DUPLICATE
HYDRO-ELECTRICITY IN THE WAIROA RIVER CATCHMENT: LAND ACQUISITION
A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal
September 1996 by Rachael Willan.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... 4
CHAPTER 1: A HISTORY OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION IN THE WAIROA
THE OMANAW'~POWER TION ON ...... 10 THEMCLAREN FALLS POWER STATION ...... 10 TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL AND TAURANGAELECTIUCPOWER BOARD EMPOWERING ACT 1965...... 11
THE mlUL F'ROPOSAL OF 1968 ...... 14 MAORI TRUSTEE...... 15 NEG~TIA~ONSTHE JOINTGENERATION CO-E ...... 16 The Council Hearing ...... 17 The Outcome of the Inquiv ...... 21 IM~ALAG~~MENT ...... 22 THE STEW F~QRT. 23
THE DEREGULATIONOF THE JOINT GENERATION COMMIITEE'SHY DRO-ELECTRIC INTERESTS...... 45
CROWN ~JOLVEMENT.:...:.... :...... 45 . ..-. .. Legislative provisions for the generation of hydro-electricity by local authorities...... 45 Funding ...... 46 THEP ROPOSED SALEO F THE MUNICIPAL ENERGY DEPARTMENT TO THE POWER BOARD ...... NT...NT.NTNT..NTNT..47 THE ENERGYCoMP-s ACT 1992 ...... 47 BAY ENERGY ~POSAL...... 48 TRUSTPOWER...... 49
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
I would like to thank all the people who assisted me in the production of this report. Thank you to all the staff at the Office of the Maori Trustee in Hamilton whose help was invaluable. Thank you to John Budden, Senior Property Adviser at the Tauranga District Council for hunting through Council files in search of information. I would like to thank Mr Lance Waaka and Des Kahotea for discussing their claims with me. Thanks also to Michael O'Brien and John Menneer of the Ngamanawa Incorporation for discussing their claim and providing me with information. Acknowledgment must also go to all members of the 'Tauranga team' at the Waitangi .. Tribunal for offering advice. Special thanks to Heather Bassett, Roimata Minhinnick and Grant Phillipson of the Waitangi Tribunal for their help and suggestions. Thanks also to people who helped me in other ways, especially to my parents Bruce and Margaret Willan for driving me around Tauranga, taking the photographs of the site and most of all for their patience! Finally I would like to thank my friends Chris Plowright in Hamilton and Claire Allemann (and flatmates) in Tauranga for allowing me to stay at their flats.
SUMMARY
This report analyses the development of hydro-electric power schemes in Tauranga's Wairoa River catchment area. The report focuses on the acquisition of 144 acres of Maori land during the 1960s and 1970s. In addition to these developments the report also discusses the following:
Early hydro-electric power developments Land tenure and block histories Compensation negotiations Issues concerning consultation Resource ownership issues Destruction of historic sites Deregulation and restructuring of local electricity authorities
The report highlights the fact that the land owner, the Ngamanawa Incorporation was compensated for land acquisition. However, it also notes several grievances. These include:
The Joint Generation Committee only consulted owners after deciding to take land. There was no compensation for damage to historically significant rivers and waterfalls. A number of historical sites were destroyed or damaged during the construction of the most recent power projects. Negotiations were limited to those Maori who had land taken. There was no recognition of other hapu who may have had interests in the Wairoa catchment area. There was no recognition of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in: the Public Works Act 1928; the Tauranga City Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board Empowering Act 1965; or the Energy Companies Act 1992. The Energy Companies Act 1992 transferred the Joint Generation Committee's assets into third party ownership. This prejudicially affected claimants' rights to settlement or redress of Treaty claims. There are a number of areas that one could research in further detail, which due to the time constraints were not possible for this report. Firstly, the history of Whaiti-Kuranui Block is sketchy. Unlike the other blocks in this report, Whaiti Kuranui is in the Waiariki Maori Land District. The records of this block are in Rotorua, rather than Hamilton. Due to transportation limitations it was not possible for the author to visit Rotorua to investigate this one block. Secondly, the report does not cover land tenure of blocks involved in the earlier power schemes. The author did not receive information on these blocks from the Tauranga District Council until the time of writing. The council believes that its predecessor the Tauranga Borough Council acquired land from either the Crown or European owners. At the time of take, the land was not Maori land. The focus of this report is on land acquisition. However the report contains a brief discussion of the Energy Companies Act. Discussion is brief because the Waitangi Tribunal in the Te Ika Whenua Energy Assets Report (Wai 212) covers this issue. Interested parties are advised to consult that report because many of the issues discussed are relevant to claims covered by this report.
'i 1 In regard to issues of river ownership interested parties should consult the Wairoa River \ J Report as this will deal with these issues in more detail than this report.' Dr Evelyn Stokes' report on the Ngamanawa Incorporation has already documented the history of the acquisition of land for the joint generation scheme. That report should be read in conjunction with this one. It is included in the Wai 215 record of documents as document A1 1. My report expands on Stokes' report, covering developments since 1983, the date of publication and earlier power developments.
1 Rachael Willan "Wairoa River Report", Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, September 1996. 6.
INTRODUCTION
This report discusses the Tauranga Joint Generation Committee's acquisition of Maori land in .the Kaimai region for hydro-electric generation. It is a general report encompassing several claims. Claims Involving the Tauranga Joint Generation Scheme
Wai 362
Wai 362 claimant, Mi Lance Waaka for Ngati Ruahine, a hapu of Ngati Ranginui claims:
We claim all areas within Omanawa, Kaimai N0.3, Whaitikuranui, Paengoroa blocks within the Ngamanawa incorporation taken under the public works act, for the Mangapap Hydro scheme, known as the Mandeno, Hydro Power Complex and lands taken for the Mc Laren Falls, Dam and Power Station and lands taken for the Ruahihi Power Station Electricity Generating complexes.
Wai 362 is a general claim dealing with both Raupatu and Public Works.
.A
Wai 503 . - Wai 503 is a claim by the Ngarnanawa Incorporation. The claim is a legal argument dealing with the Public Works Act 1928, the Empowering Act of 1965 and the Energy Companies Act 1992. This claim argues that these Acts contravene the Treaty of Waitangi. Most of the acquisition of land for the later power schemes involved the Ngamanawa Incorporation, and as land owners they were the main beneficiaries of compensation.
Wai 336
Wai 336 is a claim by Mi Des Tatana Kahotea on behalf of Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Raukawa hap. Mr Kahotea claims the transfer of assets under the Energy Companies Act 1992 will:
1. Prejudtce claims presently before the Waitangi Tribunal under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 relating to the Tauranga Land Codkcation of 1864 and actions of the Crown through specific legislation which gave parties such as local authorities access to control and harness rivers and steams of the Wairoa and Omanawa Rivers to generate electricity. 2. Deny Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Raukawa hap their proprietary rights under law and equity over ancestral lands incorporating the catchment of the Wairoa and Omanawa Rivers and their tributaries that is used and harnessed to generate electricity for the Tauranga Joint Generation Committee or Kaimai Hydro. The claim notes the Crown's involvement in Tauranga's hydro-electric schemes is due its' role as legislative authority.
The Report
This report addresses a direction by the Waitangi Tribunal to give an account of public works acquisitions, with special emphasis on land taken for power stations and other electricity purposes from the following blocks:
Omanawa Kaimai 3 Whaitikuranui Paengoroa.
This direction differs from the blocks covered in the report, largely because the four blocks are either parent or amalgamated blocks. The author found no record of Omanawa block or any evidence of power stations situated on an Omanawa block. This appears to refer to the Omanawa Power station. The report mainly focuses on two periods, firstly the taking of land in the 1960s and 1970s and secondly the deregulation and privatisation of the electricity industry during the 1980s and 1990s. The report covers -a number of issues. They are: ...... -
Negotiations for land acquisition. Negotiations for compensation. / \ I - Relevant legislation. / Exclusion of some hapu from negotiations. The impact of the Energy Companies Act 1992.
Special acknowledgment is given to Dr Evelyn Stokes of Waikato University. Her book, Ngamanuwa: A Study of Conflicts in the use of Forest Land was a major source of information for this report. Interested parties should also consult Stokes' report. This report should also be read in conjunction with my report on the Wairoa River. Many of the resource ownership issues that that the river report raises are also relevant to this report. In addition to Dr Stokes' book I have also used the records of the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court to outline the history of the blocks involved. Other sources consulted were records at the Office of the Maori Trustee in Hamilton, the Ngamanawa Incorporation and the records of the Tauranga Public Library. The Tauranga District Council also supplied me with information from their files. All of the hydro-electric developments in this report are in the Wairoa River catchment area. They represent two phases of hydro-electric development. The first phase was the 1910s and 1920s, when the Tauranga Borough Council built the McLaren Falls and Omanawa power stations. The second phase during the 1960s and 1970s consisted of three stations built by the Tauranga Joint Generation Committee. The committee was a power authority specially set up to generate hydro-electricity. The three stations are Lloyd Mandeno, Ruahihi and Mangapapa. According to the Tauranga District Council, the land for the McLaren falls and Omanawa power station was taken from either the Crown or European land owners. The Tauranga Joint Generation Committee acquired land for the Mangapapa, Lloyd Mandeno, and Ruahihi power stations from an incorporation known as "The Proprietors of Ngarnanawa Block". The shareholders in this incorporation are mainly fkom Ngati Hangarau hapu but they also include some members of Ngati Kahu. Both hapu are of Ngati Ranginui iwi. Ngamanawa consists of blocks originally known as Paengoroa 2, Kaimai 2, Whaiti Kuranui I 5D2, and allotments 537A and B in the Parish of Te Papa. The Crown confiscated all these blocks except for Whaiti Kuranui 5D2 in 1865.~The Tauranga District Lands Acts of 1867 and 1868 validated the confiscation which effectively extinguished all Maori customary land title. Consequently there was no investigation of customary ownership by the Native Land ~ourt.~ Instead, the Tauranga District Lands Acts provided for a District Commissioner whose tasks were, 'Yo determine the owners of land and establish reser~es".~ The original post-confiscation grants are a result of these investigations. The commissioners spent nearly a decade investigating block ownership. Evelyn Stokes makes the following comment about their investigations: It was clearly intended by all the Commissioners that adequate reserves for all the hapu of Tauranga Moana should be allocated in good land which could be cultivated and should be inalienable. Reserves for kainga were allocated in the Conftscated Blcck, Katikati Te Puna purchase and Lands Returned In hearing the claims to large inland blocks all claimants were heard, ydit is obvious from the limited records available that all hapu were involved in staking claims. The Commissioners were responsible for the allocation of blocks to local hapu. As Stokes points out, it is unclear upon what basis the Commissioners made their decision. Therefore the extent that these awards reflected ancestral land use and ownership is unknown. She notes: ..-. It is certain that Government officials used gmts of land as a means of payment for cooperation. The Commissioners were not bound by considerations of traditional or ancestral rights. The pattern of land grants, apart from reserves $r existing kainga, does not always correlate with any customary rights of individual grantees. - It is certainly possible that the Commissioners allocated the blocks in this report to hapu other than those who had traditional rights or interests in the land. Oral evidence would be of assistance here. Much of the land remained Maori land until the twentieth century when Tauranga's local authorities constructed a series of hydro-electric schemes to supply the region with electricity. Recently, the electricity industry was deregulated and privatised. This report discusses these developments and some of the issues that they raise. All opinions unless otherwise stated are my own. To a large extent these opinions are a reflection of my skills and background. Therefore this report is mainly an historical narrative covering the hydro-electric schemes and a discussion of some of the relevant issues. The report does not claim to speak for Maori.
New Zealand Gazette 1965 p. 187. Stokes, Te Raupatu... vol.2 p. 145. Ibid p.144. Ibid p. 154. 6 Stokes Te Raupatu Vol. 1 p.157. -* I
\ i CHAPTER 1: A HISTORY OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION IN THE WAIROA RIVER CATCHMENT AREA
The Omanawa Power Station
The Water Power Act 1903, vested the rights to generate electricity in the Crown. In 1913, the Tauranga Borough Council applied to the Department of Lands to have the Omanawa F& vested in their body corporate for the purposes of water power generation.8 Thy also applied under section 268 of the Public Works Act 1908 for a licence to generate electricity. Generation began in 1915 with the completion of the Omanawa power station. According to the Tauranga District Council, the power board acquired the land for the station fiom European owners. The council lists the land acquired as:
Part Lot 1 DP 9149. Part Allotment 580 and 582 Parish of Te Papa CT 38Bl60 (pnor CT 250/253). Lots 3 &4 DPS 33499 Part Allotment 580 Parish of Te Papa CT 38Bl253 (prior CTs 2501254, 337154 and 3711222).'0' The owners of allotments 580 and 582 were Messrs Gammans Tauranga Ltd. The Tauranga Borough Council acquired their land for £50." Wowever, the council did not acquire the fi-eehold . - of all land required for the project. According to the Bay of Plenty Times, the Tauranga Borough Council leased an area of land on either side of the falls land fiom the Lands Department for a "nominal rental of 5 1 per annum."12 The council also ap roached relevant land owners for the right to traverse their properties with the transmission line.' The Crown funded the project by the means of a loan secured by ratepayers.14
The McLaren Falls Power Station
Planning for the Mc Laren Falls power station began soon aRer the construction of the Omanawa station. In her history of Tauranga County Evelyn Stokes notes that:
Already in 1921, Mandeno [power board chief engineer] had completed initial surveys and plans of the upper Wairoa and Mangapapa Rivers and settled on Mc Laren Falls as a suitable site for a power station.15
Construction of the power station began in 1923. In 1925, the fist generator began operation. The project also involved the construction of an artificial lake (Lake McLaren) to supply the station in 1925. l6
7 Cathy Marr Public Works Takings of Maori Land 1840-1981: Report for the Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit, Unpublished, December 1994, p. 104. 8 Bay of Plenty Times, 28 May 1913. Ibid. 10 As per letter Paula Thompson Chief Executive Tauranga District Counci to Rachael Willan 26 July, 1996. 11 Bay of Plenty Times, 5 September 1913. The Tauranga Electric Power Board was not constituted until 1923. 12 Bay of Plenty Times, December 12 1913. l3 Ibid. 1 ?auranga District Council Submissions to the Draft. Joint Establishment Plan of Tauranga Electric Power Board and Rotorua Electricity p.5. 1s Evelyn Stokes, A History of Tauranga County 1980 p.295. 10 i According to the Tauranga District Council, its predecessor, the Tauranga Borough Council purchased the McLaren Falls power station site from the Crown. The land was allotments 610 and 710 Parish of Te papa.17In 1946, 3 acres 1 rood and 28 perches of allotment 6 10 were seized in trust for water power under the Municipal Corporations Act 1933." A Mer16 perches were acquired for a road in 1958 and a right of way granted to the Crown in 1968." Allotment 710 totalled 1 rood 04.5 perches. The right of way order also applied to this Besides the purchase of land, in 1922 a neighbouring farmer, George McLaren granted the boroue council a right of way through his property. This land was part of Lot 3 Kaimai number 1 Block 1.
In addition to the power house there is also the Mc Laren Falls Park on allotments 475 and 486 in the Parish of Te Papa. The area of land from each of these blocks was 94 acres 2 roods and 3 perches and 130 acres and 2 roods respectively. In 1924 the land was temporarily reserved from sale under the Land for Settlements Act 1908 and section 321 of the Land Act 1908.~~McLaren Falls appears to have remained a reserve ever since. Currently, the land is used for tourist and recreation activities. A site visit to the park confirmed that there were tourist cabins, an arboretum and some grazing on the site.u
Tauranga City Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board Empowering Act 1965 - On 6 February 1963, Orders in Council authorised the Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City / of Tauranga and the Tauranga Electric Power Board to:
proceed with certain schemes to obstruct, impound, or divert the waters of the Mangappa, Opaki, Mangakaerengo and Omanawa Rivers, to raise or lower the level thereof, and to take and use therefrom water for the purposes of generating electrical energy, and also to lay, construct put up, place and use electric lines in connection there~ith.'~ In 1965 the Crown passed the Tauranga City Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board Empowering Act. Under the provisions of the Act the two local bodies worked together in a joint generation scheme.25Both local bodies were equal partners in the scheme. The Joint Generation Committee would consist of 4 members appointed by the Power Board and 4 members appointed by the coundz6The Act also gave the council and power board the right to generate electricity and also under section 2, the right to:
[nlotwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment or any rule of law, the Council and the Board are hereby authorised and empowered to do or enter into all such acts, deeds, matters and
l6 See Ibid pp.292-296. l7 As per letter Chief Executive to R Willan, 26 July 1996. '*Certificate of Title, 8571193 South Auckland District Land Registry. l9 Ibid 20 Gificate of Title 8~11186,South Auckland District Land Registry. 21 Agreement between McLaren and council,20 December 1922, AMS 8614, Tauranga Public Library. New Zealand Gazette 1924 p.1382. This Gazette notice had given the areas as 98 and 108 acres, this was gfvoked by a Gazette notice on November 1927 p.3509. Site visit, 24 June 1996. 24 Evelyn Stokes, Ngamanawa: A Study of Conflicts in the Use of Forest Land, University of Waikato, plton,New Zealand for the Ngamanawa Incorporation, 1983 p. 141. Schedule, Tauranga City Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board Empowering Act 1965 No. 22 - Local, 1 (1). 26 Ibid. 11 things (including, subject to the provisions of the Local Authorities Loans Act 1956, such bornwing of money) as shall be necessary or requisite for giving fill effect to the said Orders in Council and the said deed and matters the sub~ectthereofz7 This provision allowed the committee to acquire Maori land for three new power stations; the Lloyd Mandeno power station on the Wairoa River, the Mangapapa station on the lower Mangapapa River and the third at Ruahihi, also on the Wairoa. The committee described its three new stations as:
Lloyd Mandeno Station [which] is situated on the west bank of the Mangapapa River which is a tributary of the Wairoa River. By a series of low weirs and tunnels the mten of the Omanawa River, the Ruabaka Stream and the Mangapapa River are diverted westwards to Lake Mangaonui. The lake is man made and it was formed by constructing a 27m high earth dam across the original Mangaonui stream bed. The Waitaia Stream feeds directly into the lake and is the principle ponding reservoir for the power station.. .A further system of tunnels divert the Opuiala River, the Tauwharawhara Stream, the Ngathoa Stream and the Awakotuku Stream eastwards towards the lake... Lower Mangapapa Station: ...The Station comprises a concrete arch dam constructed across a narrow gorge in the Mangapapa River some 4km down stream of the Lloyd Mandeno Station. The dam is 26m in height and the impounding reservoir extends upstream to the upper station.
