Received Equal Treatment from the Crown

Wai 2500, #A254

Māori Returned Servicemen and the Omana, Awamate, Huramua, and Rakaukaka Farm Settlements, Gisborne and Wairoa District, c. 1920 – 1958

Esther McGill

5 June 2020

Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2500)

The Author

Esther McGill is an historian based in Wellington. Esther holds a Master of Arts (first class) in History from the University of Melbourne, and a Bachelor of Arts (Honours, first class) in History from Victoria University, Wellington. She worked as an independent contractor for the Waitangi Tribunal Unit from 2007 to 2010, providing drafting assistance to Waitangi Tribunal panels. Esther returned to the Waitangi Tribunal Unit in 2019, initially with the Report Writing Team, and subsequently with the Research Services Team where she has assisted with preparatory work and claims analysis for the Mana Wāhine Inquiry (Wai 2700). She was previously contracted to undertake historical research and writing for academics at universities in Auckland and Melbourne, including conducting archival research on the Waipa River.

Acknowledgements

This report could not have been completed without the input and support of a number of people, for which the author is very grateful.

The author would like to thank the claimants and their counsel, David Stone, for their correspondence in the early stages of this report. Jody Toroa and Stan Pardoe provided key information for chapter 4 of this report.

The author is also grateful for the help provided by staff at several archival institutions. Christine Edney aided with accessing military personnel archives held at the New Zealand Defence Force Personnel Archives in Trentham. Stephanie van Gaalen aided with accessing a large quantity of files in a short amount of time at Archives New Zealand’s regional office in Auckland. Staff at Archives New Zealand’s regional office in Wellington provided assistance on numerous occasions.

Within the Waitangi Tribunal Unit, Noel Harris helped with maps and plans, including creating the maps that appear throughout the report. Suzanne Woodley provided supervision throughout the research and drafting process.

Contents

The Author ...... 3 Acknowledgements ...... 3 List of Maps ...... 6 List of Figures ...... 6 List of Tables ...... 6 Map 1: The Awamate, Huramua, Omana, and Rakaukaka Farm Settlements within the Gisborne and Wairoa inquiry districts ...... 8 Introduction ...... 9 Background to this report ...... 9 The Claims ...... 11 Structure of this report ...... 12 Methodology of this report ...... 13 Chapter 1 – The Legislative and Policy Framework ...... 15 Background context ...... 15 Post-World War One Legislation ...... 15 Post-World War Two Legislation ...... 18 Chapter 2 – Omana Settlement ...... 23 Map 2: The Omana Settlement location on a present-day topographical map ...... 23 Introduction ...... 23 The Claims ...... 24 Background ...... 24 Establishment of the Omana Settlement ...... 25 The Ballot ...... 30 Conclusion ...... 37 Chapter 3 – Awamate and Huramua Settlements ...... 39 Map 3: The Awamate Settlement and Huramua Settlement locations on a present-day topographical map ...... 39 Introduction ...... 39 The Claims ...... 40 Background ...... 40 Map 4: The Awamate Settlement location on a present-day topographical map ...... 42 Awamate Settlement ...... 42 Selection Process ...... 47 The Ballot ...... 48

Map 5: The Huramua Settlement location on a present-day topographical map ...... 52 Huramua Settlement ...... 52 Selection Process and Balloting ...... 55 The Settlers ...... 58 Conclusion ...... 64 Chapter 4 – Rakaukaka Farm Settlement ...... 65 Map 6: The Rakaukaka Farm Settlement location on a present-day topographical map ...... 65 Introduction ...... 65 The Claims ...... 66 Establishment of the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement ...... 67 Selection Process and Balloting ...... 69 The Settlers ...... 77 Conclusion ...... 81 Conclusion ...... 83 Bibliography ...... 88 Primary Sources ...... 88 Archives ...... 88 Newspapers ...... 93 Other official publications ...... 94 Maps and plans ...... 94 Documents on the Waitangi Tribunal Record of Inquiry ...... 95 Research Reports ...... 95 Documents ...... 95 Memoranda ...... 96 Briefs of Evidence ...... 96 Websites ...... 96 Appendix 1: Memorandum-Directions Commissioning Research ...... 98

List of Maps

Map 1: The Awamate, Huramua, Omana, and Rakaukaka Farm Settlements within the Gisborne and Wairoa inquiry districts …………………………………………………………..………………………..………….…... 8

Map 2: The Omana Settlement location on a present-day topographical map ……………………..…….... 23

Map 3: The Awamate Settlement and Huramua Settlement location on a present-day topographical map …………………………………………………………..…………………….………………………………………..….…. 39

Map 4: The Awamate Settlement location on a present-day topographical map ………………………….. 42

Map 5: The Huramua Settlement location on a present-day topographical map …………………..…...… 52

Map 6: The Rakaukaka Settlement location on a present-day topographical map ………………………... 65

List of Figures

Figure 1: Omana Settlement land sale poster, map of sections 1-11 (sections 1-9 outlined in red), 26 April 1920 ………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………….. 26

Figure 2: Awamate Settlement land sale poster, map of sections 1-6, also showing Aranui 1B (marked as Aranui No.1 Block), 7 May, 1930 …………………………………………………………………..……………. 43

Figure 3: Plan of Huramua Block (the location of Huramua Settlement) beside Awamate Settlement, 1958 ..………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………….…………. 55

Figure 4: Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, plan of sections 1-11, 1951 ……………………………………………… 68

Figure 5: Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, plan of amalgamation of sections 9 and 7, 1957..…………..… 76

List of Tables

Table 1: Land for sale or lease to discharged soldiers in Omana Settlement, 26 April 1920 ………… 30

Table 2: Omana Settlement Ballot, 1920 …………………………………………………………….………………………. 32

Table 3: Successful ballot applicants matched to military records – Omana Settlement, 1920 ……. 33

Table 4: Ohuka Settlement Ballot …………..…………………………..………………………………………………..….…. 35

Table 5: Ardkeen Settlement Ballot ……………..…………………..…………………………………………….…...….…. 36

Table 6: Successful ballot applicants matched to military records – Awamate Settlement, 1930.... 50

Table 7: Successful ballot applicants matched to military records – Huramua Settlement, 1950 …. 59

Table 8: Settlers on Huramua Settlement in 1956 ……………………………………………………………….………. 62

Table 9: Names of the successful applicants – Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, at 1958 .…………….…… 77

Map 1: The Awamate, Huramua, Omana, and Rakaukaka Farm Settlements within the Gisborne and Wairoa inquiry districts

This map shows the locations and approximate areas of the settlements based on the settlement and block plans located during research for this report. See footnote for sources.1

1 Taramarama S.D., A.W. Hampton, 1938, New Zealand Department of Lands and Survey, https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE3646113 accessed 13 January 2020; Plan of Wairoa County Hawkes Bay L.D., 1934, New Zealand Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, National Library of New Zealand, https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26795882 accessed 22 January 2020; Patutahi Survey District plan, 1957, New Zealand Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, National Library of New Zealand, https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE3646133 accessed 22 January 2020; Rakaukaka Block plan, Archives NZ, BANF 694/29/b 4/34 8, R21489288; Awamate Settlement, Land Sale Map, 1930, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 431, R675586; Omana Settlement land sale poster, 26 April 1920, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 377, R675581; Plan of Lots 1 to 8 being part Hurumua Nos 1&3, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/39/d 4/126 1, R412808; Rakaukaka Block plan, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/27/b 4/34 4, R21489284

Introduction

This report has been prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal’s Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2500). Claimants in this inquiry have raised issues of alleged discrimination in the Crown allocation of land to Pākehā returned servicemen, to the exclusion of Māori returned servicemen from the area. The issue of soldier settlement generally is covered by Dr Terry J Hearn in ‘The economic rehabilitation of Maori military veterans’.2 This report provides details at a more local level of how the Crown acquired and allocated land for the Omana Settlement, Awamate Settlement, Huramua Settlement, and Rakaukaka Farm Settlement in the Gisborne-Wairoa area (see Map 1). The government established these farming settlements for returned servicemen following World War One (1914-1918) and World War Two (1939-1945), as part of the lands for military service strategy. The settlements were established between 1920 and 1949 under legislation including the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915, the Land for Settlement Act 1925, and the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943. Further detail about these Acts is outlined below.

An outline is provided of how the Crown acquired the land for these settlements, the process by which settlements were allocated to returned servicemen, who the successful applicants were, and whether they were Māori. The report considers whether the allocation of these settlements reflected the soldier settlement policy of the time in relation to Māori returned servicemen. The settlements examined in this report were selected based on information provided by claimants to the inquiry, outlined below.

Background to this report

Chief Judge Isaac, presiding officer for the Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2500), set the scope of the inquiry in directions issued on 25 September 2014. In April 2016, a pre-casebook research discussion paper was prepared for the inquiry. The pre-casebook review recommended three major research reports be prepared to cover the gaps identified in the existing literature. On 25 August 2016, Chief Judge Isaac issued directions approving three major research projects. The first of these projects was subsequently divided into three parts, and by August 2018 five research reports had been completed and filed on the Wai 2500 record of inquiry. These reports were: Terence Green, ‘Māori Military Service for the Crown, 1840-1899’, Ross Webb, ‘Equality and Autonomy: An Overview of Māori Military Services for the Crown circa 1899-1945’, Philip Cleaver, ‘Māori and Military Service for the Crown, 1946-2017’, Kesaia Walker, ‘Health and Social Impacts of Māori Military Service for the Crown, 1845-present’, and Terry J Hearn, ‘The economic rehabilitation of Maori military veterans’.3

2 T J Hearn, ‘The economic rehabilitation of Maori military veterans’, 15 May 2018, Wai 2500, #A248 3 Memorandum-Directions of the Chairperson Concerning the Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry, 25 September 2014, Wai 2500, #2.5.1; Cathy Marr, ‘Military Veterans Inquiry Wai 2500 Pre-casebook Research Discussion Paper’, April 2016, Wai 2500, #6.2.1; Terence Green, ‘Māori Military Service for the Crown, 1840- 1899’, 3 April 2018, Wai 2500, #A246; Ross Webb, ‘Equality and Autonomy: An Overview of Māori Military Service for the Crown circa 1899-1945’, 30 April 2018, Wai 2500, #A247; Philip Cleaver, ‘Māori and Military Service for the Crown, 1946-2017’, 28 August 2018, Wai 2500, #A250; Kesaia Walker, ‘Health and Social

In July 2019, a casebook review was prepared for the inquiry that examined the evidential coverage of each of these five reports. This review recommended further research into specific claims concerning the soldier settlement at Nuhaka. Hearn’s report, ‘The economic rehabilitation of Maori military veterans’ provides an overview of returned soldier settlement. The casebook review recommended a further short research project on the practical implementation of soldier settlement for the Nuhaka (also known as Omana) Settlement.4

On 28 August 2019, a group of fourteen claimant counsel responded to the casebook review, supporting the proposal for gap-filling research in a joint memorandum. They suggested that the project ‘be targeted to further investigate the allocation for these settlements and what that can illustrate by way of case studies about the practical implementation of the policy for Māori ex- servicemen at that time’, by extending the project to include settlements in Huramua (sometimes called Hurumua), Manutuke, and Muriwai, in the Wairoa and Gisborne region.5

In November 2019, Chief Judge Isaac commissioned research into the allocation of sections in Omana, Huramua, Manutuke, and Muriwai. The research was to address the following questions:

1 How were sections allocated to military veterans in the soldier settlements of Omana (Nuhaka); Huramua/Hurumua; Manutuke (Opou Station) and Muriwai? a. What was the extent of that allocation to Māori ex-servicemen and why? 2 To what extent were the sections allocated to military veterans who served in the New Zealand armed forces? 3 To what extent did the allocation of these sections reflect soldier settlement policy for Māori veterans applying at the time?6

A copy of the commissioning memorandum-directions is appended to this report (see Appendix 1). Research has established that the settlements described in the commission as Manutuke (Opou Station) and Muriwai refer to the same settlement, by the name of Rakaukaka Farm Settlement. In addition, the Awamate Settlement has been identified as relevant in the Huramua area and for this reason is examined alongside the Huramua Settlement.

Key terminology and spelling This report uses various terms to refer to soldiers returned from war reflecting the various descriptions at the time and since. Military veteran, veteran, returned soldier, ex-service personnel, ex-servicemen,

Impacts of Māori Military Service for the Crown, 1845-present’, 31 August 2018, Wai 2500, #A251; and T J Hearn, ‘The economic rehabilitation of Maori military veterans’, 15 May 2018, Wai 2500, #A248 4 Suzanne Woodley, ‘Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2500) Casebook Review’, 22 July 2019, Wai 2500, #6.2.2, pp 26, 39; Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248 5 Joint Memorandum of Counsel regarding Submissions and Recommendations on the Casebook Review, 28 August 2019, Wai 2500, #3.1.549, pp 3-4 6 Memorandum-Directions Commissioning Research, 21 November 2019, Wai 2500, #2.3.24, (see appendix 1, attached)

10 and returned servicemen all refer to soldiers returned from war. The term servicemen is used as all those awarded sections in these settlements were men.

The spelling of Māori place names varies considerably throughout the sources consulted for this report. Where possible these have been checked and identified, but errors and inconsistencies may remain.

Macrons for Māori words have been used throughout the report except when they do not appear in the original source or title. Macrons have been used when discussing the 28th Māori Battalion, the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion, and the Māori Contingent, consistent with the 28th Māori Battalion website.

The Claims

The focus of this report is on claims relating to soldier settlements in the Wairoa and Gisborne region. The relevant claims are described briefly below.

Omana Settlement Miniata Westrupp and Huia Joy Brown submitted a claim to the Military Veterans Inquiry (Wai 2500) on behalf of Rongomaiwahine (Wai 983) in 2010.7 During the second week of the inquiry’s oral hearings, held at Omahu Marae in Hastings in October 2015, Tiemi Whaanga presented a brief of evidence for his brother, Rangiwaho Whaanga, in support of this claim.8 Tiemi Whaanga stated in evidence that the Crown provided land to Pākehā returned soldiers, in particular the farms allocated in the Omana Valley, Nuhaka, to the exclusion of local Māori.9 The Omana Settlement is examined in chapter 2.

Awamate and Huramua Settlements In 2014 and 2016, Turi Stone, Tamati Pohatu, Nolan Raihania, and Bishop Brown Turei (Wai 1344) filed a claim that raised concerns about the Crown’s system of land distribution to military veterans, in particular Māori veterans not being offered land in the Crown’s soldier settlement schemes prior to and following World War Two.10 Several briefs of evidence were filed in support of these claims.11 Wi Te Tau Huata and Hira Huata both submitted briefs of evidence regarding land that they stated their

7 Amended Statement of Claim, 1 February 2010, Wai 983, #1.1(d) 8 Tiemi Whaanga, Oral Hearing Transcript, 21 October 2015, Wai 2500, #4.1.3, pp 438-455; Tiemi (Jim) Whaanga for Rangiwaho Whaanga, Brief of Evidence, 21 October 2015, Wai 2500, #A61 9 Tiemi (Jim) Whaanga for Rangiwaho Whaanga, Wai 2500, #A61, pp 15-16 10 Amended Statement of Claim, 21 November 2014, Wai 1344, #1.1.1(b); Amended Statement of Claim, 28 June 2016, Wai 1344, #1.1.1(c) 11 Wi Te Tau Huata, Brief of Evidence, 3 November 2015, Wai 2500, #A62; Hira Huata, Brief of Evidence, 21 October 2015, Wai 2500, #A63; George Tawhai, Brief of Evidence, Brief of Evidence, 21 October 2015, Wai 2500, #A64; Nolan Raihania, Brief of Evidence, 12 June 2015, Wai 2500, #A3; Most Reverend William Brown Turei, Brief of Evidence, 15 June 2015, Wai 2500, #A5; Hori Hokianga, Brief of Evidence, 4 October 2016, Wai 2500, #A228

11 great grandfather, Reverend Hemi Pititi Huata, contributed to the returned soldier settlement schemes at Huramua and Awamate in Wairoa, only for no veterans from that area to be awarded sections.12 Both the Awamate and Huramua Settlements are discussed in chapter 3.

Rakaukaka Settlement Nolan Raihania, Turi Pohatu Stone, and Temple Isaacs also presented briefs of evidence. These briefs also stated that there was a lack of support offered by the Crown to Māori returned soldiers of Muriwai and Manutuke and that only Pākehā veterans were allocated soldier settlement land.13

Hori Hokianga, himself a veteran, provided the most detailed evidence in his brief on the soldier settlement in Manutuke, located at Opou Station on Papatu Road. In order to identify the official Crown name of that settlement for research purposes, further information was sought from claimants through their counsel, Mr David Stone. Claimant Mr Stan Pardoe provided the names of eight settlers awarded sections on a settlement located around Papatu Road and the Rakaukaka block.14 Seven of the names provided by Mr Pardoe match the names of the settlers awarded sections at Rakaukaka Farm Settlement. The Rakaukaka Farm Settlement is located on Papatu Road on the Rakaukaka land block at Manutuke and is discussed in chapter 4.

Structure of this report

This report focuses on the practical implementation of allocating land to returned soldiers in the Omana, Awamate, Huramua, and Rakaukaka Settlements. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the legislative framework relevant to the settlements addressed in this report, as established by Hearn. Each of the three settlement chapters consists of a brief summary of the claim issues raised about the settlement or settlements covered in that chapter. An outline of the Crown acquisition and subdivision of the land to be used for each settlement followed with a discussion of the process of application, selection for the ballot, and successful allocations of sections to returned soldiers. Each chapter has a short concluding section and a final concluding chapter draws together the relevant issues and experience of soldier settlement over all the settlements.

Chapter 2 investigates the Omana Settlement, located near Nuhaka in the Wairoa district, and established by the Crown following World War One. All the Omana Settlement settlers were returned servicemen.

Chapter 3 considers two settlements; Awamate and Huramua. Claimants linked these settlements in their evidence due to their location on neighbouring land in Wairoa. The Awamate Settlement was established in 1930, between the First and Second World Wars, with the Huramua Settlement created

12 Wi Te Tau Huata, Wai 2500, #A62, pp 3-5; Hira Huata, Wai 2500, #A63, pp 2-5 13 Nolan Raihania, Wai 2500, #A3, paras 3, 38-39; Turi Pohatu Stone, Brief of Evidence, Wai 2500, #A4, paras 8, 11; Temple Isaacs, Brief of Evidence, Wai 2500, #A28, paras 9, 13; Wai 2500 Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry, Oral Hearing Week 1, 24-26 August 2015, Transcript Document, Wai 2500, #4.1.2 14 Hori Hikianga, Wai 2500, #A228, p 2; Email correspondence from Stan Pardoe via David Stone, 30 October 2019

12 following World War Two. The two settlements are investigated separately within the chapter, with a short conclusion drawing the two together. The ballot for sections in the Awamate Settlement was open to the public, particularly those struggling to acquire land. The ballot was not restricted to returned servicemen, although some returned servicemen were successful in the ballot and were allocated sections of land. The allocation of land in the Huramua Settlement was restricted to Māori returned servicemen and occurred gradually over a period of approximately eight years between 1947 and 1955. Ballots for sections were held intermittently as the farm transitioned from being a training farm and sections were subdivided off and made ready for settlement.

Chapter 4 investigates the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, established after World War Two and located near Manutuke in the Gisborne district. Sections in Rakaukaka were allocated through six separate processes over a period of around nine years between 1949 and 1958. All the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement settlers were returned servicemen.

The final concluding chapter draws together conclusions for each settlement and overarching conclusions on the practical implementation of soldier settlement policy for Māori veterans in the Wairoa-Gisborne settlements.

Methodology of this report

An extensive search of Archives New Zealand was conducted through Archway, the online search aid. The search was made for records specific to the settlements considered in this report, and all files with Omana, Huramua, Hurumua, Awamate, or Rakaukaka in their title have been assessed for relevance. These records provided information establishing how the Crown acquired the land for these settlements, the process by which sections were allocated to returned servicemen, and who the successful applicants were.

The most useful sources located were the government records of the Lands and Survey and Māori Affairs departments, as well as the New Zealand Defence Force military personnel records held at Archives New Zealand in Wellington. Land Information New Zealand’s Gisborne branch office records on Rakaukaka Farm Settlement held at Archives New Zealand in Auckland also proved useful, as did the military personnel files held at the New Zealand Defence Force Military Personnel Archives on Trentham military base, Upper Hutt.

Some records at Archives New Zealand are categorised as restricted access only. Permission to view several restricted records relevant to these settlements was granted during the research process, allowing for them to be viewed. However several requests remained outstanding when the lockdown restrictions were implemented by the New Zealand Government due to COVID-19, which meant it was no longer feasible to gain access to further archival records within the timeframe of this report.

Many of the records restricted by Archives New Zealand, including all military personnel files, contain sensitive and personal information. This material has been handled with sensitivity and care, and only the information relevant to the report has been included.

Local newspapers, including the Hastings Standard and Poverty Bay Herald, accessed through Papers Past, have been utilised. These were particularly useful for their coverage of the settlement ballots, to supplement Lands and Survey files where records documenting the ballot process were not located.15

A database developed on behalf of the 28th Māori Battalion Association by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in partnership with Te Puni Kōkiri, the National Library of New Zealand, and the Ministry of Education records the names listed on both the 28th Māori Battalion roll and the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion roll (including those who served in the Māori Contingent, also known as the Native Contingent).16 This database has been utilised to determine whether veterans allocated sections in the settlements discussed in this report served in the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion, the 28th Māori Battalion, or with the Māori Contingent. It is acknowledged that some Māori served outside these Māori units, and sometimes with Europeanised names. Other sources, such as Rehabilitation files, have been used where possible to further identify official personnel records that might reveal Māori heritage. The result is that while it is not possible to be sure all the settlers receiving sections were definitely Pākehā (other than at Huramua), numbers who might have been Māori were likely very small.

For some settlements, such as Omana and Rakaukaka where all the settlers were returned servicemen, it was possible to identify the names of the successful applicants (by such means as the local Commissioner of Crown Lands and local newspapers) selected from the ballot and then to match those against military personnel records held at Archives New Zealand or the New Zealand Defence Force Military Personnel Archives, Trentham.

Dr Hearn’s report has provided the framework for government policy and legislation relevant to these settlements, therefore this report has only considered additional information in this regard where necessary and instead uses Hearn’s framework to assess the settlements addressed in this report.

15 Papers Past is a database of digitised newspapers available through the National Library of New Zealand website: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers 16 The 28th Māori Battalion website: https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/about-this-site

Chapter 1 – The Legislative and Policy Framework

Background context

Dr Hearn’s report, entitled ‘The economic rehabilitation of Maori military veterans’, provides the general background and context to the settlements examined in this report. In particular, Hearn discusses the relevant government legislation, policy, and practice of soldier resettlement as was practically implemented for Māori soldier settlement in the Omana, Awamate, Huramua, and Rakaukaka Settlements. Hearn discusses several general issues concerning soldier settlement for Māori including the adequacy and appropriateness of post-war rehabilitation for Māori, as well as whether Māori received equal treatment from the Crown. Although there was no overt discrimination by the Crown, Hearn establishes that the failure of the Crown to reach out effectively to Māori in effect created barriers to access.17

Offering land as an inducement to enlist and as a reward for service in the armed forces is a long- established tradition throughout world history. As Hearn outlines in his report, in New Zealand the practice of settling returned service personnel on the land was also part of the government’s ‘long- term commitment to closer settlement’ and ‘an important step towards completing the “colonial project”’, which was essentially to assimilate Māori into Pākehā society. Furthermore, Hearn records that in both Māori and Pākehā communities, offering land to returned soldiers was widely regarded as an important means of retaining young men in rural districts ‘in the face of a steadily growing drift to the country’s towns and cities’.18 The New Zealand government established legislation for the rehabilitation of returning soldiers through land settlement schemes following World War One and World War Two.

