i I ,

A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunalfor Wai7o-7

March 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE AUTHOR ABBREVIATIONS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 The Claim 1.2 Research Methodology 1.3 Acknowledgements 2

2.0 HISTORY 3

2.1 Te Ua Maungapohatu 2.2 The Pacification 4 2.3 Wanakore (Kerekau) 6 2.4 Land Interests 8 2.5 Exclusion 12 2.6 Raropua 14

3.0 CONCLUSION 17

4.0 Oral Tradition 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBREVIATIONS

AJIIR AilperuH-~ tG-the JOO-FUaIs-, H911se of ReJHesent-atiyes Ibid ibideIa(uLthe same. bfio~~tC) MA Maori Affairs NA National- A~hives- RDB Raupatu Document Bank TMB Tauranga Minute Book Wai Waitangi Tribunal Claim The Author My name is Hoki Leef Bruce. I completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology in 1997. Study requirements meant that I carry out several research projects which led and challenged me to look at my own history, where I had come from and through whom, so the outcome and the reason for this claim. I am currently studying law at Auckland University. 1.0 Introduction This report was commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal and is based on previously undocumented oral evidence given by two elders who are direct descendants of the persons referred to in the claim and documented information. This report explores certain aspects of the family history in order to establish their relationship with the area and the people, and then considers the process of events that would eventually ostracize them from all that was theirs, that is, their land, Marae, people and who they were, and then finally the consequences of those events. Much of the documented historical detail relevant to this claim can be found in the Orr Nimmo Report and related original documents.

1.1 . The Claim The claim was lodged by the author and Cherri Leef on behalf of their immediate fampy

and other interested parties and was registered by the Waitangi Tribunal on the 31 st March 1998 as Wai 707. The claimants aim to set the record straight where their tupuna are concerned and will address the way in which the Crown dealt with their tupuna \in relationship to the two blocks of land in question. The claimants maintain that their tupuna were prejudicially affected by the Crown's treatment of them and suffered unjustly because of the Crown's failure to honour the promises guaranteed them under The Treaty of Waitangi.

1.2 Research Methodology In carrying out this oral research report we decided to give the people interviewed the power to define how we should conduct ourselves in their homes meaning that the questions asked were indirect, general and few. Having to try and build up some sort of rapport with those interviewed was unnecessary as we are closely related. We were aware of being in their domain and there to learn from them demanding that our approach be in the traditional spirit of respect for our elders, desiring that they feel safe and not pressured as they shared their knowledge with us. We were also mindful of the fact that whatever knowledge we gathered from them was only what they wished to impart. We did not want to leave them with the impression that we were there just to take something from them only for the sake of the research itself. The subj ect is also a very sensitive issue which required added affirmation and reassurance from the interviewees that what we were undertaking was tika and would not violate anyone concerned. 2 Because the claim is relative to two specific blocks of land and one particular family it was important to ask about the family history. This was necessary in order to establish where the people concerned came from, how they happened to be where they are and also to get a feel for and a picture of their character. We thought it most appropriate to let the interviewed do most of the talking, fortunately not having to prod much as they were both quite happy to talk. Although-we-did discuss many- tepies -flffi- relevant--to the-claim it was-net--right to interrupt while they were talking, they knew why we were there and would soon come back onto the subject. Discussion about the land on the-other hand, was quite specific and '0 the point. Once again we did not have to ask too many questions. We carried out individual interviews with twe family members both of whom are elders in the families concerned, deciding afterwards that the knowledge they passed on to us was substance enough to validate writing this report. It was at this point that we decided we did not need to intenriew any others. The main reason being that the other two men we were to interview were of the next generation a.lld the knowledge they have was given to them by the men already interviewed. We also felt that as the claim is a whanau claim it was not necessary or appropriate to have to go to those who are not directly connected to the family. Our first intenriew took tlrree visits and the second one two visits. We would like to have gone back to talk a third time and intenriew some of our kuia but circumstances did 110t allow for this.