A Ruahihi power Station: Ruahihi is the third and largest section of the overall project..:The Reservoir servicing this station is Lake McLaren and the canal which links the reservoir and the station Lake McLaren was formed in 1925 by the comlruction of a 26m high concrete arch dam across the Mangapapa River which provided the head to operate the McLaren Falls Power tati ion.'^ m - The scheme became operational with the commissioning of the Ruahihi Canal in 1981. Aside from the collapse of the canal soon aRer it was operational, the scheme has supplied the district with electricity for the past 15 years.
The Act also made provisions for the administration of Mc Laren Falls and the Omanawa Stations. It vested the land and buildings in these schemes in the Joint Generation Committee. The McLaren Falls power station was included in the new scheme. In 1982, the Commission of Inquiry into the Ruahihi canal collapse noted that the station was:
operated periodically to provide additional peak power or to utitise water released from the lake down the Wairoa River in times of high flow or to sat@ water right requirements.29 According to the Bay of Plenty Times, the McLaren Falls Power Station continued operation until 1989.~'
Once the new scheme was operational the Omanawa station became largely redundant. In 1970, Max Avery commented that the new hydro scheme would reduce the Omanawa River's flow. Consequently, the Joint Generation Committee would install a smaller generator at the station.31 The McLaren Falls and Omanawa power stations were valuable assets. Schedules one and two of the Empowering Act valued the land and other assets involved in the transfer. The total value of the
27 Ibid section 2. 28 Tauranga Joint Generation Committee, Wairoa River Hydroelectric Development, pamphlet, supplied by Western Bay of Plenty District Council. 29 Report of Committee to inquire into the failure of the Ruahihi Canal, Ministry of Works, Wellington 1982, p.2-1. 30 Bay of Plenty Times, 19 July 1994. 31 Max C. Avery, "Hydro-Electric At Tauranga", Local Body Review, March 1970, p.7. land, buildings and improvements in the Ornanawa and McLaren Falls station was £10,205. The stations7 buildings and plant were valued at 2 191,742. A total of £201,947.~~
32 See Schedules One and Two of the Empowering Act. CHAPTER 2: INITIAL NEGOTIATIONS.
The Initial Proposal of 1968
As Chapter One demonstrates, the 1965 Empowering Act gave the Joint Generation Committee power to acquire land required for power stations and related electricity purposes. The preamble of the Empowering Act outlines the policy behind the creation of the legislation:
[alnd whereas the parhes hereto and their legal advisors are of the opinion that the statutory provisions at present available to them severally are inaQequate or lnapproprrate to ensure the full implementation and operation by them jointly of the said scheme but both parties are anxious and willing to implement the direction and authority given to them by his excellency the Governor General in the said Orders in Council and therefore jointly desire to set the basis upon which the said scheme may be exploited and in so far as may be n- for the full implementation thereof agree to promote and to support special legislation to that end Evelyn Stokes argues that the Act gave the committee powers over and above those of other authorities:
ply the Empowering Act it seems the Tauranga Joint Generation Committee succeeded in obtaining its own 'f&t track' and avoided any public hearing under water rights or planning procedures, or impact assessment reports, which are reqwed for public worbs of this nature.34 - It was these extensive powers of land and water acquisition that upset the Maori land owners. Negotiations between the owners and the Joint Generation Committee continue to the present day.35
The initial proposal for land acquisition was extensive. In 1968, the Joint Generation Committee announced its intention to take some 5000 acres of Maori land. The Ngati Hangarau people owned the land, most of which the Crown returned after the 1865 confiscation. Table 1 shows the blocks and meas afFected by the Committee's proposal.
Table 1: Proposed Takings of Maori Land-1968.
Block -Acres 36- Tauwharawhara 4 2268
Te Papa Paengoroa part 2B2 203
Te Papa Paengoroa part 2B2 138
Te Papa Paengoroa part 2B2 83
33 Ibid, preamble. 34 Stokes, Ngamanawa: p39. 35 Apparently settlement is nearing completion. As per conversation with John Menneer Secretary, Ngamanawa Incorporation, Tauranga, 27 June 1996. 36 The acreage has been rounded to the nearest acre using the following principle; roods and perches below 2 roods 20 perches rounded down, above 2 roods 20 perches rounded up to the nearest acre. For actual areas see Gazette notice in Document Bank 14 Te Papa Paengoroa part 2A I 141 Te Papa Paengoroa part 2B1 I 45 Te Papa Paengoroa part 2B1 1 401 Te Papa Paengoroa part 26 1 248 Part Allot. 537 Parish of Te 0.25 Papa Part Kaimai No. 2 93 5 Part Kaimai No. 2 I Part Whaiti Kuranui 748 Aaaroximate Total Acreage 5280.25
Source New Zealand Gazeite 3 December 1968.
The proposal angered the owners. A notice of intention to take land was issued in the N& Zealand - Gazette on 3 December 1968. The committee also sent owners notice of their intentions. On 23 December 1968, the owners of the Tauwharawhara block met at Bethleman Marae and elected including Vic Smith, a city councillor to negotiate with the Joint Generation -,
The Maori Trustee
During this period the proposed land acquisition came to the attention of the Hdton office of Maori Affairs. They told their head office that:
[tlhe notice of intention to take has been issued and there is a certain amount of olgection hm some of the owners. They have already made representations to their local member of Parliament and he has discussed the situation with the District Officer. The matter has also been raised at meetings in the Tauranga area over the last few weeks.
The owners of one block, Tauwharawhara No. 4 have formed a committee and have arranged for Mr E. Morgan, Solicitor of Cooney, Lees and Morgan, to act for them. They have also approached Mr Maurice Jones, the former Deputy Valuer- General to act as their valuer. In due course the pmclamation will be issued and the Maori Trustee will be appointed to act for the Initially the Maori Trustee planned to negotiate compensation with the Joint Generation Committee. On 24 January 1969 the trustee appointed Mr E D Morgan as lawyer and Mr M Jones as valuer to act in his interest. According the district officer at Hamilton, the owners requested the assistance of the Maori Trustee. Unfortunately however, the trustee could not act until the committee actually took the land. The district officer informed head office that:
[tlhere is one matter which has arisen in this district that perhaps could be discussed Present legislation provides for the Maori Trustee to become agent for the owners of all Maori land taken by proclamation under the Public Works Act excepting solely owned land This exception will be removed when the Eumpeanktion of land is completed and at that stage we will be dealing with land owned by five or more Maoris. The appointment of the Maori Tiustee takes place when the
37 Stokes, Ngamanawa, p.44. 38 Hamilton District Office Affairs to Head Office, 21 January 1969, M. A. 38/2,Maori Land Required.for Public Works, National Archives, Wellington. taking has been completed. We have a case in the Tauranga area where notice of intention under the Public Works Act has been issued and the owners are raising their objections to the proposal. Some of them have already told us that they think that the Maori Trustee should come in and act on their behalf at this stage. In this particular case they had not been consulted previously and they feel that the Maori Trustee could well represent them in the early stages before a taking is completed b~ proclamation. We do not know whether this suggestion is generally acceptable to Maori owners... Despite this suggestion head office told Hamilton that, 'there is no reason why the owners themselves should not object if they want to' and that the Maori Trustee should not be involved4' Section 6 of the Public Works Amendment Act 1962, gave the Maori Trustee the statutory authority to negotiate on behalf of owners of multiply owned Maori land. Section 6 did not include incorporations but they could request the Maori Trustee's assistance after alienati~n.~~ However in this case once the committee acquired the land, the Ngarnanawa Incorporation negotiated on its own behalf.
Negotiations with the Joint Generation Committee
In March 1969, the kori Affairs Select Committee visited the Tauranga District to hear the grievances of Tauranga Maori. At a meeting at Hairini Marae on 23 March, the Chauperson, Hon. McCready promised local Maori that his committee would investigate the taking of land for public - works. The committee would also investigate the structure of the Public Works Act and:
discuss whether the present law was being achninistered in the spirit of the Act or whether it requmd an amend~nent.~~ ARer the visit McCready asked for clarification of the issues fiom the Department of Maori Mairs. Of particular concern was the entry of the Joint Generation Committee's agents on the land before the proclamation was issued. To assist McCready the Deputy Secretary of Maori Affairs asked the Hamilton District Officer to supply information:
[i]n order that I may give Mr McCready the informalion he seeks, would you please ascertain whether the committee entered on the Maori land before the4plamation procedure has been completed. If they did so, it looks as though they are trespassers. The Hamilton office confirmed this allegation. They informed the Deputy Secretary of Maori Affairs that:
[i]t is a fact that a firm of Auckland engineers have already entered upon the land and have erected culverts, roads and the like in connection with the proposed project, no doubt at the behest of the Joint Generation Committee. No proclamation taking the land has yet been issued Clearly, therefore, the Committee through their agents the engineering firm, were trespassers on the land So far as we can find out, Mrrustry of Works have not yet been called in nor have they taken part in any of the work already carried
39 Hamilton District Office to Head Office, 4 February 1969, M.A. 54/19/71 Tauranga Joint Generation Committee, National Archives, Wellington. 40 D W J Stewart for Maori Trustee to Hamilton District Oflice, 21 February 1969, M.A. 54/19/71 Tauranga Joint Generation Committee, National Archives Wellington. 41 For further information on the legislation see, Waitangi Tribunal l"he Turangi Township Report 1995 Brookers Ltd, 1995, p266. 42 Bay of Plenty Times, 24 March 1969. 43 K. Laurence, telegram to District Officer Hamilton, 14 May 1969 M.A 54/19/71 Tauranga Joint Generation Committee, National Archives, Wellington. 44 District Officer, Hamilton to Head Office 23 May 1969 M.A. 541191717 Tauranga Joint Generation Committee, National Archives Head Office, Wellington. 16 By entering the property before they acquired the land, the Joint Generation Committee imposed upon the rights of land owners.
The Council Hearing
On 16 December 1968, Councillor V C Smith, (also a land owner) raised the land acquisition issue during a meeting of the Tauranga City Council. His grievances were lack of consultation with owners and the Joint Generation Committee's Mure to acknowledge the cultural significance of the land. Smith argued that:
Other land needed for the Joint Generation Scheme had been taken by agreement whereas the Maori land was being taken by proclamation with no attempt at negotiation More land than was needed was king taken . Notices baning the owners from their land had been erected Bulldozer drivers had been instructed to drive at anyone who got in their way.
Cr Smith said that access to the land had been promised so that tracks: could been bulldozed but the owners had been barred from their property.
. The tracks were for getting heavy equipment into the area for test work
"I will not be a party to this as a memkr of this council" Cr Smith said
The land had been handed back to the Maori owners after the Maori wars, Cr Smith said producing an old map. 'On this map it says that this block is handed back to its Maori owners for ever' he said
History was being disregarded to make another history for the Joint Generation Commi#ees own ends. He was not against progress but too much land hadbeen taken, Cr Smith said
It had been said that negotiations with the owners were impossible because of the multiple ownership, but timber companies had negotiated for milling rights without any trouble.45 Councillor E L Faulkner told the council the that he had advised the Joint Generation Committee not to take all the land. The committee retorted by arguing that allowing the owners to retain some of the land would mean increased survey costs. Faulkner said:
I suggested t@t they negotiate but was over-ruled and they decided to take the land by proclamation. On the strength of these arguments the Mayor called for a council inquiry into the taking of the land. The land owners' objections raised concerns amongst some members of the public that the inquiry would slow the construction of a vital public work. An editorial accompanying the report on the Council's decision entitled 'No Time For Haggling" voiced the following opinions:
The inquiry called for by the Tauranga City Council at its meeting last night, into allegations of injustices to Maori owners in the proposed method of acquisition of land in the joint scheme to provide hydroelectric power stations in the Wairoa River watershed is a sensible move in the circumstances. It should clear the air on a project which is of paramount importance to the future progress of Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty.
45 Bay of Plenty Times, 7 December 1968. '' Ibid. But this power generation undertaking has taken a long time to get off the ground and with the way clear now for major construction work to begin, there must not be any further delay. If any inquiry into Maori owners complaints is to be held then it should be held immediately and a finding establishing whether or not the complaints have just cause for grievance produced as qyickly as possible.
Reasons for the Joint Generation Committee to act in the way it has cannot be said to be flumy ones. Multiple ownership of the 2270 acres in the four Tamharawhara blocb and the likely prospect of long drawn out negotiations with the owners would be a frightening~ospectfor any concern desiring to carry out expeditiously an important community works project. The land owners pointed out that the committee's acquisition of more land than was absolutely necessary would cost ratepayers more money. As the owners' representative W S Holland told the council, "[sltop this monstrous thing - stop this waste of Public one^.'*' During the council inquiry Ngati Hangarm expressed their concerns about the proposed taking of all land in this report, not just the Tauwhasawhara blocks. The Bay of Plenty Times reported some of their submissions:
Ob~ectorsto the committee's taking over nearly 5000 acres by proclamation for the power scheme spoke strongly on the historical sigmiicance of the area and its importance as the heritage of Maori people. They criticised the method of aoquiring the land and said they should have been approached and invited to negotiate over its acqisition by the Committee. A considerable number of Maori landowners were present at the hearing Mr Owens [the Mayor] thanked ob~ectorsfor their orderliness and the manner in which they presented their submissions. Objectors called by council, Mr E.D. Morgan and their submissions included the following: Mrs Mary Lucas, Tauranga, part owner of all the blocks under discussions said owners who attended the hearing yesterday had come fiom the Bay of Plenty and Waikato and their support was welcome.. . She said she was spokesman for the owners. She thanked Mr Owens for providing an opportunity for an inqyiry into the taking of the land To Mr Morgan she said it had not taken long to arrange a meeting of the owners of the land afEected when the intentions of the Joint Generation Committee became known. The owners were "hurt and disgusted" that Maori owners had not been approached as other owners had when land was sought. They had thought that they lived in world of Wty. 'Without our heritage of land, we are nothing without our traditions and customs we are nothing' she said 'Please don't denude us of these' she pleaded Mrs Lucas also acted as interpreter for three other objectors. Mr Louis Desmond Smith of Turangi a part owner of the land and involved with hydroelectric schemes for 22 years said it was humiliating and deterring to the Maori people that had to appear at a public hearing to give reasons why their land should not be taken. He claimed that the power scheme promoters had made no attempt to contact the Maori owners of the land they wanted
He said he would object as a power consumer. ~b~scheme would not reduce power charges.
He objected to the annex of nearly 5000 acres for the scheme.
He felt less than 50 acres was requmd plus land for access ways.
47 Editorial, Bay of Plenty Times 7 December 1968. 48 Bay of Plenty Times, 2 April 1969. With state power schemes the minimum land requued was taken. If Maori owners could retain the area afforestation could bring a profit of $100,000 in 20 years for disbursement among private owners -not a monopoly.
About 70 per cent of the land could be farmed , Mr Turi Te Kani of Matapitu said in reply to a question from Mr Morgan. About 50 per cent was near flat country, with another 20 per cent rolling to hilly. The remainder would not be 'tractor country. There was plenty of water and the abundance of Tawa indicated good soil fertility. Mr Ivan Williams , Mount Maunganui who has an interest in the land and is one of five trustees for the Tauwharawhara block said he considered the owners felt 'very very mad' about what was happing to their land. Permission to enter land had not been sought. Yet roads were being formed- trees destroyed49 Clearly, the committee had failed to recognise the land's significance for Ngati Hangarau. Consultation was minimal and by entering the land prior to the taking the committee was also guilty of trespass.
