An Overview History of the confiscation claim 1920s-1980s: from the' Sim corinnission to the sUbmission of Taranaki claims to the .

cathy Marr

. t A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal wai 143 15 April 1993

'" .('1' ...... ';"" ';+' .... , ... Introduction

.:; '.:')' ;L This report was commissioned by the Wai tangi Tribunal in a direction dated 14 June 1992. The report addresses the specific issues raised in that direction. These were: a summary of the Sim commission; its terms of reference, recommendations and outcomes an analysis of the effect of the Sim commission in terms of settlement of the Taranaki confiscated, land claims a definition of exactly what the settlement was for - for example if it was for the wrong done only a brief history to the present of ways in which the confiscated land claims of Taranaki have been maintained since the Sim commission and the establishment of the Trust Board, including the 1978 settlement concerning Taranaki maunga a brief history of the establishment of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board and a description of the legislation and regulations it operates under an analysis of the way in which the legislation and regulations the Trust Board operates under' have and continue to promote and/or hinder the implementation of both the spirit and terms of the settlement arrived at with 'the Crown

The research for this report has been based mainly on official do'cuments and is intended to provide an initial basis for claimant and Crown comment. A draft of this report was submitted to the Research Manager of the waitangi Tribunal Division in December 1992. At that time research for the history of the 1970s and 1980s was incomplete because of difficulties in locating the relevant files still held by departments. Since that' time relevant files of the old Maori Affairs department have been located and researched at Te Puni Kokori. Thanks are due to Fleur Taiapa of that office for her assistance with this. A number of unsuccessful requests over some months have also been made for access to Treasury files. At the time of writing the most recent request under the Official Information Act had still received no response. Nevertheless it has been possible to complete a broad outline of the Taranaki muru raupatu claim during that time using documents available. In the early part of the report substantial use has been made of qocuments, copies of which are in the waitangi Tribunal Raupatu Document Bank. References to this are abbreviated to RBD. A further document bank is attached to this report containing copies of documents not in the Raupatu Document Bank. The attached document bank is separately indexed. , / I. 1/ ,/

/ /

Contents

Chapter 1 Background to the sim commission of inquiry 1926-28 1

Chapter 2 Summary of the sim commission - terms of reference, findings and recommendations 12

Chapter 3 The 1930 agreement - the first stage of the implementation of the Taranaki awards 1928-30 33

Chapter 4 The interim agreement 1930-44 and the Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act 1944 49

Chapter 5 A brief history of the maintenance of confiscation claims of Taranaki iwi subsequent to the sim commission and the establishment of the Trust. Board, including the Taranaki maunga negotiations 65

Chapter 6 A brief history of the establishment of the I " / Taranaki Maori Trust Board and t~e legislation and regulations it operates under 94

Chapter 7 The impact of the legislation and regulations governing the Taranaki Maori Trust Board on the spirit and terms of the settlement with the Crown 108

Possible Issues 1 :{) Chapter 1

Background to the sim Commission of Inguiry 1926-28

A Commission of inquiry was formally established by government in October 1926 to inquire into and recommend on 'confiscated

lands and other grievances'. 1 The three person inquiry became known as the Sim commission after its chairman, Justice Sir William Sim. The other members were Vernon Reed from the Bay of Islands, a member of the Legislative Council, and a Maori member, william Cooper, a Native Associate, of Gisborne.

The commission's main duty was to investigate the confiscations made by the Crown following the wars of the 1860s. The primary confiscation legislation was the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 and its amendments. The confiscations were made in the districts of Taranaki, - , Tauranga, the eastern. Bay of Plenty and the East Coast. The 'other grievances' were a variety of other Maori claims that had been referred for fUrther investigation by parliamentary committee. These included lands lost after the Tar.awera eruption and various north Auckland claims. However it is apparent from the commission's report that the main focus of investigations was the confiscations and in particular those that took place in Taranaki and Waikato. 2

The sim commission inquiry was not established in isolation. It was one of a number of major inquiries and negotiations of tne 1920s. The 'Jones' Commission of inquiry of 1920-21 for example, investigated a number of claims, in particular the major long standing Ngai Tahu grievance. In 1922 settlement had also been reached over Te Arawa lakes after years of court action and

1 Notice of establishment of commission dated 18 October 1926, in New Zealand Gazette no 73 of 28 October 1926 pp 3021-3. Copy also in ROB v 48 PP"18524-8 and in document bank attached pp 472-475.

2 Sim commission report in ROB v 48 pp 18524-18563 2 negotiations. A similar lake - agreement was -·made wit:h Ngati Tuwharetoa in 1926. The approach to claim inquiry and settlement was of course still limited by the prevailing attitudes of the time. The for example was not accepted by government as a basis for claim. The work of the sim commission therefore needs to be seen within the context of its time.

The cluster of major claim inquiries and negotiations of the 1920s seem to have resulted from a combination of the pressure Maori were able to place on government at the time, increased goodwill by Pakeha to enable claims to be reconsidered and a growing pragmatic concern by some Pakeha, including politicians, that fair settlements had to be made for the good of -future race relations in New Zealand.

Pressure on governments from Maori appears to have been a major factor. The major claims investigated in the 1920s were not new ~ . . . and the government recognised that Maori claimants had been pressing consistently for settlement for many years, from the time many of the grievances took place. The methods used by claimants in attempting to obtain proper inquiry and redress varied according to what 'seemed most appropriate and the opportunities available at the time. They had included action at a local level, petitions to parliament and the British Crown, representations through Maori members of parliament and pressure on local and national authorities through individuals, iwi and a variety of Maori organisations. In spite of active discouragement by successive governments, claimants had also consistently invoked the Treaty of Waitangi in challenging Crown actions associated with claims.

In the case of Taranaki for example, Smith, counsel for claimants, briefly described the long history of actions on the

3 claim in his opening submission to the Sim commission • smith referred to the history of petitioning the British monarch and

3 Smith, opening sUbmission to sim commission in RDB v 48 pp 18565-18706. 3

the Imperial government as well as the New. Zealand Parliament. He traced efforts to gain redress in a direct line from original attempts to have the Wai tara purchase properly investigated, through the leadership of Te Whiti and acts of passive resistance, to the pressure resulting in the Sim commission. He told the commission that Te Whiti had prophesied that peaceful resistance would bring about the establishment of an inquiry by the government and that for many of the claimants the sim commission was that inquiry. Smith reminded the commission of the continuance of the tradition of resistance in the relUctance of many men in the confiscation districts to enlist for the first world war. Attempts to have a proper inquiry into the confiscations had previously failed. There had never been a full and proper investigation of the confiscations and requests for an inquiry had been refused· because it had generally been assumed that the confiscations had been warranted and the compensation courts had dealt with any genuine claims at the time. smith ~fj) reminded the commission that the earlier Fox-Bell inquiry in Taranaki in 1880 had in fact been limited to seeing that compensation awards were implemented. It had not been an inquiry into the confiscations themselves and for this reason the Maori member appointed at the time had resigned.

In addition to the history covered by smith, there is evidence of the consistency of Taranaki claims through the existence of formal petitions. Petitions had to be presented in an acceptable form and through accepted processes to be formally accepted as petitions to parliament. These formal petitions, although costly for petitioners, were regularly present~d to parliament concerning the Taranaki claims. surviving petitions included in the Raupatu Document Bank show an average of one every two years for Taranaki from the 1870s to the first World War, when serious consideration was first given to the possibility of a confiscation commission. 4

4 Raupatu Document Bank vols 1-6 4 I) The Maori members of parliament were also given strong mandates by their electorates to press for the resolution of claims from the time the Maori seats were established. In some cases support for a candidate depended on a strong commitment to having claims resolved. The Western Maori electorate includes the Taranaki and Waikato confiscation districts. According to Pei Te Hurinui Jones, Sir Maui Pomare was supported by the King movement as a candidate·for Western Maori in the 1911 election on his pledge to persuade the government to hold an inquiry into· confiscated lands. s Later, in 1928 after the Sim commission had completed its work, at a hui held at Waahi Pa to select a candidate for Western Maori in the coming election, Pomare successfully argued ( 1 that having been instrumental in having the inquiry established he should remain as the candidate for Western Maori. On the strength of .this argument, Tumate Mahuta who had been going to stand against him, agreed to stand down for another three years. 6 In common with the other Maori members Pomare took every • ·~pp·~rtunity to pr~ss for an inquiry into the confiscations and to remind parliament of the continuing grievances. In 1924 for example, during a debate on the rating of Native land, he reminded parliament that millions of acres had been confiscated. 7

Pressure to settle claims also came from other groups wi thin Maori society. The King movement for example had always been vitally concerned with land and remained a strong force in pressuring the government for proper investigations of the confiscations. Many King movement followers also supported the refusals to enlist in the' first World War until progress was made

5 Pei Te Hurinui Jones in Schwimmer (ed) The Maori People in the 1960s p 144

.. 6 Huntly Press newspaper cutting of 28 September 1928 re hui at"Waahi Pa in MAl, 5/13 pt 1 in RDB v 56 P 21243 and comment of • Ngata in letter to Buck 9 October 1928 in Na To Hoa Aroha v 1 p ·142·

7 Sir Maui Pomare to parliament in NZPD 1924 v 205 P 1059, copy in document bank attached p 486. 5

on settling the grievances. By the end of .the ·-f·irst World War a Tj, '~,K~ major political objective of the newly formed Ratana movement was

to have the Crown fully honour th~ Treaty of Waitangi. Ratana quickly gained many supporters and soon forged links with the young Labour Party over Treaty issues. The Labour party was also rising in political strength at the time and the alliance seemed to offer a real threat to the status quo, although Labour understandings of Treaty guarantees were later shown to be substantially different. In 1923 Labour member Peter Fraser declared that while it was 'unthinkable that any section of the community, whether Native or white, should hold up for ever the prosperity of the country by retaining large tracts of land unworked. On the other hand •.. the country must be as careful as it is humanly possible ••. that no injustice is done to those who hold that land, and to see that not only the letter but the spirit of the treaty entered into between the Europeans and the Natives is carried out'.8 Other Maori organisations regarded as more moderate also commonly supported the fair resolution of grievances. In 1927 attempts were made to revive the Young Maori Party. Although this revival, supported by sir Apirana Ngata, seems partly to have been an attempt to defuse some political support for Ratana, the revived party also declared strong support for the fair resolution of claims. 9

By the 1920s it was also apparent that there was increased ) willingness on the part of many Pakeha politicians and their electorates to have the grievances reopened and fair inquiries made. The extent of inquiry and settlement was still to be limited and there was considerable fe?1r of an electoral backlash. Nevertheless there seems to have been a mixture of genuine goodwill. as well as an increasing concern for the future of race

8 Peter Fraser to parliament in NZPD 1923 v 200 P 455, copy in document bank attached p 485.

,lit 9 For example, see extract from resolutions of Easter meeting to revive Young Maori Party 1927 (one of resolutions also supported inquiry into old claims) and newspaper clipping on West Coast Young Maori Congress in MA series 51, 12/100, copy in document bank attached pp 170-171. 6 I' relations if old claims were not settled. The increased goodwill in the pakeha community was often expressed by sentiments such as the length of time that had elapsed since the to allow old wounds to heal and the bonds forged by service by both Maori and Pakeha in the first World War. The notice establishing the Sim commission declared for example that , ... whereas for many years complete peace has existed between the two races, and it is deemed desirable to review the whole position ••• '~o In promising the Sim investigation in 1925 Coates also declared that the question of whether the extent of the confiscation was fair and just could now ' ••• be temperately and fairly considered after the long lapse of years since the confiscation'.ll.

By the 1920s there appears to have develop~d an official ethos of assimilation of the Maori population. By then it had become clear that the Maori population was not dying out as had been ~ assumed earlier. Many Pakeha were convinced that the continuing grievances were becoming a major obstacle to assimilation and . . therefore progress. It was widely assumed that if the grievances were fairly resolved then Maori could put the past behind them and adjust better to Pakeha society. Implicit in this attitude was the belief that with progress Maori ways would then die out . or survive for ceremonial purposes only. Many Maori leaders supported the view that the grievances were a barrier to progress although there were varying views on how much Maori would or should be assimilated. Sir Apirana Ngata for example, repeatedly warned parliament that it could not expect to carry out reforms among Maori populations while grievances remained. He encouraged this view partly as a means of ensuring inquiries were established. In addition however he also looked forward to renewed Maori development. He was convinced that the way forward for Maori was through economic development especially through

~ 10 copy of notice establishing commission included in sim commission report RDB v 48 pp 18524-8

1~ Coates to parliament in NZPD 1925 v 208 P 774, copy in qocument bank attached p 488. 7

land development and cultural regeneration rather than relying on compensation. He supported an inquiry into the raupatu. grievances because he felt that continuing bitterness and lack of cooperation in confiscation areas threatened this development. ~2 Many claimants however went further and saw proper compensation as vital in the process of future development, not simply as a means of putting the past behind them.

The experiences of the first World War intensified the pressures to renew inquiries. There was increased goodwill by Pakeha resulting from Maori and Pakeha having fought together and the sense of united nationhood this was felt to have engendered. Many Pakeha were shocked by the level of bitterness revealed in the refusal to enlist. or cooperate in some of the confiscation districts. This posed a real threat. to the Pakeha ideal of future harmony and progress in race relations.

Prime Minister coates explained many of the reasons behind the inquiry in 1928 when he presented the Sim report to parliament. He told· parliament for example, that while there was discontent over the grievances there would be no progress. It was now clear that the Maori population was growing and was not dying out and would have to be accommodated. He also spoke of the renewed sense

, ) of goodwill ' .•. every New Zealander who knows the Maori is proud to call him a friend and an equal on all occasions'.~3

As always governments were also concerned with political realities. The strengthening Ratana~Labour alliance throughout

12 For example, in his speech in 1928 on the report being presented to parliament, Ngata spoke of the tribes in the confiscation areas as backward because they were out of sympathy and out of tune ' ••• They have a mote in their eyes and will not see the road in front of them' NZPD 1928 v 219 P 642, copy in document bank attached p 494.

13 Debate on presentation of Sim report to parliament 28 .. september 1928, NZPD 1928 v 219 pp 639-644, copy in document bank attached pp 491-496. 8

the 1920s was viewed with increasingly concern. In response, the ability of Ngata in particular and' his friendship with coates seemed to offer a way of defusing the problems. The settlement of the old claims through proper inquiry seemed an increasingly reasonable course of action.

In fact there was a strong belief among Maori that the government had promised an inquiry into the old grievances as early as during the first World War. It was felt that in return for a united war effort from the two races there would be an inquiry into the grievances and justice would be done. Ngata later explained to parliament that when the first World War broke out, ( the late Mr Massey asked the Maori members not to pursue the claims during the war and consideration was therefore postponed until afterwards. 14 Official documents also seem to support the claim that such promises were made. For example, in 1915 Massey noted on a petition that he had promised to suggest to Cabinet that" a commission should be appointed to settle outstanding

Native claims. 15

The belief that promises had been made and that government was increasingly sympathetic to the idea of a proper inquiry fuelled Maori expectations and in turn resulted in increased pressure to have the promises kept. For example there was an increase in petitions to parliament to be included in the promised inquiry in the years immediately after World War One. The first clear public promise to definitely establish a commission to inquire

into confiscation grievances seems to have b~en made to parliament in 1925 by the Prime Minister and Native Minister,

14 Ngata in debate on 1928 legislation 6 October 1928, NZPD 1928 v 219 P 948, copy in document bank attached p 499.

15 Memo re Tikorangi block petition from Massey to Minister in charge of Public Trust Office, 15 September 1915, 'I promised to have this matter submitted to Cabinet together with the suggestion that a Commission be appointed to settle outstanding Native claims' and associated correspondence and petitions in MAl, 8/0 v 2, copy in document bank attached pp 33-41. 9

D Joseph Coates .l.6 Just over a year later, in _October 1926, the formal establishment of the inquiry was publicly notified.

~ Although the commission was now finally a reality, it was clear from other recently completed investigations and negotiations that there were definite limits on how far the government was prepared to go to in resolving claim issues. The 1920-21 'Jones' commission had followed previously established practice in determining compensation. The recommendation for Ngai Tahu was based on what was felt to be just and equitable_ and it was to be paid to individuals whose right to a share would be determined by a court. The amount awarded was loosely based on the value of useful land lost at the time of purchases plus interest for the many years the claim had been outstanding. The £354,000 recommended was therefore made up mainly of interest and was nothing like the millions of pounds the claimants had been calculating in estimating the actual value of the loss. Even so, the Government had balked at paying such a substantial sum and the commission's findings and recommendations became the subject of a strong counter attack by Treasury. By 1926 when the Sim commission was established, negotiations over the Ngai Tahu recommendations still seemed a long way from resolution and this is likely to have influenced the Sim commission when it came to making recommendations.

In contrast, the Sim commission would also have been aware of the apparently successful Te Arawa lakes settlement made by direct

negotiation with the government. l.7 The settlement only took place after years of negotiation and court action but had many features that seemed to make it an attractive-alternative to the Ngai TahU type recommendations. In the Arawa agreement the Crown paid an annual sum of £6000 in perpetuity in return for control

16 NZPD 1925 v 208 pp 773-774 Coates speech to parliament 28 illl) september 1925, copy in document bank attached pp 487-8.

17 More details on this agreement can be found in my report on the 1940s settlements, Marr C, Crown Policy Towards Major Crown/Iwi Claim Agreements Wai 143 Bl 10 of the lakes, instead of one larger lump sum settlem.ent. The payment was not made to individuals but to Te Arawa as a whole for general tribal benefits. Payments were made to a Trust Board made up entirely of Te Arawa representatives who controlled how the money was spent within legislative guidelines.

The settlement was attractive to the government in that it saved the continued expense of court battles in trying to take control of the lakes and it avoided having to pay one very large sum in compensation by paying smaller sums in perpetuity. It seems likely that the basis for the amount was to take a larger sum that might have been considered as a lump sum compensation and use the interest that may have been expected from this to determine what the annual payments would be. By making such payments to a Trust Board it was hoped they would be less likely to be frittered away, a constant worry of Pakeha politicians. The sum was sUbstantial enough to make real contributions to general .~ tribal welfare in areas such as education, sanitation and health, something it may be argued the government might have had to do anyway. The payment was monetary rather than in land which appealed to the government although Maori leaders such as Ngata hoped that the payments would also be used to seed land development programmes. At the same time the payments were not sufficient to allow for the beginning of economic independence. The government hoped instead that the system of payments would help assimilate the tribe into mainstream society and economy.

This'type of settlement also appeared to be a better alternative to claimants. It could be seen for· example, in some degree at least, as government. acknowledgement of tribal mana. The annual payment could be regarded as a perpetual acknowledgement by the government of the mana of Te Arawa over the lakes.· This was a substantial improvement on previous systems of compensation. The establishment of a Trust Board to administer payments was also .some acknowledgement of iwi existence and rights. For the first • time a Maori Trust was to be entirely controlled by iwi representatives and within limits the Trust Board had control 11

: . '0'~;: over the management of the payments. The T.rust,· also recognised \~ . communal tribal management rather than insisting on the division of compensation into individual court determined shares.

As will be seen in the following chapters, of the options available, by 1928, the Arawa type of settlement seemed most appealing to government and claimants in that it seemed at the very least to have established a satisfactory, successfully operating framework in resolution of the issue while the Ngai Tahu negotiations remained very much unresolved. This is also likely to have influenced the Sim commission in making recommendations that would have the most chance of being successfully implemented by government .

.I, 12 Chapter 2

Summary of the sim commission - terms of reference. findings and recommendations.

It took a year after the Sim inquiry was promised in parliament before it was formally established in October 1926. The commission itself sat for about three months in 1927 hearing evidence on all the claims before it.~8 The report was written in a further six weeks. Sittings began on 9· February 1927 at and then waitara to hear the Taranaki claim. All the evidence and submissions for Taranaki including 13 extra petitions were heard in about 7~ days sitting. After this the commission travelled to other confiscation districts and to Russell in the Bay of Islands to hear evidence on the other claims. The commission's last sitting was held at on 12 May 1927. The report to the Governor General is dated 29 June 1927. Just over 12 months later and two years after the commission was formally established, the report was presented to the House of Representatives on 28 September 1928. The report was also published in the Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives of 1928.

The gazette notice establishing the commission also contained the terms of reference for the inquiry and a brief introduction I ) listing the various confiscation acts, noting the associated use of proclamations and orders in council and giving the reasons for imposing the confiscations. ~9 The introduction also mentioned the compensation provision and the exclusion from compensation of those who had been in rebellion as defined under section five of the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The introduction went on to note that claims had since been made that some Natives who were loyal or neutral were not compensated for land taken and llllID) .1.8 This information comes from the Sim commission report. A copy of the published report is in the RDB v 48 pp 18524-63

.1.9 copy of notice in report of commission in RDB v 48 P 18524-8 13

that Natives who were in rebellion or oth~rwise covered by section 5, had land confiscated that was a) excessive in quantity or b) included in the confiscation when it should more properly have been reserved for Native purposes.

