Crossing the Bar

Aspects of the History of the Waikokopu and Opoutama blocks with special reference to the Waikokopu Harbour

_ d ...... ,...... • ~ , ... '" .. • ...... • ' ...... r: ...... - .... '" . ~ .... ~ ...

Waikokopu Wharf (s.s. "Port Albany" in Roadstead, loading frozen meat, & c.) (AJHR 1925 D-1)

Joy Hippolite August 1999 r------~O) 0) 0)

Graphical Representation Only

A Rahuimokairoa

TAWAPATA SOUTH

10km I I 6miles

Figure 1 : Location map LIST OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: The Waikokopu and Opoutama District 3 Introduction 3; The Crown purchases 6; The Old Land Claim 11; The Waikokopu Reserve 19; Opoutama 21

Chapter 2: Ihaka Whaanga's Reserve 26 Attempts to have Waikokopu 1 and 2 gazetted as a native reserve 28; Succession orders 31

Chapter 3: Land Taken for Harbour Purposes 33 The Waikokopu Harbour Board 37

Chapter 4: More Land Alienation 45 Waikokopu 45; Opoutama 62; Land taken for road 65

Chapter 5: Record of Protest - A Trust or Private Land? 68 Access to the sea 78

Conclusion 80

Appendix I: Research Commission 82

Bibliography 83

11 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig 1: Location map 1 Fig 2: Kopuawhara plan 25 Fig 3: Waikokopu Native Reserve ("Ihaka Whaanga's" reserve) 32 Fig 4: Land taken for harbour purposes 44 Fig 5: Sketch showing original Native & Crown subdivisions 60 Fig 6: Sketch showing actual subdivisions 61

111 INTRODUCTION

This report was commissioned on 9 November 1998. It was originally intended to research four blocks adjoining the Mahia peninsula - Waikokopu, Opoutama, Kaiwaitau and Mahanga (see app 1). This report just covers the block histories of the Waikokopu and Opoutama reserves. The other two blocks will be done at a later date.

There are three claims relating to Waikokopu: Wai 278 by Pauline Tangiora on behalf of Rongomaiwahine; Wai 427 and Wai 519, submitted by the Whaanga Whanau and Mac Whaanga respectively. All three claims concern the taking of land for harbour purposes and all three seek the return of the land to the original owners.

There is one claim for Opoutama, Wai 653. This claim alleges that section 36, Block 111, Mahanga Survey District was taken under the Public Works Act for a park in 1964. However, it appears that section 36 was already Crown land before it was leased to the Blue Bay Holiday Park Limited in 1964. This will be shown in Chapter 1.

The report commences with a brief description of the Mahia peninsula and its neighbouring territories. It introduces the hapu with an interest in the district, however, the names mentioned may not necessarily be the only hapu associated with the area. Chapters 1 and 2 detail the creation of the Waikokopu and Opoutama reserves. Waikokopu came out of the Nuhaka block while Opoutama was reserved from the Kopuawhara block. It is not intended to go into the purchase of the Nuhaka block in any great length at this time although the circumstances surrounding the sale of the Kopuawhara block will be looked at. The main concern of this report is the Waikokopu and Opoutama reserves. Chapters 3 and 4 trace the alienation of land within the reserves concentrating, in particular, on the taking of land for harbour purposes. Chapter 3 shows that it was decided to build a harbour at Waikokopu because the sandbar at Wairoa prevented that place from being a reliable harbour. Chapter 5 examines the issue of whether the Waikokopu reserve should have been reserved for the whole hapu or just for the Whaanga whanau. It covers the protests that arose after the death of Ihaka Whaanga regarding the granting of the reserve.

1 This report follows on from the Rangahaua Whanui report written for Wairoa by this author. Ko Joy Hippolite toku ingoa. Ko Ngati Koata me Ngati Toa oku iwi. No Whakatu ahau. Ko Whakatu toku marae. Ko taku mahi he kairangahau.

I graduated from Victoria University with a BA in 1989. From 1989 to 1993 I was employed as a research officer with the Waitangi Tribunal. During that time I completed five reports for the Wairoa ki Wairarapa claims. These included reports on the Crown purchases in the Wairarapa and Hawke's Bay area, an exploratory report on the Waiohiki lands, and raupatu in the Hawke's Bay. I also had an article published in The Book of New Zealand Women, Bridget Williams Books, Wellington, 1991. In 1996 I was commissioned to write the Rangahaua Whanui district report for Wairoa.

As well as the district report, the most useful source for this report was the research of Angela Ballara and Gary Scott for the Wai 201 umbrella claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. The block alienation histories for Kopuawhara and Nuhaka and the documents that were filed with them proved particularly valuable. Those documents included the McLean papers in Alexander Turnbull Library and Maori Affairs Head Office files in National Archives, Wellington.

2 CHAPTER 1

THE WAIKOKOPU AND OPOUTAMA DISTRICT

Introduction

Mahia peninsula is a headland extending southward from the end of the north-eastern sweep of Hawke's Bay. It is connected to the mainland by an isthmus consisting mainly of sandhills. The peninsula is hilly with its highest points being Ruhuimokairoa of 403 metres, then Taupiri of 370 metres and Te Kapu, 366 metres. It stretches 21 kilometres long, with a maximum width of 12 kilometres. Offshore from the southern tip lies Portland Island with its lighthouse.

The peninsula and its neighbouring territories consist of twelve blocks. Those on Mahia include the Mahia block itself, Whangawehi numbers 1 and 2, Tawapata numbers 1 and 2, Moutere, and Nukutaurua. To the north lies Te Mahanga and Kopuawhara. Lying between the peninsula and the mainland is Kaiwaitau. To the west of Kaiwaitau are the Opoutama and Waikokopu reserves. Opoutama and Waikokopu were renowned for their kaimoana, which formed a great part of the local diet. 1

During the period 1769 to 1840 the major hapu of Mahia and Nuhaka were Rakaipaaka and Ngati Rongomaiwahine? Rakaipaaka was the grandson of Kahungunu. He was raised at Turanganui but as a result of a quarrel he left there and brought his family and followers south. He settled at Moumoukai pa on the hills behind Nuhaka while his descendants settled the Mahia peninsula.

I Angela BaHara and Gary Scott, 'Crown Purchase of Maori Land in Early Provincial Hawke's Bay', claimants' report to the Waitangi Tribunal, 1994, (Wai 201:11) 'Kopuawhara', p 7 and 'Nuhaka', pp 32,34,35 2 Heather Angela BaHara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', Phd thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1991, p 176; Joy Hippolite, Wairoa, Rangahaua Whanui Series, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, p9

3 Rongomaiwahine was the wife of Kahungunu, although the Mahia people often claim the mana of the pre-Kahungunu tangata whenua through her. 3 Another hapu with interests in the Mahia peninsula was Ngati Hikairo. Their lands were mainly at Tawapata. Hikairo was a descendant of Kahungunu through the latter's daughter Tauheikuri. However, Ngati Hikairo also claimed through their descent from Rongomaiwahine, through her first daughter, Hinerauiri.4

Rakaipaaka lived at various pa and settlements on the peninsula including Te Pukenui, Whangawehi, Waikokopu and Nuhaka; one of their places of refuge was with Ngati Hikairo on Waikawa or Portland Island. During the musket wars, the various pa occupied by the Heretaunga and Wairarapa refugees, including Pukekaroro, Okurarenga or Kaiuku, were originally Rakaipaaka pa. 5

As Smit points out in her thesis, the chieftainship of this region was fiercely contested in the early nineteenth century.6 One important chief in the pre 1840s period was Te Rataau, the father of Ihaka Whaanga. Te Rataau was killed and eaten in a conflict with Whakatohea and his own relative Matenga Tukareaho ofNuhaka. The death of Te Rataau caused a great schism within Rakaipaaka. People came from Wairoa and Mohaka to avenge this death. Matenga rallied support through his wife's Whakatohea relations and heavy fighting took place at Hautuwhenua. The battle saw the defeat of those who sided with Matenga. Matenga himself was not killed but he fled the district not daring to return until after the musket wars had ended.7

The musket wars saw a concentration on the Mahia peninsula of a large portion of the population of the entire Hawke's Bay and Wairarapa region. This refugee population reached its maximum of about 2,000 during the period 1834 to 1838.8 During their

3 According to Mitchell, though, the adoption of her name as an umbrella of mana over Mahia seems to have been a development of the late 19th century, J H Mitchell, Takitimu: A History ofthe Ngati Kahungunu People, Southern Reprints, 1972, pp 90-2 4 Ballara and Scott, 'Mahia', p 3 5 BaHara, p 176 6 Grace Smit, 'Mana Maori: Questions of Authority on the East Coast during the Nineteenth Century', MA Thesis, Auckland, 1997, p 17 7 Ibid, P 17; Lambert, p 348 8 Ballara, p 462

4 stay, the inhabitants of the peninsula lived under the authority ofPareihe and Te Wera Hauraki. These chiefs were held in high esteem and both were from outside the Wairoa-Mahia district. Pareihe, a chief of Ngai Te Whatuiapiti from central Heretaunga and Te Wera Hauraki from Nga Puhi. According to Ballara these two were charismatic, successful toa who achieved mana by organising victory against external invaders of the region. 9 In 1838, William Williams described Te Wera as being regarded far and wide as the 'chief ofTe Mahia' and the protector of the refugee community.JO

The main economic activity of the refugees, apart from subsistence, was preparing food and flax to trade for firearms. The flax trade attained its greatest proportions in the year 1831, when 1062 tons were exported to Sydney and from there to the British market.!! The whaling fraternity was also encouraged and protected. It was deemed a great privilege to have a 'Pakeha', for the goods they could supply, in particular, muskets and ammunition. In 1837 the Ward brothers established a whale station at Waikokopu with eight or nine five-oared boats. The Morrisons were also there with three boats and twenty men, and Waikokopu was a favourite base for several others at different periods. A Captain Ellis was whaling there in 1833. He brought three boats from the Bay of Islands to whale at Waikokopu, where also he kept a store. Later, he took over the Ward's station. William Morris, a native of Queenstown, Ireland, besides keeping a store, headed one of his own boats. Then there was Captain Salmon, who used to buy the oil and find all stores for the whalers. He had vessels running from New Zealand to England and America.!2

The establishment of shore stations induced many Rakaipaaka to settle at the coastal villages of Nuhaka, Waikokopu and Mahia.13 Ihaka Whaanga became the patron of the whaling station set up at Waikokopu in 1837 and it may have been from this time that his rise to prominence began. Little was heard of him during the musket wars in

9 Ibid, P 465 10 quoted in BaHara, p 466 11 Hippolite, p 11 12 Lambert, pp 366-71; J G Wilson, The History ofHawke's Bay, A H & A W Reed, Dunedin & Wellington, 1939, p 135; Miriam McGregor, Pioneer Trials ofHawke's Bay, A H & A W Reed, Wellington 1975, pp 86-87

5 the early 1820s. With the end ofthe wars around 1838, many of the refugees began to disperse and Te Wera had either died or returned to the Bay of IslandsI4 leaving a power vacuum to be filled. By 1851 Ihaka had at least 140 Europeans and 280 Maori whalers living under his protection. IS This was when Donald McLean, then a government land agent, first encountered Ihaka and described him as 'the principal Chief ofTe Mahia. I6 Certainly Ihaka was to become a principal player in McLean's land purchasing activities in the next decade. It was also at this time that McLean met Matenga Tukareaho, one of the chiefs ofNuhaka. Matenga offered to sell a large tract of country, extending from the coastline at Nuhaka to Waikokopu, then inland towards Turanga. McLean, however, informed him that because of his commitments in central Hawke's Bay it would be some time before any purchases could be concluded in the district. 17

The Crown purchases

In the event, it was to be 13 years before McLean returned to purchase land in the Wairoa-Mahia area. Throughout this time the area remained fairly isolated in terms of European settlement. The demise of whaling in the 1850s saw European numbers decrease. In 1862, the civil commissioner for Hawke's Bay had reported that the Wairoa district was still a little known and neglected area by officials. He added that there were only about 30 squatters renting land on the banks of the Wairoa River. I8 In 1864, Donald McLean revisited the area. McLean, now Superintendent of Hawke's Bay province, was anxious to ascertain the attitude of northern Hawke's Bay Maori towards the new Pai Marire religion. Towards this end he was also eager to buy more land for European settlement. The land sales not only 'opened up' the area for settlement but committed the sellers to the Government and it was this commitment that McLean sought as much as the land. I9

13 BaHara, p 176 14 cfBallara & Scott, 'Mahia', p 5 and 'Whangawehi', p 1 15 Angela BaHara, 'Whaanga, Ihaka', The People ofMany Peaks: The Maori Biographies from the Dictionary ofNew Zealand Biography, Wellington, Department ofIntemal Affairs, 1991, vol 1, p 355 16 McLean's journal entries, 28 February-1 March 1851, ATL 17 Ibid 18 AJHR 1862 E-9, sec VI, pp 19-20 19 Hippolite, pp 18-27

6 McLean was accompanied by James Grindell, a clerk in the Court of the Resident Magistrate. Grindell wrote a report of McLean's activities for the Hawke's Bay Herald. McLean's first purchase in the area was at Ihaka's residence of Mahia on 20 October 1864. The deed was signed by Ihaka Whaanga and 16 others.20 Leaving Mahia, McLean and his party travelled on to Nuhaka. They were accompanied by Ihaka and Tamihana Taruke, his father-in-law, and several others. Ihaka, Grindell reported, 'was greatly elated at the idea of escorting officers of the Queen to the Wairoa to purchase land in opposition to the policy of the King party' .21 Whaanga may also have been 'elated' at the idea that escorting the government officials would increase his mana at Nuhaka, where one of his rivals lived. That is, Matenga Tukareaho, who had been instrumental in the death of Ihaka's father, Te Rataau, several years earlier.

On fleeing the district after the death of Te Rataau, Matenga appears to have stayed at Turanga. He was there in 1840 where he signed the Treaty ofWaitangi on 5 May.22 It is presumably after this time that he returned to Nuhaka as a Christian. Ihaka as well had become a Christian and according to Smit, the two put aside their differences and peace was made.23 It must have been an uneasy peace though. As soon as Matenga 'expressed himself strongly in favour of selling land' at Nuhaka Ihaka immediately expressed the opposite, in contrast to his earlier enthusiasm. Grindell reported that Ihaka:

was very naturally somewhat jealous of Te Matenga taking the matter entirely into his own hands and anxious to show his acquiescence was necessary before any purchase could be effected. The feeling was, no doubt, strengthened by the ancient feuds existing between the two parties, which originated in the murder of Te Ratau-Ihaka's father. In addressing the people he, Ihaka, said that there was no necessity for precipitating matters, that, in the meantime, Mr McLean's destination was the Wairoa; and that if

20 MA-MLP 6/3, deed no 151, pp 42-43; see Elizabeth Cox, 'The Key-stone of the District': The Crown purchase of the Mahia Block, 1864, Waitangi Tribunal, 1999, for details on this purchase 21 Article by James Grindell, Hawke's Bay Herald, 12 November 1864 22 Nga Wharangi 0 Te Tiriti, A Facsimile ajthe Treaty ajWaitangi, National Library, 1990 23 Smit, pp 34-36

7 they were anxious to sell, the land would be sold in due time, but that at present he would withhold his assent.24

If land sales were a demonstration of support for government then it appears that they were also a means of securing government support for one's position. Ballara and Scott have argued that, while as the son of Te Rataau Ihaka had genuine authority within Ngati Rakaipaaka, his position was more limited than has been suggested?5 At least by Grindell, any way. He described Ihaka as 'the principal chief at the north end of the Bay, and a man of great influence throughout the district and indeed throughout the whole province' .26 Yet when it became known that Matenga and the people resident on the land at Nuhaka were adamant about selling, Ihaka and his party had no option but to give their consent to the sale. 'They wished Mr McLean to consider that the land was now handed over to the Government' .27

Ballara and Scott go on to suggest that Ihaka was bound to support the Government and its purchases because he had made enemies. 'He was the de facto principal chief because he supported the Government' .28 Matenga, for his part, made it quite clear that he wanted government support. He and his young men, he said:

were desirous of declaring themselves on the side of the Government and were anxious that Europeans should come and settle amongst them, that, therefore, he had decided upon selling some land for that purpose?9

Disputes about the sale of the Mahia block arose almost immediately. While the overall territory was under the mana of Rakaipaaka, another hapu sharing rights to the Mahia was Ngai (or Ngati) Tu. This hapu was one of the tangata whenua groups at Nukutaurua. They were living there in the 1820s.30 With the support of the Turanganui hapu, Rongowhakaata and Wi Pere, they challenged Ihaka's right to sell land at Mahia. Ngai Tu were upset at Ihaka ignoring their rights, while Wi Pere and

24 Article by James GrindeH, Hawke's Bay Herald, 12 November 1864 25 BaHara and Scott, 'Mahia', p 30, fn.l 04 26 GrindeH, Hawke's Bay Herald, 12 November 1864 27 Ibid. 28 BaHara and Scott, 'Mahia', p 30, fn.104 29 GrindeH, Hawke's Bay Herald, 12 November 1864 30 BaHara and Scott, 'Mahia', p 3

8 other Rongowhakaata leaders wanted to prevent the sale of any more land in the region in order to protect their mana and the culture based on the land. Believing that Rongowhakaata were about to go to war with him over the issue of the land, Ihaka asked Samuel Locke to request arms from the Government to resist them. 31

In March 1865 a delegation ofPai Marire arrived on the East Coast. At Wairoa there were many converts, including Matenga.32 In the same month Ihaka was sent 60 Enfield rifles and a carbine. His mana was increased and further support for him was ensured when McLean visited his pa in April 1865.33 In December 1865 and January 1866, Ihaka fought with the Government troops against the Pai Marire. The Government side with the help of some Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Porou was the successor.

Ihaka was well rewarded for the role he played in facilitating the Government's purchase of land and fighting on the Government's side. As he explained to Edward Bendall, who he appointed as his executor in 1875, reserves were granted to him for his services in the purchase of the different blocks in the Mahia area. 34 The Hawke's Bay provincial government could not do enough to secure these reserves for him in return for the 'most valuable services' he rendered 'in the interests of the colony' during the Pai Marire 'disturbances on the East Coast of the North Island,.35

Matenga, on the other hand, joined the Pai Marire disciples. But while the government officials may have been disappointed at his decision, it appears that they were not unduly concerned. The Resident Magistrate Samuel Deighton believed that 'there will be no difficulty in the matter; and as you are aware that Te Matinga [sic] was never much liked or respected by the Natives here, very little harm will be done by his disaffection' .36 If Deighton's statement is correct, then it could explain why Matenga joined Pai Marire. Clark has argued that there were those who saw in the

31 Ibid, pp 7-8; BaHara, People ofMany Peaks, p 356 32 McLean to Native Minister, 25 Apri11865, GBPP vol. 14,!UP, pp 401-2 33 BaHara, People ofMany Peaks, p 356 34 BendaH to P Sheridan, Native Land Purchase Officer, 11 November 1905, MA 1/19231135 35 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Secretary for Crown Lands, 13 June 1867, OLC 1/937 36 Deighton to McLean, 20 Apri11865, GBPP vo1.14, IUP, pp 401-2

9 new religion a means to assert their tribal or chiefly mana over their rivals. 37 Matenga may have had a religious conversion, but he could also have been using Pai Marire to further his chiefly ambitions. Smit claims that the 'failure of chiefs to keep their people from dissenting could reveal the limitations of their authority and mana'. Ihaka attempted to persuade Matenga away from the new religion but failed. 38 Matenga's punishment was to miss out on the reserves.