During the inquiry, E D Morgan, the owners' lawyer also raised the trespass issue. He argued that the committee's-actions effectvely giRed the owners $200,000 worth of improvements and that - subsequent compensation should include these improvements. Morgan told the council inquiry that:
This money was spent on other peoples land.. .The Committee is acting as a trespasser with no legal authority at all.. .If you take this land now you are going to have to buy from the Maori owners what you have put there. The Committee showed a lack of courtesy and manners.s0 He also stated that there was little justilkation for taking fieehold of the land and that:
. . .objectors &d not understand why land under the pipelines had to be taken. It was not a watershed and if the Committee wanted to put the pipelines underground it would be simple to get an easement and leave the owners with their land untoucheds1 The inquiry highhghted other issues. For example, Morgan stressed Ngati Hangarau's relationship with the land. He said that:
[i]t is a ridiculous provision in the legislation that we must appear before this council, the very ones who have taken this land It is hard for the pakeha to understand the love of the Maori for his land It is land which has come down hundreds of years from his ancestors. It is part of his mana.s2 The owners could not see why so much land was required for the project. The proposed acquisition was excessive and well beyond the scope of the works. They argued that owners could utilise land in other ways:
[alfter the confiscation of much of their land after the Maori wars the leaders of the tribe had set the Tauwharawhara block aside for their people for ever and now the Committee was proposing to take over about 5000 acres which was now in part productive for forestry and could easily be developed for modem methods of 13rming.'~
49 Ibid. New Zealand Herald, 1 April 1969. Bay of Plenty Ems, 1 April 1969. s2 New Zealand Herald 1 April 1969. s3 Bay of Plenty Times, 1 April 1969. 'i I There was also the issue of compensation. While the committee did not consult Maori owners about taking their land they made arrangements with European owners. According to the New Zealand Herald:
Mr Morgan said the minutes of a meeting of the committee revealed that the committee had decided to give a Ewpean farmer 175 acres of Maori land in exchange for 84 acres of his own land But the committee had 'W-tracked' when Mr Smith took the matter up with the Council54 In this instance the committee treated Maori merently fiom Europeans. A perusal of newspaper reports on the council inquiry shows that the main reason for acquiring the catchment area was to control erosion and protect the bush cover. According to the Joint Generation Committee, taking the land out of the owners' hands was one way to prevent erosion and the loss of water catchment occurring.55The Joint Generation Committee argued that:
[lland in the Tauwharawhara block was being acquued solely for the construction of electricity works and its engineers had advised the Joint Generation Committee that the proposed Mangapapa and Ruahihi stations reqmed an even run off of water which could be achieved by ensuring that the block remained in its present state, Mr W. J. Ross , chainnan of the committee and the Tauranga Electric Power Board told a special meeting of the Tauranga City Council yesterday.
The area was 5282 acres and was situated mady between the Omanawa and Opulala Rivers covering a distance of about 5 miles. The area was cut by deep gorges and consisted in the main, of cut over bush although a few patches of virgin bush still stood where milling operations proved uneconomic.
'While it is agreed that small ares could be developed for farming pu~posesit is submitted that such activity would be uneconomic because of poor access, small ares of flat land and lack of natural water on the plateaux', Mr Ross said
'I have been informed that an attempt to farm a part of Tauwharawhara block, but this attempt failed
It is submitted that this area should be retained in bush to protect the steep sides of the Rivers from erosion and to lessen flooding in the lower reaches of the River which was particularly bad in 1967, but would be worse if an attempt was made to clear this land which is vital to the success of the scheme. '" Other justifications were also put forward, for example:
Mr J Polkinghome, the Tauranga Electric Power and Joint Generation Committee wxtaqsaid that on May 15, 1967, Mr Lloyd Mandeno reported on land acquisition. The absolute minimum area needed was 858 acres, the maximum needed was 7630 acres and a compromise suggested was the 5000 acres it was finally decided to take.
Mr Holloway said that in the Tauwharawhara block only 438 acres was not needed for the scheme. It would have cost $3000 to $4000 to survey this 0ff.5~ On the issue of consultation the committee argued that multiple ownership of the land made negotiations difficult. Ross argued:
[i]t may be suggested that a Werent procedure has been adopted in regard to Maori lands. This difference stems from the merent patiern of ownership. Land needed from farms for access was taken after discussion with the farmers concerned These lands were owned by not more than two owners and were being farmed by the owners.
New Zealand Herald, 1 April 1969. 55 see Bid. 56 Ibid. Ibid The Maori lands are owned by more than two owners living over a very wide area of New Zealand Many owners were dead and their families have not taken steps to seek succession orders with respect to their interests and so keep the titles up to date. Any criticism of the committee in this repshould be a criticism of the complexity of the problem of the multiple ownership of Maori land A council sub-committee, convened to examine the issue, recommended that that after acquisition land be set aside as a reserve and be administered by a trust. If the Joint Generation Committee left land in Maori ownership the sub-committee suggested that it would be advisable to ensure that the owners preserved the water catchment. In addition to these recommendations, the sub-committee also noted the possibility of reassessing of the area needed for the scheme: [i]n view of some of the contentions of some of the owners that more land was being taken than was necessary for the scheme, the Joint Generation Committee should be asked to reconsider the areas proposed to be taken to ensure that all were essential, with the recommendation that if such portions were found to be only of minimal value for catchment gurposes consideration be given to excluding them. Such areas could be left for the owners either to hold for the traditional pwposes mentioned or Wseof to other interests if that was the wish of the majority of This suggestion became the basis of an agreement between the owners and the committee. -
The Outcome of the Inquiry
The inquiry acknowledged that the power schemes were essential works. The Mayor argued that: -
Public Works Act provisions for taking the land were put in to serve the nation. If it was in the national interest they could take his own home and go through with it and the same applied to anyone else. 'What we are doing is in the national interest. If we can compromise we will, but the end is an essential power station', he said6' However by entering the land prior to a proclamation being issued, the Joint Generation Committee did not follow the provisions of the Public Works Act. The Ngamanawa Incorporation acknowledged the fact that the power stations were in the public interest. For example, when reflecting on the proposed scheme in 1976, incorporation member L D Smith commented that: [hlowever, under the circumstances Ownership [sic] didn't matter greatly for the utilisation of Water [sic] Power [sic] as was shown by the J.G.C.3 approach (ie they began work, then started to talk) which has tended to shadow the Land as being the source of raw material for a factory costing say $8 million to bring into operation. It must be conceded now that the use of the necessary areas being taken has great value for at least the next 50 years at least as a revenue earner. Therefore cognisance should be heeded of the lands existing use, ie indmhd, is special and no alternative site in this area.[emphasis in orig~ml]~' The incorporation appears to have acknowledged that the schemes were in the interests of the community.
58 Bay of Plenty Times, 2 April 1969. 59 Bay of Plenty Times, 22 April 1969. 60 Ibid. L D Smith to Secretary, Ngamanawa Incorporation, 29 September 1976. 'h L According to a report in the Bay of Plenty Times, there was little acknowledgment of the Committee's failure to consult land owners.62There was however an acknowledgment that; 'any solution should be with the consent of the Maori people'.63
Initial Agreement
On 12 June 1969, McCready was informed that the two parties had reached an agreement. According to the Under Secretary of Maori Mairs:
[tlhe agreement provided that the land requued for actual works as determined by an independent engineer shall be acquired by agreement and that the lands required for catchment shall be preserved in forest remaining with present Maori
According to the Bay of Plenty Times, 12 May 1969:
[a]n agreement on the taking of land needed for the proposed Mangap hydroelectric power generation scheme of the Tauranga Electric Poiver Board and the Tauranga City Council was reached at a meeting of trustees for the Maori landowners and representatives of the Joint Generation Committee, yesterday.
A A statement on the meeting was released today by the chairman of the committee, Mr W. J. Ross, who is also the power board chairman
He said the meeting was held to find a solution to the difliculties which had arisen regarding the I - acquisition of Maori lands by the Joint Generalion Committee. 'All present were there to reach an agreement, and because of the splendid understanding shown by the trustees for the owners, agreement was reached very amicably,' Mr Ross said
The agreement provides that the land requued for actual works, as determined by an independent engineer shall be acquired by agreement, and that lands required for catchment shall be preserved in forest remaining with the present Maori owners.
The agreement will now be submitted to a meeting of the owners and the Joint Generation Committee for ratification
'The decisions made yesterday were unanimous and I am certain that the wishes of the committee and the Maori owners have been met,' Mr Ross said6' As fir as Maori AfFairs was concerned the agreement, "ironed out" the problems between the two parties. It appears that the Maori Affairs Select Committee took no further interest in the scheme. In her report Stokes outlines the agreement's main points:
1. Independent Engineer to be appointed jointly to confirm proposals for:- (a) Land to be taken (b) Land to protected for catchment (c) Land to subject to pipeline easement (if any) Plan 209m18D is to be the starting point for engineers investigation.
62 Bay of Plenty Times, 22 April 1969. 63 bid. 64 K Laurence to McCready, 12 June 1969 MA 54/19/71 7 1, Tauranga Joint Generation Committee National Archives Head OfEice, Wellington. 65 Bay ofplenty Times 21 May 1969. 22 2. Joint Generation Committee is to write to Commissioner of Works to appoint suitable hydro engineer. Costs of engineering jointly shared Compensation -two valuers to umpire for disagreement to comprehensively assess all issues involving compensation. 3. Access to Maori owners over Joint Generation Committee roads- and to share maintenance costs according to use. 4. The tmtees have requested the Forestry department to take a perpetual lease of these blocks the Joint Generation Committee supports this approach If it fails the trustees will incorporate all blocks and in any event will give remleeasements to protect the catchment area as dehed by the engineer. 5. Any timber cuthng arrangements entered into by Trustee shall be approved by the Joint Generation Cormnittee as to matters bearing on catchment protection 6. It is the Trustees' intention on behalf of the owners and sect to their approval to survey out an area for a Park containing sites with a Trust Board composed of Ngati Hangarau members to which local body and government representatives would be invited 7. As part of the final settlement the trustees will relinquish claims to ownership of roads and bridges already built on the land to be taken. 8. Survey costs (except those in clause 7) will be borne by the Joint Generation Committee. 9. It is agreed that fencing will not be required by the trustees between the catchment area and the lands taken, but the Joint Generation Committee will fence off dangerous works and either party may at its own costs fence off works and either party may at its own cost fence off other areas. 10. Any disputes or cidEculties will be dealt with by further meetings and negotiati~n~~ The agreement also provided form investigation into the amount of land required for the scheme. The Ministry of Works appointed Mi- J J Chesterrnan to make an assessment of the joint generation scheme. Chesterman's report is included in the document bank accompanying this rep01-t.~~The committee could not take any land by proclamation until Chesterman gave his report. - The Chesterman Report.
Chestexman met both parties. He also examined the area and the plans for the power scheme. He then calculated how much land the committee should acquire. The report, completed in November 1969, contained a number of sigtuficaflt findings. Chesterman recommended that the committee take only 120 acres for roads and engineering with a margin of plus or minus 10 per cent.68
Perhaps the most sigtllficant part of Chesterman's report is that it excluded the catchment area. As Stokes points out, he did not think that the cornmittee could acquire the catchment area under the Public Works Act:
[tlhe important conclusion in respect of catchment control was Chesterman's statement, 'The catchment lands cannot be acquired compulsorily under the Public Works Act for the power scheme as a public work'.69 Other reductions were that no land was to be taken for tunnels, works in Ngatuhoa Gorge or drop pipes because Chesterrnan claimed that:
The tunnel lines do not need to be protected by easements or by land purchase.70 The Trustees and the Joint Generation Committee signed an agreement based on the Chesterrnan Report on 28 October 1970. Stokes' report outlines the basis of this agreement:
The trustees agreed to relinquish all claims to ownership of bridges and roads already constructed for investimon purposes and to allow Maori owners full access over the roads for reasonable uses.
66 Stokes, Ngamanawa, pp.59-60. 67 See 01-016 Ibid p66. 69 Stokes, Ngamanawa, p.70. 70 J Chesterman, Mangapapa Hydro Electric Power Scheme p.7 Commercial use, by logging bucks was to be negotiated with costs of maintenance shared accordmg to use. Provisions for compensation were set out to allow for separate valuations, and arbitration if necessary, for lands to be taken under the Public Works Act, the temporary use of other lands during construction, and for the use of roads already constructed for investigation work, and use of other lands during construction, and for the use of the existing Frankham's Road which was a private logging road Interest payable on compensation fiom the date of agreement or user in case ofroads until paidwas 5 %per cent per annum.Costs of assessment andlegal costs were to be borne by the Joint Generation Committee. The Committee also agreed to 'pursue a policy of restricted access' to the lands, including ereding gates across roads where reqLured by the Trustees. The Trustees agreed to consult with the Committee on any proposals for the use of land that might affect the protection of catchment or use of roads." Chesterman also noted that according to one of the trustees Mr Roleston, the new proposal did, "not affect any historic site important to the land owners". For fiuther reference, the document bank accompanying this report includes Chestem's reportn Although the agreement reduced the amount of land taken, negotiations between the Joint Generation Committee and the owners over compensation continued for many years. The next two chapters deal with developments after the 1970 agreement. Chapter Three outlines the history and formation of Ngamanawa Incorporation and Chapter Four deals with fiuther issues arisiig fiom -- land acquisition. -
I' Stokes, Ngamanawa. p72. 12 Chesteman, p. 15. 73 Document PI-P16. CHAPTER 3: THE NGAMANAWA INCORPORATION
Formation
One consequence of negotiations was the formation of the Ngamanawa Incorporation, a body corporate consisting of the land owners that negotiated with the Joint Generation Committee. In her history of Tauranga County, Evelyn Stokes makes the following comment:
The Mangapapa Wdro-Electric Power Project was not perce~edby all local people as real progress. The Maori owners of much of the land became very perturbed in 1969 when the intention of the Joint Generation Committee to take all their 2023 hectares by proclamation under the Public Works Act became known. The owners Ngati Hangarau of Bethlehem, were especially concerned because apart from the area mund their Marae at Bethlehem, this was the only block that remained to them following confiscation Ngati Hangam formed an incorporation called Ngamanawa, with the assistan: of the Tauranga County Counal, in order to Yidy up' a complex multiple ownership situation... In 1969, owners of blocks affected by the scheme vested their land in trustees under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.~~The trustees were; Auhuta Roretana, her,Ivan Williams, waterside worker, Albert Peterson, fanner, Kaihohe Roretana, retired fanner and Desmond Smith, - Ministry of Works Employee. On 6 May 1971, the Maori Land Court confumed a resolution in accordance with section 319 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. This resolution established the Ngarnanawa Incorporation under Part IV of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967. The original block contained 1961.6822 hectares.76Ngamanawa included: -
Tauwharawhara 1-4 Te Papa Paengoroa 242BlY2B2, 2G, Lots 537 A and B Parish of Te Papa Kaimai 2D. Legally, the land now belonged the shareholders of the new incorporation named "The Proprietors of Ngamanawa lock."^^ The objects of the new body corporate were:
1. To use the land or any part thereof for the growing of timber, to engage in the felling and marketing of timber to establish and carry on timber mills, to grant licences to cut and remove timber, or to engage in other operations for the production, utilisaton or sale of timber etc. 2. To occupy and manage as a farm the land or any portion of the land proposed to be vested in the body corporate and to cany on any agricultural or pastoral business thereon. 3. To engage in coalmining or other mining operations on the land, or to grant leases or licences for production of dor other minerals. 4. To arrange the alienation by sale or lease, or otherwise of the land or any portion thereof. 5. To carry on any industrial enterprise upon the said land that may be conveniently carried on in conjunction with other objects of the ~ncorporation.~~ The owners formed the incorporation not only to deal with the short term issue of the Joint Generation Committee but also to manage the land. This is illustrated by the incorporation's
74 Stokes, Ngamanawa p.43. 75 Stokes, Ngamanawa p.60. 76 Order of Incorporation, T2157-58. * 77 Ibid. 78~bid. ,-
\ b lease to New Zealand Forest Products in 1977.~'This lease was transferred to Tasman Forestry in 1988.~'
The Status of Incorporations
As an incorporation, Ngamanawa's committee of management made legal agreements on behalf of the owners. As Asher and Naulls point out, the structure of an incorporation allows owners to act in a similar fashion to a company:
[ulpon incorporation, as it operates at presenf the current owners become shareholders according to their respective interests in the land Instead of owning land they own shares in the incorporation and are paid dividends on income resulting fi-om development activities. The committee of management is elected by the shareholders and has the power to enter into contracts on behalf of the shareholders, bomw money or lease land It must however, get the consent of shareholders before it can sell any of the land81 .Ngamanawa was incorporated under section 68 of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967. Section 68 stipulates:
.. .all lewhichin the ownership of the former body corporate was Maori fi-eehold land shall cease to be Maori Landg2 Therefore the proprietors of Ngamanawa Block could negotiate directly with the committee, unlike multiply owned Maori land where a statutory official, the Maori Trustee negotiated on behalf of m - owners.
Kaimai 3 and Whaiti Kuranui 5D2
Negotiations to include Kaimai 3 in the incorporation began in December 1971. It was some years before the owners reached an agreement, but the block was included in the Ngamanawa Incorporation on 24 February 1977.~~Whaiti Kuranui 5D2 was not included until 1983. 84
Block Histories
Legally incorporation land is not Maori land. Therefore the secretary of the incorporation holds records the rather than the Maori Land Court. Nevertheless, historical information on Ngamanawa blocks, pre-incorporation is available fiom the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court. ~ccord'in~ to the records of the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court the blocks in the Wai 362 statement of claim are parent blocks. A series of amalgamations reconstituted the blocks that were later included in the Ngamanawa Incorporation. These blocks are Te Papa Paengoroa, Kaimai No.3, Tauwharawhara Nos. 1-4 and Whaiti Kuranui 5D2. This section of the report examines the history of the blocks included in the Ngamanawa Incorporation and the Wai 362 statement of claim.
79 Stokes, Ngamanawa p.60. Tauranga Minute Book 55 folio 56. 81 George Asher and David Naulls Maori Land New Zealand Planning Council Planning Paper No. 29 1987 u75. s2 Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 s. 68 This section was later amended by section 17 (lc) where land pder incorporation was reclassified as Maori land. Tauranga Minute Book 39, folios 24- 26. 84 Stokes, Ngamanawa,p. 127. Te Papa Paengoroa.