Post-World War One Legislation

The legislative framework that governed the Crown’s approach to land settlement differed following each of the World Wars. Following World War One, the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915 (and its amendments) provided the framework under which the soldier settlement programme was implemented by the Crown, as is relevant to the Omana Settlement discussed in chapter 2. The Discharged Soldiers Settlement Amendment Act 1917 added provision for financial assistance. Under the 1915 Act, the settlement scheme was implemented and administered by eleven district land boards, each chaired by the local Commissioner of Crown Lands. Land boards were comprised of four members in addition to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, two of whom were elected and two appointed. No requirement was made for one or more of the members to be Māori. The land boards established under this legislation carried out all the business associated with the settlement of Crown lands, with the Commissioner overseeing all the accompanying transactions.19 The nearest land board offices under the World War One and World War Two legislation and relevant to the settlements

17 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 119 18 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 118-119, 452 19 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 126-127

15 considered in this report were in Gisborne and Napier and covered the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne region.

To qualify for land under the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915, applicants had to meet four conditions. These conditions were:

1 To have been a member of any New Zealand Expeditionary Force; 2 To have served beyond New Zealand (i.e. overseas); 3 To have returned to New Zealand; and 4 To have been discharged.

No condition was made of having been born in New Zealand, so long as the applicant had served in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force.20 The second condition, that of having served overseas, was extended by section 18 of the Repatriation Act 1918 to include those who had been serving in a military training camp on 12 November 1918, as World War One ended.21

One of the key concepts explored in Hearn’s report was that of equality of opportunity, or equal access, of Māori and Pākehā to Crown resettlement opportunities. Hearn notes that under these Acts, no distinction was made between Māori and Pākehā veterans, ‘enabling the Government of the day to claim that under the law both had equal access to the benefits of the rehabilitation programme’.22 Without any explicit discrimination of Māori, Hearn suggests that the Crown had theoretically provided equal opportunities to Māori and Pākehā returned soldiers, while in reality the process of accessing land in Crown resettlement schemes created practical barriers for Māori and favoured Pākehā. One of these barriers was the lack of reaching out to Māori on terms most likely to reach them such as by providing relevant material in te reo Māori. Hearn draws attention to the fact that the pamphlet distributed by the Crown setting out the benefits available to veterans under the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915 does not appear to have been published in te reo Māori, although the provisions of the Military Services Act 1916 were published by the government on posters printed in both English and te reo Māori in 1917.23

The potential language barrier was an additional strain to navigating the already difficult paperwork of returned service bureaucracy for te reo Māori speakers. Hearn discusses the difficulties faced by both Māori and Pākehā returned soldiers who ‘found navigating their way through the application procedures a challenge’. This challenge was increased for those ‘for whom English was a second language, whose education was limited, and [those] who lived distant from district repatriation board and committee offices’. Although Hearn found no evidence to suggest the Crown deliberately withheld information about services and opportunities available to returned soldiers, information may not have been widely available to Māori who returned home to often isolated communities.24

20 Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915 21 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 128 22 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 128 23 Application form, ‘Land for Discharged Soldiers’, New Zealand Government Printer, 1917, Te Papa Tongarewa, GH023328, https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/1274568 accessed 21 January 2020; Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 128 24 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 103

Whether materials were published and provided in te reo Māori is one of the matters assessed for each of the settlements considered in this report.

In addition to the Acts noted above, the allocation of land for returned servicemen following World War One also came under the administration of the Land Act 1908. The Land Act 1908 specified that when allocating land through a ballot system, landless applicants would be given preference, but the decision of the land board was deemed to be ‘final and conclusive’. Māori veterans with undivided shares in Māori land were able to participate in land ballots, as section 97(2) of the Land Act 1908 stipulated that holding an interest in Māori land that had not been partitioned did not count as land ownership. Another Act, the Land for Settlements Act 1908 also stipulated that landless applicants would be given preference and defined landlessness for an applicant as holding insufficient land ‘for the maintenance of himself and his family.’25 As well as being relevant to the Omana Settlement, the Land Act 1908 is also the legislation that applied in the case of the Awamate Settlement, discussed in chapter 3.

Section 4 of the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915, as described by Hearn, required applicants to complete an application form which included:

1 Specifying their experience ‘in the business for which he proposes to use the land, or in any other class of farming’; 2 Specifying the amount of capital the applicant had to invest in the land; and 3 Specifying the nature and amount of any assistance required to work the land successfully.

The application form for prospective settlers also contained questions around marital status, dependent children, details of service and discharge, pension status, and any disabilities. Hearn was unable to establish whether any of these application forms were printed in te reo Māori and cites Ᾱpirana Ngata’s ‘misgivings’ at the time about how Māori applicants, particularly those ‘with limited command of English’, managed in such circumstances.26

The role played by the district land boards and their associated Commissioner of Crown Lands was critical to the process of land allocation. They were responsible for determining an applicant’s eligibility to the settlement, then deciding ‘which of the applicants … is the most suitable to occupy the land, or is most in need of the land’, based on the applications received.27 Hearn identified that land boards based their decisions on ‘considerations additional to those specified in the [Discharged Soldiers Settlement] Act [1915] and the Regulations’, leaving the possibilities for eligibility wide open.28 Commissioners and land boards, Hearn observed, were given ‘considerable latitude’ to define exactly what was meant by terms such as ‘experience’ and ‘adequacy’.29 Essentially, it was up to the specific Commissioner and land board involved with each allocation process to determine the grounds

25 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 131-132 26 Application form, ‘Land for Discharged Soldiers’, New Zealand Government Printer, 1917, Te Papa Tongarewa, GH023328, https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/1274568 accessed 21 January 2020; Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 132-133, 136, 141-145 27 Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915, Regulation 3(1), as quoted in Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 132 28 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 136-137 29 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 137

17 on which they would decide who the eligible applicants were. There was no requirement for one or more members to be Māori and no requirement to consider Māori needs. The discretion of the land boards in each of the settlements considered for this report is assessed as far as possible with the sources located.

Furthermore, according to Hearn, ‘the State failed to recognise the kaupapa of Maori veteran rehabilitation’, namely the importance of the settlement of Māori veterans within the communities from which they enlisted. Instead, the policy of the Department of Lands and Survey was to settle Maori veterans away from their home communities ‘to ensure that they were not influenced by values, practices, and expectations deemed antithetical to successful (economic) rehabilitation’. Hearn cites this failure as a contributing factor to why, ‘according to the evidence available, only a very small number of Maori veterans sought rehabilitation assistance’.30 Hearn’s suggestion that not many Māori applied to Crown resettlement schemes because of a lack of recognition of their cultural needs, is one of the factors potentially contributing to the absence of Māori settlers in the settlements considered for this report.

The government, Hearn concluded, had intended for all returned soldiers, Māori and Pākehā alike, to ‘have equal access to the rehabilitation programme’. Hearn suggests, however, that the policy the government implemented in relation to land settlement and financial assistance for farming did not ‘generate the outcome assumed or expected, namely an approximately proportionate distribution of the benefits’. According to Hearn, despite an awareness by the government of this disparity, nothing was done to change the policy.31 Chapter 2 of this report explores Hearn’s suggestions of unequal distribution as they played out in the practical implementation of the government policy in the Omana Settlement.

Post-World War Two Legislation

During World War Two, the government sought to implement a different approach to land settlement for returned soldiers. This is relevant to the Huramua Settlement and Rakaukaka Farm settlement explored in chapters 3 and 4 of this report. The government, Hearn recorded, ‘set out to extract from the World War I programme of soldier settlement and its implementation all the lessons that could be employed to shape the new programme and to avert the difficulties into which its predecessor had fallen’. These difficulties largely centred around the expenditure of ‘large sums of State money’ to the benefit of ‘only a very small portion of returned soldiers’. In early 1942 the Rehabilitation Council and Rehabilitation Board were established to administer the new programme nationally.32

As well as focusing on expenditure, in 1941 a multi-agency government report into post-World War One soldier re-settlement outlined the problems experienced due to the lack of farming experience of veterans awarded land following World War One. The report recommended the implementation of a grading system and a training scheme. Three categories were suggested for the grading scheme:

30 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 258-259 31 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 258 32 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 281, 456, 460

1 Thoroughly experienced; 2 Limited experience, in need of further training; and 3 No experience.

The suggested training schemes, as documented by Hearn, included placement with approved private farmers, placement on training farms run by the Rehabilitation Board on land to be developed for subdivision and settlement by the Department of Lands and Survey, and enrolment in courses run by Lincoln and Massey Agricultural Colleges. The Rehabilitation Board agreed with the view that ‘land settlement facilities would be made available only to men “fully experienced on the land and that adequate training must be undertaken by those not fully experienced”’.33 This requirement was in addition to the requirements of military service, set out below. In 1943, the Rehabilitation Board recommended to the government that farming sub-committees be established to grade all applicants to the land sales conducted under the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943 (discussed further below). Applicants seeking assistance ‘were first considered by the local rehabilitation committees’. If the rehabilitation committee decided that the applicant ‘could “justify his establishment or re-establishment on his own account”’, they were then referred to a farming sub- committee for grading.34 Thirty-two sub-committees were established throughout New Zealand, including in Wairoa, Hastings, and Gisborne, as referred to in chapters 3 and 4 in relation to the Huramua Settlement and Rakaukaka Farm Settlement. The Board recommended the sub-committees grade applicants into four categories:

A. Fully experienced; B. Partially experienced; C. Totally inexperienced; and D. Unsuitable.

When Māori veterans applied for grading, ‘representatives of the local tribal executive committee and the Department of Native Affairs were entitled to attend and vote’, though no example of this was located in the files viewed for this report. According to Hearn, ‘[every] effort was made to ensure that consistently high grading standards were maintained and applied’ nationally. Furthermore, applicants were ‘required to maintain their grading’ by continuing to work in the field specified on their certification (for example dairy or sheep farming), proving ‘their willingness to commit’. A farm training programme was established in 1944 for returned servicemen graded ‘B’ and ‘C’. This programme sought to implement all the recommendations made in the 1941 report.35 The training farm at Huramua Station was established specifically for the training and grading of Māori returned servicemen.

The Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943 extended government control of the land market. As Hearn recorded, the Act ‘empowered the Crown to acquire (compulsorily, if need be) land and to control sales and leases of land in order to provide for and facilitate the settlement of

33 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 478 34 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 464-465, 478-479 35 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 464, 479-480

19 discharged personnel’. All the land acquired by the Crown for the settlements considered in this report was sold to the Crown voluntarily, not compulsorily acquired. Following this, in the Land Laws Amendment Act 1944, section 4 ‘accorded discharged servicemen preference at ballots for Crown lands’ conducted under the Act. Section 5 of this Act ‘provided that leases could be granted to discharged servicemen without competition’. Further sections of the Act extended land sale and lease opportunities to returned servicemen or their wives or widows. The Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Amendment Act 1948 extended the Crown’s ability to reacquire ‘Crown land held under lease or licence for the settlement of discharged ex-servicemen’.36

The Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943 defined ‘serviceman’ as ‘any person who, while ordinarily resident in New Zealand, has at any time during the present war [World War Two] (whether before or after the commencement of this Act)’:

(a) Served outside New Zealand as a member of any of His Majesty’s Naval, Military, or Air Forces; or (b) Served in New Zealand as a member of the training staff of any of His Majesty’s Forces; or (c) Served in New Zealand as a member of any of His Majesty’s Permanent Forces, or as a member of any of His Majesty’s Forces mobilized for continuous service within New Zealand; or (d) Served in any capacity in any British ship which while he was serving therein was damaged or destroyed as a result of enemy action, or in any other British ship which was not a home-trade ship within the meaning of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908.

The term ‘discharged serviceman’ was defined as ‘a serviceman who has received his discharge from any of His Majesty’s Forces’.37 In order to be eligible to the Huramua Settlement or Rakaukaka Farm Settlement therefore, applicants were required to have served in World War Two and to have subsequently been discharged. While this definition included service in any of the Commonwealth forces, applicants were required to ‘ordinarily’ live in New Zealand, although the exact terms of this were not specified in the Act so were presumably left to the land boards to determine.

Hearn documents the role played by the Department of Native Affairs in the early 1940s which led to the side-lining of the ‘well organised and energetic Maori War Effort Organisation’ in the rehabilitation programme. Hearn recorded that the Under Secretary of Native Affairs ‘expected that Maori ex- servicemen would prefer to pursue their rehabilitation aspirations and plans through the Department rather than through the Rehabilitation Board’, proposing that the Department of Native Affairs ‘play a key if not pivotal role in the rehabilitation of Maori ex-service personnel’. The Rehabilitation Board’s report for the year ended 31 March 1943 suggests that they were indeed convinced by this, recording that the Department of Native Affairs ‘will provide for the agricultural rehabilitation of Maori ex- servicemen’. Hearn recorded one Rehabilitation Board member who ‘was a little more cautious’, indicating that ‘he was anxious “to see more soldier settlements for the Maori than were provided after the 1914-18 war. Very few returned Maori soldiers were put on the land”’.38 This member, named Cullen, ‘expressed the hope “that this time the returned Maori soldiers will not be excluded from the ordinary discharged soldier-settlement scheme, for a greater assistance will be given under

36 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 469-471 37 Servicemen's Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943 38 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 507

20 this measure than is possible under the Native Land Act 1931, good as that is”’.39 Cullen, Hearn concludes, ‘was clearly in no doubt that settlement through the Rehabilitation Board’s scheme was for Maori ex-servicemen the advantageous and preferred option’ to that of the Department of Native Affairs.40 The separation of Māori and Pākehā rehabilitation schemes potentially created the view, to both Māori and Pākehā, that Māori had their own rehabilitation system, and settlements offered by the Rehabilitation Department were therefore regarded as being for Pākehā. No Māori applicants were recorded in relation to the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, only with Huramua, suggesting that the practical implementation of these schemes may have been divided between Māori and Pākehā, with Māori not knowing about or not considering themselves qualified for entry into general land ballots.

Hearn identified several factors as problematic in providing for equal access to land ballots for Māori and Pākehā returned soldiers. These included the requirement of an ‘A’ grade farming certificate as well as proof of sufficient finances, as many Māori returned soldiers may have found these difficult to access. Hearn also demonstrated widespread misgivings throughout parts of the Rehabilitation Department ‘over the ability of Maori soldier settlers to manage their financial affairs’.41 This concern apparently led to the practice of Māori returned soldiers being allocated sections in settlements where they were required to work for wages for a specified time period, at the end of which it was assessed whether they were ‘capable of managing [their] financial affairs unaided’, as was the case with Huramua Settlement. Hearn also identified the potential for Māori returned soldiers seeking access to farm settlements to be directed towards, and potentially restricted to, areas or districts identified as ‘Maori districts’. Although he was unable to establish how such restrictions worked in practice, Hearn identified that Māori often received farm grading certificates subject to certain conditions. For example, an ‘A’ grade certificate could be restricted by a clause such as ‘subject to supervision from the Department of Maori Affairs’, or by limiting the qualification to ‘the Maori Land Court district within which he normally resided’. Hearn demonstrated that by modifying grading certificates in these ways, Māori were potentially being excluded from participating in what the Minister of Rehabilitation in 1946 called ‘Pakeha land ballots’.42 In the Huramua Settlement, applications were restricted to returned servicemen with ‘A’ grade farming certificates for dairy farming who were from Wairoa. Furthermore, settlers on Huramua were accepted on a probation period of 12 months, during which time they needed to satisfy the resident supervisor they were capable farmers. The Pākehā applicants to Rakaukaka Farm Settlement also had conditions on their grading certificates, including geographical and farm-type (dairy, sheep, or orchard) restrictions. However, the restrictions on the grading certificates of the Pākehā applicants did not include requirements such as supervision.

Many other New Zealand historians have also contributed to the discussion of the settlement of Māori veterans on land after the two World Wars. Hearn cites several historians asserting that the Crown did not provide land equally to Māori and Pākehā veterans, with Pākehā servicemen often being settled on land purchased from Māori owners. ‘The dominant narrative’, Hearn concludes, ‘is thus one of exclusion’, resulting in the question of ‘whether or not such exclusion was a deliberate policy choice’.43 Hearn records that the Department of Native Affairs secured a ‘pivotal role in the

39 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 507 40 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 507, 525-526 41 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 605 42 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 604-609 43 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 604-609

21 rehabilitation programme’, leading the formation of a programme with limited opportunities for Māori. Although the government policy on which the programme was run contained equal access as a founding principal, ‘in practice access for Maori veterans was significantly constrained’.44

This report aims to provide some insights into the Crown’s practical rehabilitation of returned soldiers on land through an examination of the settlement process undertaken at the Omana, Awamate, Huramua, and Rakaukaka Settlements. The report will investigate how sections were allocated in these settlements, to what extent they were allocated to returned soldiers, to what extent the settlers were Māori, and to what extent the allocation of these sections reflected the government policy at the time. The suggestions made by Hearn about the lack of equal access for Māori and Pākehā to Crown settlements will be tested in relation to each of the settlements considered in this report.

44 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 125

Chapter 2 – Omana Settlement

Map 2: The Omana Settlement location on a present-day topographical map

Introduction

The Omana Settlement is located in Omana Valley, Nuhaka, in Wairoa County. The settlement comprised a total of eleven sections, nine of which were offered by the Crown for sale or lease to discharged soldiers in 1920. The Omana Settlement was established under the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915, as outlined in chapter 1. Hearn’s assertion that Māori were insufficiently included or provided for in the Crown rehabilitation programme following World War One will be assessed in relation to the Omana Settlement.

This chapter begins with an outline of the claims concerning the Omana Settlement and a summary of relevant material by Dr Hearn in his report for the Inquiry.45 This is followed by a closer examination of the Omana Settlement, including the extent to which the sections were allocated to military veterans who had served in the New Zealand armed forces, and to what extent the allocation of these sections reflected soldier settlement policy for Māori ex-servicemen applying at the time.

Government records and newspapers relating to the Omana Settlement have been examined, as well as the military personnel files of the men allocated sections. This examination of the Omana Settlement allocation process will begin with an outline of how the Crown acquired the land and

45 T J Hearn, ‘The economic rehabilitation of Maori military veterans’, Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry Research Report, Wai 2500, #A248

23 established the settlement, followed by the selection process and the ballot. The final section will offer some conclusions.

The Claims

Claimants to the Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2500) raised the issue that while local Māori had served in World War One, the government allocated land in Nuhaka to discharged British soldiers, not to local Māori returned soldiers. In his brief of evidence, Tiemi Whaanga stated that his family, and other Nuhaka families, contributed extensively to the New Zealand armed forces, including during the New Zealand Wars, World War One, World War Two, the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency, and the Vietnam War. He noted that ‘even though our people have served and defended the Crown, the Crown have continued to take our lands and treat us with less respect than others’.46

Tiemi Whaanga stated that the Crown ‘brought home’ to Nuhaka ten ex-soldiers from the British Armed Forces, awarding them ‘good quality land up the Omana Valley’. No land, he said, was given to his mother’s brothers Dave Horomona and Puruate Horomona, who served in the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion and suffered gassing in France. Tiemi Whaanga stated that his grandmother, Makere Gemmell, was greatly annoyed by this, and complained that it was ‘not fair that other European soldiers got land but not her sons’.47

Following the presentation of this brief of evidence at the second week of oral hearings for the inquiry (held at Omahu Marae in Hastings in October 2015), Chief Judge Isaac asked about the British soldiers Tiemi Whaanga had referred to. Tiemi Whaanga explained that the veterans the Crown brought to Omana Valley were not from the New Zealand Armed Forces but had come from ‘Lancaster and all that area’ in the United Kingdom. Chief Judge Isaac requested Tiemi Whaanga’s counsel provide the names of the ten British soldiers and these were forwarded to the Waitangi Tribunal in January 2016.48 Tiemi Whaanga’s lawyer was included in the group of counsel who submitted a joint memorandum supporting the proposal in the casebook review that the Waitangi Tribunal commission additional research into the allocation of sections in the Nuhaka (Omana) soldier resettlement schemes.49

Background

In his research report, Hearn provides a brief discussion of the Omana Settlement, including a summary of the section allocations. Hearn was able to establish that of the nine successful applicants, all were Pākehā, ‘or at least that they were not included in the Maori (Pioneer) Battalion roll’.50 However, he was not able to establish whether ‘Maori veterans were among the applicants, or among

46 Tiemi (Jim) Whaanga for Rangiwaho Whaanga, Wai 2500, #A61, pp 3-7, 15-16 47 Tiemi (Jim) Whaanga for Rangiwaho Whaanga, Wai 2500, #A61, pp 15, 16 48 Memorandum of Counsel, 8 January 2016, Wai 2500, #3.1.270; Hearing Transcript, 21 October 2015, Wai 2500, #4.1.3, pp 456-457; 49 Joint Memorandum of Counsel regarding Submissions and Recommendations on the Casebook Review, 28 August 2019, Wai 2500, #3.1.549, pp 1, 3-4 50 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 180-183

24 those rejected, or among those accepted into the ballot’ for the sections.51 This chapter considers the process of the ballot system by which farms in the Omana Settlement were allocated in more detail. In relation to the legislation relevant to the Omana Settlement, Hearn established that although it contained no overt discrimination between Māori and Pākehā veterans wanting to access land, the process as it was implemented did create barriers for Māori, leading to the unequal distribution of land.

Establishment of the Omana Settlement

The Omana Settlement was established in 1920 following the Crown purchase of approximately 927 acres from Hannah and George Ormond in 1919. The Ormond farm at Nuhaka had been known as Awa Station, but the Crown changed the name to Omana (a transliteration of Ormond) at the suggestion of W F Marsh, the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Napier.52 Marsh described the Ormond land as ‘a particularly good little Settlement’, that he had ‘coveted for three years for the Department’.53 It was the purchase of this Pākehā-owned land that led to the establishment of the settlement for retuned soldiers under the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915. The land was subdivided into eleven sections, nine of which made up the Omana Settlement (see Figure 1 below). Sections 10 and 11 were significantly smaller than sections 1 to 9, at just over one and two acres respectively, and were not included in the Omana Settlement.54

51 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 183 52 W F Marsh, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 21 November 1919, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/40/b 4/158 1, R412810; Memorandum from the Under Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, to the Minister of Lands, 2 December 1919, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1698 21/205, R21029195 53 W F Marsh, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 6 April 1920, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/40/b 4/158 1, R412810 54 Omana Settlement land sale poster, 26 April 1920, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 377, R675581; Wairoa County Clerk to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, 2 August 1935 and 17 January 1955, Archives NZ, AANS 5778 W5975/90 RES/13/8/10 1, R24831364

Figure 1: Omana Settlement land sale poster, map of sections 1-11 (sections 1-9 outlined in red), 26 April 1920

Source: Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 377, R675581

Selection Process Allocation of the Omana Settlement sections to discharged soldiers was determined by a ballot process administered by the Department of Lands and Survey. The ballot process in 1920, when allocations were made for Omana Settlement, involved four stages: advertising, applications being made, assessment of applicants by the department, and names being drawn from a ballot. The Omana Settlement was established under the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915 (and its amendments). The Omana Settlement met the legislative requirement of being implemented and administered by a district land board headed by a Commissioner for Crown Lands, namely the Napier Land Board and Commissioner.

No Department of Lands and Survey documents detailing the allocation process for the Omana Settlement have been found. Instead, most of the information located about the process as it was implemented has been sourced from reporting in local newspapers at the time, in particular the Hastings Standard and Poverty Bay Herald. Absent from any of the sources located is a record of the names of all the applicants for the ballot or detailed information about how applicants were assessed and the personal examination process. Some details, however, have been located and these are outlined below.

