvious that the Maori people are being penalised.26

. Ohia'sresponse highlights the following issues: the duty of the Crown towards Maori land owners; the need to rethink Maori land legislation; and the hostility from local council towards their Maori community.

24 Tauranga rates clerk to the chairman and councillors, 2 November 1951, MA 1 20/1/33, National Archives, Wellington 25 Bay of Plenty Times, 12 September 1972, MA 1 20/1/33, National Archives, Wellington

189 This quote suggests that present concerns for Maori centre on the different approaches of Maori and Pakeha communities towards the use of land. Allied to the idea of different cultural approaches to land use for Maori is the principle that the Treaty promised undisturbed possession of these lands.

Matapihi

This case study is an example ofNgaiterangi trying to protect their ancestral lands in the face of overwhelming pressure from priVate and public sector interests for development of this land. It highlights the Crown's'failure to .protect Maori interests as recognised by the Treaty of Waitangi when faced withe-what they considered the greater good of the nation.

The problems that arise for Maori land when incorporated within urban areas have been identified in a number of reports, and generally consist of the following factors: disruption to the marae; alienation of ancestral land; urban valuation and rating of land; and residential development.27

In the 1950s and 1960s there was considerable inter-local body debate concerning administrative boundaries, particularly over the Matapihi .area -which was seen as significant in the planning for the future industrial growth for the region. Industrial and urban development proposals for Maori land appear to have been well under way before consultation with Maori owners or possession of the land had been achieved. 28

This desire to develop the region's infrastructure was evident in the construction of a causeway and bridge linking Matapihi and Maungatapu in the late 1950s. The bridge

26 Stokes, 1980, p 20 27 Des Tatana Kahotea, 'Western Bay of Plenty Urban Development Strategy Study: Taha MaorilMaori Perspectives', 1986, p 18 28 Stokes, 1980, p 18

190 was soon followed by improved road access down the middle of the Mount Maunganui peninsula to the port in the 1960s.

Urban encroachment on Maori land was seen as a fait accompli that Maori tried to resist for a number of years, but one which they were forced to address in the face of rate demands on their land and community pressure for housing and roads. 29 Being incorporated into the boundaries of a residential zone usually meant that the land was valued for residential purposes and rates assessments increased. Stokes has said that 'for the Maori owner there is the additional· pressure of traditional attitudes to ancestral land, the desire to retain it inMaoriownership.'30 The local body planning options for Matapihi by the 1970s included: continue using the area for farming until transportation links had been improved; begin residential development; or because of its proximity to the port use the area for industrial purposes.

All the options outlined would have impacted detrimentally on the Maori owners' right to keep ownership of their land.31 The options outlined above amounted to no choice at all for the interests of the Maori owners. In effect, they were a warning from the council that the land could not continue as a rural backwater.

In 1959 a meeting was held between Ngaiterangi, the Department of Maori Affairs, and the council about Maori concerns over the area becoming part of the borough. At the time Ngaiterangi wanted: An undertaking by the Department of Maori Affairs to preserve ancestral Maori lands.

Turi Te Kani voiced Ngaiterangi concerns:

The people of Matapihi are perplexed at the changes which have lately taken place on this side of the harbour and also on the Maungatapu peninsular. We don't know where we stand and various differing proposals are put to us. We have had it suggested that we can no longer remain in the Tauranga County but must be

29 ibid, P 13 30 ibid, P 2 31 ibid, P 20

191 absorbed in either the Borough of Mount Maunganui or the Borough of Tauranga. We don't know which proposal would be to our best advantage. We have asked the Mount Borough if we can be supplied with water by them and the answer has been defmitely not if you stay in the County. We feel that pressure can be brought on us in a variety of ways and we don't know whether to resist or give in. I call on the Department to assist by advising us tonight as to the best course to follow.

As for the matter of consolidation, that is being raised as once the owners have their interests located they will then be responsible to meet such commitments as rates and noxious weeds prevention. In listening to our requests tonight I would ask you to bear in mind our deep attachment, and the attachment of Maoris everywhere to their ancestral lands. We are asking for guidance on business like lines but at the same time this feeling of ours for our land is something that cannot be measured in £. s. d. and may outweigh what appear to be practical suggestions. We propose to have certain areas of Matapihi set aside as farm lands and the balance in the more accessible area to be subdivided for residential purposes. Please do not get the idea that progress is unwelcome but we are. afraid ofthe whole, sale. confiscation ofMaori Land.32

The concerns ofNgaiterangi can be summarised from this quote as: a failure by the Crown and local bodies to consult with Maori; manipulative actions by local bodies to sway support of Maori; inability to meet rates on land owned by Maori; protection and significance of ancestral land for Maori; potential for future alienation of land owned by Maori; and an awareness from Ngaiterangi that their land was under threat.

Maori were not unwilling in all instances to subdivide their land, however tension did exist between trying to avoid outside land subdivision pressures, and still wanting to subdivide land for their own use. They recognised the need to develop the land to meet new rates charges and market prices.

In 1972 an application was made to the Maori Land Court to create a trust to administer several Matapihi blocks. The trustees believed that the proposed trust was very important for the district. Turi Te Kani, a proposed trustee, explained that a meeting of owners of blocks at Matapihi had been called because outside interest had been shown in acquiring land on the peninsula, and the owners felt it was time they

32 Minutes of meeting held at Matapihi School, Tauranga, 8 April 1959, MA 1 29/4/11, National Archives, Auckland

192 'closed their ranks' .33 The situation was fully explained by the trustees' solicitor E. Durie:

Land on peninsula at present in Tauranga C C [County Council]. It borders Tauranga C [City] and borders Mount Maunganui C C. Both councils are in expansive mood and the Mount area is one of the fastest growing in NZ. Since 1967 it[ s] reasons to take over additional land have become equally compelling as T City C. The next step was Dept of Education became interested. They viewed about 20 acres Fulloon's Land on peninsula as an excellent site for a technical Institute. The Health Dept became interested as they viewed 90 acres as an excellent site for Tauranga Hospital Board. The Minister of Maori and Island Affairs Mr McIntyre likened the peninsula to a bone being fought over by several dogs where the owners of the bone standing back wondering what was going to happen. He .recommended the owners seek the assistance of the Dept so that owners could speak with one voice and see that in any plan for development the owners interests are protected. This peninsula is one of the few remaining areas that is not developed for housing.· It offers the most .spectacular views of the city that can be gained from the harbour so from a Land Agents point of view this land is highly desirable. Would submit that there are two. areas .of concern - one is that they will be pushed out by lands agents or they will be the victim of Departments. The other main concern is that they own land at Matapihi but are unable to build. I am talking about house sites. The T County Council is not ? partitions & about 2 yrs ago it approved plans for the subdivision of one area of Matapihi for subdivision & for that purpose the Mahiwahine Trustee were established to subdivide & sell. That Trusteeship has settled about 10 Maori people of Matapihi with homes.34 [Emphasis added.] The application was stood down while details about the blocks to be included and the trust order were considered. However, the pressures on the land described by Durie were obviously immediate because the court granted Durie the right to request a special sitting to finalise the trust if it was 'a matter of urgency'. The main points of this quote that should be emphasised are: there were a number of different groups pressuring Maori over land; the need for Maori housing; and the Crown was aware of the situation but still failed to-protect Ngaiterangi interests.

At a recent discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives the Matapihi situation was discussed:

And conversely with Matapihi is where ... they deserve the biggest accolades for making their effort and the old people, their parents, grandparents, to retain that land. Because it's really an oasis in the middle of, in the middle ofa madness, you knoW.35

33 Tauranga Minute Book 32, fo1152, 19 July 1972 34 ibid, fols 153-154 35 Discussion group of Ngaiterangi hapu representatives conducted by Paul Stanley, Tauranga, November 1997, tape B2

193 Another spokesperson carried on with the idea that Matapihi was being threatened by urban encroachment:

We're trying to fight urban development in our particular area, we keep reminding them that we're unique in a sense that we've got this nice green area between, literally two concrete jungles, Tauranga on one side and Mount Maunganui on the other and Matapihi slap bang right in the centre. And to leave it like that, in a green unique area, like how we envisage and a lot of the Pakehas were trying to cut down, in Matapihi the number of Pakeha owners in, in the particular area, because we're governed by a trust, which is set up to protect even ourselves, from getting into debt and using the land as collateral, as a payment of that debt. Before you can sell land in Matapihi, it's got to go, first goes through ... that set of trustees. 36

Unfortunately, the Matapihi example stands out as an exception to the rule that the growth and development of Tauranga came at the expense of surrounding Maori communities.

Ironically, in the Papamoa district Nga Potiki have historically lost land due to urban pressures, but now find themselves unable to use their remaining land to house their own people. This opinion was expressed by a Nga Potiki kuia:

I go back to the land lost to Pakeha in earlier times, houses have been built and here we are in confusion because land has not been given to build houses for Maori. This land just out here, I asked the council to give it as a place to build for the grandchildren but the Pakeha said no they would not give it because of their law. I only wanted enough for four houses but the answer was still no. There were many requests from Ngapotiki to build for children and grandchildren. Although there is quite a bit of land remaining they are still the ones saying no. 37

Maungatapu

In 1959 Maungatapu was incorporated into the Tauranga Borough Counci1. 38 The construction of a new network of roads through Maungatapu was closely linked with the urban expansion of Tauranga city. Ngaiterangi and the local authorities involved were well aware that once the road link was completed there would be pressure on

36 ibid

37 Oral interview with Nga Potiki kuia, conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997, translated from Te Reo by Hauata Palmer 38 Heather Bassett, 'Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini, Tauranga', Waitangi Tribunal, July 1996, Wai 215 A26

194 Maori to subdivide and sell land for housing. Judge Prichard of the Maori Land Court said in 1959 that:

The Court agrees with the conclusions reached - it is no longer practicable for Maoris to retain sections in a Borough 'for our children or grandchildren' - the burden of rates makes such an impossibility. The only thing that can be done is to sell and invest the money for the children or grandchildren when they are ready.39

Thejudge made the comment during a hearing on a Maungatapu IJB2B2B2 block in 1959, when the block was:

in the County, but what is regarded as a most desirable part will in a few months be . in the Tauranga Borough and on the main roadto.Mt Maunganui. The rates are even in the County £300 odd and they in the Borough be several timesthis.40

This comment from the judge highlighting the future role that was to be played by rating charges was to be prophetic. The activities of local authorities and the Maori Trustee have meant that today there is little Maori land left in this area which is predominantly a middle class Pakeha housing suburb of Tauranga city. The following table provides a breakdown of the financial impact that rating charges had on various Maungatapu blocks between 1963 and 1966:41 Block Area Rates Owing 1963-1966 Maungatapu lA3B 6a2r 14.0p £105.05.05 Maungatapu IJA2B la lr 12.2p £67.11.07 Maungatapu 1G 22a Or OO.Op £192.01.08 Te Mara-a-Tatahau 2aOr OO.Op £289.02.07 Maungatapu 182 2a 3r 15.9p £464.09.00 Maungatapu 181 B laOr.03~Op - £148.03.07 Maungatapu A3B (not in table) £299.09.07 Maungatapu 1M 4a Or 30.0p £42.13.06 Maungatapu 1C2A part 6a Or 20.0p £87.12.10 Total Rates Owing £1696.09.09

. The effect of outstanding rate charges was the forced sale of Ngaiterangi land, often against the wishes of many owners during the 1960s and 1970s. As Judge Prichard predicted, the council assessed the rates for the blocks on the value of the land as

39 Tauranga Minute Book 22, fol 17, 9 February 1959 40 ibid, fols 17-21 41 Sharp Tudhope & Co to Maori Trustee, 26 November 1965, 12/246 Maungatapu B s438/53, Maori Trust Office Hamilton

195 urban residential sections, and when Maori did not pay those rates, the council insisted on pursuing charging orders over the blocks through the Maori Land Court. As a result a number of trusts were established to subdivide the blocks and sell sections to pay the outstanding rates. The council's inflexible attitude over rate assessments and charges saw the alienation of N gaiterangi land which has created conflict between Ngaiterangi and the council.