1.3 Acknowledgements I trust that this report will bring truth to light and that those who come after us will no longer have to ask why or continue to carry the unexplained and undeserved legacy of shame, rejection and separation imposed on them as a result of the Crown's treatment of their tupuna who were not only innocent men and women but people of integrity. This inquiry comes from an honest desire to uncover and write our history as handed down and told to us by our own. We have a strong belief that all have a right to tell their own story and it is to those who have been, and who are still to come, those who have shared their valuable knowledge with us, who have helped, supported and had input in some way to make this report possible, that this is written. 3

2.0 History

There are three distinct periods in this whanau's history, the first (1864 to 1884) when Te U a Maungapohatu was alive and no one ever attempted to overthrow him or question his right to be on the land.

The second is in the period of Te Wanakore Kerekau (1886-1920) when he fought the 1 crown to retain an interest in lots 154 & 16 until his death in 1920 .

The third is when Kerekau's daughter Hoki and her family were exclusively disenfranchised from their customary lands by being shut out through legislation and further legal action by unsympathetic crown officials.

2.1 Te Ua Mmmgapohatu Oral tradition says that Maungapohatu was a great chief and was a peace loving man. 2 He is

referred to in many early writings as, 'the old chief Maungapohatu'. 3 He was acknowledged as such by the other local chiefs of Ngaiterangi who said he had rights to lands on the coast between the Wairoa and Waipapa rivers. 4 Rawiri Tata another Pirirakau leader also said "it is true Maungapohatu has a claim over the land between the Wairoa and

Waipapa rivers, so have Ngaiterangi over part of it but we will not give it up". 5

Maungapohatu's kainga was situated at Kareti and while he lived there his presence was never disputed by anyone. Maungapohatu died in 18846 and his bones are at Epiha.7 He would have been around a hundred and twenty years old when he died because he said he

1 Family history, Kerekau's Diary 2 B Borell 3AJ}IRA - 20 1867.p28, 59, 63. Stokes, Allocation of Reserves for Maori in the Tauranga Confiscated Lands. Vol, p43(9) Stokes Reserves 1998 p67 & 259 Orr-Nimmo report, p19 from (copy of Crown grant to Maungapohatu & Te Wanakore 24 August 1870, BCAC A622/T666, Parish ofTe Puna Applicatioll1881-1940, National Archives, Auckland. 4 JMackay Report 1867, pages unnumbered, LE 1118671114, National Archives, Wellington, from Orr Nimmo Report,p 10 5 AlliR, 1867,A20,p28 6 Bay of Plenty Times 8/7/ 1884 7 B Borell 4 saw Captain Cook when he came to the Bay of Plenty. 8 Maungapohatu could vividly describe the arrival of Captain Cook in the area and the dread experienced by Maori then, at 9 his approaching boat . Although Cook did not enter the Tauranga harbour, he did however come close to it describing the mainland opposite Motiti in detail and noting Te Maunga (Mauau) and Karewa Island. He then mentions the weather conditions that caused him to change course and head for Tuhua which prevented him from seeing the actual harbour

entrance. 10

Samuel Marsden when visiting Tauranga in 1820 recorded in his journal how he had met an old chief who remembered seeing Captain Cook. The entries in Marsden's journal are:

So far as I could learn no ships had been at Towrangha since Captain Cook was there, and I saw an old chief who remembered seeing that great navigator. It is indeed strange that even this slight recollection of the great navigator should have survived in view of the fact that he never so much as sighted Tauranga. According to his journal for November 1769 he passed between Motiti Island and the mainland, but shaped his course towards Mayor Island

with the result that he missed all signs of the entrance to Tauranga harbour. 11

I would argue that although Cook did not enter the Tauranga harbour he was close enough to view Te Maunga and Karewa Island making it possible for the local people to have seen him quite clearly either from the shore or the sea in this area. Maungapohatu's claim to having seen Captain Cook would be a true account and would not have been impossibility.

2.2 The Pacification In July 1864, after the British defeat at the battle of Gate Pa and a minor victory at Te Ranga, many Maori began to surrender to the Crown. On 25 July, all Tauranga hapu who had been in arms against the British were said to have submitted with the exception of most

of the Pirirakau hapu. 12

8 TMB 6, P 176 9 Bay of Plenty Times 81711884 10 Gillord, p22-23 11 ibid 12 Orr-Nimo p26 5 Following their submission, Governor Grey, intent on trying to pacify the chiefs held a series of hui to negotiate peace terms and allocate lands to different tribes while the mass land confiscations and purchases were being carried out. The people who gathered at the Pacification Hui in Tauranga on the 5th and 6th August 1864 were either friendly or surrendered and included those that had rebelled and fought against the Crown.