In March 1920, W F Marsh, the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Napier, sent a request to the Department of Lands and Survey in Wellington that 500 posters advertising the Omana Settlement be sent to the Napier Department of Lands and Survey office. The letter did not include a request for any of these posters be printed in te reo Māori. Nor did Marsh request for them to be sent to the Native Department to distribute or mention any way whereby the posters could be made available to local marae.55

Applications for the Omana Settlement opened at the beginning of May 1920. Local regional newspapers began advertising and reporting on the process, with the Hastings Standard promoting ‘Lands for Soldier Settlement’ at Ardkeen, Ohuka, and Omana Settlements on their front page on 3 May 1920.56 No te reo Māori advertisements were located and the articles about the upcoming land ballots did not mention anything about contact being made with local marae or Māori leaders or communities.

The posters advertising the Omana Settlement provided instructions in English on how to apply to the land ballot as well as details of what the process would entail, as set out by Marsh. Application forms for the Omana Settlement ballot were available at the Lands and Survey Offices in Napier and Gisborne, as well as at the post offices in the region, though the locations of these post offices were not specified. No mention of the posters or application forms being available at marae was recorded in the files examined for this report. Completed application forms were due to be submitted at these district Lands and Survey Offices by 1 June 1920, less than a month after being advertised in the newspaper.57 Copies of the application forms for the Omana ballot, completed or blank, were not located in government records so it could not be established whether they were also printed in te reo Māori.

Research established that posters in English were distributed to post offices and Lands and Survey Offices. Regional newspapers advertised the settlement in English, but not te reo Māori. The application forms would have been printed in English and there is no record that they were also printed in Māori. The complete lack of te reo Māori information available suggests, at the very least, that the government did not take measures to specifically include Māori in the Omana Settlement ballot. There is no record in the files examined for this report of the government making any effort ensure that Māori returned soldiers were notified about the settlement or had the information about it made available to them in te reo Māori.

In addition to the application forms, applicants had to provide the required deposit, and documentary proof of their financial position. The poster advertising the settlement stipulated in English that ‘bank pass-books, certificates or letters of credit from managers of banks, financial institutions, or mercantile firms, or from private persons or parents undertaking to give financial assistance’ were

55 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to the Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 27 March 1920, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1698 21/205, R21029195; Omana Settlement land sale poster, 26 April 1920, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 377, R675581; Hasting Standard, 3 May 1920, p 1; Woodville Examiner, 56 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to the Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 27 March 1920, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1698 21/205, R21029195; Hastings Standard, 3 May 1920, p 1, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAST19200503.2.2.3 accessed 12 November 2019 57 Omana Settlement land sale poster, 26 April 1920, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 377, R675581

27 required for the land board to judge the ability of applicants to fulfil the conditions of settlement. In cases where financial assistance was being provided to the applicant by another party, the person providing the assistance ‘should state to what extent they are prepared to do so, and supply guarantees of their own financial position’. Applicants were also required to provide their military discharge documents for inspection.58

Applicants were required to present themselves for ‘personal examination’ by the Hawke’s Bay Land Board on 2 June in Napier, 7 June in Gisborne, or 10 June in Wairoa. There was no requirement in the legislation for land boards to include Māori members. Applicants not able to appear in person could either appoint ‘an agent to act for them, or they may send with their application a post-office order, or a draft or cheque marked by the bank on which it is drawn as “Correct for twenty-one days,” in favour of the Receiver of Land Revenue, for the required deposit, which will be returned in case of non-success’.59 The ballot was scheduled to take place on 10 June at Wairoa following the examination of applicants by the board. However, owing to the large number of applicants present for examination at Wairoa, the ballot was postponed until the following morning. The personal and financial examinations were undertaken in order to assess ‘the general ability of applicants to properly work and cultivate the land’, as well as to ensure the applicant met the conditions of eligibility.60 Although it is apparent from the advertising poster that some financial resources and farming experience were required to enter the ballot, Department of Lands and Survey records on Omana Settlement did not record how this was measured or determined by the land board.61 As outlined by Hearn, the land boards were expected to ensure applicants met the requirements of the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915 around service in and discharge from the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, but were otherwise left to use their discretion to determine who to accept into the ballot.62

Government officials considered the land at Omana Settlement to be of particularly good quality for dairy farming. W F Marsh (Commissioner of Crown Lands in Napier) described it as ‘one of the very best of purchases’, and J D Thompson (Commissioner of Crown Lands in Gisborne) wrote that at the time the property was acquired by the Crown, ‘it was looked upon as the best dairying proposition for the returned soldier yet offered’.63 The government advertised the land as such in 1920, describing it as ‘good heavy flat land, rich black soil, balance easy and undulating country, large part ploughable;

58 Omana Settlement land sale poster, 26 April 1920, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 377, R675581 59 Omana Settlement land sale poster, 26 April 1920, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 377, R675581 60 Omana Settlement land sale poster, 26 April 1920, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 377, R675581; Hastings Standard, 2 June 1920, p 5, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAST19200602.2.60 accessed 12 November 2019; Hastings Standard, 10 June 1920, p 6, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAST19200610.2.57 accessed 12 November 2019; Hastings Standard, 12 June 1920, p 3, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAST19200612.2.12 accessed 12 November 2019 61 Omana Settlement, 1919-1933, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/40/b 4/158 1, R412810; Land for Settlement - Omana Settlement, 1919-1955, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1698 21/205, R21029195 62 Hearn Wai 2500, #A248, pp 136-137 63 W F Marsh, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to the Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 21 November 1919, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/40/b 4/158 1, R412810; ‘Omana Settlement’, J D Thompson Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/40/b 4/158 1, R412810

28 good water; well adapted for dairying’.64 Local newspapers also considered the settlement ‘first-class land’ for dairy farming, with one article in 1920 proposing that ‘men of small means could go in and make a living’.65 According to an article in the Poverty Bay Herald following up on the progress of Omana Settlement, it was considered one of the most successful settlements to be offered by the Hawke’s Bay Land Board.66

The examination process conducted by the land board remained important however, with the Poverty Bay Herald warning in June 1920, it was ‘a mistaken notion for any of these seekers after land to suppose that by drawing a section in the ballot they are getting something for nothing’. The ‘incoming tenant’, it cautioned, would be required to ‘exercise the utmost care and industry to make both ends meet’. The newspaper went on to explain that past experience of the land board had shown that ‘too many of those who go in for ballots do so with very scant consideration for their ability to make a success of farming’, and that consequently ‘before every ballot there has to be a great amount of weeding out of those who are unfinancial or for other reasons are not considered suitable for the particular properties’.67 The vetting process intended to provide the means to assess the financial position as well as the previous farming experience of the applicants, two of the main concerns of the land board. As outlined by Hearn, while the legislation following World War One required applicants to settlements to provide some information on their farming experience, the importance of this experience was taken much more seriously during World War Two when the implementation of the grading scheme provided a framework for assessing an applicant’s ability.68 The requirements for applicants to the Omana Settlement as revealed in the advertising poster confirm the process adopted was the same as that specified in the World War One legislation as established by Hearn.

Table 1 (below) shows the area, capital value, annual instalment (on deferred payments), and the half- yearly rent on leases for each section, as specified on the Omana Settlement land sale poster. This provides an indication of the amount of money applicants would have been required to have access to in order to be eligible for the ballot.

64 Advertisement for ‘Lands for Soldier Settlement’ at Arkdeen, Ohuka, and Omana, published in multiple newspapers including: The Woodville Examiner, 5 May 1920, p 3, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WOODEX19200505.2.13.1 accessed 12 November 2019 65 ‘Lands for Settlement’, Taihape Daily Times, 27 May 1920, p 7, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TAIDT19200527.2.37 accessed 12 November 2019; Poverty Bay Herald, 14 June 1920, p 2, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19200614.2.7 accessed 12 November 2019 66 Advertisement for ‘Lands for Soldier Settlement’ at Arkdeen, Ohuka, and Omana, published in multiple newspapers including: Taihape Daily Times, 27 May 1920, p 7, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TAIDT19200527.2.37 accessed 12 November 2019; Poverty Bay Herald, 8 June 1920, p 6, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19200608.2.63 accessed 12 November 2019; Poverty Bay Herald, 21 July 1920, p 3, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19200721.2.10 accessed 12 November 2019 67 Poverty Bay Herald, 14 June 1920, p 2, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19200614.2.7 accessed 12 November 2019 68 Hearn Wai 2500, #A248, pp 132-133, 464-465

Table 1: Land for sale or lease to discharged soldiers in Omana Settlement, 26 April 1920 Section Area Capital Value Annual Instalment on Half-yearly Rent on Deferred Payment lease (excluding interest) 1 60 acres, 3 £2320 land, £400 £136 £52.4.0 & £19.5.4 for roods buildings buildings 2 74 acres, 1 £1540 £77 £34.13.0 rood, 12 perches 3 75 acres, 1 £1700 £85 £38.5.0 rood, 15 perches 4 77 acres, 3 £1540 £77 £34.13.0 roods, 1 perch 5 76 acres, 1 £1500 £75 £33.15.0 rood, 13 perches 6 117 acres, 3 £2020 land, £250 £113.10.0 £45.9.0 & £12.0.10 roods, 26 buildings for buildings perches 7 120 acres, 1 £1800 land, £150 £97.10.0 £40.10.0. & £7.4.6 for rood, 3 buildings buildings perches 8 232 acres, 3 £3820 £191 £85.19.0 roods 9 81 acres, 2 £2120 land, £400 £126 £47.14.0 & £19.5.4 roods, 22 buildings for buildings perches Source: Omana Settlement land sale poster, 26 April 1920, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 377, R675581

The Ballot

The ballot process for the Omana Settlement occurred concurrently with the Ohuka and Ardkeen Settlements, also located in the Wairoa district. Applicants were advised that they could only apply to one of these settlements, and if they had submitted applications to multiple settlements they must withdraw their additional applications, leaving only their preferred option in contention. The Poverty Bay Herald reported that a member of the Hawke’s Bay Land Board considering the applications had explained to the reporter that ‘Omana was eminently suitable for soldier settlers of small means’, though an explanation for this lower price was not provided.69 Sections in the Ohuka and Ardkeen Settlements were more expensive, and as such veterans without appropriate financial backing would not make it through the selection process to the Ohuka and Ardkeen ballots. In the case of Ardkeen, the Poverty Bay Herald article explained that the Hawke’s Bay Land Board had restricted entry to the ballot to ‘those who possessed at least £1000 in financial resource’. In order to make the process more fair, according to the land board member interviewed, applicants with greater financial wealth were

69 Poverty Bay Herald, 8 June 1920, p 6, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19200608.2.63 accessed 12 November 2019

30 advised against applying to the Omana ballot in order to ‘give the smaller men a chance with the dairying blocks in Omana’.70 The poster advertising the settlement recorded that applicants to the Omana Settlement would also to be offered options for deferred payments or lease, with right of purchase options.71 Māori with limited financial resources would therefore have had more chance of gaining access to the Omana ballot than to the other two settlements offered. No evidence was found in either the Department of Lands and Survey files or local newspapers about the specific financial thresholds considered by the land board for the Omana Settlement.

Department of Lands and Survey records and local newspapers suggest that demand for sections was high. On the day of the ballot the Hastings Standard reported Wairoa was ‘crowded with young men awaiting the result.’ A total of 193 returned soldiers submitted applications to the Omana Settlement land sale. Of those, the Land Board admitted 141 to the ballot.72 How the Land Board determined which applicants to accept or reject was not recorded in the Department of Lands and Survey records. As Hearn suggests, it is possible that the lack of Crown recognition of Māori cultural needs, including providing information in te reo Māori, prohibited Māori returned soldiers from applying to the Omana Settlement. It is also possible that Māori may have applied but not been admitted to the ballot. A list of the names of all the applicants to the ballot was not located in the Department of Lands and Survey records.73

For the nine sections, a total of 860 applications were submitted, as each veteran could submit applications for multiple sections within the settlement (though each successful applicant would be allocated no more than one section). A total of 374 returned soldiers applied to the Omana, Ardkeen, and Ohuka Settlements combined. Once the vetting process (outlined above) had occurred, the ballot took place on the morning of 11 June 1920 at Everybody’s Theatre in Wairoa, with a ‘large attendance of soldiers’ witnessing W F Marsh (Commissioner of Crown Lands in Napier) drawing the marbles.74

The Department of Lands and Survey recorded the results of the Omana Settlement land ballot as follows:

70 Poverty Bay Herald, 8 June 1920, p 6, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19200608.2.63 accessed 12 November 2019; Poverty Bay Herald, 14 June 1920, p 2, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19200614.2.7 accessed 12 November 2019 71 Omana Settlement land sale poster, 26 April 1920, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 377, R675581 72 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to the Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 22 June 1920, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1698 21/205, R21029195; Poverty Bay Herald, 14 June 1920, p 2, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19200614.2.7 accessed 12 November 2019; Hastings Standard, 2 June 1920, p 5, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAST19200602.2.60 accessed 12 November 2019 73 Hearn Wai 2500, #A248, pp 103, 132-133, 136, 141-145, 258-259 74 Hastings Standard, 10 June 1920, p 6, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAST19200610.2.57 accessed 12 November 2019; Hastings Standard, 12 June 1920, p 3, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAST19200612.2.12 accessed 12 November 2019; Poverty Bay Herald, 14 June 1920, p 2, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19200614.2.7 accessed 12 November 2019; Hastings Standard, 2 June 1920, p 5, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAST19200602.2.60 accessed 12 November 2019; Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to the Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 22 June 1920, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1698 21/205, R21029195

Table 2: Omana Settlement Ballot, 1920 Section Acres Number of Successful applicant applicants 1 60 120 H V Watt 2 74 93 G S B Steele 3 75 93 W D Falconer 4 77 88 J T Begley 5 76 89 L W Mildon 6 117 90 P O Sullivan 7 120 84 F H Young 8 232 82 J Egan 9 81 121 R Gilmore

Source: Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier to Under Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 22 June 1920, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1698 21/205, R21029195

These settlers were all New Zealand military veterans. Military records were available for each of the men awarded sections in the Omana Settlement. According to these files, all the successful applicants met the legislative requirements at the time. All served overseas in the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces during World War One and had been discharged following their return to New Zealand.75

Of these men, all were born in New Zealand, except H V Watt and F H Young. Watt was born in Warwick, Queensland, Australia, but lived in New Zealand at the time of his enlistment, and his address on being discharged was in Manutuke, Gisborne. Young was born in London, but had been living and working in Otane, Hawke’s Bay, before enlisting in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. Three men named James Egan (the name of the settler awarded section 8 in the land ballot) have World War One files at Archives New Zealand, all born in New Zealand. One James Egan listed the address of his next of kin and his address on discharge as Southland, another listed addresses in Palmerston North. The third James Egan listed a Wairarapa address as his home on enlistment and Nuhaka as his intended address on discharge.76 It is deduced this last James Egan was the successful applicant awarded section 8. As Hearn noted, none of the names on the list of successful applicants

75 GILMORE, Rae - WW1 16052 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5539/25 0044991, R16786391; YOUNG, Frank Howard - WW1 11/1748 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5557/118 0126271, R22023499; SULLIVAN, Patrick Oliver - WW1 11/1980 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5553/83 0110742, R7822747; MILDON, Leonard William - WW1 62107 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5549/22 0080644, R21375115; BEGLEY, John Thomas - WW1 57012 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5520/69 0013341, R22274205; FALCONER, William Douglas - WW1 9/1546 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5537/84 0038865, R21001845; STEELE, Gordon Sydney Bertie - WW1 9/762 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5553/63 0108782, R7820931; EGAN, James - WW1 36098 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5537/69 0037348, R21000550; WATT, Hedley Verner - WW1 10259 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5557/54 0119825, R22016998 76 EGAN, James - WW1 33328 – Army, AABK 18805 W5537/69 0037350, R21000552; EGAN, James - WW1 36098 – Army, AABK 18805 W5537/69 0037348, R21000550; EGAN, James - WW1 58993 – Army, AABK 18805 W5537/69 0037349, R21000551

32 matched those recorded on the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion roll and none of the successful applicants refer to Māori heritage in their military personnel files.77

Table 3: Successful ballot applicants matched to military records – Omana Settlement, 1920 Name Occupation Place of birth Intended address on discharge H V Watt Bushman Warwick, Queensland, Manutuke, Gisborne Australia G S B Steele Blacksmith Waipiro Bay Omana, Nuhaka (changed from Gisborne) W D Falconer Farmer Hastings Nuhaka (changed from Gisborne) J T Begley Slaughterman Hastings Nuhaka (changed from Hastings) L W Mildon Farmer Elsthorpe Omana, Nuhaka, (changed from Makotuku) P O Sullivan Farm hand Palmerston North Palmerston North F H Young Farmer London, England Nuhaka (changed from Napier) J Egan Ploughman Rangiora Nuhaka (changed from Masterton) R Gilmore Station manager Napier Wellington

Source: New Zealand Defence Force, Personnel Archives, Archives NZ. See footnote for full reference to each individual file.78

As outlined above, counsel for the claim by Huia Joy Brown on behalf of James Wairata and others (Wai 983) submitted a list confirming ‘the 10 names of British Veterans by which the witness [Tiemi Whaanga] claims the Crown gifted farm lands in the Nuhaka valley’.79 The names they provided were:

1 Begly 2 Bulmour 3 Coop 4 Cooper 5 Gilmour 6 Goldstone

77 Roll of men who served in the Māori Contingent (aka the Native Contingent) and / or the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion as recorded on the 28th Māori Battalion website, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/roll-ww1 accessed 13 February 2020 78 WATT, Hedley Verner - WW1 10259 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5557/54 0119825, R22016998; STEELE, Gordon Sydney Bertie - WW1 9/762 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5553/63 0108782, R7820931; FALCONER, William Douglas - WW1 9/1546 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5537/84 0038865, R21001845; BEGLEY, John Thomas - WW1 57012 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5520/69 0013341, R22274205; MILDON, Leonard William - WW1 62107 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5549/22 0080644, R21375115; SULLIVAN, Patrick Oliver - WW1 11/1980 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5553/83 0110742, R7822747; YOUNG, Frank Howard - WW1 11/1748 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5557/118 0126271, R22023499; EGAN, James - WW1 36098 – Army, AABK 18805 W5537/69 0037348, R21000550; GILMORE, Rae - WW1 16052 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5539/25 0044991, R16786391 79 Memorandum of Counsel, 8 January 2016, Wai 2500, #3.1.270; Tiemi (Jim) Whaanga for Rangiwaho Whaanga, Brief of Evidence, Wai 2500, #A61, p 15

7 Joblin 8 McIntyre 9 Ramlose 10 Shaw

Only two of these names – Gilmore and Begley – matched the names of the veterans originally awarded sections in the Omana Settlement ballot. Both these men are identified in their military records as being born in New Zealand.80

It was possible, however, for the sections to go to others if not taken up for some reason by those who were originally successful. This was even allowed for in a second ballot process if required. On 16 June 1920, the Poverty Bay Herald published the list of soldiers who ‘drew second marble’ in the ballot process, meaning they had ‘the opportunity to take over the property if the person who was successful [in the initial ballot] withdraws’.81 The second marble draw names for the Omana Settlement were:

1 R Bluck 2 P T Weeks 3 J Young 4 A Lee 5 F Rees 6 A H Griffiths 7 W Boyd 8 R Bluck 9 A S Hickson

These names do not match the list provided by claimants. R Bluck is possibly a second draw applicant who was successful in taking over from the initial successful applicant in Omana Settlement, as he was listed as the farmer on section 5 in a 1929 Valuation Department document.82 Bluck was also a returned serviceman. It is unclear at what point he took over the land from L W Mildon, but in 1925 a Department of Lands and Survey general report on the Omana Settlement claimed ‘Mildon is “fed up” and has lost heart; he would gladly sell out cheaply’.83 By 1929 another returned serviceman – T McKee – had taken over from J Egan on section 8.84 Although their military personnel records document that Bluck was born in Auckland and McKee in Wairoa, both listed Nuhaka as their address when they enlisted, as well as the address of their fathers who they listed as their next of kin. Nuhaka was also

80 GILMORE, Rae - WW1 16052 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5539/25 0044991, R16786391; BEGLEY, John Thomas - WW1 57012 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5520/69 0013341, R22274205 81 Poverty Bay Herald, 16 June 1920, p 6, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19200616.2.68 accessed 12 November 2019 82 ‘Omana Settlement’, Valuation Department, Gisborne, to the Valuer-General, Wellington, 9 August 1929, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/40/b 4/158 1, R412810 83 J B Kells, Omana Settlement General Report, 12 October 1925, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/40/b 4/158 1, R412810 84 J D Thompson, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Chairman, Dominion Revaluation Board, Wellington, 2 September 1929, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/40/b 4/158 1, R412810

34 recorded as their intended address at the time of their discharge.85 In November 1930, Falconer’s section (section 3) was transferred to a civilian named Small, about whom no further details were located.86

The Department of Lands and Survey records indicate that although subsequent changes in ownership are likely after 1930, the initial first and second marble ballot process for sections in the Omana Settlement produced two names that matched the list provided by claimants. Both of those men are officially recorded as born in New Zealand and having been enlisted in New Zealand military forces.

In terms of the settlers’ eligibility by way of farming experience, the military personnel files record that seven of the nine men allocated sections in the Omana Settlement listed their occupation at the time of enlisting, as farmer or farming-related (farm hand, ploughman, station manager, or slaughter man). Of the remaining two, Steel had been a blacksmith and Watt a bushman. With respect to their financial resources, no record of a specific financial threshold for inclusion or records documenting the financial status of applicants were located.