The Nuhaka purchase was finalised on 16 March 1865 by Samuel Locke. Although there were no reserves set out in the Nuhaka deed, it appears that McLean promised one of over 400 acres to Ihaka at Waikokopu. The Commissioner of Crown Lands wrote that Waikokopu:

was delineated on the maps in the Survey Office from a tracing furnished at the time of the Purchase, but by some omission, though specially promised by His Honor the Superintendent [McLean] (then, Chief Land Purchase Commissioner) at the time of cession, no provision was made for this Reserve in the Deed of Sale to the Queen by Ihaka Waanga and others. 39

Which raises the question of why no provision had been made in the deed, apart from the fact that this was typical of McLean, to promise a reserve and fail to follow it through.40 Possibly it was because McLean knew that if it had been specifically mentioned in the deed the rest of the hapu would have expected it to be for all of them, not just for Ihaka. And, as will be shown later, it was never intended, by government officials, or Ihaka, that the reserve be for all the hapu. And if it had been specified in the deed for Ihaka alone, the hapu would have protested. Instead, to give effect to this promise the reserve was granted to Ihaka in two Crown grants and in a rather convoluted way. This was partly to meet the land regulations then in force and also because there was an old land claim on part of the reserve.

37 Paul Clark, Hauhau: The Pai Marire Searchfor Maori Identity, p 21 38 Smit, p 86 39 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Secretary for Crown Lands, 13 June 1867, OLC 1/937 40 see for example, Hippolite 'Wairoa ki Wairarapa, part one', Wai 201 record of documents, doc A22; Hippolite, Wairoa, p 47

10 The Old Land Claim

Old land claims were pre-Treaty 'sales' ofland from Maori to Pakeha. On 15 March 1837, George Thomas Clayton signed a deed purporting to buy land at 'Tuhiwapo' at Waikokopu from the chief 'Waikopiro or Eware' for goods equal to the value of £40 British sterling.41

On 19 October 1838, Clayton conveyed to William Ellis his property at Waikokopu to 'hold and use ... according to your necessities and for which this shall be your warrant until called upon by me to return the same' .42 Clayton later sold the land to John W Harris on 16 February 1841. Harris subsequently sold it to Captain Salmon.

By another transaction Matenga Tukareaho, Ihaka Whaanga and Tamihana Taruke sold to Philo Beebe Perry 'all those premises, known by the name of the Waikokopu whaling station'. The deed noted that the vendors had 'received full payment' around 1840. The deed also noted that the former deed in favour of Perry 'having been lost' this one was signed on 11 January 1850. John G. Steady and F. Sturm witnessed the signing.43

Whether there was an earlier deed is very suspect, even more so if Lambert is correct that Perry, 'an American', did not appear on the scene until 1842, at which time he preceded to acquire the interests of most of the other principal whalers. Lambert also accuses Perry of being responsible for the death of Ned Tomlins, 'a Tasmanian half­ caste'. One evening Tomlins was struck heavily by Perry, thrown out the door and later was found dead. 'He was buried without enquiry, Perry reading the burial service! ,44

Presumably, Perry attempted to backdate his purchase because direct purchases from Maori had been illegal from 1840. This had been spelt out not only in the Treaty but

41 Deed of sale, OLC 11937 42 Ibid 43 OLC 11937 44 Lambert, p 366 & 368

11 also by Governor Hobson's 1840 proclamation. Both before leaving Sydney and on his arrival in New Zealand Hobson had issued a proclamation that stated:

That Her Majesty ... does not deem it expedient to recognise as valid any Titles to Land in New Zealand which are not derived from or confirmed by Her Majesty.45

This rested on the British legal framework and the legal assumptions embedded in that framework. The most fundamental legal assumption was that of the Crown's presumptive rights in New Zealand land. The Crown presumed that, in 1840, it acquired title to all land in New Zealand as a function of sovereignty, subject to pre­ existing Maori and settler claims. It acted on the assumption that the Crown alone could issue valid title.46 Hobson's proclamation had been issued in anticipation of acquiring sovereignty.

Ihaka and the others were well aware of the restriction. At the time of the purchase, they had shown Perry the letter they had received in reference to Hobson's proclamation. But Perry had dismissed it as 'a piece of impertinence' .47 Ihaka and Matenga later wrote to Land Claims Commissioner, Francis Dillion Bell, to explain this:

[I]t was not our desire to sell land, but the European desired to purchase. We were afraid of the letters of the Queen ... and our thoughts became confused. These Europeans said what about the Queen[?] does the land belong to the Queen[?] the land is yours, the Maoris this is what these Europeans said.48

Perry transferred his deed to William Morris on 18 January 1850 for £250, 'being £150 on account of Capt John Salmon, of Auckland, and £100 in cash'. Morris then transferred the deed to Salmon on 20 May 1850. The last transfer was witnessed by George Laurence, Salmon's agent.

45 Land Titles Validity Proclamation, 30 January 1840, Moore, et al, p 11 46 Ibid 47 Wardell to Bell, 26 March 1858, OLC 11937 48 Ihaka and Matenga to Bell, 7 February 1859, OLC 11937

12 In 1858, Salmon put in a claim to these lands to Commissioner Bell. However, the Government noted that Ellis had already put in a claim for the land. This had been registered on 26 December 1841, with Ellis claiming that he had obtained the land from the original purchaser, G T Clayton.49 Bell wrote to Salmon seeking further verification; in particular, Salmon was asked to show his derivation from Harris.50 In reply, Bell received a copy of a letter from Harris to Salmon assigning Harris's interests in Waikokopu to Salmon, 'and I consent to my Grant for the land in question being made out in your own name' .51

Bell then insisted on a survey being made. An 1856 select committee had proposed that:

Commissioners, attended by surveyors, should, under proper precautions, cause the boundaries of all lands claimed to be marked out in an unmistakable manner; because it is absolutely essential that in every case it is decisively ascertained whether any obstruction to the occupation of the land would be raised by native owners or claimants; and no mode can be devised of ascertaining this fact so effectual as the positive attempts to define, on the ground itself, the blocks of land claimed. 52

Bell followed select committee recommendations by requiring surveyors to file 'a written description of the boundaries' with each plan, and also' certificate ... that every boundary line '" has been properly cut on the ground, and that the survey has been completed without disturbance from the Natives' .53

A Mr Scott carried out the survey. The survey plan, showing two blocks of land - one of21 acres and 33 perches, the other of 16 acres and 28 perches (a total of 37a.1.21p) - appeared to have Maori support. The plan was signed by Ihaka, Matenga and Tamihana and witnessed by John Steddy, settler (who had also signed Perry's deed in 1850) John Campbell, whaler, and George Laurence, settler. 54 As well, a letter was

49 File note dated 30 January 1858, OLC 1/937. This type of claim was known as a derivative claim. 50 Ibid, 1 February 1858 51 OLC 1/937, nothing further appears to have been heard about Ellis's claim, he was appointed harbour-master at Auckland, Lambert, p 368 52 quoted in Moore, p 42 53 Ibid

54 and Salmon's agent, see Locke to McLean, 28 November 1864, MS Papers 032 Folder 393

13 attached to the survey plan from Ihaka and the others. The translation to this letter read:

Friend the Governor Salutations to you our greeting love for you is very great. We have let your European survey Waikokopu for Captain Salmon. We have given that place three times. You will see by the Papers the years when it was given. It is finished. 55

However, on 18 March, Herbert Wardell, the resident magistrate at Turanga, wrote to Bell stating that he had just come through Nuhaka where he had been asked by Ihaka and the others to bring to Bell's attention the following fact regarding the survey at Waikokopu.

It appears they were requested by Mr Campbell of Kinikini who it seems acted as interpreter to the surveyor to point out the boundaries of the land sold to the Europeans at Waikokopu. This they did. On the completion of the survey a letter was handed them to sign acknowledging their consent to the boundaries surveyed. They requested Mr Campbell to state in the document referred to that the land surveyed had been sold in distinct lots and at distinct times; that land sold prior to the receipt of the Proclamation forbidding the purchase of Native Lands by private individuals being but a small portion of the sand spit. This they say Mr Campbell refused to mention saying it was a matter of no importance.56

Bell wrote to Salmon to inform him that he would have to investigate the matter further. He told Salmon that Ihaka and the others had said 'that they pointed out to the surveyor certain portions of the claim which they say were sold subsequently to [the] proclamation of 1840, and that they requested him to note the same upon his plan but he declined doing so' .57 Bell also wrote to Wardell requesting him to get more information from Ihaka, Matenga and Tamihana Taruke regarding the various sales of land at Waikokopu. Wardell called the replies he received 'very vague and

55 OLe 11937, 16 July 1859. The translation accompanying the letter was unintelligible. This is a later translation attached to a letter to McLean. 56 Ibid, 18 March 1858 57 Ibid, 9 June 1858

14 unsatisfactory' but they appear to confirm what had previously been said, that there had been three sales of land - one before the proclamation and two after. 58

In the meantime, Bell had to ask Ihaka and Matenga to stop harassing the steward of Captain Salmon until Bell had had a chance to inquire into the claim of Salmon. Salmon had written to Bell complaining that Ihaka and Matenga had taken possession of one of his houses and the land at Waikokopu. The blame was put on 'the white man Morris' for inciting them, but as Ihaka and Matenga pointed out in another letter to Bell; they were more than able to take the initiative themselves.59 In the same letter Ihaka and Matenga urged Bell to come to Nuhaka so that they could talk about the issue on the ground, 'it will not do to talk about it at a distance'. Bell replied that he would go at the same time asking them once again not to disturb the Europeans occupying land there.

By October, though, Bell had not yet visited the area and Salmon was still complaining about not having possession of his property at Waikokopu. 'Are Natives to be allowed to take possession with impunity of Lands that have been in the hands of Europeans for the last twenty years, or are we to look to the Government for protection' .60 Ihaka and Matenga were written to again to ask them to desist from further interference until an investigation had taken place.

The investigation took place at Turanga on Monday 2 January 1860. At the court, John William Harris gave evidence. He had been whaling at Waikokopu with Ellis and was present at the purchase made by Clayton 'before the Proclamation of 1840'. His evidence seemed to corroborate what Ihaka and Matenga had said regarding the pre-1840 purchase. 'That purchase was for a narrow strip along the seaboard at the entrance of the [Waikokopu] creek, and extended inland to an old pah fence that was between the pah and the creek' .61 About the same time as he acquired Clayton's interest (16 February 1841, 'About a year after the Proclamation') he made a purchase

58 Ibid, 21 January 1859 59 Ibid, 30 December 1858 & 7 February 1859 60 Ibid, 18 October 1859 61 Ibid, evidence of John William Harris, 2 January 1860

15 of his own from Ihaka and Matenga of 'a small piece of about three acres adjoining Clayton's'. A year later he sold all his interests to Ellis 'and I had nothing to do with Philo Perry's subsequent purchase'. There was nothing in his evidence to explain what had happened to Ellis's interests or why Harris, himself, later assigned all his interests to Salmon. One possible explanation is perhaps that Ellis later sold to Perry who then sold to Salmon.

No evidence was taken from Ihaka, Matenga or Tamihana at the court. On the same day as the court was held in Turanga, Bell wrote to tell them that he did not have time to see them. He was, however, pleased to hear that they had given up the house to Captain Salmon's agent. Bell then went on to inform them of the principle he laid down respecting lands sold to Europeans. This was, 'the law is that whenever the Natives have validly sold land to Europeans the name of the land goes to the Queen, whether it was sold before or after the Proclamation' .

The reason is, that the Natives by their sale gave up their own title, and though it was wrong to sell after the Proclamation, still if the Natives gave up their title it goes to the Queen, because the Queen said let sales only be to the Government. 62

This principle was based on the Crown's surplus land policy. Lord Stanley defined this policy in mid-1843. Stanley saw surplus land as based on the Crown's presumptive rights. Stanley'S position was that:

all land equitably purchased from Maori before 1840 lapsed to the Crown and so became its property. As a result of subsequent investigations, and in recognition of their interest in these lands, some of it was to be granted to the original [Pakeha] purchasers. Part was to be reserved to Maori, as required by the terms of the original transactions and in response to Maori requests. The balance [surplus] would become the property of the Crown and eventually available for sale and settlement. Thus apart from small reserves the land considered to have been equitably obtained would be assigned by the Crown either to the claimants or to itself. 63

62 Bell to Ihaka, Matenga and Tamihana, 2 January 1860, OLC 11937 63 W H Oliver, 'The Crown and Muriwhenua Lands: An Overview', Wai45, quoted in Moore, et ai, p 58

16 In 1885, John Cumin, the Lands Department legal draftsman, summed up the Crown's surplus land policy as; 'If at the time of [the] treaty it would be proved that [the Natives] had parted with any of their lands, those lands at once belonged to the

Apparently, the Crown failed to implement its surplus land policy during the 1840s and 1850s either because of lack of resources or because the land was too remote. 65 By 1860, however, Bell was determined to define the Crown surplus land on the ground. He interpreted Ihaka and Matenga's writing upon the Waikokopu survey plan as their consent 'to give up the land altogether which has been surveyed. This giving up is a giving up to the Queen, and that is why I told you to leave the house'. 66 Bell asked them to write to him agreeing to his principle.

Not surprisingly, Ihaka and the others were less than happy about this.

We have heard the purport of the letter of the Queen preventing the sale of land to private individuals [the 1840 Proclamation] ... Now this is a new regulation of yours, the Pakeha's that the land go back to the Queen. It was not the Queen who gave the original purchase money into our hands neither have our hands received a penny from the Queen (on such account). These measures of the Pakehas subverting the former regulations of the Queen are wrong.67

Once again they asked Bell to meet them so that they could 'speak face to face'. Bell agreed to let the matter 'lie over' until they had had a chance to meet on the ground.68

It does not appear that Bell ever went to Waikokopu and by October 1864 the matter had still not been resolved. Salmon, in the meantime, was still trying to gain possession. He tried to get a letter from Ihaka, Matenga and Tamihana, and have it certified as genuine by the resident magistrate, Hunter Brown, saying that they had consented that their land 'should go in name to the Queen i.e. that the Native title was

64 Ibid, P 61 65 see Moore, pp 59-60 66 OLe 11937,2 January 1860 67 Ibid, 9 February 1860 68 Ibid, 29 February 1860

17 extinguished' .69 When that did not succeed he had his agent send in a certificate saymg:

I was present when Mr Scott surveyed Waikokopu Hawke's Bay, the property of John Salmon Esq. The Natives pointed out the boundaries to Mr Scott of what they had sold, signed the plan as being correct, and also made a note that the property had been fully paid for, and belonged to John Salmon. The Note is in the Native language, on the original plan made by Mr Scott, and signed by the three chiefs who sold the ground.70

By now the Nuhaka block purchase had been finalised and while no mention of the old land claim was made in the deed, the sale of the two blocks to Salmon appears to have been sanctioned by the Government. In an effort to settle the dispute, McLean tried to get Ihaka and the others to either pay Salmon off or exchange land elsewhere with him. This did not please Salmon, who complained bitterly about McLean's handling of the matter; 'has Mr McLean the power to take away our land, and give it to whom he pleases' .71

In the end, Salmon must have decided to cut his losses and sell his interests in Waikokopu to Edward Towgood.72 Towgood had actually travelled from Hawke's Bay to Auckland to purchase Salmon's interests. These interests included the two blocks of land and all the buildings on them. The business was completed by a deed dated 22 May 1867 for the sum of £130. 73 Salmon sent a copy of the deed to Domett, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Ahuriri.74 The deed was registered on 2 July 1867. Towgood then conveyed to Ihaka Whaanga, for £200, what he had purchased off Salmon. Ihaka paid no money at the time though; instead he was to lease land at Waikokopu to Towgood and his business partner, Richardson, for 21 years at £20 per year. In 1872 Towgood and Richardson were running 3,330 sheep at Waikokopu.75

69 A Domett, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Ahuriri, 13 October 1864, OLC 11937 70 Certificate from George Lawrence, 5 July 1866, OLC 11937 71 OLC 11937, Salmon to Domett, 7 November 1866 and 7 March 1867 72 Note the name Towgood, as sometimes it is spelt, Twogood. Towgood had been a volunteer who had accompanied Ihaka's kupapa force in the 1865-66 Wairoa campaigns at Te Kopane. Major Fraser to Colonial Defence Under secretary, 27 December 1865, GBPP vol 14, P 669 73 OLC 1/937; Richardson to Locke, 12 November 1874, MAl, 6/89 74 OLC 11937,23 May 1867 75 Votes and Proceedings ofthe Provincial Council ofHawke's Bay, 1873, Report ofInspector of Sheep, 1 May 1872

18 However, by 1874 no rent had been paid to Ihaka as the interest he owed on the £200, at 10%, just equalled the yearly rental due to him.

Richardson explained to Locke why the transaction had been carried out in this way but it is not completely clear. It appears that they wanted a lease from Ihaka rather than buying the land outright because of a lawsuit concerning the sale of their run.76 The lease, however, was not over the 37 odd acres purchased by Towgood for Ihaka. Instead it came out of another block reserved at Waikokopu for Ihaka.

The Waikokopu Reserve

As mentioned above, at the time of the Nuhaka purchase a reserve of over 400 acres had been promised to Ihaka. On 21 March 1865, Samuel Locke wrote to McLean:

In settling for the Nuhaka block it was thoroughly understood between Ihaka Waanga and myself that he should be allowed to purchase about six hundred acres for himself at the upset price at W aikokopu. 77

Whether the hapu 'thoroughly understood' this is another issue. It is clear that private negotiations were going on between the government officials and Ihaka. The officials were using Ihaka to persuade the rest of the hapu to sell land. In her thesis, Ballara has argued that it was McLean's method to take one chief as his agent, 'gratuitously crediting him with paramount status over a whole region'. In Hawke's Bay, that chief had been Te Hapuku:

McLean observed that Te Hapuku's rank entitled him to respect from 'Turanga to Wairarapa'. He consolidated Te Hapuku's position by flattery and attention, keeping him at his side and advising him while he urged on the local people the sale oflands from Wairoa to Wairarapa.78

76 Richardson to Locke, 12 November 1874, MAl, 6/89 77 Locke to McLean, 21 March 1865, McLean Papers, MS 32, folder 393; According to Smit, p 47, the upset price for land was determined individually by the provincial governments. In various regions of a province, a minimum price for which land could be sold would be set with the upset price for land not necessarily being the same throughout a province. The price would depend upon the facilities in the vicinity and possibly the extent of European settlement. The upset price was used in the same way as a reserve price at an auction. 78 BaHara, p 488

19 Now Ihaka was performing that role in the Mahia-Wairoa district. The chief, naturally, would expect something in return for facilitating the Government's purchases. He was to receive land for his personal use. That is why the reserve was not mentioned in the deed and was to be 'purchased' instead. If it had been specifically mentioned others, including Matenga and Tamihana, would have expected it to be reserved for them as well. Instead it was intended as a reward to Ihaka alone, for services rendered. And it was the Government, not Ihaka, who ended up paying the purchase price.