The most significant trust on Maungatapu was the Maungatapu B block, an amalgamation of several smaller blocks, most of which had outstanding rates assessments. The Maungatapu B block was vested in the Maori Trustee for subdivision and sale. When the trust was being set up the, owners were told they would be able to obtain sections on which they could build a house. The following tables identifies the different stages of the Maungatapu subdivision and shows the number of sections vested in Maori owners, as compared to those sold on the open market:42

Stage Total Residential Sections Vested % of Sections in Maori Owners Total Stage I 19 7 39% Stage II 13 3 23% Stage III 198 1 0.5% Stage IV 16 13 81% Stage V sold as one lot 0 0% Stage VI 12 12 100% Total 259 36 14%

The Maori Trustee also controlled a separate subdivision of the Maungatapu lAS block. In this case over $1,000 was owing in rates. The block was subdivided into ten residential sections, and nine owners expressed interest in having a section. The owners were given the impression that they would be able to have a section vested in them, only to discover, once the subdivision had been made, that they could not afford

42 This excludes lots that were vested as streets, reserves, or access-ways.

196 a section. In most cases the amount of shares held in the block were not worth enough to cover the 20 percent deposit. As a result only one section was vested in an owner.43

The Matapihi trust is a successful example of a high percentage of land remaining in Maori hands as a result of the owners' pro-active administration. The Ngaiterangi discussion group contrasted the experience of Matapihi and Maungatapu:

And before you sell Maori land in Matapihi, it's got to get the agreement of the trustees set up in Matapihi to do that. Rather than use the land as a settlement for any debts, that might incur, that would force an owner to sell his land for that . . . payment of the debt. Because that was common, because if you remember Maungatapu, over that area over there when the, there was a referendum to go into the Tauranga Borough Council at thattimeor stay with the,county council at that time, particular time. So to do that, they had get a referendum, vote out of all the owners over there. So I remember quite· well, that, that meeting 'was called' from Maungatapu and all the people that were there, was a lot of absentee owners, who were mainly Pakeha. It was an indictment on the owners of that particular place Maungatapu where they were selling up little pockets of land, you know to settle, to settle accounts. And that was the tragedy, and, and [Turi] saw that and so he says that's not gonna happen to Matapihi. People were selling out pockets of land just to settle this, there were lawyers over there where the owners, that will all gather at this meeting that was called for that purpose and then when it came to the vote whether they wanted to go into the Tauranga Borough Council at that time or remain with the county council, it was defeated, they wanted, they all wanted to go to Tauranga City Council because the Pakeha owners wanted value for their money. Because by going into the borough council the value of their shares, or the value of the interest in Maungatapu would automatically decline, and that's what they did. And then we went to, we picked the brains off that one and it's not gonna to happen to us in Matapihi, so this has happened about twenty five years ago and there hasn't been any increase in Pakeha ownership of Maori lands in Matapihi. So us, like you people over there are in control of our lands in Matapihi.44 The point is that Ngaiterangi owners in Matapihi and Maungatapu were well aware of what was happening to each others land and were looking for ~ays to protect this land.

A Ngai Tuwhiwhia speaker said that today the iwi relationship with the council was:

Unusual, that's the way to explain it, unusual. It's an unusual relationship. We're under the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, they charge us rates the same as anybody, we say we don't get the services for those rates so we shouldn't have to pay the same level. Of course we've always said that. Maori land under the same arguments as Maungatapu, they should put an appeal . . . and all Maori owners should say the same thing. I know we've always said it, that Maori land shouldn't be

43 Richard Kay and Heather Bassett, 'Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A Report on the Papakanui Trust Claim', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215 A51 44 ibid

197 valued the same as Pakeha land for valuation and rating purposes and that's fair.45 Other speakers from the same hapu agreed and outlined their difficulties with the council:

There's no rubbish collection. The toilet facility at the marae, they provided $9000 and they expected a $50,000 thing, and then expected to own it. We deliberately put it on our land so that they provided the money and we ended up owning it. We can easily say, well come and pick your toilet up and take the bloody thing away. It'll cost them easy that to take it away. Because they wanted to put it, another, near the . road, but we wouldn't agree to that. So there's a kind of love - hate relationship. I don't think there's much else they provide for our rate dollar.46 Another speaker said:

They think because you occupy landthey.havea right to rate it, never mind that they don't provide any services for that dollar; that rate dollar, that's immaterial. .It's the fact that you occupy land and everybody else occupies land and they get a service and they pay rates, then you have to pay thesame.47

A Nga Potiki kuia used a joke to show that rates are responsible for the loss of Maori land:

They [the Council] want to go back to the old law often acres per person before one can build a house. We know the Maori won't be able to pay rates and the land will be taken away. If you don't pay your rates you will lose your land. This is what one old ~:i \ )i man said, 'I don't like the performance of the haka by people who play football, that ka mate ka mate, aye.' And we ask in a joking way, 'why?' And he says, 'oh when the Maori jumps up his land will be taken away from under him by the Pakeha.' For us to laugh at. When you start thinking about it it's probably right.48

8.3 Summary

In 1885 Ngaiterangi leaders met with the Crown and said that they took exception to the rate charges because Maori land was faced with other charges from the Maori Land Court and the government. It was also argued that rates were too high for the amount of service that Maori were receiving in return for their payment. A considerable amount of Maori land did not have access to the roads that Maori were being levied to pay.

45 Oral interview with Ngai Tuwhiwhia conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 46 ibid 47 ibid 48 Oral interview with Nga Potiki kuia conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997, translated from Te Reo by Hauata Palmer

198 In 1904 the Native Land Rating Act was passed. Prior to this Act Maori lands with many owners were not rated. Tauranga MP, William Herries advocated the expansion of rates on Maori land because of an increase in Pakeha settlement of Tauranga and the accompanying need to develop the area's infrastructure. In the 1930s there was a strong desire within the Pakeha community to prosecute Maori owners and take land from owners who· failed to pay rates. In the 1930s, and well into the 1950s, the problem with rate defaulting was largely the fault of the council as a result of poor collection methods and information about Maori land ownership.

The council was unwilling to spend money :onservices where ~Maorilived because of non-payment of rates. The actions of the council in not providing roads to Maori-owned land made the .-land economically vulnerable because it made getting produce to market difficult, which in turn made raising revenue to pay rates difficult. The council's response towards ongoing rate defaulters was to seek charging orders usually resulting in the land being administered by a trustee. In the 1950s the council argued for individualisation of title as a way for Maori to obtain individual housing sites, but also as a means of ensuring that valuation rolls were kept up to date, hence more likelihood that rates would be paid. The costs of subdividing, ie roading, was to be met by selling sections. This was a means of achieving the council's objective of residential expansion. In the 1950s the plan was generally intended ctoprovide housiD:.g for. Maori, but the council's attitude was that Maori had more land than they needed. Maori lands began to be rated on their value as residential subdivisions. Most of the sections made available in these residential developments were sold to Pakeha buyers. The 1970s saw increased pressure being placed on Maori land to be made available for development, which resulted in public threats that Maori land could be sold to recover rate arrears. To counter this pressure land owners at Matapihi formed a trust to administer and protect the land. This is now the only remaining significant area of Ngaiterangi­ owned land with the boundaries of the Tauranga District Council.

199 In contrast the Maungatapu block, and many others in Welcome Bay were subdivided into residential subdivisions. A very small percentage of sections were vested in the Maori owners.

~ \. )

200 9. Ngaiterangi Iwi

This chapter is based on transcripts of oral interviews conducted by Roimata Minhinnick in late 1997. Minhinnick was commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal to carry out a series of interviews on behalf of Ngaiterangi iwi with representatives from the various hapu of Ngaiterangi (map five). The interviews were conducted on a one on one basis with individuals either in their home or on their marae. The interviews were recorded on cassette tape and transcribed by Ngaiterangi. The results of these interviews have formed part of this report, and all of this chapter.

There are a number of written sources which contain aspects . of Ngaiterangi traditional history. This chapter focuses largely on Ngaiterangi history as told by those kaumatua and kuia interviewed for this project. In no way should this chapter be regarded as a comprehensive record ofNgaiterangi traditional history, but rather it is intended as a contemporary view of Ngaiterangi history by those elders interviewed for this project. It should also be noted that the length and amount of information obtained from each interview was dependent on the constraints of time available to the interviewer and the traditional knowledge of the interviewee. All . place names and the names of people are as they were spelt in the transcriptions of the tapes. The authors have presented the· transcripts as they were supplied and translated by Ngaiterangi. However, on occasions where a word appears to been omitted in the transcript, either due to difficulties·· with taperecerding quality or transcription error, ellipsis (three full points or dots) have been included to indicate that there is the possibility of a word missing from the written text.

This chapter highlights the fact that, although there appear to be considerable gaps in the contemporary accounts of traditional knowledge and history of Ngaiterangi, there is still a strong recognition of the importance of this tribal history with the emphasis today being placed on the importance of acknowledging the tribe's: whakapapa; rohe; and exercising of mana over their environment.

201 Some important aspects of the history of Ngaiterangi as a whole are discussed first and then korero from individual hapu is presented.

