Report on the Crown Acquisition of Hauturu (Little Barrier Island)

Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal

February 1999

Ralph Johnson II

LIST OF CONTENTS

Location Map of Hauturu (Little Barrier Island} ...... iii

Introduction ...... 1 Geography 1; Early Records 2

Section 1: Native Land Court, 1878-86 ...... 4 1878 Native Land Court Hearing 4; 1880 Hearing 4; 1881 Hearing 6; 1881 Re-hearing 8; Restrictions on alienation 9; 1881 Gazette notification 10; Government intervention in Native Land Court Process 12; 1884 Hearing 12; Special Powers and Contracts Act 1884 16;1886 Hearing 18; Comparative Table ofHauturu Ownership Lists 21; Summary 22

Section 2: Purchase Negotiations, 1886- 94 ...... 23 Purposes for acquisition 23; Individuals requesting payment 25; Price negotiations 25; 1891 Purchase Agreement; Withdrawal & Re-instatement of purchase offer 28; Timber trading 29; Native Land Court detennination of Ownership Interests 30; Legal question of 1881 proclamation 32; Change in Government approach 34; 1892 Gazette notification 35; Tenetahi's legal costs 38; Petitions 41

Section 3: Compulsory Acquisition, 1894-95 ...... 44 Little Barrier Island Purchase Bil144; Private Bill 45;Tenns of the Act 46; Detennination of shares 47; Magistrate's valuation 49

Section 4: Removal of Residents from Hauturu, 1895 ...... 52 Trespass proceedings 52

Section 5: Continued Attempts to Secure Recompense, 1895-1910 ...... 55

Section 6: Subsequent Administmtive History, 1900- present...... 59

Conclusions ...... 60

Bibliography...... 63 LOCATION OF HAUTURU LImE BARRIER ISLAND Copyright (e) 19M-1m, MkrosoftCorpocatloo and itswppUm. All rights ~ed. 1

HISTORICAL REPORT ON THE CROWN ACQUISITION OF HAUTURU (LITTLE BARRIER ISIJAND)

INTRODUCTION

The following historical research report examines the Crown acquisition of Hauturu (Little Barrier Island). The research is based on the surviving documentary sources. It does not purport to cover oral traditions and histories, except as they were recorded in various Native Land Court proceedings. The present report was commissioned by and for the Waitangi Tribunal. Still, the views expressed here remain those of the author. The report does not speak for the claimants, Crown or the Tribunal itself. My name is Ralph Johnson and my experience includes three years working as a historical researchcr and claims facilitator for the Waitangi Tribunal.

In 1894, the Government enacted legislation to compulsorily acquire all remaining Maori ownership shares in Hauturu. The present report explores the background to that unusual measure. Furthennore, we seek to appraise whether the Crown acted legally in its dealings with Maori, and whether such la ws and actions lay in accordance with the principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi.

Section l:examines the protracted Native Land Court process between 1878-1886. This process drew two groups of applicants, connected by descent into competition for the title to ownership. The Native Land Court also chose to impose restrictions on the sale of the island.

Section 2 focuses on the Crown negotiations with Ngatiwai owners between 1886 and 1894 for the consensual sale ofthe island

Section 3 looks at the abrupt change in Crown approach and the shift to a mode of compulsory acquisition under Public Works statutes.

Section 4 follows the aftennath of compulsory acquisition, including Tenetahi and Rahui Te Kiri's continued residence and actions to evict them from the island.

Section 5 explores Tenetahi's continued attempts to resist the Crown actions and appeal for compensation.

Section 6 gives a brief overview of the administrative history of the island as a nature reserve in the twentieth century.

Geography

The geography of Hauturu exerts a strong influence on the history of the island. Hauturu lies isolated at the mouth of a large open bay, now known as the Hauraki Gulf, removed from the mainland and from all other island groups. Buffeted by strong winds and the Pacific Ocean, Hauturu is fringed by steep cliffs on all sidcs 2

except one, The interior of the island is, by and large, extremely steep and rugged, Moreover, it is this remote and rugged character that helps explain why, in contrast to other Hauraki Gulf islands, Hauturu did not feel the pressure of alienation until relatively late. It also serves to explain why the island remained largely forested and suitable for the purpose of a nature reserve until the late Nineteenth century.

Early RecOI'ds

The chief, Te Kiri, wrote to Land Purchase Agents Donald McLean and John Rogan on 23 October 1862, Te Kiri's is the earliest surviving documentary evidence of interest in selling Hauturu,

this is really the true word respecting Hauturu (small barrier)- this word proceeds from the truth only- Kitahi te Taniwha is wrong likewise Te Hemara, these are the people to whom the island belongs: Te Urunga, Hare te More, Wiremu Taiawa. Paratene Te Manu, Henare Te Whahipu Taukokopa, these are the peeple and the island is theirs, but it is through me only they can sell , 1 It...

Clearly, from the tenor of this correspondence, it is apparent that Te Kiri was not the first to have claimed the ownership of the island with an eye to selling, Te Kiri's claim sought to name particular owners, to the deliberate exclusion of Te Hemara Tauhia, This evidence points to a pre-existing competition for the title to Hauturu, Te Kid's approach to the Native Land Purchase Officc dates from 1862, the first year of the existence of the Native Land Court.

Native Land Court files record a much earlier attempt to alienate Hauturu to the Crown, Ngapuhi chief, Pomare, from the Bay ofIslands attempted to sell Hauturu to Crown agent James Reddy Clendon in 1844, as part of the 'Mahurangi purchase'. And, despite Pomare receiving a deposit payment from Clendon, representatives from other tribal interests (perhaps including Te Hemara Tauhia and Te Kid) convinced the Government not to pursue the purchase further.2 In a later Native Land Court hearing senior Ngatiwai witness, Paratene Tc Manu, alluded to the fact that Ngatiwai had sent correspondence to the Government in the wakc of Pomare's attempts to "ell the island. The letter allegedly requested the Government not to buy the islartd, and instead 'wished Government to look after their place'. In reply the Government apparently re-assured Ngatiwai they would look after the island.)

Te Kiri's daughter, Rahui Te Kiri, was the first to lodge an official application for the investigation of title through the Native Land Court. On 7 May 1878 Rahui Te Kiri and her husband, Tenetahi, (recorded as Tini Tabi) submitted an application on behalf of the hapu Ngahue. A second copy of the same application dated in May 1878 lists Rahui Te Kiri as claiming on behalf ofTe Uriokatea, and her husband, Tenetahi,

1 Te Kiri to Rogan and McLean, 23 October 1862, Native Land Purchase Department 62/318, MA 131 45, part 7. 2 TeHemara Tauhia, 4 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p.189, 'WiremuTuripona, 12 May 1881, KaiparaMinuteBook03, p.4l8, 3

as Ngatiwai:1 Henry Kemp noted on the application that a caveat already existed on Hauturu on behalf of the GovernmentS A further Government memo noted the wishes of the Native Minister to adveIiise the claim and added that 'if the Government have auy claim on it they must prove it in Court.,6 Later oral testimony from Rahui Te Kiri aud Tenetahi suggested that they had sougpt earlier hearings, but that they did not take place due to the absence of a survey piau. However, based on surviving documents it is difficult to detennine whether any applications or hearings occurred before 1878.

A raft of other applications followed in the wake of Rahui Te Kiri's initial application. One competing interest, which identified itself as Kawerau, lodged a separate application for hearing in Jauuary 1879. The application included the following names: Paora Tuhaere, Arama Karaka Haututu, Mereama Makoare, Mereama Hemara, Hori Te More, Eramiha Raikea, aud Hiria Hori Kingi. The list even included Rahui Te Kiri's name among the applicauts- though there is no evidence to suggest she had consented to the inclusion of her name on the application8 A second Kawerau application dated 17 April 1879 restated the names of Wiremu Pea aud Te Hemara Tauhia aud added Wiremu Pomare.9 The extended list then re-applied on 26 November 1879, this time under the joint signed authority ofTe Kawerau and Ngaitahu.!O Finally, in Jauuary 1880, Wiremu Te Pea submitted his own separate application on behalf ofNgatikahu. 11

4 Rahui Te Kid, Native Land Court Application for the Investigation of Title, 7 May 1878, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91. Three copies of the same application exist on llIe. II is difficult to ascertain which of the three, might have been an original. 5 Henry Tacy Kemp, 20 May 1878, noted on Rahui Te Kiri, Native Land Court Application for the Investigation afTitle, 7 May 1878, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91. 6 E Halmnond, 21 May 1878, noted on Rahui To Kiri, Native Laed Court Application for the Investigation ofTitle, 7 May 1878, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91. 7 Rahui Te Kiri to Te Penetana (F.D. Fenton), 11 August 1880, MAn! 45, Part 7. • Te Hemara Tauhia (et aLl, Native Land Court Application for the Investigation of Title, 22 January 1879, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91. 9 Wiremu Te Pea (et al.), Native Land Court Application for the Investigation of Title, 17 April 1879, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91. 10 Te Hemara Taullia (et al.), Native Land Court Application for the Investigation of Title, 26 November 1879, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91. 11 Wiremu Te Pea, Native Land Court Application fur the Investigation of Title, 5 January 1880, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91. 4

SECTION 1: NATIVE LAND COURT

Between 1878 and 1886 the Native Land Court held a multiple and protracted series of hearings before a number of different judges in an attempt to determine title ownership to Hautum. Below is a summary of the hearings:

Hst of Hauturu Native Land Court Hearings

"'Amongst the 18 owners named on behalf of Ngatiwhatua, only Watarauhi Tawhia­ identified himself as Kawerau 'hapu ofNgatiwhatua'. t Although Kawerau were identified as claimants, again only one of the list of 18 owners, Miriama Houkura, identified themselves on the ownership list as of Te Kawerau.

First Native Land Court hearing 3 July 1878 The first recorded Native Land Court hearing of Hautum took place on 3 July 1878, Te Hemara Tauhia was the sole claimant. In the absence of a suitable survey plan however, the court adjourned !he hearing. The court adjudged that 'the plan ~.' produced was riot in accordance with the provisions of the act. .. an actual survey on the ground is necessary previous to investigation oftitle',12 Despite the absence of a survey, the total area ofHautum was adjudged to be 6960 acres: It is remarkable that the land area in acres, 6960 acres, has remained unchanged since the first hearing, despite !he faet !hat the acreage was arrived at without the benefit of a land-based survey.

Second hearing 16-17 July 1880 The second hearing occurred on 16.7 July 1880 at TeAwaroa in Kaipara, before Judge Rogan and Native Assessor Ereatara Rangihoro. Te Hemara Tauhia opened with a short history of Kawerau's right to Hautum through the battles fought by their eponymous ancestor Maki. Tauhia maintained a right to Hauturu through Maki's conquest of the earlier owners WaiohuaI3 Arama Karaka Haututu then outlined

12 Native Land Court Hearing iuto Hauturu, 3 July 1878, Kaipara Minute Book 03, p. 30 L 13 Te Hemara Tauhia, 16 July 1&80, Kaipara Minute Book 03, p. 388. 5

genealogical connections between Kawerau and Ngati Manuhiri; Manuhiri was the eldest son ofMaki. Haututu referred to Maki as 'our ancestor', but then went further to draw a distinction between the sibling descendants of MakL 'The descendants of Ngawhitu lived on the mainland, but the descendants of ManuhiIi lived on Hauturu ... The descendants alone of Maki inhabited Hauturu that is the descendants ofManuhiri:l4 Ironically, this evidence presented by Haututu appeared to undermine the claim ofTe Hemara Tauhia himself, as a descendent ofNgawhitu. 15

Tenetahi was the sole N gatiwai representative present at the 1880 hearing. He complained that Ngatiwai had stayed away as they were not aware that a survey,plan had been completed and as a result, he himself abstained from giving evidence. l On the issue of the survey plan, however, Rogan made no comment. And, despite Tenetahi's plea, the court proceeded to award ownership to the descendents ofMaki, dismissing the claim ofNgatimaru, hut without hearing any evidence from Ngatiwai. The Native Land Court memorial of ownership listed the following the names and identified each hapu and iwi:

Native Laud Court 1880 Memorial of Ownership: Name Ideutification ..~~~. ~~- Hemara Tauhia Ngatirongo hapn ofNgatiwhatua Hiria Hori Kingi Ngatirongo hapn ofNgatiwhatua Miriama Makoare Ngatirongo hapu ofNgatiwbatua Paora Tuhaere Ngaoho hapu ofNgatiwhatua Arama Karaka Hauturu Ngatimanuhiri bapu ofNgatiwhatua Eramiha Paikea Ngatimanuhiri hapn ofNgatiwhatua Miriama Hemara Ngaitahu bapu ofNgatiwhatua Hod Te More Te Uriokatea hapu ofNgatiwhatua Mihaka Makoare Uriohau hapu ofNgatiwhatua Te Tatana Waitaheke Ngatimauku hapn of Ngatiwhatua Herewini Maui Ngungakauri hapu ofNgatiwhatua Watarauhi Tawhia Kawerau hapu ofNgatiwhatua Paraone Ngaweke Mangamata hapu ofNgatiwhatua i Ereatara Te Tareha (u)? Rotoraupo hapu ofNgatiwhatua

I Watene Tautari Te Taou hapu ofNgatiwhatua . Wiremu Pomare Te Urikaraka hapu ofNgapuhi Netana Ngarikara Ngati Kauwhari hapu ofNgatiwhatua Wirenlll Turip~~ .. Ngatiru~_..~~~p.E~()fNgatimarul~~ ~ ~~~. -~~

Ngatiwai reaction A letter from Rahui Te Kiri signed on hehalf of 'ngatiwai katoa' reasserted a Ngatiwai claim to the island and explained that as 'all early attempts having been

14 Arama Karaka Haututu, 16 July 1880, Kaipara Minute Book 03, p. 391. 15 Minute Books included copies ofwhakapapa charts submitted by Tauhia and Haututu. Kaipara Minute Book 03, p. 389. 16 Tenetahi, 16 July 1880, Kaipara Minute Book 03, p. 393. 11 Obvious mis-transcriptions have been corrected, however others may remain from Rogan's original list John Rogan, Native Land Court Order, 16 July 1880, MLC 533K 91. See also, Minutes from HautumHearing, 17 July 1880,KaiparaMinuteBook03,p. 394. 6

dismissed due to the absence ofa survey plan', they did not attend the 1880 hearing. 18 'Had we been aware of a survey we should have gone; but there was no survey, therefore we did not go to that investigation.' 19 Chief Judge FD Fenton recommended to the Minister of Justice a re-hearing of the case. Fenton also alerted Crown officials to the opportunity for making a claim. In the interim, Paratene Te Manu and Rihi Paea lodged an application for a hearing representing the interests of Ngapuhi. 2o The Government published a formal notice of the re-hearing under section 58 of the Native Land Act 1873 21

Re-hearing 7-13 May 1881 The first re-hearing occurred the following year, on 7-13 May 1881. Chief Judge Fenton opened the hearing by listin the applications, which had persuaded the Native Land Court to grant are-hearing?f Te Hemara Tauhia immediately requested and received an adjournment until 10 May.

Crown Request for Inalienability The Commissioner of Lands, DA Tole, following Fenton's advice to attend the hearing, formally requested that the court make Hauturu inalienable, except to the Crown. 'The Government are under the belief that the island, from ifs possible importance for military purposes etc, should be inalienable except to the Crown, or under proper restrictions. ,23. Fenton adjourned the matter ulltil after the ownership had bcen determined. Then tbrough an interesting coincidence, Auckland lawyer JA Tole, requested to represent Ngatiwai as legal counsel.24 Despite an objection, the court allowed Ngatiwai to be represented by JA Tole

In appearing before the Native Land Court, key witness, Rahul Te Kiri, highlighted her dual lines of whakapapa to both Ngatiwai and Ngatiwhatua tupuna. Like her by then deceased father, Te Kiri, she jived at both Omaha and Hautnru. But when it came to distinguishing her interests in Hauturu, Rahui Te Kiri was emphatic that she derived her connections to Hauturu through her Mother's Ngatiwai ancestors, not her Father's colmections to Kawerau, in spite of her dual lineage25 Henare Te Moananui also highlighted the inter-connectedness of the groups. He identified Ngatiwai as a hapu of Ngapuhi. 26 He explained that because of the Island's position, Ngapuhi occasionally stopped on the island and encamped during longer voyages.

18 Rahui Te Kid to Te Penetana (F.D. Fenton), II August 1880, p.2., MA131 45, Part 7. 19 English translation ofRahui Te Kiri to Fenton, 11 August 1880, p. L, MAl31 45, Part 7. 20 Paratene Te MaIm and Rihipaea, Native Land Court Application for the Investigation of Title, 24 September 1880, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91. A file note to Fenton written on Ihe application suggested that in light of the re-hearing 'there is no use in advertising this claim under these circumstances. ~ 21 Notice fur the Re-hearing of Claim under Native Land Act, 26 October 1880, [published, but no detail of date or location], copy in MLC 533K 91. 21 FD hntQll. 7 May 1881, KaipJU'a Minute. B.wl<. 03 .. p. 402. 'Latter from Ranu! T~. Kid ami. olhers (SO/ 4J62); Henare Te Moananui and another (801 4244); A second letter from Hecare Te Moananui (801 4162); Te !Caplhana & others (801 5304); Hensre 'Ie Mo.nanu! & others (81/ 656): 23 WJA Tole, 10 May 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 03, p. 404. 24 WJA Tole, 10 May 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 03, p. pp. 404-5. It is not known whether DA Tole and JA Tole were related, though it seems highly likely. 2S Rallui Te Kiri, Native Land Court Minutes, 10 May 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 03, p. pp. 405-6. 26 Henare Te Moona"ui, Rahui Te Kiri, Native Land Court Minutes, 10 May 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 03, P.408. 7

Another witness, Wiremu Turipona, lived at Hauraki and identified himself as Te Kawerau, Ngatiwai and Ngatimanu.27 Turipona went on to state that many of the descendents ofRehua (Uriorehua) lived at Hauraki, but that several oftbem had not applied to the court individually as it had been agreed that one individual only would appear as a representative for each hapu,

Early Timber Commerce Rahui Te Kiri also mentioned the fact that Ngatiwai had been involved in the commercial extraetion of timber from the island, as evidence of their exercise of rights over Hautum. 'There are Europeans cutting timber on the island. Macenzie is the name of one; he got leave from Te Kiri lRahui's FatherJ, and paid money to him. It was divided among the Ngatiwai and no-one e1se.'28 Other Ngatiwai witnesses, such as Hone Paama and Henare Te Moananui also testified to the long-standing sale of timber from Hauturu to the Europeans, 29 As part of his cross-examination, Te Remara Tauhia elicited evidence from a European witness who testitled that there had been earlier negotiations to sell the island to a European entrepreneur in the 1870s-'0 The witness, Richard Louis Francis James De Thierry, acted as an interpreter for a European timber merchant, Andrew Rooney. The merchant offered 300 pounds for the purchase of the island, but there was no agreement to sell and eventually they agreed to lease the island at £100 per annum. Aecording to the court testimony, although Rooney agreed to the tenns of lease for the right of cutting wood, the agreement fell througb, It is not known whether the agreement had in fact commenced or not

Otber Hauraki Gulf Islands Judge Fenton compared HautufU ownership claims with titles already decided for other islands lying off the 'Mahurangi' coastline. Fenton questioned the apparent absence of Ngatiwai from the claims to Taranga (Hen and Chickens Islands), Kawau and Tiritiri Matangi. One Ngatiwai witness, Te Watarauihi Tawhia, admitted that he did not know who had sold the nearby Taranga, nor that the court had investigated tbe title of Tiritiri Matanf,>i.3l Tawhia recollected that Ngatiwai had petitioned Parliament over the question of Tiritiri Matangi, 'that the land might be 'returned' to them. They didn't apply to the Court at first thinking Parliament was the best course of action. ,32 At a later hearing in 1884, Te Hemara Tauhia testified that neither he nor any member ofKawerau had taken any part in the sale of Kawau, Tiritiri or any islands further to the south, He accused Ngatipaoa of having sold the islands in clandestine fashion. 33

In announcing a decision, Native assessor, Te Wiremu Tc AY"aitaia, serving in his first hearing announced his own decision in favour of Kawerau, He declared that 'the Native Land Court, gives the law according to the ways of the European. Now I hold according to ancient custom - aceording to genealogy' .34 Te Awaitaia's decision

21 Wiremu Turipona, Native Land Court Minutes, 10 May 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 03, p. 416. 28 Rahui Te Kin, Native Land Court Minutes, 10 May 1881, Kaipara Millute Book 03, p. pp. p. 406. 29 Henare Te Moananui, 11 May 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 03, pA06. ;0 Richard De Thierry, 13 May 1881, Kaipara Minute Book, p. 43 L 31 Watarauihi Tawhia, 12 May 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 03, pp.421-2, 32 Watarauihi Ta\Vhia, 12 May 1881, Kaipara Minute.Book 03, p.422. 33 'Ie Hemara Tauhia, 4 February 1884, Kaipara Minule Book, 04, p. 190, 34 'Ie Wiremu Te Awaitaia, 12 May 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 03, p, 435, 8

directly conflicted with :Fenton's judgement in favour of Ngatiwai. Fenton countered: 'titles founded on aneestry are rejected in the presence of actual facts,.35 Yet, due to the split decision, the Court had little option but to order a retrial before a different Judge and Assessor.

Re-hearing 4 June 1881 There was no delay in arranging a re-hearing, which began on 4 June 1881, before two Judges: H. Munro and L. O'Brien. As ""1th the previous hearing, JA Tole sought to represent Ngatiwai, and once more Paora Tuhaere protested. Eventually the conrt arranged for Tole to withdraw.