Maungapohatu although a rebel did not take part in the Gate Pa or Te Ranga battles 13 in all probability because of his age. 14 H.E Rice a Native Department Official, noted that in July of that same year Maungapohatu was sick. 15 It was around this time that Maungapohatu and T e Kerekau with the many others from all around the Moana came in and surrendered to the Crown. The majority of Pirirakau who did not surrender stayed at their Whakamarama village while those Pirirakau who surrendered remained at their coastal kainga at T e Puna.

At one of these meetings Governor Grey in his speech to the "Natives" said he was not sure of either their boundaries or their claims but stated;

What I shall therefore do is this, I shall order that settlements be at once assigned to you as far as possible in such localities as you may select, which shall be secured by Crown Grants

to yourselves and your children. 16

Governor Grey went on to assure the people gathered that they had done the right thing by the Crown and themselves by submitting to the Queen. He went on to say;

In order tllat you may without delay again be placed in a position which will enable you to maintain yourselves. In the meantime ill any arrangements which lllay be made about the

land of your tribes your rights will be scmpl.1lously respected. 17

13 TMB 61172 1910, p2 14 Bay of Plenty Times 81711884 15 (GBBPP 1865 VOL 14) cited in Stokes, 1990, p239 16 AJHR 1867 A-20 p5 17 AJHR 1867 A-20 p6 6 On the 1st Nov 1867, an important meeting was held on Motuhoa Island where the Principal Ngaiterangi Chiefs were present as well as Maungapohatu and Kerekau. 18 The rest of Pirirakau were at their Whakarnarama village and although invited to participate in this meeting they refused to. The Ngaiterangi chiefs said it was not necessary for them to attend anyway as the only Pirirakau of importance were already present and urged Makay to continue with the meeting. 19 It was at this meeting that Mackay proposed to return land,20 noting that:

MatUlgapohatu, the old chief of the Pirirakau, consented on behalf of that hapu, and was exceedingly pleased at a reserve of 300 acres being made for

himself and people at Epiha and Waikaraka. 21

Not being privy to the exact words in which Maungapohatu was told of his "good fortune" poses problems in determining Maungapohatu's full understanding of the situation. However, in 1870 the Crown granted Maungapohatu and his son Te Wanakore Kerekau, aboriginal chiefs, in trust for Pirirakau, the reserve at Te Puna consisting of Lot 154 containing 293 acres, and lot 16 containing 50 acres?2 Part of their ancestral lands where they had always lived. Maungapohatu lived here until he died in 1884.

2.3 Wanakore (Kerekau) Kerekau was the son of Maungapohatu and was born around 1840. In 1867 he married Maata who was from Matakana Island. The couple married on Motuhoa Island and then lived at Te Puna. He died in 1920, his body was laid at Raropua and later his bones were taken to be buried in the cemetery at Epiha. 23 In 1901, Kerekau built a timber house opposite Tutereinga Marae, only to have to move it to Raropua nine years later. 24 Bill Borell said:

18 AJHR A-20 P5 19 Stokes E. 1990, p109 20 ibid. 21 ibid 22 AlHR. A - 20 1867 P 27 23 B Borell & S Leef 24 B Boreli 7 On the mOlmd where the house stands today is where the big King meetings used to be held. The meetings were held out in the open alongside the whare kauta. They used to hold all the big King meetings a1 Raropua and Kerehu was the chairman. He was involved with the Kauhanganll movement and wrote many letters to King Tawhiao referring to him as EPa. In 1886 there was one pa..rticular meeting where the lllunbers of people who attended was astounding and Kerekau wrote all their names in his book. King Tawhiao is also recorded as having attended one of the meetings at Raropua. 25

The Kauhanganui movement was a political forum established by King Tawhiao for the Waikato, Raurah and Maniapoto confederation of tribes and was active throughout the 1890's. Bush reported in 1892, that Ngaiterangi were boycotting the Native Land Court and he enclosed a copy of an invitation to attend the Kotahitanga Parliament at Waitangi which was being circulated amongst the Natives and the district under the authority of the Kingites, by one Te Ua..111aira..'1gi Maungapohatu, son of Maungapohatu a late Pirirakau 26 chief . Family members also remember going to many hui held at Turangawaewae Marae when they were children, so Kerekau's involvement with the King movement can be seen three generations later through these events as well as what has been recorded in his diaries.