9.1 Ko Mataatua te Waka

Ngaiterangi are descended from the Mataatua waka. The following whakapapa shows the descent from Toroa, the captain of Mataatua, to Ranghihouhiri, from whom Ngaiterangi derive their name (the people of Rangi):

Toroa = Kakepikitua I Ruaihona I Te Tahingaotera I Te Awanuiarangi = Uiraroa I Rongotangiawa I Tuwairua = Romainohorangi = Paewhitu I I Rangihouhiril Tamapahore

For Ngaiterangi the following pepeha are said to apply:

Tuatahi: Ko Mauao te Maunga Ko Tauranga te Moana Ko Tupaea te Tangata

Tuarua: Ki raro i te maru 0 Mauao, e tu ana ahau Papaki tu ana nga tai 0 Mauao I whakanukunukuhia, I whakanekenekehia I whiuareretiaa Wahinerua a Hotu Ki tai wiwi, Ki tai wawa Ki te whai ao Ki te ao Marama Tihei Mauri ora2

9.2 Te Heke 0 Rangihouhiri

I Turi te Kani and Wiremu Ohia 'A Maori History of Tauranga Moana', in Evelyn Stokes, 'Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to the Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands', University ofWaikato, 1992, Wai 215 A18, P 20

202 Ngaiterangi trace their origin as an iwi from Rangihouhiri, the great chief who led his people from the eastern Bay of Plenty to Maketu (map nine). The following account ofthe heke of Rangihouhiri was given to Minhinnick by a Nga Potiki kaumatua:

They were in a sort of a slave situation, because there was only a few of them . . . Their chief at the time was a person called Te Rangihouhiri, na ka ahua, ka haere to mokai, and the old fella that looked after them was actually getting a bit afraid, he was getting old and he was frightened these foreigners might take over his people because they were· starting to intennarry, they were starting to. take some of his young men and actually training them in the arts of war. An ka panahia ratou e te koroua nei me hoki koutou. So they started to come home, come back this way. They were always going to come to the Bay of Plenty, back to Tauranga ... So they got to as far as Torere, at a place called Hakuranuiandthey lived there for a while, this was on their way home, and they came from there, they started . ; . collecting more people, collecting more women and they started to become a :tribe to. reckon ;with. But nobody ever touched them around the coast because.they knew how strong they were. Ka hoki mai, ka noho i Matata at a place ... by the Matata underpass, there's a hill there on the left hand side as you come from Whakatane, on the left hand side. They called their pa 'Ka Pau Kore'. This is Te Arawa land. Ka rongo a Te Arawa, kei te haere mai a Ngaiterangiki to hoki mai ki Tauranga, ka puta te korero a ... Te Arawa, kaua koutou e takahi taku tua, don't you come across it? So they started a war. They lived in Matata in Te Arawa land, but they started to fight Te Arawa. They were coming back towards them, to Maketu, ka pakanga raua. They were fighting for years.

It was there that this Rangihouhiri, as it was known then Ngati Rangihouhiri not Ngaiterangi, it was there at Maketu. They got as far as Matata, and they start warring again.

It was there that the son of Rangihouhiri died, and his name was Tutengaehe. He was the eldest son of Te Rangihouhiri. He got killed there at a small place at Waihi, what they call little Waihi at Maketu, and the name of that place is called Poporohuamea, and that's where they had this war and the son died. So they took his head back to his father, because you know the only part of a man's body that stays alive is the head. And they transfer the head from one place to another so they won't fmd it. They took it back, and ... the words he said to him; 'You go on the evening tide,~and I'll follow you on the morning tide - Ko koe te taiahiahi,koau te tai ata.'Those were his last words to his son. Since then, being his last words they called his pa 'Whakapau Korero', at Matata, his last words, famous last words I suppose you could call it. So the next morning he went into battle and he got killed.3

Rangihouhiri's brother, Tamapahore then led Ngaiterangi to eventual victory over Te Arawa at Maketu. Ngaiterangi settlement in Tauranga Moana was then acheived through the conquest ofNgati Ranginui at Mauao:

So then Tamapahore became the war chief, after his brother died, he became the

2 Cited Roimata Minhinnick, 'A Report on MauaolMount Maunganui', Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 215 A49, pp 19-20 3 Oral interview with Nga Potiki conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997

203 warlord. And he beat Te Arawa and that's how come they came back here. When they first ... there were people from all over the place here. There was Ngati Maru living here, there was Hauraki living here, there was Ngati Ranginui living here, there was Tapuika, Waitaha from Te Arawa living here and there was Tainui living here. So they fought them and as they fought them he started to place his nephews, the children of Rangihouhiri. So he left Tapuiki. Over here this is Tukairangi and he went around he left certain ones around at the islands, Matakana Island as far as Waihi. He left them there and that's why ... they're still living there. But they actually won it by conquest. So when they're talking about the mana of Mauao and .. . we all belong to it, even Ngati Ranginui and all the different people around here belong to Mauao, the Mount the Maunga, they are quite right it's a spiritual thing. But when it's tu tangata on Mauao, Ngaiterangi tu tangata because he won it by conquest, he fought for it. So no matter what they say, Ngati Ranginui and them say this is their hill, spiritually it is, but when you get down to tin tacks because Ngaiterangi fought for it and won it they [Ngati Ranginui] have no mana on that hill. You lose your mana once you get beaten on.a place ... this is where they were coming to and they had to fight their way home. Wsbecause the blood of our ancestors was let on that hill and they won it on that battle. 4

Ngaiterangi defeated Ngati Ranginui at Mauao during the battle of Kokowai. Kotorerua, a son of Tuwhiwhia organised the Ngaiterangi attack on the pa Maunganui which was occupied byWaitaha and Ngati Ranginui. Kotorerua and 140 of his warriors used gifts of kokowai (red ochre) to entice the chief of the pa, Kinonui, to invite them inside. Meanwhile, another Ngaiterangi force under the control of Tapuiti, a son of Rangihouhiri, outside the pa destroyed the waka belonging to Ngati Ranginui. They then entered the pa and joined with Kotorerua's forces. They then set fire to the , paand Kinonui and many of his people were burnt to death and the remainder were killed by Ngaiterangi warriors as·they attempted to make their way down the hillside to their destroyed waka. Ngaiterangi consolidated. their victory by destroying several villages around the harbour. Through intermarriage with Ngati· Ranginui a more settled relationship between the two iwi began to develop.

Boundaries of N gaiterangi

The rohe ofNgaiterangi is traditionally said to extend from Nga Kuri a Wharei in the north to Wairakei in the south. A Nga Potiki kaumatua has explained that although Nga Kuri a Wharei is now taken to be just south of Waihi beach township, it used to be a point further north:

4 ibid

204 Nga Kuri a Wharei, Waihi, Te Waiorooro Stream. That's Nga Kuri a Wharei. Now Nga Kuri a Wharei wasn't there at one time. It's right up past Coromandel. How they got the rohe of Mataatua. Muriwai's sons were drowned up above Cape Colville, they drowned there, and Muriwai was a tohunga for the Mataatua waka. So the power of the person was that because her children were drowned there, they went along and she whakatapuhia te rohe 0 Ngaiterangi me Ngati Awa, Mataatua's rohe. So they say from Nga Kuri a Wharei ki Tihirau and they whakatapuhia it, in memory of those children, Muriwau's children. It was just later, as I was saying 'you have this rock and I have that rock', that's how they did it. Kia koutou tena taha, kia matou tenei. So they brought Nga Kuri a Wharei back to the Waiorooro Stream at Waihi and that's how they got the rohe. Mai Nga Kuri a Wharei ki Tihirau, which is right up the coast. The area of Ngaiterangi iwi is only Wairakei, which is down at Papamoa to Nga Kuri a Wharei. And why we claim it was our own, we live here, we live on the foreshore and all the lands within that area is owned by Ngaiterangi.5

The southern boundary, Wairakei, is at Papamoa, but Ngaiterangialsoclaim the Bay of Plenty as far as Maketu. When the trader Tapsell established his trading station at Maketu it was Ngaiterangi chiefs that he dealt with to obtain the site.

9.3 Nga Hapu 0 Ngaiterangi

/' '\. The hapu of Ngaiterangi iwi are descended from Rangihouhiri or his brother -\", ./ Tamapahore, the two chiefs responsible for leading their people to the western Bay of Plenty.

Nga Potiki

Ko Toroa Te Tangata Ko Mataatua Te Waka I I Ruaihona Wairaka I I Te Hinga 0 Te Ra TamateaKi TeHua Tahi I I Te Awanuiarangi Tanemoeahi I I Rongotangiawa Pukenga I I Romainohorangi Whetu 0 Te Rangi I I Tamapahore Tuhokia = Te Ao Hokaia I Te Aomatapiko I Tuwairua6

5 ibid

6 Moana Press, Aku Taumata Korero: Nga Marae me nga iwi 0 te Moana 0 Tauranga, Tauranga, 1989

205 Kia marama taku titiro kei Tauranga. Ko te Rangihouhiri, ko Ranginui. Kei Rangataua, ko Tamapahore. Ko nga Papaka 0 Rangataua.

Keenly I look towards Tauranga. Where dwells Te Rangihouhiri, Ranginui at Rangataua is Tamapahore. The demigod crabs of Rangataua.

The Nga Potiki hapu are descended from Tamapahore, the younger brother of Rangihouhiri. It was Tamapahore who led Ngaiterangiwhenthey;defeated Te Arawa at Maketu. The following is a description of the boundaries. ofNgaPotiki:··

But the lands that Nga Potiki owns is from Wairakei and Papamoa to Arataki, and there it is there. From Wairakei to Arataki there's a little wee spit of land here, that's Karikari and there's a little spit ofland and that's Oruamatua. Oruamatua goes up to Otawa and Otawa goes back to WairakeU

Another Nga Potiki elder Hone Farrell confirmed these boundaries saying:

The boundary of Ngapotiki is from Arataki to Wairakei and if you ask where Wairakei is, it is at Papamoa .... The land of which I speak from Arataki to Wairakei and from Papamoa to Tahuwhakatiki is a big area and when they speak of the lands of Ngapotiki much of it has been [given] to the Pakeha and only a small portion remains with us of Ngapotiki. Through confiscation and whatever else of the Pakeha the land now belongs to them. The river of Waitao and the mountains of Kopukairoa and Maungamana, those are the mountains ofNgapotiki. The cemeteries of Ngapotiki, there are four of them are no longer in use and two .are still in use. These are the cemeteries being tended by Ngapotiki.8

He also identified other areas of significance to Nga Potiki such as the mountains Maungamana and Kopukairoa:

At some of our death ceremonies (uhunga and tangihanga) the talk comes out about our mountains, Kopukairoa and Maungamana. Now Maungamana, beside Maungamana there is another mountain, according to them it is a whale. Kopukairoa is another whale. Those are the whales they talk about that came ashore and were stranded and could not escape and when the tide went out those whales remained here. On the other side of Maungamana there is a spring at the foot of the mountain from which water is coming out and the water is white and that is the milk of the

7 Oral interview with Nga Potiki conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 8 Oral interview with Hone Farrell conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997, translated from Te Reo by Hauata Palmer

206 whale coming from her udder.9

The rohe ofNga Potiki borders Rangataua Bay of Tauranga Moana. Traditionally Nga Potiki are referred to as 'Nga Papaka a Rangataua' (the crabs of Rangataua):

Nga Papaka a Rangataua. He korero taua. Haere mai te taua nei ki te papa of nga Potiki. A noho mai ki raro nei I te maire (that's where the Maungatapu bridge) they were standing off there and they see all these fires around aye. They see these people getting titiko, the periwinkle, so, well they thought, being kai, they do that and have a feed too, but little do they know that you've got to soak them because they're full of sand aye. And anyway they went to eat it and bloody full of sand. Then they says, they say that the Maoris that were living round on the embankments, Nga Potiki Maoris that were living around the embankment at the time, they were as many as the crabs on Rangataua harbour because the place is full of crabs aye on Rangataua harbour. Ka puta te korero nei, Nga Papakaa Rangataua,that's what they call us, Nga Papaka a Rangataua. He paruparu te kaihe taniwha, nga>tangata,because the food they eat is full of sand they're not human beings, they'redeniigods~ 10 .