During the re-hearing, all whakapapa evidence was carried over from the May hearing. Evidence from both Ngatiwai and Kawerau witnesses appeared 1110re polarised towards demonstrating the sole existence of one interest to the exclusion of others. Kawerau witnesses, such as Kapihana Te Tuhi, elaborated in more detail that the basis of Kawerau claims to Hautum lay on account of the conquest of the previous owners: Waiohua and Ngaiwi36 Arama Karaka Haututu again drew attention to the fact that Rahui Te Kiri was of Te Kawerau as well as Ngatiwai descent,J7 but Te Kid again insisted that she 'preferred' her claim as a 'Ngatiwai not as Kawerau. ,38 She then presented to the court a letter addressed to her from Paora Tuhaere. Tuhaere's letter urged her not to give evidence as Ngatiwai at the1880 hearing, but to reconcile herself as 'Ngatiwhatua tuturu,.39

Sm'vey Illan Ngatiwai were given an opportunity to explain earlier confusion over the issue of the survey plan and why they had not been present at the tirst hearing. Tenetahi explained that when he was shown the survey plan at the 1880 hearing, he was unaware that a survey had been cOlllpleted.

1 came forward and looked at the plan and was told it was Hauturu. I asked when it was surveyed, and was told that it had been done long ago by a man of wat. I asked why it was now 10 be heard upon this plan when on former occasions it had been adjourned be<:ause no survey was ..m eXistence. '" .

Tuhaere in his cross-examination answered the question by asking Tenetahi whether he had been aware that if a plan was sent in and celtified it was admissable before the court. Though Tenetahi admitted his ignorance of this arrangement, it does serve to raise a question as to the legal requirements for completing a physical survey on land, not a coastal survey. Still, the question of an adequate survey re-emerged again in a latcr 1884 re-hearing. On that occasion, the presiding Judge, E Williams, declared that the plan upon which the hearings had depended was, 'merely part of the General Admiralty Surveys, and had no reference to ownership or occupation. It was a mere

"FD Fenlon, 13 May 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 03, p. 435. 36 'Land would belong to the conquerors provided there were 110 survivors to keep the former claim alive.' Kapihana Te Tuh;, Nat;veLand Court Minutes, 6 June 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p 97. 31 Arama Karalrn Haututu, Native Land Court Minutes, 4 June 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 80. 30 Rahui Te Kiri, Native Land Court Minutes, 6 June 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 99. 39 Paora Tuhaere to Rahul Te Kiri, 30 May 1880, encl., Native Land ('-Ourt Minutes, 6 June 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 04, following p. 104. 40 Tenetahi, Native Land Court Minutes 7 June 1881 Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 117. 9

coast survey, having no reference to the land:'1

Restrictions on alienation Judges O'Brien and Munro declared the case exceedingly clear and ordered in favour of Ngatiwai. The agreed list of owners was Rahui Te Kiri, Rini Tenetahi, Paratene Tc Manu, Miria Hcnare, and Honc Paama- one representative for each hapu42 At the same time, DA Tole, Commissioner of Crown lands" re-appeared and repeated the Government's earlier request that Hauturu be declared inalienable excc!l1 to the Crown on account that Hauturu represented 'an important military position': 3 In response to the request from the Crown Commissioner, the court ordered:

That the land therein comprised shall be inalienable, except with the consent of the Governor, by sale or mortgage, or by a lease for a longer period than twenty one years; or by sale to anyone except only to Her Majesty the Queen her Heirs and successors:'"'

The decision to place restrictions over Hauturu, illustrated the Crown's influence from the very outset in limiting alternatives available to the owners and safeguarding their own interests to purchase the island, Indeed, it contrasts with the approach taken by the Crown to legislate for the removal of restrictions on alienation over Native Reserves at a similar time:5

Kawerau representatives responded to the court's decision with a string of petitions and applications for rehearing,46 The Native Affairs Committee, led by Robert Trimble, in their report on two petitions, chose to question Judges Momo and Fenton, Both Judges tendered short reports, which vindicated the respective decisions in favour of Ngatiwai47 Trimble noted that there remained a serious dispute and recommended that the Government pursue a 'satisfactory resolution048 The Government declined the 1881 petitions. In addition to petitions, applications for re­ hearing were not slow to arrive, Two separate appl ication forms were dated 12 June 1881, Paora Tuhaere, Hemara Tauhia and Wiremu Pomare signed the first application on behalf of Te Kawerau and Ngatiwhatua, 49 Ibe other application of the same date

41 Judge E Williams, 4 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p, 192. 42 Judge Henry. Monro, Native Land Court Order, 8 June 1881, MLC 533K 91, Also, Judge Henry Monro, Native Land Court Order, 8 June 1881, Kaipara Minute Book. 04, p, 133, .3 JA Tole, 7 June 1881, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 131, '" Judge Henry Momo, Native Land Court Order 8 June 1881, MA13145, part. 7. This document was then filed in the Native Land Purchase Department Files as NLP 811 340. Also, Native Land Court Minutes, 8 June 1881, Kaipara h-finute Book 04, p. 133, 4' Refer to Jenny Murray, Crown Policy 011 Maori Reserved Lands alld Lands Reslricled from Allellation, 1865 /0 1900, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahalla Whanlli series (working paper: first release), February 1997, chapter 5; and, Ralph Johnson, The I'msl Administration of Maori Reserves, 1840- 1913, Waitangi Tribunal Rallgabaua Whanui series (working paper: first release), August 1997, pp. 116-8 . .. Paora Tuhaere et aI. to the Governor, 9 June 1881, MA13145, part 7. 47 Henry Monro, 'Presiding Judge's Report', 14 July 1881, MAl3! 45, part 7. FJ Fenton to Native Affairs Committee, Memorandum, 18 July 1881, MAI3!45, part 7, Fenton explained that the previous re-hearing over which he bad presided had been unable to resolve the case as the Native assessor, sitting in his first case, chose to support Kawerau thereby compromising Fenton's judgement in favour ofNgatiwai. .. Robert Trimble, Chairman Native Affairs Committee Report on the Petition of Hernara Tauhia and 32 others', 14 July 1881, Report number 98, p.2, MA13145, part 7. • 9 Pacm Tuhaere (et aL), Native Land Court Application for the Investigation of Title, 12 June 1881, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91, 10

listed four different names each representing a different hapu: Arama Karaka Haututu (Ngati Manuhiri), Turipona (Ngatirongo), Titipo Takurua (Ngatimaru), and Te Watarauihi (Ngati Paoa)5Q In this second application, no mention was made of either Te Kawerau or Ngatiwhatua. The receipt of applications for re-hearing prompted the Government to act in order to ensure the matter of inalienability was secure from the threat of further re-hearings.

1881 Gazette notice On 28 July 1881, the Government gazetted a notification of the entry into negotiations for the purchase ofHauturu under the provisions of the 1877 Native Land Purchase Act and the 1878 Amendment Act.'] These pieces of legislation had been earlier introduced to usher in a new period of land acquisition. The 1877 Act made it illegal, upon public notification, for any third party to:

purchase or acquire from the Native owners any right title estate or interest in an;>;; such land or any part thereof, or in any matter to contract for allY such purchase or acquisition. 2

The restrictions of the Native Land Purchase Acts applied irrespective of whether the land had passed through the Native Land Court. The Government published a formal notification of its interest to ac~uire Hauturu in 1881, in accordance with sections three and four of the 1877 Act.' In so doing, it applied legal restrictions preventing other parties from intervening until such time as the negotiations were complete or that the Government published a separate notification indicating they no longer held an interest in the land.

Further petitions It is not known whether Maori were fully aware of the impact of the measure at the time. Restrictions on alienation, by their paradoxical nature, presented both a form of protection and a hindrance. One Ngatiwai owner saw safety in the restrictions and later wrote to the Crown in 1883 protesting the potential removal of restrictions on Hauturn following the passing of the Native Laud Laws Amendment Act 188354 However, there was no mention of the 1881 gazette notification in petitions, which focused on the resolution of the competing interests for the title ownership of Hauturu. Te Hemara Tauhia's March 1882 petition to the Native Minister was signed j ~c.· by 39 other represcntatives, though notably unsigned by Paora Tuhaere. On ~O May 1882 Ngatiwhatua organised a 'runanga whiriwhiri' (deliberative assembly) among the rangatira. At the hui, Paora Tuhaere informed the chiefs that he had been in contact with the Government for a year on the issue ofHauturu, but that it was the end of his work regarding Hauturu55 However, it was Tuhaere whom a few days earlier wrote a long letter to the Governor proposing two alternatives: 'that the money for

,. Arama Karaka (et at), Native Land Court Application for the Investigation of Tille, 12 June 1881, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91. 5. 'Notification of the Payment of money 011, and Entry into Negotiations for, the Purchase of Native Lands in the North Island', 28 July 1881, New Zealand Gazetle, no. 61, p. 961. " Section 2, Government Native Land Purchases Act [877. 53 'Notification of the Payment of money on, and Entry into Negotiations for, the purchase of Native Lands in North Island', 28 July 1881, NZ Gazelle, number 61, p. 961. " Henare Te Moananui to Te Parihe (Bryce), 17 December 1883, MA 13/45, part .7. l5 PaoT!! Tuhaere, Written record of the 'Deliberative Assembly of Chiefs of Ngatiwhatua', [English translation], 20 March 1882, MA13/45, part 7; , Te Runanga whiriwhiri a nga rangatira 0 Ngatiwhatua ki Orakci', 20 March 1882, p. 1, MAD/45, part 7. 11

Little Barrier be divided between both parties ... or, the Government withhold the offer and let Little Barrier Island remain without further Government interference. ,56

Ngatiwai submitted petitions of their own seeking ratification of the Native Land Court's decision57 In consideration of the 1882 petitions, the Native Affairs Committee noted \\~th a hint of alann that Tauhia (Ngatiwhatua) had sent a petition to the Queen. 'It is evident that a mere legal decision is not likely to settle this case satisfactorily, and the committee would therefore recommend Govermnent to continue its efforts to arrive at a peaceful solution either through purchase or some other way. ,58 Instmctions from the House of Representatives to the Native Office recommended that despite an earlier meeting between Native Minister, John Bryce and Paora Tuhaere, any plans to purchase the island should be held in abeyance. Bryce concurred. 59

Under increasing desperation, three of the nominated Ngatiwai owners: Paratene Te Manu, Miria Henare and Hone Paarna, wrote again to the Govermnent. They indicated a willingness to sell their three shares and requested that the Govermnent might respond swiftly by informing them of the price60 The Seeretary of the Native Land Purchase Department, Richard John Gill noted:

Mr Neeson was instructed in July 1881 to purchase the Little Barrier Island for £2500. The matter bas been at rest for some time owing to the judgement of the Native Land Court being disputed. There are five grantees only to deal witb. three now want to sell. I think that if Mr Wllkinson could arrange to purchase these [tbree shares] separately to [sic] should do so. 61

Bryce, however, continued to advise against completing the purchase. .Paratene wrote to Bryce in early November 1882 after reeeiving a letter from the Native Offiee reminding Ngatiwai that they could only sell Hauturu to the Crown. Paratene repeated his personal request for the Queen to pay the owners for the purchase of the island and suggested a priee of £700 per owner: 'Ko taku tenei e pai ai £700 motehia 0 te tangata kotahi.'62 Bryce, however, reiterated to the Native Office that the sale should stand over, and intimated that Parliament was in the process of arranging for a further re-hearing of the case63

,. Tuhaere to Roileston, 11 March 1882, p. 4, MA13/45, part 7. 57 Petition of Henare To Moananui and Paratene Te Manu, 18 May 1882, MA13/45, part 7. 58 Robert Trimble. Native Affairs Committee Report on ffunare te Moananui petition, 27 June 1882, Report number 97, MA13/45, part 7. '9 Native Office Paper, 28 June 1882, Native Office 82/2837, MA13/45, part 7. 60 Paratene Te Manu (et al.) to Kawanatana (Government), 8 September 1882. MA13/45, part 7. 6. Native Office Paper, 8 September 1882, Native Office 82/ 2837, MA13/45, part 7. 6l Paratene Te Manu to Te Paraihe (Bryce), 4 November 1882, MA131 45, part 7. Later Henare Te Moananui also wrote to the Native Minister restating his (individual) desire to sell Hauturu 'e hiahia ana ahau ki te hoko i Bauturu ki te Kawanatanga. Henare To Moananui to Te Paraihe, 10 August 1883, MA 13! 45, part. 7. • 3 Bryce to Gill, 16 November 1882, Telegraph, MAI3! 45, part 7. 12

Government intervention in Native Land Court process Despite Tauhia' s entreaty not to legislate further over Maori lands, the Government elected to include Hauturu under the terms of the Special Powers and Contracts Act 1883.64 Ironically, it was the Govemment's use of legislation that provided Te Hemara Tauhia and other petitioners with an opportunity for re-hearing. Under the Act, Hauturu reverted to Native title thereby enabling the Native Land Court to re-hear the c1aim.65 The Government then gazetted Hauturu notifying parties that the Native Land Court would fe-investigate the title:

Wltereas by tbe second section of 'The Special Powers and Contracts Act, 1883' ... HautUlu shall be hereafter deemed and taken to be lands held by the Native ownerS according to Native customs or usages in the manner they were severally held before any action in relation thereto was taken in any Native Land Court, and that it shall be a duty of the Native Land Court of New Zealand to investigate according and subject to its ordinary practice, the titles to such lands, and to ascertain who may be the owners thereof according to native customs or usages .. _I finTller declare applications for investigation of title heretofore made by any natives claimi:lt> to be owners to be good and valid applications under the Native Land Court Act 1880.

The Government's decision to intervene in the Native Land Court process undeniably prolonged the matter. However, the Government predieated its decision on a desire to ensure petitioners an adequate opportunity to establish their claims before the Native Land Court. Conversely, if the Government's intervention disadvantaged any group it was the named group ofNgatiwai owners, who throughout continued to ask that the Government purchase Hauturu. Whereas the Government only saw resolution possible through the Native Land Court, Maori proposed other alternatives. A combined letter of non-N gatiwai interests advocated that the question of ownership be lifted from the realm of the Native Land Court altogether and determined by Native Committees, the decision to be delivered to the Government for contirmation. 67 The Govermnent however was not willing to contemplate such a proposal and the matter of who owned Halltum returned to the Native Land Court.

Native Land COllrt Hearing 1 February 1884 At the commencement of the 1884 Native Land Court re-hearing, Chief Judge Edward Williams set out his understanding of the arrangements: 'as far as this[court?] was concerned, its powers had been exhausted, and it could not have dealt further \'Vith the case; but the present re-hearing was held in virtue of a special directive and Empowering Act of the Parliament,.68

The re-hearing itself proved to be long and detailed. Much of the testimony

.. Richard Gill to John Bryce, Memorandum, 22 August 1883, MA J 3/45, part.. 7. Gl Native Land Purchase Department Paper, 84/140, 14 July 1883_ 66 Proclamation declaring that the blocks ofland known as Paengaroa, Rau 0 te Hoia, Pukehina, Puketauhinu, Whakapaupakihi No.1., Matailitlll, Pokohu and Hautum shan hereafter be deemed to be taken as Native Lands, ere. 27 September 1883, New Zealand Gazelle, 1883, No 100, p. 1357. 67 Arama Karak. Haututu to Native Minister, 14 December 1883, MAl3! 45, part 7. (Also signed by Te Hemara Tauhia, Wiremu Pomare, To Him Te Kawau, Watene Tautari, Wi Hopihona, Paom Tuhaere, Te Olle Reweti). 68 Chief Judge Williams, Native Land Court Hearing, 1 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p.162_ 13

presented came in the form of whakapapa69 In particular, there was a !,'Teat deal of evidence presented concerning the relationships between Kawerau, Ngati Manuhiri and Ngali wai descendents. Kawerau cross-examined Rahui Te Kiri on her rights to the island as someone of dual descent, alleging that Rahui Te Kin, like Te Kiri derived rights to Hauturo through Kawerau kinship. Tenetahi, by contrast, was alleged to have been the son of a Ngati KahungutlU woman, and a Pakeha ,'Polmehue', only later adopted as son of Ngatiwai chief, Te Hero, and therefore with no claim to Hautnru on the basis of descent. 7o All Ngatiwai witnesses identified themselves as belonging to the Ngati Taka hapu ofNgatiwai. This uniform identification signaled a change from previous hearings where often witnesses, such as Henare Te MoalIunui, had identified themselves as members of the 'Ngatiwai bapu ofNgapuhi,?l

Kawerau witnesses drew lines of descent from tuputm: the brothers Mak! and Mataahu, arguing that such networks included Rahui Te Kifi and Ngati Manuhiri. Te Hemara Tauhia explained that the children of Mak!: Manuhiri, Maraeariki and Ngawhetu, remained on the mainland. Whereas Mataahu and his son, Rehua, lived on Hautum and Aotea (Great Barrier).71 Arama Karaka Haututu also supp0l1ed this evidence. Te Hemam Tauhia called John Rogan to give evidence of his experience negotiating the neighbouring mainland purchases, such as Waikeriawera. Rogan recounted: 'Te Kiri had at that time a settlement at Omaha, also one on the other side of the Pakiri River. Hore te More and Wiako, Kai para chiefs of the N gati Manuhiri, were also associated with Te Kiri. 1 do not remember having heard the name of Ngatiwai: afterwards I heard of them residing at and near Ngunguro.' 7l Even Rahui Te Kid coneurred with Rogan and Tauhia as far as Ngati MIUluhiri were concemed: 'The land at Omaha belonged to Tc Kiri, but in right of the Ngati Manuhiri- a distinct people from the Ngatiwai. Watarene Tautari gave an accurate surrunation: ' Each section had their own rights on their ovm parcels ofland; but this island [Hauturn] lies apart; and all of them have claimed upon it.' 74

It is significant tlmt the claimants sought Rogan to give testimony relating to neighbouring land transaetions on the mainland. Many of the same individuals involved in the Hautum I.and Court Hearings and later appeals also held interests along the east eoast between Omaha and Mangawhai and had been involved in disputes over land sales. Indeed, it is useful to consider the conflicting elaims for Hautllm in a broader eontext encompassing the competitive rivalries for land alienation on the mainland and Aotea, Great Barrier Island. Sueh perspectives lie beyond the seope of this report, but exist in other usefUl sourceS. 75

". It should be noted that the puqlOse of the present "'>pOrt in examining and commetUing on this material is not to assert the validity of Ol1e claim over another- something that may be decided by the descendents themselves either, inside or separate from Tribunal hearings. Instead, I seek to highlight particular evidence which sheds infonn on issues relevant to an overall history of alienation, such as the extent of inter-connections and or competition felt betwccll groups. 7fi Native Laud Court Hearing, K1ipata Minute Book 04, p. 170. 11 Compare for example the Court Minutes from 1881 and 1884. And Henare To Moananui, 6 Juue 1881, Kaipara Minute Book:, p. 106; and, Henam Te Moananul, I Febmary 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 176. In 1881 testimony recorded in the Court Minute Book there was no mentioJlll1ade of the name Ngat; Taka. 12 Te Hemara Tanhia, 4 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 185. 73 John Rogan, 2 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 184. 74 Watarene Tautari, 5 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 206. 75 The most reievanl of these is: Barry Rigby, 'The Crown, Maori and Mahurangi 1840- 1881, A Historical Report Commissioned by the Waitang! Tribunal', August 1998. 14

Early attempts to sell Halltoru also eonneeted Te Kiri to his Kaweruu and Ngati Manuhiri kin. Aside from the aceount of Pomare's attempts to sell Hanturu, both Rogan and Arama Karaka Haututu testified to Te Kiri's earlier intention to sell the island. 'Te kiri [sic] came frequently into the Chief Commissioners Office to see me, and asked to see McLean, to have tllis land (Halliuru) disposed of Anulla Karaka Huututu was to have been associated with him in the saled6 Haututu himself corroborated the account stating that Te Kid had written letters to him in 1871 asking Haututu to jointly agree to the sale of Hautum to Rogan77 Paratene Te Manu went further still, to repeat his desire to sell Hauturu during the course of the hearing: '1 wish to let the Crown get the land and then the title will be absolutely at rest'1&

Native Land Court Consults Crown Unlike the previous hearing, the Government chose not to send a representative to the hearing. However, on 2 February, during the hearing, the Chief Judge eontacted Native Minister Bryce. Williams pointedly asked whether the Govemmerrt was still interested in the land, warning that some intelvention may be necessary in order to secure Hauturu.

I learn that Crown at one time wanted to acquire Island for defence purposes if desire continues perhaps matter should be seen to as persons are after it I have given public caution that sections 7 & 8 of land laws amendment act apply to the land.,19

Bryce replied the same day. He instructed Maedonald that 'your public caution might have been stronger. ,,1 think the land should bc made absolutely inalienable except to Her Majesty as was done in the former order. ,gO

The extraordinary conduct on the part of the Chief Judge appears to have compromised the integrity of Native Land Court system. Yet, the Chief Judgc continued to contact Bryce over the matter. When the Court closed on Waitangi Day, the Chief Judge again telegraphed Bryce on the issue of inalienability.

It is tnle that Judges Munro and O'Brien on previous adjudication made island inalienable excepl to her Majesty and did sO on Crown's applicaJioll, but I can find no authority for their so doing section 36 act of 1880 certainly enables Court to impose restrictions if it thinks fit but the intention of that section no doubt would be held to agree with the words of section. three of the act of 1880 [1878 superimposed] and be confined to cases where land necessary for use or occupation of Natives while this island is not ofus[e] for either purpose ... [obscured] desire for restriction adhered to ... [obscured]. 81

The Judge then urged Bryce to 'Please instruct counsel to move for it Jrestrictions on alienation] immediately on owners being ascertained by Judgement'.R It is not clear from the documents whether the Judge wanted Bryce to instruct Crown solicitors or solicitors already acting for the claimants. Either way, the insistenee of the Judge in

16 John Rogan, 2 February 1884, Kaiparn Minute Book 04, p. 183. 77 Arama Karaka Haututu, 4 Februaty 1884, Kaipara Miuute Book 04, p. 196. 7' Parotene Te Manu, 1 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 174. 79 J MacDonald (Chief Judge) to Native Minister, 2 February 1884, Telegraph message, MA13/45, part 7. "" J Bryce to MacDonald, 2 February 1884, Telegraph message, MA13/ 45, part 7. 81 MacDonald to Bryce, 6 February 1884, Telegraph message, MA13! 45, part 7. '" Ibid. 15

advising Bryce makes it difficult to credit the court hearing with any sense of judicial impartiality.