The actual terms of reference for the inquiry were:

1. . Whether , having regard to all the circumstances and necessities of the period during which Proclamations and \ Orders in Council under the said Acts were made and confiscations effected, such confiscations or any of them exceeded in quantity what was fair and just, whether as

,I penalty for rebellion and other acts of that nature, or as providing for protection by settlement as defined in the said Acts.

2. Whether any lands included in any confiscation were of such a nature as that they should have been excluded for some special reason.

3. Whether any, and, if so, what Natives (having title or interest in lands confiscated) are in your opinion justly entitled to claim compensation in respect of the confiscation of such title or interest, and, if so, what Natives or classes or families of Natives are now entitled by descent or otherwise to claim and receive such compensation.

4. Whether reserves or other provision subsequently made for the support and maintenance of Natives within one or more of the classes excepted by the said section five were in regard to any particular tribe or hapu inadequate for the purpose.

11ID The first question concerning excessive confiscation was subject to a number of qualifications. In considering the subject-matter of question 1, the commission was not to have regard to any 14 'D contention that Natives who denied the sovereignty of Her Majesty and repudiated her authority could claim the benefit of the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi; nor could it accept any contention that the said Acts or any of them were ultra vires of the Parliament of the Dominion. It also had to have regard to the then circumstances of the colony and in estimating the value of any excess of confiscation (if any) had to have regard to the value of the confiscated land as at the date of confiscation and not to any later increment in its value.

If the commission found there had been excessive ,confiscation under question 1, it was to decide what compensation in money ; should be made and whether this should go to any particular person, tribe or hapu, or whether it should go to the benefit of all the Natives of the . This effectively ruled out the use of land for compensation for question I, although many claimants' had consistently stated their preference to land ~ instead of money.

The commission was also asked to inquire into a number of petitions referred to it including 13 concerning Taranaki. The Taranaki petitions covered a variety 'of issues including individual blocks of land, and issues arising from the confiscations such as the raid on , and the implementation of compensation court awards. with regard to the petitions, the commission was to make recommendations in accord with good conscience and equity in each case in so far as they were not already covered by the main terms of. reference. The commission was to operate under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 and was given until the end of June 1927 to make its report.

The terms of reference were clearly intended to limit the scope of the inquiry. coates made this clear to parliament in 1925 when he promised to establish the commission. He stated that it was illD the government's intention. to allow the Natives the fullest possible hearing. However, he did not intend the justice of the confiscations themselves to be an issue nor did he accept that 15 D the Treaty of Wai tangi could be used as a·· basis for claims. He acknowledged that confiscation claims had been pressed for many years and that petitions had been made to the British and New Zealand authorities. He claimed that the failure of claimants to obtain consideration in the past had been due to their advisors' ill advised attempts to rely on the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi and the obvious answer to that had been that the claims were made by those who repudiated the Treaty and the cession of sovereignty in it. coates declared that instead the question was

whether the extent of confiscation had been fair and just ~nd in addition there was possibly a problem with the treatment of 'loyal Natives. In this case the Treaty was ' •.. in no sense an element in benevolent consideration of the question whether the extent of the territorial confiscation was just and fair under the circumstances of the warfare and the action taken by the Natives

and by Europeans.' 20

~ The terms of reference echo this view. Question 1 assumes that the extent of the confiscations is the main issue. The provisos concerning question 1 explicitly seek to exclude consideration of claims based on the Treaty and the legality of the confiscation legislation. The intention seems to be to simply tidy up some anomalies that may have arisen such as some accidental exclusions from comp'ensation and some _land wrongly categorised for confiscation. The consideration of compensation for excessive confiscation was also severely' limited. Compensation was to be in money, not land and the value had to be determined as at the date of confiscation. There was to be no allowance for the losses accumulated over the many years between confiscation and the establishment of the inquiry. The limitation on compensation may well have been the government's reaction to the Ngai Tahu commission where the bulk of the recommended compensation was for interest over the intervening years between the purchases and the inquiry •

...... ~o.NZPD 1925 v 20.8 P 774 coates to parliament, copy in document bank attached p 488. 16 !D Under questions 2 and 4, the commission had· to" inquire into the possibility that special places may have been wrongly included in the confiscations and that reserves for rebels may have been inadequate. As the proviso regarding monetary compensation only applied to question 1, presumably land could be recommended in these cases.

Fundamental questions such as the justice of the confiscations, the le9ality of confiscation legislation, the actions of the compensation courts and reserves administrations, the loss of tribal economic independence and the possibility of Crown breaches of Treaty guarantees were seemingly therefore all placed > outside the parameters of the inquiry. This meant that the basis of much of the claimants' petitioning over many years had been excluded.

All the claims investigated by the sim commission including those .~ for Taranaki were presented on behalf of claimants by counsel D S Smith and defended by Crown counsel Taylor. As noted previously, the Commission spent about 7~ days hearing all the claims concerning Taranaki. This included seven· days spent sitting in waitara and a final half day in Wellington on 23 February 1927 before the Commission adjourned to opotiki. Over half of this time was taken in hearing submissions from counsel. Just over two days were ?pent in hearing evidence from claimants l ) and from expert witnesses .21.

Smith, counsel for claimants, argued that although the provisos to question 1 appeared to bar consideration of the justice of the confiscations based on the Treaty, the general issue was raised in many of the petitions where there were no such provisos and therefore should be heard. He also argued that in considering claims based on the Treaty, the commission was bound to consider the issue in terms of good conscience and equity as required by ,iiJil) the terms of reference concerning the petitions. Smith however

21. report and minutes of evidence in ROB vols 48 and 49 17 made no attempt to argue whether the confiscation acts were ultra vires although presumably he could have used the same argument to overcome the proviso concerning this as well. 22

Smith's main argument was that it was a general principle of justice that if a war was brought about by the blunder or fault of the conqueror then confiscations as a result of that war must be unjust. He argued that this is what happened in Taranaki. He produced official documents, newspaper accounts, contemporary opinions and published histories to show that the immediate cause of the wars in Taranaki was the Waitara purchase. He argued that pressing ahead with that purchase, including using force, was at best a blunder by Gore Browne and his ministers. The confiscations were imposed because of the wars and as the wars were caused by the fault of the Europeans, the confiscations were therefore unjust. Pressing ahead with the waitara purchase was a blunder because Maori and many Europeans, including British :~ . officials, believed that whatever its legal status, the Treaty of waitangi was the basis on which sovereignty was established in New Zealand. The Treaty preserved Maori rights to customary land ownership for as long as they wanted them. At Waitara however, Governor Gore Browne and his ministers incited rebellion by attempting to change customary land rights guaranteed in the

Treaty into individual land rights. 23

Secondary to this, Smith argued that as well as the immediate blunder of the waitara purchase, the longer term causes of the wars were also the fault of Europeans. Over a period of years the Crown had failed in its duty to Maori, both by its failure to establish effective government through the imposition of law and order and through its disgraceful Native land purchase policy. As a result Maori established a land league and the King movement in defence of their rights. The situation inevitably became one that no one could control and even if confiscation was the tqpff!~

22 Smith's statement to commission in ROB v 48 P 18715

23 Smith's submission to the commission in ROB v 48 18 ;Ii) practical remedy then, later, when the coulltrysettled down, the

government still had an obligation to pay for the remedy. 24 Smith argued that by failing to recognise what Maori understood to be their Treaty rights, the Crown had blundered and caused the wars. Because of these blunders the confiscations following the wars were unjust. smith's argument therefore relied on the Treaty indirectly rather than as a founding document directly governing Crown action.

Assuming that the commission did not accept that the confiscations themselves were unjustified, smith also argued that in terms of question 1, the extent of the confiscations was excessive in respect of each tribe and hapu. He claimed for example, that too much land was proclaimed and gazetted and that land was taken for the earlier Taranaki war in contravention of the requirements of the confiscation acts. He also argued that the compensation provision in the act approved the principle of ~ individual rights that Gor~ Browne wanted· to establish as it allowed compensation to be granted as separate rights able to be

individually partitioned. 25

smith argued that the government had no justification for taking Ngati Awa land in particular. In this he included Ngati Mutunga, Ngati Tama and Ngati Rahiri as hapu of Ngati Awa. 26 In the other proclaimed districts of Taranaki and Ruanui his main argument that the confiscations themselves were unjustified still stood, but if the commission did not accept this then he· admitted that there was some resistance and therefore technically some grounds for confiscation. In the case of those ~ho may have been technically disloyal, smith argued that even without a Treaty, under accepted principles of justice, the government would not have been entitled to take more than a nominal amount of land as

*~ 24 smith opening submission to commission in ROB v 48 pp '~1Ilil' 18569-643

25 smith submission to commission in ROB v 48 pp 18645-51

26 smith submission in ROB v 48 P 18726 19

damages to enforce its claim to sovereignty. Those deemed disloyal should still have had the value of the lands that were taken returned to them.:l.7

Under question 2, Smith argued that it was admitted government policy of the time to reserve special places to Maori within the confiscation areas. These included cultivations, pas, burial places, fishing reserves, etc. He based these claims on admitted government policy, not on Treaty rights. In Taranaki alone the commission had a list of 5 canoe landing places, 45 cemeteries, 15 river and lake fishing reserves, 26 pa, 64 lamprey and eel weirs and 2 pipi and mussel beds. This list was either collated by the commissioners from evidence or was submitted to them.:l.8 Addi tional areas mentioned by witnesses in evidence were left out of the list. These included areas for collecting driftwood and valuable timber,. a request for the return of the mana of Mt Taranaki and for other ancient sites of great value, for example cuIti vat ion and original landing sites. Some towns where the sites were wrongly taken by the government were also,mentioned. For example witness Tupito Maruera asked for the return of the towns OI Waverley, , Kakaramea, Mokoia, Hawera and Ndrmanby.:l.9 witnesses also gave the names and locations of the places when asked to do so. In some cases they pointed out the locations on maps and gave the relevant plan and section

( .. numbers. 30

witnesses also mentioned many issues associated with their claims

to these places. For example, land given back to th~ wrong people, land in perpetual lease, the imposition of fishing licences for taking traditional food resources, lost access to

:1.7 smith submission in ROB v 48 P 18718

U list of special places in ROB v 49 pp 19178-19185

:1.9 Evidence of Tupito Maruera in ROB v 48 P 18821

30 For example, evidence of Rangihuna Pire in ROB v 48 P 18818 20

food and other resources through sale of ·larid and perpetual lease, loss of mana over resources, pollution of resources, and loss and d.esecration of burial grounds for example by roads being put through them and removal of skeletons for exhibition. In many cases it was claimed that the government had agreed to reserve or .return the land but this had not been acted upon for a number of reasons including in some cases, opposition by Europeans. 3L

smith argued that question 3 was mainly covered by the general iwi or hapu case. However he suggested that in the case of special claims in the petitions any individual entitlements could be referred to the Native Land Court to decide which particular ) Natives were entitled to relief. smith felt question 4 would be covered in the main argument and the evidence dealt with under

. question 1.32

The petitions were only dealt with separately in so far as the issues raised were not already covered by the main questions. This meant their coverage before the commission was very piecemeal. Many raised issues of further injustice that stemmed from the initial confiscations. Examples were the raid on Parihaka and the reduction of the Waimate plains reserve. However any· question of general injustice was separated from the p~tition. The result was that further injustic~s subsequent to ( ) the confiscation were not examined in detail. E~idence on the Parihaka petition for example included eyewitness accounts. issues raised included the ploughing, assaults and rapes of women

by troops and the imprisonment of elders. 33 However the claim was reduced to one of damages for plundered goods. Attempts to explain the reasons for the ploughing for example were stopped

31 evidence of witnesses to commission in ROB v 48 pp 18805- 18822

32 In memorandum for the commissioners submitted by smith in ROB v 49 pp 19128-19142

33 Evidence to commission· in ROB v 48 pp 18823-18835 21

:. ) by the commission. 34

As well as the Parihaka raid, the petitions covered a variety of issues. Many concerned particular blocks of land and entitlements to shares in land, unfulfilled or al~eged mistakes of the compensation court or later attempts to settle awards. The surviving evidence that was given to the commission appears to be very sketchy. There appeared to be no question of examining previous compensation court activities and both counsel seemed to have difficulty in grasping many of the complex issues involved. There seemed to be a consensus that many difficult cases were beyond what could be reasonably expected of the :, 1 commission or were perhaps better dealt with by the Maori Land

Court. 35

smith also attempted to estimate the amount of land involved and possible values for the purposes of determining compensation. He produced expert wi tnesses . for this and maps and plans were prepared for the purpose. Computations depended on many assumptions. Many contemporary estimates of quantities for example seemed to include only what at the time was considered 'good' or saleable land, not 'worthless' swamp or mountain land although many of these areas were valuable to Maori. The value of other resources also lost by confiscation were generally not included, although they were especially valuable to claimants. (I These included timber stands and many fishing areas including large numbers of weirs. From the information supplied, estimates of the total land area involved in the Taranaki confiscations varied from over one million acres of which some 462,000 acres were classed as finally confiscated, about 256,000 classed as 'returned' and about 557,000 as 'purchased', although these

estimates often varied. 36

34 Evidence of Noho Mairangi Te Whiti in ROB v 48 pp 18832

35 evidence and submissions, Taranaki petitions in RDB v 48

36 evidence to commission in ROB v 48 P 19222 22 if.) These estimates also did not take into account""t.he fact that some of the 'returned' land was returned to the wrong people, or put into perpetual leases and the management placed outside Maori control. This was especially the case in Taranaki where the large West Coast Settlement reserves became a continuing claim issue. It has been shown in other confiscation districts that where land was 'returned' to Maori control, the return under changed title and in many cases on an individual basis made the later alienation of the land very much easier.37 More research may be required on this for Taranaki. Many of the earlier 'purchases' in Taranaki after confiscation were also caught up in the notorious takoha system where the circumstances of the purchase were very dubious indeed. 38 These issues were only very briefly touched upon by smith although they were obviously of enormous importance to the claimants. Possibly smith felt limited by the terms of reference of the inquiry.

~ Various monetary values were also placed on the land classed as finally confiscated, depending on what the average value might have been at the time and whether the confiscations were found to have"been totally unjustified or simply excessive. The amount suggested ranged from about £231,000 to £324,00039 . In addition, Smith argued that the proviso limiting the value to that at the

tim~ only related to the capital value and the commission was still entitled to add interest. 4o

smith made several attempts to list the major tribes of Taranaki in giving evidence. However his attempts were confused and inconsistent. Because he felt that claimants had agreed to take

37 see report on Bay of Plenty claim, Marr C, Background to ";:the Tuwharetoa Ki Kawerau Raupatu claim Wai 62 A2 38 For more on the takoha system of purchase, see the report to the Tribunal on Crown Acguisition of Confiscated and Maori land in Taranaki 1872-1881 by Aroha Harris, Wai 143 H3 • 39 evidence to commission in RDB v 49 pp 19220-1

40 evidence to commission in RDB v 49 P 19229 23 ) an Arawa style payment to a Trust Board fo~ the general benefit of everyone he may have felt that exact descriptions were not necessary. As was common at the time, the terms hapu and tribe were also used interchangeably. smith submitted a map showing tribal boundaries originally created by Percy Smith. He also relied on claimant evidence and old conflscation records which were however more concerned with confiscation districts than with actual tribal districts. There was no direct requirement to state tribes exactly and as a result much of the evidence was contradictory.

In some of his evidence, smith included Ngati Mutunga, Ngati Tama and Ngati Rahiri as hapu of Ngati Awa. At other times he gave the main tribes as Ngati Tama, Ngati Mutunga, Ngati Maru, Ngati Awa, Ngati Ruanui, Taranaki and Ngarauru. 41 In his memorandum for the commissioners smith listed the 'tribes or hapus' of Taranaki and the land they occupied. However many of the names are mixed up ~. wi th district names. The list includes Ngati Tama, Ngati Mutunga and Kai tangata, Ngati Rahiri (described as a loyal tribe) otaraua and Manukorihi (described as 'a tribe out of the fighting by 1865') Puketapu,·Pukerangiora and Kairea, Ngatimaru, TaranaKi, Ngati Ruanui and Ngarauru. The district of Waitaha to New Plymouth is also given without an associated tribe.4~ The issue of individual iwi was really not addressed at this time and was only seen to become important later when tribal representation on the Trust Board became an issue.

smith submitted to the commission that the claimants wanted an Arawa style s·ettlement. 43 This was apparen't:ly evidence of a preference by at least some of the claimants for an Arawa type settlement over the other traditional alternative of i.ndividual compensation. It may also have been preferred in the knowledge that the government was also more likely to accept this type of

41 list of tribes and land confiscated in RDB v 49 P 19115

42 memo to commissioners in RDB v 49 pp 19132-33

43 sUbmission to commission in RDB v 48 P 18712 24 ~>..) settlement. The basis for this preference is not clear nor is it clear how widely this view was supported. According to smith claimants wanted the award to be based on the value of the loss and it was to be for general purposes and not for individual benefit. The same was true for compensation awarded for the general petitions apart from those dealing with private matters.

The Crown through its counsel, Taylor, rejected the claims made under the general questions and in the petitions. Among his main arguments, Taylor claimed that smith was barred from using the Treaty as a basis of claim and without the Treaty an uncivilised race such as the Maoris did not have a moral or legal right to claim the whole of New Zealand and require payment for it from the white settlers. As long as Maori were left with sufficient land for their needs, white settlers were entitled to take the

44 rest • Taylor argued that consideration of the Treaty was barred because under question one, the commission could decide that all the land taken by confiscation exceeded what was fair and just and therefore if the commission found the confiscations

themselve~ unjustified the proviso concerning the Treaty still

45 applied • Besides, while the Crown had always endeavoured to honour the Treaty, Maori lost whatever rights they may have had, by taking part in rebellion and repudiating the Treaty.

Taylor also argued that although some loyal Maori had suffered losses, in times of rebellion everyone suffered loss and loyal Natives had to bear their share by giving up some of their land. He insisted that the waitara purchase was voluntarily and freely entered into and was anyway irrelevant because it predated 1863. He argued that the real cause of the wars was· the King movement and its refusal to sell any land and its determination to set up an independent Kingdom. He rejected the argument that the government had not fulfilled its duties to Maori. He argued that Maori were in no circumstances warranted in resisting, even when

44 Taylor submission to commission in RDB v 48 pp 18763-5

45 Taylor to commission in RDB v 48 pp 18761-2 25 ;,:.0 force was used against them and they were .treated like enemies. He also claimed for example that land' confiscated was not excessive in quanti ty and that Ng.atiawa and others were in rebellion. He relied unquestioningly on the records of compensation court charges ~s proof. He took the general view that the findings and operations of the compensation court and the confiscation administrations were fair and beyond reproach. Taylor also the challenged the claims made in the petitions. He argued that the charges in them were too vague in many cases and with the Parihaka raid for example, he claimed too much time had elapsed for damages to be awarded by the commission. 46

The commission produced its findings and recommendations regarding the Taranaki confiscations and petitions in its report of June 1927. The commission found that question 1 assumed that every confiscation was justified and that the extent only was in question. However smith had raised the whole issue of whether e there should have been any confiscations at all. through the petitions and the commission agreed to hear arguments on this general issue. The commission agreed with smith that the proviso barring consideration of the Treaty did not apply when the issue was raised through the petitions. Nevertheless it decided that petitioners whose ancestors were rebels should not be entitled, except in special circumstances, to claim the benefits of the Treaty.47

The commission appears to have agreed with smith's contentioiy . ' ..... that if a conqueror was in the wrong in causing a war then confiscations as result of that war were unjust. The commission agreed with smith that the Wai tara purchase was wrong and pressing ahead with it was the cause of the wars in Taranaki and at least partially the cause of the Waikato war. The commission found

... 4.6 Taylor submissions to commission in RDB v 48 pp 18654-94, ..•. 1876i~89

47 commission report in RDB v 48 p'18529 26 martial law was proclaimed. When they were-drive-n from their land, their pas destroyed, houses set fire to and cultivations laid waste, they were not rebels and had not committed any crime. They were treated as rebels and war declared against them before they engaged in rebellion of any kind. In ~he circumstances they had no alternative but to fight in their own self defence. In their eyes they were not fighting the Queen's sovereignty, but struggling for house and home. If the Waitara purchase had been abandoned before the occupation of , it was also possible that the second Taranaki war might have been avoided. The armed occupation of the block was in the circumstances a -\) declaration of war against the Natives and forced them into the position of rebels. u

The commission found that the government was- wrong and although resistance to it was an act of rebellion under the meaning of the NZ Settlements Act 1863, in the circumstances the Taranaki people should not have been punished by the confiscation of any of their lands. The finding that there should have been no confiscation in Taranaki even though it was clearly regarded as a special circumstance, was a major challenge to official thinking on the wars. To a large extent it was also a contravention of the limitations that had been imposed on the commission.