Nga Potiki use their association with crabs for haka performances:

There is a haka for Nga Papaka a Rangataua. Kua wareware au. They do it in entrances for these festivals because the crab never walks straight, it walks on any angle like that and when you're doing an exit, you crab sideways. He haka ano mo tera, sort of pertaining to that, they do it for exits. Because you notice a crab would \ never turn his back on you. When it walks back i~ always look at you in the eye. You . ; - can walk towards it and he'll sort of walk backwards, he'll never turn his back on you.u Farrell also mentioned the significance of the crabs of Rangataua and how the old people in the past would say that if there was no one to welcome visitors on to the marae then the crabs of Rangataua would do the job. He said that today the crabs of

Rangataua were still talked about.by Nga ..Potiki people 'Nga Papaka 0 Rangataua, he paruparu nga kai, he taniwha nga tangatathe crabs of Rangataua lhat.consume mud,

and the people are demigods.' 12

He went on to stress the importance of nearby areas for food growing, gathering and harvesting. For example, kaimoana gathering in the past centred on a beach called:

Te Akau and if you talked about Te Akau one would immediately know where that place was. Now Ngapotiki, with the land remaining, grow maize, crops through gardening. These were the foods ofNgapotiki. For fish they went to Te Akau to fish

9 ibid

10 Oral interview with Nga Potiki conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 11 ibid

12 Oral interview with Hone Farrell conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997, translated from Te Reo by Hauata Palmer

207 and in the harbour (Nga Papaka 0 Rangataua) the places for harvesting seafood and fishing were all there. These were the foods of Ngapotiki, seafood and on the lands remaining to them grew maize and other garden crops. 13 Farrell said that in the past there had been an abundance of kaimoana which included snapper, kahawai, parore, whitebait, flounder, mullet and pipi, tuatua and crabs from the open beach. He also identified the Waitao River as a kai source saying that 'in earlier times the Waitao River had an abundance of seafood, fish, eels, flounders out

to the sandbank of Rangataua. ,14

A Nga Potiki kuia confirmed the importance ofTe Akau and Mangatawa as kaimoana gathering places and said that in more recenttimes .shellfish stocks had been damaged as a result of Pakeha food gathering methods:

they went to Te Akau at Papamoa, that is the name to us, Te Akau, to collect pipi just enough to eat that's all, no more than that, no. Nowadays it is sold aye. Yes the collecting of food in those times was only to eat. Nowadays it is prohibited, and that is why it is prohibited because sometimes the methods of collection are damaging, shovels are used to dig pipi. One sees the pipi ... and it's like that at the channel further on below Matapihi. Oysters used to be plentiful there, now the same thing happens, the Pakeha come along and shovel them on to the boats aye. 15

-, " The kuia also emphasised the role of women in Nga Potiki life, especially her own kuia, Anamaria Honiana who was not only a karanga, but also a taiaha expert. She and her husband had a farm and grew kumara, potato and taro. In the summer the women and children would go eeling: She [Anamaria] would gather all her relations together so that they could go eeling in the Pakeha's drains. She would get us, her grandchildren to lookfor·worms and we would sew them with flax using, as we say, the flax fibre or muka.We.wouldmake fibre from the flax and then sew them on. We used'brooms,the'old,brooms,;:as we say, straw brooms. We would make a needle from the broom and sew the worms on. That was our job. We had to have a lot of worms which we tied together and then tied to a stick and that was what we put into the water. She knew which were the good nights when the eels were very hungry. Us grandchildren would then follow behind with our sacks and kits. She also made kits that when the eels were put into them they were cleaned, a certain kit. There were different kinds of kits, patterned ones were for when one went out, then different ones for potatoes,collecting potatoes, kumara. Those were things those old ladies did then. Another old lady, Maraea Rameka, she was an excellent midwife, she was very good. She was the midwife in those times. The families were big too, some had many children and that old lady had no problems with her practice. Afterwards the mother would go and

13 ibid 14 ibid

IS Oral interview with Nga Potiki kuia conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997, translated from Te Reo by Hauata Palmer

208 milk and work, it was no problem. Not like it is now where you stay in hospital for a while. Those were all the things my kuia did, call on the marae, go to tangi, but for mischief or haka she would use her taiaha or her mere. 16

Ngai Tamawhariua Ko Mataatua Te Waka Ko Tokomaru Te Waka 1 Porourangi Toroa Turere I Haukoko Ruaihona Kaipoho I Te Whare Te Hinga 0 Te Ra Tumauirere I Rongowhakaata Rongotangiawa Hakopurakau I Hawematarau Romainohorangi Urutapu I Tamaku Rangihouhiri Pukai I Tamawhariual7

Tamawhariua had many children, five from Whakahinga and seven from Tokinga. A Ngai Tamawhariua kaumatua said the descendants were 'Puapua, Rangihouhiri,

-\ Tamawhariua, Puapua, Tamaoho, Te Ataiki, Parehauraki, Te Maihi, Wharekawa, '" J -- Tarawa, Te Poi, then me' .18

The interviews with Ngai Tamawhariua did not include information about their rohe.

The kaumatuasaid that Tamawhariua fought Ngati Ranginui for land at Tauranga:

I can tell you a story ... about the people who ,brought about, Tamawhariua about Ngaiterangi and the heke of Rangihouhiri into the boundary ,of Ranginui"thetlghting at Mauao, the fighting at Te Papa and Otumoetai. But for that Ranginui killed a child on Motiti, his name was Rangitukuha I think. However some of Ngatiha [Ngati Pukenga] got to hear of it, about three fighting warriors went to Ohiwa where their tuakana were to give them the right to pursue the ... to Ranginui on to Matakana.

Q. Before or after the battle ofKokowai?

Before [Ngati] Rangihouhiri descended on Ranginui, before that the chief of Ohiwa agreed that they would take the message to Ranginui about the killing of this person . . . So they went to Motiti then to this side of Mauao. Three settlements were

16 Oral interview with Nga Potiki kuia conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997, translated from Te Reo by Hauata Palmer 17 Moana Press, Aku Taumata Korero: Nga Marae me nga iwi 0 te Moana 0 Tauranga, Tauranga, 1989 18 Oral interview with Ngai Tamawhariua conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997, translated from Te Reo by Hauata Palmer

209 conquered by these people. They got to one of Ranginui's settlements and they fought and one of their chiefs, of those who came to do battle with Ranginui was almost killed. One person went from behind the one fighting and killed him from behind and it is said by those who came to fight' Ranginui that they were angry because it took two of them to kill this man. To them the message was completed for this subject of Rangitukuha. So they returned with their canoes, there were two canoes, big ones. They went to Mauao and they saw that Ranginui was waiting with all their canoes, their fighting canoes, and as they watched they thought about returning to Matakana to get some hurling sticks and stones to use as projectiles then they went to fight Ranginui. Our ancestors say that the back of Ranginui was broken . . They came with their mere and other weapons but Ranginui were not used to this way of fighting. Their canoes were broken by the stones and our ancestors, many of Ranginui's canoes filled with water as a result. And so they returned. This was the time that they were known as Ngaiterangi or the heke of Rangihouhiri. To my knowledge some of the hekenga of Rangihouhiri they were only a hapu and they were called Ngaiterangi. So they came to fight Ranginui for the killing of one of their children ... It is said Mauao fell by Tamawhariuaand,Kotorerua. Many.ofthe warriors were from Tamawhariua and those who wanted to fight. The secondJorce was under Rangihouhiri [II]. .. Te Papa was conquered bythem.ILwas.a big settlement on Te Papa. So the two groups came, the other one from Mauao under Rangihouhiri then they went to fight for the settlements at Otumoetai. 19

Thekaumatua also explained how peace was made by Tamawhariua through the marriage of Hinewa:

They went to fight them but Otumoetai did not fall but Kuraroa when he looked at this party he thought they would be killed so he went to Ngaiterangi, the heke of - Rangihouhiri, he was looking for a person with whom to negotiate in order to stop the battle. Also within him was the thought that his children would be killed also his family. He came upon Tamawhariua and said he was looking for one of them to negotiate with. Tamawhariua replied, 'You will all be destroyed today and you will fmd what you are looking for.' He went to his older and younger brothers the chiefs of this second party to stop the fight because [Ngati] Rangihouhiri would be angry. He listened to Tamawhariua and this is what he said, 'Give me Hinewa and the fighting will stop .... Because Rangihouhiri had asked he gave Hinewa. That ended that and the fighting stopped. It is said Ngaiterangi andTamawhariua, all of them returned to Ohiwa. Tamawhariua said to Kuraroa, 'Come (to Ohiwa) where we can talk.' Ranginui went back to dig their kumara and do alltheir·work because·Hinewa had gone with them, their chief had also gone toOhiwa. The discussion between Kuraroa and Tamawhariua was a good one. Tamawhariua said to Kuraroa, 'I have heard the Ngaiterangi has gone again to attack Ranginui' and added, 'Give me the settlements of Otumoetai, you have many settlements at Te Taumata, you can go there, leave Otumoetai for me.' Kuraroa agreed. So Tamawhariua gave him his patu named Matewhero and he said to Kuraroa, 'When you see Ngaiterangi, lift my patu up so that they will see it.' Kuraroa agreed and returned to Otumoetai and he saw that Ngaiterangi were killing the hapu of Ranginui, they were all being killed. So he lifted up this patu Matawhero and Ngaiterangi saw this patu and they knew that the rongo was fmished and that they would not fight Ranginui. At this time Ngaiterangi became angry and they returned and conquered Papamoa and Te Karaka and this side of Te Papa. Ranginui had three big settlements there. Many died and the settlements fell

19 Oral interview with Ngai Tamawhariua conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997, translated from Te Reo by Hauata Palmer

210 and there Ngaiterangi stayed.20

The kaumatua described the Tuapiro marae on the banks of the river, and said there had been another settlement on the other side of the river. This settlement was on top of a sheer cliff which meant that no one could climb up and attack. It also served as a lookout over the harbour to spy approaching waka. The kaumatua discussed the Ongare area, and said that it was the site of many battles:

My aunty says she was afraid of these hills. When she passed these hills fear came upon her and she asked some of them and they laughed at her because it was a place of cannibalism. Tainui fought Te Arawa and they filled their kits. The battle mentioned was at Ongare. They saw this,Pakehachild aged about three years, they wanted to flee and the battle carried on. This oldPakeha manaCKatikati told me. Another fight here was a Mataatua - Ngapuhi came here. They brought the gun. That was the talk they brought their guns against these:sticks.Theylookedandheard the bang of the guns and one would fall and bleed and die. It was unusual for them.21