Unlike some of the other blocks in the Wai 362 statement of claim, the Commissioner's Court awarded Te Papa Paengoroa7s parent block Paengoroa 2 to only one hapu, Ngati Hangarau. Commissioner Brabant adjudged that:
The Court adjudges the Paengoroa No. 2 block 2933 acres to the claimants Te Mete Raukawa, Ngatim Te Rongoihaere and the Ngathngarau hapu -as descendants of Taharangi. The Court does not think judging from the statement of Te Pohoi that the Ngatihuna have any . claim whatever to the block The Eastern Boundary of the block is fixed in the creek known as Te Whakamaungi or Te H~~kanui.~~
A Crown grant was issued to Katahi Hohepa and others on 17 October 1883. 86
In 1909, under Part I of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907, Paengoroa 2 was declared not required for Maori occupation and available for lease or sale.87This Order in Council described the block as,
All that parcel of land in the Land District of Auckland situated in the Otanewainulcu Survey District, and being known has Paengoroa No.2 Block containing by admeasurement 2889 0, more or less. Bowided 'towards the north-west by Crown land, towards the east by Omanawaand Te Whahamaunga or Hukanui stream, towards the south-west by Paengoroa No. 1 Block, towards the west by the ang gap pa River.88 In 1909, 1000 acres of allotment 589 in the Parish of Te Papa, (Crown land) was exchanged for 1000 acres of Paeng~roa2 under the Native Land Court Act 1894. The block became known as Te Papa Paengoroa 2. On 19 June 1913, the Native Land Court subdivided this block into the following sections:
85 Minutes Commissioners Court, Wednesday 17 August 1881, cited in Stokes vo1.2 p229. 86 Barbant gave the block certificate no. 138,dpendices to the Journal of the House of Representatives G-10 1886 p2. 87 New Zealand Gazette 1909 pl653. 88 New Zealand Gazeffe1909 p1653-1654. 89 Judge Brown, Order of Native Land Court, Rotorua 9 December 1909, Table 2 Te Papa Paengoroa Subdivisions - 1913
Subdivision Area Te Papa Paengoroa 2A 428 acres 1 rood 18 perches Te Papa Paengoroa 2Bl 445 acres 2 roods 0 perches Te Papa Paengoroa 2B2 593 acres 0 roods 0 perches Te Papa Paengoroa 2C 291 acres 0 roods 0 perches Te Papa Paengoroa 2D 125 acres 0 roods 0 perches Te Papa Paengoroa 2E 237 acres 0 roods 0 perches Te Papa Paengoroa 2F 459 acres 2 roods 0 perches Te Papa Paengoroa 26 248 acres 2 roods 0 perches
Source Partition Order, 19 June 1913 Memorial Schedule, Block Order File T491 Waikato-Maniapot0 Maori Land Court.
In 1916 the Crown brought 1,000 acres of Paengoroa 2 underwection 374 of the Native Land Act 1909 and section 14 of the Native Land Amendment Act 19 14.
All ~e Papa ~aen~oroablocks.except for 2D, 2E and 2 were included in the ~~amanawa Incorporation in 1971 ." Te Papa Paengoroa's memorial schedules we indicative of problems facing the owners. Like other rn - Maori land the Tauranga area, most Te Papa Paengoroa blocks were subject to rates charges in the 1960s. For example, in 1967 the owners of Te Papa Paengoroa 2B2 were liable for $47.29 plus $1 .OO for costs incurred 1965-1966.'~ The Te Papa Paengoroa blocks contained forestry resources. Interests other than the owners often carried out exploitation of this resource. For example, the Maori Land Court granted timber milling licences to Lyn Robert Young on 16 February 1968 on blocks 2Bl and 2D. This licence was transferred to Ngahere Sawmills Ltd in 1969.'~
Kaimai 3
The origins of this block can be traced to the Tauranga Commissioners Court. T&e judgement of 15 August 1881 gives the area of the entire Kaimai block as 18,140 acres. The claims involved a number of hapu. Stokes says in her report:
When claims for the Kaimai Block were held in 1881 the following hapu were presented as claimants by Te Mete Raukawa: Ngati Mauri, Ngati te Rau, Ngati Rangiaia, Te Patungaherehere, NmMotai, Ngati te Apunga, NgdTakaha.
Another gtoup of claimants by Te Mete Raukawa: Ngati Te Apunga, Ngati Takaha. Another group of claimants included Ngaiwhiwhia, Ngati NmKuku, Ngati Maki, Ngati Kuraroa, Ngati Tamapou, Ngati Mauri and Ngati Kahu. A third group of claimants comprised Ngali Hinerangi Ngati Tom, Ngati Kmhb, Ngaitamawhariua, Ngati Kiriwekhi Ngati Taka, Ngati Tu, Ngai Tai. This example indicates how
New Zealand Gazette, 1916 p. 1769. In 1972 these three blocks were amalgamated with some subdivisions of Kaimai 2 to form Kaimai 3, &nalgamation Order 16 June 1972, Tauranga Minute Book 32, folios 121-123. Tauranga Minute Book, 27, folio 350 93 Tauranga Minute Book ,22, folio 164. 94 Stokes, Te Raupatu ... vo1,2, p.201. complex the land claims were with each hap Tgto establish greater claims over everyone else in forest lands which traditionally all had shared
Initially the claimants did not want to subdivide the block. 96 However, on 22 August 188 1 the Cornrnissioners' Court decided to subdivide the block. On 6 September Te Mete, the agent for the principal claimants requested that that they have a reserve of 2,600 acres, this reserve was Kaimai 2. 97
Evelyn Stokes documents the partition of the Kaimai 2 Block.
A Crown Grant was issued under the Taurrga Disfrict Lands Acts 1867 and 1868 on July 1883 for an area of 2578 acres.. .The block was partitioned into 2A and 2B and further divided into three blocks in 1909 but these partitions were cancelled and the present partitions made by the Maori Land Court in 1912.'~ The partition was as shown in Table 3,
. Table 3: Partition of Kaimai 2
Block Area
- Kaimaim 218 acres 3 roods 19 perches. Kaimai 2B: 324 acres 1 rood 0 perches Kaimai 2C: 210 acres 3 roods 0 perches Kaimai 2D: 924 acres 0 roods 38 perches. Kaimai 2E: 81 acres 0 roods 11 perches. Kaimai 2F: 186 acres 1 rood 31 perches Kaimai 26: 632 acres 0 roods 10 perches Source Stokes, Ngamanawa p.2 1
In 1972 the Maori Land Court amalgamated Kaimai 24Kairnai 2C, Kaimai 2F, Kaimai 2G, Te Papa Paengoroa 2D, 2E and 2F as Kairnai 3 under section 435 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. Apparently, the court amalgamated these blocks because the land could be more effedively mana* under one title. The new block totalled 1127.374 hectares or 2766 acres 0 roods and 02 perches.
In 1975, Kaimai 3 block was vested in Victor Smith, Christie Rolleston and E D Morgan as trustees under section 43 8 of the Maori Mairs Amendment Act 1953. The Trust was set up to:
(1)... examine and consider best ways in which Ule use management or alienation of the land could be facilitated (2) to achieve by way of lease all or any part of the land upon such tern and conditions as trustees may deem. (3) to grant licences for the use occupation or management for any part of this land (4) To consider and if thought fit to join with the proprietors Ngatnanawa body Corporation in an application to the ML.C, for inclusion of the said Mock or any part thereof in the Body corporate and to fix and determine the basis upon which such inclusion would take effect (5) Not withstanding the appointment of Mr. E.D. Morgan as a trustee he shall be entitled to charge for his time and professional advice to the ~rustees.'~
95 Stokes, Te Raupatu vol. I, p. 162 96 Stokes Te Raupatu vo1.2, p.202 97 Minutes Commissioner's Court, 6 September 1881, cited in Ibid p.221 98 Stokes, Ngamanawa, p21. 99 Amalgamation order 16 June 1972, Tauranga Minute Book 32, folio 121-3 "O~aurangaMinute Book 36 128- 140, in Stokes Ngamanawa p.65. i 'i a In November 1976, just prior to the inclusion of Kaimai 3 in the Ngamanawa incorporation, the Joint Generation Committee took 6.5251 hectares for electricity works.101On 24 February 1977, the block was included in the Ngarnanawa Incorporation. lo2
Parish of Te Papa Lots 537A and B
The Commissioner's Court adjudged allotment 537 (203 acres) as a reserve for the hapu of the Paengoroa Blocks, Ngati ~an~arau."~However in 1912 it was revested in beneficial owners and subdivided into four parts. Allotment 537A was originally 25 acres 1 rood 14.4 perches but the construction of a road appears to have reduced the block to 24 acres 3 roods 27.3 perches.lo4The other Te Pa a allotment included in the Ngamanawa Incorporation was 537B 60 acres 3 roods 16 perches.YO5
Whaiti Kuranui 5D2
According to Stokes,
This block was partitioned in 1881 at the time of investigation of title by the Maori Land Court (Waikato Minute Book 6 passim and 71200-204) an area of some 2639 acres (1067.9654 hectares). In 1975 there were 719 owners listed in the title. Timber cutting rights were granted in 1953 to Te Puke Sawmills LTD. for 15 years and extended by 10 years in 1968. These rights were taken over by Fletcher Timber Company.'O6 - -' \ Unfortunately due to time and other constraints the author was unable to visit Rotorua and investigate the history of this block any further. Tauwharawhara
On 24 June 1881 Commissioner Brabant noted that there was no opposition to Ngati Hangarau claims. Brabant's Minute Book declared that:
Tauwharawhara is adjudged to Ngat.lhangarau as descendants of Kokiri and ~aratahi.'~~
On 24 June 1909, the Maori Land Court declared Tauwharawhara subject to Part I of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907. According to the Gazette notice, this was land that the Native Lands Commission declared as not required for Maori occupation. The block was now available for sale or leasing. lo8The Gazette notice described the block as:
All that parcel of land in the Land Distnct of Auckland situated in the Otanewainulcu survey district and being called or known as Tauwharawhara containing by admeasurement 2,268 acres more or less. Bounded towards the south-west by Paengoroa No. 1 and 2 and towards the west and north -west by Kaimai No.2 and 1 locks.'^^
lo' New Zealand Gazette 1977, p2543-2544. lo2 Tauranga Minute Book 29, Folios 24-26. 103 Minute Commissioner s' Court, as reproduced in Stokes, Te Raupatu... Vo1.2, p. 230. '04 Sketch plan Block Order File No. T491, Waikato-Maniagoto Maori Land Court, Hamilton. loS partition Order 8 March 1912, cited in stokes ~garnan&a, p.24. lo6Ibid. lo7 Minute Commissioners' Court, as reproduced in Stokes Te Raupatu... Vol. 2 p. 191. lo' lo' New Zealand Gazette ,1909 p. 1653. lo9 Ibid The block was partitioned on 27 February 1912.110The partitions were:
Table 4: Tauwharawhara Partitions 1912
Block Area Tauwharawhara 1 100 acres 3 roods 26 perches
Source Stokes, Ngamanawa, p.23 Tauwharawhara 4 had valuable timber resources which were utilised by timber companies. In 1950 the Maori Land Court allowed Frankhams, a timber company to construct a road across Tauwharawhara 3 and 4.'" In 1962 the court granted timber cutting rights to P T Y Industries ~td."~The Maori Land Court issued an order of incorporation on 29 May 1952, under section 445 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.'13 The incorporation was named, "The Proprietors of Tauwharawhara 4 block". According to Stokes, tF40bject of the incorporation was mainly to manage and exploit the block's timber resources. ff"incorporation was wound up on 17
May 1966 and land revested in the beneficial owners. A
'lo Stokes Ngamanawa,p.23. '' ' Tauranga Minute Book 16, folio 241. 'I2 Tauranga Minute Book 24, folio 129. 'I3 Tauranga Minute Book 17, folio 12. Stokes, Ngamanawa, p.23. l5 Tauranga Minute Book 27 folio 93. CHAPTER 4: FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS
The final area acquired, compensation and road management remained an issue during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. When the author spoke to Ngamanawa's Secretary, Mr John Menneer in June 1996, ,theincorporation had nearly finalised negotiations. In 1971, the Joint Generation Committee decided to acquire only 147 acres for the scheme and the valuers of both parties agreed on compensation of $19,250. On 22 November the Ngamanawa Incorporation and Joint Generation Committee agreed to an immediate payent of $15,000 and with rest to be paid when the committee finalised boundaries.'' The Committee of Management's report of 1971 notes that in addition to this payment, the Joint Generation Committee paid $462 in timber royalties and $250 in damage compensation.'17
Arbitration
The council inquiry reduced the amount of land required for the hydro scheme. In addition, it was soon clear that the 147 acres in the 1971 agreement included land from Whaiti Kuranui
4 5D2, which at that stage was not' part of the Ngamanawa ~ncorporation.118 In September 1976, the two parties negotiated a new award for 137 acres 2 roods and 17.8 perches, 120.5 chains of road and a new acquisition of part of Kaimai 2C, which amounted to - 1 acre, 3 roods and 11.9 perches. The two parties fixed compensation at $18, 865.64. At this > stage the incorporation had received $17,000. In other words the Joint Generation Committee owed the incorporation $1865.64. 119 The incorporation lost more land in October 1976 when the committee announced that it required an extra 3 roods and 38.7 perches. However, to compensate the committee returned the access to the Awakotuku Stream a total of 5 acres 3 roods and 31.4 perches. They also returned a further 5 acres after resurveying Tauwharawhara 4 and Te Papa Paengoroa 2B2. Accordingly, the incorporation calculated that the total area required was 125 acres 2 roods and 27.9 erches, slightly more than Chesterman's allowance of 124 acres 1 rood and 20 perches.18 Another issue was compensation for the temporary use of land. The incorporation pointed out that the11970 agreement required the committee to pay compensation for the temporary use of land. In November 1976, the committee acknowledged liability for compensation and offered compensation for occupation of 10 acres for seven years. They also offered a royalty fee of $900 for fill removed from the hill above Mangaonui ~ake.'" The issue was brought before an arbitrator, valuer Morris Jones. In 1976, the Joint Generation Committee requested that Jones assess compensation for:
116Stokes, Ngamanawa .p72. "7 V C Smith, Annual Report 1971, Incorporation File No. 44/23, Held at Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court Hamilton. 118 Secretary Joint Generation Committee to Secretary Ngamanawa Incorporation, 29 September 1976, F$uded in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence. Secretary Joint Generation Committee to Secretary Ngamanawa Incorporation, 17 September 1976, included in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence. '''secretary Ngamanawa Incorporation to Secretary Joint Generation Committee 17 September 1976 included in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence. Ibid 122 Joint Generation Committee to Ngamanawa Incorporation 29 November 1976 included in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence. 32 occupancy of Ngamanawa land not purchased by the Committee including payment for fill and other materials used in the construction of the project.lZ3 Jones awarded compensation to the Ngamanawa Incorporation for the following:
1. No.1 Tunnel intake- Omanawa Road Land occupied two years before gazetting. Works site 1 acre. 2. Damage to road siding- Omanawa Road near tunnel No. 1 intake. 3. No 2. Outlet -Ruakakalands, 1 acre. Gully filled 4. N0.3 inlet. Damage to bush. 5. Mangapapa Bridge- upper. Works site prior to taking land Pay rent two years. Agreed between parties that the sum of $3000 be paid for trespass prior to agreement. 6. Roading ex Frankhams Road 40 chains not paid used for consimction 1968-1972. 7. Awakotu relates to easement in perpetuity over 6 acres of land I assess the amount payable to the Ngamanawa incorporation for this easement at SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($600). This sum is included in the compensation Award above. 8. Awakotu 6 acres easement in ~erpetuityfor 6 acres. 9. Canal intake to tunnel N0.5 -new acquisition by committee for three years change of design 10. Borrow area 30,000 cu.yards. Lake Mangaonui. - 11. N0.6 outlet- no provision made for road to site. Additional area 1 acre required - 12. Power lines- temporary 360 strip damage to bush and natural cover' 24. The award took in a variety of concerns including damage caused to property by contractors. The only compensation for damage to natural resources was clause 12. Jones' assessment - appears to have satisfied both parties. L D Smith pointed out to Morgan that:
You will note that all the points I mentioned in earlier reports were compensated for, and the lump sum agreement is designed toptect future deals in particular safeguard our agreement with regard to road hire eg rankh ham's.' Jones awarded a total of $13,000 in compensation. Stokes notes that a draft agreement of 1978 acknowledged Jones' award plus:
a balance sum of $1,322 owing on the lands taken (for which $15,000 was paid in 1972, and another $2,000 in 1975), and $2,447.07 being interest at 5.75 per cent.. .The claim made in July 1973 by the incorporation in of the diversion of the Mangapapa River was not admitted by the Joint Generation Committee. This was a total krther payment of around $17,700. The 1981 annual report notes that in total the incorporation received compensation amounting to $3 1,322. 12'
Contentious Issues
Although the draft agreement of 1978 dealt with most of the issues raised by the Ngamanawa Incorporation there were still some unresolved issues, most importantly:
lZ3Secretary Joint Generation Committee to Secretary Ngamanawa Incorporation 29 September 1976 included in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence. 124 Arbitrator's Agreement cited in Stokes, Ngamanawa,pp.77 -78. 125 Smith to Morgan, 16 November 1977, included in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence. lZ6Stokes, Ngamanawa, p.78. Chairman's Report 1981, Incorporation File 44/23, Wahto-Maniapoto Maori Land Court. The agreement was not signed as there remained unresolved issues over resurvey and regazetting of areas and revoking of Gazette for the Awakohku Intake area. There was also argument over the method used to calculate interest. In May 1979 the solicitor for the Incorporation wrote to the solicitors for the Joint Generation Committee that only two areas provided di£liculty in reaching a final settlement, approximately 5 acres at the eastern end of Mangaonui Lake and another 5 acres approximately, triangular area by the lake alongside the Manpyapa outfall which the Joint Generation Committee had agreed in 1976 would be resurveyed.'2 In 1979 the committee told Ngamanawa that there was no excess land in the vicinity of the lake.12' The land, adjacent to the Mangapapa river was part Tauwharawhara, 1.3700 hectares and part Te Papa Paengoroa 2.700 hectares. In 1976, Mr Polkinghome, the Joint Generation Committee secretary, wrote to the Ngamanawa Incorporation informing them that his committee would be able tolgve this land back. In 1979, however, the committee decided that this was no longer possible. Instead of returning the land, the committee agreed to revoke a declaration taking 5 acres 3 roods 3 1.4 qzrches, the access to the Awakotuku intake, provided that the committee had easement rights. In 1979, the Secretary of the Incorporation, commented on these issues, he said that:
It appears that these resurveys were never completed and that the only reason offered by the Joint Generation Commim is that the expense was not warranted It is pointed out that the cost of survey is irrelevant as the Joint Generation Committee is not entitled to take land that is not of definite use to them. I cannot see that the case of meyis a valid reason to acquire land.. .The Joint Generation Commim's letter of the 2gn September 1976 should be noted as it states that the total area of Ngamanawa lands to be taken was 113 acres plus 10% or a total of 124A 1R 20P. It appears therefore that the land being taken is still 6 acres in excess of that origmlly envisaged. The return of the pipmentioned in (1) and (2) [the land near the river and lake] would correct the position
The Joint Generation Committee promised to revoke the Gazette notice. However, they claimed that they would still require an easement over the land at Awakotuku stream access. They also agreed to pay interest owing. However they did not agree to return the disputed 10 acres which they claimed was required for the project.133The situation became dead locked. The incorporation argued:
Now that construction was complete only access roads were necessary and the 1 chain (20 metres) width requested was excessive. Some of the land areas taken around the lakes which were little more than ponds, could also be excessive if the same standards applied for major hydro schemes were applied here where there was no need to allow for considerable variation in lake levels and consequent shorehe erosion134. There was also the issue of interest. Jones' award calculated interest at a lump sum rate not on a per mum basis. Accordin to Ngamanawa, the correct rate was per mum, which leR a balance owing of $2177.17.185 According to Stokes, the incorporation and committee made arrangements for Chestem to reassess the situation but these did not come to
12' Ibid p79. 129 D J Meldnun, Sharp Tudhope & Co to Conney Lees and Morgan, 13 August 1979, included in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence. 130 Ibid. 13' Ibid. 132 Ngamanawa Incorporation to Joint Generation Committee, 11 May 1979 included in Ngarnanawa Incorporation Correspondence. 133 Meldnun, to Morgan, 13 August 1979, included in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence. 134 Ibid p80. 13' Ibid. 136 Stokes Ngamanawa, p.80. At the time of the publication of Stokes' report, (1983) the issue was still unresolved. In May i 1984, E D Morgan, Des Smith of Ngamanawa's committee, Mr Binney, of the Joint Generation Committee and the committee's new manager, Mr Burchett met to discuss the transfer of excess land not required for power generation. Morgan outlined these discussions, he noted that:
The prime piece, as you know, is the foreshore of Mangaonui Lake, which is a real beauty spot on which we have ideas of building one or more holiday cottages for the owners. We even thought that perhaps we could create a small marae there in the course of time when our &st harvest money comes in. The Joint Generation Committee are considering the possibility of raising the level of the lake by as much as ten feet, and this would flood some of the land but not all of it. They are favourably inclined towards returning to us the balance of the land. They pointed out that it will be five years or more before we have the funds to carry out our project, while it will be about five years before they know the exact height to which the lake will be raised. They therefore propose that the agreement should contain a reference to the fact that both sides will look at transfer back of the foreshore to the incorporation in approximately five years time when the new lake level is hown.