The commission recited figures submitted to it on the possible extent of the confiscations, but found it was 'difficult, if not impossible,' to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on this and recommended a yearly payment of £5000 for 'the wrong done by the confiscations'. to be 'applied by a Board for the benefit of the Natives of the tribes whose lands were confiscated.,49

The award followed the precedent of the. Arawa settlement in that it was a perpetual payment to be made to a Trust Board for general benefits. The payment was an acknowledgement of the wrong

U Sim report in RDB v 48 P 18534

~ Sim report in RDB v 48 P 18534 27 ") done, not compensation based on loss and the commission made no effort to identify which tribes were involved or to apportion payment according to loyalty, or relative economic loss. It is not clear how the commission came up with the sum of £5000 a year and the report gives no indication. If it was based on the figures supplied to the commission and taken as the annual interest that may have been earned from that lump sum it would have been at least in the vicinity of £10,000 per year. The figures submitted to the commission for the useful land lost alone, ranged from £231,000 £324,000 without taking into account loss of resources. An annual. interest rate on that of 5% would give about £11,000 - £16,000 per annum. The rate of 5% was standard for the time. The 1915 Land Transfer Act allowed for compensation for land to be taken as the value of the land when taken plus 5% to the date judgment was recovered. so For example, on 30 April 1929 the Maori Land Court reported on the Aorangi block under s 47 of the 1928 Native Land Amendment and Native ~ Land Claims Adjustment Act. It found no reason to depart from the established principle of recommending compensation at the fair value of the land when taken plus simple interest at the usual rate of 5% per annum until the present time plus an allowance for

costs. 51 The Sim award for Taranaki was half what could have been expected by this type of calculation. It was clearly for the wrong done only but this left compensation for actual economic loss still unaddressed. Alternatively, the award may also have been linked to the Arawa payment of £6000 but a bit less to make it more acceptable to government.

The commission made no recommendations concerning 'special places' under question 2. It acknowledged that a large number of claims had been made under this heading, particularly in Taranaki. Although the claim to Mt Egmont was noted, from the tone of the report the commissioners declined to take it

so see copy of clause 194 (1) of Land Transfer Act 1915 in RDB v 137 P 52833

51 copy of report in T52/587 in RDB v 137 pp 52751-2 28 ill.) seriously. Of those claims listed for serious cort~ideration, the commissioners still decided that no recommendations were needed. The commissioners gave a number of reasons for this. They felt that in many cases it would be difficult to ascertain the exact locality of the places claimed. This was in spite of the fact that witnesses were able to locate and name places when asked. In some cases this was very precise, for example pointing them out' on a map or plan and giving legal descriptions. For an example see the evidence of Rangihuna Pire already referred to.

The commission also felt that it was 'certain' that few of the places could be given back although it did not say why. Presumably it was felt to be politically unacceptable at that time. Even more remarkably, the commission claimed that 'in most cases' the claimants would not want the places back even if they could get them. This statement was made in spite of the efforts that had been made in bringing the claims and in direct conflict with witness evidence. In support of this the commission asked what use canoe landing places would be to Natives who did not have canoes and who travelled now in cars. This ignored the fact that claimants were entitled to claim reserves due to them whether or. not they happened to need them for the original purpose. More importantly the. statement also reveals the attitudes underlying the work of the commission. The assumption appears to have been that when Maori were properly assimilated they would have no need of and would not want traditional '. .,Tahi tapu. This assumption may also explain why the commission may have felt the sum awarded was adequate. It was only intended to heal old wounds. It was not intended to help rebuild iwi as they would in all probability die out anyway as Maori progressed. This of course did not accord with present day understandings of Treaty guarantees to iwi and did not meet the clearly expressed wishes of Taranaki iwi at the time.

{~ The commission accepted Taylor's argument that cemeteries sold by mistake had not been pointed out at the time surveys were made and that some of those were sold to Europeans. It was confident 29

The commission went on to claim that it had been impossible 'of course' to exclude particular places from the area to be confiscated but these could have been dealt with when parts of the confiscated areas were being 'restored'. In fact this was misleading as no confiscations we·re intended to be returned to the same type of legal ownership as 'restored' implies, even if they were returned to the right people. It was also not true that in general areas of land could not be excluded within confiscated areas. In other confiscation districts quite small areas of land included in the confiscations belonging to Pakeha and to churches .~~ had quickly been gazetted as not in the· confiscation or abandoned but this was not done with any Maori land. 52 Once again the commission asserted that 'It is clear that any general attempt to restore these places now is quite out of the question.,53

The commission· found that under question 3 of the terms of reference it was asked to deal with any members of a tribe or hapu whose land was properly confiscated but who for reasons [ ) personal to themselves did not deserve to share in the punishment. The question of compensation for the inclusion of the property. of loyal· Natives within the confiscated areas was referred to as an. issue by Coates in promising the commission and again by Ngata in the same debate. 54 The commission however

52 For example in 1867 land belonging to J A Wilson in the Bay of Plenty confiscated district was declared abandoned. NZ Gazette no 12 of 28 February 1867 in ROB v 12 P 4171.

53 commission findings on special places in ROB v 48 P 18545

54 Coates and Ngata in NZPO 1925 v 208 pp 774,776, copy in document bank attached. pp 488, 490. 30 to) seems to have limited the question further by, the construction it placed on it that the claims had to be personal and individual and separate from the iwi or hapu. It found that no case was put forward under this question. This is not surprising on this construction of question 3, as the claimants did not generally accept that the confiscations were proper or justified and they were concerned with iwi or hapu based claims. The assumption of individual loss also did not fit easily on a system where, prior to confiscation, land and resources were owned communally and losses suffered were also general rather than 'individual. Smith appeared to have accepted this when he asked that question 3 be considered as an iwi or hapu claim. It is however clear that many claimants did not think they or their iwi or hapu had been treated fairly by the compensation courts or the Fox Bell commission. It had been assumed at the time of confiscation that any loyal Natives included by accident would be able to be dealt with by the compensation courts on an individual basis and proper remedies obtained at the time. However the commission did not investigate the actions of the compensation courts or the Fox Bell recommendations. Those regarded as loyal also at times suffered general losses for the sake of the Crown military strategy. For example, some land was taken because it was required for military settlement, town sites or to accommodate troops rather than because its owners were rebels and it was claimed in these cases that proper compensation was also not i J given. It seems in many cases that claims that had been made could have been put under this heading. The fact that the commission felt there were none seems to have been the fault of the commission and counsel rather than a lack of effort by claimants.

Under question 4, the commission felt it was asked to report on the adequacy of provisions made for those who were regarded as rebels under the confiscation acts. The commission found that no {II cases of this kind were brought before it from Taranaki. This was possibly the fault of claimant counsel trying to include this question under question 1 for Taranaki. Although in the first 31 ") instance Taranaki claimants did not accept. that they were in rebellion, from the evidence given there were clearly hapu and iwi who were treated as rebels who were making claims to the commission that they should not have been, for example Ngati Ruanui.

In the case of the petitions from Taranaki in so far as they were not covered by the general questions, the commission felt that in the main there was no case to answer. The only exception was the petition concerning Parihaka. The commission concerned itself only with property damage and in that case found thq.t the government was responsible for the destruction of houses and crops and indirectly for the theft of stock and property. The commission had eyewitness accounts as to the scale and type of damage that was caused. However it 'found that the Natives had not kept any record of the losses they suffered and it was now impossible to ascertain exactly what the losses and who the ,tJ). individual sufferers were. It recommended that in good conscience and equity a sum of £300 should be paid 'as an acknowledgement' at least of the wrong done. This was a once off payment to be added to the first payment of £5000. Again it does not seem to be based on any even vague estimate of economic loss. It is again for the wrong done only and even for that is very low.

Apart from question 1, the commission did not consider the Treaty at all in making findings. When considering compensation it decided to award for the wrong done and made no attempt to determine or compensate for economic loss. There was also no attempt to seriously consider the restoration of culturally significant places. The commission seemed more concerned with removing a grievance regarded as a barrier between the races than in redressing the economic destruction of Taranaki iwi caused by the confiscations. The award for the wrong done also lumped all the claim issues associated with the confiscations together not just the original acts of confiscation but 'all the subsequent injustices arising from and associated with them. In this sense the term 'the wrong done' masked the scale of the actual alleged 32

) injustices. The commission also took the attitude that in general there was no question of land being returned or given in

compensation. It held strictly to this view in Taranaki I although it did make some small recommendations concerning land in its recommendations for the Bay of Plenty claims.

The commission based its awards on an Arawa style settlement obviously feeling this was the preferable type of settlement and one that had the most chance of being accepted by government. It is not clear how the commission decided on the sums awarded but they were obviously token amounts designed to 'remove the sense of grievance from the Native mind' as Coates put it in 1925 when he promised the commission. 55 They were clearly not sufficient to provide even the beginning of a new economic base for claimants. The dismissal of the claims to what were termed special places must also have been very disappointing to claimants. Al though the acknowledgement of wrong by the Crown was very important symbolically, the places and resources claimed were clearly vital in the day to day lives of claimants.

55 Coates to parliament in 1925 NZPD v 208 P 774, copy in document bank attached p 488. 33 Chapter 3

The 1930 agreement - the first stage of the implementation of the Taranaki awards 1928-30

As has been seen, the Sim award for Taranaki was only one of a number of claim recommendations before the government by 1928. The Taranaki award was alone however in that of all the major claims admitted for consideration at the time, it was the only one where the Crown began payirig some form of compensation before the mid 1940s. In fact the Taranaki Maori Trust Board was established in September 1930 and the first of the annual payments was made in 1931. In contrast the other major claim

negotiations dragged on for many years. 56 The 1944 Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act therefore did not herald the beginning of payments in Taranaki as was the case with the 1940s legislation for example for Ngai Tahu (Ngai Tahu Claim Settlement Act 1944) and Waikato (Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946). Instead the 1944 Taranaki Act confirmed the payments that were already being made, regularised them and -made them statutory and added the one off payment for Parihaka that was originally missed out in the 1930 agreement.

The Taranaki settlement therefore had a quite different history ( from most of the major claim negotiations of the time. Whereas for most claims the settlements only occurred after a long process of negotiation, the Taranaki settlement was made in two stages. The first stage was -a kind of interim agreement-made In late 1930 by Cabinet to begin paying the major Taranaki award as recommended by the Sim commission. This agreement was made under political pressure and was intended to be only temporary. This stage lasted however until it was confirmed as permanent by the 1944 legislation. The 1944 legislation was the second stage and

56 The general history of the major claims in this period is covered in an earlier report prepared for the Treaty of Waitangi policy unit in 1990, Marr, Crown Policy TOwards Major Crown/Iwi Claim Agreements 1990. Wai 143 B1 34 '

There were a number of reasons why an agreement was made for Taranaki in 1930, so much earlier than for the other claims and against the general trend of negotiations at the time. The most significant seems to have been that circumstances in Taranaki allowed significant political pressure to be brought to bear on the government at the time. These circumstances will be described later in this chapter. The fact that the Taranaki settlement was made so much earlier brought some advantages for claimants, the most obvious being the extra payments for the earlier years. However there were also some major disadvantages. Many of these arose because of the hurried, interim nature of the agreement made as it was under political duress. In particular, the years 1931-44 were characterised by uncertain and irregular payments, there was' even more than usual confusion about the terms of the agreement and claimants found it extremely difficult to have the Parihaka award implemented.

Historically, even after Maori claimants succeeded in the difficult process of having an investigation established, it was not unusual to find that it was at least as difficult and time consuming to have _any recommended awards implemented particularly for the major claims. Governments are not bound by recommendations and it has not been uncommon for many years and even generations to pass before some form of settlement has been made. The process might simply lapse without sufficient political support or other matters might continually take priority~ Awards could also be watered down or lost in the ministerial and bureaucratic processes within government. While claimants have often regarded inquiries as too limited and the awards as at best a compromise and subject to further negotiation, historically 35

...... ::j , '.: governments have viewed recommended awards as,-the highest limit to which they have been prepared to go and in many cases efforts have been made to settle below ,thE? recommended level. In the 1920s and later, the Ngai Tahu claim negotiations provided compeliing evidence of the problems claimants faced in having major claim awards implemented. 57 However the early history of the Sim awards seemed to promise some hope that they might be implemented reasonably rapidly and at least to the level of the recommendations.

Prime Minister and Native Minister Coates presented the Sim report to parliament on 28 september 1928. Ironically just a month previously, Sir William sim died on 29 August 1928. The opportunity was therefore possibly lost of having the awards explained and defended in the manner Judge Jones was later to do for the Ngai Tahu awards. The sim report was referred to the Native Affairs committee and about a week later on 6 October .~j}) 1928, legislation was introduced that included provisions allowing for the settlement of the confiscation claims. This was a remarkably short time given the previous history of implementation of ma jor claim awards and was a credit to the efforts and support of Ngata and Coates. The fact that an

election was lo~ming at the end of 1928'may also have helped to hasten the process. In response to criticism about the speed with which the legislation was brought down, Prime Minister Coates replied that he would not follow the old taihoa policy and that it was the members' job before they went to their constituents

to see the measures through. 58

The Maori members of parliament seem to have been convinced that something along the lines of the Sim recommendations for the confiscations had the best chance of being accepted and implemented by the government. They were aware that there was

57 ibid - history of Ngai Tahu claim

58 Coates to parliament in NZPD 1928 v 219 P 958, copy in document bank attached p 509 36 considerable disappointment among at least sections of claimants with many of the sim findings and awards. criticisms included the amounts awarded which were felt to be too low and there was still considerable support, especially in Taranaki and Waikato, for land instead of money. Faced with the.political realities of the time however, it may have seemed that the return of land or provision of land in compensation was not a real possibility and the monetary amounts awarded were probably close to the most the claimants could expect. Having the precedents before them of an Arawa style agreement or alternatively the stalled Ngai Tahu negotiations, the Maori members seemed to feel that the Arawa style recommendations made by Sim had the most hope of being accepted and acted upon by the government.

other factors also seemed to favour a possible settlement of the sim awards. The 1928 election promised to be a close one and with the Ngai Tahu negotiations seemingly adrift, the government might \j) have welcomed the possibility of a successful settlement of the confiscation claims. Ngata worked tirelessly to see all the outstanding claims resolved, but seemed particularly taken with the Arawa type settlement· and was keen to see the success repeated with the confiscations. He may have simply seen it as the most realistic option but he also seemed to genuinely feel that the grievances could be dealt with by an acknowledgement of wrong doing by the Crown and a payment in recognition of this as

recommended by the commission. 59 He was convinced that real economic progress would come through his land development programmes. Ngata also had the advantage of his influence with Prime Minister coates and Coates himself was sympathetic to settlement within his limited interpretation of the confiscation issues.

Just before the Sim report was presented to parliament, prime

1m.U!illI'59 Ngata explained to parliament in 1928 for example, that he did not rank the injustice of the confiscations very highly because he felt it was the inevitable result of culture clash. See Ngata speech to parliament in NZPD 1928 v 219 P 950 copy in document bank attached p 501 37 .. ~ ,/ Minister coates invited the Maori members to make ie'commendations on the specific awards for the outstanding claims. They responded by submitting a memo dated 10 September 1928 with their suggestions. GO They recommended some increases particularly in the Bay of Plenty where they felt the commission had not given adequate consideration to the tribes but they left the commission awards for Taranaki unchanged. As it was the highest sum awarded they may well have felt it was realistically the highest that could be expected at the time. They suggested a total per annum sum of £12,500 per year to settle all the claims including all the confiscations. They noted encouragingly that as with the Arawa Trust it had been found that these annual funds were in fact special contributions from the consolidated fund towards education, health, farming, and other public purposes and not for the benefit of individuals.

Ngata explained to parliament when the Sim report was discussed, .~, that the figure of £12,500 per year was based on a global figure of £250,000. (If put aside at 5% interest this would give the annual sum of £12,500 required). In comparison he noted that the government had recently made a subsidy in one year of £100,000

'0 the National Museum. Gl. In his speech on the introduction of the 1928 legislation, Ngata explained that the Maori memb~rs had held back on the claims over the last few years because of the financial problems of the government. However now that the financial situation seemed to have improved the matter had been ,brought before the government again. G2

In order to support the Sim awards, the Maori members were obliged to both play down claimant opposition to them and try to avoid any possible Pakeha backlash. Ngata reflected this in his

60 memo of 10 September 1928 from Maori MPs to prime Minister from MAl, 5/13 pt 2 in RDB v 56 pp 21228-9

6l. Ngata to parliament in NZPD 1928 v 219 P 642 copy in document bank attached p 494

6:2 Ngata to parliament NZPD 1928 v 219 P 948, copy in document bank attached p 499 38 :) speech to the House when the report was presented. He described young Maori hampered in their efforts to be progressive by the long standing grievances and claimed that Maori were not seriously asking for large areas of land to be returned, much less any areas held by pakeha, but were asking for an honest attempt to remedy their grievances. He assured the House that the grants were to be used for public benefit not for individuals and he declared that the commission had been cautious because it was reversing the judgment of history. He hoped that in return the government would be more generous. Prime Minister Coates expressed similar sentiments and revealed that efforts were still being made to work out what the actual payments would be. b3 As a result criticism of the legislation by other members was deflected and the report received a generally sympathetic

response from . 64

The legislation introduced in October 1928 was the Native Land :~ Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1928. 65 Section 20 provided the legal machinery for settling the confiscation awards. Allor any of the sim recommendations could be given effect to, either as they stood or modified, but any payment had to be appropriated by parliament. A certificate from the Native Minister that a grievance had been settled was all that was required as proof of settlement. The section also provided for the establishment of Trust Boards to administer the payments.

The government still had to decide what amounts of compensation would be paid in the confiscation districts. Ngata was confident that the suggestions in the September memo had the support of Prime Minister Coates although he was well aware that there could

63 Debate on presentation of Sim report to House in NZPD 1928 v 219 pp 639-644, copy in document bank attached pp 491-496

·64 press reports in MAl, 5/13 pt 1 in RDB v 56 pp 21231- . 21265

65 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1928, copy in T 52/587 in RDB v 137 pp 52808-52832. Copy also in document bank attached pp 551-554 39 .) still be problems with the Minister of Finaric£e-and others in Cabinet. He confided this worry in a letter to Sir Peter Buck.66 He was also opposed by Treasury officials and when their advice was sought by Cabinet, they replied by criticising the recent commissions generally and reminding the government that it was not bound by their recommendations. In the case of Ngai Tahu they suggested a token payment of £1000 and no admission of acceptance of the commission recommendations. 67 This was part of what

becam~ a strong and continuing counter attack by Treasury on the Jones and Sim commissions and their awards. Coates also revealed that in spite of· the recommendations in the September memo from the Maori members, the government was influenced by Treasury advice in hoping for a scheme that would involve a final sum rather than annual payments, ' ... some scheme under which the whole thing can be definitely dealt with and which will expire at some time'. 68

The general election at the end of 1928 resulted in a new united government under . It turned out to be a minority government supported by the Labour party. The Ratana party had also done very well showing that it was becoming a real political threat in the 'Maori seats. In the new government, Ngata was made New Zealand's first Maori Nati ve Minister. Ngata now found himself, in theory, in an even better J?osi tion to . have the confiscation awards implemented. He had been promised the support of all the main parties and had the continuing support of

69 outgoing Prime Minister Coates •

66 letter of 24 September 1928 in Na To' Hoa' Aroha v 1 pp 136-139 'We have the practical sympathy & approval of the PM., but whether he will be able to carry Sir Francis Bell and the Minister of Finance remains to be seen'.

67 Treasury memo of 27 September 1928 in T 52/587 in RDB v 137 P 52868

68 Coates to parliament, NZPD 1928 v 219 P 643, copy in document bank attached p 495

69 Coates memo of' 7 December 1928 in MAl, 5/13 v 1 in RDB v 56 pp 21225-7 40

) Ngata met with the new Prime Minister Ward as-soon as possible to gain his support for the proposed awards. At this stage he also felt confident enough to reco~mend an increase in the Bay of Plenty and East Coast awards bringing the total for all the claims under consideration to £15,000 per annum. He explained this in a memo to Ward of 6 January 1929. 70 The payment for Taranaki was again left at £5000 per annum with Ngata noting that Sir Maui Pomare was content to leave it at that. In this memo however the one off payment for Parihaka seemed to be forgotten. Possibly this was because Ngata's main concern at the time was securing a total per annum payment. At this stage Ngata still seemed to be contemplating further legislative action when agreements were reached and he noted that if his suggestions were agreed to he hoped for legislative action in the next session. Ngata included in the memo a proposed schedule of meetings for early 1929 to discuss the proposed settlements with claimants. Again he explained that like the Arawa agreement, the payments i10) . would· go to education, health, farming and social advancement of the tribes and would be administered by Boards representing the tribes.

Ward approved the proposals but instructed Ngata that he was allowed to offer no more and should preferably settle on less.