Ngati Tapu Ko Mataatua Te Waka Ko Te Arawa Te Waka I I Toroa Tamatekapua

~ I \" ./' Ruaihona Kahuinatamomoe I I Te Hinga 0 Te Ra Tawakemoetahanga I I Awanuiarangi Uenukumairarotonga I I Rongotangiawa Rangitihi I I Rongokarae Rakeiao I I Popoti Ngamahanga I I Kahumoeangi =Te Ruru Ngataketake I I Kahu Upoko Tapukino Tanumiarangi I Te Tira I Rongomai I TeAmo I Te Urunga I

20 ibid 21 ibid

211 Torehitaua22

Kia hora te marino Kia hora te marino Kia whakapapa pounamu te moana 0 Te Awanui Kia rere te karohirohi i mua i te huarahi

Tureiti Stockman explained that the origins of Ngati Tapu in Tauranga were part of the arrival of Rangihouhiri, but are also linked to Ngati Ranginui:

As far as Ngati Tapu is concerned they came with the main force, you know when they conquered Mauao and they all arrived here around about the same time. Ngati Tapu connections started with Ngati Ranginui. When they had the battle at Otumoetai between Takau, he was the chief at the time who was living in that area - Otumoetai - and Tapukino's nephew, Te Rangihouhiri, they attacked a pa there that belonged to Takau, through the skirmishes there they stopped and the .. chief, Takau, offered one of his daughters to Rangihouhiriandko:eneingakoro,ngakoroua. After that there was a reunion and that was in, connection was· NgatiRanginui through Takau's daughter, as far as Ngati Tapu is concerned. ,And :thecconnection·:was; Ranginui, Tutereinga, Kutaroa, Tahunaroa, Takau a Hinewa. Ara, ka moe a Hinewa kia Rangihouhiri kia puta mai nga uri e ora, e noho mai nei ki Otumoetai. Koinei te taha kia Ngati Ranginui.23

Tureiti Ihaka described the boundaries of Ngati Tapu as now being in the Matapihi area but they were originally:

living at Otamataha which is in the town area of Tauranga. And the areas that we occupied were Otumoetai from Orenui, Mataiiwi, Tiwaropaki. This is on the foreshore of Otumoetai to a place where they call Kahuere then you cross over to Te Papa and that's where Ngati Tapu originally were situated back in the early 1800s. Then from Otamataha the hapu, they stretched back to, the areas they stayed at is Mainui on the eastern side of the township, Tauparirua on the eastern side of Tauranga township. This was situated between Waimapu Estuary and Koopurererua Stream. Pukehauhau, Pukahinahina where they had the battle of Gate Pa. He pa tena mo matou, Ngati Tapu. Ki te taha ngahere i Maeneneupin the Kaimai Ranges. Ko enei nga nohonga matou karanga hapu, Ngati Tapu.24

The kaumatua said that Ngati Tapu got plenty of kaimoana from the foreshores when they were living there, especially in the 1930s when he remembered there being a good supply of fish and went on to describe how they used to dry and preserve it. He also recalled preserving shellfish and growing kumara, sugar cane and tobacco. Ngati Tapu also used to get eels from the Kaituna River, outside the traditional Ngaiterangi boundary:

22 Moana Press, Aku Taumata Korero: Nga Marae me nga iwi 0 te Moana 0 Tauranga, Tauranga, 1989 23 Oral interview with Tureiti StockmanlIhaka and Puhirake Ihaka conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 24 ibid

212 And pawhare tuna ... ke te awa 0 Kaituna kei te rohe 0 Te Puke. Ko enei 0 matou haerenga i te mahi kai. Pawhara tuna, te mahi pataotao we used to dry it and thread it onto flax and then bring them home you dry it while it preserves, they don't go bad. 25

Ngai Tukairangi

Toi= Kuraimonoa = Puhaorangi I I Awanuirangi (I) Rauru Ohomairangi I I I Awaroa Whatonga Muturangi I I Awamorehurehu Tahatiti Taunga I I I Irakewa Maika Tuamatua I I I Toroa Tato = Tamatearikinui Houmaitawhi I I I I Rongokako Tamatekapua Ruaihonga I I I Tamateapokaiwhenua Kahumatamomoe -- , \ I I I I Whaeke Tawakemoetahanga -\" . .>/ Te Hinga 0 Te Ra I I I Taka Uenukumairarotonga I I I I Hourangi Rangitihi I I I I Uiraroa Ratorua I I Awanuiarangi (II) Whakairikawa Rongotangiawa -I I Tuteata Romainohorangi I I Rangikawekura Rangihouhiri I I Tarawhai Tapuiti -:--______I ____ ~ Tapora I UretakaRoa Tukairangi Te Aututuirangi I __I_­ I I I Tarei Na Patu Te Whaiawa Tatarihau Taumatangi I I I Tautoro Hui I Taiki I Ngawai

25 ibid

213 Parekino Tapukura I Puhirake Matamata Te Poutotara Whakanumi

Tarerewaiorangi I Hori Ngatai26

Tahuri to kanohi runga 0 Tauranga Roto 0 Whareroa kei 0 tupuna Ma Koruarau koe e pohiri mai nei Torno kia atu nga roro wharenui Raurikitahi te whare 0 Taiaho E toro to ringa hei a te Kahurangi E kore e he ngia he tau ka ka tepuna Na Tapuiti na Tukairangi Na Whakahinga ra na Kuri 0 Te Rangi I tupu ai te tangata e. 27

Ngai Tukairangi's rohe covered Mauao, Waikorire, Whareroa, Waipu Bay and Matapihi, although their kaumatua, Hori Ross, acknowledges that other hapu had rights to this area as well:

te rohe, covered all this area. There were other hapu here as well. It wasn't predominantly Ngai Tukairangi's and whakapapa shows that. But through marriage and what's a name they sort of intermingled and that's the way it fmished up through, you know, everyone married everyone else, strengthening ties.z8

Ross said that Waipu Bay is highly respected by Ngai Tukairangi 'because of what it can produce for us in terms of sustenance. Food for the table i ngawaomua - before 'they ran amok with Tauranga harbour.'29 Ross also pointed out some Ngai Tukairangi places around Waipu:

There's Oupoutea; Mimihanui, Teruruana, Mahiwahine, koinaetahi 0 nga ingoa 0 enei whenua, nga whenua 0 Ngai Tukairangi. Ana, ki tera 0 nga marae taenga hoki, a, Hungahungatoroa, Hungahungatoroa then take you to Okahua then you get all five sides ofWaipu Bay. Ka korero koe ki ai ia me whakahua tana ingoa, Pinetaka, That's the top 0 Okauiwi ... This is Teruruanga, that's Mahiwahine at the back, this use to be our place before it was sold. I tried to buy it back once. And this is Otuawahia, that's Ngai Tukairangi Orchards - kiwifruit and avocados, its quite a big place. All

26 Moana Press, Aku Taumata Korero: Nga Marae me nga iwi 0 te Moana 0 Tauranga, Tauranga, 1989 27 ibid 28 Oral interview with Hori Ross conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 29 ibid

214 the blocks were amalgamated into one and they put it through the court and then we got Ngai Tukairangi Orchards. That's where the mill was down below. Marae of ours, Hungahungatoroa. See where that big pine tree is, round about there, must have been on the top aye. Because all the machinery and bits and pieces were all on the bank there. I saw that when I was a kid, all the parts and the machinery parts, it must have been quite a thriving sort ofbusiness.3o

At the base ofMauao are three rocks which feature in a Ngai Tukairangi waiata:

one of the outstanding features at the bottom of Mauao here is Nga Kuri Neko a Tarawhata. At a certain time when the tide goes out you can see these three rocks and you've gotta be in a certain position and the tide has to be at a certain level so you can see these three rocks.

Q. On that side or this side?

This side, the same side as Tirikawa. Andthey look as though they're ,dogs barking, when the tide is out, and they call them NgaKuri Neko 0 Tarawhata,and that's in one of our waiata whakangahau.31

Another important Ngai Tukairangi waiata is ETama Waha Koe:

It's about a male person, they had great hopes for him as leader, as an orator. But he died before he reached his pinnacle and he died before he could get up to speak hence the E Tama Waha Koe and it shows how he left, as a spirit, as he passed over ~ Mauao, and our waiata depicts him leaving this. earth as an albatross soaring over '\.. ../ Mauao. Cause that waiata has a lot to do with Ngai Tukairangi. It's actually Ngai Tukairangi's theme song, if you could use that word if that's an appropriate, operative word for that sort of thing. But they recognise every time we sing that song, taemai a Ngai Tukairangi.32

Waikorire, on the base of Mauao was used by Ngai Tukairangi as a fishing place, while the women used the nearby hot spring asa hangi:

The men would go out fishing while the women stayed behind and·gotthe kaiready. Ana, ka hoki mai nga koroua, that's where they had ... theirhangi and then they'd go back to Whareroa and they'd dry all the fish and they'd send the fish further inland and back would come other kai, that was how they existed in those times.33 When questioned whether this was a form of trade he replied:

That's exactly what it was. A lot of the places they sent food to, Tuhoe around there and that was where we get some affiliation with them ... not so much as ties, as recognition that there was people sending them kai from here. And back would come kai from the ngahere. And that was told to me by one of our kuia, she was a young

30 ibid 31 ibid 32 ibid 33 ibid

215 girl then and that was about the early 1800s.34

Ngai Tukairangi used to harvest shellfish from the foreshore of Te Awa 0 Tukorako, but the shellfish beds have now been destroyed by the construction of wharves:

see where those ships are down there, those last ones down there, that was where Te Awa 0 Tukorako came out right down there. And all this area here, do you see where those cranes are on this side? And those big goods sheds, well over there was all tuangi over there. Kiki ana te i te mahi 0 te tuangi. And these buggers have gone and filled it up. Now the same with over here, see those last three ships there, well, they've built out into the harbour a little bit .... it wasn't very far from there we use to go and get tuangi and take them back to Matapihi, put them in a little channel and we only got what we required, when we required. You know we just didn't ...

Q. Cultivate them?

Yeah, no not so much as cultivate but to keep them alive inlittle:channelsand.when we wanted a kai we'd go down and get them,but while we gottheminsupersacks, well that was what we did, rather than come out here every day. What we'd do is we'd spend a whole day picking these tuangi and then we'd take em back and put them in a little channel and they just dug in and looked after themselves, they never went off or anything, they were in their own environment.

o Was that during your day?