The results of the Ohuka and Ardkeen Settlement ballots are recorded below to provide a little more information about who was successful in ballots for Crown sections in the Wairoa region. Only a limited amount of research was conducted on settlers of the Ohuka and Ardkeen Settlements, as these settlements were not the focus of this report. None of the setters’ names in these settlements match those provided by the claimants. Nor do their names match any names recorded on the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion roll, again appearing to confirm most were non-Māori.87

Table 4: Ohuka Settlement Ballot Section Acres Number of Successful applicant Second marble applicant accepted applicants 1 911 3 J N Knox, Dannevirke M A McRae, Otane 2 386 16 T H Addis, Tikokino G Little, Takapuna 3 846 0 Homestead block, withdrawn 4 1217 2 M A McRae, Otane T W Sharp, Hastings 5 826 8 J Boyle, Wairoa A Richmond, Te Karaka 6 965 2 E R Mayo, Wairoa W Bartlett, Morere 8 1368 2 D Woods, Hastings Buttrick, Hastings 9 726 7 J T McGuire, Hastings W Bartlett, Morere

85 BLUCK, Reginald - WW1 26/261 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5520/93 0015776, R22276971; McKEE, Thomas - WW1 54566 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5544/79 0074334, R10925232 86 Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 17 November 1930, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/40/b 4/158 1, R412810 87 Roll of men who served in the Māori Contingent (aka the Native Contingent) and/or the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion as recorded on the 28th Māori Battalion website, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/roll-ww1 accessed 13 February 2020

Section Acres Number of Successful applicant Second marble applicant accepted applicants 10 684 16 F R Butterick, Napier W Bartlett, Morere 11 966 4 T B Sumerville, Hastings Ronayne, Pakipaki 12 593 10 J G Henson, Tiniroto G Knowles 13 916 5 T Knowles, Frasertown D J McDonald 14 1303 3 L H Ebbet, Hastings J W Kerr 15 No accepted applicants 16 No accepted applicants 17 693 1 A J Oldfield, Masterton Not recorded 18 1202 Not recorded D J McDonald, Frasertown Not recorded

Source: Poverty Bay Herald, 11 June 1920, p 3; and Poverty Bay Herald, 16 June 1920, p 6

Table 5: Ardkeen Settlement Ballot Section Acres Number of Successful applicant Second marble applicant accepted applicants 1 811 12 P F Matson, Terahanga J C McLean 2 589 19 F P Meagher, Dannevirke P J O’Kane 3 631 18 J R Meagher, Dannevirke W Robertson, Manutuke 4 751 24 D H Robertson, Manutuke J C McLean 5 757 2 P J O’Kane, Waitara, Taranaki W Weston, Pahiatua 6 617 10 C F Jackson, Wairoa J C McLean 7 525 10 J C McLean, Dannevirke G Spooner, Ngatapa 8 581 19 M P Malone, Stratford W Robertson, Manutuke 9 619 27 J Folme, Frasertown G Dahm, Nuhaka 10 765 13 W J Mackay, Gisborne R L Anderson, Sydenham 11 684 24 J J Owen, Tolaga Bay G Spooner, Ngatapa 12 542 27 R W Preston, Manutuke O G Birrell, Gisborne 13 555 23 W Carson, Waipawa W G McKay, Ormond 14 548 14 C W McKeagen, Christchurch W H Nicol, Ashburton 15 628 17 G F Spooner, Gisborne J Palmer, Hastings 16 466 9 E C Clifton, Waipukurau G Dahm, Nuhaka 17 588 27 M Andrew, Wairoa D J McDonald 18 647 17 O G Birrell, Gisborne D McClintock, Christchurch

Source: Poverty Bay Herald, 11 June 1920, p 3; and Poverty Bay Herald, 16 June 1920, p 6

Conclusion

The nine sections in Omana Settlement were offered by the Crown to discharged soldiers in 1920. When the Crown purchased the land for Omana Settlement in 1919 the land was already general title land and had been farmed by Pākehā farmers. The land was considered good quality, but the sections were small and reasonably enough priced to be considered most suitable for returning soldiers of limited means. Records have been found indicating advertising of the sections in English, but no records have been located of any material in te reo Māori. The time allowed for applications was also brief. Records suggest interest for the nine sections was very high. Some 193 applications were made for the nine sections, of which 141 were admitted to the ballot. No records have been located of how that initial elimination process occurred or whether any Māori were amongst the original applicants. Records indicate that the nine sections were allocated to nine Pākehā returned servicemen, seven of whom were born in New Zealand and enlisted in the New Zealand armed services while the remaining two were born overseas but lived in and enlisted in New Zealand.88 No evidence suggests any of the nine men were members of the British Armed Forces. None of the settlers recorded as receiving sections in the Omana Settlement were listed on the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion roll, and none had any Māori heritage mentioned in their personnel files. It seems likely they were Pākehā, as suggested by Hearn.89

No record was located of whether Māori were among the 52 returned soldiers who submitted applications for the Omana Settlement but were not admitted to the ballot by the land board, or whether Māori were among those 141 who were successfully admitted to the ballot. Records indicate, however, that the 43 recipients of sections in the Omana, Ohuka, and Ardkeen Settlements in 1920 (and the 30 who were listed as ‘second marble applicants’) all appear to have been Pākehā. None of these men had Māori names and none of the names could be matched to those recorded on the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion roll.

Specific details of the finances and the farming experience required for entry to the ballot were not located in the Department of Lands and Survey files. The military personnel files recorded that most, but not all, of the settlers allocated sections did have previous farming experience. Their financial records, however, were not located.

The Omana Settlement was established under the framework of the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915. As examined by Hearn (and outlined in chapter 1 of this report), the primary conditions placed on applicants to settlements established under the 1915 Act were to have been a member of any New Zealand Expeditionary Force, to have served beyond New Zealand, to have returned to New Zealand, and to have been discharged. It was up to the local (in this case Hawke’s Bay) land board, overseen by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, to determine whether applicants met these requirements. As Hearn notes, there were no requirements in the legislation specifying Māori

88 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 22 June 1920, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1698 21/205, R21029195 89 Roll of men who served in the Māori Contingent (aka the Native Contingent) and / or the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion as recorded on the 28th Māori Battalion website, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/roll-ww1 accessed 13 January 2020

37 representation on these land boards. In the case of the Omana Settlement, all the settlers allocated sections met the four legislative conditions. As Hearn argues, there was ‘nothing in the law… that explicitly limited, restricted, or otherwise hindered the access, on the part of Maori veterans, to the benefits of the rehabilitation programme’ following World War One. And yet, as Hearn further states, ‘comparatively few Maori veterans secured either Crown sections or financial assistance for farm purchase and land development’.90

All files held at Archives New Zealand with Omana in their title have been checked for this report. No record was found in any of these files of any information about the Omana Settlement being provided in te reo Māori or of specific efforts to contact or inform Māori returned servicemen outside of the usual methods of public notices in newspapers or at local post offices, such as by visiting marae or contacting community leaders. No Māori appear to have received sections in the Omana Settlement through the ballot. The reasons for this are not clear. The available records do not record whether any Māori applied to be included in the ballot, or experienced barriers to applying such as the English- based complicated application process, or if some Māori did apply but were then declined entry to the ballot by the Hawke’s Bay land board and for what reasons. The lack of evidence of any special encouragement to Māori returned servicemen to apply for the Omana Settlement ballot, indicates some support for Hearn’s contention that a State failure to recognise or understand Māori rehabilitation needs possibly contributed to the lack of Māori entering the ballot for the Omana Settlement scheme.

Although Māori were not explicitly excluded from land ballots through the government legislation, the fact that no Māori were successful in the ballot for land at the Omana Settlement suggests some support for Hearn’s view that the policy alone was insufficient to assist Māori and Pākehā returned soldiers to practically obtain equal access to the benefits of the rehabilitation programme in relation to land settlement and financial assistance for farming.91

90 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 128, 207, 751 91 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 124-125, 258

Chapter 3 – Awamate and Huramua Settlements

Map 3: The Awamate Settlement and Huramua Settlement locations on a present-day topographical map

Introduction

Awamate Settlement and Huramua Settlement are neighbouring farming settlements located to the northwest of Wairoa. Awamate Settlement, created in 1930, was not restricted to veterans, but rather offered to both returned soldiers and ‘landless applicants’. Huramua Settlement was created in the late 1940s out of Huramua Station, a training farm for Māori returned servicemen which had been established by the government and Alfred Thomas (Turi) Carroll in 1944. Turi Carroll, nephew of James Carroll (New Zealand politician and Māori leader), had offered the Crown a portion of his Huramua estate for the purpose of establishing a settlement for Māori returned servicemen. Sections in the Huramua Settlement were restricted to Māori returned servicemen, with Carroll stipulating that priority be given to Māori returned servicemen from the Wairoa district or those trained at Huramua Station.92

The Huramua and Awamate settlements are considered together as they are located next to each other and because claimants have noted Huramua and Awamate as the area in which their tīpuna

92 Taramarama S.D., A.W. Hampton, 1938, New Zealand Department of Lands and Survey, https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE3646113 accessed 13 January 2020; Awamate Settlement, Land Sale Map, 1930, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 431, R675586; Jinty Rorke, 'Carroll, Turi', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1998, Te Ara - the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/4c12/carroll-turi accessed 21 October 2019; T J Hearn, ‘The economic rehabilitation of Maori military veterans’, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 708-710

39 contributed land to Crown settlements.93 Dr Hearn does not refer to the Awamate Settlement but outlines the establishment of the Huramua Station training farm and its transition into a settlement for Māori returned soldiers following World War Two. Hearn’s examination is outlined further below.

The Claims

The claims regarding the Huramua and Awamate settlements raise issues concerning the lack of land allocated to Māori military veterans prior to and following World War Two.94 At the oral hearings for this inquiry, Wi Te Tau Huata and Hira Huata both presented briefs of evidence concerning land they say their great grandfather, Reverend Hemi Pititi Huata, contributed to the returned soldier settlement schemes of Huramua and Awamate in Wairoa. They were particularly concerned that despite this contribution of land, Māori veterans from the area still missed out on being allocated sections. This was in spite of their claims that their great-grandfather was pressured by his own leaders to contribute ancestral land to the returned soldiers land settlement scheme and to support the enlistment of ‘the young men of Ngati Kahungunu’. In spite of enlisting in large numbers in World War Two, on their return from the war, none of the Huata or Aranui soldiers (the descendants of Reverend Hemi Pititi Huata and his wife Ropine Aranui) were awarded farms. The land, Wi Te Tau Huata and Hira Huata said, was instead balloted to Pākehā veterans, or to Māori from other districts.95

Counsel for Wi Te Tau Huata and Hira Huata were included with those claimant lawyers who submitted a joint memorandum supporting the casebook review recommendation that the Waitangi Tribunal commission additional research into the allocation of sections in the Huramua soldier resettlement schemes.96

Background

Dr Hearn records that after the Crown purchased a portion of Turi Carroll’s Huramua Station property in 1944, Huramua was run as a training farm for Maori ex-servicemen graded ‘B’. Following the purchase of two adjoining properties, the larger property including Huramua training farm was subdivided into the Huramua Settlement for Māori returned servicemen in 1947. Hearn provided a brief outline of the subdivision and allocation process, establishing that the allocation of sections

93 Wi Te Tau Huata, Brief of Evidence, 3 November 2015, Wai 2500, #A62, pp 3-5; Hira Huata, Brief of Evidence, 21 October 2015, Wai 2500, #A63, pp 2-5 94 Amended Statement of Claim, 21 November 2014, Wai 1344, #1.1.1(b); Amended Statement of Claim, 28 June 1016, Wai 1344, #1.1.1(c); see also the briefs of evidence filed under the Wai 1344 claim: Wi Te Tau Huata, Brief of Evidence, 3 November 2015, Wai 2500, #A62; Hira Huata, Brief of Evidence, 21 October 2015, Wai 2500, #A63; George Tawhai, Brief of Evidence, 21 October 2015, Wai 2500, #A64; Nolan Raihania, Brief of Evidence, 12 June 2015, Wai 2500, #A3; Most Reverend William Brown Turei, Brief of Evidence, 15 June 2015, Wai 2500, #A5; Hori Hokianga, Brief of Evidence, 4 October 2016, Wai 2500, #A228 95 Wi Te Tau Huata, Brief of Evidence, Wai 2500, #A62, pp 3-5; Hira Huata, Brief of Evidence, Wai 2500, #A63, pp 2-5 96 Joint Memorandum of Counsel regarding Submissions and Recommendations on the Casebook Review, 28 August 2019, Wai 2500, #3.1.549, pp 1, 3-4

40 occurred gradually and that by the end of March 1950, ten sections of Huramua Settlement had been balloted for and allocated, but did not identify any of the settlers allocated sections.97

Hearn outlined the Huramua Settlement within a wider discussion of the Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee’s settlement of Māori returned soldiers established during World War Two as part of the cooperation with Māori over the war effort. This committee was established in 1943 as an executive committee of the Rehabilitation Board. Members were appointed by the Board of Native Affairs and the Committee had the ‘responsibility of administering the rehabilitation of all Maori ex-servicemen making application through the Native Department’ for assistance in settling in ‘Native communities’. By establishing a process with ‘equality of access’, Hearn explained, the Crown assumed they would be ensuring ‘equality of outcomes’. Instead, Hearn suggests the Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee achieved little in the way of settling Māori on land, and that Māori had only a ‘distant prospect of securing units’ through this committee.98 These issues are explored below in relation to the information located on the development and allocation of the Huramua Settlement.

97 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 708-710 98 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 304-326, 356-359, 705-723, 746-748

Map 4: The Awamate Settlement location on a present-day topographical map

Awamate Settlement

Awamate Settlement was established largely from land the Crown purchased from general title (previously part of Awamate Station) and a small section of Māori land, Aranui 1B block (see figure 2 below). In November 1929, the owner of Awamate Station, Elizabeth Jessep, offered her property to the Crown for closer settlement purposes.99 After inspection, the Crown decided to purchase a ‘flat and ploughable portion’ of Awamate Station comprised of approximately 680 acres suitable for closer settlement.100 The area identified for purchase included 55 acres of Māori land (Aranui 1B) that at the time Elizabeth Jessep held by lease for a term of 21 years from 1 September 1925.101 Elizabeth Jessep’s husband, J S Jessep, advised the Crown that there would be ‘no difficulty in acquiring the freehold’ title to Aranui 1B. On that advise, officials of the Department of Lands and Survey office in Gisborne decided to treat Aranui 1B the same as the rest of the property in their valuation of the land for closer settlement purposes.102 The land ownership as established for Aranui 1B is set out below.

99 J S Jessep (on behalf of his wife, Elizabeth Jessep), Wairoa, to the Land Purchase Inspector, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, 11 November 1929, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1656 21/149/1074, R21028837; Land Purchase Controller to the Valuer General, 28 November 1929, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1656 21/149/1074, R21028837 100 Department of Lands and Survey District Office, Gisborne, to the Land Purchase Controller, Wellington, 13 December 1929, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1656 21/149/1074, R21028837 101 Department of Lands and Survey District Office, Gisborne, to the Land Purchase Controller, Wellington, 13 December 1929, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1656 21/149/1074, R21028837; Registrar, Native Land Court, Gisborne, to the Under Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 7 October 1930, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 102 Department of Lands and Survey District Office, Gisborne, to the Land Purchase Controller, Wellington, 13 December 1929, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1656 21/149/1074, R21028837; Under-Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to the Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 2 April 1930, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177

Figure 2: Awamate Settlement land sale poster, map of sections 1-6, also showing Aranui 1B (marked as Aranui No.1 Block), 7 May 1930

Source: Awamate Settlement, Land Sale Map, 1930, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 431, R675586; Taramarama S.D. plan, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1656 21/149/1074, R21028837

Aranui 1B The Crown was not able to purchase the Māori land Aranui 1B and instead took over the lease on this section from the Jesseps, with the intention of purchasing the land when the 21 year lease term expired in 1946.103 Crown officials therefore included Aranui 1B in the plans for the Awamate Settlement, incorporating Aranui 1B into the settlement as leased land.104 The total area of Aranui 1B was approximately 56 acres, however, a portion of land (approximately three quarters of an acre) that gave the owners of Aranui F access to their block, was excluded from the lease and eventual sale of Aranui 1B.105

103 Taramarama S.D. plan, Archives NZ, ACGT 18190 LS1/1656 21/149/1074, R21028837 104 Native Land Purchase Board, 28 June 1930, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 105 Registrar, Native Land Court, Gisborne, to the Under Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 7 October 1930, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Director-General, Department of Lands and Survey, to the Secretary for Maori and Islands Affairs, 19 July 1968, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA- MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Under Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, to the Registrar, Tairawhiti

The Native Land Purchase Board approved the purchase of Aranui 1B by the Crown in June 1930, but at this stage Crown officials were unsuccessful in their attempt to purchase it.106 By 1943, Aranui 1B was sub-leased from the Crown by two of the Awamate Settlement settlers. Section 1 was divided in half by Aranui 1B and section 4 was the smallest section in the settlement, which also bordered Aranui 1B (see figure 2 above), so the settlers on these sections used parts of Aranui 1B for their farms.107

When the lease which the Crown had taken over from the Jesseps expired in 1946, lawyers for the principal owner, Heperi Ranapiri (who held 1657 out of a total 1685 shares), notified the Crown that their client was not prepared to sell Aranui 1B.108 The Crown then began preparing terms of a new lease and following up succession interests of deceased owners.109 (The owners of Aranui 1B listed in 1930 were recorded as Heperi Ranapiri, Te Haenga, Kutoro, Erena Manu, Rongorua, Renata Kawepo, Rahui Turoa, Hina Makita Ranapia, and Raiha Kahuitau.110) In the meantime, the Crown also gave itself a monopoly for any purchasing by proclaiming an Order in Council prohibiting alienation (other than to the Crown) under the Native Land Act 1931. On 24 December 1946, the Governor General signed the Order in Council for the Aranui 1B block. However, the Order was not Gazetted until 9 January 1947, by which time Aranui 1B had been leased to a private party.111

Two days before the Gazette notice was published, an application was lodged with the Native Land Court in Gisborne to lease Aranui 1B to Sydney Carroll.112 The Native Land Court in Wairoa confirmed the lease on 19 February 1947, citing Section 443 of the Native Land Act 1931 as preserving ‘the rights of the parties to the alienation’ as the lease had been lodged prior to the Order in Council being

District Native Land Court, Gisborne, 10 April 1930, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 106 Under-Secretary for Native Affairs to the Native Minister, 16 July 1930, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA- MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Native Land Purchase Board, 28 June 1930, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA- MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Under-Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, to the Under-Secretary, Native Department, 10 August 1943, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Under- Secretary, Native Department, to the Registrar, Gisborne, 16 September 1943, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA- MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 107 Under Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 10 August 1943, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 108 Under Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, to the Registrar, Tairawhiti District Native Land Court, Gisborne, 10 April 1930, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Under Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 23 August 1946, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 109 Registrar, Gisborne, to Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 19 August 1946, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Under Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, to Under Secretary, Native Department, 22 October 1946, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Under Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, to the Registrar, Gisborne, 27 August 1946, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Registrar, Gisborne, to the Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 6 March 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 110 Under Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, to the Registrar, Tairawhiti District Native Land Court, Gisborne, 10 April 1930, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 111 New Zealand Gazette, 9 January 1947, No 1, p 5; Executive Council recommendation to the Governor General, 24 December 1946, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 112 Under-Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 18 April 1947, citing correspondence with the solicitors representing Heperi Ranapiri, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Sainsbury, Logan & Williams, Napier, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 14 March 1947, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/42/a 4/200 2, R412815

44 gazetted. The Under-Secretary for the Department of Lands and Survey was concerned that the position of the Crown’s lessees who were farming the adjacent sections on the Awamate Settlement would be ‘seriously affected’, and urged the Native Land Purchase Department to ‘ascertain whether any action is possible even at this stage to safeguard the position of the Crown tenants affected’.113 Following this, the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Napier was asked to make contact with Sydney Carroll to negotiate a transfer of his lease to W G Devery and W Richmond, the settlers of sections 1 and 4.114 Further pressure was also put on the Native Land Purchase Department by the Department of Lands and Survey to ‘investigate the possibility of the Crown purchasing the area’.115 According to the file records, officials believed departmental communication breakdowns had caused the Crown to miss out on obtaining the lease.116

Reports on how the Awamate settlers, Devery and Richmond, and the new lease holder, Sydney Carroll, organised their land use differ. According to Department of Lands and Survey files, by April 1947 Carroll had taken possession of the land and ‘stocked that part previously farmed by Richmond and padlocked the road-gate’.117 However, Heperi Ranapiri’s lawyers sent a conflicting report to the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Napier in August 1947, stating that ‘Carroll has been unable to exercise his rights as Lessee as the former Crown tenants are still on the Block and have not yet gone out of occupation’.118 Carroll had intended to plough the block after the lease was confirmed in February, but could not do so as the paperwork for the confirmed lease was held up in the Native Land Court.119 This delay was due to a request by the Native Land Purchase Department in Wellington for copies of the lease to be sent to them. Lawyers representing Sydney Carroll wrote to the Native Land Court Registrar in Gisborne ‘astonished’ that the court should be playing such a role in their client’s lease arrangements. They stated:

The lease, and all the copies thereof, are the property of our client, and are lodged for one specific purpose – to be held in safe custody by the Court on his behalf, until confirmation is granted and terms of confirmation are complied with.120

113 Under-Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 18 April 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 114 Supervisor, Native Department, and Field Inspector, Department of Lands and Survey, Valuation of Aranui 1B Block, 20 June 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Under-Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to the Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 27 June 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 115 Under-Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to the Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 27 June 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 116 Under-Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 18 April 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Sainsbury, Logan & Williams, Napier, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 14 March 1947, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/42/a 4/200 2, R412815; Sainsbury, Logan & Williams, Napier, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 19 December 1946, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/42/a 4/200 2, R412815 117 Under-Secretary, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington, 18 April 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 118 Sainsbury, Logan & Williams, Napier, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 12 August 1947, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/42/a 4/200 2, R412815 119 G. M. O’Malley, Wairoa, to the Registrar, Native Land Court, Gisborne, 26 June 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Sainsbury, Logan & Williams, Napier, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 12 August 1947, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/42/a 4/200 2, R412815 120 G. M. O’Malley, Wairoa, to the Registrar, Native Land Court, Gisborne, 26 June 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177

Carroll’s lawyers alerted the Registrar that ‘it was the intent of the Native Land Act that the rights of Natives should be paramount’. In this case, however, despite the fact Sydney Carroll and the land owners were Māori, ‘Head Office seems to be more concerned over the rights (if any) of the adjacent European Crown tenants, than the rights of the Native parties to this transaction.’121 Having missed out on acquiring the land, the Crown ceased their efforts.122

Within five years, however, the matter was revived. In 1952, Devery, the Awamate Settlement farmer on section 1, which Aranui 1B extended through the middle of, and who had previously occupied Aranui 1B as a Crown tenant, advised the Department of Lands and Survey of owner Hapari Ranapiri’s death. Devery claimed there was a desire amongst Ranapiri’s heirs to sell ‘at least part of Aranui 1B’ and suggested that ‘the sub-lessee is not likely to remain in occupation much longer’ (Sydney Carroll had subleased the section to Topi Robinson in January 1948).123 In response, the Director General of the Department of Lands and Survey wrote to the Department of Māori Affairs:

I would be pleased to learn whether the property is available for purchase as consideration can then be given to acquiring the area with a view to negotiations with the present lessee for the surrender of his lease in favour of the Crown tenant.124

Hapari Ranapiri’s death led to renewed interest from the Crown, who tried to convince his widow, Rakumia Ranapiri (who acquired life interests in the 1657 shares) to sell.125 This avenue for acquisition was closed in November 1953, however, when it was established that Rakumia Ranapiri was not willing to sell and that the current tenant was demanding more than twice the recent valuation for his interests in the block.126 The Crown followed up on the matter again in 1956, but were advised the following year that Rakumia Ranapiri remained opposed to selling.127 In 1966, the Crown resumed its attempts to purchase the section from Hone Rewi Ranapiri.128 When Rakumia Ranapiri died, Hone

121 G. M. O’Malley, Wairoa, to the Registrar, Native Land Court, Gisborne, 26 June 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 122 Aranui 1B Block, 14 August 1947, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 123 Director-General, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to the Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 10 January 1952, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; District Officer, Gisborne, to the Under-Secretary, Wellington, 23 January 1952, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA- MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 124 Director-General, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to the Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 10 January 1952, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 125 District Officer, Gisborne, to the Under-Secretary, Wellington, 23 January 1952, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 126 Director-General, Department of Lands and Survey, to the Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 18 November 1956, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Secretary for Maori Affairs to Messers Harper, Atmore and Thompson, Barristers and Solicitors, Levin, 23 November 1956, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Secretary for Maori Affairs to the Director-General of Lands, Department of Lands and Survey, 31 January 1957, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Director General, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 6 February 1957, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/42/a 4/200 2, R412815 127 Director-General, Department of Lands and Survey, to the Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 16 November 1953, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Secretary for Maori Affairs to the Director General of Lands, 31 January 1957, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 128 G Mollet, Commissioner of Crown Lands, to Hone Rewi Ranapiri, Palmerston North, 31 August 1966, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177

Rewi Ranapiri succeeded Hapari Ranapiri’s interests in the block.129 A Rural Valuation and Short Report sent to the Secretary for Maori Affairs in October 1966 listed Hone Rewi Ranapiri as the principal owner of Aranui 1B Block, and Sydney Carroll as the occupier.130 At this stage, Hone Rewi Ranapiri indicated he would be willing to sell.131

Although the Order in Council had come too late to halt Sydney Carroll’s lease of Aranui 1B, when his 21-year lease ended in February 1968, the Crown’s restriction prohibiting any alienation of the land ‘other than in favour of the Crown’ remained in place.132 The District Officer for the Department of Maori Affairs in Gisborne called for a meeting of Aranui 1B owners, which was held in November 1967. It was not recorded in the Native Land Department files how many of the fourteen owners were present at this meeting, but the District Officer did record that a resolution was passed to sell to the Crown.133 On 1 October 1968, Part Aranui 1B Block was declared Crown land by the Governor General, subject to the Land Act 1948.134 This is the only example of the Crown purchasing Māori land for the inclusion in any of the settlements examined in this report.