They are also prepared to transfer back to us thr& pieces of land markad on the enclosed plan [ the Awakotuku intake] subject to them retaining a right of way across the ford These pieces of land are downriver kmthe number No. 3 tunnel intake and are flat pieces of land with toi toi on them. The . areas are three quarters of m,half an acre and one acre.[this area is part of Te Papa Paengoroa 2B2 on the banks of the Mangapapa River]
They are also prepared to transfer back at the present time two areas marked on a plan held by Des. They describe these as the baqnn bend between Omanawa Road and the Man- River and between Mangapapa and the lake. However they said they thought that these areas would be of no use to us because of their steepness but we can have them if we want them.137 In 1985, the incorporation was still arguing over the area. V C Smith told his shareholders that:
Our dealings with the Joint Generation Committee are a continuing saga. In that some 16 years after work commenced to generate hydro power, we are still discussing matters of importance which regard to a final settlement agreement concerning areas taken by proclamation. Our most recent discussions concern the management and use of roads, the return of surplus areas and the possible return of the whole area in the dim and distant future. Amendments and deletions have been suggested and perhaps in the next decade finality will be reached '38 By 1987 the incorporation had made some progress. At the annual general meeting L D Smith told shareholders that: Objection to the proposal of the Joint Generation Committee to raise the level of lake Mangaonui was lodged with the Bay of Plenty Catchment Board This was withdrawn after agreement was reached with the Joint Generation Committee to return an area of 1.39 Ha. in area which borders the reservoir, the provision of a boat ramp and improved access- an area considered to be of great benefit to us for recreation purposes. In total the Joint Generation Committee acquired approximately 154 acres of Maori land. This includes; 13 3 acres from Kaimai 3, Tauwharawhara and Te Papa Paengoroa, and 13 acres 3 roods and 12.5 perches from Whaiti Kuranui 5D2. According to Ngamanawa's 1990 annual report, on 2 November 1989, the committee officially returned 1.3 hectares beside the lake. The Memorial of Ownership lists this area as 1.3763 hectares and the new certificate of title as 4Dl910. According to calculations by Mr Menneer, the returned land totalled around 3.5 acres.139 The certificate of title, 28Al299 shows that the Awakotuku intake was revested in
137 Morgan to V C Smith 15 May 1984, included in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence. 138 Annual Report 1985, Incorporation File No. 44/23, Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court. 13' G J Menneer, calculations on area taken included in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence. 3 5 ,? -"\
\ I"gamanawa in 1982. In 1995, the incorporation noted that there were no easement rights on the title. 140
The table below shows the land acquired by the Joint Generation Committee.
Table 5 Total area of Maori land acquired for Tauranga Joint Generation Scheme.
Block Bcres N.Z Gazette 1972 p.1020 Part Kaimai 2 5 acres 0 roods 28 perches Part Tauwharawhara 1 acre 1 rood 25.5 perches Part Kaimai 2 1acres 1 rood and 14 perches Part Tauwharawhara 5 acres 3 roods 11 perches
N.Z Gazette 1973 p. 120
' Part Tauwharawhara 12 acres 0 roods 24 perches Part Te Papa Paengoroa 3 acres 0 roods 7 perches Part Te Papa Paengoroa 1 rood 0 roods 1 perch Part Te Papa Paengoroa 4 acres 0 roods 21 perches Part Te Papa Paengoroa 2 acres 2 roods 20 perches
N.Z Gazette 22 August 1974 Part Te Papa Paengoroa 13 acres 0 roods 23 perches Part Te Papa Paengoroa 1 acre 0 roods 3 perches Part Te Papa Paengoroa 4 acres 0 roods 21 perches Part Te Papa Paengoroa 1 acre 2 roods 29 perches Part Te Papa Paengoroa 4 acres 1 rood 25 perches
N.Z Gazette 11 November 1976 Part Kaimai 2 16 acres 0 roods 20 perches Part Tauwharawhara 11 acres 0 roods 35 perches Part Tauwharawhara 21 acres 0 roods 12 perches
140 G 3 Menneer to Manager, Kaimai Hydropower included in Ngamanawa Incorporation Correspondence.
36 , N Z Gazette 28 April 1977 Part Tauwharawhara 3 acres 1 rood 38.7 perches Part Kaimai 2 5 acres 10 roods 1.7 perches Part Kaimai 2 1 acre 3 roods 11.8 perches
N Z Gazette 1 September 1977 Part Kaimai 3 acres 2 roods 14.5 perches Part Tauwharawhara 3 acres 1 rood 24.4 perches Part Te Papa Paengoroa 6 acres 2 roods 27.5 perches
Total Ngamanawa 139 acres1 rood 29 perches
Whaiti Kuranui 5D2 13 acres 3 roods 12.5 perches
A~prox.Total Acauisition 154 acres 1 rood 1.5 perches
Less Awakotuku Access 5 acres 3 roods 31.4 perches -Less Returned 'Land 3 acres 2 roodsl4l Approx Total Returned 9 acres 1 rood 31.4 perches
Anprox. Total Acauired
Sources, New Zealand Gazette as shown, calculations by Mr G J Menneer included in Ngamanawa Incorporation material supplied to R Willan.
The Roads
The Chesterman report provided for a number of access roads. Chesterman estimated that the power scheme required 600 chains for roading. Although he acknowledged that the committee should purchase the roads and that there must be limits to the land owners' use of the roads, Chesterman said that:
[tlhere is no justification for making these roads public roads.. In most places Chesterrnan recommended that a road reserv5gf one chain be purchased although in some places he thought that the road could be wider. The 1970 agreement between the two parties provided owners with:
...full right and liberty to use and enjoyment of roads laid over portion of the lands.. .for the purposes of such owners for the reasonable user, excluding commercial purposes, of their said lands.. .145 The agreement also provided for the use of roads tx a forestry company in partnership with Ngamanawa, subject to the committee's approval. Since construction of these roads, the
14' An approximation taken from Mr Menneer's calculations. 142 Total rounded to the nearest acre. '43 bid '44 Chesterman, p.6 '45 Stokes, Ngamanawa p.84 incorporation and Joint Generation Committee has come under considerable pressure to make these roads public. Stokes' report notes that a number of parties including, conservationists, users of the Ngatuhoa lodge in the state forest park and recreational fisherman have asked for the roads to become public. 147 For the Ngamanawa Incorporation the use of these roads is a major issue. In 1978, Vic Smith noted that the roads were to remain closed to the public and the incorporation resolved to put imported locks on the Joint Generation Committee roads.148In 1980, the chairperson told shareholders that the one chain access road was extreme and unnecessary. He argued the incorporation should own the roads but give the committee right of way.14' At the 1983 annual general meeting the chairperson argued that the incorporation should buy back the roads and gant access to the Committee for as long as the committee generated hydro- electricity.' Eleven years later in 1996, the issue remains a concern for the Ngamanawa Incorporation. Ngamanawa's secretary, Mr G J Menneer, pointed out that the incorporation had problems with people growing marijuana on their property. He explained that they had difficulty dealing with this problem. Mr Menneer pointed out that public roads may make it even easier for these people to get on to Ngamanawa's property. Secondly, he also pointed out that the Ngamanawa block is planted in exotic forest?. The incorporation wants to ensure that roads remain private so as to protect this resource.15
Environmental Issues
Another contentious issue is environmental damage caused by the power scheme. The most contentious issue was the diversion of water from some streams. According to Stokes, a letter from the incorporation to the committee noted that Mangapapa was
almost completely dry between the bridge and the powerhouse, and the only water appears to be a dnty trickle from a sludge The committee ignored this claim. On the issue of damage to the rivers the committee's consultant found that: only an informed minority would consider the dry waterbed an &on< unless of course the matter were given publicity.'53 However as Stokes' report points out: [tlhis report did not consider the Maori values involved, especially the effect on Tapiri Moko falls.154
V C Smith, in the Annual Report of 1974, commented on the environmental damage. Smith outlined the damage to the rivers:
- 1 46 Agreement between Trustees and Joint Generation Committee clause (9) p.3. 147 Stokes, Ngamanawa p.87-90. 14' Annual Report 1978, Incorporation file No. 44/23, Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court. 14' Annual Report 1980,Incorporationfile No. 44/23, Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court. lS0 Annual Report 1983, Incorporation file No. 44/23, Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court. '51 AS per conversation with Mr G J Menneer, Tauranga 28 June 1996. 152 Stokes, Ngamanawa, p.73. lS3 Ibid p.75. lS4Ibid Tauranga Joint Generation Committee have diverted the Mangapapa River through tunnels and have left a dry river bed, so we have filed a claim for damages, which is pTOCBBding This is the first River affected at present but there are also the Omanawa, Ngatuhoa and Rivers which will alsobeQiedupThiswilldestmytwohistoricwaferfalls.AUtheseRiverswillbedeprivedofwater when the generation scheme is complete. In 1976 the Bay of Plenty Regional Water Council granted the Tauranga City Council some water rights. In a report for the Wai 212 claim, Geoff Bertram notes that water rights hearings were not complusary until 1967 when the Crown passed the Water and Soil Conservation AC~.'~It seems that the rights conferred on the Joint Generation Committee in 1965 were not extensive enough. In April the Joint Generation Committee acquired the waterfights to the McLaren Falls and Omanawa schemes. The Bay of PIeq Times reported on this grant:
The rights gave the council authority to: Divert 4.5 cubic metres of water a second lErom the Mangakanmgorengo River to Lake McLaren . I Take water from Lake McLaren through the MdLaren Falls powerhouse and discharge of it into the Wairoa River. Dam the Omanam River to form a head pond and take water fhm this at the rate of 4.53 cubic metres a second for power generation at the Omanawa Falls Power Station The third right contains a special condition that a Minimum flow of 30 litres per second shall 'be - left in the river to pass over Omanawa Falls at all times . Other conBtim attached are mainly standard ones. lS7 - In May, the regional water council heard the claims for the other stations. Stokes says that many groups objected to the scheme on environmental grounds.158She notes:
The issues raised by the dtjecbrs fell into four main categories-landawners amcerned about the effects of water courses, particularly those on fhm boundaries', jishing and wildlife groups concerned about the ecoIogy of the rivers, -&I @particular the effects of diversion of water from streams: sporting groups in particular, cancanoeists who lamented the loss of ''white water" on the Waima River ; and the Maori concerns expresd by the NrwaIncorporation, who also shared some ofthe ecological concerns of diversion of &rams. At the hearing the Ngarnanawa Incorporation expressed their disappointment a€ the loss of Tapiri Moko falls.16* Mr Kahotea also points out thziiin no circumstances has Maori loss of access and ownership of water rights been addressed. Currently, the power stations restrict the flow of the river. One consequence is the depletion offish in streams and rivers involved in the'scheme. An environmental impact report fiom the Ministry of Agriculture notes that the power development has been detrimental to fishing resources:
Hydroelectric development in Tamnga has been concentrated on one river catchment, the Wairoa. Since 1914, 13 tributaries on the Wairoa, Omanawa, and Mangapapa systems have been dammed and diverted to supply five power stations ...As a result, the Fauranga Acclimatisation] =wl estimatestbatuptoonequarterofits~water~beenlostbecausefl~~v~andlackof public access.'6z
Annual Repo41974, Incorporation file No. 44/23, Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court. '% See Bertram, Summary, "Submission of Gaff Bertram on the Aniwhenua and Wheoao Dams" A6 Wai 212 p.8. '" Bay of PIenfy Emes, 2 April 1976. 158 Stokes Ngamanawa,pp. 90-95. IS9 Ib'ld, p.94. 160 Kid, p.95. la As per conversation, Tauranga Public Ll'brary, 26 June 19%. J Ricmn,L D Teirnay, and M J Unwin, Fisheries Emrironmental Report N0.70, The Relative value of 39 Clearly, the power schemes were detrimental to a valuable resource. The committee's agent damaged other natural resources. Vic Smith also expressed concern about the destruction of trees:
We have had several discussions with the joint generation committee regarding the unnecessary cutting of trees to put temporary power lines into their tunnels. It is obvious from the correspondence that there insuEicient control of the contractors in regard to damage to our propew. Since the interview on TV we have come to satisfactory arrangements re&archng the cutting of trees and compensations. The frustrations encountered regarding compensations for millable timber are numerous. I recall claims that certain trees were unrecoverable and therefore we not entitled to compensation, and we were also only entitled to compensation after payment of cartage for rimlogs, when in fact it is their doing. They have now adopted a better fones awarded compensation for damage to trees, but compensation excluded other instances ~f environmental damage. One example is the Ruahihi canal collapse. The committee of nquiry into the canal collapse noted that:
On Sunday 20 September 1981 a major engineering failure occurred when a section of the canal supplying the Ruahihi power station collapsed, destroying 600 m of the canal formation, .and spilling more than a million cubic metres of liquid mud into the ~airoa~iver.'~~ The Ruahihi disaster, as it became known, was a direct result of the joint generation scheme. rhere appears to have little acknowledgment of the impact of the disaster on the Wairoa tiver, a valuable traditional resource. The committee of inquiry did not mention this issue in . ,- heir report. rhe area is one of great scenic beauty yet the author was unable to find any evidence of :onsideration of the aesthetic impact of the power development. Des Kahotea, the Wai 336 :laimant believes that the area has tourism potential.'65 This does not appear to have been a ;onsideration in the planning phases of the project. The 1969 council inquiry dismissed claims hat owners could farm the area but it did not consider the area's tourism potential.
mranga Rivers to New Zealand Anglers, Fisheries Research Division N.Z. Ministry of Agriculture and fheries Wellington, May 1986, pp.10 -11. Annual Report 1974, Incorporation File 44/23, Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court. 'Report of Committee to inquire into the failure of fhe Ruahihi Canal, .p. iv i As per conversation Tauranga Public Library, 27 June 1996. 40 Historic Sites
There is evidence that the power development affected a number of historic sites. This section of the report reviews evidence claiming that the area is historically sigdicant for local hapu. This report examines the entire Wairoa River catchment area. Oral evidence would be of assistance here.