Oh yeah, that was during my day and I believed it happened before then too. Yeah, \ we were only carrying on what had happened prior to us coming into this world.35 - }

Ngai Tuwhiwhia Ko Mataatua Te Waka I Toroa

Ruaihona I Te Hinga 0 Te Ra I Awanuiarangi I Rongotangiawa I Romainohorangi I Te Rangihouhiri I Tuwhiwhia = Te Aoreke36

34 ibid 35 ibid

36 Moana Press, Aku Taumata Korero: Nga Marae me nga iwi 0 te Moana 0 Tauranga, Tauranga, 1989

216 Ngai Tuwhiwhia are the descendants of Kotorerua (Tuwhiwhia's son), who was prominent in the battle of Kokowai when Ngaiterangi defeated Ngati Ranginui on Mauao:

After Kokowai, and Kotorerua came and lived here, and that's how we became to be here, because we are direct descendants of Kotorerua who was, I suppose, the architect of Kokowai even though there was a lot of fellas involved in it, he was a sort of, not the mastermind but architect, anyway, he planned it all ... But all I wanted to say was that when he died he was the only fella in that historical thing that died of old age. All the others got killed in one way or another but he died of old age and he died here. When he died, I'll point out the spot, it's not there now, when he died they hung his body up in this karaka tree down the bottom here. And when we were kids that karaka was always tapu mea and they say that when they had the hahu, when they cleaned the bones, and they buried him at the foot of that tree, so he's buried there. That's what the korero that has been given to me by the old fellas. 37

Kotorerua links Ngai Tuwhiwhia to Matakana Island, and is also said to have passed his red hair to his descendants:

"Another thing about him too was he had long hair and it was red, he was panikaakaa. It was said that all his descendants, when you look through a person's hair at the sun you see that red come through. I see it, I used to see it in my sister's hair, but these days you can't tell, paint. So people who have a red tinge in their hair, panikaakaa, come from Kotorerua.38 ./ - --\

-".. / Today Ngai Tuwhiwhia are based on Matakana Island, but their· kaumatua believes they originated on Motuhoa Island because an urupa on Motuhoa stopped being used last century at the same time as burials began at the urupa on Matakana:

And there use to be a place over there where they use to park this waka that was used as a kind of hearse and when someone died they kept going back there to bury them until that transition, and they started burying them up here.39

The many pa sites on Matakana indicate that it once a had large Maori population before the arrival of the Pakeha. The pa sites, which provided good lookouts, explain the origin of the name Matakana:

There's over 40 pa sites on this island and here's one of the big ones. It goes right back to that ridge over there. Its a big one that. When we came through where the church and cemetery are on that big hill, that was another one, that was Opureora. That's where we got the name of the marae from. The name Matakana comes from where that pine tree is on that piece sticking out. Up the back there, in those trees,

37 Oral interview with Ngai Tuwhiwhia conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 38 ibid 39 ibid

217 there's another big pa site. It's still in pretty pristine condition, it's still got the ditches around it and one side is cliff and the three sides still got the ditches. The significance of that was that what the old fellas say, the old times the lookouts were there and if you were out on the front there, on the point there, you could see right up to the port, right up to town, and at the other end you could see right down almost to the other entrance, so it was a good vantage point. And the reason they call it Matakana is that they couldn't call out the instructions from there to there because of the distance so they used their eyes, nga Mata e kanakana ana. So that's how Matakana gets it name. And it's been applied to the whole area. That pa site up there is call Pahutoru.4o

He said that Ngai Tuwhiwhia have whakapapa links to Ngai Tukairangi through Tapuiti:

One oftheir ways of cementing thoselinks·isto have apiece ofland over·there.and a piece ofland over here and they kind of say weUthisis your piece. over here and this is our piece over there. There's a block ofland overtherewhere.theurupa is that's called the Ngai Tuwhiwhia block, it's called Otumoko B ... And it comes down like through these fellas, still have the ownership in those blocks and they similarly have a block up the road here that they're owners in. I don't know if that's a common thing, but is was specifically that, to keep the ties.41

The hapu also has rights on Rangiwaea Island at Oponui. The kaumatua explained that having the land was a way to maintain links between hapu, when they were some distance apart and did not make contact often.

Te Ngare/Ngai Tauwhao Ko Mataatua Te Waka Ko Tokomaru Te Waka I I Toroa Porourangi I Ruiahona Turere I I Te Hinga 0 Te Ra Haukoko I I Awanuiarangi Kaipoho I I Rongotangiawa Te Whare I I Romainohorangi Tumauirere I I Rongowhakaata I I I Rongopopoia I I I Hakopurakau

40 ibid 41 ibid

218 I I Hawematarau I I Urutapu I I I Tamaku I Te Rangihouhiri Pukai ______I______~ I I I Tutengaehe Tapuiti Takoro Tuwhiwhia Turourou Tamawhariua I Tamaoho = Tauwhao42

Kei Otawhiwhi te whare 0 Ngai Te Rangi E kei te kai para tuangi ka mahue e ra kai ra, E kei te kei karu tamure Patua ai to moana kia paki, ka rere ki Tuhua te hi mako taniwha Whare kai aha Romiromi marire ka nui ka roa paihore Ka rere aka te tara huruhuru ki aku rape ka pai au au aue ha!43

/ '\. -',- )' Ngai Tauwhao's traditional area of settlement were the islands of Tuhua, Motiti, Rangiwaea and on the mainland at Otawhiwhi, the western entrance to the harbour. As a people they have been closely associated with the sea and one of their names is Te Papaunahi which referred to the large quantity of fish scales that could be seen around their pa. Other old names include Patutaharoa, Te Urungawera, Ngati Hinewai and Te Whitikiore. Tauwhao was ofNgati Awa:descent:and:marriedTaml:!:ohoofNgaiterangi. They lived on Motiti and Tuhua and their descendants, lived on the mainland in the Tauranga area.44

Ron Taingahue spoke for Ngai Tauwhao and Te Ngare. He described the Paewhitu house at Rangiwaea built by Te Ngare:

Well the old people of earlier times, the same as we all have been, gave money each month for our marae, now it is all lost to the man who now owns the land. So it is sad, sad for this kuia standing here. It is now overgrown with grass and a whole lot of

42 Moana Press, Aku Taumata Korero: Nga Marae me nga iwi 0 te Moana 0 Tauranga, Tauranga, 1989 43 ibid 44 Evelyn Stokes, Whanau A Tauwhao, Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, October 1980

219 trees. Because it has gone to someone else it is now not possible to come back here to do it all up although when we had the church service when we buried Romainohorangi this house was very full with Te Ngare and Tauwaho; we brought the food from the other marae, Hinewai and Te Haka a Te Tupere, the tables, chairs and we had a big meal in this house. All the descendants of Te Ngare came that time and it was sad, everyone wept when we buried the old house. Now the thoughts come back with the knowledge and this house now belongs to someone else ... This house, Hohua Tutengaehe and Norman Tawhiao built this house. Norman was the carpenter and Hohua Tutengaehe was his mate but because of the squabbles between the old people it was not quite completed when the person who built it, Norman Tawhiao left and when he left he did not come back. He eventually died in Christchurch. But his father Te Whana Tawhiao, all of them are all true Te Ngare and we know their faith was Ringatu and he was very careful when he was building this house and if the thoughts were not right he would not work. He would probably be sixty four years old if he was still alive but the thoughts of that man, and Hohua as well, his knowledge was at the highest level.45

Another marae is Te Haka a Te Tupere. This was a 'place where warriors; came to rest after battles and practise their skills with the taiaha and other weapons. Tauwhao and Te Ngare would play host for two or three weeks until they were fully rested and able to return to battle:

Maori would go to the battles and come back there to rest and to practice taiaha so that they stayed sharp before they crossed over again. All the people from the other side they would come here and stay in Te Haka a Te Tupere, they would rest then they would hear about the action on the other side and they were off again. It was good because the heart was rested and the actions were sharpened.46

Hills on the island were also part of the signalling system used throughout the Moana to communicate any danger:

those were where the fires were lit for the smoke signals and from Tuhua the smoke would be seen as a message to them,orfrom them to us over here that Ngapuhi or whoever are coming on canoes, these'were their telecommunications the smoke from the fires. They would light them on these hills so they would be seen 'from out there at sea. If you tum to the sea that was how they sent signals to each marae that there was a battle or whatever with three or four canoes arriving in the harbour and they would know immediately who they were coming to fight us. It was that way in this moana, they would light fires so they would be seen from way out at Tuhua. At the other islands like Matakana there are places there where they would signal to us if there were people coming to fight us, from the smoke we would know. When they got here the women and children would have been taken away and the men would be waiting, or they would go on their canoes, to add to the stories of Kotorerua and Mauao.47

45 Oral interview with Ron Taingahue conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997, translated from Te Reo by Hauata Palmer 46 ibid

220 Taingahue explained that he wanted to identify and protect an ancestral urupa:

In the past the dead were buried right down from our houses here . . . to the right place. I haven't found this cemetery yet so that we could mark it out and go and work on the place where they are lying. We'll have to wait until we get the surveyor so I will know the cemetery is there so that we can, all of us, those of Matakana too, all our ancestors are buried there, so when we get to that time then we will decide whether to pay that Pakeha. Right now this is only my thought to take the surveyor so that he will not say it is not here it is over there. For three hours I was there looking for the place I speak of, the cemetery joining together of Tauwhao, Te Ngare and Ngai Tukairangi. I thought we should find it and fence it so that it will not be planted in pine forever, this is the dream. 48

He went on to describe where the families of Rangiwaea lived at Tauaki when he was young:

The road went along the front of these houses to the wharLdown there where the canoe Tainui originally landed. So here are the places where the houses of those ancestors stood along the sides here from this one my grandfather Te Karehana and Te Wiki ... It was there that Maata and Tiha Toetoe had their house and then there . was Torianext door and then my grandparents Te Karehana and Te Wiki and then Te Rehutai another of my koroua. Te Rehutai Menehira who came from the Menehira family of Ngatiawa. Right beside that one was Takiri Taikato and his wife Whareangiangi the daughter of Te Roretana and Rangtutaki and this old and old lady was well as Te Nou and Tawhiti. Those were houses standing here at that time. The

- \ road in front of the houses was where the wagons went to the wharf down below -< / there.49 He said that the people at the time milked cows and grew kumara and maize. The maize was taken to Tauranga on the launch at Matakana.

Ngati He

Toi I Awauirangi I Awaroa

Awamorehurehu I Wairakewa I Toroa I Ruiahonga I

47 ibid 48 ibid 49 ibid

221 Te Hinga 0 Te Ra I Awanuiarangi I Rongotangiawa I Romainohorangi I Tamapahore I Tamapiri I Ipurehe I Huirau I Turapaki50

Te whetu e huri i te taringa - nga tai e haruru nei I raro 0 Te Maire -i waho 0 Popoti e Te whakamatenga atu - tera i Whakaneke ra Ko te tohu 0 te kura - i makere atu ai na i! Tera te piaa - mara tonu mai e

. !,-."~ ~> I waho 0 Puraho - kei runga a Te Ati e .

'. /!