Selection Process

The approximately 680 acres (not including Aranui 1B) of Awamate Settlement land was subdivided into six sections, ranging in size from approximately 87 acres to almost 149 acres. A poster advertised the sections were available for renewable lease, rather than for sale, although where and when this posted was distributed was not recorded in the Department of Lands and Survey files. All files at Archives New Zealand with Awamate in their title have been assessed for relevance to this report. Department of Lands and Survey files provided most of the information on Awamate Settlement located in the government record. None of the files contained a copy of the poster printed in te reo Māori.

Applications were due at the Lands and Survey Office in Napier by 23 June 1930. As the settlement was established in 1930, before the Small Farms Amendment Act 1940 prioritised discharged soldiers, applications were not restricted to returned servicemen. Nor were they restricted to Māori ex- servicemen as was the case at Huramua Settlement (discussed further below), but rather it was decided that:

129 District Officer, Gisborne, to the Under-Secretary, Wellington, 23 January 1952, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 130 The Department of Lands and Survey to the Secretary for Maori Affairs, 21 October 1966, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Valuation Department, Rural Valuation and Short Report, 2 November 1965, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; J M McEwen, Secretary, to Minister of Maori Affairs, 26 September 1968, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 131 E W Williams, District Officer, Palmerston North, to Gisborne Office, 23 September 1966, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 132 New Zealand Gazette, 9 January 1947, No 1, p 5; District Officer, Gisborne, to the Under-Secretary, Wellington, 23 January 1952, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 133 District Officer, Department of Maori Affairs, Gisborne, 17 April 1968, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA- MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; Secretary of Maori Affairs to Minister of Maori Affairs, 26 September 1968, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177 134 Governor General’s proclamation, 1 October 1968, Archives NZ, AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/260/f 1930/8, R23911177; New Zealand Gazette, 3 October 1968, No. 61, p 1685

Preference at the ballot will be given to landless applicants who have one or more children dependent on them; to landless applicants who within two years immediately preceding date of the ballot have applied for land at least twice unsuccessfully; to applicants who have served beyond New Zealand as members of the Expeditionary Force; to persons engaged on military service beyond New Zealand in connection with the late war, if such persons immediately prior to the war were bona fide residents of New Zealand; to applicants who while domiciled in New Zealand have served beyond New Zealand as members of any of His Majesty’s forces in connection with any war other than the war with Germany; and to landless applicants in respect of whom the Board, after taking into consideration the experience and skill of the applicants in farming operations, the proximity of their homes to the lands the subject-matter of the ballot, and any other relevant considerations, is of opinion that they should be entitled to preference equally with applicants of any of the hereinbefore specified classes.135

Therefore, out of six possible prerequisites to qualify for the ballot, three included military service. Military service was not a requirement for inclusion in the ballot, as it was in the other settlements in this report. The Crown’s intention on purchasing the land had been to develop it for ‘closer settlement’, without specific mention of it being for soldier resettlement. No mention was made of the requirement for applicants to have adequate financial resources, or to provide any financial information, as was the case with other settlements. Priority was instead given to men struggling to acquire land, particularly those with young children. The land board said that it would also take into consideration farming experience and a connection to the area. No te reo Māori versions of the information regarding the Awamate Settlement were located, and no record was located in the Department of Lands and Survey files about contact being made with local marae, Māori leaders, or communities to notify them about the upcoming land ballot.

Applicants to the Awamate land ballot were required to undergo a personal examination by the land board at the courthouse in Wairoa on 25 June 1930. If they were unable to attend in Wairoa, applicants could ‘be examined by any other land board or by any Commissioner of Crown Lands’, by an unspecified date. The ballot of applicants deemed suitable for the settlement was to be held at the courthouse the same day at the conclusion of the examination process.136

The Ballot

J D Thomson, Commissioner of Crown Lands in Napier, conducted the ballot for the Awamate Settlement on 25 June 1930. While Department of Lands and Survey files documenting this process have not been located, newspapers from around New Zealand described the ballot. The Poverty Bay Herald reported that the ‘whole forenoon was occupied in making the usual inquiries into the financial position of the applicants’, all of whom were present except two.137 It is possible however that the reporter assumed the personal examinations included financial inquiries based on how other settlement ballots generally operated, as no mention had been made of financial requirements in the advertisement for the settlement.

135 Awamate Settlement, Land Sale Map, 1930, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 431, R675586 136 Awamate Settlement, Land Sale Map, 1930, Archives NZ, ABWN 8109 W5280/107 431, R675586 137 Poverty Bay Herald, 26 June 1930, p 12, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19300626.2.129 accessed 13 January 2020

It was reported that a total of nineteen individuals applied for the six sections in Awamate Settlement, each of whom submitted applications to multiple sections, resulting in a total of 56 applications being received. Only two applications were received for section 1 however, and as both these applicants were successful in other sections, section 1 remained unallocated at this time.138 The Department of Lands and Survey later recorded a list of the six successful applicants (outlined in table 6 below).139 No record of any second marble applicants was found.

The successful applicants were W G Devery, D Lindsay, K O’Sullivan, W Richmond, P J Lister, and A S Bell. Although it was not a requirement for entry to the Awamate land ballot, four of the settlers’ names can be matched to New Zealand military personnel records. The Poverty Bay Herald published an article listing the successful applicants of the Awamate Settlement ballot and where they were from. This information aided in identifying military personnel records for the men allocated sections in the Awamate Settlement ballot.140

W G Devery, P J Lister, and A S Bell were all matched to military personnel records from World War One. As there are two D Lindsay’s with military personnel records from World War One, the information published in the newspaper article helped establish which D Lindsay was allocated the section. Of the remaining two settlers, no military personnel records could be located. There was no military personnel record for K O’Sullivan. While there were three W Richmond’s with military personnel records, none appeared to be a match for the Awamate settler. One of the three W Richmond files belonged to Whare Richmond, who was Māori and from Torere in the Bay of Plenty, but according to the files relating to Aranui 1B (see above), the settler of section 4 was identified as European. The remaining two military personnel files belonged to William Henry Richmond and William Orr Richmond, but there was nothing in either of their files connecting them to Awamate or the Wairoa region. Furthermore, there was no suggestion in the Department of Lands and Survey files relating to Awamate Settlement and Aranui 1B that W Richmond, the settler on section 4, had a middle name. For these reasons it has been assumed that K O’Sullivan and W Richmond were not military veterans.

138 ‘Closer Settlement’, Evening Star, 26 June 1930, p 17, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19300626.2.103 accessed 13 January 2020; this same article appeared on the same day in the Manawatu Standard (p 5), the Evening Post (p 10), the New Zealand Herald (p 9), the Otago Daily Times (p 13), and the Wairarapa Daily Times on 30 June 1930, p 6 139 List of Settlers on Awamate Settlement, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to the County Clerk, Wairoa, 23 October 1934, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/41/b 4/200 1, R412814 140 List of Settlers on Awamate Settlement, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to the County Clerk, Wairoa, 23 October 1934, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/41/b 4/200 1, R412814; Poverty Bay Herald, 26 June 1930, p 12, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19300626.2.129 accessed 13 January 2020

Table 6: Successful ballot applicants matched to military records – Awamate Settlement, 1930 Section Acres Successful Occupation Place of Intended Married / Veteran applicant birth address on children discharge 1s 89 W G Devery Self- Gisborne Blank Yes / one Yes. NZ employed Army contractor 2s 104 D Lindsay Butcher Waipukurau Waipukurau No / no Yes. NZ Army 3s 102 K O’Sullivan Not Not Not Not No recorded recorded recorded recorded 4s 87 W Richmond Not Not Not Not No recorded recorded recorded recorded 5s 132 P J Lister Engineer Balcairn, Dunedin No / no Yes. NZ Canterbury Army

6s 149 A S Bell Traveller Churchill, Auckland Yes /one Yes. NZ NZ Army 141

Source: List of Settlers on Awamate Settlement, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to the County Clerk, Wairoa, 23 October 1934, Archives NZ, AALX 839 W3108/41/b 4/200 1, R412814; Poverty Bay Herald, 26 June 1930, p 12; see footnote for specific military personnel file records.

Analysis of the records of the four men whose names did match military personnel files provides some information on the settlers who were successful in acquiring sections in the Awamate Settlement. These men were all born in New Zealand and served in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. None were from Wairoa, though W G Devery and D Lindsay were from nearby Gisborne and Waipukurau, respectively. None of the settlers were farmers at the time of their enlistment, and their occupations were listed as butcher, engineer, self-employed contractor, and traveller. Furthermore, only two were married with one child each. The military personnel files did not provide any information in relation to finances.

As Hearn established, there was no explicit discrimination against Māori in the land settlement process. Yet despite the Awamate Settlement being open to ex-servicemen and civilians alike, and despite financial resources and farm grading not being prerequisite conditions of entry to the ballot, no Māori appear to have been allocated sections on this settlement. None of the names listed as settlers in the Awamate Settlement matched those recorded on the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion roll, nor were any of the names Māori. Although four out of the six Awamate settlers appear to be returned servicemen, none appear to be Māori.

141 DEVERY, William Gillen - WW1 56143 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5537/31 0033546, R20996850; LINDSAY, Donald - WW1 17/112 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5544/19 0068304, R10919620; LISTER, Percy James - WW1 9/1191 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5544/21 0068517, R10919899; BELL, Andrew Sinclair - WW1 9972 – Army, 1914-1918, Archives NZ, AABK 18805 W5520/70 0013421, R22274279

Without a record of the full list of applicants, including those who were unsuccessful at the ballot, it cannot be confirmed whether any Māori applied. Nor can it be confirmed if there were applicants from Wairoa. Which applicants made it through to the ballot phase of the allocation process was a decision made by the land board and Commissioner of Crown Lands in the district at the time, and there is no record of this process.

Allocation of the Awamate Settlement met legislative requirements to favour landless applicants and to have the selection and ballot process was administered by a local land board. Despite occurring later and therefore being subject to different legislation, the same potential barriers to obtaining land in the Awamate Settlement remained for Māori returned soldiers as have been discussed in the Omana Settlement chapter. The same lack of records also apply as to whether any Māori applied to the Awamate Settlement ballot, whether the application process proved too difficult, or if applications were made but were declined entry to the ballot by the land board. All Awamate specific records at Archives New Zealand have been assessed for relevance to this report. Nowhere in these files is there evidence of any proactive efforts to inform, such as through materials in te reo Māori, or to assist returned Māori soldiers apply to the Awamate Settlement ballot.

Map 5: The Huramua Settlement location on a present-day topographical map

Huramua Settlement

In 1944 the Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee purchased 1777 acres of Turi Carroll’s Huramua property for the training and eventual settlement of Māori returned servicemen. Prior to being developed into Huramua Settlement, from July 1944 the land was subdivided into eight dairying units and run as a Rehabilitation Board training farm for Māori military veterans.142 A Board of Maori Affairs report from 1948 outlined the reasoning behind running the station first as a training farm, before converting it into a settlement:

It was realised by the Department, even before the Huramua property was acquired that there would be few, if any, Maori ex-servicemen who would be graded A for farming, and that many of those who would be applying for farming assistance would have insufficient knowledge to enable them to absorb much of the academic instruction which they would receive at such institutions as Lincoln and Massey Colleges, and that good practical instruction was required.143

This provides some insight into how Māori were perceived by some government officials at the time. It shows that the Department of Maori Affairs thought it unlikely that any Māori returned soldiers would be sufficiently qualified or experienced to go straight into running a farm without first receiving additional training. Furthermore, the report suggested that many Māori would be ill-suited to the ‘academic instruction’ of college level farming programmes and would be better off with the ‘good

142 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 480, 574, 708-710; Jinty Rorke, 'Carroll, Turi', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1998, Te Ara - the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/4c12/carroll-turi accessed 21 October 2019 143 Board of Maori Affairs: Huramua Soldier Settlement, May 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950

52 practical instruction’ of a training farm.144 Huramua was run as a training farm for approximately five years, from 1944 until 1949.

Farm training was one prerequisite that potentially made qualifying for soldier-settlements difficult for Māori. Hearn explained some Māori at the time considered that Huramua should not have been run as a training farm but rather divided up and allocated to Māori returned servicemen from the beginning.145 Kingi Winiata expressed this view in a meeting of Māori leaders and G. P. Shepherd, the Under Secretary of the Department of Native Affairs, held in Wairoa in June 1945, suggesting that the settlement could have been immediately settled and the settlement overseen by a supervisor. One of the government officials present at the meeting disagreed with this position and even suggested that after sections started being allocated at Huramua, one portion of land should be permanently retained as a training farm for Māori. Shepherd reiterated the position of the Department of Native Affairs, that men could not simply be put on land and expected to be successful farmers without first receiving an appropriate level of training.146 This illustrates the circular nature of one problem faced by Māori. Māori possibly had difficulty accessing land in part because they were not considered to have sufficient training, but whatever land was made available for training also had to compete with the need for land for Māori farm settlement.

The difficulty of navigating the paperwork and completing application forms to access soldier settlement schemes has been raised by Hearn as possible barrier for potential applicants at the time, particularly Māori. At the same meeting in Wairoa, Sydney Carroll suggested a survey be conducted in the region to determine how many houses were required to be built to meet the needs of the community. Under Secretary Shepherd disagreed, insisting instead the need for people wanting houses to fill out an application form. ‘If they are not interested enough to make an application they don’t deserve a house’, Shepherd proclaimed. Conducting a survey would ‘not help a bit’, he insisted.147 This illustrates the potential gap between the government’s equal-opportunity approach and the reality of difficulties of access faced by Māori.

Following the purchase of two properties adjoining Huramua Station – 1433 acres from P A Jessep and 364 acres from E N Knapp – in 1947, the Rehabilitation Board encouraged the Department of Native Affairs to prepare a plan for subdividing the land for soldier settlement.148 Due to the large size of the settlement, allocation of sections did not occur all at one time. Preparations for the subdivision included conducting significant drainage works, forming roads, and building houses and farm buildings.149 As such, groups of sections were allocated as they became ready and available for settlement over a period of approximately two years from 1948 to 1950. In 1949, the Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee recommended an end to the acceptance of trainees to the

144 Board of Maori Affairs: Huramua Soldier Settlement, May 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950 145 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 708 146 Report of a meeting between Under Secretary and Members of Wairoa Maori Leaders at Wairoa, 2 June 1945, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/99/c 8/887, R21933287 147 Report of a meeting between Under Secretary and Members of Wairoa Maori Leaders at Wairoa, 2 June 1945, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/99/c 8/887, R21933287 148 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 709 149 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Huramua Soldier Settlement’, 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950

Huramua training farm, as the land was being progressively subdivided and balloted in the gradual process of conversion into Huramua Settlement for Māori returned servicemen.150

Records analysed for this report indicate that Huramua Settlement had a total of fifteen sections. Records documenting the allocation of sections numbered one to thirteen were located, however no account of the settling of section 14 was found. Neither was a plan illustrating the subdivision of the sections, similar to those located for the Omana and Awamate Settlements.

At the time of selling his property to the Crown in 1944, Turi Carroll requested that Louis Kapene ‘be taken on as a settler under the Maori Land Development Scheme and settled on an area of approximately 70 acres’. Kapene was not a military veteran, but he had worked for Carroll on Huramua Station for approximately 16 years. In 1948, Kapene was granted a lease to section 15, after working for four years as foreman on the Huramua training farm. The farm supervisor, whom Kapene worked under, reported he was ‘a conscientious hard worker and thoroughly reliable’ with a ‘very good all round knowledge of dairy farming and cropping’.151 Section 15 on Huramua Settlement was therefore allocated under special circumstances and on different terms than those outlined below.

150 Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee paper, 1949, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/b 32/1/16/1 3, R11839951 151 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Wairoa Development Scheme’, December 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1031/b 32/1/16 1, R11839948

Figure 3: Plan of Huramua Block (the location of Huramua Settlement) beside Awamate Settlement, 1958

Source: Taramarama Survey District plan, A.W. Hampton, 1958, New Zealand Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, National Library of New Zealand, https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE3646113 accessed 13 January 2020

Selection Process and Balloting

On 9 October 1947, in the lead up to the allocation of the first six sections in the Huramua Settlement, G P Shepherd, Under-Secretary for the Department of Māori Affairs, wrote to the Director of the Rehabilitation Department Fred Baker, outlining the subdivision currently underway. In this letter, Shepard explained that allocation of the sections in the Huramua Settlement would be determined by ballot, entry to which, unlike the general settlement schemes, would be prioritised in the following way:

1. Maori ex-servicemen from the Wairoa District; 2. Maori ex-servicemen trained at Huramua; and 3. Maori ex-servicemen generally.152

152 G P Shepherd, Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, to Director of Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Department, Wellington, 9 October 1947, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/99/c 8/887, R21933287

On 7 May 1948, Baker sent Shepherd the ‘names of Maori ex-servicemen who hold “A” Grade farming certificates in the Wairoa district’.153 These processes of grading farming practice and prioritising servicemen from the region were crucial in the selection process of settlers for Huramua Settlement. The same grading prerequisites were also required for entry to the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement ballots, outlined in chapter 4.

Applicants allocated sections in the Huramua Settlement ballots did not receive the freehold title to their sections immediately. Instead, as part of the development programme, settlers were employed on the sections for a period of approximately twelve months before the final allocation was made. Whether the settler received permanent allocation after twelve months depended on their performance of duties to a ‘satisfactory’ standard. At the end of the twelve-month period, the farming sub-committee at Wairoa would review the settlers’ performance to determine whether they had maintained an ‘A’ grade standard of farming. If the applicant’s performance was deemed ‘unsatisfactory’, they would ‘be liable to disqualification’ and not offered the section on a permanent basis. Valuations, including of stock and chattels, would be made and charges fixed at the end of the twelve-month period, these costs would then be made known to the settlers who would have a fixed timeframe within which to accept the offer. Sections were made available to the successful farmers on either freehold or renewable lease titles. These terms, specified in the conditions of offering for each of the allocation processes, differed from those set out in the Omana or Awamate Settlements but were similar to the conditions under which farm 8 and farm 10 were offered in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement (see chapter 4).154

The first six sections – sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10 In 1948, Shepherd prepared the ‘Conditions of Offering’ document for the initial six sections offered at the Huramua Settlement. The draft ‘Conditions of Offering’ specified five criteria applicants were required to meet to be considered for settlement. These were:

Maori exservicemen of World War II who have been classified as eligible for immediate rehabilitation farming assistance, and who hold the requisite “A” grade qualification, and who are normally resident in the Wairoa County or have at any time been residents of the County for a period of at least ten years.155

The conditions further specified that applicants would be required to have ‘a high degree of farming ability, reliability and managerial capacity’. No mention was made of there being any financial

153 Director of Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Department, Wellington, F Baker, to G P Shepherd, Under- Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 7 May 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950 154 Huramua Soldiers Settlement, Draft Conditions of Offering, 13 September 1950, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288; ‘Hurumua Soldier Settlement: Draft Conditions of Offering’, G P Shepherd, Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950; Huramua Soldiers Settlement, Draft Conditions of Offering, 8 June 1950, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/b 32/1/16/1 3, R11839951 155 ‘Hurumua Soldier Settlement: Draft Conditions of Offering’, G P Shepherd, Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950

56 requirements.156 Attached to this document was a copy of the application form for the settlement ballot. No te reo Māori versions of these documents have been found.

Completed application forms were due by 18 June 1948, with personal examinations conducted by the farming sub-committee at Wairoa on 22 June. The role of the farming sub-committee was to decide whether applicants were ‘up to the required standard to participate in the ballot’, with specific emphasis being placed on the requirement that applicants must have ‘a high degree of farming ability, reliability and managerial capacity’. As mentioned above, in May 1948 Baker had sent Shepherd a list of the Māori ex-servicemen in the Wairoa district who held ‘A’ grade farming certificates. It would also have been the role of the farming sub-committee to prioritise the ballot entries in the order prepared by Shepherd. Once this had been determined, the ‘ballot of approved men’ was to take place that afternoon.157

The initial six sections – sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10 – were balloted on 22 June 1948. The successful applicants were O Tumataroa, A Tukaki, G Pomana, B King, R Paku, and B Beatie. All of these men except G Pomana had been on the list of Wairoa grade ‘A’ farmers prepared by Baker.158

Four more sections – sections 1, 6, 7, and 8 The ballot for sections 1, 6, 7, and 8 took place on 18 May 1949, almost a year after the first ballot. The ‘Conditions of Offering’ document setting out the selection process for these sections was not located. It is assumed, however, that the terms would have been very similar, if not the same, as for the initial six sections as each of the ‘Conditions of Offering’ documents located were nearly identical. The recipients of sections 1, 6, 7, and 8 were T Smiler, H Dewes, C R Smith, and M Waerea. Only M Waerea had been on the list of Wairoa grade ‘A’ farmers prepared by Baker in 1948.159 H Dewes did not pass the twelve-month review and by 25 August 1950 had been removed from his section ‘owing

156 ‘Hurumua Soldier Settlement: Draft Conditions of Offering’, G P Shepherd, Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950 157 ‘Hurumua Soldier Settlement: Draft Conditions of Offering’, G P Shepherd, Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950; Director of Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Department, Wellington, F Baker, to G P Shepherd, Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 7 May 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950 158 H Conway, Horticulturalist, Gisborne, to Registrar, Gisborne, 11 March 1949, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950; F Baker, Director of Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Department, Wellington, to G P Shepherd, Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 7 May 1948, ‘Maoris Graded “A” for Farming in the Wairoa District’, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950 159 Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee paper, 1949, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/b 32/1/16/1 3, R11839951; Registrar, Gisborne, to Undersecretary, Wellington, 29 May 1950, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/b 32/1/16/1 3, R11839951; H Conway, Horticulturalist, Gisborne, to Registrar, Gisborne, 11 March 1949, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950; F Baker, Director of Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Department, Wellington, to G P Shepherd, Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 7 May 1948, ‘Maoris Graded “A” for Farming in the Wairoa District’, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950

57 to unsatisfactory conduct’. Section 6 was subsequently re-balloted in September 1950, but the name of the successful applicant was not available in sources examined for this report.160

Section 11, section 12, and section 13 Sections 11, 12, and 13 were balloted on 12 July 1950. The draft ‘Conditions of Offering’ stipulated that applications were restricted to ‘suitably graded Maori Ex-Servicemen of World War II’ who ‘normally’ reside in the Wairoa County, or have at any time been ‘residents of the County for a period of at least 10 years’. The conditions specified that applicants would ‘require a high degree of farming ability, reliability and managerial capacity’ to be successful on these sections, and therefore they were required to hold an ‘A’ grade certificate for dairy farming in the Wairoa district (or any wider area including Wairoa).161

Application forms were to be delivered to the Rehabilitation Officer in Wairoa by 5 July 1950, with personal interviews by the Wairoa farming sub-committee to be held on 12 July. Married men were invited to bring their wives to the interview, where the farming sub-committee would decide whether applicants were ‘up to the required standard to participate in the ballot’, which was held later the same day. The successful applicants were G Keefe, T A Allen, and D H P Ferris.162

The last section Section 14 was to be ‘retained as a base farm until all the other sections … [were] stocked and settled and a resident supervisor is no longer deemed necessary’.163 A record of this section being balloted, or in any way allocated, was not located.