At the 1969 council inquiry, Ngati Hangarau kaumatua Kaikohe Roretana outlined his hapu7s historical connections with the land. He said:
my adoptive father Kereti Kaikohe was also one of the elders of Ngati Hangarau. He was a son Kereti who was killed at the battle of Gate Pa and when he was killed a famous lament was written I inherited from him many ancestral documents including a history of Te Koro Koro at Mangapap and of Otukehu on the Omanawa River and the waterfdl of Te Rere Oturu on the Opuiaki over which an ancestor was hurled to his death. This is the wateM claimed by Dr. Rogers of Hamilton. Among these documents is an ancient plan of Tauwharawhara which I produce together with a translation of the writing on it. Each of the names on the plan has a history and the names on the map are those of the original owners to whom the land was granted, the last Kereti Te Mete, who died about ten years ago. The translation reads 'This is the list of the names of Ngati Hangarau for the Tauwharawhara block the land granted to them for ever. The writing ends by stating-the Trustees for them and all their tribe of Ngati Hangarau: Te Mete Raukawa (my granctfay.r), Ngati Terongoihaere (grandfather of Mrs Lucas and many others) and Te Whakahoki Te Ohu.
He also highlighted the significance of the Koro Koro and Omanawa Falls:
Koro Koro and Omanawa Falls in this land were used to prophesy good luck and ill fortune and death. When the Koro Koro sounded, it was a sign of bad luck and sometimes death, while Omanawa Falls were a sign of good luck We are proud of our fortune tellers which foretold the luck of the Tribe. When you go into this land and treat it as common earth you make yourselves vandals in our eyes.166
Claims in the Kaimai Region
Ngati Hangarau are not the only hapu with claims in the Kaimai region. The Commissioner's Court records suggest that other hapu were associated with several of the blocks in the Wairoa River catchment area. Although some blocks such Tauwharawhara and Paengoroa 2, were clearly associated with specific hapu, the ownership of other blocks was far fiom ~1ear.l~~ Stokes notes that the Kaimai block in particular had a large number of claimants. She notes that Kaimai was on the borderlands of Ngati Raukawa territory. In addition she also notes that some hapu of Ngai Te Rangi claimed ownership:
on the basis of "take raupatu", conquest or descent from strate+$ marriages made between Ngai Te Rangi and Ngati Ranginui following their conquest of Mauao.
The table below shows some of these claims. Stokes notes that there are many old hapu names that may be unknown to present generations.16'
165 Stokes, Ngamanawa, p.48 Ibid. 167 Stokes, Ngamanawa p. 144. Stokes, Te Raupatu.. . vol. 2 p.143. '" Stokes, Ngamanawa p.144. ,- -.
\ i Table 6 Claims to Blocks in the Wairoa River Catchment Area- Commissioners Court Records
Block Bapu Poripori 4Jgati Pango Ruahihi Vgati Kokoti Kaimai (including Kumikumi, Kahora, Principal: Ongaonga, Purakautahi) Ygati Mauri Ngati Te Rau Ngati Rangiaia rePatungaherehere Ngati Te Apunga Ngati Tahaka Allowed bv Principal Hapu Ngai Tuwhiwhia (Kumikumi) Ngati Makamaka (Purakautahi and Kahoroa) Ngati Kuku (Te Kaki and Kahoroa) Ngati Maki (Kahoroa) Ngati Kuraroa (Kahoroa) Ngati Tamapu (Kahoroa) Ngati Kahu Ngai Tamawhariua (a few of in Purakautahi) In Kumikumi. Ruahihi. Ongaona and Kahora Ngati Kirihika Ngati Tira Ngati Tawhararangi
Tauwharawbara Ngati Hangarau Paengoroa 2 Ngati Hangarau Taumata Ngai Tamarawaho
Source Stokes Te Raupatu Vol. 2, p.143 -144
There is evidence that Maori utilised the region well before European contact. For example, the Historic Places Trust and Department of Conservation have jointly documented hundreds of archaeological sites within the catchment area. In 1988, they published an inventory of these sites. Maps U141G and U 15IA show archaeological sites in the area, including pa and shell middens. 170 Clearly, this area is historically important.
"%w Zealand Historic Places Trust, Inventory, Tauranga County, (including Tauranga City, Mount Maunganui Borough and Te Puke Borough), New Zealand Historic Places Trust 1988. 42 The "Ruahihi" Pa site
Another example of Maori occupation of the region is the so called 'Ruahihi" Pa. The Pa was in the way of the Ruahihi hydro-electric development. In 1978, the Joint Generation Committee applied to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for an authority to destroy the site. The tmst granted the authori provided that they investigated the site. The committee financed the $20,000 investigation.32
The site was unquestionably important to Ngati Ranginui Iwi. In a preface to the Historic Places Trust's report Stokes says:
Ruahihi was an intermediate 'staging post', a small settlement guarding this important routeway between the coastal and bush resources, and as might be eqeckd, both shellfish and berry remains were found in the material remains at ~uahihi.'73
The archaeologists noted that:. . [alrtifacts found included fishing gear, a nephrite pendant and stone flakes. Structural remains included palisade postholes, rectangular pits (one with a steplace), bell sbaped rua and houses. Three cooking areas with shell middens and fireplaces were also distinguished Botanical remains recovered included chanx,als, seeds and pollen. The pa was built about 300 years ago in a forest/mb environment that was replaced 250 years ago by bradm fern; subsequently a bracken fernflaunara agricultural cycle was practiced for about 100 years. Occupation occurred eve7 six years between late spring and early autumn for the procur& prodwhon and storage of food' - This investigation has found no evidence of consultation with Maori over the pa site and neither Chesteman's report or Jones' assessment of compensation takes into account the destruction of the pa site.
Ngamanawa's Concerns
In 1982, Vic Smith noted that the Joint Generation Committee destroyed sites of cultural and historical significance. He claimed: [w]e have not finahed our dilspute with the Joint Generation Committee regarding their desire to take more land than necessary. We have asked that the Committee hand back all land not used by them. We say they have achieved their purpose by harnessing up the water which runs through our land for power, and deprived us of natural river and with historic areas etc. At their suggestion we agreed to have Mr. Chesteman as an independent achriser on this dispute, but we are also of the opinion that his say is not the last say. We are unanimws that we will hold every bit of the area ourselves. We had on the spot discussions regardmg this matter, and one of the most insulting cluestions asked by us by a member of their committee was what do we want these areas back for, as if we did not have the right to our inheritance .. .In the meantime, the Tauranga Joint Generation Committee are ha~ngtheir problems as you all know of the Ruahihi disaster. While I concede that this is a &aster to the local power consumer, wewillbepayingforthismanmadedisasterforyearstocome.Iamrednddof ourtreatmentby the committee in the past which was typical of their hard line attitude. If they had considered the history ofthearea, theywouldhavebnomthe~ofthe~-ParuHuHa.Itwas named because it was a bottomless swamp. Hence the name of Pary Hu for short. The Joint Generation Committee as [sic] a whole lack of mpect for Maori burial grounds. When these were discussed by
172 B.G.Mc Fadgen and R.A. Sheppard, Ruahihi Pa, National Museum of New Zealand Bulletin 22 and New Zealand New Historic Places Trust Publication, Wellington, 1984, p.3. 173 Stokes, "preface" in Ibid. 174 Ibidp.1. 43 them with an elder, they said that if they tunnelled the area they would probably by-pass without interfering. So much for Tauranga Joint Generation Committee. When we made our ori& objections to the land take we said the on& contract price would be doubled. It has now reached 15 times the origml bill.'" The Joint Generation Committee appears to have paid little attention to the issues raised by the Ngamanawa Incorporation.
17' Annual Report 1982, Incorporation File No. 44/23, Wahto Maniapoto Maori Land Court. 44 CHAPTER 5: DEREGULATION AND PRIVATISATION
The Deregulation of the Joint Generation Committee's Hydro-Electric Interests
Like most local power authorities, during the 1980s and 1990s, the Tauranga Joint Generation Committee was privatised by government legislation. This chapter outlines the process of privatisation and discusses its implications for land tenure.
Crown Involvement
Legislative provisions for the generation of hydro-electricity by local authorities
Local authorities control Tauranga's hydro-electric power schemes but nevertheless there has been Crown involvement in a number of instances. In a report for the Wai 212 claim, Geoff Bertram of Victoria University noted that between 1908 and 1987, local bodies required ministerial authority to generate electricity.176Cathy Marr outlines early legislative provisions Tor hydro- electric generation schemes. She says:
Hydro Power was seen as an important future development by the early twentieth centmy. In anticipation of this, the 1903 Water Power Act provided for the vesting in the mwn of waters for electrical purposes. The act was to form part of the Public Works Act 1894 (s 1). The sole right to use water in lakes, falls, rivers or streams for the purposes of generating and using electricity [sic] vested in the Crown. The Governor had power to acquire any such existing rights for such purposes and ~IJland required for such purposes (s 2). These powers could be delegated to local authorities (s.3). The Public Works Act 1928 grants generation rights to the Crown under section 306:
(1) Sub~ectto any rights lawfidly held, the sole right to use water in lakes, -falls and rivers, or streams for the purpose of generating or storing electricity or other power shall vest in His ~ajesty.'~~ By way of an order in council, the Crown could delegate these powers to a local authority under section 307.
This report demonstrates that the Crown granted Tauranga7s local authorities the right to generate hydro power. For the earlier developments it granted the Tauranga Borough Council a licence. The 1963 order in council granted the Joint Generation Committee these rights.
176 Bertram, "Submission of Geoff Bertram on the Aniwhenua and Wheoao Dams and the Energy Companies Act 1992", March 1993, Wai 212, A6 p.26. Cathy Man, "Public Works takings of Maori Land 1840-1981: Report For the Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit", Unpublished, December 1994, p. 104. 17* Public Works Act 1928, Section 306. 45 Funding
The Crown also hnded some hydro-electric projects. Bertram argues that until 1992, local bodies were junior partners in power schemes promoted and financed by. the Crown. Ratepayers hnded some of the joint generation scheme. The situation was:
[t]he [Tauranga Power] Board's loans related to the construction of the Lloyd Mandeno Mangapapa and Ruahihi Generation Stations have been secured by a specla1 rate in the dollar value of rateable property in the Board's Supply District comprising the former Taming City (part), the former Tauranga County and the former Mount Maunganui ~orough.'~~ During the 1970s central government actively promoted local body power schemes. In the 1977 budget the government announced that it would finance 90 per cent of these schemes from the National Provident Fund. The scheme included the Ruahihi station that cost $63.2 million. lgOIn 1987, New Zealand Engineering featured a report on 13 local hydro-electric schemes built as part of the budget plan including Ruahihi. The journai refers to an Audit Office report which highlighted the role of the Crown in hnding these projects. According to the article,
[tJhe Audt OBce Report says that without the incentives provided by the Crown, most of the schemes would not have proceeded[emphasis added]. All major financial risks aSSOciated with the schemes were assumed by the Crown. Investigatioddesign grants carried no hcialrisk to the supply authorities which were given access to loans to pay for 90 per cent of axmaioncosts. The Crown guaranteed all foreign exchange risk and other osts of borrowing by the National Provident Fund However the most sigmficant risks were associated with supplementing operating loan incentive under which the Crown had a potential long term, openended obligation to hnd any operating Mcit. The need for the supplementary authority to levy a rate 'should things go wrong' was virtually eliminated says the report. Supply authorities, and hence the consumers, were insulated from the effect of any cost overruns because the supplementary operating loan would cover all operating deiiciencies. Any be&& bm the scheme would accrue solely to the supply authorities and their consumers, says the report. Incentives provided under the policy have seen the Crown guarantee both the money lent and the financial viability of the schemes.'" Bertram agrees that the schemes were dependent on government support. He claims that:
In terms of the ori@ rationale for the small-hydro policy, these power boards had quite a strong case for claiming that Gwernment had encouraged them to under unprofitable projects on national interest grounds, and had then left them in the lurck However, as is pointed out below, several of the schemes, including Aniwhenua, had already been well advanced towards construction before any government subsidy was announced. After a good deal of behind the scenes negotiations. Power board indebtedness was restructured by a series of write downs of their hydro scheme loans from Government with the losses being canied by taxpayers..'82 Clearly, Crown involvement was crucial to the development of the joint generation scheme. Not only did the Crown empower local bodies to generate electricity, but in some cases it also provided funding. By contrast, during the early 1990s the Crown privatised local power
179 Council submission to Bay Energy establishment plan hearing, p.7. 1bi4 p.19. 181 ~nonymous," Local Hydro Schemes not in N.Z.3 Economic Interest", Nau Zealand Engineering vol. 42 N0.6 July 1, 1987, pp. 15 -16. 182 Bertram "Submission of Geoff Bertram on the Aniwhenua and Wheoao Dams and the Energy Companies Act 1992", March 1993, Wai 212 A6 p.34. 46 I authorities. In Tauranga, power consumers, and specially convened community trusts own r' Trustpower, the electric company. The next section discusses these changes.
The Proposed Sale of the Municipal Energy Department to the Power Board.
Prior to the formation of the new energy company, Trustpower, the joint generation scheme was the subject of a number of proposals. In 1986, the City Council offered to sell its interests in the Joint Generation Committee to the Electric Power Board for $4 million and its distribution system for $3 million. According to the Bay of Plenty Times the proposal fell through because the two parties could not agree on whether or not to sell the joint generation scheme separately from the municipal energy department.la3Secondly, the councils7 other concern was that a ower board merger would take the benefits of the joint generation scheme outside the district." The council offered to sell its interests but only on the condition that the power board did not amalgamate with other Bay of Plenty power authorities. The board rejected the council's offer.
The Energy Companies Act 1992 In 1992, parliament passed the Energy Companies Act This Act required local power boards - to restructure as companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1955. There are numerous land ownership issues. The Act does not recognise Treaty claims to Maori land used by energy companies. Bertram demonstrates that this omission resulted from a Cabinet decision. In 1990 an officials' coordinating Committee made up of representatives from, the Justice Department, Manatu Maori, Treasury, the Ministry of Commerce, the Prime Minister's Department and the State Owned Enterprises Unit advised cabinet on the proposed Bill. Justice and Manatu Maori, argued that the legislation must include safeguards for land claimed under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. 18* Cabinet was told that:
There needs to be provisions in the legislation for land to be offered back to the original owners from which it was aoqulred In other words, land acquired under the Public Works Act should not be hlyaheYlc5 by the new companies. It should iirst be offered back to the original owners or their successors. The other departments argued that although the Crown granted generation rights, power boards were not part of the Crown. Therefore, they claimed, there was no obligation to provide offer back clauses. As the majority viewpoint this argument prevailed. Bertram argues that: Treaty issues do appear to have figured in subsequent discussion of the ownership question.'s7 Consequently the Act did not acknowledge Treaty issues.
183 Bay of Plenty Times, May 3 1986. Ig4 Ibid lg5 See Bertram "Submission of Geoff Bertram on the Aniwhenua and Wheoao Dams and the Energy $~mpaniesAct 1992", March 1993, pp.21-22. Officials Co-ordinating Committee Paper to State Agencies conunittee, 16 March 1990 p30, Wai 212 A6a 54. Bertram "Submission of GeoE Bertram on the Aniwhenua and Wheoao Dams and the Energy Companies Act 1992", March 1993, Wai 212 A6, p.22 47 Bay Energy Proposal
The first scheme proposed by the Tauranga Electric Power Board was a merger with Rotorua Electricity and "privatisation in the form of a $74 million share giveaway."1s8 The Joint Generation Committee's assets were specifically listed in the proposed transfer:
[The] Tauranga E.P.B.3 [sic] interests and rights in the Tauranga Joint Generation Scheme as defined by the Deed between The Tauranga Electric Power Board and Tauranga District [sic] Council dated 17 November 1965, including the right to receive a distribution of electricity generated by the scheme and an interat in as tenant in common in equal shares in the land buildings, line, licences and other property compromising the scheme.189' A number of groups objected to the proposal. The power board heard submissions between 1 and 7 December 1992. The Tauranga District Council criticised the proposed transfer of joint generation assets. They opposed interests outside the Western Bay of Plenty gaining a stake in the Joint Generation scheme "the jewel in the crown" of the board's assets.' At the hearing Mr Bickers, councils' chief executive submitted an alternative proposal:
The concept of Kaimai Hydropower Ltd is an Enerpy Company which will replace the existing partnership represented by the Tamanga Joint Generation Committee. The Council and the Board are equal equity partners in that Committee and it is proposed that Kaimai Hydropower Ltd should be an Enem Company with a share capital of $20 Million equally distributed between the Energy Company to be formed by the Tauranga Electric Power Board and a wholly owned Council Holdtng Company, Tauranga Civic Holdings ~td.'~' - The Western Bay of Plenty District Council supported the Tauranga District Council's \ / proposed local body ownership.lg2 Local Maori also expressed their concerns about the proposed energy company. The committee noted that the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board supported direct consumer control.lg3Others also expressed their opposition. Ngati Raukawa made a submission to the District Council claiming that the hydro schemes had damaged the landscape. Spokesman Des Kahotea said that their heritage in the area made them partners in the scheme and they were seeking compensation. Kahotea also outlined that:
He said the Crown denied them their rights when it empowered the Tauranga Electric Power Board and District council to establish the Tauranga Joint Committee to obstruct, impound and divert rivers and streams for the generation of electricity. "The Hydro-schemes were established without public hearings under water rights or planning procedutes or mpact assessment reports. There was the consequent humiliation that was created by the desecration, destruction and alteration done to our ancestral landscape. He said that, "the generation committee was ruthless in its acquisition and use of our traditional resources of water, land and volcanic plateau landscape with its diverse and cfissected water catchment. lg4 After the hearing, the Draft Joint Establishment Plan Hearings Committee met on 9 December. On the ownership issue, the committee said:
188 Bay ofplenty Time,s 1 December 1992, p.3. 189 Bay Energy, Keeping the Power in Your Hands: DraJt Establishment Plan, p.19. IP0District council submission to hearings committee, p.19. 191 Alan Bickers, Chief Executive, Tauranga District Council, oral submission to Tauranga Electric Power Board Consultative Committee, 1 December 1992, p.8. lg2 District Council Submission, p. 1. 193 Committee Report p.4. 194 Bay of Plenty Times, 18 December 1992, p.3. [mlembers expressed the view that it was very apparent from the sulmussions that the proposals in the Plan were not acceptable and there was general concern at the possibility of foreign and major corporate entities gaining control of the Company.195 The committee resolved to give more shares to the community trusts and to look at options facilitating local ownership of the company. In addition, they deferred the merger with Rotorua Electricity. They also noted that, "the issues raised by Maori representatives will need to be addressed in the fbture."'%
Trustpower
In December 1992, the power board proposed to establish Trustpower. The new company would have 50 per cent of its share holdings controlled by a local community trust, 48.8 per cent by consumers and the remaining 1.2 per cent in employees.197 The new plan noted that local Maori were keen to amalgamate their shares and that the new company would be encouraged to assist such an amalgamati~n.'~~However, the transfer still included land involved in the generation scheme.199 The public were asked for written submissions and hearings were set aside for the-period 29 January 1993 and 4 February 1993. Ngamanawa7swritten submission detailed their opposition to the share establishment plan. The Incorporation opposes the share establishment plan proposed by the Directors of the Tauranga - Electric Power Board because: 1 1. The Incorporation owns much of the Catchment in which the water used by Kaimai Hydropower to generate electricity is collected. The Incorporation manages that catchment largely in the interests of Water Comation. 2. The Maori owners had some of their lands taken under the Public Works Act to enable electric power to be generated for the benefit of the whole community. 3. The Incorporation does not collect water on it's land and the Maori owners did not give up their lands to provide benefits to indivictual power account holders . For this reason the Incorporation obJects to a share give and seeks that all shares in the Board's successor company be held on behalf of the whole community. 4. If this is not acceptable to the Board then the Incorporation seeks that the Maori owners be fairly and properly rewarded for what they have given and are giving to the board200 In addition to Ngamanawa's claim, Mr Kahotea reiterated that the establishment plan denied hapu in the Wairoa River catchment, "propriety rights by the obstruction, impounding and diversion of rivers and streams to generate electricity". He also stressed the fact the Energy Companies Act would prejudice claims for redress for damages to the natural resource.