The court reconvened on Thursday 7 February and the Judge announced his decision in favour of 'the descendents of Maki and Mataahu ,- viz to Te Kawerau, including Rahill, the daughter of Te Kiri.'BJ Paora Tuhaere specifically requested that Huuturu remain free from restrictions. He argued that 'the tribe was possessed of amply sufficient land for residence, and did not value the island sufficiently to desire its reservation,.84 In the absence of a request from the claimants for restrictions on alienation, the Chief Judge proceeded to read out laws preventing the involvement of private negotiations in Hauturu until three months after the determination of title.

under tlte provisions of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883: the Island was subject to proclamation under the Government Native Land Purchase Act 1878, which would render all private negotiations respecting it illegal. That under the Act of 1883, the Title would not be "ascertained" until the formal judgement had been given, and three months subsequent to that date had elapsed; or possibly longer, in the event of a rehearing being applied for and allowed, Prior to such "ascertainment" of title, all negotiations were forbidden under heavy penalties,"

Despite Judge Williams' questionable condUct, the court did not impose specific restrictions on alienation. After ensuring Hauturu was legally secure from a perceived threat of sale to other parties, the Judge adjourned the hearing until 14 Februa~ before making a final judgement. He then re-contacted Bryce to arrange a meeting. 6 On the 14 February, another Judge stood in on the hcaring and extended the adjournment until the following day on account of an urgent meeting between the Chief Judge and the Native Minister87 We have no record of the meeting hetween the Chief Judge and the Native Minister. 011 15 February the hearing recommenced and Judge Williams annolmced an order to be made in the names of the] 8 representatives identified on 8 February.88 The list of owners comprised: Arama Karaka Hautulu, Miriama Hernara, Rahui Te Kiri, Mihaka Makoare, Tahana Waitaheke, Netana Ngaukara, Miriam3 Horikura, Hiria Titipo, Te Hemara Tauhia, Hiria Hori Kingi, Te Keene Tangaroa, Herewini Maui, Apihai Te Wharepouri, Paora Tuhaere, Wirernu Pomare, Wiremu Turipona, Ereatara Te Tareha, Kapihana Te Tuhi.

In response to requests from the owners to purchase Hauturu,s9 the Native Minister admitted, in an intemal direction, that while the Government remained interested in purchasing Hauturu, it would not complete the purchase until after the

83 Chief Judge E Williams, Native Land Court Minutes, 7 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 211. '" Paora Tultaere, Native uUld Court Minutes, 7 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 215, ., Chief Judge E Williams, Native Land Court Minutes, 7 Febnlary 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p, 216. 86 Maedonald to Dryce, 8 February 1884, Telel,'Taph message, MA13/45, part 7, &7 Presiding Judge (unidentified), Native Land Court Minutes, 15 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p, 217, 8ll Chief Judge E Williams, 15 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p, 219. It should also be noted that Henare Te Moananui had died prior to the hearing (recorded in the NLC Minute book), and that is the prineipal reason why Te Moananui's name does not appear on the list so See as examples: Paora Tuhaere to Gill, 24 March 1884, MAI3/ 45, part 7; Hirini Titipo to Gill, 1 April 1884; and Hirini Titipo to Bryce, 14 July 1884, MAl3I45, part 7. 16

threat of further re-hearings had passed. 90 In spite of this offieial position however, discussions continued between CrO\vn Officials and the identified owners and evidently the question of a sale price arose. Native Official, George Brown, infonned the Native Land Purehase Department that in res~onse to the Crown's otTers, the owners would not accept less thrul 2700 pounds. J At the same time, Tauhia and Tuhaere voiced concerns over the amount of timber that continued to be felled from Hauturun A reply from JA Tole in the Crown Lands Oftlee on 20 May, referrcd to a proclamation issued presumably restricting the removal of timber from the island. Tole referred back to the fact that in it's judgement, the Court had placed no restrictions over the island93

Ngatiwai continued to appeal for a re-hearing94 More petitions followed the hearing and, in September 1884, Ngatiwai lodged a further application for re-hearing claiming that Chief Judge Macdonald had denied their previous application. They also protested the fuct that Ngatiwhatua were in negotiation with the Government to sell the land and requested the suspension of all negotiations ahead of a further re­ hearing. 9> Crown Lands Official, JA Tole, proposed that a re-hearing might be authorised under the Special Powers and Contracts Bill 1884 (at the time being discussed in Parlianlent). Tole noted that the Chief Judge had refused are-hearing: 'the legality of which [the refusal] I doubt'. 96 Tn considering the petition, The Legislative Council's Waste Lands Committee recommended are-hearing of Hauturu before a Native Land Court Judge, who had not previously adjudicated on the case. 97

Special Powers and Contracts Act 1884 The Government included Hauturu under the tenns of the runended Special Powers ruld Contracts Act 1884, which, in the eyes of the Goverument provided for the title detenrunation to be reset and enable flUther hearings to proceed. Section 14 of second schedule stated:

May declare Ihat the parcels of land known as Hautum and Rotomahana Pare Karangi shan be thereafter deemed and taken to be lands held by the Native owners according to Native customs or usages, as held before any action was taken in any Land Court of New Zealand to investigate the title to such lands, and ascertain who may be the owners thereof respectively "ceording to Native custom.

Upon learning of the Bill, Ngati Whatua lawyer, EJ Dufaur protested to the Legislative Council against 'the injustice of such a measure' .98 He directly accused

90 John Bryce to RJ Gill (Unders~retary ofN.tive Department) 25/31 84, MAI31 45, part 7. 91 George Brown to RJ Gill, 10 July 1884, MA13! 45, part 7. 92 Paora Tubaere, 7 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 216. 9,\ DA Tole toRJ Gill, 20 May 1884, Telegraph message, MA13/45, part 7. 94 During the final stages of the hearing, Hone Paama and Tenetah; both signaled their intention to protest the decision and enter an application for a re~hearing. See, Hone Paama, 7 February 1884, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 212. 9' Rahui Te Kiri (and 10 others) to Native Minister, Memorial or petition, September 1884, Native Office Paper 84/3254, MA 13145, part 6, pp2-3. 96 DA Tole to Native Minister, 4 November 1884, MA 13/45, part 6. 91 IN Wilson, 'Resolution of the Waste Land Committee on the Special Powers and Contracts Bill 1884" 7 Novelnber 1884, Native Office Papers 84/3312, MA 13/45, part 6. "" RJ Dufaur to Legislative Council, Telegraph Inessage, 8 November 1884, MA 13/45, part 6. 17

the Government of returning to the Native Land Court because Ngatiwhatua had refused to accept the Government offers for the purchase of the island.

Measure only introduced by government because owners will not accept money offered by Government whereas if they me allowed to obtain fair value they c.on obtain some thousands more [sic] they can get more for timber alone than Government offer for laod and timber. 99

This was a significant allegation. Yet, the Government chose to ignore Kawerau's complaints. Earlier on 8 August 1884,* Judge Maedonald formally notified that the 'protection' placed on Hauturu under the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883, would be lifted after the 16 September 1884. From that date, it ceased to be illegal to 'deal' in the landlOO However, on 16 November, when the Govemor gazetted Hauturu under the new Act as 'land held by the Native owners, according to Native customs and usages', Government restrictions on sale were automatically re-imposed. 101

Applications fo!' Reo-hearing Both groups of competing interests quickly applied to the Native Land Court for a re-hearing soon after the Gazette notice appeared in late December I S84. Whereas earlier in 1881 non-Ngathvai groups had submitted two separate applications, this time, a single, more united, application was submitted. The list included: Te Hemara Tauhia, Arama Karaka Haututu, Keene Tangaroa, Wiremu Pomare, Wiremu Tepea Turipona and Paom Tuhaere, on behalf of 'Ngatiwhatua me Uriohau me Ngatirango, Taou' .101 Perhaps surprisingly, 110 mention was made of Te Kawerau in the application. On 6 January 1885, Ngatiwai followed with their own single application for re-hearing. 103

In 1885, while awaiting are-healing Arama Karaka Haututu passed away.104 Paora Tuhaere and Te Hemara Tauhia continued to appeal to the Native Minister, requesting that the Government consider closing the deal at a higher asking price of 4000 pounds. lOS The Government's reply, noted in a Native Office paper, repeated that the Native Land Court would re-hear the case, but that afterwards, the Government would ~urehase Hautun! 'for £2700 the price agreed to by Te Hemara Tauhia and others.' 1 Tauhia wrote in early 1886 seeking a small down payment in reply to an offer from the Government. And, in a rather presumptuous action, the Native Land Purchase Department approved the payment of £30 as a down payment for the sale of Hauturu. Moreover, the money order was based on a tacit agreement to

99 EJ Dufaur to Legislative Council, Telegraph message, 8 November 1884, M>\ 13/45, part 6. • The order was dated retrospectively to take effect from 7 Alignst 1884, though the order was not s£loW until the following day. 1 E Macdonald, 8 August 1884, Announcement re Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883, Native Office paper 84/2533, M:.A13/45, part 7. The notice was subsequently gazetted. 101 NZ Gazette, 24 December 1884, p. 1142. 102 Hemar. Tauhia (et al.), Nruive Land Court Application for the Investigation ofT!tI", 22 December 1884, Maori Land Court (MLC) 533K 91. 101 Tenetahi (et aL) Native Land Court Application for the [nvestigation of Title, 6 January 1884, Maori I.and Court (MLC) 533K 91. 104 Henare Whamra Toka sought to SllCCeed Haututu's share in Hanturu and placed an application before the Court on 4 June 1886, Maori Land Court (MLC) S33K 91. Once the title ofHalituru legally reverted to 'native title'. 105 Paora Tuhaere to Native Minister, 17 July 1885, MA 13/45, part 6. 106 Native Land Purchase Office paper, registered 9 September 1885, NLP 85/248, MA 13/45, part 6. 18

sell the land for the specified sum of 2700 pounds. [07 Though, Paora Tuhaere later returned the moncy to the Govemment on 18 October 1886.

Te Hcmara Tauhia also renewed the complaint to the Native Minister alleging that while delays to the hearing continued, Tenetahi cut more timber from the island. TIns was not the first time that Tauhia or Tuhaere had raised the issue of Ngatiwai' s continued felling of timber, in spite of the ongoing court hearings. lOS In the absence of restrictions over the land, the Government found it difficult to intervene. 109 Ngatiwhatua lawyer, E1' Dufaur, wrote to the ChiefJudge of the Natve Land Court, to further protest against Tenetahi's continued Kauri timber felling, while the court delayed the re-hearing of the case. 110 Dufaur also sent further letters to the Native Office, and directly to the new Native Minister, Ballance, raising the spectre of Tenetahi's timber operations in order to press for an urgent re-hearing. III

Native Land Court Healing 5-18 October 1886 The next re-hearing eventually commenced in Auckland on 5 October 1886. Ngatiwai again chose to pay for European legal representation. Tn contrast to Kawerau, Ngatiwai employed former Chief Judge Fenton and an associate Mr Cave. The practice of employing European lawyers for Native Land Court hearings had been provided for under the new Native Land Court Act 1886. In opposing Fenton's presence, Tuhaere declared that he had not been aware of the Act before the hearing. After further discussion, Tuhaere declared that he 'had no intention of employing a lawyer. ,lJ2

Judge Puc key declared 'Paora Tuhaere and his party' to be the claimants in the hearing, because they had submitted the earlier application, but refrained from identifYing them as a particular group identity. In In his testimony, Te Hemara Tauhia drew attention to the difficulty of dividing land interests of those sharing common ancestors: '

Since the advent ofEufopeans, the land at Kaipara has been cut up into blocks and the hapus have their separate blocks, ie those which have passed lhe Court. Those lands which have not passed the Court are still undivided: the ancestors had no boundaries. The whole tribe would bnng . th e vanous. pieces . bC.lore ~ ble, courtJ not eachi" lapu Its own pIece, 114 -.

Fenton sought to conclude that those in occupation could only be removed by a better claim and drew an interesting comparison with the Tiritiri Matangi case tried before himself as Judge.

!O7 Native Land Purchase Payment Account slip, 27 February 1886, Treasury Voucher, lv[A 13145, part 6. 108 GT Wilkinson to RJ (,:rill, 19 May 1884, Telegraph message. MA 131 45, part 7. 1051 JA Tole to RJ Gill, 20 May 1884, Telegraph message, MA 13145, part 7. llO Dufaur to Chief Judge MacDonald Native Land Court, 22 May 1886, MA 131 45, part 6. Note, Dufaur chose not to draw attention to the irregularity of the Government's action in paying a down­ payment before the re.hearing. II Dufuur to Lewis, 29 July 1886 and Dufaur to Balance, 13 August 1886, MA 13145, part 6. Il2 Paora Tnhaere, 6 October 1886, Kaipara Minute Book 04, p. 357. III Judge Puckey, 6 October 1886, Kaip.ra Minute Book 04, p. 357. I14 Te Hemara Tauh;., 12 October 1886, Kaipara Minute Book 05, p, 26. 19

I claim that the Court is bound by this principle of law ie that a person in possession is not to be turned out except on p[?obscuredJ of a better right by other persons. A precedent can be found in the Tiritirimatangi[sicj, where the persons in possession did not show a very good title, but the persons claiming the land did not show a better one, consequently the court did not disturb the actual possessors. In that case the Ngati Whatua & allied tribes claimed by IDlcestral occupation in remote times, though the occupation was not vel)' definite or certain. This was a very poor case, but, in the absence of any opposition, it might have been upheld, had not there been objection on the part of persolls in actual p,0ssession., viz the Government. The Court therefore declined to disturb the actual possession. "

After Fenton, Iuhaere presented his conclusions, though strangely none of it was recorded in the Minute Books. 116

On thc basis of the present research it appears that no explicit request nor any order was made respecting restrictions over Hauturu at the time of the hearing. It is assumed that following the Chief Judge's interpretation of the legality of restrictions the previous year, restrictions continued to apply over Hauturu in relation to the Native Land Purchases Act 1877 and Amendment Act 1878 and the 1881 gazette notification (see earlier). Jn this light, the small payment earlier made to Ie Hemara Tauhia could have assumed added significance.

In his judgement, Judge Puckey found in favour of Ngatiwai. ll7 Fenton had argued that Kawerau did not exist as a separate entity, but rather all hapu involved shared descent connections with Kawerau. liS The Judge upheld this argument and quoted ajudgement from a separate case at Maketu:

"As native land is the property of a hapu, a hapu that has no separate existence cannot own land". Now as no such hapl! as the Kaweral! is in existence, the mUng of the court on that occasion applies with equal force now. 119

Ngatiwai presented the following list of 14 owners:120 Rahui Ie Kiri, Ienetahi, Miria Iaukokopll, Puralene Ie Manu, Ngapera Iaiawa, Ngawhare Iaiawa, HOlle Paama, Kino Reweti, Rapata Ngatiwai, Ie Nupere Ngawaka, Henare Ie Moananui, Ngapeka, Wi Iaiawa, Pita Kino.

Ownership lists A comparison of the ownership lists from each of the Court hearings reveals the degree of continuity but also the divisive nature of the Native Land Court hearings themselves. Ie Kiri initially listed Rore Te More among his list of bona fide owners and yet subsequently Ie More only appeared in lists identified as 'Kawerau'. Similarly, Rahui Tc Kiri appeared in Ie Kawerau lists, despite her insistenee against inclusion. It appears that over time, lists of owners and identifications became polarised along Ngatiwai and Ngatiwhatua subscriptions, in spite of apparent shared genealogical connections.

m FJ Fenton, 15 October 1886, Kaipara Minute Book 05, pp. 41-2. 116 Paora Tuhacre, 15 October 1886, Krupara Minute Book 05, p. 45. 117 Judge Puckey, IS October 1886, Kaipara Minute Book 05, pp. 47-8. IlB FJ Fenton, 15 October 1886, Kalpara Minute Book 05, pp. 42-3. 119 Judge Puckey, 18 October 1886, !(alpara Minute Book 05, p. 48. "0 KaiparaMinute Book 05, 18 October 1886, p. 49. 20 21

Comparative Table of Hauturu Ownership Lists:

1862 Te Kiri's List 11880 NLC (Judge Rogan) 1881 NLC (Judges 1884 NLC (Judge 1886NLC (Judge I Monro & O'Brien) Macdonald) Puclcey) I. Te Urunga I Rahui Te Kiri Rahui Te Kiri Rahui Te Kiri Te Hemara Tauhia 2. Te Kiri Miriama Hemara Rini Tenetahi Miriama Hemara Tenetahi 3. Paratene Te Manu Wiremu Turipona Paratene Te Manu Te Hemara Tauhia Paratene Te Manu 4. Wiremu Taiawa I Arama Karaka Haututu Miria Henare Arama Karaka Haututu Wi Taiawa 5. Henare Te Wahipu Ereatara Tarehu HonePaama Ereatara Te Tarehu HonePaama 6. Taukokopa Paora Tuhaere ------Paora Tuhaere Miria Taukokopu 7. Hore TeMore Hori TeMore Apihai Te Wharepouri Kino Reweti 8. ------, Herewini Maui Herewini Maui Ngapera Taiawa 9. Te Tatana Waitaheke Tatana Waitaheke Ngawhare Taiawa 10. Mihaka Makoare Mihaka Makoare Rapata Ngatiwai 11. Miriama Malcoare Hiria Titipo Te Nupere , Ngawaka 12. Watene Tautari Wiremu Turipona Henare Te Moananui 13. . Hiria Hori Kingi Hiria Hori Kingi Ngapeka 14. i Eramiha Paikea Te Keene Tangaroa Pita Kino 15. Netana Ngaukara Netana Ngaukara 16. Watarauhi Tawhia Miriama Houkura 17. Wiremu Pomare Wiremu Pomare 18. Paraone Ncraweke Kapihana Te Tuhi 19. 20. i 22

Following the 1886 Native Land Court's decision, Paora Tuhaere appealed to the Government over the law change, which allowed European lawyers (Fenton and Cave) to represent claimants before the Native Land Court. III Tuhaere requested Parliament to intervene and refer the matter instead to the then newly-established Native Committees. Native Official, TW Lewis, followed the request and noted that the Chief Judge would make any decision as to further re-hearings. ll2 In a reply to Tuhaere, the Government noted that it could not 'in any wa~ interfere with the court in it's judicial functions in relation to this or any other case.' I 3

In December 1886, Ngatiwhatua applied for a re-hearing. The Chief Judge of the Native Land Court, John Edwin Macdonald, after a close appraisal, dismissed the application. ll4 His report on the application survives in the archives of the Maori Land Court. After weighing up each of the arguments put forward by Ngatiwhatua, Macdonald requested Judges Puckey and Williams, to inform him as to what decision each 'would have given on the evidence adduced before the other'. On this basis Macdonald concluded:

Now it is beyond question that whether owing to the auspices ofMr Fenton or not, the evidence placed before Judge Puckey is the more elaborate than that placed before Judge Williams leads l i me to join in Judge Williams tacit admission that it justified Judge Puckey's conclusions. 5

Summary: Despitc protestations to the contrary, the Government intervened directly in the Native Land Court's treatment of Hauturu. It is more difficult to appraise however, whether such intervention benefited or disadvantaged the various f,'fOUpS of claimants. The Government demonstrated itself palpably concemed to resolve rather than exploit internal divisions between claimants. At the same time, however, there is evidence of strong interference to ensure that the eventual owners were unable to alienate the land to private interests. Although the owners were granted land unencumbered with specific Court-imposed restrictions, they were still prevented from alienating the land except to the Crown based on the 1881 gazette notification.

111 Paora Tubaere to Native Minister, 18 October 1886, MA 13/45, part 6. 122 TW Lewis, Native Office Paper, 27 October 1886, MA 13/45, part 6. 113 Native Office to Paora Tuhaere, Draft Jetter, 2 November 1886, l-.1A 13/45, part 6. 124 Chief Judge Macdonald, Notes on the 'application for re-hearing 'by Ngatiwhatu., 1887, Maori Land Court (MLC) file 533K191, p. I. l25 Macdonald ibid., p. 7. The truth or otherwise oflhat evidence being for the Judge and the assessor, in their dual capacities ofJudge and Jury, to decide is not olle for me to enter into certainly not in the absence ohny contradictory matter for which raj search has been made in the records of the earlier proceedings. But apart from that there is nothing on the face of the evidence or in anything brought to light to justiJY its [puckey's decision] rejection .... Altogether seeing no sufficient ground for granting a re-hearing I decline to do so.' (p.8). 23

SECTION 2: PURCHASE NEGOTIATIONS

Soon after the hearing, Ngatiwai lawyer, Charles Cave, contacted the Government and heralded Ngatiwai willingness to negotiate f-or the sale of Rauturu. The Government requested to know the Ngatiwai terms, and Cave responded

I have ascertained their [Ngatiwai] views as to price and provided Rahui and Ten.lahi (the present occupanls) were permitted 10 retain lOa acres or so together with their dwelling houses and buildings fur future [incomplete?], they would accept £4000 for the island. 126

We note here that the first fonnal Ngatiwai offer was made conditional upon the reservation of a small amount of land for the continued occupation of Tenetahi and Rahui Te Kiri. Cave added pressure saying that as some were 'not very disposed to sell', it was important for the Government to take swift action: Native Land Purchase correspondence commented that the original price offered by the Government had been £2700 (ignoring the subsequent rise to 4000 by Tuhaere) and advised that the price should not be much increased. Government officials remained reluctant to commit further until the deadline for re-hearings had elapsed.127

Purposes for acquisition Throughout the 18805 Native Land CAlurt hearings, Govemment officials had cited the military purpose as the motivations for acquiring Rauturu. We need to plaee such statements into the context of the I 880s fears of Russian invasion. Notably, this was the first occasion when the Govcmment sought to act on a national security interest. It seems almost humorous now, but it was more than an imagined threat and led to the construction of substantial military 'Russian scare' forts around the entrance to the Waitemata, such as at Bastion Point and North Head (Takapuna). It remains a vexed question where Government authority to protect in the national interest conflicts with guaranteed rangatiratanga. Though it should not be overlooked that one of the Treaty guarantees was the promise of protection from other international powers. As already mentioned, Hauturu stood geographically distant from the mainland, but acted as a natural buttress against the Pacific Ocean, proteeting the irmer harbour, and for that reason logically represented a strategic interest

In addition to a military imperative, a growing environmental lobby also exerted a forceful influence. Paul Monin has already pointed to a strong conservationist lobby, which emerged in the mid-1880s, expressed in the correspondence of the Auckland Institute with parliamentary representatives. 128 In the milieu of the late 18805 and particularly following on the dawn of national politics and Liberal party from the early 18905, such 'national interests' were given increasing political attention What becomes apparent from the Government's perspective was that irrespective of whether the

'26 Charles Cave to Secretary Native Affairs, 25 October 1886, MA 13/45, part 6. 127 TW Lewis, File Note, Native Land Purchase File, 2 November 1886, MA 13/45, part 6. m Paul Monin, The Islands Lying between Slipper Island in the South-east, Great Barrier Island in the North and Tiritiri-Matangi in the North.west, ROD C-7, Wai 406, pp. 63 & 81. 24

Government acquired Hauturu for military or conservation purposes, in both cases, continued human occupation would not be permitted. The Government remained diametrically opposed to any suggestions of reserves for the .Maori owners.