A Ngati He kaumatua described their rohe as:

Te Rohe, from here (Maungatapu) ki Tanewainuku. The real name is Wainuku, it covered the whole area, i nga wa 0 reira ki te uta horoi ki te whariki, Wetekirikiri, Waoku ana ko te tutu, and that all came down to Waimapu here.51

He also said that Ngati He used to gatherpipisand.cocklesat Hairini:andgo eeling at

'Te kirikiri or Te Waoku' .52

The name Ngati He comes from the confusion that arose over the death of their ancestor, Turapaki:

The story related over the years, is that after visiting some of his grandchildren, in the Whanau Apanui, he was waylayed on his return journey and killed at Waingare .. . unaware of this fact his people, at Maungatapu thought he was still in Whanau Apanui. (He pohehe ratou). While in return Whanau Apanui thought he had returned

50 Moana Press, Aku Taumata Korero: Nga Marae me nga iwi 0 te Moana 0 Tauranga, Tauranga, 1989 51 Oral interview with Ngati He conducted by Roimata Minhinnick, November 1997 52 ibid

222 to Maungatapu. Thereafter it was decided to name his local descendants Ngati He. Referring to the confusion which rose. 53

The pa site at the end of the Mangatapu peninsula is now generally referred to as Te

Pa 0 Te Ariki. Below the pa is the marae. The marae was established there after an epidemic killed many Ngati He, and so the kainga was moved to the present site. One of the Ngati He urupa is the Waitaia cemetery which is now surrounded by residential housing, which impinges on the boundaries of the urupa; The kaumatua described the cemetery as 'wahl tapu, te wahi 0 te wharekarakia I runga nei na'. 54 Some of the knowledge of wahi tapu has been lost with the passing of previous kaumatua:

See some of our old people, they don't want to let anything out,sotheykept.it to themselves ... He tapu ne, that's why you see aJotofthese,. in. the old days when I was a kid they would bring the bodiesfromOpua, they've got a big cave between Kaituna and Te Whakarito, it's on the other side of the long hill at Te Puke, tum to your right there, there is a creek there going into the Kaituna, and they got a big cave in there, they put all their bodies in there. They go half way haere mai ki konei, a, when we arrived there, there was the big cave. That's the thing, things can get lost aye, na wahi, suppose it was a secret, tapu ke you know, kaore ano ratou ki te korero, that's why they kept it to themselves.55

The kaumatua described several features of the Ngati He rohe as still being spiritual places:

Well the spirit of the old people is still there, even up Otanewainuku. Old people still up there, like Puwhenua, you won't believe this, but we went up there hunting one day and I cut a tree down right at the foot over there, well one fella that took us up there, I think the ftrst time we had been up there, but he knew this place, but he never told us, so I cut this tree down; ahi, next minute. no wind but the tree fell to the ground, well pai ana tena, good for the 'camping'forthe~followingnight; soihaere mai te tangata me matou with the sugar bag on his back,and he had a-billy. in it you know when you walk through the bush, that must have been, for Ranui· and :them you know coming down the bush. And our dog start to bark, and this fella went right past our ftre and ka ngaro atu, what the hell wrong with that fella, he never said gidday or nothing, but this fella he wouldn't tell us at, no te mea kei te rongo matou, ka hoki atu. So anyway when he woke up in the morning, well that tree was straight standing up, that is a fact, that's at Puwhenua. He tohu katoa era, it's a sign you know, but they reckon that part of that belongs to Ngati Raukawa, they reckon it is a very sacred mountain that. The Forestry you look and you can see halfway up and they've planted more pine trees, they've got a bulldozer there and the Conservation Department told them not to go in there because it is a very sacred place and very sacred mountain that. Put a stop to it. There is a lot of history to that. I've got one it is tuturu, even Tanewainuku, what is another sacred mountain, all those things

53 ibid S4 ibid ss ibid

223 around us you know. 56

He also described the importance of the mangrove swamps to Ngati He:

All our titiko and pupu and some of the butterfishes they breed in these mangroves, the spring tide comes, and they go out to sea, all of our pupu etc live in these mangroves, manawa that is what they call it. Kaori koe i ki raro, it goes out to wainui and Katikati here, you see all the oysters pa ana ki nga take 0 nga mangroves. Kei kona te mahi 0 tena. Some of the people are too old to pick it up but they have to leave it alone because when the spring tide comes in, they go out to sea. They settle out there; Our butterfish, Parore, we used to go out torching for flounders at night time and you would hear something amongst the seaweed aye, the parore. 57

NgatiKuku

A hui was held with Ngati Kuku at Whareroa Marae at the beginning of 1998. The following statement from Edward Ngatai reaffirms the korero of the kaumatua at that hui:

Te Kuriwas the younger brother of Tukairangi, Te. Kuri established the Ngati Kuku Hapu and Tukairangi his older brother, the Ngai Tukairangi hapu. Before establishing his own hapu Te Kuri lived for a time with Ngai Tukairangi. Between 1700 and 1860 Ngati Kuku who was also known as Matewaitai lived in numerous settlements throughout Tauranga Moana. Te Maire at Maunganui, Hopukiore, Kaimai, Wairoa, Te Karewa Island, Tuhua Island, Otumoetai and Whareroa.

In the late 1860s Ngati Kuku hapu also known as Matewaitai left Otumoetai and settled at Whareroa. We derived most of our sustenance from this land, there was an abundance of pipi, tuangi, ureroa, and pupu on the beach adjacent to the Marae. At Te Kapapa by Te Awa 0 Tukarako we caught eel and parore, inunga.

We would go to Ma-ringaringa and Puke-nuLto gather. our harakeke or flax for Whariki and other domestic uses. We would use the track at TeAra Taua andTeMu­ ra-mu to get to Rua-koro-tangi to· collect and fish for pipi,. papaka,mangopara, tamure, terakihi and several other fish species.

Our ngahere was predominantly in manuka and lupin. It covered an area from Rua­ koro-tangi across Horopia Swamp to the area below Omanu Urupa. Below the Omanu Urupa we would gather titiko and return to Whareroa by way of Ngaio-pa­ pa-pa, Te Tumu Creek and Whaka-pai-whaka. Our deceased were washed at Te Tumu and Whaka-pai-whaka and prepared in flax for the tangi-hana.

Our access to these areas was never disputed as belonging to Ngati Kuku. I can best summarise this by reading an excerpt by my Tupuna Hori Taiaho Ngatai ....

'My mana over these places has never been taken away. I have always held authority over these fishing places and preserved them, and no tribe is allowed to come here

56 ibid 57 ibid

224 and fish without my consent being given' .58

9.4 Summary

Ngaiterangi are named after their tupuna Rangihouhiri. Rangihouhiri was a descendant of Toroa, the captain of Mataatua waka. Ngaiterangi identify with Mauao and the Moana. Ngaiterangi were led out of bondage in the Eastern Bay of Plenty by Rangihouhiri and Tamapahore. Ngaiterangi fought a series of battles with Te Arawa over the occupation of Maketu. Ngaiterangi occupation of Tauranga was confirmedby:the;battle,of Kokowai when Ngaiterangi defeated Ngati Ranginui. The boundary of Ngaiterangi is said to extend from Nga Kuri a Wharei to Wairakei. The children of Rangihouhiri were Tutengaehe, Tapuiti, Takoro, Tuwhiwhia, Turourou, and Tamawhariua. - '\ -"'~ ) The hapu of Ngaiterangi include Nga Potiki, Ngai Tamawhariua, Ngati Tapu, Ngai Tukairangi, Ngai Tuwhiwhia, Te Ngare, Whanau a Tauwhao and Ngati Kuku. Today kuia and kaumatua remember how each hapu used to cultivate their lands and gather fish, shellfish and other from their rohe.

58 Historical Overview prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal: Ngatikuku Hapu Researcher: Edward Tehui Ngatai

225 Maps

Unless otherwise stated the following maps have been copied from Evelyn Stokes, 'The Allocation of Reserves for Maori in the Tauranga Confiscated Lands'.

1. 'Tauranga Confiscated Lands', Stokes, p 8

2. 'Boundaries of the Katikati-Te Puna Purchase', Stokes, p 55

3. 'Index Map of Tauranga Confiscated Lands', Stokes, p 100

4. 'Maori Population 1881', Stokes, p 216

5. 'Nga Marae 0 Tauranga Moana', Stokes, p 233

6. 'Hapu East of Tauranga Harbour and Waimapu River 1886', Stokes, p 240

7. 'Lands reported on by Stout-Ngata Commission 1908', Stokes, p 293 o 'Maori Land 1930-1950', Stokes, p 295

9. 'Te Heke 0 Rangihouhiri', Evelyn Stokes, 'Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to the Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands', p 72

226 Map One

Land under New Zealand Settlements Act 1863

\ ~ Confiscated Block I III!!I!I!I!IIIi CMS Te Papa Block c:::=J Katikati Te Puna Block

DMotiti Island

/ N G A Wairokei

H A U A

Matamata.

Peria.

" MaungakaWB • Hanga N GAT • Kuranui RAUKAWA

iF, i '" -:\' c,' /> : L ...·/

RotofIJa ,~ !r-;; 7TAURANGA ;----l:;; CONFISCATED LANDS Map Two

------,,------_.-. :

BOUNDARIES OF THE KATIKATI TE PUNA "PURCHASE"

\

'. Te Tuahu TE PUNA BLOCK <'Motutapere

Wairakei;

I I

Katikati Te Puna I Purchase boundary I on 1870 plan Waianuanu I

I

I I . I

I JIl!EW.iMt? Katikati Te Puna Purchase I : I Boundary on deed plans ... '1- Otanewainuku / ...... Additional area included on , ...... Tawera deed ...... Puwhenua Watershed on Kaimai Ranges

5, , 10 lalometres GMO:9/96 Map Three

-_._------_._----;:------...,

INDEX MAP OF TAURANGA CONFISCATED LANDS

Confiscation boundary (Gazetted 1865) Confiscated Block Katikati TePuna Block "Lands Returned" to Maori Town of Tauranga and Township of Greerton

I Matiti :~ Island

,, ,, ,, ,,

10 PGwhenua

kilometres

------Map Four

. MAoRI POPULATION 1881

Source: Compiled from Censuses of Maori Population. AJHR. 1674, G-7; 1676, G-2; and 1661, G-3.