After the surrender, it appears that there were a small number of Pirirakau living on the reserve at Te Puna with Maungapohatu and Te Kerekau because as early as 1870 the area is described as having been continuously cultivated, with 8 wooden houses on it, a meeting house and an urupa. 27 Oral evidence also says that:

Te Kerekau built the first meeting house at Tutereinga before 1880 and it was Ngatoko and Pihama from Ngati Kahu and Ngati Pango who helped him to build if8.

The majority of Pirirakau chose to maintain their stance of refusing to surrender which excluded them by British law from receiving any entitlement to crown grants of land. 29 There were 2267 acres of reserves set aside for them should they choose to change their minds but they never did, their refusal to come in and

25 ibid & Kerekau diaries. 26 Rose Report, p28-29 27 RDB;voI3 p:l020-1b22 28 B Borell 29 NZ Settlements Act 1863, Evelyn Stokes Reserves appendix 2. 8 surrender excused the Government from taking any responsibility for them even though

some of the reserve land was still in the hands of the Crown. 30 The Crown's failure to allocate the reserve lands to Pirirakau may have been the main reason why they ended up living on the two blocks of la.'1d at Te Puna with Maungapohatu, Te Kerekau and the other surrendered Pirirakau who allowed them to stay when they had nowhere else to go. Kerekau said, "It was through aroha that we allowed them to live on the land and to bury their dead there,dl The Pirirakau report also comments on how conditions at Okauia had deteriorated to such an extent that the inhabitants were now impoverished. Pirirakau drifted over to Te Puna and were welcomed on to the land granted to Maungapohatu and Te Kerekau. 32

2.4 Land Interests Pirirakau and others were living at Te Puna by the early 1900s and everyone seemed to be getting on with life even though there had been earlier attempts by individuals to succeed to land. At the beginning of 1908, Te Kerekau applied to the Native land Court to succeed to his father's interests in the land. This application for succession to Lot 154 was not the first, as applications of succession to this particular block had been made previously by J Faulkner June 1881 and in 1884, H Potie and others had applied for subdivision. 33 There was also the largely overlooked application ofTe Kerekau Maungapohatu "mo Te Pirirakau Hapu" November 1888 34

All hapu and individual attempts to succeed to interests in the land failed at the time because of the tribal trusteeship aspect of the grant. However, in 1909 an order in Council was issued empowering the Native land Court to inquire and ascertain who were beneficially entitled under the Trust and included in the title. In pursuance of this a 1910 Native land court inquiry found that the only people entitled to be included in the title were Maungapohatu, Kerekau and the two women Irihapiti (Mrs Bidois) and Aporina (Mrs Potie) who surrendered because the rest ofPirirakau were in rebellion. As the two woman

30 Orr-Nimmo report, p32 31 TMB 6, P182 32 Wai 227 Report, p5 33, NA AId, BCAC-A622 204dJT666 Application to succeed J Faulkner, June 1881

34 Application to succeed to Realty, Kerekau Maungapohatu 23 Hanuere 1908 - National Archives AKL BCAC A622 204dfT666 9 had received a large award of land nearby, the court decided to glve the block to Maungapohatu and Kerekau as being the only persons entitled to it but later on in the year the two women along with five others were also included in the title. 35

Kerekau under oath in Court 2nd April 1910 when questioned by Mr Rape said;

I am one of the persons named in the Crown Grant but I was never aware that I was appointed a trustee.36 I understood that the land belonged to my father and I and the four others who surrendered and lived on the block37

It is unlikely that Maori had an equivalent word or a full understanding of the English word trust or trustee as we know it nowadays 38 and it seems as though Kerekau was of the understanding that the land was granted to his father, himself and the few others who had surrendered, and the others living on the Block were there because of aroha. 39 The 1910 court decision awarding the trustees individual title to the blocks threw them into turmoil as Kerekau became challenged by a second younger generation. Grueling court cases were to follow and continue for years as Kerekau fought to retain his position and interests in the land until his death in 1920. 40 The workings of the Native Land Court system proved only to serve Maori in a way that would ultimately divide them within themselves and against others. The Crown created a situation where anyone could make claim to land regardless of whether their whakapapa entitled them to or not and use rights to land could now easily be confused with occupation rights.