Ngata's memo was submitted to Cabinet on 15 January 1929 . ., J. Ngata then began his scheduled series of meetings with claimants. At the same time Treasury officials were continuing their attack on the confiscation and Ngai Tahu recommendations. For example in Mar'ch 1929 the Secretary to the Treasury in a memo to the Prime Minister criticised the findings and recommendations of the rec·ent commissions. In the case of the Sim awards he was

70 memo from Ngata to Ward 6 January 1929 in MA series 51, 3/26 in RDB v 91 pp 34887-892

71 memo from Ngata to Prime Minister 16 August 1930 in MAl, 5/13 pt 1 in RDB v 56 pp 2122~-6 41

;). especially critical of the annual sums in . perpetuity. 72

Ngata wasted no time in trying to get the agreement of claimants to the latest proposals. It seemed clear that he would have the most difficulty in the Taranaki and Waikato districts. There was some advantage in Taranaki in that Sir Maui Pomare had strong support in his own district. It is clear that Pomare was very influential but evidence of this is not as apparent in official records as is the case with Ngata. By 1928 Pomare was very ill and had to miss the parliamentary sessions where the Sim report and the 1928 legislation were debated. It is clear though that Pomare, like Ngata, strongly supported the proposed awards for the acknowledgement of wrong done by the. Crown and as realistically the best possible deal likely at the time. However by 1928 most of the actual work in gaining agreement to the proposals, both with government and with claimants, seems to have fallen to Ngata.

As part of the series of meetings with claimants, a hui was held at Manukorihi Pa at waitara on 18 May 1929 to discuss the Taranaki awards. Both Pomare and Ngata attended and urged the claimants to accept the proposed awards. There appear to be no official records of what took place at the hui and what undertakings were given or what the precise terms of any agreement might have been. Newspaper reports are also very brief . .\ However the newspaper reports do make it clear that ciaimants were concerned about the proposed awards. A 19 May un sourced press cutting collected by Treasury reported that in response to expressed dissatisfaction with the offer, Ngata strongly urged acceptance of the £5000 per year in the spirit of reconciliation in which it was offered. 73

72 memo for PM from Secretary to Treasury 14 March 1929 in T52/587 in RDB v 137 P 52866

73 press cutting of 19 May in T 52/587 in RDB v 137 P 52862 42 I) A Taranaki Daily News74 cutting of 20 May gives more details and shows that Ngata did not have an easy time at the hui. It also reported concern that the sum was inadequate but that Ngata urged acceptance of the proposed award in the spirit in which it was made. The report noted that many of the elder Maoris wanted the land back again and a request was made for at least the return of the mountain. Ngata is reported as saying that the return of the mountain was mostly a matter of sentiment but he promised to try and have two Maori members appointed to the Board. Ngata is reported as having advised the meeting to cooperate over the proposed payment and of telling them that they had been offered £5000 a year 'for all time'. He also told the meeting .that the government would no doubt consider any amendments or any new suggestion with regard to the amount of proposed compensation but he was not in a position to make any promise. The meeting could well have understood from this that the sum was still negotiable. Ngata also asked the meeting to distinguish ihdividual claims from the point at issue, that is the compensation money. He promised that if other grievances were written out and forwarded to him in the proper manner he would deal with them. In this he seemed to be opening the way for continuing claims where it was felt they had not been properly addressed by the commission. Sir Maui Pomare reportedly told the meeting that they would be wise to accept the compensation offered and that the money could be used to buy land for those who wanted land.

When a possible Board was discussed the report noted that there was a majority in support of a working plan put forward by Tupito Maruera, chairman of the Maori Federation from Whitecliffs to waitotara. He suggested five members with Sir Maui Pomare to represent the whole of Te Atiawa, Raungati to represent the Taranaki tribe, Tupito Maruera and Rangihuna to represent the northern and southern Ngatiruanui tribe and Rima Wakaraua to represent Ngarauru. Later sir Maui Pomare is also reported. as

74 Taranaki Daily News clipping 20 May 1929, copy in document bank attached p 632. 43

stating that he would represent four tribes •. Ngata felt five was a small number of members but was aware of concerns about economy as each member had to be paid. In reply to a question from the meeting, Ngata stated that the money would be paid annually to the Board on 1 April. From this he obviously intended the payments to be made in the same way as "for the Te Arawa Trust Board, that is in one payment to be made on 1 April eacn year. This' also anticipated further legislation for the settlement. The newspaper reports do not mention discussion of the Par ihaka award.

In spite of the opposition from some claimants, Ngata felt there was enough support to go ahead with the settlement. In August 1929, he informed the Prime Minister that the meeting wanted £10,000 per annum but was persuaded to accept £5000. 75 He does not mention the Parihaka award in the memo. It is not clear how the meeting arrived at £10,000 but it may have been based on the interest til~t cOllld be expected from the minimum value of the land lost as submitted to the commission, (£231,000 at 5%). Later it became clear that many claimants thought the £5000 was an interim measure while the country had financial problems and the increase to £10,000 would be considered when the economy improved. As well as the amount of money it is clear that some claimants were not happy with money at all and still wanted land in settlement.

Again it is not clear on what basis proposed members of the Trust Board were suggested. It seems unlikely to have been strictly on the basis of one representative to each i:wi, as there t.Jere clearly more than five iwi involved •. It· seems possible that prominent individuals were proposed who between them were felt . to be representative of all the iwi in Taranaki. Sir Maui Pomare for example said he represented four tribes. At a meeting in 195i';' Dr Ellison who had been present at the time said that Pomare asked each of the iwi of Te Atiawa, Ngati Tama, Ngati

~s memo Ngata to PM 16 August 1929 in MAl, 5/13 pt 1 in RDB ·v 56 pp 21223-:-4 44 ....J., ;.~ .:. Mutunga, and Ngati Maru if he would be their representative and

they agreed. 76 Members were also suggested representing Taranaki, Northern and Southern Ngati Ruanui and Ngarauru. This made a total of seven iwi represented (or eight if Northern and Southern Ngati Ruanui were counted as two).

In late 1928 and early 1929 it seemed that the chances for implementing the Sim awards had never been better. Yet within a year the political climate had changed and hopes for implementation seemed to be slipping away. It was now clear that the economy was not improving as hoped and the country was in fact facing severe financial problems. Treasury was increasing attacks on the claim recommendations and in spite of the statements of political support Ngata had received from all the main parties there seemed to be a general lack of political will from those who could give the proposals the necessary Cabinet support. In June 1929 Ngata confided to Buck that he was '~~ concerned that the government's financial difficulties might hOld up the claim settlements. 77 In August, a deputation to Ngata and Ward on the Ngai Tahu claim was told by Ward that the government's financia'l difficulties meant that it could not finalise any proposals regarding Native claims and they would have to wait at least 12 months. Ngata told them that the most

they could hope for was to agree on the basis of settlement .78

Treasury meanwhile continued to attack the co~issions and their

recommendations. In December 1929 and again in March 1930 I

76 MAl, 26/5 v 4 Notes of a meeting 22 Apr.il 1951 to discuss representation on the Taranaki Maori Trust Board. Copy in document bank attached pp 98-99

77 Ngata to Buck in letter of 7 June 1929 in Na To Hoa Aroha vI p 201-2 ' .•. a minority party such as the united Party is today does not enjoy the initiative & freedom of action that a party with a comfortable majority would have. The last crowd left our finances in bad order ••. The remedying of ancient grievances will be treated with some impatience by the pakeha'.

78 notes of deputation 3 August 1929 in T 52/587 in RDB v 137 pp 52845-53 45 :ty Treasury criticised the Ngai Tahu awards .~n"July 1930 Treasury officials reminded the government that it was not bound to accept the reports of the commissions and asked for more time to fully study them. Treasury opposed the payment of annual sums in perpetuity as awarded by the Sim commission and complained that it had not been consulted when the Arawa and Tuwharetoa agreements were made law. Officials complained that they didn't feel the Natives would ever be satisfied, and referred to the agitation for a fresh inquiry already in Taranaki, a possible reference to the dissent in Taranaki over the awards. H

Ngata found himself having to defend the findings and awards all ," \). over again, with the support of Judge Jones in the case of Ngai Tahu. 80 Ngata and Pomare had both staked considerable credibility on having the confiscation awards implemented. They had supported what they felt was the best deal available in the circumstances and in doing so had faced significant claimant • opposi tion. As the" chance of having the awards implemented seemed to be slipping away they stood to lose a great deal. Then in June 1930 Pomare died and a by election was called in his Western Maori electorate. If Ngata failed to get the awards implemented there was a real chance he would lose all credibility in Taranaki and the government would lose the by election. It was clear there was growing discontent in the electorate with the lack of action ( by government on the claims. '"

In May 1930 Ward had resigned as Prime Minister and had been reptaced by George Forbes. On 18 July 1930 Ngata wrote a moving personal letter to his old friend Forbes expressing his exasperation at the lack of progress with the awards and pointing out the political dangers the government faced in the upcoming

.' ,:.79 Treasury memo of 21 July 1930 in T 52/587 in RDB v 137 pp .: 52805~7 '.

correspondence re Ngai Tahu ,claim in T52/587 in RDB 46

by election.81. On 16 August 1930 Ngata again pressed for a settlement, this time by official memo in which he again went over the history of attempts to achieve settlement. On 25 August 1930, Ngata's memo of the 16th was placed before a Cabinet meeting held at 4pm on the day Forbes _was due to leave for England. Forbes discussed the memo with Treasury officials just before the meeting. At the meeting, Cabinet decided to place £5000 on the estimates for the Taranaki claim. By this time. the Parihaka award seems to have been overlooked. or possibly Ngata thought the larger award· was the most he could get. 82 The Cabinet minute dated 25 August 1930 notes, ' ... £5000 to be provided on this year's Estimates and next year consideration to be given to provision of a lump sum in full settlement and in event of this being decided - this payment to be considered part thereof' .83

Ngata explained later to BUC~ that Taranaki had agreed to £5000 per year although they wanted more and he felt that his honour was involved in gaining parliamentary affirmation of the settlement. The time was right for a definite declaration but the financial situation was difficult and Forbes was on the eve of departure to London. Ngatawrapped his resignation around his kaupapa ·(presumably his letter of 18 July) and handed both to Forbes. At 5pm on the day Forbes left, he and Cabinet formally approved the settlement. Ngata announced it at waitara and the first £5000 was approved on the estimates. The by election was to be held on 8 October. 84

The government also felt able in the circumstances to allow the

8~ Ngata to Forbes 18 July 1930 in MA series 51, 3/26 in ROB v 91 pp 34879-81

82 see Ngata memo and annotations in T52/587 in ROB v 137 P 52801 and Cabinet decisions in v 137 p 52786

83 Cabinet minute on memo in T 52/587 in ROB v 137 P 52786

84 Ngata to Buck in letter dated 20 September 1930 in Na To Hoa Aroha v 2 p 52 47

) settlement to be effected under the· 1928 legislation without further legislative provision. On 19 september 1930 the acting Minister of Finance (EA Ransom) informed the Native Minister that with regard to the Cabinet decision· of £5000 for Taranaki, there was no need to prepare legislation to appropriate the payment and that amounts voted by parliament would be sufficient authority for any payments agreed to. 8S On 8 October 1930 the by election in Western Maori was won by Taite Te Tomo the candidate supported by Ngata and the Ratana party was again defeated.

The Taranaki award was finally confirmed largely because Ngata was able to exert sufficient political and personal pressure. Ngata threatened· his own resignation and warned Forbes that without a settlement he would lose all influence in Taranaki and the minority government would be likely to lose the by election. He argued that the announcement of a settlement in Taranaki would also be a fitting tribute to Pomare. The Taranaki proposal was ~ the only one of the major awards confirmed at this time and was made against the general trend of negotiations. The Cabinet approval was hurried and made at the last minute as Forbes was due to leave the country. Treasury had no chance to have a say in. the final decision and was only informed of the situation immediately prior to the Cabinet meeting.

It was clear that even at this stage the 1930 agreement was .\ regarded by Cabinet as interim until the next year (when the by election would be over) and consideration could be given to a lump sum in full settlement. However the annual perpetual payment as an acknowledgment of Crown wrong doing was in many respects the most appealing element in the settlement for claimants and successive governments found themselves unable to move away from this. For claimants the interim nature of the agreement was the amount of the payment. It was strongly believed that the £5000 had only been accepted in the interim because of the poor

85 memo of 19 September 1930 from the acting Minister of Finance to the Native Minister. T52/587 in RDB v 137 P 52787 and file note p 52694 48

.. ) financial situation and that £10,000 was the minimum acceptable eventual settlement when the economy improved. In addition, the 1930 agreement did not include the Parihaka award and Taranaki claimants soon found themselves in a long drawn out process to have at least the amount awarded by the sim commission for Parihaka implemented by government.· This di vergence of understanding of the 1930 agreement has been a feature of the Taranaki settlement ever since.

( \. 49

::) Chapter 4

The interim agreement 1930-44 and the Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act 1944

This chapter briefly describes the second stage of the Taranaki agreement from 1930 to the passage of the 1944 Act and outlines the general issues involved in the agreement. A general history of the maintenance of the Taranaki claims by iwi follows in chapter five.

The 1930 Cabinet agreement enabled the Taranaki Maori Trust Board I to be established under section 20 (3) of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1928. The Trust Board was constituted in September 1930 and during the period 1931-44 the Board and the Taranaki claimants spent a great deal of time trying to have many of the problems resulting from the ~ 1930 agreement rectified by government. Many of the problems arose from the hurried and interim nature of the 1930 agreement. As seen, it was in the end a hurried agreement made under political duress. As a result of this, from the beginning there were quite major differences in understandings between government and the Taranaki iwi and Trust Board about what the agreement actually meant. Some claimants later argued that this was made worse because the agreement was made when the. Western Maori electorate was· technically wi thout a parliamentary representative. However there seems little doubt that if Ngata

had not forc~d Cabinet to make an agreement in 1930, the Taranaki claim would have waited at least another 14 years for some kind

of set~lement, in company with most of the other major claims of the time.

The major problems with the 1930 agreement appeared to be confusion about what the agreement represented, the irregular and uncertain nature of the payments made, and the difficulty in having the Sim commission award for Parihaka implemented. Only some of these problems were addressed with the passing of the 50

1944 Act.

In the period from 1930-1944 these d~fferences in understandings became clear. The majority of government members and officials for example, although they were implementing the Sim award which was for the wrong done, quickly came to see such payments as

being I for the confiscations I. It wasn't long before the payments were assumed to include full compensation for the confiscated lands and for all the issues associated with them. In fact the issue of wrong doing itself appears to have beeri quickly lost sight of by officials. Although the government initially recognised the interim nature of the agreement this view was also ( \ gradually replaced, especially when the idea of a lump sum was abandoned, by a policy contained in the 1944 Act that the agreement with the addition of the Parihaka award was full and final settlement for all claims associated with the confiscations.

Taranaki claimants understood the payments to be a permanent acknowledgement of wrong by the Crown as explained to them by Ngata and Pomare. They recognised the payment awarded was token but felt that the figure should be more closely related to the minimum value of the land lost - at least £10,000 per year. They also felt free to pursue other issues associated with the confiscations that they believed had been inadequately addressed by the commission. This caused immense frustration to politicians and officials although it was apparently accepted by Ngata at the May 1929 hui where claimant agreement to the proposals was obtained. These other issues included economic loss, the need for a new economic base especiallY in the form of land, the return of wahi tapu and resources and other matters such as the imprisonment of elders. As a result, within a few years petitions associated with the Taranaki confiscations were again being sent to parliament. These efforts by claimants are described in more I,ililit detail in the following chapter.

The issues raised by the 1930 agreement were consistently put to 51 government throughout the period 1931-44. The-broad history of claim negotiations during the 1930s and early 1940s however reveals a tendency by the government to give precedence to settling other major claims over Taranaki. In fact, as time went by, governments increasingly began to see.the Taranaki agreement as at least one claim settled and to use the existence of the 1930 agreement to refuse further negotiations on the Taranaki claims. The exception was the Parihaka claim because it had been missed out of the 1930 agreement although an award had been recommended by Sima with all the major claim negotiations the government continued a policy of regarding the Jones and Sim awards as the upper levels for negotiation even though eventually many years had passed since those inquiries had reported.

During the worst of the depression years, in the early to mid 1930s, the government put off serious consideration of all outstanding claims. When the government began to consider claims again by the mid 1930s and as the claims seemed to be dragging on, the greatest attention was paid to trying to settle with Waikato and Ngai Tahu. The major means of negotiation used by governments during the years 1935-43 were periodic conferences, with small invited deputations of claim representatives meeting to discuss proposed settlements with ministers and officials. These discussions took place within very limited guidelines and () only on claims admitted by government.

The Coalition government of Forbes and Coates held a series of conferences in late 1935 before the general election due at the end of that year. By then they had a petition from the Taranaki people and Trust Board of 2 September 1935. This asked for an increase in the Tarana~i award to £10,000 and that this amount be made payable as a fixed sum on a fixed date. The petition claimed Sir Maui Pomare had preferred £10,000 as the award and that it was well known that the £5000 was only accepted as a ~ -tentative arrangement owing to the financial difficulties of the times. In addition, because the amount and date of payment were not fixed, the Trust Board was unable to adequately meet the 52 :\") demands of the people. The peti tion includ~da .. statement from the Board showing the history of underpayment and late payments. This included advice for example that no payment had yet been received for the 1935-36 financial year although it was now 5 months into

the next financial year. 86 However neither this petition nor the Parihaka award was considered seriously in the 1935 round of negotiations and no representatives from Taranaki were invited to the 1935 talks.

The first Labour government was elected in late 1935. It had formed an alliance with the Rataria party and had a policy of commitment to the settlement of outstanding claims and ( recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi. However when considering the outstanding claims, the new government accepted Treasury advice that a Taranaki type settlement was no longer. legally acceptable. Previously, under the 1928 Act, a certificate from the Minister was required as conclusive proof that the claim had ~~ been settied. Now it was decided that the certificate had to show

the claim was 'conclusively settled'. 87 This accepted long standing Treasury pressure to have a policy of 'final' settlem.ents and interim arrangements such as that for Taranaki under the 1928 Act were held to be no longer possible.

This' advice was strongly challenged by Ngata and Coates in parliament in 1936. Ngata told parliament that the Taranaki people had accepted £5000 a year, as recommended by the commission, but without prejudice. Coates agreed that Taranaki had accepted the £5000 a year but not as a final settlement. They wanted £10,000 per year and if the honourable members thought they would cease to ask for £10,000 'they were optimists,.88 In

86 copy of petition dated 2 September 1935 from the chiefs and people of the Taranaki tribes and the Taranaki Maori Trust Board .in T52/587 in ROB v 137 pp 52691-3

~flt 87 letter of 20 April 1936 from Native Minister to Tumate Mahuta in T 52/587 in ROB v 137 pp 52661-2 88 NZPO 1936 v 246 pp 642, copy in document bank attached P 514 53

the same debate the matter of the underpayment of £3000 in the first payment to the Board was also raised. 89 Smith, the member for New Plymouth, also highlighted the continuing problems for Taranaki claimants where the commission award addressed only the wrong done. He asked for an investigation into the situation declaring that not all the Taranaki Natives were benef i tting from the payment and that for example some had recently been evicted from, land they had lived on for the past 50 years and were now landless. 90

The next series of conferences were held in 1938. This time the government allowed the matter of the unpaid Parihaka award to be brought up for consideration although other Taranaki issues were not discussed. Following this the government again asked claimants to hold off from pressing claims, this time because of the early years of the war. By 1940 Peter Fraser had taken charge of claim negotiations and when negotiations began again he was ~ inclined to be personally more liberal, although his ministers and officials still attempted'to claw back awards as much as possible. He was also more inclined to accept payments in perpetuity if this seemed to be the only way of settling a claim. Around this time it seems as though the government was now considering £500 for Parihaka and an extra £1000 per year for the main Taranaki award, although there was strong opposition to this

from Treasury and from Nati ve Minister Mason. 91 However no agreements were made before the 1943 election.

In advice to the Prime Minister after the election, Native Minister Mason referred to a 1944 petition from the Chairman of

89 NZPD 1936 v 246 P 641 copy in document bank attached p 513

90 NZPD 1936 v 246 copy in document bank attached p 514

~. 91. memo from Treasury to Minister of Finance of 31 March 1939 (£500 being considered for Parihaka) in T52/587 in RDB v 137 P 52443 and memo of 5 August 1943 Mason to Fraser (extra £1000 being considered for Taranaki) in P Fraser papers 3/3, copy in document bank attached pp 172-173. 54 l!) the Taranaki Trust Board saying that ' at. least portions of the claim are just, but there are possibilities of misunderstandings in granting a remedy while leaving the claims of other tribes

unconsidered ,92 • This petition was one of a number to the government from the Taranaki Trust Board and claimants during this time and it encapsulated the major issues involved for claimants in having the 1930 agreement implemented. These were aside from the other associated issues that claimants felt had not been properly addressed by the commission.