The Energy Companies Act will deny us access to claim damages or seek redress and demonstrate title, ownership or proprietary rights of the traditional resources, natural or our ancestral landscape which are utilised to generate hy~1ectricity.202
The Act failed to recognise these issues and it provided no provisions for such compensation.
lg5 Tauranga Electric Power Board, DraJt Establishment Plan for Trus@ower Limited, p.4. lg6'Ibid.05. Ig7 Ibiib.6-7. 198 Ibid. p. 11. 199 Ibid. p.16. 200 G J Menneer, Ngamanawa Incorporation submission form, undated. 201 Bay of Plenty Times, 23 March 1993, p. 1. 202 Ibid. - \ k / By vesting tradeable shares in consumers the power board privatised its interest in the Joint Generation scheme. According to the current manager of Kaimai Hydropower, Trustpower and the district council own joint generation assets as per the deed of 1965. Kairnai Hydropower has the management contract for the scheme.203 The Joint Generation Committees' assets are now deregulated. The district council's share in the scheme is now also corporatized. According to its' vesting order nearly 50 per cent of Tru ower is privately owned by shareholders and the rest by the Tauranga Power Trust and employees.34
203 As per Telephone conversation with Mr Rodger Burchett, Manager Kaimai Hydropower, 27 June 1996. 204 Energy Companies (Trustpower Limited) Vesting Order 1993,1993/386 13 December 1993. 5 0 ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS
The Joint Generation scheme raises a number of issues about resource ownership and consultation. This section highlights these issues.
Land Acquisition
One of the areas of greatest contention is the Joint Generation Committee's and the Tauranga Borough Council's ability to compulsorily acquire land and water resources. The borough council brought land for the McLaren Falls and Omanawa power stations from either Europeans or the Crown. Unfortunately there was not sufficient time to research the block histories of land acquired for these power stations. However, almost all European title in the Tauranga district is derived from the confiscation of 1865 which extinguished Maori customary title. The Joint Generation Committee acquired all the land under the provisions of the Public Works Act 1928. Although Maori land owners successfblly reduced the total area of land A acquired, the 154 acres of land taken by the committee were still compulsory acquisitions. The city council and power board planned the scheme well in advance of notifymg owners. The owners had no option other than to give up some land. - It is questionable that the Joint Generation Committee needed to acquire the freehold of the land. In other cases, the Waitangi Tribunal has recommended against public works acquisition of the freehold of Maori land. In the Te Maunga Railways Report for example the Tribunal concluded:
We do not suggest that Maori land should never be used for public purposes, but we emphasise that the compulsory acquisition of Maori land by the Crown cuts right across the guarantee of tino rangitiratanga in article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. We also emphasise that we do not believe that the Crown needs to acquire the freehold in order to carry out public works on land205 This report demonstrates that ultimately the Joint Generation Committee's power to acquire land stems from the Crown via the provisions of the Public Works Act. Therefore the same obligations apply to the committee. As the case of the Awakotuku access demonstrates, it is possible to retain land in Maori ownership and grant access to the committee. This was certainly possible as far as the access roads were concerned. Both the committee and land owners had a vested interest in keeping access roads private. On numerous occasions the Ngarnanawa Incorporation expressed a willingness to grant the Joint Generation Committee access if they returned the roads. An additional issue is that the Joint Generation Committee took land under the Public Works Act. As the Te Maunga Raihvays Report notes, the Public Works Act did not recognise any Crown obligation to protect Maori land under the Treaty. The report says:
[tlhe most sigtllscant omission was the failure to acknowledge in any way in the Public Works Act 1981 the C% obligations and responsibilities toward Maori as a pa&er under the Treaty of waitangi206
205 Ibid, p.8 1. 206 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Maunga Railways Report, 1994, p.56. / %
\ y It was Crown legislation that allowed the Joint Generation Committee to compulsorily acquire the freehold of Maori land. Consultation
The Joint Generation Committee consulted Ngamanawa once they made the decision to acquire land. In several instances the committee has handed back surplus land. On the other hand however, there was little recognition of the land or river's cultural and historical significance. In several instances such as the "Ruahihi" Pa site, the committee's agents destroyed historic sites, apparently without consultation or regard to objections. The claim that the area is historically sigtuficant is krther illustrated by the Historic Places Trust survey. In addition, the Commissioner's Court minutes demonstrate that a number of dierent hapu utilised the Kaimai region. The Joint' Generation Committee's negotiations focused on Ngamanawa as land owners, there was no consultation of any other hapu within the catchment area.
Resources . .- . . .- . . Aside from compensation paid to Ngamanawa for trees destroyed in the course of construction Maori received no compensation for damage to natural resources. This report cites evidence of degradation of some resources. Rivers were depleted of water as a consequence of the power schemes, the Ruahihi canal collapse poured mud into the Wairoa river, historic waterfalls were destroyed and there is evidence that the hydro schemes affected the fishing resources of the Wairoa catchment area. The committee did not compensate Maori for damage to any of these resources. As Cathy Marr notes in her examination of public works policy, this was a common failing of compensation negotiations during the 1960s and 1970s. She says that:
[tlhe special signtfcance of Maori land was also not recogmsed in compensation provisions .. .The asmmphon that because cornpmz&on was awarded the issue was solved needs to be treated with some cue, especially where Maori land was involved When land was only assumed to have commercial value, it was common to assume that that if compensation was paid then former owners had no further interest in the land However this took no account of other values such as the emotional and cultural attachment to the land that meant an interest remained for Maori regardless of the present legal ownership.207 Neither Ngamanawa or any hapu of the Kairnai region received any compensation pertaining to damage of these resources. In addition to destruction of resources, there is also the issue of the loss of revenue fi-om commercial ventures involving the catchment area. The Kaimai region possesses great scenic beauty and is already used for recreation purposes. On a site visit to McLaren Falls Park, the author found that the reserve had a small lodge and several other "attractions" such as peacocks and various other animals. However the power schemes restrict recreation activities involving the use of the Wairoa river. The dam at Lake McLaren restricts water flow on the lower Wairoa river. 208 Consequently it is impossible for even a small craft to navigate the river. Unfortunately the author was unable to venture onto the other power station sites, but it is likely that these constructions also obstruct the river.
207 Man,p. 178 2os See photographs in document bank The joint generation partners are the only bodies to have profited from the scheme. Neither \4 Ngamanawa or any local hapu have benefited from the fruits of power generation. The scheme is without doubt a profitable enteg-ise. In the year ended 31 March 1992 the committee's net operating profit was $1,145,283. The assets had a book value of over $54 million. 210 It could be argued that as Treaty partners Maori should have received some share of the profit. The earlier generation licences, the Empowering Act of 1965 or the Energy Companies Act 1992, do not contain any such provisions. The responsibility for these omissions lies with the Crown.
Compensation
The Ngamanawa Incorporation was compensated for the acquisition of land and damages to trees. As illustrated above, they received no compensation for damage to other resources. Compensation was only given to Ngamanawa as land owners. Other resources such as the rivers were assumed to be vested in the Crown and neither Ngamanawa or any other hapu within the catchment area received any compensation for the loss of these resources
The Energy Companies Act.
Prior to 1992, the Crown controlled local energy authorities. The Crown gave legislative authority to generate electricity and use natural water. The Tribunal dealt with this issue in the - Te Ika Whenua Energy assets case. In this case, the Tribunal concurred with a Crown Law / opinion which claimed power boards had no legal owner. The Tribunal outlined the relationship between central government and local power boards. It argued that:
...there can be no doubt that the creation of power boards and other supply authorities was underkkn by government to facilitate its task of arranging an electricity distribution network throughout New Zealand The establishment of power boards in local areas with local involvement enabled the government to detach itself from direct responsibility for the distribution of power to the consumer. Power boards have no shareholders and there is no provision in the Act for payment of dividends or distribution of assets. No persons or group of persons can legitimately claim a right of ownership in the assets of the boards. The boards are also as we have said, a creature of statute and it is only by statute that they can be regulated or any disposition of their assets prwided for other than those dispositions which are carried out in the normal course of their business. Only the government by statute has any power of regulation and control of the boards and their assets.21 In Tauranga, the Energy Companies Act 1992 gave control of the assets owned and administered by the Joint Generation Committee to private companies whose primary objective is to act as profit making enterprises. The ownership of half the shares is with private shareholders. The Act took local hydro power schemes out of Crown control. In its interim report on the Te Ika Whenua energy assets claim, the Waitangi Tribunal emphasised this point: The proposed transfer of assets from the two authorities mentioned [Rotorua Area Electricity Authority and Bay of Plenty Electricity] to energy companies created under the Energy Companies Act 1992 wiU remove those assets from the control and direction of the Crown to independent companies whose capital will be vested in various ~hareholders.~~
209 Tauranga Joint Generation Committee, Statement of Income and Expenditure for the Year Ended 31 March 1992, Vertical File on Hydro-Electricity, Tauranga Public Library. 210 Tauranga Joint Generation Committee, Fixed Asset Schedule as at 31 March 1992, Vertical File on Electricity, Tauranga Public Library. 211 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Ika Whenua.. p28. 212 Ibid, Appendix 2 p68. 5 3 - *> \ r This issue applies to the joint generation scheme and aspects of Wai 503 and Wai 336. The Tribunal found that although the energy companies concerned consulted with Maori as consumers the Act had no provisions for consultation with Maori as Treaty partners.213 Secondly they noted that the Crown consulted national organisations but failed to consult local claimants. The Tribunal concluded:
The lack of consultation with the claimants means that we cannot say that the Crown has put itself in a position to make an informed decision, that is a decision which is s&ciently informed as to the relevant facts and law to be able to say that it has had pper regard of the impact of the principles ofthe ~reaty.~'~ The Tribunal also found that the transfer of assets to private energy companies would prejudicially affect the claimant's ability to negotiate with the Crown over Treaty claims. The assets can no longer be claimed as part of a settlement with the Crown. The Tribunal believed that the transfer:
...does not impact on the Crown's capacity to recognise the ownerships of the rivers, compensate the cl-p for loss of income, or to liaise with the two authorities to build appropriate channels for eels. .. However on the transfer of assets the Tribunal also said: -
The effect of the Act and the transfer of these assets on this claim is not consistent with the fiduciary obligabons placed on the Crown by the Treaty of Waitangi . We hdit inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty that these pafl~cularassets should be transferred into third party ownership while they are the subject of claims. We do not think that the Crown should arrange for the ctisposal of thy6- and water rights while they are so affected and thereby prejudice the claimants position. Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the Act was not in good faith and that:
The absence of any recourse to the Courts to enforce their Treaty rights and left them no alternative but to bring a claim to the Waitangi ~ribvlnal.~~~ Clearly, the same issues apply in this case. The transfer of ownership of joint generation assets under the Energy Companies prejudicially affects claimants' ability to negotiate with the Crown. In addition, in Wai 212 the assets concerned were the power plants themselves. In this case the assets included land taken fiom Maori ownership. This would seem to strengthen the case. However, while the Act not does recognise the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, it has avenues for the committee to offer surplus land back to the original owners. Section 69 says:
(1) nothing in sections 40 to 42 of the Public Works Act shall apply to the vesting of land in, or the transfer of land to an energy company pursuant to this Act, but sections 40 and 41 of that Act shall after vestmg or transfer, apply to that land as if the energy cowywere a local authority and the land had not been vested or transferred pursuant to this Act. The transfer obligates the new energy company to return surplus land to original owners. If the power companies declare the access roads surplus land, they are required to offer the land back to the Ngamanawa Incorporation as the former land owners.
'I3 Ibid, p.31. 'I4 Ibid, p.33. 'I5 'I5 Ibi4 p.36. 'I6 bid, p.37. 217 bid, p.39. 21 8 Energy Companies Act 1992, section 69. The Tauranga City Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board Empowering Act 1965
Perhaps the most important piece of legislation pertaining to these claims is the 1965 Empowering Act. By order in council the Crown allowed the Joint Generation Committee to change the course of several rivers within the Wairoa catchment. In addition to this the committee was also able to use the water from these rivers to generate electricity.219Section 2 of the Empowering Act allowed the Joint Generation Committee the power to:
[nlotwithstanding anythmg contained in any other enactment or any rule of law, the Council and the Ebard are hereby authorised and empowered to do or enter into all such acts, deeds, matters and things (including, sub~ect to the provisions of the Local Authorities Loans Act 1956, such as effect Orders bornwing of money) shall be necessary or requisite forzz giving Ml to the said in council and the said deed and matters the subject thereof 0 Section 2 gave the Joint Generation Committee extensive powers of land acquisition. The Act contained no reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. The debates on the Bill do not mention the Treaty or anything about the proposed land acquisition. Therefore the committee was not bound to act in accordance with Treaty principles. The responsibility for this omission lies with - - the Crown as legislator.
219 New Zealand Gazette, 9 September 1965, p. 1499. 220 Tauranga City Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board Empowering Act 1965, No.22, section 2 55 MAIN CONCLUSIONS
This report makes the following conclusions:
In one way or another land title stems from the 1865 confiscation and the confiscation contravenes Article Two. The Joint Generation Committee consulted owners only after they decided to implement the hydro-electric scheme. The Tauranga Joint Generation Committee compensated land owners for compulsory land acquisition. There was no compensation of the loss of historically and cultural significant resources. The committee consulted only those Maori who owned land required for public works. They ignored other hapu with claims in the catchment area. The power schemes destroyed historic sites. It may not have been necessary to acquire the freehold of some pieces of land. The powers of compulsory land acquisition contained in the Public Works and Empowering Acts, were inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The transfer of energy assets to third party ownership affects the claimant's right to redress. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Files .held at the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Court
Block Order File, Kaimai 1-3
Block Order File, Paengoroa 2
Block Order File, Tauwharawhara Block Order File, Parish of Te Papa Misc. Allotments
Incorporation File 44/23, Ngamanawa Incorporation.
Tauranga Minute Books
Newspapers . fie Bay of Plenty Times Xhe New Zealand Herald
Files Held at National Archives, Wellington
M A w2490 3812 Maori Land Required for Public Works M A 1 54/19/71 Tauranga Joint Generation Committee
Other Sources
Information supplied to author by Tauranga District Council Information supplied to the author by the Ngamanawa Incorporation MA 14/73 'Wairoa River Power Project", held in the office of the Maori Trustee, Hamilton
Tauranga Joint Generation Committee, 'Wairoa River Hydroelectric Development", supplied by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council Vertical File on Hydro-Electricity at Tauranga Public Library Government Publications
Appendices to the Journal of the House of Representutives
New Zealand Gazette
Statutes and Statutory Regulations Energy Companies Act 1992 Energy Companies (Trustpower Limited) Vesting Order 1993, 19931386 13 December 1993. Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 Public Works Act 1928 Tauranga City Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board Empowering Act 1965
A Secondary Sources .- Anonymous, "Local Hydro Schemes not in NZ7s Economic Interest", New Zealand \ ,' Engineering, vol. 42, No.6, July 1, 1987
Max C. Avery, 'cHydro-Electric At Tauranga", Local Bo& Review, March 1970.