President of the Auckland Institute and Museum, Thomas Cheeseman, \\Tote to Robert Stout to encourage the Premier to 'take steps to acquire the freehold of the island [HauturuJ, and proclaim it a forest rcserve' .129 Cheeseman strongly emphasised the imperative for establishing otT shore islands as sanctuaries for fast disappearing species of birds. Hauturu, he maintained was ideally suited.

The island is noted for the number of indigenous birds found On it, and many species, such as the Bell-bird, Stitch-bird, Saddle-back, which are quite extinct on the mainland, are sti!! comparatively plentifbl on it.'lQ

Both Tole and Stout attached comments supporting Cheeseman's notion. Tole commented: 'tor years past I have heard that the rare trees and birds which this island possesses is most exceptional, and it should be procured by Government. T believe £3000 would buy it'. Stout added, 'I think something should be done in this direction,nl

Late 18808 depression Yet, for the remainder of the 1880s, after the threat of invasion had passed, the Government relaxed its attention on Hautum. The lapse may have been partly due to insuffieient interest in the idea of conservation, but it seems also likely to have been linked to a worsening eeonomic depression in the late 1880s. The depression may not have removed the Govermnent's will to purchase Hautum, as officials continued to send messages to Ngatiwai owners signalling Government interest to purchase Hauturu. But the depression removed the means available for the purchase oflands, such as Hauturu; not required for settlement. In response to a letter from Ngatiwai lawyer, Charles Cave, tbe Government noted that an attempt to acquire Hautum was neither advisable nor feasible owing to a lack of sufficient funds. m Later, in January 1888, a Native dejJartment interpreter, Brown, reported that Tenetahi \VdS desirous of selling Hauturu for £4000. Brown explained to Tenetahi 'that the Government regrets that in the present circumstance ofthe colony, tbe purchase cannot be effected'. m ,

The impact of the depression was not only felt by the Goveranlent. The pressing issue of payment reared again in July 1888, when Henare Te Moanallui, one of the named owners, wrote to the Government requesting immediate payment in kind (specifically, food provisions) for his individual share. 134 In considering Moananui's

129 T.F. Cheeseman to R. Stout, 16 December 1886, MA 13145, part. 5. 130 ibid. 13J JA Tole 10 January 1887, and R Stout, 21 January 1997 in T.F. Cheeseman to R. Stout, 16 December 1886,!'vIA 13145, part. 5. In TW. Lewi, noted on CW. Cave to Lewis, 11 October 1887, MA 131 45, part.S. The Government's letter to Cave simply explained that it was unable to proceed with the purchase at that time, refer, Lewis to Cave 10 January 18&&, MA IJ145, part. 5. 133 GMitchelson, Native Department File note, 31 January 1888, MA 13145, p.rt. 5. l34 Henare Te Moan.nui to Tole, 27 July 1888, MA 13145, part. 5. Te Moananui requested payment for his share in food provisions. 25

request, the Government made some stark observations that directed the nature of the eventual negotiations in the long teml. Tn particular, TW Lewis noted: 'I do not think it would be advisable to pay much money on this block but it might be advisable to purchase a few of the interests' .135 In making his recommendation, Lewis referred directly to the view of SP Smith, who advised that the island eould be acquired more cheaply than at any previous timc. 136

Individuals requesting llayment Other owners soon followed Te Moananui's example in requesting an individual share of the payment for Hauturu. Rapata Ngatiwai sought 10 pounds in order to pay court costs for the hearing of another parcel of land.137 Hone Paama wrote from the Great Barrier (Aotea) in September outlining that he wished to 'give' his interest in Hauturu to the Government, in exchange for land elsewhere. He went on to reveal: '1 know there are six of us who approve of the disposing of our interests in this way. ' 138

At the renewed threat that N gatiwhatua would continue to protest any sale, the Government became more unwilling to proceed with the purchase. In Febmary 1889, Paora Tubaere and Te Hemara Tauhia met with Native Minister, Mitchelson, to further urge for Government intervention and the granting of another re-hearing. Lewis immediately infonned Cave that plans for the purchase could not proceed while a dispute over the ownership of Hauturu contillued. 1l9 TIle Government asked the new Chief Judge to once more re-examine the case for a re-hearing. Judge Smith, after investigation, advised against further legislative intervention. [40 Ngatiwhatua counsel, De Thierry, wrote that an agreement had been reached between Rahui, Tenetahi and Te Hemara Tauhia and that all were now willing to sell Hautunl for 3500, 'the price as originally offered'.141 Gratified to learn that all competing interests in the land had been resolved, the Government sought verification. 142 However, Ngatiwai never veritied that an agreement had been reached.

Price negotiations The Government believing the issue of dispute resolved, renewed its offer of 2700 pOtmds to Ngatiwhatua cOtUlsel, Oil the explicit condition that there would be no reserves set aside. 143 The figure of 2700 pounds had been stipulated and tacitly agreed to by Te Hemam Tauhia earlier in 1886. By government calculations it amounted to approximately 8 shillings per acre. Yet in early 1890, JA Tole representing Ngatiwai interests began more insistent negotiation. He reminded the Government that the land had been made inalienable except to the Crown and that as a result Ngatiwai had been forced to decline a number of private offers!« Tole urged the Government to accept m TW l~ewis, Native Land Purchase File paper 881186, I g Augusl 1888, MA 13145, part. 5. "" Steven Percy Smith, N~tive Land Pureh1lSe File note, 3 August 1888, MA 13145, part. 5. m Ropata Ngatiwai to Ruihi (Lewis), 10 June 1889, MA 13145, part. 5. 138 Hone PaRma to Native Department, 12 September 1889" MA 13145, part. 5. m TWLewis, Nalive Land Purchase File paper 89146, 27 February 1888, l\1A 13145, part. 5. I'" ChiefJudge Smith, MemoflUldum, 18 February 1889, MA 13145, part. 5. HI R de Thierry to Native Minister, 3 September 1889, MA 13/45, part. 5, 142 Native Department to R de Thierry, draft reply, 19 September 1889, MA 13145, part. 5. '" Native Department to R de Thierry, draft letter, letter number 234,4 November 1889, MA 13145, part. 5. 144 JA Tole to Nativc Minister, 6 January 1890, MA 13/45, part 5. 26

Ngatiwai's first offer of 4000 pounds. The Native Office however continued to insist that £2700 was the price already agreed to by the owners, albeit overlooking the fact that it had been Te Hemara Tauhia who had agreed to that offer. 145

Through 1890, Ngatiwai and the Government remained unable to reach an agreement over price. A different agent, William Swanson, contacted the Government in November to convey a lower Ngatiwai offer of 3700 pounds. And, in response, the Government raised its offer to £3000146 But it was recorded that Tenetahi also dismissed the offer.

Tole continued to press the Government for the sale of Hauturu, suggesting that 147 the Government make an offer over £3000. A 1. Cadman, Native Minister from Februa:r 1891, signalled to Tole that the Government's offer of £3000 remained open14 Finally on 3 July 1891, Tole conveyed to the Government that the 'obief owners for themselves and for the others are prepared to aeoept that sum [£3000]'.149 Yet just two months earlier, in May 1891, Swanson informed the Government that Tenetahi on behalf of himself and some of the principal owners declined the 1890 offer. Tenetahi had instead purchased a scow (Ida) in order to convey the kauri timber from Hauturu to Auckland, 'which he thinks would become more profitable than accepting the present Government offer'. I5/! The timing of this act indicates Tenetahi was aware of the financial benefits in removing the timber. It also suggests that either Tenetahi had entered inlo an arrangement with a timber merchant to feU the timber, or that he was planning to in the near future.

We must also question to what extent Tenetahi represented the interests of all owners, or simply his own family'S interest. A shade of ambiguity had crept into references to agreement and mandate among o,~ners of Hauturu contained in correspondence from legal counsel. Swanson, in communicating Ngaliwai's refusal of the Government offer, stated that Tenetahi had made the decision 'on behalf of himself and some oflhe principal owners,.Lll Earlier in January 1890, Tole referred to 'Ihe chief owners'; a description he re-used in his acceptance letter in October 1891. 152 Indeed, it emerged that not all owners agreed. Attempts were made to gel the agreement ratified in Auckland; however, the first planned occasion did not go ahead, reportedly because the owners could not agree about the division ofmoney,15l.

The Native Minister, AJ Cadman forced the issue of agreement. Cadman notified Ngatiwai that the Govermnent's purchase offer expired on 13 October 1891. 154 Consequently three O\vners, Tenelahi, Kino Reweti and Wi Taiawa signed a sale agreement with the Crown.

14> Native Office to JA Tole, 14 January 1890, draft letter, letter number 244/6, MA 13/45, part. 5. 146 Lewis to Mitcelson, Internal Memorandum, 4 November 1890,}"iA 13/45, part. 5. 141 JA Tole to Native Minsiter, 23 May 1891, MA 13/45, part. 5. 148 AI Cadman to JA Tole, 3 June 1891, Letter number 39516, !viA 13145, part. 5. ,., JA Tole to Native Minister, 3 July 1891, MA 13/45, part. 5. ,,·W Swanson to TWLewis, 13 May 1891,:lviA 13145, part. 5. J5l W Swanson to TW Lewis, 13 May 1891, MA 13/45, part. 5. 152 JA Tole to Native Minister, 6 January 1890, MA 13/45, part. 5 153 H Edgar to TW Lewis, 26 August 1891. MA 13/45, part. 5. U4 AI Cadman, 5 September 1891, MA 13/45, part. 5. 27

1891 Purchase Agreement On 2 October 1891, the three Ngatiwai owners visited the Auckland Registrar of the Native Office, H Edgar, and after some discussion signed the following agreement:

It is hereby understood that in signing the deed transfen'ing Hautum to the Queen, no money (consideration) is 10 be paid to any of the owners until all ofthern sign the said transfer and that if a11the other said owners consent to Tenetahi receiving the whole of the said money (£3000) the same share to be paid to him for the distribulion amongst all of the owners according to their respective shares. 15.5

The sale was made contingent upon the consensual agreement of all owners, something upon which the Crown had already insisted in an earlier agreement. ISo On the other hand, the issue of whether Tenetahi should receive and distribute the total sum, was Ilot an arrangement, which if breached, automatically invalidated the rest of the sale agreement. Still, the Government was cautious to ensure all later signatories appended signatures both to the payment voucher and a separate authority allowing their share to paid to Tenetahi as agreed. ls7

Cadman's concern to ensure all owners adequately represented The Native Minister exhibited mounting concern about the arrangement to pay Tenetahi the full sum. The following day he directed Edgar, under strict confidence, not to receive any further signatures to the purchase deed,158 At the request for further instructi.ons, Cadman advised Edgar to inform would-be signatories that there was a delay while the Native Office asceliained if any timber had been removed ii'om Hauturu. Edgar responded to the Minster's obvious concern by explaining the reason for the initial agreement with the three owners present on 2 October.

The natives could not agree upon the division of the money it was therefore concluded to pay it one lump sum after all had signed and that if all agreed it should be paid to Tenetahi fur him to settle Ihe division of iI. 11 does nol appear to me that this agreement .mounts 10 anything in­ asmuch as it depends on the whole of the owners conseilling to it. It was made befure receiving your instmctions, if however you so desire me I can inform T enetahi that Government repudiate

j't • 159

Cadman declared that he did not wish to repudiate the sale agreement. But he explained his basis of concern.

r am extremely anxious that the Government should not he a consenting party to or countenanee any arrangement which may lead to trouble and dispute among the Natives about Ihe division of the proceeds after deed signed and money paid. After all the dispute Ihere has been about the title to tlus land if Tenetahi once gets possession of the whole of the money some unscrupulous

155 Purchase agreement between Crown and owners ofH.uluru, Dupllcate copy, MLC 533K 91. James Mackay also signed the agreement as licensed interpreter to attest that the agreement had been read and e~lained inte reo Maori. 15 TW Lewis to W Swanson, 4 November 1890, MA 131 45, part 5. 1'7 Native Office to HF Edgar, 2 October, MA 13145, part. 4. 158 AJ Cadman to HE Edgar, 3 Oclober 1891, MA 13145, part. 4. '59 HF Edgar to AI Cadman, 5 October 1891, MA 13145, part. 4. 28

european may easily persuade him to allocate it in such a way as would bring severe censure in the Government for not paying each owner his due. 1(<1

In an attempt to resolve the continued disagreements over land interests, the Ngatiwai owners returned to the Native Land Court in October to detennine the relative interests of eilch owner. However, due to the absence of many owners the Judge adjourned the hearing until 25 May 1892. 161 The Court did adjudicate over the succession of Henare Te .Moananui's interests. 162 Despite absences, the Court awarded the succession of Moananui's interests to Paratene Te Mann (\I, share), Miria Te Moananui (Y. share) and Mata Kuru (Y. share).l63

J;'ormal withdrawal of purchase offer Tn mid-October, the Government withdrew its purchase offer. Cadman instructed that the ,aeriod for the completion of the sale- 3 months from 13 July 1891- had expired. 1 Ngatiwai counsel, Tole, requested an extension of a further three months, citing the difliculties in bringing all 14 owners together, and the recent tangi of Te Moananui and the suhsequent hearings to decide succession.]e5 The Native Minister however, declined Tole's request, and he indicated that the offer for Hautum could not be re-opened as the funds were required for other land settlement purchases. l66

In the wake of the Government's decision to withdraw the purchase offer, a group of the owners publicly advertised that Hauturu was available for lease or timber felling; 'The timber may be bought independent of a lease' .167 This action generated two different responses. The first was from the Premier who immediately contacted the Auckland Registrar to renew negotiations for the sale. Tenetahi, on the other hand, commenced negotiations for the sale of the Kauri timber on Hauturu with private European interests.

January 1892 Purchase re-instated: In January, Jolm Balanee as Premier directed an official, in the Native Minister's temporary absence, to complete the purchase of Haumru. 168 Cadman, upon returning responded vitriolically that his decision had been dictated by a reduced land purchase budget, and based on the premise that Hauturu was not suitable for settlement

WI AI Cadman to lIP Edgar, 10 October 1891, MA 13/45, part. 4. 1M W Swanson to Judge von Stormer, 22 September 1891, MLC 533K 91 Also, Native Land Court Minutes, 5 October 1891, Kaipara Minute Book 05, p. 43. 16' Tenetahi, Applicatioll fur Partition, Native Land Court, 3 February 1891, MLC 533K 91. Note, To Moananui died in September 1891. 163 Judge Spencer von Sturmer, Native Land Court Succession Order, 7 October 1891, i>1LC 533K 91 164 Native Minister to JA Tole, 16 October 1891, letter number 463/ 6, MA 13/ 45, palt. 5. I» JA Tole to Native Minister, 26 October, MA 13/45, part. 5. 166 AI Cadman, Native Land Purchase Minute, 30 October 1891, MA 13/45, part. 5. 167 Paratene te Manu (el aI.), Notice, New Zealand Herald, 7 January 1892, BAAZ 1109, 1664C. Other Maori who signed the notice were; Rahul Ie Kid, Tenetahi, Miria, Rapata, Wi Taiawa, Ngapeka, N~awhare and Reweti Kino. 16 P Sheridan to AI Cadman, 7 January 1892. MA 13/45, part. 5. 29

purposes169 The evidence of the Premier's intervention probably owed mostly to the concerted exertion of the conservation lobby spear-headed by formidably connected individuals.

Sir Walter Buller \-vrote several letters to the Premier and the Government between 1892 and 1894 urging the cause of protecting Hauturu 1892_4. 170 Buller also assisted the Governor, Lord Onslow, in 1891, in preparing his report, which advocated the protection of certain birds and the creation of island sanctnaries. 171 In 1892, Onslow \"Tote to Ballance, specifically highlighting the suitability of Hauturu as a native bird sanctuary. It is likely that Onslow's prodding provided the impetus for Ballance to countermand the Native Minister and proceed with the purchase. Certainly the pressure to establish Hauturu as a Native wildlife sanctuary also led to the creation of other sanctuaries in the last decade of the Nineteenth century: Secretary Island in Fiordland (1893); Resolution Island (1894); Hallturu (1894-7); and Kapiti Island (1897). m

Timber trading In the hiatus between the Crown's decision to withdraw the purchase offer in mid­ October and when they re-instated the purchase, Tenetahi had moved swiftly to arrange a substantial timber contract with S Welton Browne, a European timber trader. On 12 March 1892, Tenetahi signed an agreement, in English, to sell all the Kauri timber on Hautum. m By the terms of the agreement, all timber was to be removed within five years and Tenetahi was to convey all timber to Auckland himself by scow. Tenetahi signed the agreement, which gave no indication whether other Hauturu owners had been involved in the agreement, or that Tenetahi represented all owners of Hauturu. Indeed, Tenetahi himself received 100 pounds upon signing. Moreover, the fact that the timber agreement was not completed until March 1892, two months after the Government again sil.,rnalled its willingness to purchase Hauturu, later sparked a debate over the legality of the contract.

Native Land Court Determination of Relative Interests The hearing into relative interests recommenced on 25 May 1892.174 Two individuals, Mita Wepehi and Ngapera Taiawa [sic], represented by W Swanson, applied for an apportionment of relative interests. In making judgement, Judge von Sturmer commented that much of the material produced by the claimants was of a contradictory nature to the evidence earlier presented in support of their claim as against the claims of Kawerau.175 The final order was careful to observe one of the claimants' concerns that all siblings of named owners were tre~ted equally.

J69 AJ Cadman to NaliYe Minisler, 8 January 1892, MA 13145, part. 4. 170 Walter Lawry Buller, 'Letterbook', MS 324, AlL. 17l Ross Galbraith, 'Walter Lawry Buller" in Dietiollary o/New Zealand Biograph), Vol. l. p. 54. 172 Malcoun McKinnoll (ed.), New Zealand Historical Alias, David Balemal~ 1997, plate 62. 173 .Sale Agreement between Tenetahi and S Welton Browne, 12 Marcil 1892, MLC 533K 91. This copy (in English) of Tenetahi's timber agreement with Welton Browne was later presented before the Native Land Court Hearing 4 February 1895. 114 Application for the apportionment of relative interests, Native Laud Court, 25 May 1892, Kaipara Minute Book 05, pp. 66-88. 171 Native Land Court Minute Book, 25 May 1892, KaiparaMinute Book 05, p. 87. 30

Native Land Court Order of Relative Interests in Hauturu 27 May 1892: 176

Change of Approach Following the court's determination of each individual owners', the Native Office altered its approach to the purchase negotiations. Although the Native Office continued to uphold the need for all owners to sign before payment was made, as enshrined in the l891 agreement, the Minister instructed that if, after three months, not all owners had signed, the individual shares of those who had signed would be paid out.