In June 1865 the Hawke's Bay Provincial Government had reserved the Mahia, Nuhaka, lower and upper Wairoa, and Waihua blocks from public sale for the purpose of a special settlement, under the Additional Land Regulations of the Province of Wellington, 15 February 1855.79 This prevented the purchase ofland at Waikokopu for Ihaka. McLean consulted the Native Minister, J C Richmond, about the matter, who suggested that a proclamation be issued revoking the previous proclamation and throwing open the land for selection. The land could then be purchased for Ihaka by the provincial government and a Crown grant issued accordingly.80 The proclamation was issued on 20 April 1867.81 The date for the land being thrown open for selection was set for 28 June 1867. It was then discovered that the provincial government had no funds to buy the land for Ihaka. There had been no special vote on the Estimates to meet this contingency and no public money could be used without contravention of the Audit Act. 82

Because the provincial government was 'most anxious to be facilitated in carrying out its promise to Ihaka', McLean arranged for the money to come out of a loan to the provincial government for purchases of Native lands. It was to be written off as an expense incurred in fulfilling the contract for the Nuhaka block. 83 On 29 August 1867, Richardson, acting for the provincial government, and as agent for Ihaka, made

79 Hawke's Bay Gazette 1865, 6 July 80 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Secretary for Crown Lands, 13 June 1867, OLC 11937 81 Hawke's Bay Gazette 1867, 29 April, pp 38-39 82 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Secretary for Crown Lands, 13 June 1867, OLC 11937 83 OLC 11937, 19 July 1867

20 the necessary application for all the land. He paid for the land, at 10/- per acre,84 a total of £250.12.6, with a cheque of his own and was then to be paid back by the provincial government. 85

The Crown grant for this block was issued to Ihaka Whaanga on 11 September 1867. The block was called Waikokopu number 3 and measured 526 acres and 37 perches. On 21 September 1867 another Crown grant was issued to Ihaka for 37 acres 1 rood and 21 perches. This was comprised of Waikokopu numbers 1 and 2 measuring respectively, 21 acres and 33 perches, and 16 acres and 28 perches. Altogether, a total of 563 acres 2 roods and 18 perches. Both grants were to date from 1 July 1865.86 The Crown grant for Waikokopu 1 and 2 was issued to Ihaka 'derivative of John

Salmon' .87 There is no mention of Matenga or Tamihana in the provincial government's negotiations or in the Crown grants. This issue will be taken up again in Chapter 5.

Opoutama

This next section looks at the creation of the Opoutama reserve. Compared to the Waikokopu reserve it was fairly straightforward, but even here local politics was an important factor. Its origins were caught up in disputes about the Mahia block and the sale of Kopuawhara.

Opoutama, of 167 acres, was reserved out of the Crown purchase of the Kopuawhara block. The Crown purchased Kopuawhara in 1868, but the negotiations for it had begun long before this and appear to have come about as a result of dissatisfaction over Ihaka's sale of the Mahia block to the Crown. In late 1864, N gati Tu, with the

84 Sub clause 7 of the Additional Land Regulations of the Province of Wellington, 1855, 'Provided also, whenever the title to any Native land shall have been extinguished, it shall be lawful for the Governor, ifhe shall think fit, immediately on the completion thereof, to permit the native sellers to purchase at the rate of ten shillings an acre any portion of such land, and the same may be conveyed by Crown Grant accordingly' . 85 OLC 11937,30 July 1867; Hawke's Bay Gazette 1867,17 October, p 104. I am not sure ifthis was G E G Richardson, the Provincial Auditor. 86 MAl, 6/89; copy of Crown grants on Wai 427/0 file 87 OLC 217, Cumins Register

21 support of Rongowhakaata, offered to sell the Kopuawhara block, on the neck of the Mahia Peninsula, in protest at Ihaka's conduct in ignoring their interest in the Mahia block. But they only wanted to sell the side of the Kopuawhara stream on which Ihaka had his cultivation, the rest they wanted to reserve 'for themselves and the King or Runanganui' .88 In other words, they wanted revenge on Ihaka. Ihaka agreed to the sale on the condition that they sell their rights to Whangawehi and sell both sides of the Kopuawhara stream. This they refused to do at the time. A couple of weeks later though they again offered the land to Locke, which he refused telling them that:

land without an outlet to the sea was useless that they must give Wangawehi then the government would buy theirs if there were no disputes about it, to which proposition they consented and left.89

Nine days later Locke wrote:

The Natives look upon Wangawehi as gone to sea but they wish to have the Ngatitu affair settled first. Ihaka and his party appear to be very suspicious of the intentions of Turanga.90

In 1865 a government return listed that £100 had been paid for 12,000 acres at Kopuawhara, pending survey, although it did not list who the money had been paid to.91 However in June 1865 Ihaka wrote to McLean upset to hear that Ihaka Makahue and Te Teira Toheriri had received money from McLean. He wanted to know the boundaries of the land that they had supposedly sold. Ihaka told McLean that if Te Teira Toheriri and Ihaka Makahue wanted to sell 'Poutama' [Opoutama - on the west side of the Kopuawhara stream] that was fine, 'but if they include other areas then that it is no good'.92

No further payments were made until 1868 by which time the Native Land Acts were in operation and the block had been brought before the Native Land Court. By then

88 Locke to McLean, 5 December 1864, MS-Papers 32, folder 393; Locke to McLean, 10 December 1864, HB 4/5, National Archives 89 Locke to McLean, 22 December 1864, MS-Papers 32, folder 393 90 Locke to McLean, 31 December 1865, MS-Papers 32, folder 393 91 AJHR 1865 C-2, P 4 92 Ihaka Whaanga to McLean, 21 June 1865, HB 4/13

22 the block had been surveyed and the area stated was 6943 acres. The block being dealt with was just the land on the west side of the Kopuawhara stream, the side including Opoutama, which Ihaka had said it was fine to sell.

The case was held on 18 February 1867.93 Ihaka appeared and spoke for himself, Te Teira Toheriri and Ihaka Makahue. He gave the whakapapa for himself and Te Teira although it is not recorded in the minutes. According to Ballara, it was quite common for the clerks in the early court hearings not to record evidence fully.94 The minute book merely records: 'Witness traces his own and the descent of Te Teira'. He did not know Ihaka Makahue' s whakapapa.

In his evidence, Ihaka claimed that he had lived and cultivated on the land for many years. He further claimed that he and the other two claimants were in undisturbed possession of Kopuawhara and that there was 'no dispute about my title'. This does not sound entirely true given the dispute with N gati Tu, or in light of future events, but no objectors appeared in court. The only other claimant present, Te Teira Marutu[?] said he had a claim on the land but did not wish his name to be in the Grant. He corroborated Ihaka's evidence. With no objectors appearing, a certificate oftitle was ordered to issue to Ihaka Whaanga, Te Teira Toheriri and Ihaka Makahue, with no restrictions on alienation. 95 The Crown grant was issued to these three on 11 February 1868.96 The Crown purchased Kopuawhara from them for £500 on 23 April 1868.97 In total, a price of £600 was paid for the Kopuawhara block.98

The plan accompanying the deed showed the block as 6312 acres. It was bounded on the eastern side by the Kopuawhara stream and on the west by the Nuhaka block. The Opoutama block of 167 acres was reserved in the deed. The reserve was bounded on one side by the Opoutama stream and on the other by the Waikokopu reserve. At this stage it is not clear why there is a discrepancy between the Court's 6943 acreage and

93 Wairoa Minute Book 1, pp 7-9 94 BaHara, Iwi, p 44 95 Wairoa Minute Book 1, pp 8-9 96 HBG 1868, April 3 97 MA-MLP 6/3, deed no 155, p 40 98 see also, Locke to McLean, 20 June 1868, MS-Papers 32, folder 393

23 the amount purchased by the Crown even taking into account the Opoutama reserve of 167 acres.

The plan showed that the block immediately east of the Kopuawhara stream was also named Kopuawhara and below that was the Paione block. The second Kopuawhara block became Mahanga while the Paione block became Kaiwaitau. While Opoutama had been reserved in the deed, Kaiwaitau had been specifically exempted. It appears that this was the side on which Ihaka had his cultivation. In June 1868, after having already paid the purchase money for Kopuawhara, Locke wrote to McLean.

I have just received a letter from you dated June lsI with respect to Te Teira Toheriri's offer ofland. I have got one from Ihaka Waanga who appears to be very much excited about it, so also is Paora Apatu and many others. It is done in revenge to Ihaka Waanga and includes all his cultivations but what appears to annoy them most is the £600 you gave Ihaka Makahui and Teira all of which they spent, and they are now fuming at old Ihaka. It is the same piece of land that I wrote to you about when I first went to the Mahia[;] it consists of a large extent of rough wooded ranges and a large swamp with about one hundred acres of pretty good land.99

This was the Kaiwaitau block of 1470 acres, which was later Crown granted to Ihaka Whaanga, Paora Te Apatu, Hamuera Runga, Ihaka Paea, Te Teira Toheriri and Pirnia

Pare. 100

Because the Opoutama reserve was bounded on the eastern side by the Opoutama stream this means that the land on the other side of the stream was now Crown land. It appears that section 36, Block 111, Mahanga Survey District was already Crown land before it was leased to the Blue Bay Holiday Park Limited in 1964 (see figure 2).101

99 Ibid

100 Wairoa Minute Book 1, 19 September 1868, p 63; Copy of Crown Grant dated 13 July 1872, Maori Land Court Gisbome 101 Wai 653, Opoutama Land Claim

24 Graphical Representation Only N.Harris: July 1999 Urehunga

:.:: o o ...J '" KOPUAWHARA BLOCK

A R P I 6312 0 0 Taumata Kaingaka

Paione Blk

Source: MA 1/1923/135

2

Figure 2 Kopuawhara plan

25 CHAPTER 2

IHAKA WHAANGA'S RESERVE

Chapter 1 looked at the creation of the Waikokopu and Opoutama reserves. This chapter will look at their actual reservation and how Government officials dealt with them.

Despite the Kopuawhara block being Crown granted to Ihaka and two others, the Opoutama reserve appears to have been treated by the Government as belonging to Ihaka alone, and as forming part ofthe Waikokopu reserve. In 1871, Charles Heaphy, Commissioner of Native Reserves, listed Waikokopu as being 693 acres and 37 perches, i.e. Waikokopu 3 of 526 acres and 37 perches, and Opoutama, 167 acres. Heaphy noted that the reserve was actually two blocks but he treated them as one and as intended only for 'Ihaka Whanga' .102

Although Waikokopu and Opoutama were both treated as reserves for Ihaka, at this stage neither had been formally reserved under legislation or by the Native Land Court. In 1870, Heaphy had recommended that these types of reserves 'be brought under the notice of the Court with a view to being granted in such manner as shall secure the Native ... right in their use' .103 It appeared to become imperative when in January 1871 Ihaka wrote to Locke in fear that due to the money Ihaka owed Towgood, Waikokopu (and Opoutama) would be taken by him.104 Locke forwarded the letter on to Heaphy with the comment that Ihaka was anxious to have the land reserved under the Native Trust Act.

102 AJHR 1871 F-4, P 62. It is important to keep the acreage in mind, as it can become confusing later on. Sometimes it is treated as the 693 acres and 37 perches for Waikokopu 3 and Opoutama, other times there is 563a.2.l8p for Waikokopu 1,2,3 and then there is 730a.2r.18p for a grand total of Waikokopu 1,2,3 and Opoutama. 103 AJHR 1870 D-16, P 13 104 Smit, p 70; Ihaka to Locke, 7 January 1871, MAl, 6/89

26 Heaphy took this to mean the Native Land Frauds Prevention Act 1870. This Act provided for the establishment of Native Trust Districts and the appointment of trust commissioners. The consent of the commissioner was necessary for any alienation of land. The commissioner had to be fully satisfied that the transaction was fair and equitable before he would agree to any alienation. He was to show this by endorsing the deed of certificate. Heaphy, however, did not think that these blocks would fit the terms of the 1870 Act. For one thing, although Kopuawhara had been before the Native Land Court, Waikokopu had not. Heaphy recommended, instead, that the land be brought under the 1856 Native Reserves Act (and its amendments) if Ihaka consented. !Os The Native title would be extinguished and the land vested in the governor to be administered by the Native Reserves Commissioner for the benefit of Ihaka.

Ihaka and two of his sons, Hirini and Epanaia, signed their assent on 21 December 1871 and 15 March 1872. The consent stated that:

We the undersigned owners of the Native Reserve at Waikokopu hereunder described have agreed that the said reserve shall be brought under the Provisions of the Native Reserves Act 1862.

The description read, 'All the Native Reserve at Waikokopu known as Ihaka Whaanga's reserve and lying in the Nuhaka and Kopuawhara blocks and containing

693 acres and 37 perches' .106 Heaphy certified the written assent on 17 July, the order in council was signed on 24 July, extinguishing the aboriginal title and the land was vested in the Crown as a reserve for the natives. 107

With 'Ihaka Whaanga's reserve' vested in the Crown, Heaphy wrote to Towgood and Richardson advising them that he was managing the reserve and that they should be paying rent to his office. lOB It was then that it was discovered that Towgood and Richardson were not actually paying any rent on account of the money Ihaka owed

]05 MAl, 6/89,29 March 1871 ]06 MA1,6/89

]07 New Zealand Gazette 1872,3 August 1872, pp 639-40 ]08 MAl, 6/89, 24 October 1873

27 them. 109 That debt was not cleared off until 13 April 1876, by which time Ihaka had died. 110

Attempts to have Waikokopu 1 and 2 gazetted as a native reserve

The correspondence that resulted from Heaphy's letter opened up the complex nature of Salmon's and Towgood's subsequent purchases of Waikokopu blocks 1 and 2. It was noted that the two blocks were Crown granted to Ihaka without any restrictions. 111 Ihaka, possibly with encouragement from Locke and Heaphy, requested that the two blocks also be brought under the Native Reserves Act. ll2 Heaphy had a Proclamation engrossed in order to do this but it was never signed. Ihaka died on 14 December 1875 and it was necessary to establish his succession before anything further could be done.1l3

Heaphy was still anxious to have the land put in trust for Ihaka's descendants. He decided that the usual way of bringing land under the Native Reserve Acts by assent would not do in this case as, according to him, the Native title had already been extinguished by its sale to Salmon and resale back to Ihaka. He suggested that the two blocks could be put into trust 'the same as Pakowhai was' securing 'the estate to the Natives permanently' .114

Nothing further at this time was done to reserve the land, mainly, it seems, because Ihaka's succession was not established. Chief Judge Fenton maintained that section 62 of the Native Reserves Act 1878 prevented the Court from taking any action in the matter. ll5 Alexander Mackay, the Commissioner of Native Reserves, was not so sure. He pointed out that it was intended to repeal s 62 by the next Act. There was also a

109 Ibid, J Wilson, solicitor to Heaphy, 21 May 1874 & Richardson to Locke, 12 November 1874 110 Ibid, Locke to Heaphy, 19 May 1876 111 Ibid, Heaphy to Native Under Secretary, 18 August 1875 112 Ibid

113 Ibid, Morpeth to Lewis, 3 July 1889 114 Ibid, Heaphy to Locke, 27 November 1876. I am not sure of the difference but in that case, the reserve had been through the Native Land Court, awarded to grantees, and a trust deed was signed by the grantees handing over the land to Heaphy and Locke as trustees, AJHR 1870 D-16, pp 12 & 17 115 Fenton to Heaphy, 18 September 1876, MAl, 6/89. Section 62 exempted any land or reserve from the operation of the Native Land Court where Native title had been extinguished.

28 special provision to empower the Court to deal with the claims of people claiming to have a beneficial interest in any Native Reserves as next of kin.116 Regardless, nothing more was done at this stage.

In May 1884, Captain Preece, the resident magistrate, received a letter from Ihaka Maihi Whaanga asking for the names of 'the person or people who the Government consider are entitled to this land: - Opoutama 170 acres'. Ihaka wanted the reserve put before the Native Land Court to determine the owners.ll7 Preece forwarded his letter on to the Native Under Secretary with the recommendation that the Public Trustee be requested to make an application to the court, under s 16 of the Native Reserves Act 1882. This provided for the Public Trustee to make an application to the Court to determine the names of all persons deemed to be beneficially interested in any portion of a Native reserve, where any doubt had arisen. Under s 8 of the Act all Native reserves were now vested in the Public Trustee.