In the midst of all the conflict and opposition Kerekau must have felt some sort of obligation, or pressure to find a solution for those members of Pirirakau who felt they might be "evicted from the land, rendered homeless and without subsistence,,41. Where this notion comes from is mystifying because families had been living on the blocks with their Kainga and cultivations for over forty years with no previous or present threat of being forced to move off Kerekau had never criticized or denied these people a home, and land enough to

35 AJHR a -201867,P5, 6. NL<\ 11922/248, Judge Wilson to Under secretal'y2.8.1917 36 TMB 6/172 2/35 37 TMB 7/48-53 38 Kawharau 1989.p300-301 39 TMB 6/ 182. 40 Orr-Nimmo Report pp.36, 42-55

41 RDB Vol. 3 pl020,1122 10 cultivate so as to ensure their livelihood. However, one might suggest that it was the Native Land Court's individual land title system that stirred up a sense of insecurity or opportunity in those who began petitioning continuously and rigorously for this land through the Native

Land Court and Parliament. 42 The un-surrendered status of the petitioners may have been the reason why they did not contend for the other reserves with the same force and the Crown withheld those reserve lands from them using their un-surrendered status as the excuse to take no responsibility for the situation at all.

The responsibility was to fall back on Kerekau who offered to gift, in the customary way a portion of the land to the petitioners so that their place on the land would be assured. This action by Kerekau shows a man functioning from a traditional mindset, using the concepts of giving and receiving traditionally practiced as a natural outcome to enhance one's mana, or greater land rights achieved through giving rather than possessing. A gift of land to people would only enhance and show the greatness of the giver's mana. 43 Kerekau offered to give the petitioners 50 acres of land but the offer was refused. He then very generously agreed to the court's suggestion to give the petitioners 80 acres where their kainga and cultivations were, amounting to a third of the whole block which would leave them with 20 acres each. Evidently there must have been four other families living on the block44 which makes it difficult to distinguish who the petitioners were, the four families, others or both.

The offer of eighty acres was accepted one day only to be refused the next. 45 Conflict continued and by 1911 the Crown initiated proceedings to purchase the land from Kerekau. 46 It took three years of negotiations before Kerekau would finally part with it and even then he had to fight to keep Raropua where his house was, out of the purchase. The Crown were determined to acquire all of block 154, not part of it because this was their remedy to "remove the feeling of supposed injustice, which rankled in the minds of the

petitioners". 47 In April 1914, the Crown purchased the land from Kerekau. The whanau believe that the decision by Kerekau to pass the land on to the Crown was made under pressure as Kerekau was in a no win situation. Oral evidence affirms this: IfKerekau sold the land and received payment, it would have only been because he

42 Orr-Nimmo Report pp.42-55 43 Durie E. Custom Law, p78 44 TMB 6 p195 45 ibid 46 Orr Nimmo,p62 47 MA CruefJudge Jones to Native Minister,l5.7.1922 11 had to put it through as a sale for the lucky people who received it. The Pakeha laws would have made it that way, he would have given the land to the people but it had to go through as a sale. He would have been forced to sell it or was put in a position where he could not do anything else. 48

Mr Sharp in a memorandum to the Native Department 22 August 1917, also states: "It is quite evident that if the owners of Lot 154 D had refused to sell to the Crown, the petitioners would have had no claim at all to the land". 49 The rebel status inflicted upon the petitioners by British law prevented this.

It is also a puzzling thought that Kerekau should part with the land in this way, because he had stated, "Never, never will I sell the land" and according to oral evidence he was very much a man of his word. 50 With regard to the issue of Hoki Murray's house having to be removed, Mr Sharpe, Kerekau's lawyer said, 'I do not think he would have agreed to the sale if he had understood that his daughter was to leave her house. ,51 There was a lot of dispute and confusion over what was to become of Kerekau's and Hoki's buildings on the land but eventually they were forced to move their houses and crops to Raropua. 52