When all have signed consideration will be paid according to definition of interests by Court- If all have nol signed al expiration of Ihree montbs shares of those who have will be paid for on same baSls . 1'f no appI"" lcahon lor re-h'eanng. 177 ,,

Cadman explained the approaeh as a necessary precaution 'because if any of the owners decline to sell we must wait the statntory three months to receive application for re­ hearing,.17B

Whilst JA Tole represented particular Ngatiwai interests, he also proposed to the Native Office the expedient use of legislation to force the purchase of Hauturu. 'If Bautum were proclaimed under Native Purchase Act, Natives would be compeJJed to sell to the Government only. He went on to explain that of all the owners, only Tenetahi

116 Native Land Court Minute Book. 25 May 1892, Kaipara Minute Book OS, p .• p. 88. Schedule of owners, 28 May 1892, MLC 533K 91. It is oOied that only Ngapera and Ngawhare Taiawa listed Hauturu as their place of abode. 171 Native Office to HF Edgar, undaled, MA 13/45, part. 4. l7l< AI Cadman to JA Tole. 31 May 1892. MA 13/45. part. 4. 31

was likely to be obstructive,179 The Native Office contacted the Resident Magistrate, HW Bishop, and advised him to ascertain the intention of the remaining owners to sign the deed, as 'the Government is anxious to get possession of the island if it is possible by straight forward negotiations to do so' ,JRO

Timber felling At about the same time as the Crown moved to secure the purchase, it received intbrmation that Tenetahi had made definite arrangements with a European timber merchant for the removal of Kauri timber and that work had begun,IHI Celiain Ngatiwai individuals, most notably, Tenetahi, had bcen engaged in the removal of timber, firewood and Kauri from Hauturu during much of the 18805. But this it seems had ceased in the early 18905 in the lead-up to the sale agreement. However, after the timber contract had been agreed, the extraction began again on a much larger scale. For a Government looking to acquire Hauturu not as land for settlement, but as pristine island for the preservation of flora and fauna, Tenetahi's actions posed a disastrous threat1R2

Action against Trespassers The Commissioner of Crown Lands intervened and issued instructions to expel trespassers. Still, it was not clear upon what basis the Crown had the authority to intervene and remove 'trespassers', particularly those invited by the legal owners of the island. The Surveyor General, Steven Percy Smith subsequently advised Commissioner Mueller that the island had been proclaimed under both the Native Land Purchase Act 1877 and 1878 and that therefore section 2 of the 1877 Act enabled the Government to treat Hauturu 'as Crown land as far as trespass is concerned. ,183 Section 2 of the 1877 Act stated that:

Where money by or on behalf of her Majesty the Queen for the purchase or acqUisition of any lands in the North Island, or any estate or interest therein. or where any negotiatiollB have bee!! entered into for any slIch purpose or acquisition, whether the same lands have or have not been passed through the Native Land Court, then and in all such cases, and after the publication of a notification respecting snch lands as hereinafter provided, it shall not be lawful for any other person to purchase or acquire from the native owners any right, title, e.state, or inlerest in any such land or any part thereof, or in any manner to contract for any such purchase or acquisition. 184

Here was further evidence that the Crown based its legal authority to intervene on the 1877 and 17878 Acts. Based on this nnderstanding, the Government moved to evict the European timber workers. It published notices in newspapers and distributed warnings 011 Hauturu. 185

179 JA Tole to AJ Cadman, 1 June 1892, MA 13/45, pari. 4. '"" AJ Cadman to mv Bishop, 2 June 1892, MA 13145, part. 4, 181 S Percy Smith (Surveyor General) to Gerhard Mueller (Commisioner of Crown Lands), 26 May 1892, Department of Lands and Survey Files, BAAZ 1109, J 664c, Also, fIF Edgar to Native Office, 6 June 1892, ]VIA 13/45, pari, 4, m 'The Government is anxious to prevent this, for as soon as the title to the island becomes fully vested in the Crown, it is proposed to make it a reserve for the preservation of Native Flora and fauna', S Percy Smith to Mueller, 26 May 1892, Department ofLands and Survey Files, BAAZ 1109, 1664c' 183 S Percy Smith to Mueller, 26 May 1892, Department ofLand. and Survey Files, BAAZ 1109, 1664C, IS. Section 2, Government Native Land Purchases Act 1877, I'~ Gerhard Mueller to Surveyor General. 5 July 1892, BAAZ 1109, 1664C, 32

Notice is herehy given that negotiations were entered into in the year 1881 by the Government to purchase and acquire l-Jautum or the Little Barrier Island from the Native Grantees and that under section 2 of the Government Native Land Purchase Act 1877 and Amendment Aet 1878, all persons other than aboriginal Owners or occupiers of the island who cut timber or trespass thereon will be proceeded against for unlawfbl occupation, intmsion or trespass 'SG

Legal Question- 1881 proclamation It is apparent that the Cwwn helieved itself to he legally correct, still, the legal issues remain far from certain, It was questionable whether Hautum, as an offshore island, did in fact fit within the parameters of the Act's dcfinition of the 'North Island'. More importantly, we need to question whether the section two restrictions should have in fact continued to apply to the land, after the purchase had heen withdrawn.

Although the Native Minister's otllcial letter to Ngatiwai lawyer had formally withdrawn the Crown's purchase offer,t87 no formal notification of the withdrawal was ever published, Therefore, in legal tenns under section three of the Nativc Land Purchase Act 1&77, the offer remained open. Therefore, when the Premier decided shortly afterwards that the Government should resurrect attempts to purchase Hauturu/R8 legally there was no break in the continuity, nor any need to re-gazette the Crown's intention to purchase. Therefore too, under the same legislation, the Crown remained legally authorised to prohibit the intervention of other parties on the land, despite perhaj:ls an appearance that the Crown had in fdct relinquishcd their authority to intervene,

The section two restrictions, applied to land in Native title, did not apply to privately owned lands held under Crown Grant. This discrepancy seems difficult to reconcile with the principles of the Treaty of WaitangL At least prutly a protectivc mechanism designed to benefit Maori, the 1 &77 restrictions also had deleterious effects. Maori whose land came nnder thc Act were unable to entertain any party except the Crown, who held a monopoly over the rights to acquire the land. This meant in effect that Maori were unable to obtain a Market-based value for their land, but instead had to rely upon the value decidcd upon by the Crown, In cases where Maori owners chose not to accept the Crown's offer, they were entitled to remain as owners of the land according to the protective nature of the Act.

European Timber operations ceased In the wake of the Government's threats, the European timber contractors left the island. The Govemment tllen sent an observer, Henry WIight, across to assess the situation. Wright's report indicated the scale of damage and entreated that the Govemment purSllC the purchase further. Wright further confirmed, in speaking with Tenetahi, that his [Tcnetahi'sJ right to harvest Kauri timber on Hautum was an individual right, not shared by all owners. Although there was a suggestion that Rahui Te Kiri was also a party to the agreement, it was only Tenetahi's name that appeared on

186 Land and Survey Department notice, 6 June 1892, signc-d as ad'lenised on 7 June 1892, DAAZ 1109, 1664C. l81 Native lI-1inister to JA Tole, 16 October 1891, leller number 463/6, MA 13/45, part, 5. ". P Sheridan to AJ Cadman, 7 January 1892, MA 13/45, pan, 5. 33

the document. And that this individual right to sell Kauri timber on the island and receive the revenue was understood among other owners as recompense for the palment of Native Land Court legal expenses, which Tenetahi had earlier paid himselfl8 Here was the tirst mention of outstanding internal debt, something that would become increasingly prominent. Still, it is not known how widespread this view was held by all owners, as Wright was only able to canvass the opinion of the minority of owners actually present on Hauturu. The likelihood exists that Wright may have simply parroted the explanation given to him by Tenetahi and Rahui Te Kiri.

Wright observed with a good deal more accuracy, the destruction of the natural habitat caused by the timber cutting. 190 And as well as urging the suitability of Hauturu as a sanctuary, preferable to Resolution Island, he encouraged swift intervention on the part of the Government.

I may express my wllvictioll that every day's delay in completing the trallsaction will make it's purchase at a reasonable price more difficult, as the owners are well aWare that the existing kauri is worth fully £5000 and they are rapidly beginning to realise the marketable value of the property. '.1

Government returned to negotiate fOl' the pUI'chase Auckland Registrar, HF Edgar, and Native agent H Bishop continued to appeal to owners for further signatures to the sale agreement. By mid 1892 , however, no further owners had signed the agreement. Moreover, Edgar referred to the existing three signatures and advised that the 'signatures would probably need to be confirmed or obtained over again as I am informed Tenetahi considers the former arrangement to have come to an end'. 192

There is evidence to show that the Ngatiwai owners became aware of the increasing market value of the land due to the Kauri timber. Paratene Te Manu proposed a significantly higher SuIll of 700 pounds per individual share. 193 It is not clear whether he meant per person or per 1110 share. But un the basis of 14 ovmers, Paratene's Te Manu sought somewhere in the vicinity of9800 pounds.

Wright's report (above) provides us some comparable idea of a market price. Wright calculated a value of 5000 pounds on the existence of trine million square feet of Kauri. 194 However, other sources disputed the amount of timber s~anding, and demonstrate the difficulty of arriving at a single universally agreed vaIue. 190 It is evident that much of the dissatisfaction with the Government's offer arose from the fact that it

'89 Hemy Wright, 'New Zealand Native Birds: Report of Henry Wright upon Hauluru Island', 17 October 1892, p. I., BAAZ 1109, 1664C 190 ibid. 19l ibid, p. 2. 192 HF Edger 10 P Sheridan, Telegraph message, 8 July 1892, MA 13/45, part. 3. m Paratene Te Manu to Te Paraihe (Bryce), 4 November 1882, MA 13/45, part. 7. 194 Henry Wright, 'New Zealand Native Birds: Report of Henry Wright upon Bauturu Island', 17 October 1892, p. 1, BAAZ 1109, 1664C 195 See for example E. Nicholson, Letter to the Editor, 3 February 1893, New Zealand Herald., BAAZ 1109, 1664C. Nicholson claimed to have compleled a survey oflhe timber fhr Tenetalli and Iha! there was only eight million square feet stH! standing. 34

included the value of Kauri timber, and, as such, took no account of the Kauri boom in the 18908. By contrast earlicr in 1884, Faom Tuhaere had offered and agreed to 2700 pounds as payment. 1% The Crown on the other hand, found it difficult to balance any increase in the markct price of Kauri with the intended purpose for which they wished to acquire the island, namely conservation. Yet, because of the restrictions, Maori, if they wished to sell, remained bound to accept the Crown's monopolistic offer.

Change in Government approach Following futile attempts to secure agreement to sell Bauturu, the Resident Magistrate informed the Native Office that many owners protested that 3000 pounds was not sumcicnt Others, however, had indicated they were willing to sell if the money was paid to them at the time of signing, 197 The Commissioner of Crown Lands stressed to the Native Minister the difficulty in completing the purchase, under the temls of the original agreement. 'It will be a very long time before the purchase is effected as the interests of two of them will be very difficult to acquire.' DR Aware to the possibility of a further application for re-hearing and the effect of timber milling on the forest, Bishop's partner and advisor, E Dufaur, proposed that the Government change its pitch and offer individual owners a small sum on signing, the balance to be paid at the expiry of the date for further re-hearings into respective interests. 'By this means the Goverurnent will have ac~ired such an interest that they can prevent further destruction of the [illegible] timber.'t

The Government questioned whether a change from the terms of the 1891 agreement would neeessarily undennine the agreement Tenetahi had already declared to a Crown official that he considered the agreement finished. But the Crown and more particularly, the Native Minister were of a different mind, Cadman indicated his willingness to proceed with a new approach, based on the premise that any changes would not affect the nature of the original 1891 agreement

1 have nO objection 10 paying each Owner as he signs the deed say one hal f of his share of the consideration on basis of recent definition of interests by Native Land the alher half immediately of fe-hearing is over -Three Natives have signed already and conditions 011 which they did so have in no way been violated by Government that is lhat consideration would be foaid when all have signed- One ofthese is Tenetahi who l,as since turned mace or less obstructive, 00

Tenetahi, however, challenged Cadman's interpretation,

Tenetahi acknowledges that he made over his share to the Government on October 1891 but that was done conditionally on the agreement signed by Mr Edger and himself, iruerpreted by Mr James Mackay.. ,He states that under it, it wa, specially provided that no money consideration is to be paid to any of the owners until all oflhem signed the said tnUlsfer.,,'OI

J"& George Browne to RJ Gill, Telegraph message, 10 July 1884, MA 13/45, part 7. m H Bishop to P Sheridflll, Telegraph message, 11 July 1892. MA 13/45, part 3. 198 ElDufaurto Native Minister, 13 July 1892, MA 13/45, part, 3, m Ibid, 21). Nalive Ministerlo EJ Dufaur, 19 July 1892, MA 13/45, part, 3, 201 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Surveyor General, 7 November 1892, p.2, BAAZ 1109, 1664C. 35

Still, the Government proceeded to negotiate with individual owners in direct contravention of the 1891 agreement. The first individual to contact the Crown was Hone Paama, who offered his share in Hauturu in exchange for lands elsewhere. The Government consequently arranged to exchange Paama's share in Hauturu for lands in Whirinakpo2 The Government purchased other individual interests later in September 1892. Bishop recorded the purchase of four interests in Hautum: Riria Taukokopu, Paratene Te Manu, Miria Te Moananui, Mata Kuru. 203 In tile same letter, Bishop continued to assume that the Government retained the signed agreement of Ten eta hi, Wi Taiawa, and Kino Reweti, in spite of the changes. The Government purchased three further individual interests later in November?04

Timber felling recommenced While the Government proceeded to gather individual assent to the sale, they became aware that some members ofNgatiwai, principally Tenetahi had recommenced timber felling205 From Tenetahi's perspective, the Crown had signalled its unwillingness to raise the price in accordance with the timber value. He, therefore, sought to gather as much value from the agreement with Browne. The Crovm's response, however, came in the form of a proclamation, exerting stronger authority over Hauturu. Smith advised Mueller that

A fresh proclamation over little Barrier will be gazetted next week under the Land Purchase Act of last session. Under it you will have the same power of removal as anyone except the owners as if it were Crown land owners wHi have to be stopped by other proceedings but you can make arrangements with Mr Bishop as soon as possible and stop everyone not an owner of the land the sooner the beuer.'O<;

1892 Gazette Notification On 29 October 1892, the Government replaced the former notification of their intention to purchase Hauturu with a new notice, made under the Native Land Purchases Act 1892: 'from and after the date of the publication hereof, it shall not be lawful for any person other than her Majesty to ~urchase or acquire from the Native owners, any[ obscured] title, share or interest.,2 7 Crown officials served an injunction upon Tenetahi and S Welton-Browne. The Government's action quickly halted the timber operations for a second time. However, it also drew a legal response re-opening the question of the Crown's authority to intervene on the terms of the original agreement.

One of the prime motivations for restarting the logging appears to have been to pay outstanding legal fees such as those of Fenton to whom the owners were in debt as a result of the Native Land Court hearings. Fenton himself complained to the Government in July. 'I am interested in getting the sale completed, for I have not been paid for my

102 Sheridan to Bisbop, 20 July 1892, MA 13/45, part 3. 203 It wHi be noted that most of these interests were lhe sue<:essors to Henare Te Moananui. Bishop to Mueller, 3 December 1892, BAAZ 11091 1664C, 204 Bishop to Sheridan, 19 November 1892, MA 13/45, part. 3, '0' Surveyor General to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 18 Oelober 1892, BAAZ 11091 1664C, 206 Surveyor General to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 22 October 1892, BAAZ 1109, 1664C. 207 New ZealalldGazette, 3 November 1892, no. 87, p. 1461. 36

services in rescuing the island from Paul and his friends.,208 Fenton served a charging order on the Government, seeking the £100 legal fees he was owed by Hautufll owners, as part of the purehase money. Attorney General advised that it could only be dealt with in the Supreme Court and it was 'difficult to see on what grounds the Government can be asked to intervcne,.209

After Mueller visited the island, he reported that Tenetahi considered'the offer to sell for £3000 was off and that those who had not sold as yet, would now require double the price for their interest. ,2W The message of opposition to the 1891 agreed price was echoed in a letter from Paratene Te Manu.

My word to you is in regard to my having been confounded [unclear] by the Government who induced me to sell my interest in Hauluru .. ,If you pay us £ 10 000 for Hauluru, the Natives will cease working the timber on the island, bnt if not the Kauri work will continue. 2' I

Legality of Crown's intervention questioned Riled by the Crown's continued intervention and in the wake of the Gazette notice, Welton Browne and Tenetahi questioned the legal basis for the Crown's intervention in the timber arrangements. On 29 October 1892, their lawyer, LaisWey, informed the Crown that under seetion 17 of the Native Purehases Aet 1877, Browne's interests were protected. Furthermore, LaisWey impugned the Crown's actions and threatened the Crown with further legal action, if they sought to intervene in the timber arrangement between Browne and Tenetahi. 212

Laishley's criticisms forced the Crown to be inwardly questioning. Government officials expressed uncertainty as to whether the initial 1881 proelamation of the Government's intention to purchase was legally enforceable up until the new gazette notice in October 1892. In a letter advising the Surveyor General, the Commissioner of Crown Lands quoted former Native Minister and Hauturu negotiator, E Mitchelson, on the Government's legal status:

the first proclamation of the island which reappeared in the Gazette of July 28 1881 could not be enforced that the Honourable Native Minister admitted that this was the case and that therefore the new proclamation was published at the end of the previous month.213

Mueller further noted:

Jf original proclamation stands good in law till the date on which the new proclamation appeared last month .... then I submit that immediate action should be taken [to halt the removal of timber]..Jfthe first proclamation does not hold good ... then the Timber contract Brown entered into 214 with the Natives on 12 March '82[sic] cannot be touched

'08 FD Fenton to Cadman, 16 July 1892, BAAZ 1109, 1664C. 2(19 Attorney-General Seth-Smith to Sheridan, 29 August 1892, Internal memorandum, MA 13/45, part. 3. 210 Muller to Surveyor General, 7 November 1892, p. 5, BAAZ 11091 1664C. 211 Paratene Te Manu to Kisling, 23 December 1892, L& S 609/52, BAAZ 1109/ 1664C. 212 R Laishley to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 29 Oct 1892, MA 13/45, part 2. m Commissioner of Crown Lands to Surveyor General, 7 November 1892, p. 3, BAAZ !1 09, 1664C. 2'4 Mueller to Surveyor General, 7(1) November 1892, p. 4, BAAZ 1109, 1664C. The date should read 1892, the error is Mueller's. 37

Laishley, on behalf of S Welton Browne and Tenetahi, continued to question the Crown's position by sending the Native Offiee copies of the original agreement and letters. He argued that 'on the date of the timber contract (12 March 1892), the Crown had not acquired any estate, or interest in the island'. Moreover, if the Government had acquired an interest since that date, they did so aware of the existence of the timber arrangement. Laishley then claimed that the owners who had signed since the timber al:,Tfeement 'have so sold on the ex~ress condition (amongst others) that all timher right had been preserved to Tenetahi'. 15 A certain degree of douht surrounds this final assertion. Laishley himself did not represent any of the ovmers' interests over whom the statement was made. Certainly, the exemption of timber rights is not something the Crown wnuld have heen prepared to concede in the interests of acquiring a scenic reserve. Neither was it a consideration explicitly recorded or mentioned in any of the signings.

In spite of its own internal uncertainty, the Government eontinued to show no outward sign of admission. In a reply to Laishley, Crown officials looked to bolster their position. Mueller referred baek to the 1881 Gazette notiee and re-emphasised the effect of the Native Land Purchase Acts in 1877 and 1878. He asserted that Welton-Browne had acted illegally in making arrangements with Maori and went further to warn of legal 216 action if trespassing continued .

Timber felling reeommenced News soon reached the Government that the timher feIling had recommenced for the third time. In order to circumvent the proclamation, Tenetahi dirccted the work himself as an owner of Hauturu. Government urgently searched for means to halt the timber felling. On 24 November 1892, the Native Minister instructed the Crown Solicitor to apply for an injunction from the Supreme Court to restrain the owners from cutting or removing timber already cut or deprecating the value of the Little Barrier, until the shares of the individual owners had been located by the Native Land Court.217 Once the injunction had been served, all parties again removed from the island. Yet the injunction was a temporary measure and Crown officials continued to express concern about the weakness of their position. One official considered the Crown's intervention vindicated on the basis that not all of the owners signed the agreement.218 Yct other officials were not so certain:

Since then Ihe Native owners have taken legal advice, and are now aCling upon it ie Ihey are themselves conducting the titnber cutling at which they are assisted by a large nutnber of European and Maori workmen to whotn Ihey pay ordinary wages ... as long as they [aboriginal owners] carry out or direct the timber cutting I cannot see how I can possibly interfere or proceed against them.

'" Laishley to Mueller, 12 December 1892, Native Affairs file 609/ 38, BAAZ 1109, 1664C. Loishley made this rather strong assertion, despite the fact that he did not act for any of the owners over whom ihe comment was directed. 216 Mueller to Laishley, 31 October 1892, p. I, MA Df 45, part.2. 211 Native Minister to Mueller, 24 November 1892, BAAZ 1109 1664C. 2l& Edger to Native Office, 14 December 1892, MA 13f 45, part. 3. Edger asked: 'Has Mr Welton Brown a deed signed by all owners and passed by a Trust Commissioner dated prior to the last proclamation?' 38

The o~l~ way to put a stop to the cutting it seems to me is by completing the purchase of the Island,

The continued Govermnent intervention provoked more response and reproach from Laishley, now representing Browne, Tenetahi and Rahui Kiri, The lav.'Yer in tum threatened the Government that he would apply for damages to the Supreme Court At the same time, Laishley suggested that if the Govemment paid Browne 'reasonable compensation, Browne would obtain all remaining interests in the island for the Govemment- at a reasonable price, Here was further possible evidence that Maori owners may have been willing to sell Hauturu, but for a reasonable price. And, it was explicitly stipulated that 'all existing buildings and plantations be left intact' outside the purchase?20 Laishley's suggestion did not specifically refer to a reserve, but it is presumed that this was what was envisaged, Though to the Government eyes, the existence of a reserve for Maori compromised the basis for a natural sanctuary

LaishJcy presented a case that Welton Browne and Tenetahi should be entitled to remove all timber already cut and in addition receive compensation for the timber they were unable to cut The total figure arrived at was 8050 pounds, and Laishley indicated that Browne was willing to settle for 4000 pounds. However, on this point it serves us to remember that the timber agreement was only worth a total of 1000 pounds for Tenetahi, of which he had already received one tenth or one hundred pounds. We must also stay focused on the subject ofthe present report that is, a study ofthe alienation and the treatment of the Maori owners in light of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. We must not get too .embroiled in the detail of thc timber calculations, which affected a p.(lkejJa timber ll,ler.chlll)l> Welt911 .!3J9Wll, !J19Je greilt,Iy fuan Jene41l1i. l'er:®psif it gges bear any relevant comparison, it is to show that European timber trader Welton Browne, suffered a proportionally greater loss from the intervention of the Govermnent, than did the Maori owners of Hauturu. Though again, the high-risk nature of timber speculation renders such comparisons of limited insight.