Lewis, the under secretary, requested information from Mackay. Mackay informed him that while Waikokopu had been granted to Ihaka Whaanga, Opoutama had not been granted 'but was probably intended for Ihaka also'. He also thought that s 30 rather than s 16 applied in this case. Section 30 provided for the Native Reserves Commissioner to make an application to the court to determine the individual owners of reserves. He recommended that if Preece sent in a description of the land he would make the application. The under secretary asked, 'Why is it assumed that the 167 acres was reserved for Ihaka?' and requested the papers. 'It would hardly do to take it for granted that the reserve was made for Ihaka Whaanga'. 118

Once again, nothing further was done, at least until 1888 when it became a matter of some urgency. A solicitor in Napier had prepared a conveyance for the land before he discovered by accident that it was a Native reserve. As Preece pointed out, there had been nothing on the face of the grant or on the register to show that it was a reserve. This caused Preece to ask the Public Trustee to take steps to place some record on the

116 Ibid, minute on Fenton's letter 117 Ibid, 1 May 1884 118 Lewis to Mackay, 15 May 1884, MAl, 6/89

29 registry at Napier that the land had been gazetted a Native reserve. 119 This was eventually done but it still left Waikokopu Blocks 1 and 2 unreserved. Preece suggested that a fresh consent be obtained from Ihaka's successors to bring those blocks under the Native Reserves Act 1882.120

The Public Trustee did not think he had any jurisdiction over blocks 1 and 2, which he understood belonged to Europeans, or over Opoutama. He was, however, interested in re-Ieasing what he understood to be 'Ihaka Whaanga's reserve' (Towgood and Richardson's lease had expired) even though he did not know the exact extent of the reserve. 121

Preece, after correcting the Trustee that the two blocks were not owned by Europeans, suggested that there was:

ample proof in the papers that consent was given by Ihaka Whanga that it should now be gazetted as [a Native reserve]. I would suggest that this be done before the other is let, and that it should be Leased by Auction, or tender for a term of 21 years. 122

He also pointed out that Opoutama was part of the wider reserve and therefore the Trustee's responsibility. Preece suggested that Opoutama be leased separately from the other blocks. The Public Trustee forwarded Preece's letter on to the Native Office and asked them to take whatever action was necessary for gazetting the blocks. 123

The Native Office could not understand why the Public Trustee was asking them to take action. 'It is time a Proclamation was engrossed by Major Heaphy's directions

... in order to bring the sections under the Native Reserves Acts' .124

119 Ibid, 29 September 1888 120 Ibid, 18 April 1889 121 Ibid, Public Trustee to Preece & PT to Roope Brooking, 6 May 1889 122 Ibid, Preece to Public Trustee, 21 June 1889 123 Ibid, minute on cover sheet, 28 June 1889 124 Ibid, Morpeth to Lewis, 3 July 1889

30 Lewis was unclear as to the power to deal with the two blocks as the land was not Native land but land held under Crown grant. He now believed that the land would be Ihaka Whaanga's successor's private property and it could only be made a reserve by vesting it in the governor by conveyance. 125 The solicitor for the Public Trustee maintained that nothing could be done until the successors were appointed and their wishes were known. 'It is uncertain (if not improbable) ifthey will care to fetter their

(at present) unrestricted rights of ownership in these two pieces' .126

Succession orders

In June 1898 a Court hearing was held at Wairoa to determine the successors in Opoutama for Ihaka Makahue and Te Teira Toheriri. Rewi and Rare Toheriri, Tora Te Ihi, Hera Imumia and Tairea Wairau succeeded Te Teira Toheriri. Ihaka Makahue was succeeded by Watene Kara and Whakaronga Makahue. 127 The successors for Ihaka Whaanga were not determined at this hearing. In 1899 his son, also called Ihaka, wrote to P Sheridan, Native Land Officer about it. 'This is to request you to issue to us the Crown grant for the Opoutama 167 acres reserved out of the sale of

Kopuawhara block'. 128 It is not clear why Ihaka's successors for Opoutama were not appointed at this time, but on 24 October 1899 successors for his interests in Waikokopu 1, 2 and 3 were assigned. They were Hirini Whaanga, Ihaka Whaanga, Epanaia Whaanga, Iharaira Titoko, Marara Poneke and Matene Whaanga (all members of the Whaanga family). The order was backdated to 14 December 1875. 129

125 Ibid, Lewis to Public Trustee, 4 July 1889 126 Ibid, 29 July 1889 127 The hearing was held in Wairoa on 30 June 1898, Judge Butler presiding, copy ofNLC succession orders for Opoutama, MAl, 6/89 128 MA 1119231135, Opoutama Native Reserve, 15 September 1899 129 Ibid, copy ofNLC order

31 Graphical Representation Only N.Harris: July 1999

Puketeamu

167 ac

Te Whanawe Taorau

Nuhaka Block A R P 526 0 37

A R P Nuhaka Block 526 0 37 Kopuawhara Block 167 0 00 Total 693 0 37 Block No.1 21 0 33 Block No.2 16 0 28 Grand Total 730 2 18 Block 2 Uruti 16028 J Salmon

Source: MA 1, 6/89

Figure 3 Waikokopu Native Reserve (aka "Ihaka Whanga's" Reserve)

32 CHAPTER 3

LAND TAKEN FOR HARBOUR PURPOSES

All three claims concerning Waikokopu currently before the Waitangi Tribunal refer specifically to land taken for harbour purposes. This chapter will investigate the taking. It shows that it was decided to build a harbour at Waikokopu because a sandbar at Wairoa prevented that place from being a reliable harbour. It explains the gap between taking the land in 1902 and commencing work in 1924. Finally, it looks at the dismantling of the wharf in 1943 and vesting the land in the Wairoa Harbour Board.

The successors for Waikokopu were appointed just in time for part of the land to be taken for harbour purposes. The settlement of the Wairoa district had always relied on its accessibility by sea and this had been recognised by McLean in his purchases of land in the district. As Wairoa became settled it was always intended to be the port. 130 But as early as 1866 there were concerns about the harbour.l3l The Wairoa River entered the sea about two miles below the town. At the river entrance shingle accumulated in large quantities forming a sandbar that made navigation very difficult. Many strandings occurred on the bar and in the river on what were known as the 'flats' where silt and debris accumulated. The shingle was readily scoured out with a flood but was quickly dammed back by heavy seas sweeping in during gales from the south, the direction from which the East Coast gets its worst weather. Continuous efforts were made to improve the situation, usually consisting of waiting for a complete block, and then, when the river was banked up, making a new cut and letting the water go. This however would usually only last a few weeks or months before the shingle would pile up again and the bar would be blocked again.132

130 Article by James Grindell, Hawke's Bay Herald, 19 November 1864; MacGregor, 1975, p 87 13l Votes and Proceedings of the Provincial Council of Hawke's Bay, 5 October 1866 132 Lambert, p 469; S D Waters, Richardsons ofNapier, A century ofcoastal shipping 1859-1959, Richardson and Company Ltd, Napier 1959, pp 31-32

33 In 1878 the Wairoa Harbour Board was constituted by a special Act,133 and one of its tasks was to improve the bar. Various schemes were carried out and vast amounts expended but ultimately they proved unsuccessful. As the bar kept reverting back the settlers began to look elsewhere for a more reliable harbour. In June 1889, the Wairoa County Council passed a resolution to establish a 'Harbour of Refuge' at Waikokopu. 134 The local newspaper, the Wairoa Guardian, editorialized that 'all settlers must be impressed with the urgent necessity of some scheme for the improvement of the [Wairoa] river entrance' but was not convinced about the 'Waikokopu scheme' :

that is by a moderate expense, deepening and widening the entrance to the Waikokopu creek, a small tidal inlet on this side of the Mahia, thus securing a good and safe harbour in all weathers.135

The scheme also involved connecting the port with Wairoa by a railway. The Guardian saw this, at best, as an alternative plan and, echoing the council, only 'a harbour of refuge' .136

Nevertheless, the scheme went ahead and Maori land was taken to facilitate it. On 13 March 1900, Sheridan, the Native Land Purchase Officer, wrote to the Public Trustee enquiring about the status of Waikokopu 3 and Opoutama. He wanted to make sure that they were vested in the trustee. 'My reasons for making the inquiry are that a portion of the block 3 is required for harbour purposes and I want to set at rest the question of how and from whom a legal title can be obtained'. He recommended that the trustee bring the titles of both reserves under the Land Transfer Act. 137

The Public Trustee replied that they were both Native reserves vested in him as trustee.138 The trustee was also aware that though vested in him, he had never actually administered the reserves, a situation he wanted to remedy now that part of block 3

133 The Wairoa Harbour Board Act 1878 134 R C Wilson, Wairoa County Council- the First Hundred Years, Wairoa County Council, 1978, p 72 135 Wairoa Guardian, 27 June 1891, M1, 31131165 136 Ibid 137 MAl, 6/89; Sheridan to Colonel Porter, 21 March 1900, MA 111923/135

34 was wanted for harbour purposes. He wrote to the agent of the Public Trustee in Napier requesting a run down on the reserves, if they were leased, to whom, for how much and to whom the rent was being paid. He wanted to know who the Native owners living were, what the value of the land for leasing purposes was and any recommendations as to how the land should be leased, provided it was not required by the Native owners.139

The Public Trustee's letter was forwarded to the agent at Wairoa who responded on 1 June 1900. Despite the Court hearing in 1898 for Opoutama, which appointed successors for the other two but not for Ihaka, the Wairoa agent identified the Whaanga whanau as the owners of both reserves. At the time Epanaia Whaanga occupied Waikokopu while Edward B Bendall, the executor in the estate of Ihaka Whaanga, occupied Opoutama. Bendall paid only a 'peppercorn rental' and occupied by virtue of his executorship and with the consent of the Whaanga whanau. The agent thought any interference to the present occupation would be objected to by the Whaanga family and by Bendall. However, if any changes were to be made then he suggested that Waikokopu could be leased for £30 per annum while Opoutama would go for about £18 per annum and the best manner to lease the lands would be by tender. 140

The agent pointed out that the Whaanga family had already been approached about the harbour and had agreed to sell 20 or 30 acres for a harbour foreshore. He recommended that if the trustee was now intending to administer the lands that the harbour issue be settled first so as to not jeopardise negotiations for 'if the Whaanga family were irritated, the offer might be withdrawn, and other complications might arise'. He also pointed out that 'if the harbour matter were arranged the lands would be much increased in value, and perhaps double the amount stated could be obtained

138 MAl, 6/89, 26 March 1900 139 PT to Agent of Public Trustee, Napier, 26 March 1900, MAl, 6/89 140 Agent at Wairoa to Public Trustee, 1 June 1900, MAl, 6/89

35 by way of rental' .141 On his advice, the Public Trustee agreed not to disturb the existing arrangements. 142

The land for the harbour was taken by proclamation under the Public Works Act 1894 on 6 February 1902. 143 The gazette notice listed three parcels of land taken. Two were in block 3 of 5 acres 3 roods and 8 acres 3 roods respectively. The third parcel was 37 acres in block 1. The notice said that it was the 'whole block' but it was actually more than that as block 1 was only 21 acres and 33 perches.

The compensation for the land taken was assessed at Gisborne on 25 September 1902 by the Native Land Court, under section 90 of the 1894 Act. The land was valued with the rest of the reserve at £1 per acre. The Registrar ofthe Court then wrote to the Public Trustee asking who the compensation should be paid to, the trustee or the successors of Ihaka. 144

The Public Trustee replied that only block 3 was vested in him so only the proportion representing the land taken in block 3 should be paid to him. The rest should go directly to the successors. 145 The total amount of compensation was fixed at £141.12.6. Of that, £101.15.0 was for block 1 and £39.17.6 for block 3. The compensation for block 3 was forwarded to the Public Trustee with instructions that it was to be divided into £6.12.11 for each of the six beneficial owners. 146 The trustee, however, pointed out that as the land was vested in him, and consequently inalienable, the money received in place of the land was also inalienable. He had no authority to distribute it and had to hold it as capital. 147 Sheridan warned that 'the Natives will be disappointed when they learn that the compensation for Waikokopu number 3 is not to be distributed amongst them' .148

141 Ibid

142 Ibid, PT to Agent at Wairoa, 12 June 1900 143 New Zealand Gazette 1902, p 332 144 The Registrar, NLC, Gisbome to PT, 25 September 1902, MAl, 6/89 145 Public Trustee to Registrar, 3 October 1902, MAl, 6/89 146 Ibid, 14 May 1903, the compensation for block 1 worked out to be £16.19.2 each 147 Ibid, PT to Sheridan, 18 May 1903 148 Ibid, 19 May 1903

36 This proved the case when Hirini Whaanga wrote from Utah, where he was now living, asking for his share of the compensation for block 3. The trustee informed him that the money was inalienable and must remain in his office. He told him that the interest - at 4% per annum - would be distributed amongst the owners 'and when the amount of your share is large enough to forward I will send it to you' .149

Hirini responded by writing to the Government asking it to send his share even if it was 'only a small amount' .150 This letter was forwarded to the Public Trustee on 20 January 1905 who wrote back to Hirini advising him that he had nothing further to add to his letter of 13 April 1904.151 Hirini, or perhaps some of the other successors, must have kept petitioning the Government because the money was finally paid out to them under the Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act 1906. Section 20 directed the trustee to pay the sum of £39.17.6 with accumulated interest to the former beneficial owners of the land. Each owner received £7.11.9 each.152 However, by the time the money was paid out Hirini had died so it was paid to his widow. 153

The Waikokopu Harbour Board

Following the taking of the land for harbour purposes, the Waikokopu Harbour Board was constituted under the Waikokopu Harbour Board Act 1902. The board was to consist of five members appointed by the governor. The member for Waiapu, James Carroll, explained that as the place was small and it was only intended to erect a small jetty for the local traffic, it was unnecessary to set up an elective board. 154 The Act made an endowment of the foreshore to the board to provide for reclamation from the sea for harbour purposes. The limits of the Waikokopu harbour were defined in the

New Zealand Gazette. 155

149 Ibid, PT to Hirini Whaanga, 13 April 1904 150 Ibid, 20 June 1904 151 Ibid, 27 January 1905 152 Ibid, 28 November 1906 153 Ibid, 15 February 1907 154 New Zealand Parliamentary Debates 1902, vol. 122, p 778

37 The board employed C Napier Bell, an engineer, to report upon the possibility of constructing a breakwater that would make a serviceable port at Waikokopu. He travelled from Wairoa to Waikokopu on 7 February 1903 and made an inspection of the Waikokopu Creek and took soundings in the sea round the bluff. He also inspected the country between Wairoa and Waikokopu to check out its feasibility to construct a railway.

The natural harbour at Waikokopu was a small creek flowing down between the hills and forming a small estuary at it entered the sea. A boulder banle from the bluff enclosed it, leaving a narrow opening close under the cliffs on the left side. Under the cliffs there was a submerged reef of rocks and in the sea, not far from the entrance, a patch of rocks awash at low water making the entrance unsafe. Once inside, the estuary was all but dry at low water leaving not much more than room for one rowboat. In light of this, Bell considered that it was not suitable to make a harbour inside the Waikokopu creek.

Nevertheless, he maintained that a good harbour could be easily and safely constructed at Waikokopu to serve all the export and import requirements of the surrounding district. Central to this was the quarrying of the hill that formed the Waikokopu bluff. The design was to build a sheltering breakwater out of loose rubble blocks quarried out of the adjacent hill. This would enclose a small sheltered space between the inner side of the breakwater and the shore with a depth of water of between 20 to 30 feet. The idea was that steamers would lie alongside a wharf built parallel to the shore. The breakwater was to be kept well out from the shore, so as to give a clearance at the wharf of about 230 feet, which was essential to allow for vessels turning at the wharf. Bell thought that as the district was so small there was no need for a harbour of large capacity. One that would shelter and berth two vessels at a time was more than adequate. At the back of the wharf the sloping shore was to be reclaimed level on which buildings could be erected and rails laid leading in to the

155 NZG 1903, pp 342-3

38 estuary of the creek. There, on a suitable reclaimed site, sheds could be erected to store produce. 156

Bell's scheme was accepted and the Waikokopu Harbour Act 1903 was passed to give 15 effect to it. ? The Act enabled the Waikokopu Harbour Board to borrow £12,000 to carry out the scheme. It also constituted a harbour district (Third schedule). More importantly, perhaps, it set apart some of the land taken in 1902 as a quarry reserve and as an endowment for the Waikokopu Harbour Board (Second schedule). The board was to have sole control of the quarry reserve and full power to work it. If the land was not required for a quarry the board could only dispose of it by leasing it. The board had the power to lease any lands vested in it. Despite the passing of this Act it appears that the Waikokopu Harbour Board did little in the way of building a harbour. The Hawke's Bay Tribune observed, 'We imagine that there are but few who were aware that such a body as the Waikokopu Harbour Board had ever been created, and certainly its activities must have been very limited' .158

In 1918 opinion was still in favour of a harbour at Waikokopu. In June of that year F Furkert, Inspecting Engineer of the Public Works Department, was requested by the Wairoa Harbour Board to submit a report on the shipping facilities for the Wairoa district. After examining the harbour works at Wairoa, Furkert advocated the construction of a harbour at Waikokopu in preference to further expenditure on the Wairoa River. His scheme involved the construction of a branch railway about 23 miles in length. This was not only to facilitate the export of meat from the Wairoa freezing works, but also to handle the general imports and exports of the whole district. 159 There had been instances of meat being left in cold store at Wairoa because of the inadequate means of transport and cases where coal for the Wairoa Freezing works had to be landed at Waikokopu and transported by wagons and motor lorries over the roads and at great COSt.1 60 A meeting of the Wairoa Harbour Board and Wairoa rate payers in October that year passed a resolution urging the Government 'to

156 Napier Bell's report, 18 March & 18 April 1903, Ml, 3/13/165 157 NZPD 1903, vol. 127, p 256 158 9 September 1919, MI, 3/13/165 159 Ibid, Report ofF WFurket, 25 June 1918; NZPD 1918, P 1081

39 connect Wairoa with Waikokopu by rail, the combined districts undertaking the construction of a deep sea harbour at Waikokopu' .161

Amongst all the general support for Waikokopu a lone correspondent to the Wairoa Guardian pointed out the disadvantages of the scheme. 162 Like the Guardian's editor 28 years earlier, this correspondent saw it as a temporary scheme only and an expensive one at that. He maintained that, despite assertions to the opposite, there was no natural harbour 'only an open road stead only slightly less exposed to our worst weather than the Wairoa anchorage'. He thought the water would be too shallow for the modern ocean steamer and it would be extremely difficult to hold ships alongside any wharf erected there. 'If torn from their moorings in bad weather they could not escape total wreck'. MacGregor writes that there had been several wrecks within its waters in the early nineteenth century.163

Nevertheless, the general consensus remained in favour of Waikokopu although with a proposal to merge the Wairoa and Waikokopu Harbour Boards. In July 1919, about 60 people, including a number of local Maori, attended a meeting held at the Morere school house to discuss the proposed harbour. At the meeting it was moved that the two boards be merged into one. The proposal was translated for the Maori present by a Mr Christie, a relation of the Whaangas. He stated that it seemed a feasible proposition to them. A large majority carried the motion. 164

In line with this, the chairman of the Wairoa County Council proceeded to Wellington on the Wairoa Harbour Board's deputation to urge upon the Government the necessity of proceeding with the Wairoa to Waikokopu railway line. As a result of this meeting the Government authorised that a complete survey of the line be made. An Act was passed authorising construction of a branch line from Wairoa to Waikokopu with a

160 NZPD 1919, vol. 185, p 975; Waters, p 84 161 Ml, 3/13/165, 11 October 1918 162 Ibid, Fred J Foot, 21 May 1919 163 MacGregor, 1975, pp 86-87 164 Wairoa Guardian 14 July 1919, Ml, 3113/165

40 length of about 22 miles. The work was commenced in 1919 and by 1923 it was carrying limited goods traffic. 165

On the passing of the Railways Authorization Act the Wairoa Harbour Board Empowering and Loan Act 1919 came into effect. This Act merged the two harbour boards and provided for the construction of a deep-sea harbour at Waikokopu on. the condition that the Railways Act was passed. The intention of the Harbour Board Act was to give effect, finally, to Napier Bell's scheme. 166 The harbour board was empowered to construct such harbour works as was necessary for a port at Waikokopu and make immediate provision for the shipping facilities to be provided by the railway. The Harbour Board Act received the support of Ihaka Whaanga and others. 167 As the Hawke's Bay Tribune pointed out, the landowner's in the immediate vicinity of the harbour were going to profit much more directly and in much greater measure than any others. 168

In 1921 the harbour board borrowed £32,000 for the harbour works and concentrated on the establishment of an inner harbour, in direct opposition to Bell's report. The works, not surprisingly perhaps, proved ineffective. The inner harbour turned into a mud flat, and by 1923 there were allegations of incompetence, extravagance and inefficiency on the part of the board. The allegations led to the Minister of Marine asking for the Marine Engineer's opinion on the matter. Furket confirmed that work had not progressed and the harbour was far from ready. He was at a loss to say where the blame lay but thought the board's attempt to build it without sufficient money was a major factor. The board's decision to dispense with the services of both their consulting engineer and resident engineer also probably did not help. 'They might as well attempt to run the Wairoa Freezing Works without a manager' .169

With little to show for their work the board begged the Minister of Public Works to take over the construction. The Government, alarmed at the possibility of the freezing

165 Railways Authorization Act 1919; Wilson, 1978, p 191; McLintock, p 522 166 NZPD 1919, vol 185, P 792 167 Ihaka Whaanga and Materoa Huka Whakaki to Minister of Marine, 3 October 1919, Ml, 3/13/165 168 Ibid, 9 September 1919

41 works being hung up, came to the rescue. The decision to harness Lake Waikaremoana as a source of power also made both the railway and the harbour a government necessity. The Waikokopu wharf was to handle the heavyweight materials needed for the construction of the Waikaremoana hydroelectric scheme while the railway was to transport them there. 17o The intention was for the department to build and control the wharf until the Wairoa Harbour Board was in a financial position to reimburse the department. Once the board had paid back the department it was to take over the control of the wharf.