The Settlers

All the men allocated sections in these ballots, except Sergeant T A Allen, are recorded as having served in the 28th Māori Battalion during World War Two.164 Seven of the men listed either Wairoa or a neighbouring settlement within the Wairoa County – Nuhaka, Mohaka, Mahia – as either their own address or that of their next of kin, or both. The three who were not from the region were from the Wairarapa, Waihi, and Te Kakaha. Records examined did not show whether those three had ‘at any

160 V Holst, Registrar, Department of Maori Affairs, to the Secretary, Wairoa Co-op Dairy Co. Ltd., 25 August 1950, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/b 32/1/16/1 3, R11839951; Huramua Soldiers Settlement, Draft Conditions of Offering, 13 September 1950, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 161 Maori Rehabilitation Officer to Director and Assistant Director, 14 July 1950, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288; Huramua Soldiers Settlement, Draft Conditions of Offering, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 162 Huramua Soldiers Settlement, Draft Conditions of Offering, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288; B H Beale, District Rehabilitation Officer, Napier, ‘Maori Land Ballot’, 17 July 1950, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 163 Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee paper, 1949, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/b 32/1/16/1 3, R11839951 164 As recorded on the 28th Māori Battalion website, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/ accessed 13 January 2020

58 time’ been resident in the Wairoa County area for ten years or more, as stipulated in the conditions of offering.165 Archives New Zealand holds rehabilitation files for twelve of the Huramua settlers, but they are categorised as restricted access only. A request was made to the Ministry of Social Development (who hold responsibility for these records) for permission to access the relevant files, but a response had not yet been received before the lockdown restrictions were implemented by the New Zealand Government due to COVID-19 and it was no longer feasible to gain access to archival records. This section is therefore limited in the information provided on the individual settlers.

Table 7: Successful ballot applicants matched to military records – Huramua Settlement, 1950 Section Name 28th Māori Battalion Service Address on Address of Roll number enlistment next of kin 1, T Smiler Private Tommy 4166 Waimarama Wairoa 102 Smiler (father) acres 2, O Tumataroa Private Okeroa 65532 Mohaka, Mohaka, 103 Tumataroa Wairoa Wairoa acres (mother) 3, A Tukaki Private Andrew 26068 Te Kakaha Te Kakaha 103 Tukaki (father) acres 4, G Pomana Private George 67447 Nuhaka Tokomaru Bay 86 acres Pomana (mother) 5, B King Temporary Corporal 65516 Mahia Mahia (wife) 56 acres Benton King 6, H Dewes Temporary Corporal 25834 Waihi Waihi 234 Henry Dewes (mother) acres 7, C Smith Sergeant Cleo Ronald 67472 Nuhaka Nuhaka 65 acres Smith (father) 8, M Waerea Second Lieutenant 39647 Tahaenui, Pukehau 85 acres Mahuika Waerea Nuhaka (brother) 9, R Paku Temporary Sergeant 39540 Te Ore, Carterton 561 Raetea Paku Masterton (wife) acres

165 Plan of Wairoa County Hawkes Bay L.D., 1934, New Zealand Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, National Library of New Zealand, http://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26795882 accessed 22 January 2020; ‘Hurumua Soldier Settlement: Draft Conditions of Offering’, G P Shepherd, Under-Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, Wellington, 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950; H Dewes, 28th Māori Battalion record, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/henry-dewes accessed 15 January 2020; A Tukaki, 28th Māori Battalion record, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/andrew-tukaki accessed 15 January 2020; R Paku, 28th Māori Battalion record, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/raetea-paku accessed 15 January 2020

Section Name 28th Māori Battalion Service Address on Address of Roll number enlistment next of kin 10, B Beattie Private Brown Beatie 62933 Napier North Clyde, 52 acres Wairoa (mother) 11, G Keefe Private George Tau 68289 Kihitu, Wairoa Wairoa 63 acres Ta Keefe (mother) 12, T A Allen Sergeant Tau Albert 39427 Wairoa (also (not recorded) 46 acres Allen (not recorded on birthplace) the 28th Battalion roll) 13, D H P Ferris Private Donald Hari 39032 P.W.D. Camp, Wainui Road, 43 acres Pohatu Ferris Hurunui Bridge Gisborne (father) 14, Not recorded Not recorded Not Not recorded Not recorded 93 acres recorded

Source: B H Beale, District Rehabilitation Officer, Napier, ‘Maori Land Ballot’, 17 July 1950, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288; Registrar, Gisborne, to Undersecretary, Wellington, 29 May 1950, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/b 32/1/16/1 3, R11839951; H Conway, Horticulturalist, Gisborne, to Registrar, Gisborne, 11 March 1949, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950; see footnote for individual service records.166

By 1955, five of these settlers had either left the Huramua Settlement voluntarily or had their occupation on the settlement terminated. As mentioned above, H Dewes did not receive permanent allocation of section 6 after failing the review of his farming practice after one year on the settlement. The Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee cancelled T Smiler’s contract for settlement and his farm grading certificate was withdrawn in 1954, following repeated warnings regarding his ‘neglect of good animal husbandry and farming practice’. C Smith reportedly ‘did not settle down as a farmer’ and in June 1955 he advised the Department of Maori Affairs that he wished to leave the settlement. A similar report was made about M Waerea, who also left his farm in June 1955. D Ferris vacated section 13 after a year on the property to return to the army.167

166 Tau Albert Allen, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #0615635; 28th Māori Battalion records, all accessed 15 January 2020: H Dewes, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/henry-dewes A Tukaki, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/andrew-tukaki R Paku, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/raetea-paku T Smiler, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/tommy-smiler O Tumataroa, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/okeroa-tumataroa G Pomana, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/george-pomana B King, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/benton-king C Smith, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/cleo-ronald-smith M Waerea, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/mahuika-waerea B Beattie, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/brown-beattie G Keffe, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/george-tau-ta-keefe 167 Secretary for Maori Affairs to the Assistant Director, Rehabilitation Department, 19 October 1955, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288; V Holst, Registrar, Department of Maori Affairs, to the Secretary, Wairoa Co-op Dairy Co. Ltd., 25 August 1950, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/b 32/1/16/1 3, R11839951; B H Robertson, ADRO, to the Deputy Director, ‘Hurumua Farm Settlement’, 13 July 1955, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288

Farm 1 and Farm 2, previously Section 6 and Section 7, re-balloted After C Smith and M Waerea left the Huramua Settlement in 1955, a ballot was held for the reallocation of section 6 and section 7, now referred to as farm 1 and farm 2. An advertisement for the sections was published in newspapers throughout the North Island with the same specifications for farm grading and residential qualifications as previous ballots.168 The advertisement and ‘Conditions of Offering’ for these sections carried the qualification, however, that ‘should there not be sufficient ex-servicemen forthcoming with the above residential qualifications’, that the applicant ‘must normally be resident in the Wairoa County or have at any time been resident in the County for a period of at least 10 years’, then ‘other Maori Ex-Servicemen with suitable “A” grading for farming properties advertised will be considered’.169 For this purpose, the Rehabilitation Department requested that its district officers make contact with ‘all graded Maori ex-servicemen’. The response from the officers was that they could find ‘no eligible man who is interested in settlement on Huramua’. A Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee report on Huramua Settlement concluded that the ‘lack of applicants from the priority group for recent ballots, and enquiries made locally, shows that there appear to be no eligible graded ex-servicemen with local qualifications now desirous of settlement on Huramua’.170

A total of three applications were received 8 July 1955, with the applicants required to attend a meeting of the Hawke’s Bay Land Settlement Committee on 11 July.171 Farm 1 was a mixed dairy and sheep farm and the only applicant for this section was G Pomana, the settler on section 4, a dairy farm. Pomana was accepted for farm 1, leaving his section vacant. Two applications were received for farm 2, though neither of the applicants met the requirement of holding a current ‘A’ grade farming certificate.172

In August 1955, P K Jones was offered farm 2 under ‘preferential allotment… on civilian terms’, although Jones was a veteran of the 28th Māori Battalion.173 L P Turner, Deputy Director of Rehabilitation, recorded the allocation to Jones was ‘approved solely on the grounds of expediency as

168 B H Robertson, ADRO, to the Deputy Director, ‘Hurumua Farm Settlement’, 13 July 1955, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288; ‘Settlement of Maori Ex-Servicemen – Hurumua Farm Settlement – Wairoa’, B H Beale, Napier, 14 June 1955, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288; ‘Land for Settlement, Maori Ex-Servicemen’, Huramua Soldier Settlement: Wairoa’, V Holst, District Officer, Department of Maori Affairs, Gisborne, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 169 ‘Land for Settlement, Maori Ex-Servicemen’, Huramua Soldier Settlement: Wairoa’, V Holst, District Officer, Department of Maori Affairs, Gisborne, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288; ‘Huramua Soldiers Settlement, Draft Conditions of Offering’, V Holst, District Officer, Department of Maori Affairs, Gisborne, 9 June 1955, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 170 ‘Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee: Huramua Farm Settlement’, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 171 B H Robertson, ADRO, to the Deputy Director, ‘Hurumua Farm Settlement’, 13 July 1955, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 172 ‘Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee: Huramua Farm Settlement’, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 173 Rehabilitation Board response to Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee, 4 August 1955, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288; Pare Keiha Jones, 28th Māori Battalion record, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/pare-keiha-jones accessed 15 January 2020

61 there is no suitable graded and eligible man available’. Furthermore, ‘Jones has a herd and someone must be put on the section urgently’.174 Jones had recent experience working on a family dairy farm in Gisborne where he owned a dairy herd of 50 cows, as well as a range of farm machinery including a tractor. It was also recorded that he had £500 cash and a reputation for being ‘a very good farmer… of excellent character’.175

Due to G Pomana’s relocation within the Huramua Settlement, section 4 remained available. Turner notified the Department of Maori Affairs in August that approval had been given for this section to be allocated ‘to an ineligible Maori ex-serviceman provided no suitable eligible and graded Maori ex- serviceman is available’.176 The second applicant to farm 2, W Ferris, had been trained on Huramua Training Farm, but ‘had proved very unsatisfactory and unreliable’ and was therefore not considered for settlement.177 A record of the reallocation of this section was not located.

Huramua Settlement by 1956 A report by Frederick Baker of the Rehabilitation Department recorded that by 1956 the ‘whole area, including the Awamati [sic] block… [had] been settled’, with the settlers ‘working to the new subdivisions’, though neither a description or plan of this ‘new subdivision’ was included with the report. The report did, however, include the names of fifteen men now occupying sections in the Huramua Settlement.178 Baker’s report did not match the names of the settlers to the sections they occupied, though nine of the names did match those allocated in the 1948, 1949, and 1950 ballots, outlined above and recorded in table 7. Table 8 (below) sets out the settlers who remained at Huramua by 1956, as well as the six additional settlers.

Table 8: Settlers on Huramua Settlement in 1956 Section Settler 28th Māori Battalion Roll Service number 2 O Tumataroa Private Okeroa Tumataroa 65532 3 A Tukaki Private Andrew Tukaki 26068 5 B King Temporary Corporal Benton King 65516 9 R Paku Temporary Sergeant Raetea Paku 39540 10 B Beatie Private Brown Beatie 62933 11 G Keefe Private George Tau Ta Keefe 68289 12 T Allen Sergeant Tau Albert Allen 39427 (not recorded on the Battalion roll)

174 L P Turner, Deputy Director of Rehabilitation, to E A MacKay, Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 10 August 1955, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 175 ‘Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee: Huramua Farm Settlement’, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 176 L P Turner, Deputy Director of Rehabilitation, to E A MacKay, Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 10 August 1955, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 177 ‘Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee: Huramua Farm Settlement’, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 178 ‘Huramua Land Settlement Block’, report by Frederick Baker, Commissioner, 1 May 1956, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288

Section Settler 28th Māori Battalion Roll Service number 15 L Kapene Civilian Not applicable Farm 1 G Pomana previously Private George Pomana 67447 (previously settled on section 4 section 6) Farm 2 P K Jones Private Pare Keiha Jones 801993 (previously section 7) Not recorded J Gerrard Sergeant John Gerrard 39151 Not recorded J Carr Second Lieutenant Joseph Carr 46089 Not recorded W P Morunga (not recorded on the Battalion roll) Not recorded Not recorded Te Hei (Ben Hook) Huka Private Te Hei Mauroa Huka 68386 Not recorded J Nohokau Private James Nohokau 62680

Source: Land Settlement, Huramua Block, 1949-1964, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288; see footnote for individual service records of new settlers.179

Baker’s report recorded John Gerrard and Joseph Carr as ‘comparatively recent settlers’, while W P Morunga had already been issued with a lease for his section so had presumably been on the settlement for approximately a year already.180 No further information was provided on T H Huka or J Nohokau, and no record of the allocation of sections to these six settlers was available in sources searched for this report.

Settlers on the Huramua Settlement were initially restricted to Māori ex-servicemen from the Wairoa area with ‘A’ grade farming certificates. These restrictions were moderated in the mid-1950s, after the allocation of all sections had taken place, when some of the original settlers left the settlement and applicants to replace them who met all the criteria could not be found. At that time, applications were opened to include Māori ex-servicemen without the requisite farming or residential qualifications. Nevertheless, applicants fulfilling even the new criteria could not be found. Despite the perceived lack of interest from Māori ex-servicemen, the Rehabilitation Board remained adamant that it would not be appropriate to allow Pākehā ex-servicemen to apply for sections in the Huramua Settlement.181

179 28th Māori Battalion records, all accessed 15 January 2020: Pare Keiha Jones, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/pare-keiha-jones John Gerrard, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/john-gerrard Joseph Carr, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/joseph-carr Te Hei Mauroa Huka, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/te-hei-mauroa-huka James Nohokau, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/soldier/james-nohokau There is a ‘Former servicemen's rehabilitation file’ for William Poro Morunga held at Archives NZ (Wellington), but it is categorised as Restricted and unfortunately permission to view it had not been received from the Ministry of Social Development before the Level 4 lockdown restrictions were implemented by the New Zealand Government due to COVID-19. 180 ‘Huramua Land Settlement Block’, report by Frederick Baker, Commissioner, 1 May 1956, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288 181 ‘Matter for Consideration by the Rehabilitation Board’, resolved 4 August 1955, Archives NZ, AADK 6130 W1666/100/a 8/887, R21933288

Conclusion

The Awamate and Huramua Settlements are two very different examples of the Crown’s soldier settlement policies at work. Established on neighbouring land within fifteen years of each other, the settlements were established under different legislation and the criteria for applicants to qualify for the ballots were quite different.

Established between the two World Wars and during the period known as the 1930s Economic Depression, Awamate Settlement was open to veterans and civilians alike as the legislation at this time no longer prioritised World War One veterans and did not yet prioritise World War Two veterans. Furthermore, there was no requirement for applicants to have previous farming experience, although it was identified as a factor for consideration by the land board. Applications were open to land- seekers from throughout New Zealand, with proximity of the applicants’ home only mentioned briefly as a possible consideration for the land board. Despite the more lenient requirements placed on applicants to the Awamate Settlement, sections in the settlement were still only awarded to Pākehā. As mentioned earlier, without a record of the names of all the people who applied to the ballot, it cannot be confirmed whether there were any Māori applicants, and therefore whether any Māori were removed from consideration prior to the ballot. Nor was there any record of te reo Māori material about the settlement being produced, or of Māori specifically being informed about the settlement or the application process.

The Huramua Settlement was established during World War Two with the distinct purpose of settling Māori veterans of this war. As such, applications were restricted to Māori World War Two veterans who were also required to have a high level of farming experience and practical ability. Preference in the Huramua Settlement land ballots was given to applicants from the area and the majority of settlers identified were from the Wairoa region. It is possible that the difficulty faced by the Rehabilitation Board in finding suitable applicants for the settlement towards the mid-1950s is indicative of the reluctance of Māori by this time to seek access to land settlement through the Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee, as Hearn proposed.182 It is also possible that the conditions placed on applicants were too prohibitive to attract Māori farmers.

No official record was located in the Department of Lands and Survey or the Department of Maori Affairs files related to Huramua and Awamate at Archives New Zealand of any settlers named Huata or Aranui receiving sections in either of these settlements, as raised by Wi Te Tau Huata and Hira Huata in their briefs of evidence. Nor was any record found of Reverend Hemi Pititi Huata contributing land to the settlement schemes of Awamate or Huramua.183

182 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 746-748 183 Wi Te Tau Huata, Wai 2500, #A62; Hira Huata, Wai 2500, #A63

Chapter 4 – Rakaukaka Farm Settlement

Map 6: The Rakaukaka Farm Settlement location on a present-day topographical map

Introduction

The Rakaukaka Farm Settlement is located at Manutuke, approximately fifteen kilometres from Gisborne and 10 kilometres from Muriwai. In 1948, the Crown purchased 1625 acres of general title land from the estate of G A Hardy under Part II of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943. The land was subdivided into a total of thirteen sections – seven dairy, two sheep, and four horticultural units. These sections were allocated by ballot to discharged soldiers who had served in World War Two.184

The commission for this report described the soldier settlement in this area as ‘Manutuke (Opou Station) and Muriwai’.185 However no evidence was located for this report of Crown settlements officially named Manutuke, Muriwai, or Opou. On further investigation with claimants, they confirmed that what is officially known as the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement is located in the Manutuke and Muriwai area. Identification of the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement as the settlement referred to by claimants in this inquiry is explained further below.

As Hearn identified, the legislation governing World War Two soldier settlements schemes sought to improve on the experience of World War One rehabilitation. However, although the legislation set out to provide Māori and Pākehā returned soldiers with equal access to land ballots, the practical

184 Director General to the Permanent Head, Ministry of Works, 13 May 1949, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/b 4/34 2, R21489282; District Public Trustee, Gisborne, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, 18 November 1930, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/a 4/34 1, R21489281; 3rd Year Report, Report on Progress of Selector: Year Ending 30 June 1961, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/13, R18646170 185 Memorandum-Directions Commissioning Research, Wai 2500, #2.3.24, (see appendix 1, attached)

65 implementation of the schemes did not result in the equal distribution of land. How the legislation was implemented through the offering and allocating of sections in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement will assess the issues Hearn raises.

The Claims

The claims relevant to this settlement were brought by Turi Stone, Tamati Pohatu, Most Reverend Archbishop Brown Turei, and Nolan Raihania (Wai 1344) and raise issues of the alleged failure to offer Māori land in the Crown’s soldier settlement schemes following World War One and World War Two.186

Nolan Raihania, Turi Pohatu Stone, and Temple Isaacs all presented briefs of evidence during week one of the inquiry’s oral hearing held at Muriwai Marae in August 2015. They spoke to the allegations of lack of support offered to the Māori returned soldiers of the Gisborne area and the failure of the Crown to ensure Māori were fairly treated in allocations of land for soldier settlements in the area.187

Hori Hokianga provided detailed evidence about the soldier settlement in Manutuke, describing the location of the sections ‘down Papatu Road’. He identified Opou Station as ‘the place where the Manutuke soldier resettlement scheme came to be’, and alleged the Crown awarded land to Pākehā soldiers while Māori, including his uncles who were veterans, ‘got nothing’. Māori veterans, Hori Hokianga stated, ‘weren’t given the same opportunity as Pakeha’, which, ‘is what this is all about: mana, reciprocity, acknowledgement and recognition’.188

No government records were located for a settlement officially named either Manutuke or Muriwai. However, after further discussion with claimants, Mr Stan Pardoe advised that the settlement referred to was located around Papatu Road and the Rakaukaka Block. In addition, he provided the names of eight settlers awarded sections. Records checked for this report established that seven of the names provided by Mr Pardoe match the names of those who originally received sections at Rakaukaka Farm Settlement. The Rakaukaka Farm settlement is located at Manutuke.189

The Rakaukaka Farm Settlement is also linked to Opou, being bordered by Te Arai River to the south with Papatu Road running through the southern end. That places the location very near to the Opou Station homestead. Furthermore, the settlement was located on two blocks of land that had been farmed by William Clark of Opou Station. The larger block of 1625 acres William Clark had leased from G A Hardy, and the smaller one of 429 acres Clark had owned. The Rakaukaka Settlement was therefore linked to Opou Station though the inclusion of some Opou Station land. Mr Pardoe also provided evidence of the settlement’s location on the Rakaukaka block.190

186 Amended Statement of Claim, 21 November 2014, Wai 1344, #1.1.1(b); Amended Statement of Claim, 28 June 1016, Wai 1344, #1.1.1(c) 187 Nolan Raihania, Brief of Evidence, Wai 2500, #A3; Turi Pohatu Stone, Brief of Evidence, Wai 2500, #A4; Temple Isaacs, Brief of Evidence, Wai 2500, #A28; Wai 2500 Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry, Hearing Week 1, 24-26 August 2015, Transcript Document, Wai 2500, #4.1.2 188 Hori Hikianga, Brief of Evidence, Wai 2500, #A228 189 Email correspondence from Stan Pardoe via David Stone, 30 October 2019 190 Opou Station Homestead’, 95 Whakato Road, Opou Station, Manutuke, Heritage New Zealand, Pouhere Taonga, https://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list/details/7170 accessed 10 February 2020; District Public Trustee, Gisborne, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, 18 November 1930, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/a

Establishment of the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement

The Crown purchased 1625 acres of general title land from the estate of G A Hardy in 1948. In June 1949, this was amalgamated with 429 acres of adjoining general title land acquired from the estate of W Clark. These were voluntary sales on the part of the owners, not compulsory takings by the Crown. The portion of land from the Clark estate was located between Papatu Road and Te Arai River, where Whakatere Road is today (see map 6 above). The Hardy estate land was immediately to the north of the Clark estate land, on the other side of Papatu Road, where Rakaukaka Road is located. Up until 1949, the portion of land from the Clark estate had been known as the Whakatere Farm Settlement. This was subdivided into four orchard units in 1949.191

The land acquired from the G A Hardy estate was held in a trust at the time of acquisition. The name given to the trust was Rakaukaka. The beneficiaries of the trust were named as Kate Yorke Hardy Gibson of Napier, Mary Volkner Hardy also of Napier, and Mary Jane Pritchard of Gisborne. In 1930, the District Public Trustee in Gisborne wrote to the local Commissioner of Crown Lands, E P Wakelin, advising him that, while the beneficiaries of the Rakaukaka Trust were ‘reluctant to sell the property’ which had belonged to their family ‘for very many years’, their current circumstances made it ‘desirable that the property should be converted into cash’ and they preferred ‘that the Government acquire it for settlement’. Furthermore, the trustees were absentee owners and the land had been leased to W Clark, an adjoining landowner, in 1932. Following Clark’s death in 1943, the lease was held by the estate of W Clark. The trustees of the Clark estate were then asked by Wakelin whether they were prepared to give up the lease ‘in the event of the Crown acquiring the property’. The trustees of the Clark estate were reluctant, however, to either surrender the lease or to sell their own neighbouring land, while Private J W Clark, William Clark’s son and principal beneficiary of the trust, was on active service with the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in Italy. In 1946, the trustees of the Clark estate informed the Crown through their solicitors that Private J W Clark had returned from overseas and the trustees were now prepared to sell their lease to the Crown. The land was purchased under Part II of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943 and came into Crown possession on 27 February 1948.192

4/34 1, R21489281; Director General, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, 27 June 1949, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/b 4/34 2, R21489282 191 Land Settlement Board, Application to dispose of settlement land, Gisborne Land District, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/b 4/34 2, R21489282; Director General, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, 27 June 1949, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/b 4/34 2, R21489282; Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to the Director General, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, 28 July 1949, ‘Summary for Fixing Charges’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155 192 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to the Under Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 18 September 1945, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/a 4/34 1, R21489281; District Public Trustee, Gisborne, to the Commissioner for Crown Lands, Gisborne, 18 November 1930, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/a 4/34 1, R21489281; Nolan and Skeet, Barristers, Solicitors and Notaries Public, Gisborne, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, 20 February 1945 and 30 October 1946, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/a 4/34 1, R21489281; Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to the Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington, 26 April 1946, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/a 4/34 1, R21489281; New Zealand Gazette, 19 June 1947, no 33, p 755; New Zealand Gazette, 12 February 1948, no 8, p 163

The Crown initially intended to subdivide the land into nine dairy units and one ‘fat lamb proposition’. The first five of these sections required little development before being ready to settle as dairying units, while the remainder of the block required ‘a large scale drainage scheme’ before being ‘ploughed and regrassed’. The Commissioner of Crown Lands in Gisborne explained to the Under Secretary for Lands that the available water supply would ‘govern the number of further dairy subdivisions’ that could be established on the block. Initial plans of the settlement set out eleven agricultural units (see figure 4, below). The scheme was revised over time, however, and a 1957 plan of the settlement showed a rearrangement of farm units, with farm 7 and farm 9 having been removed from the plan (see figure 5).193 This explains why there is no record of the allocation or settlement of these sections.