Issue of Tenetahi'slegal costs Edger's letter further elaborated on the legal costs affiicting TenetahL The letter c-,

Tenetahi's son infomled me that renetahi had paid out of his OWl! pocket the greater part ofthe expense of the various adjudications by the Native Land Court, amounting to £700 or £500, Hence, his demand that the whole of the money should be paid to him so that he might recoup himself his expenditure before dividing the balance amongst the owners,l2I

Wright later noted that the value of the retums from timber and gum meant that those Maori owners who had not already signed wanted a higher amount. Though he warned in his final letter: 'The value of the timber and the quantities of gum which now fetches £100 a ton combine to make the remaining owners reluctant to sell at £3000 and I fear

2l? Commissioner of Crown Lands to Surveyor General, 19 December 1892, BAAZ 1109, 1664C, 210 Laishley to Mueller 12 December 1892, MA 13/45, palt 2, Also L& S 6091 38, BAAZ II 091 1664C, 221 Edger to Native Office, 14 December 1892. p, 3, MA 13/45, part, 3, 39

there are many difficulties to be overcome before the purchase is eompleted, or until native lands are placed on a different footing'. 222

At the same time, the Crown indicated that they had calculated the value of the land without according added value for the Kauri timber as a harvestable resource. rt noted: 'The sum tendered by the Crown will be looked upon as the value of the land and the worth of the timber will be based on the price obtained by the Crown in ordinarv land sales. ,223 •

The Government's uncertainty appears to have developed into a recognised awareness that: 'There can be no doubt that Brown entered that timber contract in a "bonafide" manner' .224

Under section 2 of the Government Native Land Purchase Act 1878 the proclamation ,tands against all persons other than the Aboriginal owners or occupiers and as long as they cany out or direct the timber cutting, I cannot see how I can possibly interfere or proceed against them. The only way to put a stop to the cutting it seems to me is by completing the purchase oftbe island.'"

In late December, the Government issued a further proclamation, which drew a much clearer legal distinction. It carefully warned that 'none but the present Aborigine owners and those who were in lawful occupation before the publication of the Court's notification in Gazette and Kahiti...will henceforth be allowed to reside on the island,226

Alternatives: Tenctahi as cnstodian of reserve Edger in a letter to the Native Office suggested alternatives to the impasse over the purchase of the island and the timber rights. In particular, Edger proposed the retention of Tenetahi and his family on the island armed with some degree of authority as semi-official custodian. 'I believe that the residence of Teneta hi on the island has as a fact been the means of doing a good deal already towards that end, he having exercised a good deal of authority in the way of preventing the landing of persons likely to do damage. ,227 Yet the Government remained convinced that the continued existence of Maori on Hauturu posed a threat to the establishment of any natural reserve. For example, Commissioner Mueller had earlier articulated his fears that Maori were engaged in continued bird harvesting:

1 fear the Natives were killing the Pigeons and Tuis and taking them over to Port ·Fitzroy on Great Barrier and disposing of them so that when this island has been acquired I would suggest that it would be better to prevent the Natives from living on it, as they would be certain to attract others who would bring dogs & cats etc.'22!

222 Wright to Mueller, 4 February 1893, BAAZ 1109/ 1664C. Z13 [1] to Cadman, 12 December 1892, MA 13/45, part 3. '''Mueller to Surveyor General, 14 December 1892, L& S 609/39, BAAZ 1109, 1664C. '" Mueller io Surveyor-General, 19 December 1892, L& S 609/22, BAAZ 1109, 1664C. 216 Mueller, 28 December 1892, L& S 609/49, BAAZ 1109/ I 664G. m Edger to Native Office, 14 December 1892, p. 2. MA 13/45, part. 3. '" Commissioner of Crown Lands to Surveyor General. 5 July 1892, L& S, BAAZ 1109/1164C. 40

Having dismissed Edger's suggestion that Tenetahi be retained as custodian, the Surveyor-General instead proceeded to appoint a European, Wright, in an identical function. He instructed Wright to proceed to the island as a ranger with the object of 'preventing the trespass and the destruction of timber growing thereon and the general preservation of the birds thereon. ,229 1he effect was to draw a veil of authority over the island before the purchase had been consummated. This was despite the fact that, as Wright's fIrst report recorded, only seven of the total fIfteen owners had signed the deed of sale to the Government, and received their shares of the purchase money, We might ask whether, given these numbers, it was appropriate for the Govermnent to move rangers on to the island?

Government appointed ranger Behind the Government's decision to station a pakeha ranger on Hauturu lay a perceived threat of timber logging and suspicion about the fate of the timber already felled and stacked awaiting removal from the island, as well as saving fauna and killing vermin. Wright was replaced by Charles Robinson, who was instructed to stop Maori getting timber, but not to interfere with gum-digging operations. 23o Robinson was also directed not to interfere with Maori shooting of pigeons or kaka.231 Yet ironically it appeared that fauna may have had more to fear from Robinson, and his patron Sir Walter Buller, than from Maori inhabitants, A Government observer to Bautum insinuated that Robinson had been himself procuring rather than protecting rare bird life: 'I believe that birds are being killed, that is the rare varieties and I would recommend that a much stricter watch be kept than Robinson has been in the habit of domg,' ,232]

Hauturu appeared in a published list of lands deemed 'partially acquired by the Goverarnent' up to 31 March 1893,233 The list recorded that between 1 April 1892 and 31 March 1893, the Crown purchased four thousand five hundred and twenty-four acres, This is misleading, as the Goverarnent had not purchased specific acres, but the proportionate share of owners out of the total of 6096 acres. On the basis of this proportionate calculation, the Goverarnent listed the price per acre as eight shillings and six pence. This figure compared reasonably well to other prices paid in the same period and placed Hauturu in the upper quartile of prices, For example: Parahirahi, three . . shillings and six pence per acre, or Rotorua township, 69 acres at two poupds and fifteen shillings, or, 160 acres ofTuhua (Mayor Island) for two shillings and four pence per acre,234

Law case continues. Legal proceedings shifted to the Supreme Court The threats of legal action from both sides I ed to the Crown issuing a warrant to sue, The warrant was signed and returned to the Crown Solicitor, on 29 December 1892. Laishley wrote to Tole, by then

'" Smith to Wright, 19 December 1892, DAAZ 1109/ 1664C. 230 Mueller to Robinson, 16 February 1893, L& S 609/67 BAAZ l109/1664C. 231 Mueller to Robinson, 4 April 1893, BAAZ II09/1664C. m James Boscawen to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 28 July 1893, L& S 6091 108, BAAZ 11091 1664C, m 'Lands Purchased and Leased from Natives in North Island', AJHR, G-4, 1893, p. 3 234 ibid. 41

acting as Crown Solicitor, seeking terms for the settlement of the Court action.235 Tole in turn advised the Native Minister, Cadman, that it was unlikely that Tenetahi held the mandate for the sale of the timber, and that therefore the Crown could insist on the illegality of the agreement Tole also recounted his experience as legal advisor to Tenetahi: 'r told Brown that so far as Tenetahi was concerned he must have known what he was doing, because he had some time ago come to me to draw out an advertisement offerin the timber for sale and I told him it was very wrong to attempt to do such a thing'. B6 Tole then recommended that the Crown offer to investigate Browne's claim in a 'fair and reasonable' manner, once the title to Baulum had been secured. It appears that at this point the Crown desisted from further Supreme Court action.

Petitions Tenetahi and Browne petitioned Parliament separately in 1893. In reporting on Browne's petition, the Waste Lands Committee returned to the earlier interpretation that in 1881, Bautum had been gazetted under the 1877 and 1878 aets and, consequentl 'any private dealings with the island since 23 July 1881 were therefore invalid'."t 7 Tenetahi followed with his own petition, which sought the separation of Tenetahi and family's interests from the remainder of the owners' shares already purchased. Tenetahi claimed that the separation would enable him to continue to mill timber, and continue to reside on the island. The petition proposed two forms of remedy: Either the separate interest be defined and proclaimed; or that adequate compensation be paid for all interests.218 The Native Affairs Committee concluded that

the Government should attempt to acquire Tenetahi's interest. That failing his agreeing to accept a reasonable price for the same, facilities should be afforded bl. the Government for the petitioner obtaining a partition ordered from the Native Land Court.' 9

From July 1893, the professed management of Hauturu, in the Gove.mment's view, returned under the Lands and Survey department Charles Robinson continued to aet as Government ranger on the island. He wrote to the Commissioner complaining about the difficulties with following the Government's instructions, and at the same time, remaining on friendly terms with the owners; as he put it 'serving two masters' ?40 Robinson asked whether he ought to prevent Maori from shooting Kaka and Tui outside of the Government instituted seasons, but received the instruction not to intervene241 Yet as already mentioned there were growing accusations that Robinson wasn't protecting the rarest birds so much as collecting for Museums and private collectors.242

'" Laishley to Tole, 20(7) Feb 1893, MA 13/45, part 2. 236 Tole to Cadman, 25 February 1893, MA 13/45, part 2. 137 P Sheridan, 'Report of the Waste Lands Committee on the petition all Simon Welton Browne', Petition number 178, 16 July 1893, MA 13/45, part 2. 138 Tenetahi, petition number 161, 1883, MA 13/45, part 2. 139 RM Hanston, 8 August 1893, Native Affairs Committee report on Petition of Tenetahi', Petition number 161, MA 13/45, part 2. 14iJ Robinson to Mueller, 23 July 1893, L& S 6091 105, BAAZ 11091 1664C. 241 Muell~'f to Robinson, 30 August 1893, L& S 6091 117, BAAZ 11091 1664C. Note, Robinson had earlier indicated to Mueller that 'I think I shall have some trouble to prevent Tenetahi from shooting. Any ofthe other Natives seem to be agreeable to act under orders.' Robinson to Mueller, 7 August 1893, L&S 609/114, BAAZ 11 091 1664C. 242 J Boscawen to Commissioner of Crown Lands Report on visit to Little Barrier Island, 28 July 1893, L&S 6091 108, BAAZ 1 J09/1664C. 42

Robinson hotly denied the allegations laid by Boscawen. He sought to explain that the apparent decline of birds was due to the large numbers of wild cats killing birds, but that it was problematic for him to shoot the cats as many belonged to Maori owners.243 At the end of October he recorded a brief census: 'Tenetahi, his family plus one other and three single men are the only ones on the island. ,244

Through 1893, Government agents continued to collect signatures to the deed. Hiria Taukokopu, Paratene Te Manu and Miria te Moananui signed the deed on 8 August 1892, before Resident Magistrate Bishop. Mata Kuru signed on 24 August 1892. Hone Paama, Ropata Ngatiwai and Pita Kino also agreed to sign in the presence of Bishop, on 11 November 1892. Three later signatures were obtained in 1893: Te Nupere Ngawaka signed on 29 March 1893; Ngawhare Taiawa on 18 April 1893, and Ngapera Taiawa on 24 Oetober 1893. It was this final date (24 October 1893), which appeared on the top of the deed, and therefore lent the impression as though the whole deed dated from then, despite the absence of assent from Rahui Te Kiri or Ngapeka.245 In addition, the signed agreement of Teneta hi, Kino Reweti and Wi Taiawa were simply transferred directly from the 1891 agreement to the new deed, despite Tenetahi's obvious dissent.

Growing fears Govermnent therefore sought to continne to obtain the agreement of all owners to the sale. In this attempt they were spurred on by an environmentalist lobby. Yet at the same time, the lobby worked to raise fears of potential dangers to Hauturu, including continued human habitation. Reports circulated in the media, which emphasised the destruction and dangers of fire. 'Fires have been allowed to spread, and in the last week of January of this year, a serious one was reported, which lasted at least a week' .246 Shortly afterwards, Robinson reported that there had been a fire on a spur. 'From appearancc it had been a deliberate attempt to fire the whole spur' ?47

The Native Office grew increasingly anxious to acquire the remaining shares in Hauturu. The Commissioner of Crown Lands expressed concern that the authority and jurisdiction of the Ranger remained somewhat restricted. Moreover, Mueller noted: 'Little Barrier, though in various respects suitable for it, will never make a bird preserve in the full sense of the word until Government obtain every interest in the island and are in a position to prevent Natives or others from residing thereon,248 JA Tole retllrned to Hauturu in Jnly 1894 in an attempt to close negotiations with the outstunding parties, though he was ultimately unsuccessful. Tole reported to Seddon that Tenetahi, upon refusing the Government's carry-over offer of 3000 pounds, threatened 'to import the bee onto the island and by this means effectually destroy all birds on account of whose rarity -,[sic] it was anxiously desired to have acquired the island:249 Tenetahi's alleged

2.3 Robinson to Mueller 31 October 1893, BAAZ 11 091 1664C "4 ibid. In the same letter, he also noted that 'Ms Tenetahi [Rahui Kid] seems to be the ruling power here amongst the natives so shall try and keep on good terms with her.' 24' Hauturul Little Barrier Island, Deed of Purchase, 24 Oetober 1893, Auckland Deed Number 1883, IJNZ, Wellington. 246 New ZealalldHerald, 20 February 1894, L&S 6091148, BAAZ 11091 1664C. 247 Robinson to Mueller, 3 March 1894, L& S 6091 149, BAAZ 11091 1664C. (see sketch enclosed in Record ofDoeuments). 24, Mueller 10 Kensington, 2 July 1894, L& S 6091 64, BAAZ 1109/ 1664C. 249 JA Tole toRJ Seddon, 27 July 1894, MA 13/45, part 2. 43

threat may have been orchestrated to prompt a higher offer. What it did however was provoke Tole to describe Tenetahi's stance as 'wanton barbarism' and propose more forceful measures to complete the acquisition ofHauturu.

As this may be a threat (told purposely to me) to force the hand oflhe Government to increase the price of the remaining shares, you might think it advisable to take other measures such as to compulsorily take Tenetahl and his friends shares under similar provisions to those of the Public Works Act, giving them compensation at the sale of the amount per share already paid by the Government. 25tl

Tenetahi's continued refusal to accept the Crown offer of three thousand pounds combined with the Government's sense of powerlessness and fears that Tenetahi might damage the flora and fauna, pushed the Government away from seeking conciliation. Rather than entertain the alternative course of partition such as suggested by the Native Affairs Committee, the Government felt threatened and acted to forcibly remove Tenetahi and his family from Hauturu. As hinted at by Tole (above), Crown officials decided to implement legislation to compulsorily acquire the remaining owners' shares.

''''Ibid. 44

SECTION 3: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION

The introduction of special legislation to compulsorily acquire all remalmng owners' shares marked a decisive shift in the history of the alienation ofHauturu.

Little Bal'rier Island Purchase Bill On 8 October 1894, the Minister of Lands, John McKenzie introduced the Little 25 Barrier Island Purchase Bill to the House of Representatives ( Little comment was made during the first reading. However, on the second reading certain members, most notably Hone Heke Rankin, MP for Northern Maori raised objections. The Lower House of Parliament then forwarded the Bill to the Native Affairs Committee for consideration and possible amendment. After a limited perusal, the Committee recommended one alteration. Section three of McKenzie's bill had initially proposed to grant both Rahui Te Kifi and Ngapcka 100 pounds each as their respective shares of the purchase.252 A revised version of the Bill, dated 17 October 1894, deleted the predetermined amounts for Ngapeka's and Rahui Te Kiri's share and substituted under Section three: 'such sum as may be assessed in mamlef provided by section 14 of Public Works Amendment Act 1887, and by section 16 of the Public Works Amendment Act 1889'.'"

Despite the change, Heke and other ministers continued to voice criticisms during the parliamentary debates of the BilL 'The intention of the Act is to take away the interests of the Natives whether they liked the price offered to them or not"" In answer, the Minister of Lands returned to Tenetahi's earlier acceptance of the 1891 agreement as evidence that Tenetahi was simply looking for a means to raise the price. McKenzie also reawakened the spectre (imagined or otherwise) that Tenetahi would burn the bush. Seddon concurred and portrayed Tenetahi's motive as 'simply a question of trying to levy blackmail'. 255

Seddon's arch political opponent, Robert Stout, took a more informed view as he sought to make members aware of Tenetahi's outstanding legal debts, accrued from the lengthy litigation in the Native Land Court. Stout urged a compromise whereby the Government might proceed with the purchase, but reimburse Tenetahi for the expenses encumbered. Ministers in both houses debated thc issue. Pharazyn proposed an amendment to the Act. While other ministers doubted the veracity of Tenetahi's claims. 256 Ultimately, McKenzie, as Minister of Lands, agreed to appoint a Stipendiary magistrate to investigate Tenetahi's legal debts.257

2ll JMcKenzie, 8 October 1894, NZPD 1894, p. 577. 212 Little Barrier Island Purchase Bill, 17 October 1894, no. 165/1, !l.1A 13/45 ,part 2 '53 Little Barrier Island Purchase Bill, 17 October 1894, no. 165/2, MA 13/ 45, part 2. 254 Hone HekeRllnkin, NZPD, 18 October 1893, p. 893. m RJ Seddon, NZPD, 18 October 1893, p. 893. 216 Williams questioned how Tenetahi obtained the debt of £750 'It appeared that £180 was paid to Mr Tole, I\lld £100 to ex-Judge Fenton, but how the rest was spent was not stated.' Williams, 22 October 1894, NZPD, 1894, p. 1024. 2>1 Allen, 19 October 1894, NZPD, 1894, p. 936. In the upper house, Buckley alluded to a letter he had received from the Minister of Lands stating that: 'the Government would appoint the Stipendiary Magistrate to ascertain what Tenetahi had paid in costs, and this amount would be refunded to him'. Buckley, 22 October 1394, NZPD, 1894, p. 1024. 45

Private Bill Heke also questioned the legal status of the Bill and sought a point of order contending that the Little Barrier Island Purchase Bill was a private Bill and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament. The Speaker of the House, however, responded that the system of Private Bill legislation did not apply to Maori, 'as their lands are held under "special tenure" already guarded by the Crown>258 Notably, another member, Bell, proposed that the Parliamentary Standing orders 'ought to be amended so as give the Maoris the same protection as the Europeans had,.259

Yet the following day, when the Bill shifted to the Legislative Council, members further questioned the status of the Bill. One member, Pharazyn, argued that as Hauturu had passed through the Native Land Court and was held in respect of the Native Transfer Act 1877, it was therefore, he contended: 'quite as much private land as any other private land. ,260 He also quoted the relevant standing order, number 350 as stating:

Private Bills shall be understood to be Bills which are promoted for the private interest of individuals or companies, Of which by their provisions, directly interfere with the private property o f m· d"d IV) ua Is. 261

Pharazyn then sought a ruling over whether Maori lands were considered as private lands and therefore exempt from specific Acts of Parliament. The Speaker declared that the Native Affairs Committee had already allowed the Bill to proceed, and that the Bill dealt with land for public purposes. 'The island was required for public purposes, as a reserve for birds in times of peace, and for defence purposes in time of fighting. It was not to be disposed of by sale or otherwise for settlement purposes.'262 Interestingly, another member of the Legislative Council criticised the Native Affairs Committee for rattling through bills with undue haste and 'without proper regard',26]

A Pakeha member of the Legislative Council, W Downie Stewart, opposed the Bill as he believed it contravened the Treaty ofWaitangi.

The Goverrullent was taking the land in spite of the protests ofthose natives who did not wish to sell. He could not help thinking that Ihis was directly contrary to all principles of legislation, and was also contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of Wailangi, which conferred on the Natives the exclusive right to their property, leaving to the Government simply the right ofpre--emption.'54

Stewart however, in contrast with Heke, believed that if the Government could guarantee a 'fair price' to the owners then the acquisition might proceed.

Buried in the Bill was an ambiguity as to whether the acquisition of Hauturu represented a sale purchase from the owners or a compulsory acquisition, In actuality, it

258 Speaker ofthe House ofRepresentruives, 19 October 1894, NZPD, 1894, p. 936. 25. Bell, 19 October, NZPD, 1894, p. 936. 260 Pharazyn, 20 October 1894, NZPD, 1894, p. 975. 2" Pharazyn, 20 OClober 1894, NZPD, 1894, pp. 973·4. '.2 The Speaker of Legislative Council, 20 October 1894, NZPD, 1894, p. 974. Also, Pharazyn, 20 October 1894, NZPD, 1894, p. 975. 263 McLean, 22 October 1894, NZPD, p. 1024. '61 W Downie Stewart, 20 October 1894, NZPD, 1894 p. 974. 46

represented both. However, it is an .important issue, as many Government representatives justified the Crown's approach as a compulsory acquisition, which treated Maori and Pakeha owners identically (under article three of the Treaty)265 Yet the ambiguity and indeed the paradox remained. The Maori owners had up until the time of the Bill openly negotiated with the Native Land Purchase Department officials for an agreed sale priee, but in the Bill, the former price had been transmuted into compensation. Moreover, the Government dictated the level of compensation for those who had not already signed the deed. This was then quickly altered in the Native Affairs Committee (see above) to appear more consistent with a compensation hearing.266

The majority of I-fuuturu owners had previously agreed to the sale and received payment The Bill impacted directly on only those owners who had not signcd the deed. In addition, however, the Bill fallaciously included Tenetahi, Kino Reweti and Wi Taiawa as already having assented to the acquisition under the 1891 agreement.267 Pharazyn reminded the Legislative Council that the 189] agreement no longer applied, and that particular recitals in the Bill were, 'either inaccurate or inadcquate'? Yet, perversely, in spite of evidence to the contrary, the Bill proceeded unchanged with reference to the 189] agreement in the preface of the Bill and the eventual Act. This deliberate adherence to an abrogated agreement, constituted a further breach of faith.

Terms of the Act 269 The Bill passed into law on 24 October 1894. The Preamble of the Act sets out a false understanding of the arrangements reached prior to the introduction of the Act. It refers to the extant 1891 agreement as evidence that Tenetahi, Rahui Te Kiri and Paratene Te Manu all agreed to dispose of the island. The next paragraph again mentions Tenetahi's name as having executed a deed of conveyance to the Government. The Act then mentioned that Tenetahi, Kino Reweti and Wi Taiawa had not received any payment for signing the agreement, without mentioning any of the terms of the 1891 agreement. .Perhaps the most flagrant misrepresentation occurred as the Preamble sought to reconcile Rahui Kiri's and Ngapeka's opposition to the sale for £3000. Here, in a highly dubious piece oflaw-making, the Act stated that although Rahui Te Kiri and Ngapeka had not signed the deed, 'according to Native custom and usages they are bound by the terms of the document dated first day of July, one thousand eight hundred .. .. and ninety_one,27o '.