Harbour works commenced at Waikokopu in 1924-25. After the disaster ofthe inner harbour, the managing director of Richardson and CO.,171 K McLeay, prevailed upon the chief engineer of the department to have the wharf built outside the boulder bank.172 The department expended approximately £67,000 on the construction of a breakwater and wharf. The wharf allowed the berthing of vessels drawing up to 18 feet; larger vessels were loaded by means of lightering. As well, the wharf provided for the safe handling of the heavy equipment for the hydroelectric power station. The first vessel to berth at the wharf was the SS Ruru, and the first ship to be loaded with frozen meat was the Waiwera. The second liner to visit the port and load meat for

London was the SS Port Albany. 173

Around January 1925 it was arranged for the Wairoa Harbour Board to take over the control of the harbour, collect all wharfages, berthages, and other harbour dues. After deducting maintenance disbursements the board was to remit the excess of income over expenditure to the Public Works Department. This was to go towards paying off the board's debt. 174

By January 1929 the board still had to raise £25,000 to purchase the wharves and other works at Waikokopu from the department. Just prior to 1936 the harbour board

169 Ibid, Furket to Marine Secretary, 12 January 1923 170 Ml, 3/13/165; Lambert, p 471 171 a major shipping company 172 Waters, p 85 173 Ml, 3/13/165; MacGregor, 1975, p 87; Waters, p 85 174 Ml, 3/13/165, by 30 September 1935 the public debt of the harbour board was £78,400

42 made an application to the Government for the Waikokopu works to be handed over to them free of charge. The Minister of Finance replied that the works could be handed over for a cash payment of £20,000. In 1937, the Public Works Department still owned the wharf and appointments at Waikokopu. 175

The war years were to have a major and detrimental effect on Waikokopu and the Wairoa Harbour Board. In May 1929 the Poverty Bay Herald had published the figures for the Ports of Wairoa and Waikokopu during the years 1923-1928. These showed a steady increase in imports/exports for Waikokopu with a corresponding decline for Wairoa. It was a similar story for shipping tonnage.176 The war saw the diversion of overseas vessels from Waikokopu, which had been the harbour board's last real source of revenue and Waikokopu was no longer able to retain its pre-war position as a shipping port. Richardson and Co. ceased their operation there in 1940. The last vessel to use the port was in July 1942.177 In November 1942 the district engineer recommended that the wharf be immediately closed and dismantled. Cabinet approved the recommendation on 18 January 1943 and the Public Works Department commenced dismantling the wharf. Apart from the construction of a jetty for the launch to service the Portland Island lighthouse, Waikokopu was to have a wharf no longer. 178

As Wairoa had also ceased to operate as a port, Cabinet approved the elimination of a separate harbour board and the vesting ofthe board's responsibilities in a local body. On 9 October 1946 the Wairoa Harbour Board was abolished under the Wairoa Harbour Board Act 1946. The functions and responsibilities of the board were transferred to the Wairoa Borough Council. The lands of the board were vested in either the Crown or the corporation of the County of Wairoa. The foreshore area described in the New Zealand Gazette 1903, p 342, and abutting blocks 1 and 3, was vested in the Crown.179 The rest of the land was vested in the County Corporation.

175 Ibid

176 Poverty Bay Herald 21 May 1929, Ml, 31131165 177 Ml, 3/131165, Secretary, Marine Department, 24 February 1943; Water, p 85 178 Ml,3/131165; ABKK 63/25 W4357 179 In 1973 the control of the foreshore was granted to the Wairoa County Council, NZG 1973, P 4

43 This included some land in block 3 that had been purchased by the Crown after the original taking.

Graphical Representation Only N.Harris: July 1999

Opoutama 167 : 0 : 00

Waikokopu 3 526 : 0 : 37

Waikokopu Harbour Board Reserve 51 :2:0

Source: MA 1/1923/135

Figure 4 Land taken for harbour purposes

44 CHAPTER 4

MORE LAND ALIENATION

Chapter 3 looked at the taking of land in Waikokopu 1 and 3 for harbour purposes. At the end of that chapter it was stated that more land in block 3 was purchased by the Crown and used for harbour purposes. This chapter investigates that purchase and other land alienation in the two reserves. It is intended to deal with Waikokopu and Opoutama separately although it is recognised that there will be a degree of overlap between the two, especially as the two reserves were frequently dealt with as one.

Waikokopu

In May 1906, the Chairman of the Board of Land Purchase Committee wrote to the Public Trustee enquiring if he would sell Waikokopu 3. It appears that this land was wanted as an endowment for the Waikokopu Harbour Board. 180 The trustee replied that he did not have the power under the Native Reserves Act to sell the land as requested. He did point out, however, that the land could be 'compulsorily taken in the same manner as the portion taken for harbour purposes' .181 Nothing was done at this time.

The following year, the trustee was sent a copy of petition number 853/07 from Epanaia Whaanga and 21 others asking that the Public Trustee's authority be removed from Opoutama and Waikokopu 3. The translation read, 'that the power of administration of the Public Trustee be withdrawn from off these blocks, that it be left for us - the owners of the land - to look after and administer them in such directions as will result to our benefit'. 182 The petition appears to have come about partly as a result of negotiations with Bendall over his lease of Opoutama but it may also have resulted from negotiations for the purchase of Waikokopu. Throughout 1908, and possibly earlier, the Government had been negotiating with the Whaanga family for

180 MAl, 6/89, 5 May 1906 181 ibid, 21 May 1906 182 ibid, 21 November 1907

45 the purchase of the Waikokopu reserve. 183 On 23 November 1908 the Whaanga family signed an agreement to sell Waikokopu 3 to the Crown as an endowment for the Waikokopu Harbour Board for £5 per acre. 184 As long as the Public Trustee administered the land though they were in no position to alienate it.

In relation to the petition, the Native Affairs Committee asked the Public Trustee if he would have any objections to divesting himself of his trust in Opoutama and Waikokopu 3. The trustee replied that as both reserves were of not much value and isolated from all the other Native lands vested in him and as it was 'the express wish of the Native owners to occupy for their own use the greater portion of the reserves, there does not appear to be any objections to my consenting to the lands being divested from my control' .185 The Native Affairs Committee reported favourably on the petition and a provision enabling the Public Trustee to sell Opoutama and Waikokopu was drafted for the washing-up Bill of 1908. The clause was struck out though before the Bill was passed. 186 Instead, section 26 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1910 was passed authorising the trustee to transfer Waikokopu Native Reserve to the beneficial owners. Once the land had been transferred a certificate of title was to be issued to the owners and the land would cease to be a 18 Native Reserve and would be deemed to be Native freehold land. ?

Before it was passed, though, Henare Te Apatari wrote to James Carroll, the Native Minister, requesting the inclusion of himself and several others in the Waikokopu reserve. He claimed through the ancestor Te Huki and his son Te Rehu. He alleged that Ihaka Whaanga held the land in trust for the rest of the owners but in 'my opinion the family of Ihaka will not favourably consider the just claims' of any others. 18S

Apirana Ngata, the member for Eastern Maori, took the issue up with Carroll. He requested that the allegations be inquired into and that the minister refer the matter to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court 'with a direction that when the Appellate

183 see MAl, 6/89, Sheridan to Public Trustee, 15 June 1908 & Bendall to Trustee, 15 June 1908 184 ibid, 21 January 1909 185 MAl, 6/89, 28 July & 1 August 1908 186 MAl, 6/89; MA 111923/135; AJHR 1908 1-3, P 7 187 Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1910 188 MA 111923/135, 14 March 1910

46 Court sits at Wairoa in June the matter be inquired into in open Court' .189 The Chief Judge was of the opinion that as section 49 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895 had not been carried into the Native Land Act 1909 he had no power to send forward a reference to be heard in open court. Ngata replied that although the inquiry was not being held under any statutory provision it should be conducted as if in open Court 'and the fullest publicity given to it'. He requested the Chief Judge to see that the intention to hold the inquiry was notified for the end of June or beginning of July. 190 The panui notifying the sitting of the Appellate Court in June noted that at that sitting 'an extra-judicial enquiry' would be held by the Chief Judge 'in regard to the Trusts alleged to exist over the Waikokopu and Opoutama Reserves' .191

The inquiry commenced at Gisborne on 17 June 1910 adjourned for further inquiry at Wairoa on 24 June and again for further inquiry in Wellington. At the end of it the Chief Judge produced a report to the Crown. 192 As far as the Chief Judge was concerned there was no doubt that Waikokopu belonged solely to Ihaka Whaanga. In regard to Opoutama he thought it probable that a trust was intended but for various reasons he did not think it advisable to reopen the question. No further action was therefore taken.

Following on from the inquiry, and the passing of section 26 of the 1910 Act, the Whaanga family wrote to Carroll, in 1911, requesting him to advertise Waikokopu 3 for sale. The letter said that it was their 'earnest wish that the sale of it should be hastened' and if the Government did not wish to buy it, at their asking price, they wanted to sell it privately.193 Because the Whaanga family apparently wanted to sell the land to the Crown, the deputy Public Trustee suggested to his Minister, and to the Native Under Secretary, that the transfer ofthe reserve to the owners be suspended so that a direct transfer from the trustee to the Crown might by made. 194

The under secretary was not so sure that this could be done legally. Neither was he positive that a definite offer had been made to the Crown by the owners. He had

189 Ngata to Native Minister, 11 April 1910, MA 111923/135 190 ibid, Ngata to ChiefJudge Jackson Palmer, 26 April 1910 191 ibid, Appellate Court Panui, 13 June 1910, H Carr, Registrar 192 MA 111923/135, 13 July 1910, it is intended to go into the inquiry and the report more fully later. 193 Ihaka Whaanga and five others to Carroll, 18 November 1911, MA 111923/135

47 received quite a few inquiries concerning the reserve. On 1 November 1912 the secretary of the Waikokopu Harbour Board had written to the Native Minister expressing an interest in acquiring the land as an endowment for the board. The secretary was aware that the Whaangas had signified a willingness to sell. He was also well aware that the land's value would increase considerably if the proposed harbour went ahead and to this end he requested that 'steps be taken to secure these lands, so that they may not fall into the hands of speculators' .195

The under secretary had also received several letters from a W Rangihuna purporting to represent the Whaanga family and seeking to protect their interests. 196 To both correspondents the under secretary had recommended that they advise the Whaanga family to submit their offer in writing to the Crown. As he pointed out to the Public Trustee, until then it was only a matter of hearsay that they were willing to sell and the Native Land Purchase Board required something a little more substantial before taking action. 197 Even the agreement in 1908 could not be dealt with as an offer to the board. The under secretary advised the trustee that if no offer was received then action had best be taken to give effect to s 26 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1910.

The Crown received a definite offer from Mr Rangihuna on behalf of the Whaangas in January 1913 and then from the Whaangas themselves in April. They confirmed that they were willing to sell their interests in Waikokopu 3 to the Crown for £5 per acre. 198 The under secretary advised the Public Trustee of the offer and asked for the latest valuation ofthe block. The trustee, however, was unable to supply him with the necessary information. They had no record of the valuation on their files. 199 The under secretary then wrote to the Valuer General asking him for the latest valuation for Waikokopu.z°o The valuation was received in October 1913. The valuer general's

194 AAMK 869/193f, 2 October 1912; MA-MLP 1/1912/82, 11 November 1912 195 K B Crombie, Secretary, Waikokopu Harbour Board to Native Minister, 1 November 1912, MA­ MLP 111912/82 196 15 August 1912, MA 1119231135; 16 January 1913, MA-MLP 1/1912/82 197 MA-MLP 111912/82,23 January 1913 198 MA-MLP 111912/82 199 AAMK 869/193f, 4 & 9 June 1913 200 MA-MLP 111912/82, 17 June 1913

48 description for Waikokopu was' Section 3 Block X Nuhaka', 509 acres and 2 roods. The valuation as at 31 March 1913 was:

Capital Value £1938 Unimproved value £1653 Value of improvements £285201

While the under secretary was waiting for the valuation the Government received a petition from Ihaka Whaanga and three others, asking that the 'mana' of the Public Trustee over Waikokopu 3 be wiped out. As Apirana Ngata pointed out, in effect, asking that the provision of s 26 of the 1910 Act be carried out. The petition was referred to the Public Trustee for comment. A reply was drafted by him for his minister and on 23 October 1913, Herdman, the Minister in charge of the Public Trust Office informed Herries, the Native Minister, that s 26 had not been carried out yet because the owners wished to sell to the Crown. The transfer was suspended so that a direct transfer, 'by consent and direction of the owners' could be made to the Crown. The trustee was waiting on the Native under secretary 'to push matters ahead' ?02

Not long after this the under secretary notified the Public Trustee that the purchase was being held over for further consideration. The stumbling block was the price. The Whaangas wanted £5 per acre, making a total of £2,547.1 Os, whereas the value by the Valuation Department was £1,938. The matter was referred to the Lands Department for a report.203 The under secretary thought that as the land would come under Lands Department control, as Crown land, they should have a chance to comment?04 The Lands Department thought that £5 per acre was too high. At best, they thought it should be £3.1 Os per acre, especially as the land was not suitable for subdivision.205 The under secretary, though, said that if the purchase was to go ahead the Native Land Purchase Board would have to pay the valuation department's price. The matter rested with the board?06 While they were waiting on the board the Government received another petition, this time from Epanaia Whaanga asking it to give effect to their last petition. They wanted to administer Waikokopu themselves so

201 ibid, 2 October 1913 202 AAMK 869/193f 203 AAMK. 869/193f, 30 October 1913 204 MA-MLP 111912/82,30 October 1913 205 ibid, 2 February 1914

49 that they could sell it at a price which 'we ourselves have agreed upon' .207 The Government replied they were waiting on the decision of the Native Land Purchase Board.

The Waikokopu Harbour Board was also pressing the Government. The secretary wrote another letter asking that the Crown acquire Waikokopu 2 and part of 3, an approximate area of 542 acres. These blocks' situation adjacent to the Port of Waikokopu made it highly desirable that they be acquired for the 'benefit of the community' rather than for a 'private individual or syndicate,.208 The secretary was also told that the Government was waiting on the Native Land Purchase Board.

The board decided that the price was too much and that the Crown would take no further action to buy the land. The Public Trustee was told to proceed with the transfer to the beneficiaries?09 Epanaia was informed that as the asking price was more than the Crown could afford the trustee would be carrying out the provisions of s 26 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1910.210

In order to transfer the land it first had to be brought under the Land Transfer Act. This required a survey to be done before a certificate of title could be issued to the trustee. The cost of a land transfer survey was approximately £60. Once the land was under the Land Transfer Act, a transfer and not a conveyance was the proper instrument of alienation to Maori beneficiaries.211 In September, the district manager of the Public Trust Office in Napier was instructed to go ahead with the survey, the cost of which was to be protected by the Survey Department putting a survey lien upon the title. The survey could not be done straight away, though, as there were no department surveyors available and the Chief Surveyor was also reluctant to proceed unless the Public Trust Office guaranteed payment.212

206 AAMK 869/193f, 13 March 1914 207 ibid, 31 March 1914 208 MA-MLP 111912/82,28 April 1914 209 Under secretary to PT, 20 May 1914, AAMK 869/193f 210 MA-MLP 111912/82,29 May 1914 211 District Manager, Napier to Office Solicitor, 13 July 1914, AAMK 869/193f 212 ibid, 2 October & 11 November 1914

50 The office solicitor thought that all that was required was a plan showing the boundaries of the reserve sufficient to enable the land to be brought under the provisions of the Land Transfer Act. He hoped this could be done without the necessity of a surveyor on the ground, meaning a considerable saving for the Maori owners. He advised that the proper and only way to proceed was for the survey department to obtain an order from a Native Land Court Judge under s.396 of the Native Land Act 1909 and then see that a lien was put upon the title to secure payment. He asked the district manager to expedite the matter as quickly as possible, 'as it has been in the office for a considerable time now without anything being done to appease the constant demands of the Natives interested,?13 The Government had received another petition from the Whaangas in June 1914.