The chairman of the Board, Maui Onekura, summarised the main issues submitted for consideration in the petition. These were that the yearly sum be made statutory, permanent and payable on 1 April each year and that it be made £10,000 per year; that the deficit of £3000 in the first year be made good and that the

Parihaka claim be settled. 93

~ The nature of the 1930 agreement itself had caused continuing problems with the annual payments. Many problems arose because it had been decided that the settlement could be made under the 1928 Act without further legislative action. While this had the advantage of avoiding further bureaucratic delays, it meant that the payments were not statutory but required the appropriation of parliament every year. The result was that payments could be divided into a·number of smaller sums throughout the year and the timing and how much would be paid each time and each year was always uncertain. This made financial planning very difficult for the Trust Board. The system was not the same as for Te Arawa and Ngati Tuwharetoa where payments were paid out as one sum on 1 April each year and it was clearly not what was envisaged by Ngata when he promised the.1929 hui that payments would be made

92 memo to Prime Minister from Native Minister of 21 February 1944 on petition of Maui Onehura, chairman of Taranaki Maori Trust Board in MAl, 19/1/250 in ROB v 68 P 25994 and MAl, 5/13 pt 3 copy in document bank attached p 23

93 Petition undated (February 1944?) from chairman of Taranaki Maori Trust Board to Peter Fraser in MAl, 19/1/250 in ROB v 68 P 25995 55 :,) on 1 Apr i 1 each year.

The Taranaki Maori Trust Board founq. it impossible to remedy this . si tuation until the 1944 Act was passed making the payments statutory. For example, in 1934 the Trust Board had made one of many requests to have the Taranaki grants made similar to those for TeArawa and Tuwharetoai that is a permanent appropriation each year to be paid on a given date instead of having to be approved by Cabinet and appropriated every year. Treasury's advice on this request was that as an appropriation of parliament was involved, payment could not be made until the appropriation was passed. A payment on 1 April every year as happened with Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa was not possible as it would commit the government to an item that then may not be passed. 94

The claimants supported the system of perpetual annual payments in the sense that they could be seen as a permanent ~ acknowledgement of wrong by the Crown. They did not seem particularly concerned whether the annual amount came as interest from a lump sum or was simply paid out each year, as long as the amount was acceptable. However it was clear from the beginning that the Taranaki claimants and the new Trust Board believed that the amount of payment in the 1930 agreement was an interim measure only. This was a clear example of the confusion surrou'nding the 1930 agreement. Claimants maintained that they had agreed to the sum of £5000 when the economy was weak but on . ,.:. the understanding that when the financial situation improved, serious consideration would be given to the sum of £10,000. This had always been regarded as a minimum by claimants from the time the awards were announced and was made clear at the Waitara hui in 1929 when the proposed awards were being discussed and the claimants were asked to agree to the proposals.

94 Treasury reply quoted in notes on history of Taranaki Maori Trust Board c 1935 in T52/587 in ROB v 137 P 52696. Also copies of correspondence in MAl, 26/5/1 copy in document bank attached pp 114-116. 56 LJ within a few weeks of its first meeting, the Taranaki Trust Board recei ved a letter from Te Atiawa objecting to the £5000 and supporting £10,000 instead. 95 In August 1931 at one of its first meetings, the Trust Board resolved to 'adopt the suggestion by the Native Minister that the Crown be. asked to pay £10,000 instead of £5000 per annum as compensation for confiscated lands between Parinihihi and Waitotara.' It also supported the suggestion of the Native Minister that the Board inquire into buying suitable lands for settlement and development by the young men of Taranaki. 96 Ngata later explained to Buck-that the Trust Board meeting was interested in only one thing, an increase to £10,000 per year. He promised to support them but could hold out ! ) no prospect during the present depression. 97

The government had also viewed the 1930 agreement as interim

initially, but from the point of view of eventual~y commuting the annual payments in perpetuity into a final lump sum. This was in spite of Ngata's assuranCe to the 1929 hui that the sum would be paid 'for all time'. In 1938 Treasury was still describing the Taranaki payment as an interim measure in these terms; fa principal sum for which has never beem settled - an annual

payment of £5000 being made meantime'. 98 This also clearly implies that at this stage the government also felt there was room for negotiation on the amounts al though the government \ ) obviously hoped this would be to a lesser amount. Al though ministers and officials repeatedly stated the hope that payments could be commuted to a lump sum, it seems clear that in practice

95 Minutes of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board, 9 December 1930, note of letter from Te Atiawa objecting to £5000 and maintaining support for 'the lawful compensation figures of £10,000' in MAl, 26/5/6 pt 1, copy in document bank attached p 157.

96 Note of minutes of meeting of Taranaki Maori Trust Board 10 August 1931 in letter from secretary to Ngata of 24 September ~~ 1931 in MAl, 26/5/6 pt 1, copy in document bank attached p 154.

97 Ngata to Buck 24 August 1931 in Na To Hoa Aroha v2 p 207

98 Treasury memo to Minister of Finance 25 August 1938 in T 52/587 in RDB v 137 P 52462 57

it became much easier just to pay the annual-amou.nt. By doing this a government did not have to face the immediate financial burden of paying a large lump sum and the decision on what that might be could be postponed from year to year. As a result, in spite of governments regularly stating their support for a lump sum, annual sums continued to be paid and the 1944 Act confirmed this method of payment. By 1944 therefore, the government appears to have become resigned to paying annual sums in perpetuity. This - may have also been a -means of forestalling the pressure for increased payments and consideration of associated issues. The 1920s awards were finally reinterpreted as full and final settlement in the 1944 Act. , )

The 1944 Trust Board petition also raised other problems arising from the 1930 agreement. As well as pressing for an increase in the amount to be paid, the Board had problems even getting the payments the government had agreed to and the first payment became the subject of a long standing dispute. The initial­ appropriation was for £5000 for the 1930-31 year and the intention was that in general it would be paid on 1 April each year. Although the 1930 settlement was made late in the year, Ngata still clearly intended the first payment to be for the full 1930-31 year, whatever date the payment was made and he assured. the Trust Board of this. He reckoned without the bureaucratic process however and only £2000 was ever paid for that year. The Trust Board tried to find out the reason for the short payment and have it remedied. A member wrote to Ngata in early 1931 asking about the payment and asking if rumours were true that no more would be paid. This was followed by a letter from the Board chairman noting the receipt of a Treasury voucher for £2000 and asking what happened to the annual income of £5000. After further discussions the Board sent a member to Wellington to find ou.t why the full amount was not being paid. Ngata replied that the· balance would be paid after 31 March but the date would depend iut on when the money was available; 'That balance will be paid so 58

T)' 99 ,J'.i'" you need not worry about the rumours'.

In May 1931 the Treasury chief clerk requested the immediate passing for payment for £3000 in favour of the Taranaki Trust Board being the balance of £5000 appropriated the previous year and allowing for the deduction of members' expenses. Confusion seems to have been caused because this was done in a later financial year. The next payment of £2000 was for the 'balance' for the year 1931-32. This meant that again there was £3000 short for the first year.

Government officials continued to assume that payments had been (, made correctly in spite of the protests of Ngata and the Trust Board to the contrary. In reviewing the situation in 1938, officials acknowledged that if the payments were intended to be effective from the beginning of the 1930-31" year, then the Trust Board was short paid. However if the payments were to start from ~ 1 January 1931 as minuted by Ngata ' .•. first payment of £1,250 on 1st January 1931 and thereafter quarterly ••. ' then payment had been made in full as only part of the financial year was 1 involved. °O Ngata seems to have delayed the beginning of payment until the following year and divided the payment up to help ease the financial burden on the government, but this did not affect his intention to make a full payment for the 1930-31 ( year. The matter was raised in parliament in 1936 and Ngata brought the matter up again in 1937 when the Trust Board was 10 attempting to have the matter remedied. l. Officials also presumed that owing to' the financial position of the country during the depression the government may have ~ecided to pay only

99 see notes on history of issue inT 52/587 in RDB v 137 pp 52694-6. Also minutes of Taranaki Maori Trust Board 16 March 1931 in MAl, 26/5/6 pt I, copy in document bank attached pp 155-156

1°Dnotes for 1938 conference in MAl, 5/13 pt 2 in RDB v 56 pp 21575-7 101 NZPD 1936 v 246 P 641 (document bank attached p 513) and Ngata to parliament in NZPD 1937 v 249 pp 725-6 (document bank attached pp 515-516 59 ) the £2000 in the first year. ~02 There may. have be Em some truth in this given that both the Trust Board and Ngata referred at the time to rumours along these lines.

Officials and politicians also later assumed that the full £5000 continued to be paid every year after this. In fact in common with other Trust Boards, the Taranaki Board voluntarily took a cut.in payments during the worst of the depression years. In the financial years 1932-33, 1933-34, and 1934-35 the cuts totalled £1000 for Taranaki. ~03 This gesture of goodwill was not widely recognised and quickly forgotten by officials. The distinction the Trust Board made between the voluntary cut which it never sought to recover and attempts to recover the involuntary reduction in the first payment also went unrecognised.

The 1944 petition also asked for settlement of the Parihaka award. The Sim award for the wrong done by the Parihaka raid had not been part· of the 1930 agreement. Perhaps the award was· overlooked because it was a relatively small sum and it was recommended as a one ·off rather than a perpetual payment. As a result, the Taranaki Trust Board and claimants were forced to go through a long process of meetings and negotiations to get even the sum awarded by the Sim commission implemented. The Parihaka award was not considered by government until May 1937 when the . ( Labour government's acting Native Minister Langstone asked his \ department for urgent information on the matter after meeting wi th Nohomairangi Te Whi ti. ~04 However Cabinet deferred the matter and it was not seriously considered until the series of

~02 notes for 1938 conferences in MAl, 5/13 pt 2 in RDB v 56 pp 21575-7

103 memo dated 28 May 1937 from Under Secretary Native Department to acting Native Minister in MAl, 19/1/250 in RDB v 68 P 26088

~04 memo from Langstone to Native Department of 24 May 1937 in MAl, 19/1/250 in RDB v 68 P 26091 60 ,:) conferences on outstanding claims were held iri February 1938.~oS

At the February meeting claimants -made their position on the Parihaka award clear. They told officials that the money could not compensate for the injustice of the raid and the imprisonment and death of elders. It was not commensurate with either the wrong done or the damage suffered. Te whiti asked that the sum awarded be at least made a perpetual per annum amount. He stated that the people did not agree with the commission's award and asked the government to consider the matter so as to give the Maori who suffered 'real justice '. The officials told the ') deputation that the sum of £300 as awarded by the Sim commission was the most the government could do. They also assured the deputation that a recommendation on Parihaka would be made 'as appears to be just and equitable wi thin the capacity of the

Government to meet it' .~06 Later in 1938, even as the government was considering the possibility of land in compensation for some of the outstanding claims, the Secretary for Maori Affairs still

recommended £300 cash for Parihaka as awarded by Sim .10'1 The £300 for the wrong done at Parihaka was finally implemented in the 1944 legislation.

In December 1944 the Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act was

passed. ~08 Ironically, as for the 1930 agreement, the Western ) Maori electorate was once again without a member at the time. Haami Ratana had died in October 1944 and the by election was still pending.

~OS correspondence between government and Te Whiti 193"/-8 in MAl, 19/1/250 in RDB v 68

~06 Notes of conference held on 23 February 1938 in HAl, 19/1/250 in RDB v 68 pp 26020-31. Copy also in RDB v 56 pp 21397- 21408

~07 draft memo prepared by Shepherd following 1938 conferences in MAl, 5/13 pt 3 in RDB v 57 P 21689

~08 copy of Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act 1944 in MAl, 19/1/250 pt 2 in RDB v 68 P 26210-11, copy in document bank attached pp 558-559. 61

The introduction to the Act referred to the Taranaki confiscation claims and the Parihaka damages claim and stated that in accordance with the recommendations of the sim report and with the agreement of the Maori claimants the following provisions of the Act were in 'full settlement and discharge' of the aforesaid claims. It is not clear how the conclusion was reached that there was Maori claimant agreement to the provisions of the Act as claimed. In debate on the Bill, the leader of the Legislative council,' McLagan, claimed that prior to the Bill being introduced, the Native Minister discussed the matter of making ~he payment statutory with representative Maoris from Taranaki

and this arrangement was unanimously agreed upon-. W9. However while there may have been agreement on making the payments statutory and on the need to implement the Parihaka award this is still a long way from agreeing that such awards were full and final settlement.

The government had clear evidence before it of considerable claimant concern over the terms of the agreement including the amount of payment and claimants clearly wanted to be allowed to continue to negotiate on these issues. It is most unlikely therefore that claimants were agreeable to the concept of full and final settlement as introduced in the 1944 Act. In addition although the Act confirmed the implementation of the Parihaka ( award and the major Taranaki award it is clear from the petitions and conferences that the sums involved were not accepted as final by either the claimants or the Trust Board. Although the 1944 Act tidied up some problems for the Trust Board such as the uncertain nature of the payments, it provided for no more than the original sim recommendation in spite of the years of intervening petitions and negotiations and the fact that for some years previously the government had clearly been considering higher sums.

When the Bill was debated in parliament Native Minister Mason • explained the spirit of the settlement that was being enacted. 109 McLagan in NZPD 1944 v 267 P 761, copy in document bank attached p 524 62

It was based strictly on the Sim commission and- could be traced back to 1925 when provision for that investigation was made. He descr,ibed the findings of the sim commission in some detail and confirmed again that the £5000 was for the wrong done by the confiscations. This was already being paid but the Bill made this statutory and added the £300 for Parihaka. He explained that it had been first thought that the annual payments might be made into a lump sum but now the Bill put the payments on a definite basis. Mason acknowledged that the £300 for Parihaka was a small, nominal sum but it too was being paid in acknowledgement of a wrong done. The reasoning behind the payments was explained by Mason as attempting to remove a barrier between the two races caused by the wrongs not being acknowledged.

The member for Stratford, Polson, then spoke in support of the measure as it would 'fully satisfy' the Taranaki claims. He also brought up the perennial concern of Pakeha members whenever l~.i'>;j~,':~.J compensation was discussed. He was concerned about whether the Taranaki payment was being properly used. He explained that he had been told that it was being wasted on tangis or for meeting houses. He had found that on investigation it did appear that the payments had been used satisfactorily in the last few years, on lending to the government for patriotic loans, for the purposes of the Maori battalion and for Maori sanitation, housing and ( . similar purposes. However he felt he represented concerned Maori ! ) of the area in asking if the payments had been well spent. In reply Tirikatene gave more details of the Taranaki Trust Board spending, including educational scholarships, war stock investments, payments to Maori troops, contributions towards heal th care, the renovation, protection and care of meeting houses and and the promotion of health and sanitation. Corbett, the member for Egmont, and later to be Minister of Maori Affairs, declared that credit for the settlement of the Taranaki claims had to go to the late Sir Maui Pomare who spent so much effort in having the matter investigated and righted. He endorsed the view that the Taranaki Maoris were not being given something for nothing and reminded the House that the payment was not a 63

reward for injustice but a recognition by the white people of the wrong that had been done. He supported the notion of a perpetual grant as a permanent recognition of the wrong and believed this was also supported by the Maori people and in return they were willing to put the matter behind them. He also supported the member for Stratford in calling for the judicious use of the money.

In response to these and other calls for the wise use of the payments and a stop to funding 'tangis and such-like'; Mason replied that while there would be general supervision of the spending of the funds, the payments were for the advantage of the / \ Maori people I as visioned by them and not to be distributed merely as the pakeha thinks they ought to be distributed. The funds are not for our amusement, but for the Maoris' satisfaction.'U.o

~~ The 1944 Act therefore confirmed the basic 1930 agreement. It. tidied up some anomalies with the 1930 agreement and added in the payment for Parihaka but it did no more than implement the Sim awards as recommended some seventeen years previously. Although there clearly had been some consideration during this time to raising the amounts slightly, in the end this was not done. In return for keeping the perpetual annual payment the government seems to have decided to make the settlement full and final. It claimed to have the support of claimants in this but there is no evidence for this. Rather there is clear evidence that there was considerable unhappiness with the sim commission's awards and with at least parts of the 1930 agreement, including from the Taranaki Maori Trust Board. The intent of the legislation was made clear to the 1944 parliament. Mason reiterated the intention of the Sim commission. The payments were for the wrong done, there was no attempt to compensate for actual loss. The reasoning behind the payment was to enable a barrier between the races to

110 Debate on Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Bill 1944 in NZPD 1944 v 267 pp 748-754 and pp 761-763 (pp 517-523 and 524-526 in document bank attached) 64

:) be broken down, to allow the claimants to put the past-behind them and thereby to aid in the process of assimilation. Although there have been some minor modifications such as the increase in the payment in 1977-78 to take some account of inflation, the basic int~nt of the settlement as approved by government in this Act has remained to the present day.

)

• 65 :;) Chapter 5

A brief history of the maintenance of confiscation claims of Taranaki iwi subsequent to the sim commission and the establishment of the Trust Board, including maunga negotiations.

As seen in the previous chapter, by 1931 the Taranaki Maori Trust Board had been established and compensation payments had begun. However it is clear that even at that stage, many Taranaki Maori did not feel that the 1930 agreement had gone all the way to properly and fairly settling their claims.- The 1944 Act confirming the agreement solved some problems, by making payments statutory for example, but did not address other major concerns of claimants. By enacting government policy that the agreement was now considered full and final compensation for all confiscation claims, the 1944 Act also brought new difficulties for claimants. Nevertheless there is sUbstantial evidence that ~. Taranaki iwi and the Trust Board have consistently maintained clqims associated with the confiscations from 1931 to the present hearings before the Waitangi Tribunal.

The Taranaki confiscation claims have been maintained on two levels. At one level claimants have accepted the settlement with its limitations but without prejudice to attempts to renegotiate and improve the terms. This has been complicated in later years by attempts to even maintain the original value of the payments. This approach to the agreement has been consistently made clear to governments from 1929. At another level claimants have maintained that the sim commission did not adequately address all the issues associated with the confiscations. In some cases the commission was limited by the terms of reference, for example it could not investigate the legality of the confiscation legislation. In other respects claimants have rejected some commission findings as inadequate and requested reviews of the issues involved. These have included issues such as wahi tapu, the return of land, the failure to address economic losses through confiscation and issues resulting from confiscation such 66

as the West Coast Settlement Reserves.

At the May 1929 hui, when other issues such as the return of the mountain were raised, Ngata asked the meeting to concentrate on the issue of the proposed compensation f0:t: the general injustice. He is reported as telling claimants that they could make separate written representations to him on the other issues. This seemed to leave the way open for continued claims associated with the confiscations and this understanding was followed up by claimants. When Cabinet agreed to begin paying the recommended compensation for the major Taranaki award in 1930, there was also an understanding on both sides that this was an interim agreement and there was still room for further negotiations. It is not surprising therefore that claimants felt they had the right to continue pressing the issues they felt pad still not been satisfactorily resolved •

.~ There is evidence that even at the ti~e of the 1930 agreement, many claimants felt there were outstanding issues not properly addressed by the commission. For example, the commission had made recommendations for the wrong done by the confiscations and the Parihaka raid but had not attempted to determine actual economic loss as it considered this too difficult. It is not clear how the commission determined even the nominal amount awarded but it was well short of any calculations submitted to it. The awards were therefore nominal sums intended to be gestures of atonement for the wrong done. This was widely recognised at the time and accepted again in debate on the 1944 Act. Many claimants wanted a new investigation of additional issues including compensation based on actual loss. They wanted land included as compensation in this and they wanted serious consideration of the return of wahi tapu and resources. Many Taranaki claimants therefore continued to submit petitions and request investigations on the .issues they felt had not been properly addressed by the commission. These efforts were additional to the attempts to have the terms of the 1930 settlement rectified. Many petitions that began again soon after the 1930 agreement were also on specific 67

",':) ..• areas and issues, for example particular bloCKS of confiscated land, specific promises of compensation not implemented and issues such as the treatment of prisoners, that had not been addressed in detail by the Sim commission. Many were also on behalf of or concerned with individual iwi.