Figure 4: Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, plan of sections 1-11, 1951

Source: Rakaukaka Block plan, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/27/b 4/34 4, R21489284

193 Senior Development Supervisor, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, 16 November 1948, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/a 4/34 1, R21489281; Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to the Under-Secretary for Lands, 18 January 1949, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/b 4/34 2, R21489282; Rakaukaka Block plan, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/27/b 4/34 4, R21489284; Topographical Plan, Pt. Rakaukaka Block, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155; Rakaukaka Block plan, Archives NZ, BANF 694/29/b 4/34 8, R21489288

Selection Process and Balloting

The Rakaukaka Farm Settlement was eventually settled as seven dairy farms, two sheep farms, and four smaller horticultural units suitable for pip fruit, stone fruit, and citrus orchards between 1949 and 1958. These thirteen sections were not all allocated at the same time or in the same way. This section will discuss how and to whom the sections at Rakaukaka Farm Settlement were divided up and allocated.194

Four Orchard Sections In 1949, E P Wakelin, Commissioner of Crown Lands in Gisborne, gave notice that ‘Four sections suitable for pip and stone and/or citrus fruit’, were available for selection. Comprising what was still at this stage known as the Whakatere Farm Settlement, these sections were on land formerly part of Opou Station on Papatu Road (as explained in the claims section above, see also figure 4).195 Department of Lands and Survey records viewed did not indicate where this notice was published or displayed. Neither were any application forms for this settlement located.

Applications were open to World War Two veterans who were ‘eligible for immediate financial assistance under the Rehabilitation Board’s rules of eligibility and priority’. These rules included the condition that applicants were required to be ‘graded “A” for pip and stone fruit, and/or citrus growing in the Gisborne District, or for any district or districts which include Gisborne’. Applicants graded outside the Gisborne District were required to ‘appear before their “home” Farming subcommittee to determine whether they have a reasonable prospect of satisfying the Gisborne Committee in the matter of the required special qualifications in horticulture for the first few seasons’ before submitting their application. The notice specified that sections were only available for development as fruit orchards, stipulating that:

Successful applicants will be required to proceed with all possible enterprise to establish and develop a stone and pip fruit and/or citrus orchard. The using of the land for a purpose inconsistent with this object will render the lease liable to forfeiture or will be deemed to constitute grounds for the calling up of any mortgage securing moneys advanced by the Rehabilitation Loans Committee.196

Further ‘Terms and Conditions of Selection’ were available from the Rehabilitation Offices but were not located in the records of the Department of Lands and Survey viewed for this report. Completed application forms were due at the Lands and Survey Office in Gisborne by Friday 20 May 1949. The notice stipulated that:

194 E P Wakelin, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to the Director General of Lands, Wellington, 7 December 1949, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/26/b 4/34 2, R21489282; Rakaukaka Block plan, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/27/b 4/34 4, R21489284; Topographical Plan, Pt. Rakaukaka Block, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155 195 ‘Land at Gisborne for Selection by Ex-Servicemen’, May 1949, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155 196 ‘Land at Gisborne for Selection by Ex-Servicemen’, May 1949, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155

All applicants must appear at Gisborne for personal examination by the Gisborne Farming Subcommittee at 9a.m. on 23rd. May, 1949. The Committee will approve, for admission to the ballot, only those applicants who can satisfy the Committee that they will have reasonable prospects of developing their sections into economic fruit units without further financial assistance than outlined above.197

Finances, it appears, were a significant contributing factor in whether an applicant would be admitted to the ballot, with the settlers expected to cover the costs of development on their sections. Further information on how the Gisborne farming sub-committee determined an applicant’s prospects was not located. As outlined earlier (in chapter 1 of this report), it was up to the farming sub-committee to determine the grade awarded to the applicant. On the day of the ballot, Wakelin sent a memorandum notifying the Director General of Lands of the names drawn. The four successful applicants were J Brodie, H S Cutts, R J Anderson, and R W Clark.198

Prices for the sections had not been fixed at the time the notice of offering was drafted, but a record of the price they were offered to settlers was located in one of the settler’s Department of Lands and Survey file. The four orchard sections were offered in 1949 at the following amounts: £610 for section 1, £570 for section 2, £560 for section 3, and £580 for section 4. Brodie accepted Section 1 freehold, while Cutts, Anderson, and Clark accepted sections 2, 3, and 4 on renewable leases.199

Although the total number of applicants was not recorded in this correspondence, Wakelin wrote of a ‘fifth application’, suggesting there was only a total of five applications received. The fifth applicant, he wrote, ‘was rejected by the Farming Sub-Committee because of his financial position, and it was considered by the Committee that the applicant would have no reasonable prospects of meeting commitments, particularly for the first two to three years’. It is apparent that the four successful applicants satisfied the committee with respect to their financial position. It was noted by the sub- committee that Brodie and Cutts were both from the area and had ‘seasonal work and ample machinery available to them’, while Anderson and Clark were both ‘single men’ with ‘fairly substantial cash resources’. The settlers were granted possession of their land on the same day as the ballot was held.200 None of these settlers were listed on the 28th Māori Battalion roll and there was nothing in their Department of Lands and Survey files to suggest that any of them were Māori.201

197 ‘Land at Gisborne for Selection by Ex-Servicemen’, May 1949, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155 198 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to the Director General, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, 28 July 1949, ‘Summary for Fixing Charges’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155; Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to the Director General, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, 23 May 1949, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155 199 ‘Land at Gisborne for Selection by Ex-Servicemen’, May 1949, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155; Land Settlement Board: Offer of Property and Subsequent Disposal, 8 May 1957, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863/2, R18646159 200 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to the Director General of Lands, Wellington, 23 May 1949, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155; Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to Director General, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, 28 July 1949, ‘Summary for Fixing Charges’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155 201 Gisborne - Brodie, J. - Block VIII - Patutahi S. D. [Survey District], 1949, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863/1, R18646158; Rakaukaka F. S. [Farm Settlement] - Anderson, R. J. - Block VIII - Patutahi S. D. [Survey District], 1951-1957, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863/2, R18646159; Gisborne - Cutts, H. S. - Block VIII - Patutahi S. D. [Survey District] - Rakaukaka F. S. [Farm Settlement], 1949-1957, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863/3, R18646160; Rakaukaka F. S. [Farm Settlement] - Gisborne - Clark, R. W. - Block VIII - Patutahi S. D. [Survey District], 1949-1957, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863/4, R18646161

Farm 1, Farm 4, and Farm 5 The first three dairy units offered in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement were advertised for settlement in June 1950. E P Wakelin, Commissioner of Crown Lands in Gisborne, sent a copy of the draft advertisement to the Director General of Lands in Wellington on 24 May 1950. It is from this document that most of the information about this allocation process has been gathered.202

The document, entitled ‘Land for Settlement – Ex Servicemen. Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, Near Manutuke’, offered farm 1, farm 4, and farm 5 on freehold title, deferred payment license, or renewable lease. Applications were sought from veterans of World War Two who had been ‘classified as eligible for immediate Rehabilitation Farming Assistance by the Rehabilitation Board’. Furthermore, applicants were required to have been graded ‘A’ for dairy farming in the Gisborne and East Coast districts. Evidence of grading in the form of a certificate issued by the Rehabilitation Department, as well as evidence of financial resources, were to be submitted with the application form to the Lands and Survey Office in Gisborne by 6 July 1950. The ballot was scheduled for the following day at the Government Buildings in Gisborne. No mention was made of applicants being required to present themselves for personal examination.203

Each of these sections was roughly 150 acres and estimated to carry approximately 50 cows. These sections were made available through renewable lease, freehold, or deferred payment licence. Cash contributions for freehold or deferred payment licence were set at £470 for farm 1 and farm 4, and £225 for farm 5. Each farm was to have a three-bedroom house, a cowshed, an implement shed, and a set of piggeries built, with all but the private dwellings due for completion ‘in time for the milking season’. Temporary accommodation was to be provided on each section until the houses were completed. Applicants were expected to view the sections prior to submitting their application to ensure suitability to their requirements, as the descriptions provided in the advertisement were intended as a ‘possible guide’ only. The date of possession was 10 July 1950, though this was negotiable depending on arrangements made for stock and plant allocation.204 On 7 July 1950, the three farms were allocated by ballot to V H W Groves, R M Gordon, and L A Ritchie, who all took them on renewable lease agreements. A total of 83 applications were received for the three sections (28 each for farms 1 and 5, and 27 for farm 4), though it is not clear if this was a total of 28 applicants each applying to all of the sections, or more applicants applying to one or two sections only.205 Further information about the unsuccessful applicants or the ballot process, including whether a personal examination was conducted, was not located. None of the successful applicants were listed on the 28th Māori Battalion roll and there was nothing in their Department of Lands and Survey files to suggest that any of them were Māori.206

202 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to the Director General of Lands, Wellington, 24 May 1950, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167; ‘Land for Settlement – Ex Servicemen. Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, Near Manutuke’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167 203 ‘Land for Settlement – Ex Servicemen. Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, Near Manutuke’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167 204 ‘Land for Settlement – Ex Servicemen. Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, Near Manutuke’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167 205 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, to the Director General of Lands, Wellington, 17 July 1950, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167 206 Gisborne - Groves, V. H. W. - Section 133, Block IV - Patutahi S. D. [Survey District] - Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, 1951-1966, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863/5, R18646162; Gisborne - Ritchie, L. R. - Sect.

Farm 2, Farm 3, and Farm 11 Allocation of the second round of dairy units to be offered in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement was run in conjunction with four other settlements in the Gisborne Land District, namely the Hakanui, Sherbrooke, Waimiro, and Wharekiri Farm Settlements. The outline of this process was described in a Department of Lands and Survey notice titled ‘Land for Selection: Ex-Servicemen’. As with the notice about the orchard sections, where this notice was published or made available was not specified in the files viewed for this report. Nor did the files contain a copy of the corresponding application form which the notice described as containing ‘Full information on the Terms and Conditions of Selection of Crown Land’.207

As with the earlier dairy farms allocated in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, applicants for these sections were required to be veterans of World War Two who had been ‘classified as eligible for immediate Rehabilitation Farming Assistance by the Rehabilitation Board’. They were also required to be graded ‘A’ for the type of farm they applied to – sheep and lamb at Hakanui, Sherbrooke, and Waimiro Settlements, and dairy at Rakaukaka. Completed application forms ‘together with Grading Certificates issued by the Rehabilitation Department and evidence of financial resources’ were to be lodged with the Commissioner of Crown Lands at the Lands and Survey Office in Gisborne by 20 April 1951. Evidence of finance was required in the form of a bank certificate or pass book. Applicants who did not have access to the required finance were advised to contact their local Rehabilitation Officer by 18 April 1951 to arrange to have their ‘case heard by the Rehabilitation Department Farming Sub- Committee’. As with the earlier ballots, applicants were expected to inspect the properties prior to submitting their applications, to ensure the sections suited their requirements. Specifications of sections described in the Lands for Selection document were intended to provide ‘general information only, and as a possible guide’ for prospective applicants.208

The vetting process applicants went through was not described in any of the files viewed for this report. The ballot of suitable applicants was drawn on 24 April 1951 at the s Lands and Survey Office in Gisborne. The Rakaukaka Farm Settlement units allocated in the ballot were farm 2, farm 3, and farm 11. Each unit was described as having a ‘dwelling, implement shed and a 3-bail milking shed’ in the process of being built, with ‘temporary married accommodation’ available if required. Each section was estimated to carry approximately 50 cows and was available for lease or freehold title at the price specified in the schedule – £400 for farm 2 or farm 3, £200 for farm 11. A total of 34 applications were received for farm 2, 33 for farm 3, and 31 for farm 11. On 7 May 1951, the three successful applicants – S J Fourneau, T R Colebrook, and W H Gumbley – were notified by the Department of Lands and Survey in Gisborne that their date of possession was 21 May, on which day they or an ‘authorised agent’ were required to be at the farm to take possession of their stock.209 None of these settlers were

[Section] 25, Block VIII - Patutahi S. D. [Survey District], 1951-1971, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/9, R18646166 207 ‘Land for Selection: Ex-Servicemen, Gisborne Land District’, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/27/b 4/34 4, R21489284 208 ‘Land for Selection: Ex-Servicemen, Gisborne Land District’, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/27/b 4/34 4, R21489284 209 ‘Land for Selection: Ex-Servicemen, Gisborne Land District’, Archives NZ, BANF 5694/27/b 4/34 4, R21489284

72 listed on the 28th Māori Battalion roll and there was nothing in their Department of Lands and Survey files to suggest that any of them were Māori.210

Farm 10 The three sections remaining to be allocated on the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement were offered individually, rather than grouped as the previous sections had been. On 17 August 1951, the Department of Lands and Survey approved the conditions of offering for farm 10 in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, forwarding three copies of the document to the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Gisborne. Less than five months after farms 2, 3, and 11 were balloted, farm 10 was offered for settlement in September 1951.211

Applications were open to veterans ‘classified as eligible for immediate Rehabilitation Farming Assistance’. Applicants were required to have been ‘Graded “A” for Dairy farming (Major enterprise) and Sheep, in the Gisborne-East Coast District’, and grading certificates issued by the Rehabilitation Department as well as evidence of financial resources were to be included with completed application forms. This documentation was due at the Lands and Survey Office in Gisborne by 21 September 1951, with the ballot to be held in the same location on 25 September.212

The allocation of farm 10 differed to the allocation of previous sections on the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement in that the ‘allotment was provisional’. Valuation of the section was due to take place at the ‘completion of the development programme’, with the expectation that charges would be fixed and ‘made known to the applicant prior to the date of final allotment’. This was expected to be completed ‘in time for the 1952/53 dairy season’. However, cash contributions were still specified in the schedule – £1200 for freehold or deferred payments or £200 for renewable lease, ‘reducible in certain circumstances to £100’. Although the circumstances considered for this reduction were not specified in the schedule, applicants were directed to contact their Rehabilitation Officer if they did not have the total cash contribution required to assess whether they could still qualify for admission to the ballot. The cash contribution was ‘payable fourteen days prior to possession being given’. Furthermore, once the allotment had been made permanent, the successful applicant would be ‘required to purchase at current rates such stock and plant as may be allocated to the section’. As with the previous section allocations, responsibility for inspecting the property rested with the applicants, with specifications given in the notice of offering intended as ‘general information and guidance’ only.213

210 Gisborne - Fourneau, S. J. - Sect. [Section] 134, Block IV - Patutahi S. D. [Survey District], 1951-1956, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/6, R18646163; Gisborne - Colebrook, T. R. - Sect. [Section] 23, Block VIII - Patutahi S. D. [Survey District], 1951, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/7, R18646164; Gisborne - Gumbley, W. H. H. - Subdivision 10 - [Rakaukaka Farm Settlement], 1951-1953, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/11, R18646168 211 Director-General, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, 5 October 1951, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167; ‘Land for Selection by Ex- Servicemen. Gisborne Land District. Conditions of Offering’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167 212 ‘Land for Selection by Ex-Servicemen. Gisborne Land District. Conditions of Offering’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167 213 ‘Land for Selection by Ex-Servicemen. Gisborne Land District. Conditions of Offering’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167

Farm 10 comprised approximately 130 acres and was estimated to be stocked with approximately 50 cows as well as an unspecified number of sheep. A three-bedroom house, implement shed, and a milking shed were scheduled to be built. Further information on tenure was noted as being provided on the back of the application forms, but a copy of this document was not located. A total of six applications were received for farm 10, with I J H Phillips awarded the section by ballot on 25 September 1951, which he accepted on renewable lease.214 I J H Phillips was not listed on the 28th Māori Battalion roll and there was nothing in his Department of Lands and Survey files to suggest that he was Māori.215

Farm 8 Farm 8 in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement was allocated in conjunction with two sections in the Mahaki Farm Settlement in 1955. Mahaki Farm Settlement is located to the northwest of Gisborne, less than two kilometres from Waikohu. Applications were open to veterans of World War Two who had been ‘classified as eligible for immediate Rehabilitation Farming assistance’. Application forms were required to be accompanied by an up to date ‘A’ grade certificate issued by the Rehabilitation Board for store sheep and wool in the Gisborne and East Coast Districts. Further conditions of the grading certificate stipulated that it ‘must entitle the holder to participate in ballots’ and, if successful, the applicant ‘must comply with or be subject to such conditions as are endorsed thereon’. These documents together with a ‘Statutory Declaration of assets and liabilities’ were to be lodged with the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Gisborne by 15 November 1955. The ballot was scheduled to take place at the Department of Lands and Survey office in Gisborne on 18 November 1955.216

Farm 8 in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement comprised approximately 525 acres and was estimated to carry approximately 1200 breeding ewes and an unspecified number of cattle. Part of the land had already been developed with the completion of a three bedroom ‘all electric dwelling’, an implement shed, woolshed, dip, and yards. A deposit of £3000 was required for freehold or deferred payment licence and £2000 deposit for leasehold, reducible to £1000 ‘in certain circumstances’. Applicants who did ‘not have the amount in cash required for selection of Renewable Lease’ were directed to contact E P Wakelin, the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Gisborne. As with the previous section allocations, applicants were expected to inspect the properties prior to submitting their applications.217

All three of the sections described in this schedule were ‘offered on wages’ and the conditions of the arrangement were outlined in the offer notice. The successful applicant would be employed by and ‘subject to the control of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, and may be required to work on any part of the Settlement’. The prospective date of permanent settlement was not specified, but, ‘providing the development programme progresses as planned’, possession of farm 8 was expected to be given in Autumn 1956. Final allotment was not guaranteed to the successful applicant of this ballot process, but rather would ‘depend on the satisfactory performance of duties’. Further

214 ‘Land for Selection by Ex-Servicemen. Gisborne Land District. Conditions of Offering’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167 215 Gisborne - Phillips, I. J. H. - Subdivision 10 - [Rakaukaka Farm Settlement], Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167 216‘Conditions of Offering. Mahaki and Rakaukaka Farm Settlements’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/12, R18646169 217 ‘Conditions of Offering. Mahaki and Rakaukaka Farm Settlements’, Archives NZ, 1955-1965, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/12, R18646169

74 information about these terms were noted as being included in ‘the Terms and Conditions of Selection as printed on the application form’, but this document was not located.218

On 14 March 1956, J W Mossman took possession of farm 8 in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, having accepted the tenure by renewable lease. Details of whether Mossman was awarded this section at the ballot held on 18 November 1955 have not been located, but records and reports of his ongoing farming efforts on the land have been sited. A Land Settlement Board document from 1965 recorded that ‘Mr. Mossman was successful in obtaining this farm as an ex-serviceman in 1956. He now wishes to acquire the freehold of the land’. J W Mossman was not listed on the 28th Māori Battalion roll and there was nothing in his Department of Lands and Survey files to suggest that he was Māori.219

Farm 6 The final section to be allocated in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement was farm 6. This section, comprising approximately 455 acres with a capacity for 1200 ewes and 100 cows, was not offered for settlement or allocated by ballot. The section was instead allocated via preferential allotment, the process of which was outlined in a ‘Note for File’ located in the settler’s Rakaukaka Farm Settlement Department of Lands and Survey file.220

This document recorded the farming history of R C Avenell, an ex-serviceman who had his right arm amputated at the upper forearm following an injury incurred during overseas service in World War Two. After receiving ‘subsidised farm training’ from 1944 to 1946, Avenell had been graded ‘A’ for sheep farming in the Poverty Bay/East Coast region. In 1949, Avenell had taken over a:

leasehold property of 600 acres comprising a number of Maori leases at Whakaki, East of Wairoa. On taking over this property he allowed his grading to lapse.

The property proved unsuitable, chiefly because of difficulties the ex-serviceman encountered with his neighbours as the property was situated in a predominantly Maori area. He had constant trouble over fences and loss of stock…

[T]he property… was an unattractive proposition unsuitable to the ex-serviceman’s permanent rehabilitation, and he was admitted for reinstatement of grading by the Rehabilitation Board on 30 May 1957. His eligibility was subject to disposal of his existing property, his satisfying the Committee that he was up to “A” grade standard and to the approval of any future property by the Land Settlement Committee as suitable for him in view of his disability.221

In June 1957, Avenell was graded ‘A’ by a Land Settlement Committee. The Committee also recommended that due to Avenell’s injury, he be made eligible for preferential allotment. This recommendation was approved by the Land Settlement Board in August 1957, giving Avenell ‘the right to preferential allotment of a sheep unit’. This document also records the opinion of the (unnamed) official of the Lands and Survey Department in relation to Māori farmers. The official records the

218 ‘Conditions of Offering. Mahaki and Rakaukaka Farm Settlements’, Archives NZ, 1955-1965, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/12, R18646169 219 Gisborne - Rakaukaka Farm Settlement - Mossman, J. W., 1955-1965, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/12, R18646169 220 3rd Year Report, Report on Progress of Selector: Year Ending 30 June 1961, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/13, R18646170 221 ‘Note for File: Roy Clifford Avenell’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/13, R18646170

75 difficulties faced by Avenell on his previous property as being due ‘chiefly’ to issues with his Māori neighbours, suggesting the official held a poor view of Māori farmers in general.222

In September 1957, the Gisborne Land Settlement Committee considered the possibility of allocating Avenell farm 6 in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement. The majority of the Committee resolved that farm 6 ‘should be allocated to Avenell’, with general agreement that the property was suitable for him and ‘within his capabilities having regard to his disability’. The Commissioner of Crown Lands in Gisborne disagreed with this decision, but the Land Settlement Board nevertheless approved the Committee’s recommendation in November 1957. R C Avenell was awarded farm 6 on a renewable lease on 10 February 1958 and applied to acquire the land freehold in 1964. Avenell was not listed on the 28th Māori Battalion roll and there was nothing in his Department of Lands and Survey files to suggest that he was Māori.223

Figure 5: Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, plan of amalgamation of sections 9 and 7, 1957

222 ‘Note for File: Roy Clifford Avenell’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/13, R18646170 223 Gisborne - Rakaukaka Farm Settlement - Sec. [Section] 6 - Avenell, R. C., 1957-1965, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/13, R18646170

Source: Rakaukaka Block plan, Archives NZ, BANF 694/29/b 4/34 8, R21489288

In all the files examined on the offering and allocations of Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, no documents were located either in te reo Māori or requesting information about the settlement to be produced in te reo Māori. Nor was there any record of any Crown officials visiting or providing information to local marae or Māori community leaders informing them about or encouraging them to apply for the land ballots.

The Settlers

All the settlers allocated sections in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement were veterans of World War Two. None of the settlers who were awarded sections matched names of those recorded on the 28th Māori Battalion or New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion rolls, which suggests that it is unlikely that any of the Rakaukaka settlers were Māori. Of the eight names provided by claimants of soldier settlers in Manutuke, seven match the names of settlers who were awarded sections in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement. Only R Rickard has not been matched to Rakaukaka, or any other settlement examined for this report.224 The following section outlines additional information established on some of the settlers.