The Waikokopu Harbour Board, in the meantime, was reluctant to gIve up the purchase of the reserve. In December 1914 and again in January 1915, the secretary wrote to the Government requesting it to buy at least a coastal section of the block. Failing that, he asked if there were any obstacles to private individuals purchasing from the owners at their price of £5. This was a far cry from his earlier letters pleading with the Government to keep it out of the hands of speculators and private individuals. But with its location and the possibility of freezing works being located near Waikokopu, and frozen produce being shipped from there, the board thought the land was well worth £1 00 per acre. 214 The under secretary informed the harbour board that the Commissioner of Crown Lands still did not think it was worth £5 per acre and no further action would be taken. The board would have to talk to the Public Trustee about any private arrangements.215

The transfer to the Whaanga family was delayed as the Public Trustee waited for the survey to be done. Then the judge of the Native Land Court informed the trust office that neither the Court nor the Native Land Purchase Board had any power to requisition a survey for the purpose of bringing land under the Land Transfer Act.216 The Public Trustee was not prepared to advance the money for the survey as the legislation did not allow for any interest to be charged against the sum and refused to

213 AAMK 8691193f, 21 December 1914 214 MA-MLP 111912/82 215 ibid, 16 February 1915

51 2I7 take any further action unless the Whaanga family was prepared to meet the COSt. By now the people with an interest in the reserve were Ihaka, Epanaia, Iharaira (Titoko), Marara (Poneke) and Matene Whaanga, Te Rina Kereru, Mihi Whaanga and Katerina Whaanga. The last three were the successors to Hirini Whaanga. They held th th a 1/t8 share, the other five, a 1/6 . Their interests were also subject to a life interest of Mere Whaanga, the widow of Hirini. There was another long delay while the trust office attempted to contact all eight and receive a reply. Eventually the office did receive a reply saying they would pay the costs when they had raised the money.218

The issue picked up momentum agam m July 1916 when A McKay, licensed interpreter and Native agent, wrote to the Public Trustee on behalf of Iharaira Whaanga. Iharaira wanted to lease the block and wanted to know what the trustee required from the Whaanga family before he would execute a lease?19 The Public Trustee was unable to grant the lease but he used the opportunity to ask McKay to see if he was able to obtain the necessary deposit from them for the survey. McKay replied that Ihaka and Epanaia had sold another piece of land and when they had received the purchase money for that they would settle the matter of the costs with the trustee and arrange for the necessary survey.220 A draft of £70 was received in November and on 6 December the Public Trustee instructed the district manager, Napier to ask the chief surveyor to survey the land?21

The chief surveyor was too busy to undertake the work so private surveyors were contracted but not at any greater expense. The work was completed by May 1917 and the survey plan deposited with the District Land Registrar, making it possible for a Land Transfer title to be issued?22 This was issued in August and by November the Public Trustee had prepared the necessary memorandum of transfer to the Maori owners. But then, to whom the certificate should go was disputed. McKay, acting on behalf of Ihaka Whaanga, was expecting to receive the title, while the law firm Nolan and Skeet of Gisbome were claiming to represent the Whaanga family. The District

216 AAMK 869/193f, 19 March 1915 217 ibid, 14 April 1915 218 AAMK 869/193f, 18 January 1916 219 ibid, 6 July 1916 220 ibid, 24 July 1916 221 ibid, 6 December 1916 222 ibid, 2 May 1917

52 Land Registrar was instructed to hold on to the CT until all the owners had agreed on to whom it should gO.223

The renewed interest in building the harbour at Waikokopu along with the proposal to combine the two harbour boards saw another effort, this time on the part of the Wairoa Harbour Board, to get the Crown to acquire Waikokopu 3. In September 1918 a deputation from the board waited upon the Minister of Lands requesting a proclamation to be issued prohibiting the alienation of the block other than in favour of the Crown. The Lands Department decided that conditions had materially altered since 1915 and that the land should be acquired, and that it was now worth £5 or even £5.5.0 per acre?24 Accordingly, in November, an order in council was gazetted prohibiting the private alienation of the 526 acres and 37 perches Waikokopu 3 block (less the area already taken for a harbour)?25

The description of this block in the gazette notice said, 'Block 10, Section 3, Nuhaka', which, the Land and Deeds Registry Office in Napier pointed out, was incorrect. The correct description was 'Part Block 3 Nuhaka Crown grant district'. The notice was re-gazetted in February 1919 for a period of one year from the date of the order in council (25 February 1919). The approximate area was now described as 476 acres and 3 roods?26 This appears to be the 526 and 37 perches less the 14.2.0 taken in 1902 for the harbour, leaving 511a.2r.37p. It may also include the 15 odd acres that was included in block 1 when it was taken?27 In 1908, 1 acre and 2 roods were taken for a road?28 This left 493a.lr.24p and by 1918 another 16a.2r.24p had been taken for roads leaving 476 acres and 3 roods?29

Within that year the Crown began negotiations again with the owners to purchase the rest of Waikokopu 3. On 18 and 19 September 1919, J Thomson, the Native Land Purchase Officer at Wanganui, met with the owners at Nuhaka. By this stage, though,

223 ibid, 10 December 1917 224 MA-MLP 111912/82, September-October 1918 225 NZG 1918, P 3802 226 NZG 1919, P 644 227 Block 1 was said to be 37 acres when it was only 21 acres and 33 perches. 228 NZG 1908, P 3262, at the same time 2 roods and 17.3 perches were taken in block 2. 229 See tracing showing harbour reserve, MA-MLP 111912/82, Wairoa Harbour Board to Minister of Lands, 23 October 1918.

53 they were not so keen to sell and wanted time to consider, even though the price was now £5.5.0, a total of £2503 for the block. Thomson sent the memorandum of transfer and schedule of owners on to Goffe, the Land Purchase Officer at Gisborne, who had better luck. By the end of September he had obtained the signature of Matene Whaanga and was confident the rest would sell?30 By 8 October he had acquired 2 1h shares (out of 6 shares), equal to 185a.lr.24p. Epanaia Whaanga, who held one share, had died during the recent flu epidemic. His two sons, who were to succeed him, intended selling. They had already sold as successors to Marara Whaanga. 231

On 23 January 1920, Goffe informed the under secretary that he had acquired the signatures of Epanaia's sons (1 share) and Ihaka Whaanga was thinking it over. By 19 February he had purchased Mihi and Katerina Whaanga's shares e13) but Te Rina Kereru e/3) was unwilling to sell. Mere Whaanga had also expressed her willingness to sell her life interest but until Te Rina was willing to sell the under secretary advised it was useless to purchase it.232 Meanwhile the period extending the prohibition on private alienation was extended another six months from 25 February 1920?33

By the end of June 1920 the Crown had purchased 31/3 shares out of 6, representing an area of 264a.3r.l8p out of the 476 acres and 3 roods. Ihaka, Iharaira (who also held a 21-year lease over the block from 1 July 1917), and Te Rina were still not interested in selling?34 Another order in council extending the period of prohibition, this time for 18 months, was signed on 19 July 1920.235

On 22 July the under secretary of Lands and Survey wrote asking what had been done regarding the acquisition of the block. He was under pressure from the Wairoa Harbour Board, which was concerned that with the renewed interest in the harbour speculators would start purchasing other lands in the vicinity. The board was concerned that this would have 'a hardening effort' on the owners, presumably

230 Goffe to under secretary, 29 September 1919, MA-MLP 111912/82 231 ibid, 15 December 1919 232 ibid, 25 February 1920 233 NZG 1920, P 735 234 MA-MLP 111912/82,30 June 1920 235 NZG 1920, P 2201

54 meaning that they would want more for their land. The Native Department promised to make a special effort to acquire the rest of the shares?36

Mihi Whaanga then applied for a partition of the Waikokopu block, presumably to partition the sellers and non-sellers interests out. A hearing was set for 15 September at Nuhaka. Goffe was instructed to attend and oppose the application on behalf of the Crown. The Crown was still eager to acquire the outstanding interests and hoped Goffe could achieve both objectives. 'I shall be glad if you will attend the Court and oppose the application on behalf of the Crown. It may be possible for you to acquire some, if not all of the outstanding interests in the block at the same time' .237

Goffe attended the Court at Nuhaka and managed to get the Court to adjourn the matter. He was unsuccessful in getting the non-sellers to sell. All three had their reasons for not selling. 1haraira said he required it for his sons to farm, as he had no other land to offer them. The Crown thought his portion was the most valuable as it was suitable for the Railway Terminus Station. Te Rina would not sell because 'she was going to shift her cottage nearer the school house so that her children could go to school, and that it was the place she got her food' and fish from. Goffe was convinced there was another reason.

I have no doubt that the railway and harbour works now going on and being an established fact make them think they possess a little gold mine, in that locality which makes it hard to deal with them at the present time.238

The Crown now thought that they would have to partition their interests out. They were unlikely to make any further progress with the non-sellers, 'even if the price was increased 100%' ?39 The Native Minister applied to the Native Land Court to have the Crown's interests partitioned out.240 The hearing was set for Gisbome on 2 March 1921 and the Lands and Survey Department drew up a 'suitable scheme of partition' for the consideration of the Court. This proposed dividing the block into two with the

236 MA-MLP 111912/82,23 & 24 July 1920 237 Native under secretary to Goffe, 18 August 1920, MA-MLP 111912/82 238 Goffe to under secretary, 8 October 1920, MA-MLP 111912/82. Or, they could have just needed it to live on. 239 MA-MLP 111912/82,2 November 1920 240 ibid, 11 November 1920

55 northeastern portion of 264a.3r.18p gomg to the Crown and the remammg 211a.3r.22p in the southwestern side being allocated to the non-sellers.

The hearing was held over, though, as the Land Officer was unable to attend before the Judge left the district. Before another hearing could be held the District Land Registrar in Napier discovered that a small portion of the land that was granted to the Waikokopu Harbour Board under the 1902 Act had been included in the certificates of titles issued by the office for Waikokopu 3. This was a portion of the foreshore that was a tidal creek. The registrar advised that the certificates of titles would need to be called in and amended. He did not think this was a major problem if the Crown was purchasing the land, but if it did not, he realized he would have 'some considerable difficulty in explaining to a body of Natives why I propose to eliminate now from the titles in existence, a small portion of the creek which will form part of the Waikokopu Harbour' ?41 The under secretary suggested that the registrar contact the Commissioner of Crown Lands at Napier and find out whether the small portion was in the part that the Crown wanted to be awarded in satisfaction of its interests.

The partition of Waikokopu took place on 3 August 1921. The partition approved by the Court differed markedly from that proposed earlier in February. The Crown's interest had been reduced from 264a.3.18p to 230a.3r.30p and awarded in three separate pieces, one of about 200 acres, another of about 18 acres and intersected by a road, and the last, 12 acres?42 Harvey, the land purchase officer and deputy registrar of the land court, explained that the Court had refused to allow the interests of Mihi and Katerina to be included in the Crown award because Mere Whaanga, the life tenant, had not consented. The partition, then, had to be made on a valuation basis?43 The Crown still had an area of approximately 53 acres in the non-sellers portion subject to the life tenancy. The Crown award was also subject to Iharaira's lease?44

The Commissioner of Crown Lands was not happy. He thought the scheme of partitioning the award into three separate areas was entirely unsuitable. Buying

241 District Land Registrar to Native under secretary, 25 July 1921, MA-MLP 111912/82 242 see sketch map, it illustrates the difference between the two plans 243 The Valuation Department had made a valuation of the different parts of the land and this determined how the shares were divided up. 244 Harvey to under secretary, 9 September 1921, MA-MLP 1/1912/82

56 separate areas of 18 and 12 acres was 'most unsatisfactory' for settlement purposes. After all, he complained, the whole idea was to purchase land for closer settlement. He lodged an appeal with the land court.245

The appeal was lodged on the grounds that 'the Crown Award should have been acquired in one Block and not three' ?46 The under secretary, Native Department, C B Jordan, did not think that that was sufficient reason for an appeal. In response, the Commissioner of Crown Lands set out his reasons:

th 1st. That the suitable scheme for partition as submitted ... on the 5 February showed the Crown's interest in one area, whereas the present partition shows it in 3 portions separated from each other by as much as fifty chains. nd 2 . The Native Land Settlement Act was, I presume for the mean purpose of purchasing land for closer settlement. In this Block the Crown purchased at a fair valuation - no pressure was brought to bear on the Natives, and the Crown is as equitably entitled to have its interests cut out in one contained area as are the Native owners ofthe residue.247

Jordan still did not think it sufficient, especially as the Court minutes showed that the non-sellers and the land department representative had agreed upon the partition. He advised the under secretary for Lands to wait until the life tenant (Mere Whaanga) had died, then apply for a cancellation of the recent partition and a new partition order with her interests included?48 The CCL could not see why it had to wait until Mere's death. Jordan privately thought it was because there was no justification for a new order until Mere had died. He decided to wait until the appeal had been considered.

The appeal on the partition was held by the Appellate Court on 27 June 1922. The Court cancelled the order of the lower Court and a new order was made. This partitioned the land into 3A, 3B, 3c, and 3D. The Crown was awarded 3A, C and D, all within one contained area separated only by the Nuhaka Opoutama Road, the Waikokopu stream and a small area of 3a.2r.29p in 3B awarded to the non-sellers. The Crown's interest had also increased to 292a.3r.1p while the non-sellers interest

245 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Under Secretary for Lands, 23 September and 5 October 1921, MA-MLP 111912/82 246 ibid, Notice of Appeal, 14 September 1921 247 CCL to Under Secretary for Lands, 27 October 1921, MA-MLP 111912/82 248 ibid, 3 November 1921

57 was now 183a.3r.39p, contained in 3B. But perhaps more important than the reduction in land was that 3B was positioned well away from the shoreline. The remaining non-sellers, let alone the rest of the hapu, no longer had direct access to the sea at Waikokopu.

Waikokopu 3B was in the names of Iharaira (who was also the lessee), Ihaka Whaanga and Te Rina Whaanga (subject to Mere Whaanga's life interest). Mere also still had a life interest in 3c so the block was put in the name of Mihi and Katerina Whaanga whom the Crown had bought out. The intention was to purchase Mere's interest, so that 3c could be proclaimed Crown land. As Mihi and Katerina had not been involved in the lease to Iharaira, 3c was kept free of the lease. This was lucky for the Crown as it had already set apart a portion of 3c as an endowment for the Wairoa Harbour Board and the board had commenced building upon it. As the deputy registrar commented, the board could 'have been placed in a somewhat unhappy position' ?49

Immediately following the partition the Crown purchased the life interest of Mere Whaanga in 3B and 3c for £45. This gave the Crown title in possession of 3c and a life interest representing an area of26a.lr.5p in 3B. On 14 August 1922 the following blocks were proclaimed Crown land. A. R. P. Waikokopu 3A 160 1 0 Waikokopu 3c 36 2 0 Waikokopu 3D 96 o 1250

Almost immediately after the partition Ihaka Whaanga expressed his desire to sell his interest in 3B after reserving a V4 acre for himself. This was to be situated on the bank of the Waikokopu stream. The Crown paid £400 for his undivided interest on 28 July 1922.251 3B was then partitioned on 27 February 1925. Before that though, approximately 11 acres of 3B was taken under the Public Works Act for railway purposes?52 It is not clear whether this came out of the Crown's interest in 3B or the

249 ibid, 24 July 1922 250 NZG 1922, P 2234 251 Jones to Under Secretary for Lands, 6 October 1922, MA-MLP 1/1912/82 252 NZG 1923, P 2466

58 non-sellers. The Crown was awarded 3B1 of 66 acres?53 At the hearing, the Judge suggested that the Crown owed Ihaka more money for his interest. Another £7.3.4 was paid to Ihaka on 13 March 1925 making a total of £407.3.4 for his interests. 3Bl was proclaimed Crown land on 10 May 1926.254

The Crown still retained Mere's life interest in 3B3. This block was later subdivided agam. In September 1927, 3B3A containing 20a.lr.37p was owned by Te Rina Kereru and, as Mere Whaanga was still alive, still subject to the life interest purchased by the Crown?55 At 1996, just over 102 acres, or 41.4032 hectares, of Waikokopu 3 remained in Maori ownership; that is, 3B2 (0.1011 hectares or 1;4 acre), 3B3A2 (8.0211 hectares) and 3B3B2 (33.2810 hectares)?56

All of the land the Crown acquired is included in the claim Wai 427. The claimants thought it had been taken under the Public Works Act for different purposes. In fact, as has been shown, the Crown purchased the land from the owners but there are still issues to be considered: • The amount of land the Crown received as opposed to the non-sellers. • The situation of 3B, which meant the non-sellers had no direct access to the sea. • The Crown's insistence on treating the Whaanga family as the only owners in light of continuing protest over ownership of the reserve (see Chapter 5).

253 Ihaka's 14 was 3B2 while Te Rina Kereru and Iharaira's interests were in 3B3 254 NZG 1926, P 1320 255 MA-MLP 111912/82, 15 September 1927 256 Hippolite, p 78

59 N.Harris: July 1999

NUHAKA S.D. MAHANGA S.D. X III

38

D Scheme for Crown's interest 5 Feb 1921 !i;;;;;mmm Crown's interest as partitioned 3 Aug 1921

Source: MA-MLP1/1912/82 Figure 5 Sketch showing original Native & Crown subdivisions

60 Graphical Representation Only N. Harris: July 1999

NUHAKA S.D. X NUHAKA S.D. III

Native Reserve

38 183a:3r:39p

o Native 183a 3r 39p Immmm!!1 Crown 292a 3r 01 p

Source: MA-MLP1/1912/82 Figure 6 Sketch showing actual subdivisions

61 Opoutama

In 1898, a Native Land Court hearing had been held to determine the successors for the grantees for Opoutama. But only successors for two of the grantees had been determined, the successors for Ihaka Whaanga were not. Despite this, government officials treated the Whaanga family as the sole owner of the Opoutama reserve.257 The Whaangas had leased the Opoutama reserve to Edward B Bendall, the executor of Ihaka Whaanga's estate, although there were extenuating circumstances associated with the lease. Bendall paid only a 'peppercorn rental' and occupied the reserve by virtue of his executorship and with the consent of the Whaanga family. Bendall explained that he had come into possession of the reserve because the family owed him £1200. As they had no money to pay him, Bendall had agreed to lease the block from them for a term of 21 years. That term was due to expire in 1907 at which time the Whaangas were to pay him for all the improvements?58

Despite the fact that the trustee's office thought the reserve could be let for £18 per annum the owners were not willing to change the situation. The Public Trustee was reluctant to disturb the existing arrangements. At the time, the Government was negotiating with the Whaanga family for land for the Waikokopu harbour and did not want to complicate matters?59 Bendall, though, was asked to produce a copy of his lease. This was finally produced in November 1906.260 By this time his lease was due to expire and he wanted either a new one or payment offsetting the value of his . 261 Improvements.