2.' 'Natives were only being treated in the same way as Europeans in their land being taken for public purposes.' Sir G.S. Whitmore, 20 October 1894, NZPD, 1894, p. 974. Another member similarly commented: 'this bill only carried a little further a principle to which the Council had made itself a party­ namely, the compulsory acquisition ofland- and this Bill only extended that principle to Natives.' Oliver, 20 October 1894, NZPD, 1894, p. 974. 2'" See Downie-Stewart's criticisms of the system of detenninlng the payment. W Downie-Stewrut, Little Barrler Purchase Bill, 20 October 1894, NZPD, 1894, p. 974. 2M2 Fenton, ever more anxious for his outstanding fees, sent ""pies of the 1891 agreement, which he bad helped to broker, to the Native Minister just prior to the Bill's admission. It was Fenton's letter and the attached documents which were brandished before the Council as proof that Tenetahi had in fact greviously consented to the sale ofHaulum. Fenton to Native Minister, 3 April 1894, MA 13145, part 2. "Pharazyn, 22 October 1894, NZPD, 1894, p. 1022. ''''' Refer 10 Document bank. 270 The Little Barrier Island Purchase Act 1894. 47

The Act empowered the Government to determine and allocate the shares of those who had agree to sell, but had not received any share of the payment, together with those who had not assented to the agreement at all. Section two directed the Minister of Lands to pay the proportionate shares of Tenetahi (£300), Kino Reweti (£200), and Wi Taiawa(£IOO) direct to the Public Trustee. 'The same shall be a full and sufficient discharge and release to Her said Majesty as to the resfective interests of the said Tenetahi, Kino Reweti, and Wi Taiawa in the said island.' 71 Manifest in this section is the fallacious assertion that by signing the 1891 agreement, Tenetahi, Reweti and Wi Taiawa had all agreed to the latter deed of sale. Aside from Tenetahi, it is difficult to know how significant the misrepresentation was. In the absence of recorded protest from Wi Taiawa and Reweti, we do not know whether they were in opposition to, or in support of, the sale. Though, the fact remains that they never legally signed away their interests in Hauturu. Like Tenetahi, their shares were compulsorily acquired by the Crown and payment directed to the Public Trustee.

Section three concerned Rahui Te Kiri and her daughter, Ngapeka, neither of whom had previously signed any agreement or undertaking to sell. The Act made provision for the determination of their interests in the land under section 14 of the Public Works Amendment Act 1887.272 Again, the value of their shares, once determined, was to be paid to the Public Trustee. All moneys held by the Public Trustee were invested, but would be returned to respective Maori individuals upon application. 273

Immediately following the passage of the Act, John McKenzie wrote to the Ministers of the Native and Justice Departments and requested arrangements for a Native tand Court hearing to determine the interests of Rahui Te Kiri and Ngapeka. McKenzie also reaffirmed the pledge, made during the discussion of the Little Barrier Purchase Act 1894, to investigate Tenetahi's outstanding debts. He instructed that Stipendiary magistrate, W Northcroft, to conduct a non-statutory enquiry to ascertain Tenetahi's 'reasonable expenses' in establishing a title to the island, 'for which the Government is fairy liable under the pledge,.274

Determination of shllres to be paid By changing the basis upon whieh the owners' interests were paid, the Government made some unlikely concessions. Sheridan noted to the Chief Surveyor that although 'the price for other shares in Hauturu was slightly more than 8 shillings and 7 pence per acre, a promise was made that if shares were assessed at less than the fixed price no alteration would be made i.e come what will, Rahui and Ngapeka will be paid at least at above rate,.275 In the case of Rahui and Ngapeka's shares, the Crown acted to ensure an adjusted amount was delivered. No such deliberate assistance fell to the other three owners directly mentioned in the Act.

'!7l Section 2, Little Barrier Island Purchase Act 1894. 27Z Section 3, Little Barrier Island Purchase Act 1894. 273 Section 5, Little Barrier Island Purchase Act 1894. Z74McKenzieto Native Minister, 26 Nov 1894, L& S 609/651, BAAZ 1l09/15lB. m P Sheridan to Chief Surveyor, 3 December 1894, BAAZ II 091 15lB. 48

Tenetahi, Kino Roweti and Wi Taiawa, whose assent was transfered from the earlier 1891 agreement, were held by the terms of the defunct agreement to the amount agreed back in 1891. So while it can be seen that the Crown sought to act charitably toward some owners in the compulsory acquisition- the charity was inconsistent- and in the case of Tenetahi, the Government took no chances. Public Trustee, JK Warburton, recorded the receipt of the proportionate shares of Tenetahi, Kino Reweti, Wi Taiawa amounting to 600 pounds from the Minister of LandsY6 The amounts paid for each of the three shares were based directly on Stiirnler's detennination of relative interests in 1892. Hence, Tenetahi received three hundred pounds, one tenth of the total payment. Wi Taiawa received 100 pounds, one thirtieth of the total. Kino Reweli was due to receive 150 pounds, one twentieth of the total. However an error in section two of the Little Barrier Purchase Act authorised a payment of 200 pounds, and it was this larger amount that was legally paid to the Public Trustee on behalf of Kino Reweti. m

StUrmer's 1892 determination of all relative shares in Hauturu left Rahui Te Kiri and her daughter, Ngapeka, each with one-thirtieth shares.27& Based on these calculations, ilie two owners would have received one hundred pounds eaeh. Furthermore, this was the amount included in the first draft of the Little Barrier Purchase Bill before it was modified by the Native Affairs Committee to make the Bill more consistent with the requirements ofPublic Works legislation.

NOl'thcroft's hearing The Minister of Public Works applied to the Native Land Court for the determination of Ngapeka and Rahui Te Kiri's shares. 279 Rahui Te Kiri's counsel, McVeagh, initially had the hearing adjourned until 4 February 1895. At ilie hearing, Rahui 'Ie Kiri presented evidence. Though the hearing was set down to determine the two shares of Rahui 'Ie Kiri and her daughter Ngapeka, Rahui emphatically stated that there were' five shares unbought and they are worth £8000' ?80 Despite the eompulsory nature of the acquisition, her message was defiant. Rahui Te Kiri objected to the previous sale price and instead proposed that the Government price should take into account the value of the Kauri timber. She also insisted that the Government recognise iliat they did not possess the agreement of ilie three fonner signatories to the 1891 agreement. When questioned, Rahui Te Kid outlined the extent of their property and '., " estate on Hauturu. She declared that she possessed a flock of 1000 sheep and 30 head of cattle. The Crown also enquired as to whether she held land interests elsewhere. Te Kid replied that she possessed land and cultivations at Omaha and Pakiri. 281

The hearing was notable for the breadth of \vitnesses who presented evidence. In particular, a number of \vitnesses contributed detailed information relating to the

276 JK Warburton, 29 November 1894, Annotated Receipt for 600 pounds, Hauturul Little Barrier Island Deed of Purchase, Auckland Deed No. 1883, LINZ, Wellington. 277 Registrar, Native Land Purchase Department internal paper, 1 April 1895, NLP 951 154, MA 13/45, fart 1. 78 Judge Von StUnner, Court order, 28 May [892, MLC, 533K 91 279 RJ Seddon to NLC, 6 December 1894, MLC 533K 91J The notice of the Court hearing was published in Maori and English on 28 December 1894. Native Land Court Hearing Notice, 28 December 1894, MLC 533K 91, and MA 13/45, part 1. 200 Rahui Te Kiri, 4 February 1895, Auckland Minute Book 06, p. 104. ,.1 Ibid. p. 104. 49

valuation of Kauri timber on Hauturu, including Simon Welton Browne. Tenetahi also testified that he had originally agreed to sell

Northcroft's valuation Some of Stipendiary Ma~strate Northcroft's notes and calculations from the hearing seem to have survived. 4 In order to quantifY the specific value of Rahui Te Kiri and Ngapeka's interests in Hauturu, the Magistrate appears to have first established the total value of Hauturu (unimproved land value, resources, improvements, and depreciation) then applied the relative interests determined by Von StUrmer.

The unimproved land value was based against priees paid elsewhere for land for settlement purposes and specifically land purchased at Great Barrier Island. Northcroft valued 300 acres at one pound per acre; 2000 aeres at seven shillings and six penee per acre, and 4700 acres, two thirds of the total land area at a low two shillings and six pence per acre. As a result, Northcroft derived a substantially reduced unimproved value of one thousand seven hundred and forty pounds.

For the first time, the Magistrate undertook to include the value of the Kauri timber in the valuation of Hauturu. From a variety of different estimates provided during the hearing, Northeroft deduced eight million square feet of timber existed, half of which was cost efficient to extract. Then, inexplicably, Northcroft referred to the timber agreement between Welton Browne and Tenetahi, by which Tcnetahi was guaranteed only one thousand pounds of value, Tenetahi had already received 200 pounds, and Northcroft subtracted that amount,285 Northcroft calculated the remaining balance of 800 pounds be added to the land value. For all the detail, the Magistrate's approach revealed startling inconsistencies. First, the Crown had until Northeroft's hearing refused to ine1ude the value of the timber in the island's valuation. Secondly, the Crown had continued to deny the legality of the timber agreement, yet Northcroft then deferred to it as one of the points upon which he determined the timber value on the island,

Northcroft calculated the value of the building improvements was worth two hundred pounds and a further two hundred and sixty pounds for the plantations, By adding the four figures: 1700 + 800 + 200 +260, we arrive at almost exactly the same sale price as agreed by the Crown of three thousand pounds, However, Northcroft removed a further 100 pounds from the total value and stated that the difference between the final figure (£2900) and the former amount already paid to the other owners (£3000) was a 'loss sustained by Rahui and Ngapeka>286 Furthermore, he recalculated the value of timber and land without improvements as two thousand four hundred and

2112 Tenetahi, 4 February 1895, Auckland hIinute Book 06, p, 107. m Tenetahi, 4 February 1895, Auckland Minute Book 06, p, 107, "4 Northcroft's notes and calculations, (undated) BAAZ 1109/ 15113, p, L 28l Northcraft, 4 February 1895, Auckland Minute Book 06, p. tiL 286 Northcraft's notes and calculations, (undated) BAAZ 11 09/ 15113, p,1. 50

six pounds, thirteen shillings and four pence, and commented to the effect that the 'Government paid 600 pounds more than its value if it had been acquired for settlement purposes' .'"

Despite Northcroft's almost perfect concordance with the original purchase price, we must remember that the Government's original valuation did not include a timber value, and therefore, Northcrolt's calculations, disregarding the timber value, represented a significant diminution of the land value and a case of price engineering. Indeed we can compare Northcroft's unimproved land calculations witb figures provided in contemporary Government lists of 'Lands partially acquired' and publisbed in the AJHR for 1893-4. Hauturu is listed in both schedules. In 1893, the value of Hauturu land purchased amounted to eight shillings six pence per acre, among the upper quartile of prices listed. It appears equally generous in 1894. By contrast, Northcroft's lmimproved value of two shillings six pence per acre was close to the lowest amount, being second only to the Rangipo desert (two shillings per acre)?88

In the final analysis, Northcroft's broad consideration of the base and improved value of the land meant tbat the two owners received more than the previous signatories. However in commuting the value of improvements Northcroft decided that 'as the Natives objected to divide the shares (five they say) we have divided the £292.10 [the calculated value of the improvements] by the five shares, making £58.10 each.'289 This decision seems, in hindsight, both extraordinary and fraudulent. While fifty eight pounds ten shillings was added to each of Rahui Te Kin and Ngapeka's individual shares, the remaining three shares each worth 58 pounds ten shillings were never paid to Maori and instead pocketed by the Crown290 Rahui Te Kiri and Ngapeka's shares were paid together as one sum, three hundred and seventeen pounds, into the Public Trustee who signed a deed of trust. 291

Tenetahi's expenses Although McKenzie had already requested Northcroft to investigate Tenetahi's claims of legal expenses, the issue was not considered at the same time as the Native Land Court determination of Rahui Te Kiri and Ngapeka's shares. Furthermore, no attempts were made to enquire into the legal debts before orders were sent requesting all occupants to leave the island.

Maori continued to occupy Hautum Rahui Te Kiri, Tenetahi and their f.tmily remained in oceupation of the island after the Court hearing and did not uplift the money paid on their part into the Public Trustee. In April 1895, the Government learnt that Rahui Te Kiri had for the second

'117 Northcroft's notes and calculations, (undated) BAAZ 1109/151B, p.l. , .. The Rangipo Desert is a barren area of central North Island in the vicinity of the Desert Road, it is presumed the land was acquired fur the completion of the Main Trunk Line railway. Refer: 'Return of Lands Purchased and Leased from Natives in North Island', G·4, p. 3, AJHR 1893 and G·3, pA, AJHR 1894. "'J Northcroft, 4 February 1895, Auckland Minute Book 06, p. III. '9/] See, for example the three shares of the value of the improvements were not paid to Tenetahi, Kino Reweti and Wi Taiawa. Sheridan to Public Trustee, 28 November 1894, L&S 94/226, MA 13/45, part 1 19l Public Trustee, Deed ofTmst, I May 1895, MA 13/45, part 1. 51

time attempted to set fire to areas of bush,292 The Commissioner of Crown Lands sent Tenetahi an immediate letter of warning,29l However, the Government's warning was quickly followed by fhrther news from a Mr Clarke, resident of Omaha, who reported that a large party of Maori from the environs had visited Hauturu and shot 60 kereru. 29,. Interestingly, a simultaneous debate raged over the imposition of restrictions on the access to kereru, And although there were no legal restrictions in place at the time of the above action, by the end of 1895 Parliament had passed the first piece of legislation imposing stringent restrictions to protect kereru295 Nevertheless, Mueller immediately contacted the Surveyor General requesting urgent action to 'prevent further depredations:296 Following this chain of events, Government officials drafted notices for eviction.

292 Robinson to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 30 March 1895, BAAZ 1109/ 151B, 29l Commissioner of Crown Lands to Tenetahi, 8 April 1895, L& S 4411/ 12, BAAZ 1109/ ISlE, , •• Clarke to Commissioner of Crown Lands, II April 1895, BAAZ 1109/ ISlE, 29} Animal Protection Acts Amendment Act 1895, For further information, refer to lim Feldman, 'Treaty Rights and Pigeon Poaching: Alienalion of Maori Access to Kereru', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal January 1998 (Wai 262 record of documents, doc B 8), pp, 23-36. 2% Mueller to Surveyor General, 15 May 1895, BAAZ 1109/ 1518. 52

SECTION 4: GOVERNMENT REMOVAL OF RESIDENTS FROM HAUTURU

On 17 June 1895, the Government issued the first notice requesting the removal of all persons from Hauturu. It ordered all inhabitants to quit Hauturu before 31 July 1895, under threat of prosecution for trespass. 297 Tenetahi and Rahui Te Kid continued to disregard the \witten notices and consequently the Crown served them with a summons for trespass. The Conunissioner of Crown Lands, Mueller, visited Hauturu on 26 June accompanied by police and an interpreter in order to explain situation. He later reported that there were between sixteen and twenty inhabitants resident on the island298 It appears that Mueller attempted to explain that the island belonged to the Crown, and he urged that Tenetahi, Rahui Te Kiri and their daughter collect the sums deposited with the Public Trustee.

Muell er recorded Tenetahi' s reply:

First, I refuse to leave the island because I do not consider that the purchase is a proper purchase. Second, neither myself nor my wife have sold our shares··-I do not recognise the sale which has been effected. Third, my reply regarding the preservation of the birds on the island is that they are all mine and I have always preserved them to the present time and have therefore never allowed bees to be introduced which would have exterminated them. 299

Tenetahi continued to protest the propriety of the Goverument's actions. At the meeting, Mueller attempted to palliate the reality of the acquisition, by referring to it definitively as a compulsory acquisition- and that Maori received the same treatment as Pakeha.

I took the greatest pains to make them understand the provisions of the Little Barrier Island Purchase Act 1894 shewing how that Act is on a par with the Public Works Act under which the Government can acquire land for roads or railways or any other public purposes through the lands of Europeans in a similar manne.iJ although these Europeans may oppose in every possible way and refuse to give their consent. 3

The marked shift in the Govennnenf s approach to the acquisition of Bautum, from consensual sale to compulsory acquisition, is plainly evident in Mueller's explanation.

Trespass IJroceedings In the face of Tenetahi's intransigent opposition, the Government initiated trespass proceedings. On 23 October 1895, HW Northcroft presided over the case in the Magistrates' Court. Only Tenetahi, Rahu! Te Kid and Ngapeka attended, the other owners do not appear to have been present. The Magistrate agreed to Tenetahi's request for an adjoununent. Northcroft then commented that the Crown and not Tenetahi had breached the original 1891 agreement. He also raised the possible need for a

297 Nolice of Removal, Land and Survey Department, in Mueller to Smith, 11 June 1895, BAAZ 11091 15lE. 298 Mueller to Surveyor General, 29 June 1895,1.& S 4411/29, p. 1., BAAZ 11091 15lE. 299 ibid. 300 Mueller to Surveyor General, 29 June 1895, L& S 441]J 29, p. 2., BAAZ l109/ISIB. 53

parliamentary inquiry as, 'nothing was taken into consideration but the actual market value ofthe land. ,301

Northcroft's comments, reported in the New Zealand Herald, provoked Crown Solicitor Tole to write to the Magistrate during the adjournment and argue Northcroft's understanding?02 Tole attempted to persuade Northcroft that the Crown's right over the island had been made clear: 'the Crown represented by the Commissioner of Crown lands for the time being, in open court, notified the Crown's right over the Island for strategic and other purposes and probably a proclamation was issued at the time or previously.,303 Yet, Tole was well aware of the weakness of the Crown's position and the absence at the time of effective proclamations. And in trying to convince the Magistrate, Tole blurred the issues.

The Adjourned case 28 October 1895 Wben the case recommenced five days later, the Crown sougbt an immediate adjournment and proposed the Supreme Court as a preferable forum, to which they had already made application. Northcroft eventually ordered that the defendants remove from Hauturu by JO December 1895304 Moreover, the Magistrate sought to apologise to the Crown. He emphasised that had not meant to criticise the Crov.TI, but simply to highlight that the original agreement had been broken in respect of the manner by which the money was paid. 'All through there had been no question that Tcnetahi had a!,Tfeed to sell, or that the natives had developed a taihoa policy'. 305 Northcroft then attempted to draw a flimsy distinction between the Crown and the agents of the Crown. 'The only agreement broken was the original one- and that only when it was found it would be ilIegal- and it was not actually the Government who had broken it, but the officers who were entrusted with the purchase. ,306

The Government reacted angrily. The Native Department noted that in the judgement, 'Northcroft carefully omits all reference to the instructions he holds and has held since February last to inquire into Tenetahi' s expenses in order that they may be paid by the Government. ,307 McKenzie and other Liberal Ministers immediately sought an explanation from Northcroft. In a long reply, Northcroft revealed that he had attempted to elicit from Tenetahi a statement of his legal expenses, 'so that Government might pay what was fair and reasonable', but that Tenetahi had not responded.30s This fact, Northcroft insisted, he had annolll1ced to all assembled at the second hearing, together with the accusation that it was 'Tenetahi's fault and not the fault of the Government that he had not been paid these expenses long ago. ,309 He then laid blame at the feet of the media who in their reports had omitted to mention the issues, and quoted the Magistrate out of context.

30] New Zealand Herald, 24 October 1895, MA 131 45, part 1. 301 JA Tole to Northcroft, 24 October 1895, MA 13/45, part L 303 JA Toloto Northcroft, 24 October 1895, p. 3, MA 131 45, part 1 ,., Auckland Star, I3 November 1895, BAAZ 11091 151B. Also, Commissioner of Crown Lands to Robinson, 14 November 1895, BAAZ 11091 151B. 305 NZHemld, Tuesday 29 October 1895, NLP 95/438, MA 13/45, part. 1. , .. Ibid. 3.7 Sheridan to Minister of Lands, McKenzie, 4 November 1895, NLP 95/438, MA 13/45, part.1. 3.. Northcroft to Undersecretary oOustice, 20 November 1895, NLP 95/438, p. 5, MA 13/45, part. I. 3il9 I bid. p.9. 54

There were signs that not all Maori owners were well informed of the Government's actions. Kino Rewiti complained to the Native Office in August 1895 about the diminished allocation shc and her son had received through the 1892 Land Court judgement and that she not yet received the sum. Reweti further requested that she and her son should receive a combined total of IYz shares instead of I share (1IlO'h). 'E mohio ana koutou rna te moni e patu nga mea kino katoa e whakamarie ano hoki,.llo The Department noted that due to a clerical error her share had been increased by fifty pounds more than that to which she had been entitled under the Land Court's determination. This is verified by the Public Trustee's receipt of the money dated 29 November 1894. The Department also replied to Reweti informing her that the money was held in the Public Trustee and was available on demand.3lt

310 Kino Rewet; to Maxwell, Government Land Purchase Officer, 1896, MA 13/ 45, part. L The Department translated this as: 'You are aware that money will do away with all evil things and restore feace and kindly feeling.' 11 Sheridan, 22 August 1896, File note, MA 13/45, part. L 55

SECTION 5: CONTINUED ATTEMPTS TO SECURE RECOMPENSE

Tenetahi published a long letter of protest in reaction to the expulsion deeision. He began by descrbng how he had been denied an opportunity to state his opposition; for example, the Supreme court proceedings were not open to his participation. Tenetahi then recounted how Native Land Court litigation had burdened him with financial debt.