A significant number of claimants also continued to press for land instead of money. This had been a strong theme in all the confiscation districts even before the Sim inquiry but had been rejected by the commission for the major claims. Requests for land instead of money continued after the 1930 agreement. ~any claimants appear to have rejected the monetary awards and others appear to have felt that as the awards were interim there was still a possibility of having land considered in later negotiations. For example, in 1931 Ngata admitted to Buck that there was still a strong agitation in Taranaki for land instead of money and this was strengthened with the election of the kingite Taite Te Torno in Western Maori .l.l.l. In 1931 when the Maori Purposes Act confirming the provisions of 1928 provisions for 'confiscation claims was passed, Te Torno took the opportunity to ask why the land should not be returned to the rightful owners when the commission had found it had been unlawfully taken. He also reminded the House that the award for Parihaka had still not been paid.l.l.2 In May 1931 Ngata also received a telegram from Patea from Ngarangi Kati tia with the message 'we do not t..,rant

money but land ••• ,1.l.3 In 1934 in response to a petition from Taranaki, Ngata confirmed again that it had not been possible to

return land .1.l.4 Al though a later' Labour government became more recepti ve to the idea of providing land in compensation for other

l.l.l. Ngata to Buck in letter of 15 May 1931 in Na ·To Hoa Aroha v2 p 142

1.l.2 Te Torno to parliament in NZPO 1931 v 230 P 567 copy in document bank attached p 512

1.l.3 telegram of 1 May 1931 in MAl, 19/1/250 in ROB v 68 P 26113

1.l.4 letter of 24 February 1934 Ngata to RM Rangitaawa and Co Ltd in MAl, 19/1/250 in ROB v 68 P 26109 68

claim settlements, by this time it had become'convinced that in Taranaki the settlement barred fUrther consideration of possible compensation.

Within a few years of the sim commission therefore, petitions associated with the Taranaki confiscations were again being sent to parliament. The new petitions included one from the first chairman of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board, Rangihuna Pire, and others on behalf of Nga Ruahine.l.l.S From 1934 they petitioned for many years for compensation for land lost in the Waimate plains as a result of the Parihaka resistance. This land was in ( fact, part of some confiscated land originally supposed to be returned. The Fox-Bell commission of 1880 confirmed this promise, but some 5000 acres were subsequently withheld by the government as punishment for the actions of Te Whi ti. The petitioners wanted the promise of the return of the entire reserve to be upheld, they asked for an investigation into the imprisonment of elders in 1879 and 18'80, and they wanted the return of specified canoe landing places. All these issues they felt had not been properly addressed by the Sim commission and they did not regard the major Sim award for all the Taranaki confiscations as adequate. After the Labour victory in 1935 they also called on Prime Minister Savage to honour his statement that. the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi would be given effect to when the petition was

6 under considerationl.l. • The petition was referred to the government for consideration but was rejected on the grounds that the Sim commission had already covered the issue. The petitioners however continued to place the issue before the government.

The call to honour the Treaty was a common theme in many petitions although it was something the government had tried to

l..l5 see 1934 petition of Rangihuna Pire and others in MAl, 19/1/250 in RDB v 68. Also other petitions from Taranaki in 1930s and 1940s in RDB vols 4-6.

l.l.6 Petition of Rangihuna Pire and others Pet 1934-35/340 and associated correspondence in MAl, 19/1/250 pt 1 in RDB v 68 pp 26092-26106 69

avoid in 1925 and 1926 in promising and setting up the sim commission. Claimants also reminded later Labour governments in particular, of their policies of honouring the Treaty when considering claims.

The Parihaka claims were among the first to be pursued partly because the Parihaka award was not implemented in the 1930 agreement, but it also seems clear that claimants were not satisfied with the Sim findings and wanted all the issues associated with Parihaka addressed more thoroughly. A 193'3 letter to the government for example, asked for land taken at Parihaka in 1881 and not paid for.H7 A reply to this drafted for Native Minister Ngata stated that the £5000 awarded to Taranaki by the sim commission was 'in effect payment for the lands taken from these Taranaki tribes ... ' HS This quickly became the general official understanding of the awards and soon developed into the mistaken conviction that the payment was based on the value of

the land. This was of cou~se disputed by claimants. The reply also described the payment as for only four Taranaki tribes; Taranaki" Te Atiawa, Ngarauru and Ngati Ruanui. In fact at the 1929 hui where membership was discussed although there were four me,mbers suggested as well as Sir Maui Pomare, between them they were representative of at least seven tribes.

In 1937 when the government realised that the Sim award for J Parihaka had not been implemented and invited representatives of the Parihaka claimants to a conference to discuss the issue, it seemed at first that there may have been some willingness to consider the wider issues involved and officials made efforts to find out about the canoe landing places and other issues

'117 for example 1933 letter from R M Rangitaawa & Co., Ltd. , to the Governor general re Parihaka lands taken in 1881, in MAl, 19/1/250 pt 1 in RDB v 68 P 26111

118 correspondence of 12 December 1933 and 24 February 1934 between Native Minister and R M Rangitaawa & Co., Ltd. in MAl, 19/1/250 pt 1 in RDB V'68 P 26107-11 70

mentioned in the petition .U9 When the conference on Parihaka was held in February 1938 however, the officials representing the Crown refused to consider anything other than the £300 recommended by the sim commission and made it clear that this was regarded as the uppermost limit the government would consider. This was in spite of claimant representatives stating they did not agree with the Sim award. ~20

The government's decision to implement the Sim award for Parihaka in 1944 may have been due to a desire to prevent the claim being further opened up as claimants obviously wanted. Until 1944 officials advised the government that the Sim commission had effectively limited compensation to all claims concerned with Parihaka to the amount awarded. However petitions on Parihaka were still referred to the government for consideration by the Native affairs committee while the 1930 agreement was considered interim and negotiable.~21. Petitioners did not accept that the major Taranaki payment was adequate or that they were getting sufficient from it and one complained that the annual payment of £5000 was reasonable for the Waimate plains alone. 1.2.1 The petitioners also continued to press earlier claims including the Waimate plains reserve and the treatment of prisoners. When the 1944 legislation was introduced, the Sim award of one payment of £300 for the wrong at Parihaka was described by the Minister as l· nominal. It had also previously been recognised by officials at the 1938 conference as no more than a 'gesture'. However from 1944 the award was determined to be a full and final settlement

11.9 documents in MAl, 19/1/250 pt 1 in RDB v 68 pp 26062- 26091

~20 see notes of conference of 23 February 1938 in MAl, 19/1/250 pt 1 in RDB v 68 pp 26020-31

~21. see for example petition 28/1938 of Wiremu Te Uira and others re Parihaka, Waimate reserve, and imprisonment of elders in MAl, 19/1/250 pt 1 in RDB v 68 pp 26048-61 and R Pire and others petitions 1941/36 and 1944/48 in same volume pp 26044-47, 25991-3 and 26205-8

1.22 petition 1944/48 from R Pire and others in MAl, 19/1/250 pts 1-2 in RDB v 68 pp 25991-3 and 26205-8 71 ,:) and this was used to bar any further consideration of the issues

in subsequent petitioning. 1.:23

During the 1930s and early 1940s Taranaki claimants also turned to the possibility of having their claims put before a promised new commission to investigate all outstanding grievances. A new commission had been promised by governments since the mid 1930s and when the first Labour government gained power in 1935 it had a stated policy of settling outstanding claims and honouring the Treaty of Waitangi. Many of the statements of new Prime Minister Savage were understood by cl.aimants to promise more thorough investigations that would also take the Treaty into account. In " }' 1936 for example, Savage stated that a new commission might be necessary to look into all the claims and promised that 'The present Government could do at least as well as the most renowned of their predecessors, and probably could do better.' 1.24 This was widely taken as a promise to take a more generous attitude to the ~ettlenients and was later cited as a reason why waikato supported the government in the second world war .125

Taranaki claimants had reason to believe that what they regarded as outstanding claims would also be considered by the new commission. For example, in 1939 the Native Minister wrote to a petitioner on Taranaki conf iscated lands that the government

) intended to have a new commission into confiscated lands and other claims. He promised _that the petition would go on the

123 comment on petition of Tonga Awhikau and others 1946/65, all claims arising from Taranaki confiscations are barred from consideration by the 1944 Taranaki Maori Claims settlement Act, in MAl, 19/1/250 pt 2 in RDB v 68 p 26202; and in 1950 Rangihuna Pire wanted to revive his earlier petitions and waS told in a meeting with Native Minister Corbett that they were barred from consideration by the Sim award and the 1944 legislation, ibid p 26200

124 Savage to parliament in NZPD 1936 v 246 P 641, copy in document bank attached p 513

1.2~:pei . Te Hurinui Jones in Schwimmer (ed) The Maori People in the-1960s p 157 72

schedule when the new commission was established~ 126

In 1940 when Peter Fraser took over handling the outstanding claims he also publicly promised a new inquiry and this was confirmed by Cabinet. This promise had-to be postponed because of the war. However when the possibility of a commission was discussed again in 1945, Native Minister Mason and government officials began a determined and ultimately successful campaign to have the promised commission severely limited in what it would cover. A limited commission eventually became government policy in spite of Fraser's earlier promise of an all embracing inquiry and efforts by the Maori members of parliament to have the , ) commission cover all outstanding claims petitions. As a result, the Taranaki claims were confirmed as having already been fully dealt with and the new commission eventually became an investigation into surplus lands only. Therefore in 1947 when the Surplus Land commission began its investigations it did not include any of the Taranaki claims as these were held to be

barred from further consideration by the 1944 Act .127

The limitation of the promised' inquiry was greeted with widespread disappointment among claimants. 128 There was increased pressure,at the last minute to open up the commission's area of investigation, especially because in late 1946 a general election was due and sitting Maori members were under pressure from their electorates. This pressure included requests concerning the Taranaki claims. In 1946, Corbett, later to be Minister of Maori Affairs, admitted in the debate on the Waikato­ Maniapoto claims settlement bill that the Taranaki payments were 'no adequate compensation f'or the loss of land, but ... some compensation for the loss of mana, or the loss of prestige'. He

U6 letter of 11 April 1939 from Native Minister to George Marriner in MAl, 5/13/102, copy in document bank attached p 29.

127 memo for Native Minister from Maori Affairs 20 June 1946 in MA 5/13' pt 3 copy in'document bank attached p 20

i28, see for example representations to Native Minister at, Maungamuka MA 5/13 pt 3 copy in document bank attached pp 13-14, ,73

agreed that the reason the Taranaki people accepted the sums in perpetuity and not as a lump sum was for the gesture of acknowledgement of the injustice done .1.29 In 1947 Mawhete continued to pressure the government to look into all outstanding petitions not just those the government wanted to have investigated.1.30

Eventually the matter was dealt with by tacking on some small investigations after the major commission had finished sitting. These new often one person inquiries were however very limited and they did not extend to areas where Native Minister Mason and off icials insisted final settlements had already been made. 1.31. However a small inquiry concerning the west Coast Settlement Reserves was one of the additional inquiries. It was investigated by the chairman of the Surplus Lands commission, Sir Michael Myers. The reserves were associated with the confiscations in that they concerned confiscated land that had been 'returned' by placing it under the management of. the Maori Trustee. The management of these reserves was considered to be a separate enough issue not to be barred by the 1944 Act. However even so, this investigation was deliberately limited by Prime Minister Fraser to the issue of the reduction of rentals during the depression. Fraser asked Myers to keep it limited as he felt the publici ty resulting from the examination of other West Coast ;' Settlement Reserve matters might have undesirable results for the '. economy at the time. 1.32

1.29 Corbett to parliament in NZPD 1946 v 275 P 192 copy in document bank attached p 528 1.30 for example see notes of meeting between Prime Minister and' officials and Maori MPs of 29 January 1947 in MAl, 5/13 pt 3 copy in document bank attached p 17

1.31. see for example memo from Mason to Native Minister 14 April 1947 - Taranaki petition barred by settlement already made, in MAl, 5/13 pt 3, copy in document bank attached pp 15-16.

1.32 letter from Fraser to Myers 12 August 1947 in MAl, 5/13 pt 3 copy in document bank attached p 12 74

As well as petitions fr~m individuals on their own and on behalf of iwi, the Trust Board also began to take a role in pressing wider claim issues than the implementation of the terms of the settlement under which it was created. The Board was quite diffident about this at first as it was wary of seeming to usurp a direct relationship between iwi and government. However it later grew more confident about this expanded role and in some ways was faced with little alternative as it became clear that governments were more willing to deal with and listen to representations from the Board or having the support of the Board, than in dealing directly with individuals or iwi. This'in turn helped to fuel concerns over iwi representation on the Board ) and th~ role of the Board relative to the direct Treaty partnership between the Crown and Taranaki iwi.

The Board was asked to take on a wider role soon after it was created. In 1932 at a hui to present its report to the people, the Board was unanimously asked to take up the matter of the west Coast Settlement Reserves. The issue had been brought to a head again at· the time by the non payment of rents during the depression. This caused severe financial hardship to the owners who were concerned at the refusal of the Native Trustee to act

to have the rents paid. In July 1932, co~nsel for the Trust Board (Horner and North) wrote to the Native Trustee on the matter. Counsel explained that they had been asked by the Trust Board to investigate the position regarding the Reserves as Maori felt the government was not protecting their interests. This perception was strengthened by the situation over the non payment of rent. At the time the Board was unsure of its responsibility in taking up this kind of matter but had gone ahead on the request of the

people .1.33 At the time the Native Trustee refused to recognise the Taranaki Maori Trust Board in the matter as he considered the

• 1.33 letter from Horner and North to Native Trustee 12 July 1932 in MA 8/0 (AAMK 869/212b) copy in document bank attached pp 31-32 75 . ) Board's only function was to administer· the confiscation fund. 134 However this was the beginning of a long and continuing history of the Trust Board involvement in wider issues associated with the confiscations and in general matters of concern to Taranaki Maori. In fact while the normal course of petitioning was increasingly fruitless, especially after 1944, the process of Trust Board representations and negotiations with government became one of the few avenues open to Taranaki Maori. For example, the Trust Board took an increasing role in commenting on proposed legislation on behalf of Taranaki Maori. The Board hired lawyers to report on the 1967 Maori Affairs Amendment Bill for example. This was done on behalf of all the Taranaki tribes ) on issues that were likely to be of most concern to Taranaki Maori. In 1967 a main area of concern was the proposal to make

sales of the reserves leases easier .135

As the Trust Board became important as a means to reach government and as the distributor of the only compensation available problems with iwi representation on the Board became

more app~rent. For many years the issue of representation on the Board became a major issue for iwi.

After the failure to have the Taranaki claims reopened in the new commission of the late 1940s there seemed little opportunity to press the claim at a national level as all attempts were bound to be rejected by the use of the 1944 Act~ More evidence is required from claimants on activities in this regard during the 1950s and 1960s. Official documents reflect the government and official view that the case was closed by the 1944 Act and the major issues documented for Taranaki during this time concern iwi representation on the Board. It seems clear however that although there were difficulties in pursuing the claims, they were still pressed as opportunities arose.

134 extract from Hawera star 14 September 1932 in MA 8/0 (AAMK 869/212b) copy in document bank attached p 30

135 see extracts from MAl, 1/16/3 pts 2 and 3 in document bank attached pp 1-11 76

At a local level the confiscation grievances had always been kept alive as Taranaki people were constantly reminded of unresolved losses. These losses were seen as-continuing, especially with lost opportunities not only through lost control of land but in subsequent years through exclusion from development and access to resources such as fishing, timber and petroleum industries. Iwi were also excluded from areas of resource management such as pollution control and river and beach management. The maintenance o"f claims at a local level was often less organised and can be seen for example in court actions for trespass when people tried to maintain access to fishing resources. Many issues were also fought at a local level, for example pollution and damage of fishing areas, gravel taking and further loss of land for education and public works purposes. It is assumed claimants will be making their own submissions to the Tribunal on these issues.

Claimants also appear to have made more organised efforts to keep the claims alive and before government. For example, in evidence before the High Court in 1988, M R R Love gave evidence of the formation of a group called Nga Muru Raupatu .1.36 This group was formed soon after the 1930 settlement to press the government for a reinvestigation of the muru raupatu claim and has been continued ever since by succeeding generations. According to e~idence in the affidavit and in official documents this group was also later active in trying to negotiate the return of the mountain and an improved settlement in the 1970s and 1980s.

Claimants also made the best use they could of all forms of official contact. Ministers were regularly invited to Taranaki marae and although official notes of these visits were not kept, it seems clear that take were also put to them there although the government still used the 1944 Act to refuse significant action. Some scattered evidence is also available of claimants raising issues as opportunities arose. In December 1951 for example, the Minister of Maori Affairs agreed to see a representation from

1.36 evidence of M R R Love in High Court affidavit CP 135/88 in Wai 143 A8 77 ..:\ .... 'j) claimants on the issue of membership of the·Trust Board. Notes of the meeting reveal that the issues of the West Coast Settlement Reserves and the amount of compensation were also apparently raised. The Minister however refused to discuss issues

other than representation on the Board ..137

This policy of using the 1944 legislation to effectively bar substantial consideration of confiscation related grievances remained in force for many years. It was not until the 1970s that the government agreed to the possibility of reconsidering some aspects of the claims. After many years of effort a new investigation into reserved land was held in the mid 1970s

) including the West Coast Settlement reserves .138 This only appears to have succeeded however because it was considered separate from the main conf iscation claims.· The investigation was also limited to the management of reserves rather than the fundamental nature of the reserve system. This commission reported to the government in 1975 and while the resulting. Parininihi Ki waitotara (PKW) incorporation solved some problems, the inquiry did not tackle the fundamental issues concerning the reserves, including that only those declared loyal had originally been included as beneficiaries.

By the 1970s. there were increasing concerns among all Trust Boards about the effects of inflation on the value of their grants. There is also evidence that the Taranaki Trust Board was pressing again for an improvement in its overall payment. The government however continued to reject this. In 1970 for example the Maori Affairs Minister responded to a request for an increase in the Taranaki grant that there was 'no prospect at all of the

137 notes of representation made to Minister of Maori Affairs on 12 December 1951 in MA 26/5 pt 4 in document bank attached pp 65-70

138 Report of Commission of Inquiry into Maori Reserved Land 1975, Wai 143 A21 78

'J Government agreeing to this suggestion.' H9 with" the change to decimal currency the Taranaki Trust Board grant had changed from £5000 to $10,000. This was however not an increase in value but the equivalent in dollars to the old grant. Eventually by the mid 1970s a new Labour government was in power and was again committed to the fair resolution of claims.

In 1973 the Ngai Tahu claimants were successful in having their 1944 grant changed to a perpetual payment, largely on the basis of arguments about losses in value due to inflation. The 1973 Maori Purposes Act provided for the continuation in perpetuity of the payment. Taranaki claimants apparently saw this as an opportunity to have the 1944 Taranaki Settlement Act reviewed as well, although as always a long term aim was to improve the overall amount of compensation. Initially claimants seem to have been concerned to at least try and recover the value of their grant. In June 1973 during a visit to Manukorihi marae the Minister of Maori Affairs was asked for an increase in the annual grant for Taranaki from $10,000 to $40,000.uo This was apparently based on statistics department figures taken from the Ngai Tahu case that showed goods costing $1.00 in 1926 cost $4.00

in 1973.~n Maori Affairs Minister Rata responded by asking that the matter be held over to a proposed conference of Trust Boards in 1974 where the matter could be discussed and a general policy by Trust Boards formulated for his consideration. ~42

In 1974 a petition was sent to parliament from P Tamati, M R Love, H Raumati, M Pomare and over 600 others, for an increase

~39 letter from McIntyre to Latham 1 July 1970 in MA 26/5 pt 7 copy in document bank attached p 309

~40 note of visit of 30 June 1973 in MA 26/5 pt 7 in document bank attached p 308

~4J. see petition 1974/19 in MA 26/5 pt 7 copy in document • bank attached pp 299-300 ~42 letter Rata to Trust Board 15 October 1973, MA 26/5 pt 7 copy in document bank attached p 306 79

,;) in the Taranaki grant. H3 The petition was, based' on the argument that the value of the grant had fallen by one quarter due to inflation and it was referred to the government for favourable consideration. Maori Affairs Minister Rata reported on the petition to the Cabinet commi ttee on Legislation and Parliamentary Questions. H4 He advised that the Taranaki claimants were using figures supplied by the Government statistician when the Ngai Tahu case was being considered in 1973. He felt that there was a good case to show that the grants of the Trust Boards had been eroded by inflation and the government needed to develop policy on the matter. possible alternatives, for government consideration were to adopt mathematical calculations to tie the grant to inflation, or to have periodic reviews, or simply to increase the grants by an arbitrary amount as the settlements were originally made on a 'more or less arbitrary basis.' Rata suggested a possible 'round figure' of say $12,500 or $15,000 although he also felt that advice from Treasury or statistics on this might be helpful. It is not clear from this how Rata came to the round figure suggested, although it was clearly arbitrary. Perhaps he felt it was the most the government was likely to accept. It represented a 50% increase which may have sounded generous but in reality was by no means a true compensation for losses in the value of the grants.

An indication of the true loss through inflation to the Taranaki Board has recently been made by economist Dr J L Robinson. ~45 His research paper was commissioned by the Treaty of Waitangi Policy unit in 1990 and updated in 1992 to g,ive an indication of

1.43 petition 1974/19 in MA 26/5 pt 7, copy in document bank attached pp 299-300

1.44 report on petition 1974/19 by Rata to Cabinet commi ttee on Legislation and parliamentary questions in MA 26/5 pt 7 copy in document bank attached pp 293-295

1.45 extract from Dr J L Robinson, paper on Indexation of Payments to Maori Trust Boards provisionally updated to 1992, Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit, copy in document bank attached pp 633-635 80 losses through payments not being indexed to inflation. This indexation is based on the Consumers Price Index. Using the same method of calculation, the 1931 payment should have been increased to an annual payment of $56,858.33 in 1975 just to allow for inflation. (In 1977 when the amount was increased by 50% to $15,000, the equivalent to allow for inflation would have been $76,032).