The Public Trustee's agent at Wairoa was asked to interview the Maori owners at Nuhaka and find out ifthey were in a position to pay for Bendall's improvements. If not, then a new lease was to be offered by public tender loaded with the full value of the improvements. The agent found the owners 'very much disinclined to discuss the question'. Apparently, they were under the impression that they were under no

257 see Agent at Wairoa to Public Trustee, 1 June 1900, MAl, 6/89 258 Bendall to PT, 2 October 1902, MAl, 6/89 259 ibid, 1 June 1900 260 A comedy of errors seemed to prevent him from producing it earlier, first he met with an accident (he was kicked by a horse), then he was laid up with a kidney complaint, [mally he had difficulties with his solicitors who were holding the lease. 261 MAl, 6/89, 29 November 1906

62 liability to pay the improvements. The agent induced them to agree to a lease to Bendall for 15 years 'without rental' at the end of which they were take over the property free from all encumbrances?62 However, after referring the matter to the trustee's solicitor, it was decided that there was no legal power to grant the lease as suggested. The lease had to be offered by way of public tender. Mr Bendall was informed that the reserve was to be placed on the market for leasing by public tender at an upset rental of £40 per annum and loaded with £610 for improvements?63

Bendall was not happy. He thought that the valuation was too low and the upset rental too high. The Public Trustee applied for a government valuation. This put the value of the land at £246 and the value of improvements at £511. He wrote to Bendall stating that the upset value of £40 per annum was not too high. If the £1200 owed to Bendall was taken into account, then over 21 years he would pay over £50 p.a?64

Bendall replied that the £1200 should not be taken as the base for the upset rental. That was 'purely a sacrifice on [his] part, to the Whanga family'. They had been trying for years to dispose of some of their land in other blocks, to pay the debt, 'but owing to the restrictions on their lands were not able to accomplish it'. Had he been able to get his money, he could have bought 1000 acres of better land but finding himself unable to, 'I decided to compromise with them at a great loss to myself, and get the lease of this block at a peppercorn rental and cancel their debt to me'. He thought that 5% on the improved value a fair price?65

Bendall got his way. On 4 September 1907 the Native Board of the Public Trust Office approved an upset rental of 5% on the unimproved value, a yearly rental of £12.6.0. This was subject to a valuation of £610 for improvements, loaded against the land for anyone other than Bendall. If Bendall won the tender, then no payment for valuation was necessary. In the event, Bendall was the successful tenderer?66 The lease was for 21 years with no right of renewal or compensation for improvements. Bendall initially objected and wanted changes but finally on 20 January 1908 he

262 Agent, Wairoa to PT, 2 January 1907, MAl, 6/89 263 MAl, 6/89, 10 July 1907 264 ibid, PT to Bendall, 9 August 1907 265 ibid, Bendall to PT, 21 August 1907 266 ibid, 22 October 1907

63 accepted the provisions of the lease as they were. Having signed the lease he wrote several times asking to have certain covenants in the lease deleted. The Public Trustee agreed to some of them being deleted but not all. 267

Bendall died on 18 May 1909 and his wife took over the lease. On 6 September 1910 she was asked if a small piece of the land could be taken out of the reserve leased by her for Rewhi T oheriri. Rewhi wanted to build on the land so that his and some of the other children would be in easier distance to the school.268 Mrs Bendall could not see why he should want any of the land. For a start, he did not have any children and his brother Wairau Toheriri lived only two miles from the school, 'by a good road'. In fact, 'the Maori pah [was] only four miles distant, along a splendid beach'. She already leased a small cottage to Taite Te Torno, 'at a very small rental', and the 'other natives [were] welcome to come and camp by Taite, but not to live permanently'. As secretary for the school committee, she had started a subscription list to buy the children schoolbooks, and helped them in other ways. She did not think she should have to do any more. 'Their wants are never ending' ?69 The Public Trustee thought she had 'behaved very generously' and could not be expected to do any more.

This was not the only example of the Maori owners' requests for some of the land for their own purposes. In 1915, Whakangaro Makahue, one of the successors to Ihaka Makahue, wrote to Ngata asking him to see the Public Trustee about letting him have 5 acres. He also wanted to build a cottage so that his grandchildren would be closer to the school. His house at Mahanga was 6Yz miles away, too far for the children. Ngata forwarded the letter on but the trustee advised that he was unable to accede to the request because of the 21 year lease. He suggested that Whakangaro take the matter up privately with Mrs Bendall?70

The petition of Epanaia Whaanga and 21 others in November 1907 seeking the control over Opoutama and Waikokopu (see above) had led to the inclusion of section

267 For example, deleting the covenant to keep in repair all buildings on the land and his interest ceasing to be any value ifhe became insolvent or bankrupt, PT to Native Under Secretary, 10 September 1908, MAl, 6/89 268 PT to Mrs Bendall, 6 September 1910, MAl, 6/89 269 ibid, 22 September 1910

64 7 in the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1910. This allowed the Native Land Court to determine the equitable owners of Opoutama. A hearing was held on 25 November 1910 but this just determined the successors to Ihaka Whaanga in Opoutama. According to the Registrar of the Native Land Court, this did not determine the beneficial owners. 271 The Public Trustee needed a list of the owners for the purpose of distributing the rent accrued from the Bendalllease?72

A hearing was finally held in September 1920. On 17 September, Judge Browne ascertained 129 beneficial owners and ordered their inclusion in the title, in lieu of the Public Trustee. The Court also made orders for costs to be paid out of the £400 the Public Trustee was holding, £15 was to go to Paora Hapi and £10 to William Cooper, licensed interpreter.273

The order for the beneficial owners was forwarded to the Chief Judge for transmission to the District Land Registrar for title. The Chief Judge then held that although there was jurisdiction to hear the case, there was none to deprive the Public Trustee of his statutory title. To get over the difficulty he suggested that legislation be passed, authorising the District Land Registrar at Napier to issue a Certificate of Title to the beneficial owners named in the order for an estate of freehold in fee simple, subject to the Bendalllease?74 This was done by section 22 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1921122.

Land taken for road

In 1920 it was proposed to deviate the Opoutama Road to bring the road across the Opoutama Stream at a point where the stream could be bridged. This entailed the taking of about three acres from the reserve.275 Currie and Lynch, solicitors, on behalf of the Wairoa County Council wrote to the Native Trustee, under whom the reserve was now vested, asking him to consent to the deviation, 'which will be a

270 AAMK 869/182e 271 Registrar to PT, 2 November 1917, AAMK 869/182e 272 By September 1920, this was £400, AAMK 869/182e 273 Wairoa Minute Book 31/49, 104 CHECK 274 R N Jones, Chief Judge to Native Under Secretary, 22 March 1921, AAMK 869/182e 275 Plan 650, September 1920, AAMK 869/182e

65 considerable public convenience' .276 The Native Trustee replied that he had no power to consent to the taking of a road through Opoutama and, like the Public Trustee before him, suggested that the local body take the land under the Public Works Act and compensate the owners.

The County Council decided to follow the trustee's suggestion and forwarded formal notice. The notice stated that the land was being taken under the Public Works Act 1908 and Counties Act 1920 for the purposes of the formation and construction of a public road at Opoutama. The schedule described the land as 'containing 3 acres more or less situate in Block III of the Mahanga SD being part of the Block known as Ihaka Whaanga's Reserve,?77 The Native Trustee then wrote to the Registrar, NLC, Gisbome, for the latest valuation for the block. The valuation for the land proposed to be taken was:

Area: 3 acres Capital Value: £30 Unimproved Value: £20 Improvements: £10278

The proclamation taking the land had not been issued before the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1921122 was passed. In August 1922 another Native Land Court hearing was held. This hearing partitioned Opoutama into ten (or 12) divisions?79 The Judge also ordered the Native Trustee to payout £84.6.0 from the accumulated rents. £30 of that went to what looks like representatives of the beneficial owners, the rest, £54.6.0, was paid to meet survey and solicitor fees.28o Another order was made laying off three parcels ofland as road­ lines under sections 49 and 50 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1913. The total area taken was 6a.lr.33p. These road-lines were proclaimed public roads on 8 November 1923?81

276 Currie & Lynch to Native Trustee, 23 June 1921, AAMK 8691182e 277 ibid,3 August 1921 278 ibid, 13 September 1921 279 At May 1996 there over 80 sections in Opoutama Maori Reserve, Gisbome Maori Land Court 280 AAMK 869/182e, 22-23 August 1922 281 NZG 1923, 15 November, p 2794

66 By 31 March 1927 the amount held by the Native Trustee on account of the rental over the Opoutama block was £321.15.1. On 16 March 1927 the Native Land Court ordered that all money held by the trustee for Opoutama be paid to the Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board. The money was to be used for building a Meeting House on Section 23, Opoutama block. The order was not received by the trustee until 12 December 1927 by which time he was asked to expedite payment as the Meeting House was already under construction?82 A voucher for the sum of £360.19.3 (accumulated rents and interests) was sent on 16 December 1927. According to Ballara and Scott, sections 22, 23 and 24 (known as Ruawhara Marae) were partitioned off and vested in Arata Kara and 153 others on 16 March 1927.283

In December 1924 a meeting of the owners was held to discuss transferring sections 53 and 56 to Mrs Bendall in exchange for her interest over the whole block.284 She had been trying for several years to buy the reserve. 285 At this stage it is not clear what the outcome was but sections 53, 54 and 55 do not appear to be in Maori ownership anymore. At May 1996, 54.6131 hectares (or approximately 135 acres) of the Opoutama Maori Reserve was still in Maori ownership.286

282 AAMK 869/182e, 8 December 1927 283 BaHara & Scott, 'Kopuawhara', p 19 284 AAMK 869/182e, 2 December 1924 285 see for example, Mrs Bendall to Public Trustee, 18 September 1911, MAl, 6/89 286 Hippolite, p 79

67 CHAPTER 5

RECORD OF PROTEST - A TRUST OR PRIVATE LAND?

In their report for the Waitangi Tribunal, Ballara and Scott raise the issue about whether the Waikokopu reserve was intended as a reserve for all the owners of the Nuhaka block or just for Ihaka Whaanga?87 Smit in her thesis suggests that the fate of the reserve would indicate that Ihaka, at least, intended it solely for himself and his descendants?88 And, as I have attempted to show, this is what the government officials intended. Certainly they treated it and the accompanying Opoutama reserve as such. Locke in 1876 was emphatic that both reserves 'belonged to Ihaka Whaanga alone. ,289

It seems equally clear, though, that more than just the Whaanga family had an interest in both reserves. Waikokopu, at least, was a coastal settlement of Rakaipaaka.29o In Salmon's old land claim, Matenga Tukareaho, Ihaka and his father-in-law, Tamihana Taruke, were all involved in the original transaction. Yet when it came to recognising those interests there was no mention of Matenga or Tamihana. But then Matenga probably picked the wrong side; he supported Pai Marire when it was politically incorrect to do so.

The first sign of dispute recorded in the official papers was from Makere Ngawaka who wrote to Heaphy from Taupo in 1881 enquiring about 'the reserve at Waikokopu and Opoutama near Te Mahia the property of Ihaka Whaanga, in fact our property'. He claimed to have an interest in the rent of the land, 'I am the sole owner of the portion towards Opoutama' ?91 There does not appear to be any response to this letter.

The next is a petition in 1898 from Maika Taruke of Nuhaka, probably a relation of Tamihana's, and four others. They claimed that:

287 BaHara & Scott, 'Nuhaka', p 19 288 Smit, p 70 289 Locke to McLean, 14 February 1876, MAl, 6/89 290 BaHara, p 176 291 MAl, 6/89, 5 April 1881

68 McLean reserved two portions out of the [Nuhaka] block of land, one being Waikokopu, containing seven hundred acres .. . W e [were] under the impression that the said lands were set apart by McLean for reserves for the tribe who sold the said land ... Ihaka Whanga informs us that the said pieces of land were not set apart by McLean as reserves for the tribe but were so set apart for himself (Ihaka Whanga) alone ... We deny what Ihaka Whanga states when he says, that the said reserves were for himself only. We claim that the said reserves were for all of us including Ihaka Whanga. Our common hapu being Ngati Pakaa [Rakaipaaka].292

The petition was sent to the Department of Lands and Survey for comment. Percy Smith, the surveyor general at the time, replied that no reserves had been made in the block when it was sold to the Crown, 'but that subsequently some lands were granted (563 acres) to Ihaka Whanga at Waikokopu, and that the Grant is in his name alone,.293 The Native Affairs Committee had no recommendation to make?94

In March 1910, Henare Te Apatari petitioned James Carroll requesting the inclusion of several people in the Waikokopu block. Henare claimed for the descendants of Te Huki and his son Te Rehu. Te Huki was a descendant of Rakaipaaka and became an important ancestor in his own right in the Wairoa district. Te Rehu was one of his sons who he settled at Nuhaka to become the prominent ancestor of that place and the eponymous ancestor of the hapu Ngai Te Rehu?95 It was Te Huki's policy to form important alliances with many of the neighbouring descent groups through his own marriages and those of his children.296

Henare blamed the Government laws for allowing the situation whereby Ihaka Whaanga alone came to represent the owners of Waikokopu.297 Apirana Ngata took up the issue. He wrote to the Native Minister, Carroll, 'You are aware that the Natives of Nuhaka allege that these lands [Waikokopu and Opoutama] are held in trust by the present beneficial owners for certain persons or hapus not included in the title'. He requested that the allegations be inquired into by the Appellate Court. 298

292 copy of petition number 15311898 in BaHara & Scott document bank, vol. IV, 'Tiropiro's private papers' 293 ibid 294 AJHR 1899 1-3, P 7 295 Hippolite, p 7 296 This was known as 'Te Kupenga a Te Huki' (The Net ofTe Huki), BaHara & Scott, 'Mahia', p 2 297 MA 111923/135, 14 March 1910 298 Ngata to Native Minister, 11 April 1910, MA 1/19231135

69 The inquiry commenced at Gisborne on 17 June 1910. Presiding was Chief Judge Jackson Palmer. The chief judge explained that since s.49 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895 had been repealed he had no statutory authority to hold such an inquiry judicially in open Court so he had notified the hearing as non-judicial. This meant the witnesses could not be sworn but apart from that 'the whole enquiry was conducted as if it had been referred for hearing and heard in open Court' .299

The claimants appearing at the Gisborne hearing were Pirnia Mills for herself; Maika Taruke for himself and family; Taare Mete of Nuhaka and Patu Te Rito. Epanaia Whaanga appeared to oppose. The Court noted that H Te Apatari who asked for the inquiry, 'neglected to attend'.

Most of the evidence at this hearing concerned Waikokopu. All the claimants giving evidence were insistent that they had been present at the 'hui' to sell the Nuhaka block, even if they had been only children. Most of them also admitted that there had been no protest until after Ihaka had died in 1875. This could mean a couple of things. Either everything had been alright and Ihaka had represented their interests or they had not felt confident to put in a protest until after Ihaka was no longer there to oppose it.

Maika Taruke had been only 12 years of age at the time of the sale but his evidence seems to accord with what happened. For example, 'Mr McLean purchased but Mr Locke acted for him'. He described how 'Te Mahia' had been the first block purchased. 'The chiefs who sold were Ihaka Whaanga, Te Ira Toherere and Te Otene

Tangihaere' .300

Mr Locke was shown round the boundaries by the people then. After the boundaries were agreed upon it was decided that a part of the land within the sale be reserved to the people as a fishing and living place and Waikokopu was the part so kept back. After Waikokopu was returned Ihaka Whanga used to divide the rent among the people.

299 Proceedings and Report to the Crown, l3 July 1910, MA 1I1923/l35 300 I'm not sure of the second name but there is a Tangihaere on the deed of purchase for Mahia. Te Teira Toheriri, however, was included in the titles to Kopuawhara, Kaiwaitau and Whangawehi no. 1 blocks, see Hippolite, pp 32-33

70 Maika, under cross-examination from Epanaia, admitted that everything had been alright while Ihaka was alive, it was after his death that things changed, 'His family were unfair and claimed the land for themselves' .

Taare Mete was also 12 years old at the time of the sale. He claimed that there had been no protest until they found out that Ihaka alone was named in the Crown grant. Taare went to Wellington and saw Sheridan in 1897 and petitions were also sent to Wellington protesting.

Colonel Porter also gave evidence. He was a military commander in Gisborne in 1875, and was also a native officer and land purchase agent. Porter had been involved in the aborted 1908 agreement between the Whaangas and the Government to sell Waikokopu no.3. He had not been present at the time of the Mahia and Nuhaka block purchases but his understanding was that Ihaka 'got the land for himself alone for his past services to the whites and the Crown' .

The hearing was adjourned to Wairoa on 24 June 1910. At this hearing, Ihaka Whaanga, junior, appeared to oppose the claims. Karapa Mataea's evidence agreed with the events at the time. 'At the first 'hui' about selling these lands [Nuhaka] Ihaka Whanga was not present'. Ihaka came later, 'with his Pakeha friends (Donald McLean, etc)'. Karapa also claimed that it was not until after Ihaka's death in 1875 'that his children claimed the land for themselves, and we objected'. Keita Mitira supported what Karapa had said. She went on to say that 'Ihaka Whanga frequently admitted to us here and at Nuhaka that he was only a trustee of Waikokopu' .

Ihaka Whaanga, junior, was adamant that there was no trust in respect of Waikokopu. About Opoutama, he was not so sure. 'It may be there is a trust for it but I do not know enough about Opoutama to be certain'. If Ihaka's evidence is to be taken at face value it is still quite revealing. 'Ihaka asked McLean to return him his home and McLean asked him if he owned it himself and he said yes but some of his brothers were with him. McLean said let the Crown get it all and we will return you your home - Waikokopu'. This seems to confirm the private negotiations between Ihaka and the government officials. There was no proper investigation to determine if there

71 were others with an interest because McLean and Ihaka did not intend for them to be recognised. Ihaka junior pointed out that his father had bought 'Hamana's' (Salmon's) right for the land. 'He acquired Waikokopu from the Crown and Hamana for himself alone there is no trust in regard to this'. But this was only because the Crown itself facilitated Ihaka to buy the land.

Paraone Te Kohai gave evidence on Opoutama.

Opoutama is part of Kopuawhara Block. I was young when it was sold in 1865. There was a 'hui' at the time of the sale [and] this part was reserved out of Kopuawhara sale. There was a Crown grant made to 3 persons of this part excluded namely Opoutama. It was reserved for the whole 'iwi' and the three Grantees were the Trustees.

Piripi Purupuru supported Paraone's evidence. There were no further witnesses so the chief judge stated that he would adjourn to Wellington to take P Sheridan's evidence. He also intended looking up all the official records and then making his report to the Government. Sheridan's evidence was produced on 8 July 1910 in written form. He made no mention of any previous protest to him but admitted that with regard to Opoutama, 'it is more than probable that there are other persons besides the three natives mentioned in the Crown Grant ... interested as beneficial owners'. As far as Waikokopu was concerned though:

it is only necessary to turn up Crown Grant H7 folio 222 to verify the fact that the land was acquired by Ihaka Whang a by purchase from the Crown under the Land regulations of the Province of Wellington and that his heirs are therefore the sole beneficial owners.

Why there should be more people interested in Opoutama and not Waikokopu (as stated by Sheridan) is unclear, apart from the fact that a reserve was distinctly mentioned in the Kopuawhara deed and not the Nuhaka one. This appears to have become the basis for CJ Palmer's report. He advised the Government that keeping that fact in mind, 'it will be easily seen how unreliable' the evidence before him was. Palmer obviously preferred Ihaka Whaanga junior'S evidence to the others; Ihaka gave his evidence 'in a straightforward manner', while the others were 'unreliable'.

72 Because Opoutama had been reserved in the Kopuawhara deed, and the Native Land Court had investigated Kopuawhara, Palmer thought it 'probable' that more than just the three certified owners had an interest. Because Ihaka Whaanga junior could not be sure that a trust was not intended, he was 'of [the] opinion' that one was intended, but he could not see his way to recommend re-opening the question. 'From what I gathered during the enquiry, every Native in the Nuhaka district intends to have a try for admission into the title whether entitled or not'. And as the 'Crown granted owners have been treated as sole owners for so long ... I doubt the advisability of reopening the matter and causing quarrels'. Finding out who would be entitled 'could only be ascertained by an expensive enquiry not probably warranted at present' .