It will be easy to understand that in travelJing, attending courts, providing food and lodging for myself and people in Auckland and Helensville, I incurred great expense. My lawyers' bills alone amounted to quite 500 pounds, and I reckon that a thousand pounds would not cover my total ,312 outI ay one way or anot her ...

Tenetahi also reiterated that he had signed the 1891 agreement, on the proviso that he 'had the opportunity of stopping out of the shares of the purchase money belonging to the other owners their contributions to the expense of securing the title.' He criticised StUnner's 1892 detennination of Rahui Te Kiri's share as one thirtieth. He then questioned how Te Kid and her daughter might be deprived of their shares by being 'bound by native eustom' to the 1891 document that Tenetahi and his son (Wi Taiawa) had signed conditionally. 'There is no sucb native custom.' Tenetahi invoked article two oftbe Treaty ofWaitangi: 'in return for the cession of sovereignty over the lands of the colony, Her Majesty "confinns and guarantees" to all Maoris the "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands" so long as they desire to retain the same:313 He closed his appeal by stating that he wonld not resist when the bailiffs arrived to remove him.

The Crown Solicitor advised the Commissioner of Crown Lands that in response to Tenetahi's letter, it would be necessary to arrange for a force of police to accompany the bailiff. Amazingly, McAllister then proposed that the cost of the expedition to expel Tenetahi and his family be char~ed against the money held by the Public Trustee on behalf ofTenetahi and the others. 14 He included a short list of costs to deduct:

Summons £214/0 Hearing fee £0/3/0 Maori translation first copy £1/12/6 Maori translation checking other copies £0/81 4 Stearner one day only £8/5/0 Soldiers for all days £4/4/0

Total £16/16/10

On 12 December 1895, Robinson compiled a list of people still resident on Hauturu, including Maori, Pakeha and Kanaka. The list was then sworn as an

312 Tenetahi, 'Letter to the Editor', New Zealand Herald, 20 November 1895 (dated 18 November), BAAZ 1I091 JSIB. 313 Ibid. 314 McAllister to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 22 November 1895, BAAZ 11091 151B. See also Commissioner of Crown Lands to Surveyor General, 23 November 1895, BAAZ 11091 15lB. 56

affadavit.l!5 The Court provided Maori with time to remove effects. On 20 January 1896, a Bailiff and soldiers took formal possession of Hauturu, and removed the remaining inhabitants, including Tenetahi and his family. No record of the even! survives on the file. However, a newspaper account recorded that all left the island expect Robinson who remained with three soldiers316 None of Tenetahi and Rahui Te Kiri's cattle were removed. Subsequently, during early 1896, Tenetahi and Iris family returned to Hauturu at certain times to remove remaining possessions. The manner and frequency of their returns to the island continued to antagonise Crown officials.317

The Crown Solicitor complained in early 1896 of a failed attempt to prosecute three Maori who continued to return to Hauturu, though the names were not mentioned.318 On I April, the Government agreed to allow Tenetahi a further six weeks to remove bis remaining livestock from Hauturu. The livestock amounted to: 15 catlie, 70 sheep, 10 pigs, 50 turkeys, potatoes and kumara.319 The Goverrunent sent two soldiers 'to prevent mischief being done on the island either by Europeans or Maori'. In mid-July, Mueller reported that Tenetahi had not removed any livestock, and some people had returned to tend the animals. no The Government immediately published a tender for the auction of all remaining livestock to the highest bidder, a translated cof,y 321 of which was sent to Tenetahi. Tenetahi responded that he had removed his stock. 22 However, a week later, the Goverrunent warned Tenctahi not to interfere with the highest bidder who was to remove the remaining stock.323 Finally on 5 October 1896, after Tenetahi had made a series of shuttle visits to hurriedly remove as many of the livestock as he could, the contractor removed the remainder. It emerged however that in the process Tenetahi had also removed the Government's house erected as the rangers residence?24

In early 1897, after some discussion the Government shifted responsibility for the management of Hauturu from the Lands and Survey Department to the Auckland Institute. Although, the Government continued to pay for the management overseen by the Auckland Institute. Chairman of the Institute, Thomas Cheeseman, outlined the principles of the agreement:

Firstly, the island is to be maintained solely as a reserve for the preservation of the fauna of New Zealand, Secondly, the Government to make an annual grant of 200 pounds to cover the expenses of management. Thirdly, the Institute appoint a resident caretaker at a salary of ISO p6unds per

315 Sworn Affadavit of Charles Robinson, 12 December 1895, BAAZ 1109/ 151B. '" Auckland Star, 21 February 1896, BAAZ l109/151B. 317 Robinson to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 18 February 1896, BAAZ 11091 15IB. By this time, Robinson had in fact been sacked due largely to accusations over the deliberate killing and sale of the rare stitch birds. Though, it is difficult to verify the basis of the allegations. 3l& JA Tole to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 27 March 1896, BAAZ 1109/151B. ". Komihano 0 nga whenua Kawano kia Tenetahi, 9 Aperira 1896. Also, Commissioner of Crown Lands to Surveyor GenemI, 1 April 1896, BAAZ 11091 15IB, 320 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Surveyor Geneml, II July 1896, BAAZ 1109/151B. 311 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Tenetahi, 'Tender for livestock on Hauturu'(undated), BAAZ 1109/ 15IB. 322 Tenetahi to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 16 September 1896, BAAZ 1109/15IB, 323 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Tenetah!, 25 September 1895, BAAZ lI09/15IB, 324 T Cheesemalt (Auckland fnstitute) to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 4 January 1897, p.l, BAAZ 1I09/15IB. 57

year. Fourthly, the Maoris residing on the island to be removed forthwith by the Government, experience having shown that the constant communication which they kept up with the mainland facilitated the visits of colleetors.'"

The caretaker, RH Shakespear, caught two Swedish gum diggers on Haulum Commissioner of Crown Lands held the authority to prohihit trespassing under Section 26 of the Public Reserves Act. Though it is not kno\','11 whether the two in question were in fact prosecuted.

There are few remaining records between 1897 and 1900. One year after his appointment as Native Minister, James Carroll requested an investigation into the Hauturu acquisition. 326 The Under secretary, F Waldergrave, informed Tenetahi that his share of the purchase money 300 pounds remained in the Public Trustee. Waldergrave also reminded Tenetahi that a Magistrate had heen authorised in 1894 to investigate his (Tenetahi's) legal expenses but that Tenetahi had not yet presented any claim. Further, 'I suggested to him that he should now render a statement of the expenses incurred, which would be duly considered by the Government. ,327

A subsequent examination of the Public Trustee's accounts revealed that the amounts owing to Rahui Te Kifi and Ngapeka remained one hundred and fifty-eight pounds and ten shillings each. Tenetahi's account, however, had shrunk to two hundred and thirty four pounds, twelve shillings from the original payment of three hundred pounds. No apparent explanation was given, and the Under secretary of Justice expressed extreme surprise?28 He had already informed Tcnetahi that 300 pounds remained. Without further documents, it is ditlicult to definitively state that certain Government otlicials had appropriated money to pay for the eosts of eviction, as earlier proposed. Yet, in the absenee of other apparent explanations it remains the most plausible. The Public Trustee, JW Poynton, reported that Kino Reweti and Wi Taiawa (Tenetahi's son) had withdrawn their funds from the TruSt.329

Unaware of this diminution, Tenetahi forwarded an extensive list of grievances and expenses, in response to the Government's request.330 The total amounted to two thousand four hlmdred and ninety six pounds. Tenetahi also recorded that he had been deported from the island at the time of the timber disputes and imprisoned in Auckland, it appears on two separate occasions. Surprisingly, this event is not mentioned anywhere else in any of the files I consulted, though there is little reason to doubt Tenetahi's claim. Native Under secretary Sheridan noted that Tenetahi's claim was 'altogether too absurd for serious consideration'. Instead he proposed that a 'sum of two hundred pounds would I should say be a very generous offer. ,331

ns T Cheeseman to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 8 July 1897, BAAZ 11091 15IB. 32. Minister of Native Affairs to Under-seeretary Waldergrave, 20 October 1900; and Under-secretary of Native Affairs to Sheridan, 20 October 1900, MA 13/45, part. 1. 327 F Wa1dergrave to Native Minister, 20 October 1900, MA 131 45, part. I. "8 JW Poynton to Undersecretary of Justice, 25 October 1900, MA 13/45, part. 1. j29 ibid. no Refer to Docwnent bank. '" P Sheridan, 27 February 1901, Internal paper, NLP 1901/14, MA 13/45, part 1. 58

The Government however, did not proceed with the matter. Tenetahi renewed his complaint to Native Minister Carroll about certain animals he claimed he had not had an opportunity to remove and requested Government reimbursement,132 1be caretaker, Shakespear reported that he notified Tenetahi ofthe animals that remained on the island, but that no attempt was made to recover them. Shakespear further reported that after some delay he removed the four largest animals. At Rahui Te Kid's request the caretaker shot most of the turkeys and handed them over to her. 'Tenetahi made no serious attempt to remove the remaining three pigs and sheep and after being urged to remove them by Mr Shakespear replied that they were wild and not worth the trouble of catching. ,333 Mueller forwarded Shakespear's report to the Native Minister and recommended that the Government pay ten pounds compensation to Tenetahi for the loss of the stock ultimately left behind.334 Again, there is no record that the amount was paid to Tenetahi.

In August 1903, Tenetahi re-submitted an amended list of expenses. The total cost claimed had increased to three thousand three hundred and thirty nine pounds, with the addition of significantly larger values for the loss of Kauri timber, although the Native Department recalculated the total to be three thousand one hundred and eighty-nine pounds. 335 The Government contacted Magistrate Northcroft to verif'y the issue. Mueller confinued that the Court file recorded that the Government would pay all legitimate expenses that Tenetahi had been put to in acquiring Hauturu. Northcroft explaiued that Tenetahi had sent him an early list, but it had been, in Northeroft's opinion 'too vague'. Northeroft had then requested Tenetahi to submit a more detailed account, but the Magistrate had been shifted to a different district before the matter had been concluded. Tenetahi had contacted Northcroft further, upon the Magistrate's return to Auckland, but Northcroft declared that as the Native Department held all the file documents, it was the Department's responsibility to deal with the question.

In 1910 Tenetahi petitioned the Government. The Native Affairs Committee examined the petition and recommended that it be referred to the Government for favourable consideration with a view to settling the claim of Tenetahl on a fair and equitable basis. Unfortunately, the present author has been unable to locate any further evidence of reaction from either the Government or Tenetahi. It is also unknown whether Tenetahi, Rahui Te Kid or their daughter Ngapeka ever coUected their shares of the payment deposited with the Public Trustee.

J32 Commissioner of Crown Lands to T Cheeseman, 6 June 1902, BAAZ 1109/ ISlE. 333 T Cheeseman to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 14 July 1902, BAAZ 1109/ 151B. 334 CommissionerofCroWll Lands to Native Minister, 2 August 1902, BAAZ 1109/151B. 335 Wiremu Tenetahi to Gerhard Mueller, 4 August 1902, BAAZ 1I09/15lB. Note, it appears that this document was in filet received in August 1903, not 1902. 59

SECTION 6: SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

At the time of the Crown acquisition in 1895, Hauturu was gazetted as a reserve for the preservation of 'Native fauna' J36 As mentioned above, the administration of the reserve soon passed from the Department of Lands and Survey to the Auckland Institute. In 1904, Cabinet shifted the mantle of administration to a newly formed Department of Tourist and Health Resorts.337 The decision to transfer administration was com~leted under section 5 of the Tourist and Health Resorts Control Act 1908 and gazetted. 38 This department, although paradoxicaHy unsuitable for the management of the island, continued to administer the island until after World War Two. Between 1913 and 1922 Pakeha Kauri gum diggers made continued requests to be allowed to dig gum on Hauturu, yet the Government consistently resisted all overtures.3J9 In 1922, Hauturu was included with certain other reserves as protected by the provisions for 'sanctuaries' under section 6, Animals Protection and Game Act 1922. The Island was gazetted as a Wildlife Refuge in 1929.340

In 1948, the Commissioner of Crown Land~ questioned the rationale behind the Tourist Department's continued administration of Hauturu. As a direct result, administration was transferred back to the Department of Lands and Survey. The administration of Hauturu was then made subject to thc Reserves and Other Lands Act 1951. Under the Act the island reverted to its previous status as a reserve for the protection of Native fauna under the protection of the Minister of Lands, in turn guided by the Public Reserves, Domains and National Parks Act 1928. Throughout these various changes, permit restrictions on visitors remained in force.

The final stage of administration saw the formation of the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park administered by the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Board under section 4 (1) (a) of the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Act 1967. Hauturu was deemed a natural part of the Park from the outset; though notably, the island's foreshore was not added until 1976.341 In the following year, thc Reserves Act 1977 automatically re-classified Hauturu as a 'nature reserve'. The Island remains today part of the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park. Access is limited to persons who have obtained permission from the Department of Conservation.

336 Certificate of Title, 6 May 1895, CT number 74/147. NZ Gazelle, 26 September 1895, p. 1535. m DM Grevin (Undersecretary of Lands Department) to Commissioner of Lands, 28 January 1949, BAAZ 1109/152•. 338 Section 5, Tourist and HealthResorts Control Act 1908, NZ Gazelle, 1908, p. 849. 339 General Manager ofDepllltment of Tourist and Health Resorts to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 26 May 1913, BAAZ 1109, 152a. "0 NZGazelle, 1929, p. 455. 34' NZ Gazelle, 1976, p. 82. 60

CONCLUSIONS

The alienation of Hauturu is perhaps best understood as two distinct acts of acquisition. During the first part, owners of Hauturu openly approached the Crown to negotiate for the sale of the island, and the majority of owners agreed to sell the island without coercion from the Crown. The remaining owners, however, rejected the Crown offer following the discovery of the value of Kauri timber on Hauturu. This resistance provoked the Crown to institute special legislation to compulsorily acquire, in somewhat unusual circumstances, the individual shares of the remaining owners.

Section One Much has already been written about the eifects of the Native Land Court process in individualising title to Maori land. It suffices here to note that protracted Native Land Court hearings encouraged division, and encumbered Maori with significant debts. Though, it should be recognised that first Tenetahi and Ngatiwai applicants were not required to employ legal counsel. Moreover the Goverument remained aware to the existence of dispute behveen the two groups of claimants. And rather than exploit the division, the Government intervened with legislation to provide suitahle opportunities for a resolution through the Native Land Court process.

Despite sueh well-intentioned behaviour, the Government intervened to ensure that the owners were restrieted from selling the land to anyone except the Crown. In 1881, Hauturu was gazetted under the 1877 and 1878 Native Land Purchases Acts which achieved this effect. The 1877 Act restricted the sale of land in Maori ownership except to the Crown, where negotiations had already commenced. As a result, the owners' initiative was partially removed and Maori could only accept or reject the Crown's offer; they could not turn elsewhere to selL If the Crown made a generous offer, there was likely to have been little concern, however, If the Crown's offer was believed to be below other market-based valuations, then there was, as in the case of Hauturu, dissension to the sale offer.

Section Two The restrictions on the sale continued to apply over Hauturu. In 1891 three owners signed a sale agreement for three thousand pounds with the Crown, made conditional upon the fact that no money wouId be paid until all owners had signed. After the Crown withdrew from the agreement, Tenetahi signed a contract with a timber trader for the removal of Kauri from the island. In response, the Crown quickly re-instated the agreement and took action to remove all timber workers under the authority of the earlier 1881 proclamation. Yet in private, Crown officials admitted the untenable nature of their intervention.

The Crown's decision to change its approach to the sale negotiations and pay individual owners for their signatures led to the majority of the owners agreeing to the sale. The new approach, however, contravened the 1891 sale agreement. And, in spite of protest to the contrary, the Crown continued to insist that it retained the tacit agreement of the signatories to the 1891 agreement. The three signatures were subsequently transposed onto an 1893 land purchase deed. 61

Tenetahi proposed that a reserve be set aside on the island as part of a purchase agreement. However, the purposes for which the Crown desired Hautum namely, security and later nature preservation, precluded, in the minds of Crown officials, any continued residence on the island. Similarly, the purpose behind the acquisition, as envisaged by the Crown, also influenced the price offered. While difficult to ascertain a comparable valuation at the time, it appears that the Crown's offer of 3000 pounds was relatively generous, bearing in mind that the land was of limited use for furming or re­ settlement. Tenetahi requested that the Crown's offer be inereased in light of the value of commercially harvestable Kauri on the island However, the Crown pointedly refused to increase the price or to include the value of the Kauri timber as part of the value of the land, except as a nature reserve.

Section Three In addition to the three owners who signed the 1891 agreement, two further owners Rahui Te Kiri and her daughter Ngapeka continued to refuse the Crown offer. At this point the Goverument shifted decisively to acquire the remaining owners' shares by compulsory acquisition. The Government instituted the Little Barrier Island Purchase Act 1894 as special legislation to acquire the remaining owners' interests and to deposit their shares in the Public Trustee. Paradoxically, the Act continued to rerer to the sale by agreement of the three 1891 signatories. Indeed, it remains difficult to reconcile the shift from consensual sale to compulsory acquisition: the Act itself purported to refer to the earlier 1891 sale agreement. During the passage of the Bill, parliamentarians claimed it breached the Treaty of Waitangi. Certainly, the Bill sought to legislate over the interests of particular individuals, something prohibited for lands in private European ownership, yet the Bill was allowed to proceed as it was believed that sufficient other protections already existed for Maori lands.

The Crown paid compensation for the five shares compulsorily acquired to the Public Trustee and a deed of trust was executed. However it is clear that the basis upon which the Magistrate calculated the value of the shares owing to each individual was inconsistent with the original Crown valuation.

Section Four Rahui Te Kiri, Tenetahi and their family continued to occupy the island after the Act. After warning Maori to vacate the island, the Goverument intervened with force and evicted all residents. Moreover, it appears that Government officials deducted the costs of the eviction from the value of Tenetahi's share paid into the Public Trustee.

Section Five Tenetahi continued to petition and complain about the failure of the Crown to address their concerns and to compensate them for their losses. Concern centred on the promises made by the Crown to compensate Tenetahi for the payment of legal costs sustained during the protracted Native Land Court hearings. Despite formal notification that the Auckland Magistrate HW Northcroft was to investigate Tenetahi's eosts, it does not appear that this was ever done. Northcroft complained that Tenetahi did not send him eopies of alleged expenses until 1900. After that time, however, it does not appear that 62

Tenetah:i's expenses were ever investigated. By 1900, two of the three signatories to the 1891 agreement had collected their share of the sale price from the Public Trustee, including Tenetahi and Rahui Te Kid's son Wi Taiawa. However, Rahui Te Kiri, Tenetahi and daughter Ngapeka continued to protest the Government's actions. In 1903 they had still not touched the funds held for them by the Public Trustee.

Section six Since 1895, when it was acquired and gazetted for use as a nature reserve, the island has continued to serve as an important location for the preservation of endangered species of birds. Apart from a short period at the tum of the century the island has remained under the management of various Government departments. 63

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources (Unpublished)

National Archives (Wellington) Maori Affairs File MA 13/45, parts 1-7

Alexander Turnbull Library (Wellington) Walter Buller, 'Letterbook 1892-1894', MS 0324 James Boscawen 'Little Barrier Island', 1893, MS 0255. Drawings andprints: NZ Survey Plan ofHauturu 1889, 832.11a, GI2

Auckland University Library Native Land Court Minute Books (Taitokerau) 1880·1895

Maori Land Court (Whangarei) Hauturu Block File MLC 533K 91

LINZ Auckland Hauturu deed of purchase, Auckland Deed number 1883 Survey Office Plan 59033

National Archives (Auckland) Lands and Survey Files: BAAZ 11 091 1664e Little Barrier Island 1881-94 BAAZ 11091 151b Little Barrier Island 1894- 1903 BAAZ 1I09152a Little Barrier General 1913· 1954 BAAZ 1109/153a Photographs 1957-61.

'Deed between Her Majesty the Queen and Ngati Koata no Rangitoto ki te Tonga Trust and James Hemi Elkington', 29 November 1994, Wai 95 Record of Documents, Waitangi Tribunal.

Primary Sources (published)

Appendices to the JOJll'llal o/the House 0/ Representatives (A.JHR) Appendices to the Joul'Ilal a/the Legislative Council (AJLC) New Zealand Gazettes NZHerald New Zealand Parliamentary Debates New Zealand Statutes

Reischek, Andreas, (trans. Priday) Yesterdays in Maoriland: New Zealand in the Eighties, Whitcombe & Tombs, Auckland, 1952. 64 I

Secondary Sources (Unpublished)

Daamen R, Hamer P and Rigby, B, Auckland Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series (working paper: first release), July 1996.

Feldman, Jim, 'Treaty Rights and Pigeon Poaching: Alienation of Maori Access to Kereru. 1864- 1960', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, January 1998(Wai 262 record of documents, doc B 8).

Monin, Paul, 'The Islands lying between Slipper Island in the South-east, Great Barrier in the North and Tiritiri·Matangi in the North-West', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, December 1996 (Wai 406 record of documents, doc C 7).

Murray, JE, C'rown Policy on Maori Reserved Lands, 1840 to 1865, and Lands Restricted from Alienation, 1865 to 1900, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series (working paper: first release), February 1997.

Rigby, Barry, 'The Crown, Maori and Mahurangi 1840·1881', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, August 1998 (Wai 674 record of documents).

Secondary Sources (published)

McKiunon M (cd), New Zealand Historical Atlas: Visualising New Zealand, Bateman, Auckland, 1997.

Oliver WH (ed), DictionGlY 0/ New Zealand Biography, vol 1, Allen & Unwin, Wellington, 1990.

Oliver WH (ed), The Oxford HistOlY 0/ New Zealand, Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1987.

Park, Geoff; Nga Uruora: Ecology and History in a New Zealand Landscape, Victoria University Press, Wellington 1996.

Ward, Alan, A Show o/Justice, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1995.