1. Otuawahia 2. Mangatawa I 3. Matapihi I 4. Oruamatua I 5. Maungatapu I Kenana Rangiuru Te Puke.0- 6. Waoku I 7. Rangiwaea , I 8. Opounui !TsWsraiii... 9. Opureora . ... 10. Kutaroa " 11. Huria "', ... TE ARAWA 12. Peterehema 13. Poteriwhi ~ 14. Raropua .. GAl)': ... J.~ ...... / ~ 5 I • POPULATION I I , , ! ! I • 0-50 Bush .fl~fAls,;~ GMO"10/97 50 -100 • Confiscation line 100 - 200 Watershed on Kalmal Ranges· • 200 + o Kalnga occupied In 1870s but • not listed in 1881 Map Five

NGAMARAE 0 I TAURANGA MOANA I ! I

I)

1. Tutereinga 2. Paparoa 3. Poutiiterangi '0 4. Peterehema (Bethlehem) kilomeU8S 5. Huria (Judea)

--- • Confiscation Line Watershed on Kaimai Ranges Map Six

o 2 3 ---:. - kilometres

HAPU EAST OF TAURANGA HARBOUR AND WAIMAPU RIVER 1886 Block Boundary Subdivision of Block .. Reserves-Parish of Te Papa Lands sold, leased or under negotiation for sale in 1886 Kainga Map Seven

------, ------_. ------

"\ \

LANDS REPORTED ON BY STOUT - NGA TA COMMISSION 1908 , ;;~ (...... v ...... ' \" ) -~

~ '-'\ ' ["" '" \.Matakana \/~ /"-, Y .: c:-' ~ Katikati - Te Puna I~. r" .\ Block C:f), / oj , I Lrv ..; \, v~ \. Ngatamahinerua'\ ' \' ~ \~ ~, -\

Waianuanu

o 10 I kilomelfBS

Te Weraiti

Lands recommended for general settlement Lands to be Gazetted under Native k...... l Land Settlement Act 1907 1-2/21 Under negotiation for lease I Lands reserved for Maori occupation Puwhenua Kainga and cUltivations Other lands 1- GMO: 3/97 ~ Map Eight

MAORI LAND 1930 - 1950 .. .­ .- .. , , .. Summit of , MLTe Aroha .. " \1; ",,' \",, '-. , , ',,- , , \ Uratar3 f\ , \ , \ , , , \. , , , , ) , \ ,\,. Ngatamahinerua \ _, '\, . " '\, ' '~, , I ,, I , I , I Waianuanu1'­ I I I I I I I I I I Te Weraitdi-...... I ......

I!\\\WiflJti;1 Maori Land 1950 ~ Maori Land Alienated 1930-1950 Watershed on Kaimai Ranges

5 10 ! I ! kilometres GMG 10197 I • 'j Ota'nawainuk'u'* '

~ .,. .~e~ = A I' 0\ 5 o 5 10 15 20 Z IVlangarewa Q. kilometres ~=

"I', Bibliography

Official Publications

Appendices to the Journals ofthe House ofRepresentatives (AJHR) New Zealand Gazette New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (NZPD) New Zealand Statutes Turton, H.H. Maori Deeds ofLand Purchase in the North Island ofNew Zealand

Turton, H.H. An Epitome of Official Documents relative to Native Affairs and Land Purchases in the North Island ofNew Zealand

Newspapers

Bay ofPlenty Times New Zealand Herald Waihi Advertiser Waihi Leader /~' -'\ ...... \.. ji Reports

Heather Bassett, 'Otawa Scenic Reserve', Waitangi Tribunal, August 1996, Wai 215 A2

____ 'Mangatawa', Waitangi Tribunal, December 1996, Wai 215 A44

_____ 'Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini, Tauranga', Waitangi Tribunal, July 1996, Wai 215 A26

Tom Bennion, 'Maori and Rating Law', Rangihaua Whanui National Theme 1, Waitangi Tribunal, July 1997

Giselle Byrnes, 'A Preliminary Report on the Use, Control and Management of the Tauranga Harbour', Waitangi Tribunal, no date, Wai 215 A36

Kere, T. Cookson-Ua, 'Te Awa-o-Tukorako & Whareroa Blocks', Waitangi Tribunal, June 1996, Wai 215 A27

Des Tatana Kahotea, 'Western Bay of Plenty Urban Development Study Taha MaorilMaori Perspectives' Bay of Plenty United Council, May 1986 A16

236 _____'Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy Cultural Resource Inventory: Features of Significance to the Maori Community (tangata whenua)' A Report for the Tauranga District Council, June 1992 A 17

Richard Kay and Heather Bassett, 'Otawhiwhi Reserve and Bowentown Domain', Waitangi Tribunal, December 1996, Wai 215 A46

_____ 'Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A Report on the Papakanui Trust Claim', Waitangi Tribunal, April 1997, Wai 215 A51

Roimata Minhinnick, 'A Report on Mauao/Mount Maunganui', Waitangi Tribunal, no date, Wai 215 A49

_____ 'The Alienation of Moturiki,Motuotau,and Karewa Islands: Wai 540', Waitangi Tribunal, no date,Wai 215 A48

_____'Report Kaitimako B and C Wai 465' Waitangi Tribunal, no date, Wai 215 A12

J.E. Murray, 'Crown Policy on Maori Reserved Lands, 1840 to 1865, and Lands Restricted from Alienation, 1865 to 1900', Waitangi Tribunal, Rangihaua Whanui, February 1997

" l Tony Nightingale, 'Tauranga Land Development Schemes 1929-55', November 1996, Wai 215 A22

Vincent O'Malley, 'The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu, 1864-1981', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, June 1995, Wai 215 A22

_____'The Te Papa Block: A History of Church Missionary Society and Crown Dealings, 1838-1867', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, November 1996 A29

_____and Alan Ward, 'Draft Historical Report on Tauranga Moana Lands', Crown/Congress Joint Working Party, June 1993 A13

Hazel Riseborough, 'The Crown and Tauranga Moana 1864-1868', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, October 1994, Wai 215 A23

Kathryn Rose, 'The Impact of Confiscation: Socio-Economic Conditions of Tauranga Maori', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, January 1997, Wai 215 A38

Evelyn Stokes, 'Tauranga Moana: A Study of the Impact of Urban Growth on Rural Maori Communities', Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, Occasional Paper No 7, June 1980, Wai 215 A15

237 ____ 'Tauranga Moana: A Study of the Impact of Urban Growth on Rural Maori Communities', Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University ofWaikato, Occasional Paper No 7, June 1980, Wai 215 A15

____ 'Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands: A Report Prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal', University of Waikato, 1990, Wai 215 A12

____ 'Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to the Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands', University ofWaikato, 1992, Wai 215 A18

---- 'The Allocation of Reserves for Maori in the Tauranga Confiscated Lands', Volume 1, UniversityofWaikato, 1997, Wai215 A57

Anthony Fisher, Keni Piahana, Te Awanuiarangi Black, Rahera Ohia, 'The Issues Concerning the Use, Control and Management of Tauranga Harbour and its Estuaries', Waitangi Tribunal, June 1996, Wai 215 A50

Rachael Willan, 'Land Taken for Waterworks (Wai 362)' Waitangi Tribunal, September 1996, Wai 215 A32

_____ 'Hydro-Electricity in the Wairoa River Catchment: Land Acquisition', Waitangi Tribunal, September 1996, Wai 215 A35

_____'Katikati Railway Station Report', Waitangi Tribunal, September 1996 Wai 215 A30

_____ 'Papamoa School Site', Waitangi Tribunal, June 1997, Wai 215 A52

_____ 'Otamataha', Waitangi Tribunal, March 1997, Wai 215 A43

Suzanne Woodley, 'Matakana Island', Waitangi Tribunal, July 1993,Wai 215 A8

Journal Articles

M.P.K. Sorrenson, 'Land Purchase Methods and their Effect on Maori Population', Journal ofthe Polynesian Society, LXV, 3, 1956

_____'Colonial Rule and Local Response: Maori Responses to European Domination in New Zealand since 1860', The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, IV, 2, 1976

238 Other References

Bassett, Heather, Rachel Steel, David Williams, The Maori Land Legislation Manual: Te Puka Ako Hanganga Mo Nga Ture Whenua Maori, Volume One, Crown Forest Rental Trust, Wellington, 1994

Belich, James, The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1986

_____ Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders: From Polynesian Settlement to the End of the Nineteenth Century, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, Auckland, 1996

Bellamy, A.C. (ed), Tauranga 1882-1982: The Centennial of Gazetting Tauranga as a Borough, Tauranga City Council, Tauranga, 1982

Buick, Lindsay, The Treaty ofWaitangi: How New Zealand Became a British Colony, Capper Reprint, 1976,

Frame, Alex, Salmond: Southern Jurist, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 1995

Gifford, W.H. and Williams, H.B. A Centennial History of Tauranga, Dunedin, A.H. and A. W. Reed, 1940

Hall, N. "I Have Planted ... ": A Biography ofAlfred Nesbit Brown, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1981

Jenks, H.J. Forgotten Men: The Survey of Tauranga and District 1864-1869, Tauranga: Tauranga Historical Society, n.d.

Mair, Gilbert, The Story of Gate Pa: April 29th 1864, Bay of Plenty Times Office, Tauranga, 1926

McKenzie, D.W. (ed), Reed New Zealand Atlas, Reed in association with the Department of Survey and Land Information, Auckland, 1995

McIvor, Timothy, The Rainmaker: A Biography of John Ballance Journalist and Politician 1839-1893, Heinmann Reed, Auckland, 1989

Moana Press, Aku Taumata Korero: Nga Marae me nga iwi 0 te Moana 0 Tauranga, Tauranga, 1989

Oliver, W.H. and B.R. Williams (eds), The Oxford History of New Zealand, Oxford University Press, Wellington, 1981

239 Orange, Claudia, The Treaty ofWaitangi, Allen and Unwin Port Nicholson Press with assistance from the Historical Branch Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1989

Palmer, H.J. (ed), A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, Department of Maori Affairs, 1979

Pool, D. Ian, The Maori Population ofNew Zealand: 1776-1971, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1977

____Te Iwi Maori: A New Zealand Population Past, Present & Projected, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1991

Simpson, Miria, Nga Tohu 0 Te Tiriti: Making a Mark: Signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi, National Library ofNew Zealand, Wellington, 1990

Sinclair, Keith, A History ofNew Zealand, Penguin.Books, Middlesex, 1959

____ (ed), A Soldier's View of Empire: The Reminiscences of James Bodell 1831-92, The Bodley Head, London, 1982

Stafford, D.M. Te Arawa: A History of the Arawa People, Reed, Auckland, Reprinted 1994

/ '- "- " ; Stokes, Evelyn, A History of Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980

Taylor, Nancy, M. (ed), The Journal of Ensign Best 1837-1843, Government Printer, Wellington, 1966

Vennell, C.W. Brown and the Elms, Tauranga: The Elms Trust, 1984

Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau Claim, Government Printer, Wellington, 1985

Waitangi Tribunal, Te Maunga Railways Report, Brookers Ltd, Wellington, 1994

Ward, Alan, A Show of Justice: Racial 'Amalgamation' in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, reprinted Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1995

Wards, Ian, The Shadow of the Land: A Study of British Policy and Racial Conflict in New Zealand 1832-1852, Historical Publications Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, A. R. Shearer, Government Printer, Wellington, 1968

Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume One: 1769-1869, Bridget Williams Books, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1990

240 Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume Two: 1870-1900, Bridget Williams Books, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1993

The People of Many Peaks: 1769-1869: The Maori Biographiesfrom The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume One, Bridget Williams Books and Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 1990

A People's History: Illustrated Biographies from The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume One, 1769-1869, Bridget Williams Books and Department of Intern~l Affairs, Wellington, 1992

The Turbulent Years: 1870-1900: The Maori Biographiesfrom The Dictionary ofNew Zealand Biography, Volume Two, Bridget Williams Books and the Dictionary of .New Zealand Biography, Department of Internal Affairs, 'Wellington, 1994

241