A later memo from Rata to Cabinet in 1975 simply recommended an increase to $15,000 a year for Taranaki and no recurring reviews. The increased payments were to begin in the 1976-77 financial

year .146 These recommendation were then sent to Treasury for a report. Treasury responded by agreeing to the Minister's proposals for Taranaki and approving a similar 50 % increase to the other Trust Boards as· well. Treasury felt that it was

I inappropriate I to tie the compensation to changes in money

value. However there was I some justification I for an increase and 50% seemed reasonable. Treasury agreed that there should be no

recurring reviews. 147

These recommendations were then put on hold as a result of representations made from a Taranaki deputation. This deputation including the chairman of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board, met with Prime Minister Rowling and several of his colleagues in september 1975.148 The deputation asked for a small negotiating committee to be established made up of government and claimant representatives to discuss several issues related to the Taranaki confiscation claim. These included an increase in the grant, and proposals concerning the mountain and the Mt Egmont national

146 memo from Rata to Cabinet committee in MA 26/5 pt 7, copy in document bank attached p 289

147 Treasury report on proposals to increase Trust Board grant 12 September 1975 in MA 26/5 pt 7, copy in document bank :~llt attached pp 286-7

148 copy of letter from Prime Minister to chairman of Taranaki Maori Trust Board 11 September 1975 re meeting with deputation on 9 September and issues raised, in MA 26/5 pt 7. Copy in document bank attached pp 281-2 81 .... ?\ , ' . ~ park. The deputation proposed that the park including Mt Egmont be vested in the Trust Board on behalf of the people of Taranaki from whom it was confiscated and that the name of the mountain revert to Taranaki. In return the Taranaki people through the Trust Board would gift the park including the mountain back to the Crown for the people of New Zealand. Representatives of the Taranaki people were also to be appointed to the Park Board.

It is not clear why this process was to take place through the Trust Board rather than direct with iwi. However it may have been felt that the government would be more comfortable dealing with an organisation such as the Board. It may have seemed less of a ) legal problem for example, to have land vested in and then given back by a Board. At this stage both officials and the Board were confident the Board represented Taranaki iwi on the matter.

The government agreed to the establishment of the proposed committee and recommendations on the proposed increase in grants were delayed until it had held meetings on the issues. The claimant side of the committee officially called itself the Nga Muru Raupatu panel. The government also appears to have been quite sympathetic to the proposals over the mountain and suggested this issue could be dealt with separately very simply and quickly.149 A series of meetings with officials concerned with the park was set up but only the first meeting appears to have been held. This was because there was agreement with the panel on almost every point and it was decided further discussions were not needed. 150 It seems clear that from the government side the proposals redressed a very important issue for Taranaki without any cost. Lands and Survey also saw the

149 see correspondence concerning proposals of September 1975 in MA 26/5 pt 7, see document bank attached pp 270-2, 274-5, 278- 80

150 notes of meeting of 25 september 1975 between representatives of the Trust Board and officers of Department of Lands and Survey and advice on the meeting from the Department to the Minister of Lands 26 September 1975 in MA 26/5 pt 7, copy in document bank attached pp 266-69 82

') proposal as an opportunity to solve some outstanding issues related to the park. Officials wanted to change what had become an unwieldy structure for the park board anyway and the process of revesting and returning the mountain to the Crown allowed the tidying up of some issues such as the prevention of future mining in the park. Officials also appeared very comfortable with the name change.

The issue of increased compensation was therefore made separate although claimants still regarded the claim as combined. At a meeting of the negotiating committee of 23 September 1975 the matter of increased compensation was discussed further. It became / clear that by now claimants wanted annual grants of a more realistic purchasing power of about $50,000 a year. There was now also a stated preference for a lump sum that could be invested to provide the annual income. The lump sum proposed was about $10 million and the reasoning behind this was apparently enclosed in a submission that has not been kept in the official records. However later documents dating from when the issue was reopened indicate that this sum was derived from estimates of the value of the actual land confiscated. A 1979 memo from officials to the Minister of Lands shows the sum of $10,085,550 made up of 462,000 acres finally confiscated at $2.00 per acre, a total of $924,000; plus 557,000 acres forced sales underpaid by $1.75 per acre, a total of $974,750; plus a refund of $118,360 charged for the 256,000 acres returned to Maori ownership. The sum of these totals is $2,017,110. Converted to 1975 values this equalled $10,085,550. 151 This is clearly a move away from compensation simply for the wrong, something claimants had pressed for since the time of the Sim commission.

A general election was held at the end of 1975 and negotiations ceased during this time. The proposal to change the name of the mountain became an election issue and stirred up a strong backlash among many Pakeha. Even the Labour Party's own New

151 memo for Minister of Lands of 5 June 1979 in MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank attached pp 375-378 83

Plymouth electoral committee expressed strong a"fitipathy to a name change. 152 'A new National government was returned in late 1975 and the negotiating panel had to persuade a new government to enter negotiations.

The claimant negotiating panel, Nga Muru Raupatu, was led by Ngatata Love. On behalf of the panel he made strenuous attempts to reopen negotiations with representatives of the new government. This included a deputation to see the Minister in June 1976.153 Al though new Maori Affairs Minister McIntyre continued to assure the panel that the claim was being considered the panel became increasingly frustrated by apparent government inaction. there was concern also at government statements made in the meantime. . For example, the new Minister of Lands Venn Young publicly announced in March 1976 that the government had no intention. of renaming the mountain and it was· now a dead issue. The panel was concerned that this preempted discussions and no advice had been given to claimants before the announcement was made. 154

The Minister did receive a number of reports from Maori Affairs at this time on the background to the recent Taranaki negotiations. These were l~rgely hostile to the claimant proposals and favoured a 50% increase in the grant as originally proposed. For example, a report from Maori Affairs of June 1976 recommended a 50% increase. This was described as 'of course, a more or less arbitrary figure, but that is the usual rule in

Maori claims settlements. ,1.55 A later report of July 1976 on the other hand criticised the proposed $10 million put forward by

152 letter from New Plymouth LEe to Maori Affairs 28 October 1975 in MA 26/5 pt 7 copy in document bank attached p 248

153 notes for meeting of 9 June 1976 dated 8 June 1976 inMA 26/5 pt 8 see document bank pp 458-9

154 for example see letter from Love to Minister 12 December 1977 in MA 26/5 pt 8 see document bank pp 438-440

15S report from Maori Affairs to Minister 24 June 1976 in MA 26/5 pt 8 see document bank pp 454-456 84 claimants as not able to be 'supported--by any logical mathematics.' This report also alleged that the claimants now 'repudiated' the 1944 agreement. The implication was that this was a new 'move although claimants had always made it clear that the agreement had been accepted without prejudice to efforts to ( improve the compensation. The report admitted that the previous government had accepted to some degree this rejection of the previous settlement and had substantially agreed to the park proposals since they offered' a chance of administrative tidying

up of certain aspects of the National Park situation.' ~56

The Minister of Maori Affairs reported to a Cabinet meeting of ) 12 July 1976 that he had decided to take no action on the Taranaki petition. ~57 He did however recommend to the Cabinet Committee on Expenditure that the grants of certain Trust Boards

be increased by 50% ~58 He described the increase as ' ... more or less arbitrary ••• to give' some comJ?ensation for inflation.' The increased payments were recommended to begin in the 1977/78 year. ,At the same time as these developments were taking place the Minister continued to assure Ngatata Love and his panel that negotiations on the confiscation issues were being kept open.~59

Under s 8 of the Maori Purposes Act 1977 the annual grant to the Taranaki Maori Trust Board was increased'to $15,000 as from 1 April 1977 .~60 In May 1977 the Taranaki Maori Trust Board " accepted the increased payment with thanks but advised the Minister that it was accepted without prejudice to further

156 report for Minister of 7 July 1976 in MA 26/5 pt 8, see " document bank pp 4~9-452

157 report in Cabinet minute CM 76/28/65 copy in MA 26/5 pt , 8," see document bank p 447

.~. -' .

, 159 for example see telegram from Minister to Love of ',November 1976 in MA 26/5 pt 8, see document bank p 442

160 Maori purposes,Act 1977 see document bank pp 594-595 85 <) efforts in the same way as the original "grant had been accepted. 161 In continued correspondence with the Minister, the Nga Muru Raupatu panel also mentioned the 'token' increase while reminding the government of the two main issues still outstanding, the return of and fair compensation. 162 In spite of periodic meetings and continued. correspondence the negotiating panel was clearly becoming frustrated by the lack of real progress. By late 1977 Love was asking the Minister whether constitutional action was achieving very much and warned that the people would resort to more militant means if the government failed to take the matter seriously.163

In early september 1977 the Minister of Lands introduced the National Parks Amendment Bil1. 164 He explained that the prime purpose of the Bill was to reconstitute the Egmont National Park Board on the expiry of its term of appointment on 31 March 1978. ~ ~ ~~ The previous system of administration of the Board was no longer appropriate and required improvement. The proposals for the new Board were to have a membership consisting of the Commissioner of Crown Lands for Taranaki, two persons appointed by the M:lnister on the recommendation of the Taranaki Local Bodies Association, one person on the joint recommendation of the Federated Mountain Clubs and the Ski Association and five members on the recommendation of the National Parks Authority. The ). proposals were strongly criticised by the Labour opposition, particularly the Maori members. Mr Rata criticised government arrogance in failing to have Taranaki Maori representatives on the Board as of right. He also criticised the government for

161 letter from Trust Board to Minister 6 May 1977 in MA 26/5 pt 8, see document bank pp 422-423

162 see letters of 21 April and 18 May 1977 in MA 26/5 pt 8 (document bank pp 428-9 and 426)

163 letter from Love to Minister 8 August 1977 in MA 26/5 pt 8, document bank pp 419-420

164 NZPD 1977 v 413 pp 2672-2684, see attached document bank pp 531-543 86

.oJ"'."'. failing to take the opportunity to change· th.e name of the mountain to Taranaki and for failing to consult with Taranaki Maori and their Trust Board before the Bill was introduced. Mr Reweti and Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan also pointed out that the skiers and trampers had special recognition in the proposed Bill but not' the original Maori owners who had a special relationship with the area. They also strongly supported a name change. other opposition members also strongly criticised the proposals and accused the government of racism on the issue. There were also calls to have the matter put before a select committee.

In late September 1977 the Nga Muru Raupatu panel presented I, another submission to the Minister at a meeting with the Trust Board. The Minister responded that the matter of the mountain's name had become a major political issue in 1975 and as a result Pakeha attitudes had hardened against Maori claims. He had been able to get increases in the payments to certain Trust Boards but could not convince caucus that the Taranaki Trust Board should be represented on the Egmont National Park Board. He suggested that the Trust Board appear before the select committee set up to consider the Bill to request representation. He also warned that they should keep the matter low key and any demands for compensation or name changes would jeopardise their whole

case.~65 In October 1977 the Trust Board did make submissions to the select committee on the National Parks Amendment Bill asking that the 1975 agreements with Lands and Survey be given effect to. ~66 This earlier agreement had of course included the name change as well as representation. The National Parks Amendment Act 1977 came into force on 11 October 1978 and under s 17 (d) one of the appointees was to be appointed by the Minister on the

~65 Maori Affairs notes of meeting of 29 September 1977 in MA 26/5 pt 8, see attached document bank p 413

~66 submission to select committee on National Parks Amendment Bill, MA 26/5 pt 8, see attached document bank pp 406- 409 87 ') .. ,,' recommendation of the Taranaki Maori TrustBoard~i67

The thinking of government members and officials at this time is summarised in some background notes to the Taranaki claim. These notes again allege that it was not untiL 1975 that a delegation 'totally repudiated' the earlier settlement. The notes claim that the main basis for the recent increase in payments was 'to allow for inflation over the years' and it was felt that a reversion to the name Taranaki was still not politically possible. However local bodies had expressed rna jority support for the propos a 1 regarding the vesting and gifting of the mountain and this could be proceeded with as a 'relatively costless but intensely / \ significant exercise'. On the question of the $10 million there would be no compromise. The acceptance of the earlier settlement must be regarded as 'confirming and acquiescing in that agreement' and although the payment had lost value through inflation the 50% increase met this point .168

These notes pointed the way for what was to come later. They reveal widely different interpretations between the claimants and government. The government appears to have dismissed claimant contention that payments were accepted without prejudice, including the most recent letter from the Trust Board to this effect. Acceptance of the payments was regarded as evidence of agreement to a full and final settlement whatever the claimants had said. What had'originally been quite clearly an arbitrary 50% increase was now coming to be regarded as real compensation for loss through inflation and it was intended to only honour part of the deal concerning the mountain. Al though the mountain proposal was originally a package that included the revesting of the mountain and its gifting back in return for a name change and representatives on the park board, only those parts of the deal

167 National Parks Amendment Act 1977 copy in attached document bank pp 586-593 168 background notes to Taranaki claim undated and unsour'ced, from Maori Affairs? in MA 26/5 pt 8 I copy in document bank attached pp 410-411 88

that required no political or economic loss to the government were to be enacted.

Soon afterwards the Minister of Maori Affairs recommended that Cabinet approve the proposal to symbolically return Taranaki (Mt Egmont) to the Taranaki Maoris. The mountain was to be returned to the Taranaki Maori Trust Board on behalf of all the people of Taranaki and immediately returned as a gift to the Crown as a National Park for the people of New Zealand. In traversing the history of the claim the Minister repeated the same version of events as in the earlier notes. He alleged that the 1928 award had been repudiated in 1975 when a request was made for $10 million cash, the return of Mt Egmont on the terms now proposed and the reversion of the name to Taranaki. The annual grant had been increased by 50% from the beginning of the 1977/78 financial year ' ••• mainly on the basis of allowing for inflation over the ~~ years.' While various local bodies agreed to the proposed name .. change it was not politically possible at present. The $10 million requested might not have the universal support of the Taranaki people and the request was anyway undercut by the acceptance of the annual payments including the recent increase. The Minister recommended the symbolic return of the Mountain to the Trust Board on behalf of the Maori tribes concerned, followed by its immediate gifting back to the nation and the preparation ./ of special legislation to enable this to proceed. 1.69 The Cabinet approved the proposal on 22 May 1978.1.70 The Mount Egmont vesting Bill was then introduced into parliament on 23 June 1978.

The proposed Mt Egmont Vesting Bill was still far from satisfactory as far as claimants were concerned. Only those matters from the original proposal that involved no cost, inconvenience or political fallout were supported by the government. When the Mt Egmont Vesting Bill was introduced to the

1.69 undated memo for Cabinet from Minister of Maori Affairs in MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank attached pp 401-402

1.70 copy of cabinet minute CM 78/19/7 on MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank attached p 400 89 j) House, the Minister of Lands described the purpose was to symbolically transfer the park land to the Taranaki Maori Trust Board representing the Maori Tribes of Taranaki who then wish to

gift the mountain to the people of New Zealand. 1.71. Mr Wetere welcomed the Bill but asked what consultations had been held with Taranaki Maori on it and asked about the name change for the mountain. Mr Rata welcomed and supported the Bill as far as it went, but Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan was more cautious. She pointed out the recent events at Bastion Point and asked whether the timing of the Bill was not more to placate Taranaki Maori in the light of this. The Minister seemed to have had a great change of heart from when the National Parks Amendment Bill was introduced and provision made for Maori representation only after strong criticism from Members. She also pointed out that there was a certain indecent haste in the manner in which the mountain was vested in the Board and then in the next clause immediately withdrawn and made a National Park. She asked whether it would not have been better to have left it to the dignity and authority

of the Maori Elders to hand back. 1.72

The Nga Muru Raupatu panel made a final effort to rectify matters in SUbmissions on the Bill to little avail. Ngatata Love of the panel made a submission on behalf of the Trust Board in 1978.:l73 While he accepted that the Bill went some way towards achieving .. justice he was concerned with the use of the term 'symbolic' return and he still wanted a name change to Taranaki. The Bill became law as the Mt Egmont Vesting Act 1978 still without the name change.

It soon became clear that the negotiations over the return and subsequent gifting of the mountain had caused deep concern among

171 NZPD 1.978 v· 418 pp 1219-1223, copy in document bank . attached pp 544-548

1.72 NZPD 1978 v 418 P 1221, copy in document bank p 546

173 submission to the Lands and Agriculture Select Committee regarding the Mount Egmont Vesting Bill by the Taranaki Trust . Board in MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank pp 393-5 90

) sections of Taranaki Maori. In June 1979 .at a"ceremony to mark the handover of the mountain, the Taranaki Herald reported strong expressions of concern and criticism of the Act and the way the whole process had been conducted. ~74 There was strong criticism of the Trust Board and its role in the deal and also criticism of the government for passing the legisiation without directly consulting Taranaki iwi. The government's readiness to use the Trust Board in place of direct consultation was once again raised as an issue.

The Nga Muru Raupatu panel continued with efforts to complete the rest 'of the claim mainly the amount of compensation paid for the ) confiscation. The panel asked the new Minister Couch to reestablish a negotiating committee to allow the matter to progress. The claim. was for a capital sum of $10,085,550 and was based on the average value of the land confiscated. The claim was reported on by officials from the departments of Lands and Survey and Maori Affairs. The report advised the government how the sum was reached including sums in compensation for forced sales and suggested alternative strategies for negotiation.~75 In response however the Cabinet meeting of 18 June 1979 agreed that the Taranaki Claims Settlement Act 1944 was in 'full and final settlement of the Taranaki Maoris' claim to compensation in respect of the confiscation and purchase of their land by the ( ) Crown and that there is no obligation on the Government to recognise a further claim.,n6 The Sim commission of course had not even considered wrongful purchase.

In late 1979 parliament also received a petition from TitiTihu and others on behalf of the eight tribes of Taranaki, complaining

~74 copy of extract from Taranaki Herald 25 June 1979 in MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank attached p 369

~75 memo for Minister of Lands 5 June 1979 from Maori Affairs and Lands and Survey in MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank pp 375-378

~76 copy of C~binet minute CM 79/22/11 on MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank p 373 91 ,D that the Mt Egmont Vesting Act had been·· made· without the agreement of the tribes who made up the original owners but had been made instead with the Taranaki Maori Trust Board. They wanted the mountain vested in the tribes not in the Trust Board and wanted it made a reserve with representatives from each tribe on a board of Trustees. 3..77 Al though the select committee considering the petition showed some concern over whether there had been adequate consultation concerning the vesting of the mountain, it appeared to be reluctant to recommend favourable consideration.p&rticularly as the vesting had been so recent.1.78

At the same time government members were apparently becoming ) concerned about the growing level of discontent in Taranaki with the Cabinet· decision that the 1944 Act should stand as full and final settlement. In 1979 the Minister of Maori Affairs warned his colleague the Minister of Lands that there was likely to be . increasing signs of displeasure from Taranaki Maori. As evidence he pointed to recent opposition from respected Maori in the district to the sale of some Crown land that had been originally confiscated and could be used for future compensation. 1.79 In October 1979, possibly as a result of this concern, the government agreed to reestablish a negotiating committee for the claim. In November 1979 the new Mlnister Couch also suggested that someone be appointed to look closely into details of the . ( ) claim in close conjunction with the panel. This seems to have been the beginning of moves resulting in the Bentinck Stokes report.3..80

1.77 copy of petition from Titi Tihu on MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank p 356 1.78 Maori Affairs notes of hearing of select committee into petition of Titi Tihu held on 18 June 1980 in MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank p 355

. 3..79 letter from Minister of Maori Affairs to Minister of .. Lands 21 September 1979 in MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank p 367 '. 1.80 see letter of 14 November 1979 from Couch to Love and annotations re Bentinck stokes in MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank p354. Bentinck stokes report in Wai 143 A26. 92

The Maori Affairs office solicitor commented on the Bentinck Stokes report that if, as the report maintained, the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 was unlawful, then a new inquiry would be required as .the 1928 commission had been restricted from investigating this issue. ~8~ However little seemed to happen as a result of this.

The government also refused to move on the issue of a definite name change for the mountain. As it had promised the Taranaki people, the Trust Board continued to take the issue before the government. For example, in June 1983 it again approached the Minister of Lands for a name change.u2 Minister Elworthy told the Board he was personally in favour of a change but deflected the issue again by asking if the Board had c9nsulted local bodies on the issue. The Minister also consulted the Minister of Maori Affairs, the New Zealand Maori Council and the Geographic Board ;?~ on the proposal. Later in 1983 in response to accusations that it had originally agreed to the name change as part of the deal, the Government denied this but accepted that Taranaki Maori reserved the right to go on pressing for a change. Apparently the matter has rested with a Geographic Board recommendation that either Egmont or Taranaki be regarded as the official name of the mountain.