Even though the decision was made by Kerekau and others to allow the Crown to purchase the land, it did not mean that they were going to give up everything, this land was their right by way of whakapapa, and it was their traditional home so a guarantee that the land was to go back to all the people including the vendors families was made between themelves and the Crown. After the purchase of the land was made a special meeting was held in Tauranga purposing to reassure the petitioners that the land was bought for them and they should now desist efforts to get possession of it. 53 This unfortunately was not to be. In 1916 two years after the Crown representatives purchased the land, it was partitioned and allocated to tribal members including the grantees. This entitled Kerekau's daughter Hoki and her children 25 shares (which amounted roughly to 100 acres) of the 68 shares in the block. Kerekau fought to keep nineteen acres of land at Raropua where he lived out of the

48 B Borell 49 MA 1 1922/248 Judge Wilson to Under Secretary 22.8. 1917,TMB 9 50 ibid 51 TMB 9 p71 52 Orr Nimmo report 53 TMB 9,p78 12 purchase so it was not included in the partition. 54 Pirirakau as a whole were said to have been settled, continuing to cultivate their lands and getting on with life. Most of Pirirakau were satisfied with the subsequent partition orders that were made55 but this move did not suit everyone nor did it bring the expected favourable outcomes the Crown had hoped for. After Kerekau died in 1920 the same petitioners stirred up again began making submissions to Parliament and The Native Land Court to have the original grantees' families completely removed from the block. The reason for this, according to Potaua Tangitu was, The

petitioners suffered and the others did not. ,56 It is unlikely that anyone two generations down from Kerekau could identify with the great suffering experienced by all Maori, whether surrendered or unsurrendered during the land wars and land confiscation period but the Crown listened to the few petitioners constant demands and in so doing dishonoured the agreement they had made with Kerekau to retain his whanau in lot 154D.

2.4 Exclusion In 1922 the petitioners were successful in their campaign to have the original grantees excluded from title with the rest of the hapu when Chief Judge Jones cancelled out the earlier 1916 judgement. He recommended that Parliament pass legislation authorizing the Native Land Court to re-hear the matter with a direction that the persons who received payment for the purchase not be entitled to be beneficial owners. Thus, giving power to the

court to make any consequential amendment that it saw fit. 57

At a rehearing in March 1923, Hoki, Kerekau's only child applied for admission to title with other Pirirakau but the court told her that legislation under which the inquiry was taking

place prevented her inclusion. 58 All those involved in the inquiry agreed however that she

should be allowed to remove her crops. 59 Her rights to the land, by way of whakapapa and occupation and through the agreement made nine years earlier by her father and the Crown which he had fought for until his death were now severed. She did not appeal the decision but approached Mr Sharpe who was the main negotiator for the Crown during the land

54 MA 1 1922/248 Judge Wilson to Under Secretary,22.8.1917 &TMB 9 55 TMB, 11, P 50-51 MA 11992/248 Chief Judge Jones to Native Minister, 15.7.22 56TMB llp21 57 Orr -Nimmo report, from original document MAl 19221248 No 112. 58 TMB 11 p134-135, Orr-Ninuno report p102

59 Orr Nimmo Report p 103 13 transaction. The following month, Sharpe took the matter up himself with the Native Minister. In this letter, Sharp once again sets out with considerable force of his understanding of the arrangements in which he had acted for the Crown in 1914: 60

To the best of my recollection it was a clear and distinct tenn of the sale that the land was to be vested in the Pirirakau Tribe including the Vendors. There was considerable difficulty in getting the Vendors to agree to a sale and the two Vendors, Wanakore and Puhoi would only agree to a sale on condition that that the land be vested in the whole Tribe including the Vendors. They, I think had dwellings on the land. I thiIlk but am not sure on this point, that Judge Bowler, who came to Tauranga to finally conclude the matter and pay the purchase money, gave Wanakore a letter to that effect and - if so a copy of this letter should be on the file. Wanakore is dead and I do not know if the original letter can be found. However when Judge Brown held his inquiry, the matter was fresh in my mind and I think I infonned him of the terms of the sale. Staff Capt. Moore of the Salvation Army, licensed interpreter was present when the