Bay Energy, Keeping the Power in Your Hands: Draft Establishment Plan, 1992 Geoff Bertram, "Submission of Geoff Bertram on the Aniwhenua and Wheoao Dams and the Energy Companies Act 1992", March 1993, Wai 212, A6 Geoff Bertram "Submission of Geoff Bertram on the Aniwhenua and Wheoao Dams and the Energy Companies Act 1992", Supporting Documents, March 1993, Wai 212 A6a J J Chesterman, "Mangapapa Hydro-Electric Power Scheme", unpublished report for the Ministry of Works
A V Hatrick, Report of the Committee to Inquire into the Failure of the Ruahihi Canal, Ministry of Works, Wellington ,1982
B.G. Mc Fadgen and R.A. Sheppard, Ruahihi Pa, National Museum of New Zealand Bulletin 22 and New Zealand Historic Places Trust Publication, Wellington, 1984 Cathy Marr, "Public Works Takings of Maori Land 1840-1981:Report For the Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit", unpublished, December 1994
New Zealand Historic Places Trust, Inventory, Tauranga County, (including Tauranga City, Mount Maungunui Borough and Te Puke Borough), New Zealand Historic Places Trust, 1988
Claudia Orange, The Treaty of Waitangi, Bridget Williams Books, Wellington, 1987 -, J Richardson, L D Teirnay, and M J Unwin, Fisheries Environmental Report No.70, The 1 Relative value of Tauranga Rivers to New Zealand Anglers, Fisheries Research Division N.Z. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Wellington, May 1986
Evelyn Stokes, Ngamanawa: A Study of Conflicts in the use of Forest Land, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1983. Wai 215 Record of Documents, A1 1
Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: the Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, A Report prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal, vol. 1, Hamilton ,1990
Evelyn Stokes Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Mom: The Confiscation of Tauranga L&, Volume Two Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands, Hamilton, 1992.
Tauranga Electric Power Board, ''Draft Establishment Plan for Trustpower Limited", 1992
Waitangi Tribunal, Te Ika Whenua Energy Assets Report 1993, Wellington, Brooker and Friend Ltd, 1993 - Waitangi Tribunal, Te Maunga Raihvays Land Report 1994, Wellington, Brookers Ltd, 1994
Waitangi Tribunal, The Turangr Township Report 1995, Wellington, Brookers Ltd, 1995 APPENDIX ONE: STATEMENT OF CLAIM bk 336 \* \ .
Cl~rm 1.1 The Registrar WAI 336 Waitangi Tribunal
This is a claim on behalf of Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Raukawa hapu concerning the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, whose ancestral lands incorporate the catchment of the Wairoa River in the Tauranga area.
. .' The Crown has introduced as legislation the Energy ~o&~&iesAct 1992 which abolishes Power Boards and replaces them with public companies registered under the Companies Act 1955 with defined shareholders as owners. Since 1915 through to the 19701s,a Tauranga local authority (the former Tauranga Borough Council) co-jointly with the Tauranga Electric Power Board has utilised the tributaries of the Wairoa River to harness hydro-electricity. The Establishment Plans of the Tauranga District Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board under the Energy Companies Act 1992 will: -i
1. Prejudice claims presently before the Waitangi Tribunal under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 relating to the Tauranga Land Confiscation of 1864 and actions of the Crown through specific legislation which gave parties such as local authorities access to control and harness rivers and streams of the Wairoa and Omanawa Rivers to generate electricity.
2. Deny Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Raukawa hapu their proprietary rights under law and equity over their ancestral lands incorporating the catchment of the Wairoa and. Omanawa Rivers and their tributaries that is used and harnessed to generate electricity for the Tauranga Joint Generation Committee or Kaimai Hydro.
The Crown through their actions with the Tauranga City Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board Empowering Act in 1965 and other Acts of Parliament, enabled the Tauranga City Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board to obstruct, impound and divert rivers and streams, alienate and use our lands for the generation of electricity. The Tauranga Joint Generation hydro schemes were established without , '?
, P public hearings, planning procedures or impact assessment reports with the consequent desecration, destruction and alteration done to both taonga and our ancestral landscape.
The procedure of the Energy Companies Act 1992 will deny us access to claim damages or seek redress and demonstrate title, ownership or proprietary rights of the traditional resources, natural and cultural, of our ancestral landscape which are utilised to generate hydro-electricity.
We claim that the actions of the Crown has prejudiced our rights to the natural resources and other matters guaranteed to us by Article two of the Treaty. We ask the Waitangi Tribunal to give urgent attention to this claim because of the procedure required by the Ci own for the establishment of these power public companies by March 31 1993.
We are claiming ownership of the water resource and we will wait to hear the . - Ikawhenua Claim for the Rangitaiki River, but our claim goes further regarding '%&w the Kaimai Hydro where:
1. The majority of the catchment is Maori owned land.
2. This catchment was the major component of the economy of our
. tupuna. and had been actively occupied up to and after the. .- . Confiscation,
3. Land was taken under Public Works Act to establish hydro works.
4. Desecration and damage to the taonga of our ancestral landscape , waahi tapu, awa, manga, mahinga kai.
.,? 5. Siting of Hydro works on our land.
6. Our Mana and Rangatiratanga was not acknowledged We have been presenting submissions to the Tauranga District Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board following the consultation process required by Power Boards for the Establishment Plans but are drawn to submit a claim because rhe hergy Companies Act 1992 does not give these Power Boards any scope to address specific concerns we have raised before them.
Dr. Evelyn Stokes has compiled a publication Ngamanawa (1983) which documents the background to the establishment of the Tauranga Joint Generation hydro schemes and the impact on our lan(is a@-hapu. The only - area which we will need to research further relates to the'taonga and other history which she does not cover in depth. This will be accomplished by interviewing our pakeke and other informants who know this area intimately.
Organisations affected by the claim will be the Tauranga Joint Generation Committee or Kaimai Hydro owned by the Tauranga District Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board.
Des Tatana Kahotea Heritage Management Consultant T0:The Waitangi Tribunal Division Lance Waaka P.O.Box 5022 71 Waimapu Pa Road ""1, Wellington Poike \ i Tauranga Phone (07) 5432274
Dear Sir,
I Lance Waaka make this claim on behalf of myself and all hapu whanau of Ngati Ruahine who come under the Ngati Ranginui mana. This means all lands Ngati Ranginui Hqd Rangatiratanga over, in all the confiscated area within the Raupatu of Tauranga. We claim everything above the land, on the land, under the land and the land. We seek redress for the CroQn confi,scation of Ngati Ranginui, Taonga, Waahi Tapu, Kaitiaki, Tanga, Fishing. Reserves and Pa sites destroyed through~ut'th~confiscated area during the attempt by the Crown forces of that time to use fire arms to either kill, maim or threaten or to use any means open to them to oust Ngati Ranginui from their rightful homes and villages or Pa. Also redress for the large amount of Ngati Ranginui . lands confiscated for the town ships and settlement, compensation has been insufficient. The taking of some remaining portions of Ngati Ranginui land by the acts of the Crown, for Schools, Hospitals, Local Power Authority sites, Local Parks, Reserves, Airstrips, Forest Corp, D.O.C. Land, Landcorp, Local Authority Sites, lands taken for Public Works purposes, many villages, Reserves, True Urupa and Waahi Tapu including our Pa sites were not provided or reserved. Events . , complained of are we feel contrary to article 2 of The Treaty * of Waitangi. We would like your tribunal to register a WAI No. claim upon all Crown properties as listed and attached seperately and enclosed herewith. WAI No. to be placed upon Legal Descriptions. We request that S.O.E. act of 1986 not be excepted within the Ranginui confiscated area as per lands taken under Public Works act and Local Bodies acts for water catchment, and Electric Power Generation in all within Otanewainuku Survey District. A11 areas within the Oropi 1&2 blocks, all areas taken within the Weraroa blocks, q11 areas within the Parish of Tepapa blocks lots 534, 534 A&B and lot 535. All area in schedule attached within Otauna block and Moukunui block. We claim all areas within Omanawa, Kaimai No. 3, Whaitikuranui, Paengaroa blocks within the Ngamanawa Incorporation taken under Public Works act, for the Mangapapa Hydro scheme, known as the Mandeno, Hydro Power Complex and lands taken for the Mc Larens Falls, Dam and Power Station and lands taken for the Ruahihi Power Station Electricity Generating Complexes. Also lands taken by Public Works act for roading on our Poike lands which we received insufficient compensation and no compensation for other pieces on this block. We also seek redress on land taken for water pipe easements on this land. We ask that these properties and complexes be exempt from sale under the State Enterprise act of 1986. We do not want to see any more Local Bodies and S.O.E. properties sold without our hapu Ngati Ruahine, Iwi Ngati Ranginui and the Tribunal having investigated all matters regarding those properties.
Yoyrs Sincerely - Lance Waaka The Regi strar Wai tangi Tribunal Tribunals Division Justi ce Department Private Bag Postal Centre 'WELLINGTON
I, MICHAEL TANE O'BRIEN of 101 Haukore Street, Tauranga being the Chairman of - . . the proprietors of ~~amanawaBlock ("Ngamanawa Inco~poration'~)on behalf of those Maori - proprietors. claim to be prejudicially affected by -the following actions, omissions, policies and practices of the Crown: 1. In fai 1ing to provide, when enacting the Pub1 ic Works Act 1928, a - mechanism whereby the freehold of Maori lands was protected from being taken for public works. Pursuant to that statute the Tauranga City Council took, for the purposes of the joint generation of electricity with the Tauranga Electric Power Board the lands of the Incorporation which are set out in the Schedule hereto.
2. The failure of the Crown, when enacting the Tauranga- City Council and Tauranga Electric Power Board Empowering Act 1965 to provide for the protection of the rights given by the Treaty of Wai tangi to 'the owners of the Moari land which would be affected by the undertakings authorised or contemplated by that statute.
The failure of the Crown, when enacting the Energy Companies Act 1992, whi ch required the Tauranga Di strict Counci 1 and the Tauranga Electric Power Board to corporatise their respective electricity undertakings, to have regard for the rights given by the Treaty of Waitangi to the owners of Maori lands which had been takentfor the purposes of those undertakings.
Cont'd.. . 1595s '-"7 \ j NNew Zealand Gazette 1972 P. 1020 ARP
Part Kaimai No. 2 S.O. 46591 Part Tauwharawhara S.O. 46590 Part Kaimai No. 2 S.O. 46590 Part Tauwharawhara S.O. 46537
New Zealand Gazette 1973 P. 120 \
. I Part Tauwharawhara S.O. 468311' Part Te Papa Paengaroa S.O. 46835 Part Te Papa Paengaroa S.O. 46835 Part Te Papa Paengaroa. S.O. 468'35. Part Te Papa Paengaroa S.O. 46835 . .
New Zeal and Gazette 22 ~uuust1974 - ,,./ Part Te Papa Paengaroa S.0; 47299 S.O. 47300 S.O. 47300 S.O. 47301
New Zealand Gazette 11 November 1976
Part Kaimai 2 S.O. 48631 Part Tauwharawhara Part Tauwharawhara
New Zeal and Gazette 28 A~ri1 1977.
',C Part Tauwharawhara S.O. 48783 Kaimai 2 '5.0. 48783 Kaimai 2 S.O. 48886 / NNew Zealand Gazette 1972 P. 1020
Part Kaimai No. 2 Part Tauwharawhara S.O. 46590 Part Kaimai No. 2 S.O. 46590 Part Tauwharawhara S.O. 46537
New Zealand Gazette 1973 P. 120
Part Tauwharawhara S.O. 4683'4 Part Te Papa Paengaroa S.O. 46835 Part Te Papa Paengaroa S .O. 46835 Part Te Papa Paengaroa S.O. 468'35' Part Te Papa Paengaroa S.O. 46835
New Zealand Gazette.22 Auaust 1974
Part Te Papa Paengaroa S.O. 47299 S.O. 47300 S.O. 47300 S.O. 47301
New Zealand Gazette 11 November 1976
Part Kaimai 2 S.O. 48631 Part Tauwharawhara Part Tauwharawhara
New Zealand Gazette 28 A~ril1977
1C Part Tauwharawhara S.O. 48783 Kaimai 2 Kaimai 2 S.O. 48886 I 6 -a C \< ,/ New Zealand Gazette 1 September 1977 ARP
Part Kaimai Part Tauwharawhara Part Tauwharawhara S.O. 48884 Part Te Papa Paengaroa S.O. 48884
Plus land in Whaiti Karanui S D 2
Less areas relinquished as follows: . .
Part Kaimai S -0. 48885 .. . ~ar.t~auwharawhara S.O. 48885 Site for Wai tai Lodge returned 11 14/90 9-2-22.9
rn i TOTAL TAKEN AND RETAINED 2.' 2.'
AND I SAY that such failures were in breach of the obligations of the Crown under Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi.
.-... . THE TRIBUNAL.is asked to recommend:
1. That the Government take appropriate steps to return to the Incorporation the freehold of the land taken.
2. That the Incorporation lease the land back to the Companies now
operating the joint venture .generation,c scheme on terms which are fair and equitable both as to rental and otherwise.
3. Such further or other recommendations by way of relief as the Tribunal considers are appropriate.
Cont'd...... I3 7 i I The Tribunal is asked to commission a researcher to report on this claim before any hearing. Leave is sought to amend this claim following that report.
The Tribunal has asked to appoint Mr J C Gooch of the firm of Messrs Cooney Lees & Morgan, Solicitors, Tauranga to assist me.
The Tribunal has asked to hear the claim at ... Hangarau Marae in p: . Bethlehem, Tauranga.
Persons affected by this claim who should have notice of it are:
(i) The Treasury, Box 3724, Wellington.
(ii) The Tauranga District Council, Private Bag, Tauranga.
(iii)Kaimai Hydropower Limited, P 0 Box 13305, Tauranga.
(iv) Trust Power Limited, Private Bag, Tauranga.
(v) Kaimai Hydropower, P 0 Box 9015, Greerton, Tauranga.
(vi) All other persons. who may have lodged or who may lodge claims with the Tribunal concerning or touching any of the matters in respect of which this claim is made.
Notices for the claimants should be sent to the offices of Messrs Cooney Lees & Morgan, Solicitors, 87 1st Avenue, (PO Box 1431, l'auranga.
...... (20 March 1995) Michael Tane O'Brien APPENDIX TWO: DIRECTION COMMISSIONING . RESEARCH OFFICIAL
WAI 215 i ) RECEIVED 1
WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
CONCERNING watyof Waitangi - Act 1975
AND CONCERNING the Tauranga raupatu
. . . DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH
1 Pursuant to clause SA(1) of the second schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal commissions Rachel Willan, of Wellington to complete research reports for this claim covering the following matters:
the acquisition of land for the Katikati railway station and circumstances surrounding -j the recent disposal of the land and railway buildings.
the ownership of the Wairoa river and any other issues of relevance with regard to the river.
an analysis of the Maori Land Information Office block histories of certain blocks identified in the Wai 362 statement of claim, and any further research deemed necessary: QrsI;: 1 zyj 2 Weraroa Lots in the Parish of Te Papa 0tauna Moukunui
an account of the taking of land under the Public Works Act from the following blocks, with special emphasis on land taken for power stations and other electricity purposes: Omanawa Kaimai no.3 Whaitikuranui Paengaroa Page 2. This commission ......
*-- Zage 2. Wai 21 5, Willan.
2 This commission commences on receipt of written conf~rmationof the commissionee's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the commission.
3 The commission ends on 9 August 1996 at which time one copy of each report will be filed in unbound form together with an indexed document bank and a copy of each report on disk.
4 The report may be received as evidence and the cornmissionee may be cross examined on it.
5 The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to:
Rachel Willan Claimants Counsel for Claimants Solicitor General, Crown ~awOffice Director, Office of Treaty Settlements secretary, Crown Forestry Rental Trust Director, Te Puni Kokiri
Dated at Wellington this day of March 1996.
Chairperson WAITANGI TRIBUNAL OFF1Cl AL - =& 3- 16
&'---. &'---. . ,. WAI 215
WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
AND the Tauranga raupatu , . , claims
1 Pursuant to clause 5A(1) of the 2nd schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, Rachael Willan of Wellington was commissioned on 29 March 1996 to prepare a research report for Wai 215 the deadline for which was 9 August 1996.
2 An extension to the deadline has been agreed to and the new completion date is 30 September 1996.
. 3 The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to: -I
Rachael Willan 'Claimants Claimant Counsel Solicitor General, crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Secretary, Crown Forestry Rental Trust
Dated at Wellington this 17%.day of July 1996.
Chairperson Waitangi Tribunal APPENDIX THREE: MAPS. FIGURE 1 : LOCATION MAP ys;%
- Highways - Rivers F' Location of blocks covered in report MAORI SETTLEMENT IN THE CONFISCATED MILITARY SETTLEMENT IN THE CONFISCATE[: BLOCK BLOCK d PARENT BLOCK - HYDRO ELECTRIC ACQUISITION LAND FOR ELECTRICITY
I I
iroa River catchment
Ngamuwahine River
Te Ahuru Stream
- - - canal ------tunnel
Powerhouses 1 Ruahihi 2 McLaren Falls 3 Lower Mangapapa 4 Lloyd Mandeno 5 Ornanawa Falls ioutce: Hydro-electric development in the Wairoa River Catchment 0 1 2 3krn 7sheries Repo/t NGAMANAWA LANDS 1965 - 71
Informal grazing lease 0Timber cutting rights valid in 1868 I;"-";"] Maori land sold 1966 -71
mmmmmn~Maori land 1971
I Some: Evelyn Stokes, Ngamanawa Fig 7 WN - Block bondaries in 1980's
- - Partitions 1912 - 13 - Roads
Source: Evelyn Stokes, Ngamanawa Fig 6 *z