With regard to Waikokopu, though, because it had not been reserved in the deed, and the Crown subsequently issued a grant to Ihaka, he was quite clear that no trust was intended and the land belonged solely to Ihaka. Technically he was right, legally Ihaka did own it. And Ihaka and the Crown obviously had not intended that a trust situation be created. But that does not mean there should not have been one. Because the Crown had privately arranged for Ihaka to buy the land, is not proof that there were no others with an interest in Waikokopu. No proper investigation was done at the time, or even when Salmon's old land claim was investigated. Looking at the old land claim alone, it is clear that more than just Ihaka had an interest in Waikokopu.

The report was sent to the Native under secretary Fisher who forwarded it on to the Native Minister with the recommendation that no action be taken.301 It appears that Carroll approved the recommendation.

The protests did not stop there. Following the report of the chief judge, Taare Mete, who appeared before the judge, and whose evidence he had dismissed, must have consulted Ngata about the issue. On 14 October 1910, Ihaka, Epanaia, and Iharaia Whaanga wrote to Carroll concerned about Ngata's advice to Taare to petition Parliament about Waikokopu. Fisher replied he was not aware of any petition?02 But not long after that two petitions were presented to Parliament and sent on to the

301 MA 1I1923/l35, 18 July 1920 302 MA 111923/135

73 Native Department for comment.303 Both petitions claimed to be from the people of Nuhaka and Waikokopu and both wanted to be included in the title to Waikokopu. They both insisted that Waikokopu, like Opoutama, was a valuable kaimoana and canoe-landing place.

The main reason why the old people asked (Sir D.) McLean to exclude Waikokopu from the sale was this, vis, their canoe landing place, sea-food workings, (i.e.) Paua, Kina, Crayfish, Pupu, Karango, and other foods of the sea.304

Teira Ranginui's petition also pointed out that Te Matenga Tukareaho was the spokesman on behalf of the tribe and had requested that Waikokopu 'be set apart as a reserve for the people of the kainga'. Fisher, dismissing both petitions, stated the government line that Waikokopu had been sold to the Crown and no reserve had been made.305 The Native Affairs Committee had no recommendation to make on either petition.306

Taare did not give up. He petitioned in 1911 and 1912 to both Houses, and again in 1915. As he told Carroll in 1911, if he did not get the answer he wanted, he would keep petitioning and go to the Upper House. 307 The petitions constantly stressed the importance of Waikokopu for its valuable kaimoana and how these places had been guaranteed to Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Treaty ofWaitangi states that the Natives are confirmed in their rights to their food in the sea, that is, to their fishing grounds, pauas, crayfish, and their canoe landings. It would not be right for the Government to take such places or to purchase it, because the life of the Maori people is dependent on the food it gets in the sea. Waikokopu is the only place at which this people can obtain sea food. 308

303 Petition no. 67811910, Taare Mete and 134 others and 71311910, Teira Ranginui and 43 others. 304 Petition no. 67811910, MA 1119231135 305 ibid, 3 November 1910 306 AJHR 1911 1-3, P 10 307 MA 111923/135,24 October 1911 308 Petition no. 27211915, MA 1119231135, my emphasis

74 In the meantime, the Whaanga family was still negotiating with the Government to sell what was left of Waikokopu. Their' earnest wish that the sale of it should be hastened,309 may be related to the tenacity of Taare Mere to pursue the matter.

One of Taare's petitions was sent to the Legislative Council in 1912 who asked the Native under secretary for his comments. Fisher informed the House that the Public Trustee had been directed to transfer the reserve to the beneficial owners, who were the Whaanga family, and that the Crown was currently negotiating with the Whaangas to purchase the block.31o The Native Affairs Committee of that House, nevertheless, thought it desirable for an inquiry to be held to determine:

what part (if any) of Waikokopu and Opoutama is suitable for the purpose of furnishing the Natives with 'foods of the sea' and with landing-places for their canoes, and to secure and reserve such part for that purpose.31

The Committee recommended that the petition be referred to the Government for consideration.

This was one ofthe bases for R C Sim's letter to the Public Trustee in 1916.312 Sim was representing Taare Mete and the others who had been petitioning Parliament. He wrote to the trustee stating that there was good reason for believing that Ihaka Whaanga held the land in trust for the others, giving six reasons. His first two reasons were not entirely convincing. First, because Ihaka had allowed the reserve to be put under the Native Reserves Act and secondly, two other people (namely his sons) had signed the assent. The next two were marginally better; Ihaka was 'the Chief of the District and as such acted as the representatives of his Tribe in all such matters as this'. And, 'it is generally admitted that portions of the land were fishing and landing places of the Maoris [sic], and the presumption is that these were intended as such for the whole of the Maoris who used them'. His fifth reason was entirely wrong. Sim assumed that others had contributed to the payment by Ihaka to the Crown, instead of the Crown itself facilitating the purchase. His sixth reason was a reiteration of the Legislature Council's recommendation - that an inquiry be held and the issue referred

309 Ihaka Whaanga and five others to Carroll, 18 November 1911, MA 1119231135 310 MA 1/1923/135,24 October 1912 311 Journal ofthe Legislative Council 1912, p 116

75 to the Government for consideration. Taking all this into consideration, he submitted it was essential that 'an authoritative decision as to who are the 'beneficial owners" be made before the land was transferred to the Whaanga family under section 26 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1910.313

The Public Trustee forwarded Sim's letter to the acting Native under secretary, suggesting that an order in council be issued under section 25 of the Native Land Act 1909, conferring jurisdiction on the Native Land Court to ascertain who were the beneficial owners entitled to receive the transfer. The acting under secretary informed the trustee of Palmer's inquiry in 1910, and that Palmer had decided that the land was acquired by Ihaka solely for himself and not as a trustee. It therefore was not a case fior mqmry.· . 314

All the time the Crown was transferring the Waikokopu reserve to the Whaanga family, negotiating for its purchase and then finally purchasing shares in it, Taare Mete continued petitioning Parliament. In 1917, and again in 1919, he kept pushing for a reinvestigation into the title of Waikokopu. Both times the Native Affairs Committee had no recommendation to make. 315 In the meantime, the Whaanga family was 'pressing for completion of the transfer' ?16

Taare was not the only one to protest. In March 1920, K M Tukareaho wrote to F D Thompson, clerk of the Executive Council. Tukareaho had seen the notification in the Kahiti prohibiting the alienation of Waikokopu, unless to the Crown/17 and wrote objecting to it. According to him, Waikokopu was 'a Native Reserve which requires to be handed along to the Native Land Court to ascertain as to who are the proper owners'. He went on to say, 'I know positively that my father, Te Matenga Tukareaho, has an interest in this land, because he actually lived on it,.318

312 AAMK 8691193f, 9 August 1916 313 This still had not been done at this time. 314 Acting under secretary to Public Trustee, 28 September 1916, AAMK 869/193f 315 AJHR 1917 1-3, P 20; AJHR 19191-3, P 20 316 Public Trustee to district manager, 15 August 1917, AAMK 8691193f 317 25 February 1920 318 MA-MLP 111912/82,22 March 1920

76 The clerk forwarded it on to the Native Department, which replied that the owners were the Whaanga family, who had just sold to the Crown about 476 acres of the block. The department was adamant that Tukareaho was not an owner, 'nor was his father'. This was clearly wrong, as any proper investigation would have discovered. The son was not the only one to mention Matenga's interest; Teira Ranginui had also (see above). It is not even as if Matenga, and for that matter Tamihana, had not been alive to be recognised in the Crown grants to Ihaka. They were still responding to McLean's letters in 1873 and 1876. Matenga wrote in opposition to the Native Land Acts and unscrupulous land sales. And Tamihana wrote what could be construed as a somewhat uncomplimentary commentary on Ihaka?19 But they obviously had not been as useful to McLean and the Government as Ihaka. In August 1872, the Government presented Ihaka with a sword of honour for his services and a memorial stone was erected at Nuhaka in his honour after he died.

In her thesis, Smit is critical of Ihaka' s motives for setting aside land for his personal use. She argues that this does not seem consistent with his chiefly responsibilities and duties to his hapu.32o Part of these chiefly responsibilities include control, but not ownership, over certain territories. Ballara and Scott have defined that control as 'leadership, care of the people and consensus-seeking rather than command'. 321 The witnesses at the 1910 inquiry all insisted that Ihaka had performed his chiefly duties, it was only after he died and his children took over the land that they were shut out. And certainly, the protests did not seem to start until after his death. But whether that was because Ihaka had included them in on the reserve, or because they were not confident to protest until Ihaka was no longer there to challenge them, is debatable.

Set against the witnesses' evidence must be Ihaka's own words, as related by Bendall, and in the Native Land Court minutes. Bendall claimed that Ihaka had told him that McLean granted the reserves to Ihaka for his services in the purchase of the different

319 Te Matenga Tukareaho to McLean, 4 November 1873, MS Papers 32, folder 697F; Tamihana Taruke to McLean, 10 May 1876, MS Papers 32, folder 700B 320 Smit, p 71 321 BaHara and Scott, 'Introduction', p 43

77 blocks.322 When the Kinikini reserve, which had been reserved out of the Mahia block for everyone/23 came before the Native Land Court, Ihaka argued that it:

belongs to me. It was reserved by me on the sale of the Mahia Block. I requested that it might be excluded from this purchase and Mr McLean excluded it. The Native title was not extinguished over it. This piece belongs to me alone and the Grant should be in my name only.324

Which only goes to confirm that Ihaka did intend the reserves to be solely for himself and that is how the rest of his family treated them. It could be argued that in granting Ihaka's request the Crown were merely recognising Ihaka's rangatiratanga and his right to assert sole ownership over the reserves. But not if rangatiratanga is seen in terms of chiefly responsibilities and duties instead of individual rights. And, as I have attempted to show, the Crown built Ihaka up to assist their purchase of land in the area and the reserves was his reward. Smit quite rightly points out that rivalry, discord and individualisation were always apparent in Maori society.325 The government officials did not create it; they just took advantage of it. But it was the Crown's responsibility to ensure that it safeguarded the rights of all the hapu not just one individual.

Access to the sea

The bulk of the twentieth century petitions focused on the importance of Waikokopu and Opoutama as a valuable kaimoana and canoe-landing place.326 As Te Rina Kereru explained, this was the reason why she did not want to sell her land, because it was the place she got her food and fish from (see above). The practical side of fishing is also bound up with the spiritual importance of the Mahia region. The Mahia peninsula as a whole is central to the sacred beliefs of Rakaipaaka.

It was at Mahia peninsula that Ruawharo, the tohunga who had guided the Takitimu on its voyage to New Zealand, decided to settle. He is believed to

322 Bendall to P Sheridan, Native Land Purchase Officer, 11 November 1905, MA 1119231135 323 'Ko te wahi mo matou hei nohoanga hei mahinga ika kei Kinikini', MA-MLP 6/3, deed no 151, pp 42-43 324 Wairoa Minute Book 1,21 September 1868, p 71; see also Cox, 'The Key-stone of the District', on this reserve 325 Smit, p 72 326 see for example, petition no. 678/1910 and petition no. 27211915

78 have brought with him the mauri, the lifeforce, of the whales and the fish of the sea which he proceeded to plant in the ground at Mahia. This was to encourage their presence in the vicinity so that Maori of this area would forever be blessed with kaimoana, seafood. 327

There seems to be no protest about the harbour works affecting their seafood. Rather, the emphasis was on how alienation from the land prevented their access to the sea and consequently their kaimoana. The claims, as they stand now, argue that if the wharf and surrounding lands are no longer required for harbour purposes they should be returned to the original owners. 328

327 Smit, p 16 328 see for example, Wai 278

79 CONCLUSION

Opoutama and Waikokopu were highly valued by the hapu for their kaimoana and as significant canoe-landing places. Protests and inquiries regarding these two reserves consistently stressed the importance of these reserves to the hapu because of this. Clearly, however, the creation ofthese reserves was caught up in local politics. In the early nineteenth century, the chieftainship of the region had been fiercely contested and this extended into land sales and the eventual setting up of reserves. Waikokopu, along with other reserves, became a way for Ihaka Whaanga to increase his mana at the expense of others; in particular, Te Matenga. Te Matenga clearly had an interest in the Waikokopu reserve but he was left out of the Crown grant· and his family, and others, were subsequently dispossessed.

While in the end the chiefs are responsible for their own actions, the question is raised about what is the responsibility of the Crown in respecting the mana of the hapu. It is clear that secret deals were being negotiated between the government officials and Ihaka to facilitate the purchase of land in the area. The statements of Samuel Locke in 1865, the Commissioner of Crown Lands in 1867 and Preece in 1910, taken in conjunction with the Crown purchasing the reserve for Ihaka instead of reserving it in the deed - which would have meant having to recognise the hapu interest in it - tends to substantiate this. The Crown was not responsible for the rivalry and discord which always has been apparent in Maori society but the Crown manipulated the rivalry in order to secure more land. The responsibility rested fully on the Crown to conduct purchases that did not infringe on the rights of other members of the hapu.

In the end, the bulk of the Waikokopu reserve was either taken or acquired by the Crown for harbour purposes. There appears to have been little or no protest at the time from the grantees about the Crown acquiring this land. Nevertheless, there are still issues arising from the acquisition. Such as: • The amount of land the Crown received in contrast to the non-sellers. • The situation of the non-sellers block, which meant they had no direct access to the sea.

80 • The Crown's failure to protect the interests of the rest of the hapu, in particular their traditional access to their fishing grounds. • The Crown's insistence on treating the Whaanga family as the only owners of the reserves in the face of continuing protest over ownership of the reserves.

The hapu may not have protested over the building of the harbour but they certainly protested about being alienated from a valuable resource.

The competency of the Public Trustee to administer these reserves must also be raised. No attempt was made to administer the reserves until part of them was wanted for harbour purposes. Little was done on the part of the trustee to retain the reserves in Maori ownership, the Public Trustee (and later the Native Trustee) even going so far as to facilitate their acquisition by pointing out, on different occasions, that they could be compulsorily acquired under the Public Works Act.

A hearing to determine the equitable owners of Opoutama was finally held and 129 beneficial owners were ascertained. But that took over 50 years, even though the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court had thought it probable in 1910 that more than just the Whaangas were interested in Opoutama. In the meantime Opoutama was treated as if it was the Whaangas' personal property.

The hapu were not so lucky with Waikokopu. No satisfactory investigation was held to discover if there were more people than just the Whaangas interested in Waikokopu because the government officials had never intended the reserve to be for the rest of the hapu. The Crown had the example of Opoutama where a reserve that had been treated as the private property of one family could be investigated and awarded to others. But Opoutama had been reserved in a deed of purchase while Waikokopu had not. The Crown failed to safeguard the rights of all the hapu in the Waikokopu reserve.

81 APPENDIX 1

WAI 201

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

AND CONCERNING Wairoa ki Wairarapa claims

DIRECTIONS COMMISSIONG RESEARCH

1 Pursuant to clause 5A(1) of the second schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal commissions Joy Hippolite of Wellington to complete a research report in the Mahia district, covering the following matters:

(a) A block history of the Waikokopu reserve, in particular the taking of land for harbour purposes. (b) A block history of the Opoutama reserve, in particular, whether Section 36, Block III, Mahanga Survey District was taken under the Public Works Act for a park. (c) Block histories of Kaiwaitau and Mahanga, in particular, the taking of Mahanga 2Y for aerodrome purposes. (d) Any other issues of relevance to the alienation ofthe above lands.

2 This commission commences on 9 November 1998. 3 This commission ends on 12 March 1999, at which time one copy of the report will be filed in unbound form together with an indexed document banl( and a copy of the report on disk. 4 The report may be received as evidence and the author may be cross-examined on it. 5 The Registrar is to send a copies of this direction to:

Joy Hippolite Claimants Counsel for Claimants Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Secretary, Crown Forest Rental Trust Chief executive, Te Puni Kokiri

DATED at Wellington this 13th day of November 1998

Deputy Chief Judge NF Smith Deputy Chairperson WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

82 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Unpublished

Hawke's Bay Provincial Council records, HB series 4, National Archives, Wellington McLean Papers, MSS, Alexander Turnbull Library Maori Affairs Head Office, MA, MA-MLP, AAMK 869 series, National Archives, Wellington Maori Land Court minute books, Maori Land Court, Gisbome Marine Department, M series, National Archives, Wellington Ministry of Works and Development ABKK series, National Archives, Wellington Old Land Claim series, OLC 11937,2/7, National Archives, Wellington

Published

Appendices to the Journals ofthe House ofRepresentatives British Parliamentary Papers (IUP) Hawke's Bay Gazette Hawke's Bay Provincial Council Votes & Proceedings Journals of the Legislature Council New Zealand Gazette New Zealand Parliamentary Debates New Zealand Statutes

SECONDARY SOURCES

Unpublished

BaHara, Angela, and Scott, Gary, 'Crown Purchases of Maori Land in Early Provincial Hawke's Bay', claimants' report to the Waitangi Tribunal, 1994, (Wai 201 :11) Cox, Elizabeth, 'The Key-stone of the District': The Crown Purchase of the Mahia Block, 1864, Waitangi Tribunal, 1999 Hippolite, Joy, 'Raupatu in Hawke's Bay', 1993, Wai 201 ROD, document 117

Theses Ballara, Heather Angela, 'The Origins ofNgati Kahungunu', Phd thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1991 Smit, Grace, 'Mana Maori: Questions of Authority on the East Coast during the Nineteenth Century' , MA Thesis, Auckland, 1997

83 Published

Ballara, Heather Angela, Iwi, The dynamics ofMaori tribal organisations from c. 1769 to c. 1945, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 1998 Hippolite, Joy, Wairoa, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1996 Lambert, T, The Story of Old Wairoa and the East Coast ofNew Zealand, 2nd ed, Capper Press, Christchurch, 1977 MacGregor, Miriam, Early Stations ofHawke's Bay, A H & A W Reed, Wellington, 1970 ______, Pioneer Trials ofHawke's Bay, A H & A W Reed, Wellington 1975 McLintock, A H (ed), An Encyclopaedia ofNew Zealand, (3 vols) Government Print, Wellington 1966 Mitchell, J H, Takitimu: A History ofthe Ngati Kahungunu People, Southern Reprints, 1972 Moore, D, Rigby, B, Russell, M, Old Land Claims, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1997 The People ofMany Peaks: The Maori Biographies from the Dictionary ofNew Zealand Biography, Wellington, Department ofInternal Affairs, 1991, vol 1 Waters, S D, Richardsons ofNapier, A century ofcoastal shipping 1859-1959, Richardson and Company Ltd, Napier 1959 Wilson, J G, The History ofHawke 's Bay, A H & A W Reed, Dunedin & Wellington 1939 Wilson, R C, Wairoa County Council- the First Hundred Years, Wairoa County Council, 1978

84