sale was made and he is of the same opinion as I alll. Judge Bowler may have some recollection of the matter. Shortly after the sale to the Crown and before Judge Brown's inquiry Tangitu, who I think is the prime mover iIl getting the fresh inquiry, tried to force Wanakore off the land, and Sir William Herries wired to him to prevent this, which confirms my view of the matter. To anyone not conversant with the negotiations of the sale, it would naturally appear unreasonable that the Vendors should sell and still retain an interest in the land, but it was a tnatter of bargain and if that was the bargain, it is not right that the Crown should set aside the bargain at the instance of Tangitu or anyone else. I have never thought that the decision of the Appeal Court awarding the land to Wanakore, PullOi and the two others was correct but that is besides the point, having been awarded the land by the Appeal Court, they were entitled to make the best bargain they could when selling the land. Watmore's people have been to see me and I promised to place the tnatter before you and ask you to kindly look into the matter. I do not think Sir William Herries' attention can have been called to this clause, for he was quite satisfied with Judge Browns decision, and looked upon the matter as satisfactorily settled. It might be pertinent to ask why the matter was brought up again so long after decision. 61

60 Orr Nimmo report,p 104-1 05 61 Sharp to Native Minister, 2 October 1923, MA 1 1922/248 14

Hoki, Kerekau's daughter did not petition parliament but ended up living on her father's small block of land at Raropua. As a Maori woman in those times she would have had little chance of appeal compounded with the fact that she did not know how the court system worked. Furthermore, she had seen her father spend much of the last fifteen years of his life battling in the courts. Her attempts to be included with the rest of the hapu were met with insult and rejection not only from the Crown, but also her own people. She was excluded from the land, pushed out by legislation and ostracized by those who supported the petitioners to have her removed. If Kerekau had not stipulated that he retain his own land at Raropua, Hoki and her children would have been homeless. She lived at Raropua until her death in 1955. Some of her family still live their today,

The Orr Nimmo Report covers most of the detail concerning Lot 16 which was part of the original grant made to Maungapohatu and Kerekau and people. There is much confusion with regard to its sale, return and resale.

The author has included the section on Raropua as relevant oral evidence as it gives further insight to features and characteristics of the family and their experience that are relevant to the claim. For example their relationship to and knowledge of the Moana, which would clearly prove a coastal dwelling people rather than inland people, their whanaungatanga which always extended outward portraying a people who did care about others.

2.6 Raropua Raropua is where Kerekau and his family eventually ended up living. He had built the wharenui at Tutereinga for the people and his own house was nearby but after all the trouble Kerekau had to move his house to its present location at Raropua. This would have been a major operation, as he would have only had horses, ropes and logs to move it. In the early 1900's Nap Bidois remembers seeing the house being pulled by horses from opposite Tutereinga where Terry Rat's house is, across the paddocks past where Nicky's house is and then down the hill to Raropua onto the mound where it still stands today.

Hoki was the only child of Te Kerekau. She married Katene Mare and they lived at Raropua until she died in 1955. They had five daughters and one son. Both Hoki and 15 Katene are buried at Raropua.

Oral evidence recalls:

Raropua was a place where everyone was welcome. There was always plenty of work and plenty of kai; people who had nowhere to go went to Raropua, as they were always welcome 62 there. This goes back to the way Hoki and Kerekau were . There were always people living and staying at Raropua. The grOlmd at Raropua is good, you can grow crops year after year and still have an excellent harvest. There were always large cultivations a tradition, which fortmlately llas continued in the family. In those earlier days there were 500 hens, this place was always self-sufficient. We milked a dozen cows by hand and used the horse and plough for gardens, we worked the land this way right up to the 1960's. We always had 2 acres or more in garden, the main crops were potatoes, kumara and maize. The maize was for pig food and for the hens and ducks. We made our own butter and the cream went to the milk factory, we got butter back and it also paid for the 63 groceries. The eggs were sold to temco, which gave us some more income . The harbor was also a main food source and boat was the main form of transportation. In those days fish was abundant, You could see schnapper tails everywhere at the low tide and you could throw a line off the bank and catch a fish, now you don't see that. We used to set the net across the creek over at the Waikaraka and get so much schnapper we would have to let half of it go. At Motuhoa we would set the net and get so much mullet we would have to do two trips back and forward, Pipi, tuangi, schnapper, mullet, flounders and mussels were plentiful in the harbour. We always shared the food out to whanau.

We used to go to town by boat and we rowed everywhere. Our grandfather Cotton Murray had a lamlch called the Waipa, it rolled over at Tuhua (Mayor Island) and got a hole in the side. They had to float it back from there, its still in use today somewhere up north. Cotton came from a ship building family and had his own big boats. He traded and skippered Iris own passenger 64 boats from Tauranga to Auckland 3-4 boats he had at Raropua . He had built big sheds down at Raropua for his boats.