Table 9: Names of the successful applicants – Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, at 1958 Section Acres Type of farm Successful applicant / settler Year Military service balloted number 1 10 Orchard J Brodie 1949 623659 2 11 Orchard H S Cutts 1949 470684 3 10 Orchard R J Anderson 1949 413794 4 12 Orchard R W Clark 1949 42559 Farm 1 151 Dairy V H W Groves 1950 411575 Farm 2 84 Dairy S J Fourneau 1951 412674 Farm 3 113 Dairy T R Colebrook 1951 11605 Farm 4 140 Dairy R M Gordon 1950 300362 Farm 5 137 Dairy L A Ritchie 1950 434404 Farm 6 458 Sheep and R C Avenell 1958 43481 cattle Farm 7 Not allocated Farm 8 525 Sheep J W Mossman 1956 455594 Farm 9 Not allocated Farm 10 132 Dairy I J H Phillips 1951 8460

224 Roll of men who served in the Māori Contingent (aka the Native Contingent) and / or the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion as recorded on the 28th Māori Battalion website, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/roll-ww1 accessed 13 February 2020; 28th Māori Battalion roll as recorded on the 28th Māori Battalion website, https://28maoribattalion.org.nz/roll accessed 13 February 2020; Email correspondence from Stan Pardoe via David Stone, 30 October 2019

Section Acres Type of farm Successful applicant / settler Year Military service balloted number Farm 11 120 Dairy W H H Gumbley 1951 4314289 Source: Rakaukaka Farm Sett. [Settlement], 1930-1949, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155; Gisborne - Phillips, I. J. H. - Subdivision 10 - [Rakaukaka Farm Settlement], Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/10, 1952, R18646167; Gisborne - Rakaukaka Farm Settlement - Mossman, J. W., 1955-1965, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/12, R18646169; Gisborne - Rakaukaka Farm Settlement - Sec. [Section] 6 - Avenell, R. C., 1957-1965, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/13, R18646170

Names provided by claimants of settlers allocated sections

1. R Rickard 2. J Brodie 3. H Cutts 4. R Gordon 5. Phillips 6. W Gumbley 7. L Ritchie 8. J Mossman

An examination of the Military Personnel files of each of these settlers has shown that all except one had worked as farmers or in farm-related jobs before they were allocated sections in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement. Most of the Military Personnel files (held at the New Zealand Defence Force Personnel Archives, Trentham Military Base) recorded little more than a serviceman’s occupation as listed on their enlistment form. However, some of the settlers had Rehabilitation Department files (held at the Wellington branch of Archives New Zealand) which documented much more detailed and more recent information for almost half of the thirteen Rakaukaka Farm settlers including their acceptance for the land ballot.

H Cutts (recipient of an orchard section in 1949) had been a bus driver on enlistment, but on his return began working as a farmhand and by mid-1946 he was graded ‘A’ for orchard or fruit growing in Gisborne, East Coast, and Hawkes Bay. File records show that while he had ‘nil’ assets, on applying for a ballot he was considered to have very good references and he examined well. He convinced the farming sub-committee that he would be able to work the land successfully and was therefore admitted to the ballot. In July 1949 Cutts applied for two loans for his land, which he had repaid in full by May 1951.225

R Gordon was a veteran of the British Army, having served from 1942 to 1947.226 However, in 1950, he was also certified as having previously lived in the Gisborne district for ten years between March 1929 and November 1939. As the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943, under which Rakaukaka Farm Settlement was established, included veterans of ‘any of His Majesty’s Forces’ who

225 Cutts, Harold Sawford, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #2466704; Cutts, Harold Sawford, Archives NZ, AADK 20203 W3729/387 470684, R14876999; ‘Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, Settlement Block – Fixing of Charges’, Rehabilitation Loans Committee, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/123 36/1863 [1], R18646155 226 The War Office, London, to Captain R M Gordon, Gisborne, 5 February 1949, Archives NZ, AADK 20203 W3729/627 P/300362/1, R14880345

78 were ‘ordinarily resident’ in New Zealand.227 Gordon met these criteria, having previously lived, and returned to live, in New Zealand, and having served in the British Army during World War Two.

Files show that the Gisborne farming sub-committee found Gordon eligible to receive rehabilitation farming assistance and that he held an ‘A’ grade for dairy farming in the Gisborne, East Coast, Hawkes Bay, and Wairarapa districts. He was considered to have good references from previous employers, and from the Gisborne Co-op Milk Producers Association, all testifying to his ability and suitability for managing a dairy farm of his own. By then, he was already share-milking a herd of 90 cows and employing one man to assist him. Three days after the grading certificate was issued, Gordon was successful in the ballot for farm 4 of Rakaukaka Farm Settlement. In April 1952, Gordon received a loan to purchase his farm.228

The Hasting farming sub-committee graded W Gumbley ‘A’ for dairy farming in November 1945, the same year he returned from service for the New Zealand Airforce in the Pacific. Prior to enlisting, Gumbley had been employed on his father’s farm at Fernhill from 1935 to 1943. The Hastings District Rehabilitation Officer sent Gumbley his grading certificate along with a booklet entitled ‘getting a Farm’ which contained information on acquiring a farm through the Rehabilitation Department. A letter, also enclosed, advised Gumbley there were several ‘educational courses’ available in relation to farm acquisition. The following month, the same District Rehabilitation Officer wrote again to Gumbley, forwarding him the plan and application form for a farm settlement ballot in the Wairarapa. As Gumbley had farm grading for Hawkes Bay and East Coast only, the officer advised him to apply for an extension to his grading as quickly as possible. There is no record of Gumbley making this application. In January 1951, when his certificate was reviewed, it was noted that over the previous six years Gumbley had ‘entered all ballots in the district for which he is graded’, as well as having tried to purchase land privately. He kept his ‘A’ grading and in April 1951, Gumbley drew farm 11 in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement ballot. One year later, in April 1952, Gumbley received a loan to purchase his farm, which he had paid back in full by July 1953.229

I Phillips (who was allocated farm 10 in 1951) made numerous applications for farm training, settlement assistance, and farm grading. He had approximately seven years farming experience from both before and after his service in World War Two. In November 1950, Phillips was graded ‘A’ for dairy farming in the Franklin and Manukau Counties and Waikato. He held some assets, including savings, a car, and household furniture. In April 1951, Phillips applied to have his farm grading certificate extended to include Gisborne in order to relocate his family there. The farming sub- committee unanimously approved his request and in 1951 his grading was extended to include sheep as well as dairy so he could participate in the upcoming ballot for farm 10 in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, for which he was ultimately successful. In July 1953, Phillips received a loan to purchase his farm.230

In June 1948, J Mossman was graded ‘B’ for sheep farming in Gisborne, East Coast, Hawkes Bay, and Wairarapa. An ‘A’ grade certificate was required to qualify for financial assistance or entry into a land

227 Servicemen's Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943 228 Gordon, Robin Michael, 1950-1952, Archives NZ, AADK 20203 W3729/627 P/300362/1, R14880345 229 Gumbley, Warwick Henry Howarth, 1949-1953, Archives NZ, AADK 20203 W3729/661 4314289, R14880914; Gumbley, Warwick Henry Howarth, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #0638725 230 Phillips, Ivor James Herbert, 1946-1953, Archives NZ, AADK 20203 W3729/1262 R37918, R14890856; Phillips, Ivon James Herbert, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #0300141; Phillips, Ivon James Herbert, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #0525261

79 scheme and the farming sub-committee recommended an additional year of training before Mossman could apply for regrading. The Rehabilitation Department paid Mossman’s employer a £6 per week training subsidy requiring a quarterly report documenting his training and progress. Mossman made further applications for an ‘A’ grade but was declined until he completed his full year of training. Mossman terminated the training with his employer and returned to his father’s farm in Tiniroto where he worked in sole charge for the following five years. In July 1954 Mossman again applied for regrading and received an ‘A’ grade certificate for sheep farming in Gisborne, East Coast, Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa, and South Auckland. His assets were recorded as savings, stock, and vehicles. Over the following year, Mossman unsuccessfully applied for entry to a total of eight land ballots. On 5 October 1955, Mossman received a letter from the Napier District Rehabilitation Officer explaining the Rehabilitation Board was ‘re-examining the problem of settling all remaining exservicemen who are graded ‘A’ for land settlement’, and that they were ‘anxious that this problem should be disposed of as soon as possible’. The officer acknowledged Mossman’s recorded lack of success and land ballots and instead suggested he could apply to the Rehabilitation Department for financial assistance to purchase a farm ‘on the open market’. Some six months later, on 14 March 1956 Mossman took possession of farm 8 in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement. In November 1965, Mossman received a loan to purchase his farm.231

R Avenell (who was allocated farm 6 by preferential allotment, discussed above) had been a taxi driver before enlisting in the Armed Forces. On his return to New Zealand due to an injury incurred in battle, Avenell had to rethink his career options. Avenell initially applied to the Transport Department to become a motor vehicle inspector but was turned down due to his not being a trained motor mechanic as well as because of his amputation. By June 1943, Avenell was engaged to marry and intended to move to Wairoa, to begin training as a farm worker.232 By August 1943, Avenell was living east of Wairoa, and employed on the farm of his brother-in-law. On 11 November 1943, Avenell and his brother-in-law attended a meeting of the Wairoa Rehabilitation Committee where they were both interviewed. The committee decided to recommend that the Rehabilitation Department subsidise the wage Avenell was being paid. Avenell’s subsequent farm training and grading (outlined above) culminated in him being awarded farm 6 on 10 February 1958, for which he received a loan to purchase.233

The files for the remaining settlers provide only limited information. J Brodie, S J Fourneau, R J Anderson, V H W Groves, T R Colebrook, and L A Ritchie all had experience as either farmers, farm workers, or orchardists. R W Clark was the only exception having no farming experience and recording his occupation as an accountant at the time of his enlistment. Born in Hastings, there is no record on file whether he had lived in Gisborne prior to receiving land in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement.234

231 Mossman, John Wilmot, 1946-1958, Archives NZ, AADK 20203 W3729/1161 455594, R14889028; Mossman, John Wilmot, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #2473778 232 D Shankland, Transport Department, Wellington, to Mr Bolt, 15 April 1943, Archives NZ, AADK 20203 W3729/73 43481, R14872891; Secretary, Wairoa Rehabilitation Committee, to Rehabilitation Officer, National Service Department, Auckland, 1 June 1943, Archives NZ, AADK 20203 W3729/73 43481, R14872891 233 C G Dorrian, Secretary, Wairoa Rehabilitation Committee, to the Director of Rehabilitation, Wellington, 17 November 1943, Archives NZ, AADK 20203 W3729/73 43481, R14872891; ‘Note for File: Roy Clifford Avenell’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/13, R18646170; Avenell, Roy Clifford, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #0366826 234 Brodie, John, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #2420476; Fourneau, Samuel John, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #0643863; Anderson, Ronald Joseph, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #0623334; Groves, Vernon Hector Wagstaff, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #0639472; Colebrook, Thomas Roland, NZDF

Conclusion

Sections in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement were allocated by the Crown through six separate allocation processes over a period of ten years. The settlement covered an area of 2054 acres situated approximately fourteen kilometres west of Gisborne that had been acquired by the Crown from the estates in general land title. A total of thirteen sections were allocated in this settlement, the first four being the smaller orchard blocks, followed by seven dairy units and, lastly, two sheep farms. All the sections except for farm 6 were allocated via an application and ballot process, with applications only open to military veterans who had appropriate farming experience and financial resources. Farm 6 was allocated via preferential allotment. Farm 4 was allocated to a veteran of the British Army, R M Gordon, who had lived in Gisborne for at least ten years prior to his army service.

This settlement is unusual in that Rehabilitation Department files survive for around half of the successful settlers, providing more details of how they were accepted for the ballot. Although a relatively small sample, the files reveal applicants had a range of experience and financial backing with much dependent on how the Board viewed the applicants and the Board appears to have had considerable discretion. Some of the returned servicemen clearly found the Board process complicated and onerous and some took years of attempts before they were considered worthy of the required grading and entry to a ballot. Some also entered numerous ballots before they were successful. At the same time, at least one was sent information and encouragement directly and a few received wage subsidies to assist with their training. The successful settlers in this settlement initially accepted their farms on renewable lease, but within relatively short periods of time they were offered loans to purchase the freehold and appear to have paid the loans off quite quickly suggesting that once they overcame the hurdle of gaining a farm at this time, they could make enough money to pay off the freehold quite quickly.

The evidence suggests the veterans who were awarded sections in this settlement were all Pākehā. Files viewed for this report did not disclose details about the applicants who were not successful at the ballots. Therefore, it cannot be established whether Māori veterans applied to the ballot. Nor can it be established, if there were Māori applicants, whether they were excluded from the ballot process. As with the settlements previously examined in this report, no te reo Māori copies of the notices offering sections for settlement were located. The claimants allege that there were Māori returned servicemen from the area who would have wanted a farm, and yet they did not receive land in this Crown settlement.

There are several possible reasons why Māori might not have applied for entry to the ballot. It is possible that Māori did not know about the settlement scheme. No record was found of any te reo Māori advertisements, nor was there any mention in the files about the upcoming land ballots mentioning contact being made with local marae or Māori leaders or communities to inform them of the scheme. It is possible that, in line with Hearn’s suggestion that there was a sense of separation between Māori and Pākehā rehabilitation settlement schemes, the existence of the Huramua scheme for Māori could have contributed to a perception amongst Māori and Pākehā that the general land schemes such as Rakaukaka were only open to Pākehā and so did not apply.

Personnel Archives, Record #2500700; Ritchie, Lancelot Allan, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #0691264; Clark, Reginald William, NZDF Personnel Archives, Record #0627763

If Māori did apply, but none of their applications made it through to the ballot, there were further possible reasons they were declined entry. The requirements by then were difficult for many applicants and it is possible the land board considered they did not match the other applicants in skills, experience, and financial backing and assets. No Māori representation was required on the land boards deciding which applicants qualified to the ballots, potentially providing a board lacking in understanding or sympathy for Māori. The suggestion made in the document in in R Avenell’s Department of lands and Survey file establishes that some Crown officials involved in the allocation process at Rakaukaka Farm Settlement considered Māori to be less reliable farmers.235

The possible barriers to accessing land in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement faced by Māori remained the same as those established for the Omana and Awamate Settlements. The process of offering and allocating the sections on the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement do appear to have complied with the legislation governing soldier settlement schemes at the time, namely the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943, and yet, as Hearn explored, the legislation alone was insufficient to ensure Māori received a proportionally equal share of land made available by the Crown for soldier settlement.

It is not clear whether any Māori applied to the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement ballot, whether the application process or too difficult, or if they did apply but were excluded from the ballot by the land board. All files at Archives New Zealand with Rakaukaka in their title have been assessed for relevance to this report. Nowhere in these files is there evidence of any effort being made to provide information in the settlement in te reo Māori, or approach or encourage Māori to apply to the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement ballot. Altogether this suggests that no special effort was made to have Māori returned servicemen included in the Rakaukaka Farm Settlement ballots, and this is likely to have created a barrier to Māori who would have been qualified to apply.

235 ‘Note for File: Roy Clifford Avenell’, Archives NZ, AADS W3562/124 36/1863/13, R18646170

Conclusion

This report has investigated the establishment and allocation of sections in the Omana Settlement, Awamate Settlement, Huramua Settlement, and Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, all situated between Wairoa and Gisborne. These settlements each provide an example of the practical implementation of government soldier settlement policy after both world wars.

Analysis of the Omana Settlement, Awamate Settlement, and Rakaukaka Farm Settlement allocation processes highlights several key themes. Primarily, all the sections in each of these settlements were allocated to Pākehā settlers, most of whom had served with the New Zealand Armed Forces. As far as could be determined, no Māori were offered sections in any of these settlements. The Huramua Settlement was developed for a different purpose, namely that of training and settling Māori veterans on farms. The Huramua training scheme and settlement shows Māori were keen to participate in farm training and the hoped-for subsequent farm settlement. It also shows that the issue of qualifying for settlement ballots was well recognised. Once they had been awarded their ‘A’ grading, Māori farmers were qualified to enter any of the settlement ballots, though it is possible that there was a perception amongst the trainees that they could only apply to the Māori land ballots, and not to the general land ballots.

Hearn has provided some discussion around the possible reasons for Māori not receiving sections in Crown settlements. Hearn explained that returned soldiers ‘found navigating through that administrative structure [of the Rehabilitation Board] and meeting its expectations and requirements… daunting’. In this report, the comprehensive Rakaukaka settlers’ rehabilitation files provided insight into this process, illustrating some of the effort it took from veterans hoping to be allocated land. If, as Hearn has described, there was also a language barrier for some Māori returned soldiers, then navigating this system would have been even more difficult as they would have had the additional disadvantage of having none of the documentation publicising these settlements, nor any of the application forms or information, available in te reo Māori.236

No record has been located of any notice of any of the ballots for the Omana, Awamate, or Rakaukaka sections being published in te reo Māori. Nor has any record been sited of any officials attempting to contact marae, Māori welfare organisations, Māori councils, or known Māori leaders to notify servicemen that the ballots were open to them, or to encourage or assist them to complete the applications. It is not known if any attempt was made to have Māori representatives on the Napier or Gisborne (or any other) land boards. It is possible therefore, as Hearn suggested, that the lack of information available in te reo Māori and available to Māori returned servicemen created a barrier to their understanding of or ability to participate in the settlement process.

Although it is possible that insufficient farming experience and inadequate financial resources precluded many Māori from participating in the allotment processes (except at Awamate, where these were not prerequisites), these could not be established due to the lack of financial information recorded in the Department of Lands and Survey files analysed for this report. While many of the allocation processes required applicants to supply their grading certificate and financial documentation, in each case the final decision about which applicants made it through to the ballot rested with the land board facilitating the process. As Hearn explained in his report, while limited

236 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, p 498

83 financial resources potentially created a barrier for Māori, the final decisions about who did or did not meet the requirements for settlement allocation was left up to the local Commissioner of Crown Lands and their land boards, none of whom were required to be Māori.237 This potentially created an examination environment unsympathetic to Māori applicants.

The records do not indicate whether any Māori ex-servicemen applied for the Omana, Awamate, or Rakaukaka settlements. Nor is it clear that, if there were Māori applicants, whether their applications were declined during selection or whether they made it to the ballot but missed out. However, when the applicants awarded sections in the Omana, Awamate, and Rakaukaka Settlements (as well as those listed in chapter 2 as being awarded sections in the Ohuka and Ardkeen Settlements) are examined, it shows that ultimately Māori were not included in any of these settlements. At the same time, the Huramua Settlement proves that some Māori returned servicemen of the area were considered to have achieved ‘A’ grade certification. Hearn’s suggestion that there may have been a perception amongst Māori and Pākehā that land rehabilitation was nevertheless separately provided could have had a bearing on this outcome. It appears from the files viewed that no additional information was provided to Māori concerning their eligibility to participate in the allotment process.

Omana Settlement The allocation process for sections in all of the settlements examined in this report appear to have fulfilled the requirements as set out in the legislation under which they were established. Sections in the Omana Settlement were allocated under the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915 to discharged soldiers who had served in World War One. The allocations were made by a ballot process run by W F Marsh, the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Napier in 1920. The Omana Settlement was the only post-World War One settlement entirely for returned soldiers examined in this report. As Hearn described, there was ‘nothing in the law… that explicitly limited, restricted, or otherwise hindered the access, on the part of Maori veterans, to the benefits of the rehabilitation programme’ following World War One. And yet, ‘comparatively few Maori veterans secured either Crown sections or financial assistance for farm purchase and land development’.238 If Māori did apply, it is possible that they were excluded during the vetting process as a large proportion – 51 out of 193 applicants – did not make it through to the ballot. Although it is apparent that some financial resources and farming experience were required to enter the ballot, records viewed for this report suggest the Land Board in Napier had a degree of discretion in considering each applicant. It is also not known if any Māori applied in the manner required. It is also possible that the lack of information available in te reo Māori or specifically made available to Māori returned servicemen created a barrier to their understanding of or ability to participate in the settlement process.

Awamate Settlement Sections in the Awamate Settlement, located to the north-west of Wairoa, were offered on renewable lease and allocated by selection to a ballot conducted by J D Thompson, Commissioner of Crown Lands in Napier in 1930. In this settlement, applications included but were not restricted to discharged soldiers from World War One. Instead the emphasis of the land board was on offering land to those without land who were struggling to support their families, providing them with a chance to make a

237 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 131-137 238 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 207, 751

84 living as independent farmers. All six of the settlers allocated land in this settlement were Pākehā, four of whom had served in the New Zealand Armed Forces. As with the Omana Settlement, the files do not record all the applicants who were eliminated prior to enty to the ballot, so it cannot be established whether any Māori applied. Although veterans could apply, the focus was on the landless and those with limited financial means, so it seems unlikely the land board was as concerned with assessments of financial resources. Even so, no Māori were included in the ballot and none were allocated land. Again, it is possible that the lack of information available in te reo Māori and available to Māori in the region created a barrier to their understanding of or ability to participate in the Awamate Settlement process.

Huramua Settlement The Huramua Settlement, also located to the north-west to Wairoa, was established by the Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee as part of the Crown’s attempt to provide Māori and Pākehā returned soldiers equal access to land. Sections in the Huramua Settlement were allocated through multiple ballot processes between 1948 and 1949. All the settlers awarded sections were required to be Māori World War Two military veterans, preferably from the Wairoa district, and graded ‘A’ for dairy farming. All but one of the initial thirteen settlers were veterans of the 28th Māori Battalion. The Huramua land was originally sold to the Crown for the specific purpose of establishing a settlement for Māori military veterans. It was initially run as a training farm for Māori military veterans, to bring the skills of the trainees up to the grade ‘A’ level required for entry to ballots for all settlement farms, including for what later became the Huramua Settlement.

Hearn notes that towards the end of World War Two, the Department of Native Affairs took on a significant role in the resettlement of Māori veterans. The tone of the Board of Maori Affairs report on Huramua Settlement alludes to the attitude officials held towards Māori farmers at the time. Namely that Māori veterans were considered unlikely to be ‘A’ grade farmers and would require significant assistance to prepare them for potential settlement.239 This attitude potentially had repercussions throughout the rehabilitation and settlement process. In the Huramua Settlement as it was developed, even ‘A’ grade Māori settlers were required to lease and continue to prove their grading subject to official control and apparently with no right of appeal. The records suggest that although Māori were initially keen to apply, that attitude changed, and numbers of successful settlers left the scheme or were subsequently considered unfit to continue. The Huramua scheme had potential to provide an equal form of opportunity for Māori and was geared to meet their needs. However, not only did the oversight seem more punitive than generally occurred in other settlements, the scheme could take very few Māori and the existence of the scheme may well have contributed to perceptions that other schemes did not need to be so encouraging to Māori.

Rakaukaka Farm Settlement The thirteen sections in Rakaukaka Farm Settlement, at Manutuke, were allocated between 1949 and 1958. Established under the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act 1943, the sections were allocated through a total of five ballot processes, and one section allocated via preferential allotment.

239 Hearn, Wai 2500, #A248, pp 507, 525-526; Board of Maori Affairs: Huramua Soldier Settlement, May 1948, Archives NZ, AAMK 869 W3074/1032/a 32/1/16/1 2, R11839950

Applications were restricted to discharged soldiers of World War Two, and in one instance the settler was a veteran of the British Army, not the New Zealand Armed Forces, though this was allowed under the legislation. All the settlers appear to have been Pākehā. Barriers to Māori applicants may have included unsympathetic land board members who did not believe Māori farmers to be as capable as Pākehā, as suggested in the file relating to the allocation of farm 6. It is also possible that Māori returned servicemen did not know enough, if at all, about the Rakaukaka Settlement process to apply, or even to know that they were eligible to apply.

The examples of general Crown settlements explored in this report appear to confirm Hearn’s analysis, as far as possible from the records examined. Records for the Omana, Awamate, and Rakaukaka settlements confirm that no Māori applicants were selected in these ballots. Several factors potentially created barriers to Māori participation in the general land ballots. For example, as Hearn suggests, it seems likely that the lack of information targeted to Māori, as well as the development of separate settlement schemes specifically for Māori such as Huramua, generated a misunderstanding amongst Māori returned servicemen that they did not qualify for, or would not be successful in, the general land ballots.

Bibliography

Primary Sources