These are a people who lived on the harbour as much as on the land. Traditional fishing grounds and shellfish beds still provide food but the fish are smaller and fewer with some species utterly depleted. This is due mainly to commercial and over fishing as well as pollution. Shellfish beds

62 B Borell 63 S Leef

64 ibid 16 are depleted and some shellfish are either too polluted to eat or have disappeared but one can still get a feed if you know where to go and the right time to go. Traditional fishing methods, practices and fishing spots that have been handed down from generation to generation are still alive in the family today. Clearly these are a people who have always lived on the coast where they still live today. 17

3.0 CONCLUSION There is little doubt that the actions of the Crown and its bureaucrats between 1865 and 1925 created confusion over the land and division in the Pirirakau hapu, a rift that still exists today. There is little reward or acknowledgement for those who tried to make the best of a situation in order that they may survive as a people in a "dog eat dog" situation created by the invasion of British Imperialism. Caught in a state of transition and confusion as Te Kerekau was, we believe, he in the end was used as a scapegoat to justify the Crowns past actions in dealing with the unsurrendered Pirirakau.

Governor Grey had promised those who surrendered that "their rights would be scrupulously protected". As a surrendered rebel Kerekau's rights as one of the trustees and then as an owner of blocks 154 and 16 were not scrupulously protected. Contrary to article 2 of the Treaty, constant interference from the Crown did not allow Kerekau to exercise mana over the land, which was his ancestral right by way of whakapapa and occupation. After being awarded individual title to lots 154 & 16 he was not treated as having equal rights with British subjects as promised to him under article three of the Treaty of Waitangi. After being pressured to agree to the Crown purchase of the land in order that it may be partitioned to all hapu members including Kerekau's family, the Crown once again went back on their word by legislating his daughter and her family out of inclusion.

The Crown were dishonourable in all their dealings with this whanau whereas Maungapohatu and Kerekau in all their actions proved honourable. They continually made allowances for their whanaunga in order that they may survive as a people. Unfortunately, the ever changing Colonial laws, legislation and values only created more separation and alienation excluding them from all hapu based activities and involvement and creating rifts in relationships that over the years has never been healed. 18

4.0 Oral tradition says: What great men Malllgapohatu and Kerekau must have been to have had the foresight to make sure they (the Pirirakau) would all have somewhere to go. "Kerekau never, never wanted to sell the land". If Mallilgapohatu and Te Kerekau had not surrendered and stayed on the land what would have become of the people. They knew that if they did not surrender and stay on the land they would have nothing. What man would build a whare, not for himself but for the people, what a good man to build a house for the people, he must have been a man who cared about people65

B.Borrell BIBLIOGRAPHY

Interviews William (Bill) Borell

Sydney (Syd) Leef

Official Published Appendices to the Journal of the House ofRepresetatives, A20, 1867

Bay ofPlenty Times 8th July 1884

Official Unpublished Raupatu Document Bank, Vol. 3

Tauranga Native Land Court Minute Books 6,7,9,11

Unofficial Published Durie E, Custom Law, January 1994.

Gifford W.H Brady Williams .R. A Centennial History ofTauranga. AW & AH Reed, Wellington New Zealand 1940.

Kawharu I R. Waitangi. Maori and Pakeha Perspectives of'The Treaty of' Waitangi. Oxford University Press Auckland New Zealand 1989.

Pool .1 Te Iwi Maori. A New Zealand Population Past and Projected. Auckland University Press, Auckland NZ 1991.

Unpublished Reports Orr Nimmo K. A Matter o[Bargain, Waitangi Trib1.U1al Report, 1998. Pirirakau Historical Report. Wai 215 Claim. March 1997

Addendum to Pirirakau Report. The Te Puna Reserves and Lands Returned 1998 ..

Rose K. The Impact of confiscation: Socia Economic Conditions Of Tauranga Maori. Crown Forestry Rental Trust. 1865-1965

Stokes E. The Allocation ofReserves for Maori in Tauranga Confiscated Lands, Vo1.1 1998

Stokes E, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana, University ofWaikato 1990