The Taranaki claimants continued to press for a name change for the mountain and for fair compensation. other issues such as pollution of food resources and exploitation of petroleum Nere also becoming major areas of concern by this time as developments occurred in these areas. The Waitangi Tribunal was established by Minister Rata in 1975 but at first was limited to examining cases after 1975. Nevertheless Taranaki claimants did manage to bring claims for present day breaches of the Treaty, for example

. ..1.81 report of Maori Affairs office solicitor on the Bentinck Stokes report, undated, 'in MA 26/5 pt 8, copy in document bank pp 339-343 ',:~::i82 letter from Trust Board to Minister of Limds 2 June 1983 {n.MA 26/5 .pt 8, copy in document bank p 346 ., '. 93 ) the Motonui claim was reported on in 1983(Wai-6)~ In 1985 the Tribunal was empowered to investigate claims dating back to 1840 and this brought the opportunity of a reinvestigation of the whole Taranaki muru raupatu claim. Claims from the Trust Board and Taranaki iwi were received by the Tribunal from 1987 and the first hearing on the claims began in 1990. 94

,) Chapter 6

A brief history of the establishment of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board, and the legislation and regulations it operates under.

Many of the details of the establishment of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board have been covered in previous chapters. In brief, the proposal for a Taranaki Maori Trust Board began with the Sim report. The report recommended that the payments awarded for the wrongs be , .... applied by a Board for the benefit of the Natives

, of the tr ibes whose 1 ands were conf i scated' U3 • The recommendation was very general. The report did not specify who these tribes were, how the money was to be administered or how the benefit of the Natives might be achieved. Nor was there any direction on the structure of the Board. These matters were presumably left for agreement between iwi and the Crown. As already noted, the commission did however favour a system similar ~ to th~ Arawa and Tuwharetoa Trust Boards and their legislative provisions were followed to some extent in the provisions concerning confiscation settlements in the 1928 Act.

Th~ Arawa Trust Board for example, was established under the 1922 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act.1.84 section 27 ( 4 ) of this act enabled the Governor General to '{ appoint members and to make regulations concerning membership, the administration of funds and the internal administration of the Board. Subject to the regulations, the Board could determine what would be the proper object of its funding and with the consent of the Native Minister could take out loans and mortgages and own land and buildings.

The government was encouraged to legislate for this type of approach with the confiscation settlements, for example by the

1.83 Sim commission report in RDB v 48 P 18534

1.84 1922 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, copy in document bank attached pp 549-50 95 ~) Maori Members in 1928. They described the Ar.awa· funds as being , .•• in fact special contributions from the Consolidated Fund towards education, health, farming and other public purposes,

and... not for the benefit of individual members ... ,~BS The Members wanted similar Boards created to administer compensation funds for upcoming settlements. Claimants also-found this type of administration preferable in that it allowed some measure of self management in the way the funds were administered. There was also the possibility of utilising funding for development in areas such as farming and acquiring land and this was strongly supported by-Ngata as fitting into the land development schemes he was introducing in the early 1930s.

The confiscation claim provisions of the 1928 legislation were developed under Ngata's guidance. They allowed for the creation of similar Trust Boards to Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa once agreement had been· reach.ed on the level of compensation. When Cabinet ~. agreed to implement the major Taranaki award in 1930 it was on the basis of the Sim recommendations including the creation of

a Trust Board to administer the payments. ~B6 Al though it was

assumed that new legislation might be _:t:'~qllired for such settlements, in the case of Taranaki the new Trust Board was originally established under the provisions of the 1928 Act.

( As previously described, once the 1928 legislation was passed, \ Ngata and Pomare took the proposal for compensation to the Taranaki people at a hui in May 1929. This was where claimant agreement to the proposals was obtained and claimant conditions and understandings of the terms to be agreed were discussed. According to newspaper reports, a proposed working plan for a Trust Board was accepted by the majority of this meeting.

us memo of 10 September 1928 from Maori MPs to Prime Minister in T 52/587 in ROB v 137 pp 52869-70

~86 The Cabinet agreement was based on a memo submitted by Ngata of 16 August 1930 which included the recommendation for a Trust Board in T52/587 in ROB v 137 pp 52801-2 96 Cabinet approved the interim implementation of the major Taranaki award of £5000 a year in perpetuity only under strong political and personal pressure from Ngata. The Taranaki Maori Trust Board was eventually constituted on 22 September 1930 by order in council under the 1928 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act. ~87 The order in council also stipulated that the Board would consist of 5 members. This was in accord with the agreement at the 1929 waitara hui. The members were the four proposed at the hui and Hapi Love in place of the late Sir Maui Pomare.

) The Taranaki Maori Trust Board was therefore originally established under the 1928 Act and at first had only five members. Since then the membership has increased to eight and there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the powers and operations of the Board. The major legislation governing the operation of the Board has been the 1931 Maori Purposes Act, the 1944 Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act and the 1955 Maori Trust Boards Act and their amendments. The Taranaki Maori Trust Board was also subject to the 1931 Taranaki Maori Trust Board regulations and amendments and the 1955, 1960 and 1985 Maori Trust Board regulations and amendments. In addi tion to this, governments have used various legislation,

particularly the ~aori Purposes Acts to make numerous amendments ( to the powers and operations of the Taranaki and other Maori Trust Boards. Many of these have concerned relatively minor housekeeping matters such as changes in the levels of fees, improvements in accounting procedures, or the removal of anomalies. others appear to have had more signif icance in affecting the powers and operations of the Board and are covered briefly in this report. copies of the major legislation and regulations are attached to this report.

As already noted, the 1928 provisions regarding the

~87 Order in council dated 22 September 1930 in New Zealand Gazette of 25 September 1930, P 2833, copy in document bank attached p 476. ,) 97 administration of confiscation compensation '-were similar in intent to those governing the earlier Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa

bOqrds .1.88 section 20 (3) of the ~928 Act enabled the Governor General to constitute boards of management to administer agreed awards for the settlement of confiscation claims. The Boards ,-,ere bodies corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and in general they could do all the things a body corporate could do. The Governor General was to appoint members and make regulations concerning membership, the term of office, the administration of funds of the Board and the internal "administration of the Boards. The Boards were to administer funds

( for general purposes as set out in the order in council .. establishing them or any subsequent amendments to it and subject to such general purposes the Boards could finally determine what would be a proper object for payment out'of their funds. The Boards could 'also borrow money under certain conditions.

The ~928 legislation also spelled out the scope of possible activities of Boards in more detail than had been done previously. Under section 20(3)a the Boards could buy and sell property, erect maintain and improve buildings, farm or otherwise administer land owned, lend money to Natives and others, invest , money under certain conditions and act as a guarantor for Natives or their descendants. Expenses of the Boards and their members were to be paid out of the money payable to them. Although the emphasis was again on welfare activities the act still alloNed some possibility of the Board initiating development in farning, the acquisition of land and investment. The Trust Board was also free to determine the use of payments made to it with i n the general guidelines laid down by the government.

Ngata convened the first meeting of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board. It was held in his office at parliament buildings in

1.88 1928 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, section 20. Copy in document bank attached pp '551-:-554. 98

:V Wellington on 20-21 November 1930. U9 Rangihuna- Pire was elected as the Board's first chairman. The main purpose of the meeting was to draft regulations for the Board. These regulations were later gazetted by order in council dated 11 May 1931. 190

The regulations dealt with membership, meetings, the Board's seal, officers, accounts, the administration of funds and general matters. The Governor General appointed members for terms of three years and could remove them if they did not perform satisfactorily. Membership of the Board was increased to six, belonging to one or more of the four tribes of Ngati Ngarauru, Ngati Ruanui, Taranaki and Te Atiawa. The regulations did not specify how these members were to be selected. Under general matters (clauses 30-32 of the regulations) the Board was required to inform the Under secretary of Maori Affairs of the particulars concerned with any borrowing, it was to administer all funds for the benefit of the four tribes mentioned and within the limits of the regulations the Board could finally determine what to • ">, spend funds on. If any question arose about the expend1ture of funds, any aggrieved person could take the matter to the Native Minister who would decide the issue.

The regulations imposed strict controls on the administration and accounting of funds. Clauses 21-29 for example, included provisions stipulating the bank, branch and account name into, ( ) which all monies had to be paid. All money paid out of the account was to be by cheque signed by two members of the Board and countersigned by a public servant appointed by the Minister. Specific fees were set for attendance and travel to Board meetings and strict provisions were made for the keeping and

.189 Minutes of first meeting of Taranaki Maori Trust Board held at parliament buildings wellington, 20-21 November 1930. MAl, 26/5/6 pt 1, copy in document bank attached pp 158-169. ;f!lffillt. II. 1.90 Regulations of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board published by order in council dated'11 May 1931 in the NZ Gazette of 21 May 1931 pp 1543-4, copy in document bank attached pp 477-8. The draft regulations are included in the minutes of the first meeting. 99 ) auditing of accounts. Although the procedures- were strict, the Trust Board was still relatively free to decide what funds would be spent on. For example, the first countersigning officer was directed to ensure procedures were properly followed but told he did not have to enquire too closely as to the nature of the payments. ~9~ Al though Ngata expressed himself personally in favour of the self management features of the Board, the regulations also gave the Native Minister considerable powers in the Board's affairs.

The 1931 Native Purposes Act replaced the 1928 Act.~92 The provisions concerning the confiscation settlements however, now under section 49, were essentially the same as in the 1928 Act. ·The only addition was section 49 (5) where the Taranaki Maori Trust Board was deemed a Board of Management constituted under and subject to the provisions of section 49.

In the next few years there were some relatively minor legislative changes to the powers of the Board in subsequent Maori Purposes Acts and in four regulatory amendments in 1931, 1934 and 1937 .~93 The regulatory amendments were also relatively minor. They were concerned with fees for members and the countersigning officer and changes to procedures for preparing and submitting balance sheets.

The next major legislative development was the 1944 Taranaki

Maori Claims settlement Act. ~94 This act replaced the relevant

~9~ Instructions to countersigning off icer 21 May 1931 reported in memo of 1 September 1948 in MA 26/5/3, copy in document bank attached p 152-3.

~92 Native Purposes Act 1931, copy in document bank attached pp 555-557.

~93 Amendments to the 1931 Maori Trust Board regulations; 1931/2 (pp 479-80) 1934/76 (p 482) 1934/85 (p 483) and 1937/179 (p 600 of document bank attached)

~94 1944 Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act, copy in document bank attached pp 558-559. 100

provisions of the 1928 and 1931 legislation.-The 1944 Act was very short and in summary it regularised and made statutory the awards recommended in the Sim report for Taranaki. It confirmed the annual payment of £5000 and added the one off payment of £300 for Parihaka, to be administered by the Taranaki Maori Trust Board. Apart from the implementation of the Parihaka payment, the essential difference was that it declared the provisions of the Act to be in full settlement of all claims and demands arising from the conf iscation of lands in Taranaki and the loss and destruction of goods and chattels owned by the Maori of Parihaka. The introduction to the Act also declared that it was to effect a final settlement of these claims. This confirmed an official ( ) policy of rejecting further consideration of the claims on the grounds that all claims arising out of the Taranaki confiscations had now been fully and finally settled.

The issue of iwi representation on the Trust Board became a cause of major contention from the late 1930s. In the 1940s the northern tribes petitioned for an extra member. In the early

1950s th~ Minister of Maori Affairs, Corbett, attended a series of meetings and representations on the issue. The northern tribes tended to support an extra member while the southern tribes were opposed. For a while Corbett seems to have considered a membership of nine with Taranaki and Ngati Ruanui having an extra member each.l.9S However he eventually decided that the membership of the Board-should be increased to seven. In 1952 the Taranaki Maori Trust Board regulations were amended in accordance wi th this. l.96 The amended. regulation was worded to allow three members for the Atiawa, Ngati Tama, Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Haru tribes; two for Ngati Ruanui and Ngaruahine, and one each for

l.9S see extract from letter 21 August 1950 Corbett to Raumati in MA 26/5 pt 5. (copy in document bank attached p 186) suggested a member each-for Ngati Ruanui, Ngarauru, Taranaki, Te Atiawa, Ngati Tama, Ngati Maru and Ngati Mutunga. Ngati Ruanui and Taranaki to have an _extra member each in view of the more valuable land they lost.

l.96 S.R. 1952/132 amendment no 5 to 1931 Taranaki Maori Trust Board regulations, copy in document bank attached p 601. 101 Taranaki and Ngar"auru. There was a continuing dispute over this and other legal difficulties became clear with the wording of the regulation. It was found that the .three representatives for Te Atiawa, Ngati Tama, Ngati Maru and Ngati Mutunga had to be elected by the whole of the combined electors of the four tribes. As the largest tribe, Te Atiawa could have in theory selected all three representatives to the exclusion of the others. A similar problem existed for Ngati Ruanui and Ngaruahine. Instead there was a clear wish for representatives to be elected

separately. 197 The regulations were amended again in 1960 to

correct this .198 The new regulations provided for one member each to represent Taranaki, Ngarauru, Ngati Ruanui, Ngaruahine, Atiawa and Mutunga; as well as one member for both Ngati Tama and Ngati Maru.

In 1955 the Maori Trust Boards Act was passed. 199 The preamble describes it as an Act to make better provision for the administration of certain Maori Trust Boards. section nine of the Act referred to the Taranaki Maori Trust Board. Section 9(1) provided that the Taranaki Maori Trust Board constituted under s 49 of Maori Purposes Act 1931 was to continue to exist under that name and to be a Maori Trust Board for the purposes of the Act. section 9 (2) confirmed the statutory payment of £5000 per year and 9 (3) declared the beneficiaries of the Board to be members of the eight tribes of Atiawa, Ngati Tama, Ngati Mutunga, Ngati Maru, Ngati Ruanui, Ngaruahine, Taranaki and Ngarauru tribes and their descendants.

Part 2 of the 1955 Act contained general provisions relating to Maori Trust Boards. The Boards were confirmed as bodies corporate with all the rights and obligations of corporate bodies. The

197 letter from Trust Board to Minister Nash 12 February 1959 in MA 26/5'pt 6, copy in document bank attached pp 239-240

;;11 198 S.R. 1960/82 amendment no 6 to Taranaki Maori Trust Board regulations 1931, copy in document bank attached pp 602-3.

199 Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, copy in document bank attached pp 560-585. 102

provisions regarding membership included the term of office of members, qualifications for membership, appointment by the Governor General and the number of members as prescr ibed by regulations. The Act also introduced provisions for the election of members by beneficiaries. There wer~ also sections on the internal administration of the Boards including their officers and committees, the holding of meetings and the appointment of chairmen and their deputies.

Part 2 also included provisions on the functions and powers of the Boards. Under section 24 the Boards' functions were to administer their assets in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the general benefit of their beneficiaries and they could at their discretion provide for the advancement in life of any specific beneficiary or class or classes of beneficiaries.

The general purposes for which the funds could be applied were ~ (a) the promotion of health, (b) the promotion of social and economic welfare (c) the promotion of education and vocational training and (d) such other purposes as the Boards might determine. Under the first three headings the ways the Boards could become involved were specified in sOme detail. For example under health, the Boards. could assist with or provide water supplies , sanitation works and drainage in Maori settlements, and provide or assist with housing schemes· and with medical and dental services.

The Boards were not prevented from applying money for the general .benefit of a group or class of persons even if that group included persons other than beneficiaries as long as no grant or loan was made to the exclusive benefit of an individual ~ho was not a beneficiary.

There were also provisions for loans by Boards (s25), power to d~1 acquire lands and to farm (s26), and to borrow money and guarantee loans with the prior consent of the Minister (s 27). The provisions for accounts imposed strict limitations on the Boards. 103

For example, under section 32, each Board-had· to submit a proposed statement of estimated receipts and proposed payments for the following year for the Minister's approval. No Board could pay in excess of £100 for any purpose without the approval of the Minister unless it had already been approved in the statement submitted and no Board could without prior approval make aggregate payments exceeding by more than 10% the aggregate of payments provided for in the statement and approved.

Under miscellaneous provisions, the Minister could for example direct an investigation of the Board's affairs (S33). In this the

( ) Minister had the power to have any members of the Board removed, to end the employment of any of its officers and to require the Board to exercise any power or undertake any action within its legal powers. Other miscellaneous sections included provisions

regarding the Boards' seals, contracts I interests in assets, liabili ty of members, mortgages and fees and expenses. The payments to the Boards were also declared not to be considered income for tax purposes.

Part 3 ~f the 19~5 Act contained detailed provisions for the elections of members by beneficiaries and part 4 contained provisions regarding regulations under the Act.

) The main features of the 1955 Act were the formalisation of many of the processes and structures of the Boards including the introduction of formal elections of members. There was a much more detailed description of the Boards' functions and powers, increased control of Board accounts and use of funds and an increase in the powers of the Minister in the affairs of the . Boards.

The 1955 Act has continued to be the basic legislation under which the Maori Trust Boards operate and in the case of Taranaki it confirms the terms of the 1944 Settlement Act. Since 1955 there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the powers of the Boards but nothing fundamental to the Act 104 although there has been increasing control overBoard acti vi ties.

Subsequent changes have been made through a variety of legislation but the most common method has been through amendments to the 1955 Act and amendments and the various Maori Purposes Acts. Many of the changes have been of a relatively minor nature. For example the Maori Purposes Act 1957 increased £25'fees to £100, the Maori Purposes Act 1968 inserted a section on the payment of gratuities to Board employees on retirement or death and made amendments concerning the financial year of the Boards. The Maori Purposes Act 1978 also made amendments regarding the countersigning officers used by the Boards and a 1983 amendment concerned the qualifications for nomination to the Boards. other legislation also at times affected the Boards. For example, the 1964 Decimal Currency Act converted pounds to dollar values, whereby £100 was converted to $200.

~ In addition ,to these more routine matters, some legislative and regulatory changes appear to have been more significant in their impact on the Board. Most of the legislative changes are

described' in the 1955 reprinted Act. 200 A brief summary is outlined below and some of what appear to be the major implications 'are discussed more fully in the following chapter.

The Boards spent some time trying to ensure that their income would not be taxed. They argued that this had not been anticipated in negotiations and was against the spirit of the settlements. The 1955 Act provided that the Boards did not pay tax on funds paid to them by the government put was not so clear on other sources of funds and a number of legislative changes were made concerning this. The 1957 Maori Purposes Act confirmed that payments by the Crown to Maori Trust Boards were not to constitute income for tax purposes. The 1962 Maori Trust Boards Amendment Act had provision under section 3 to enable Boards to

200 Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, reprint with amendments up to 1991, vol 8 of reprints, copy in document bank attached pp 560-585. 1 105 ) execute trusts for charitable purposes. The income of such trusts established with the approval of Inland Revenue was not taxed. Provisions of a similar effect were maintained in the Income Tax Act 1976. Under the 1971 Maori purposes Act further provisions were made allowing Boards to accept Trusts for beneficiaries and such trusts were not considered to be part of the assets of the Board for tax.

other changes concerned areas considered sui table for Boards funding. The 1961 Maori Purposes Act for example allowed the Boards to make grants to the Maori Education Foundation. The Boards were also allowed to make grants to a certain level in any year for purposes not otherwise specified in the Act whether or not these were of benefit to the beneficiaries, and to make trustee investments.

Several legislative changes were made concerning the activities of Boards. The 1961 Native Purposes Act made further provision for the Board's administration of land including the use of the . Marginal ,Lands Board as an agent. Uneconomic land could be vested in a Trust Board under the 1962 Act for educational purposes and the 1971 Maori Purposes Act allowed the Boards to hold and deal in shares of any body corporate that had one of its main objectives the economic or social advancement of Maori or ;) development of land. A 1988 amendment provided more details on possible Board involvement in government schemes concerning for example, education, housing, health and economic development.

When further disputes arose over elections of members several changes were made to the election procedures. The 1962 Maori Trust Boards Amendment Act for example, included further procedures concerning the election of members.

The 1977 Maori Purposes Act increased the annual payments to the

20 Taranaki Trust Board from $10,000 to $15,000. ], The 1977

20], Maori purposes Act 1977, copy in document bank attached pp 594-595. , 106 \ ) National Parks Amendment Act s2.17(d) allowed_for one person to be appointed to the Egmont Park Board by the Minister on the advice of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board. 202 The 197.8 Mt Egmont vesting Act enabled the mountain and confiscated part of the park to be vested in the Trust Board on behalf of the Taranaki tribes and the immediate return to the Crown as a gift to the nation. m3 In 1988 an amendment also provided for a council of elders and a council of young people to advise the Boards.

The Minister also retained and increased power with respect to the Boards. A 1989 amendment enabled the Minister on investigation of Board activities, to give notice to a Board'of 1 the suspension of payments of public money to it for a specified period. While under such notice no public money is to be paid to the Board. Most of the operations that were declared suitable for Boards also contained the proviso of Ministerial consent.

~ The first regulations made under the 1955 Act were the Maori Trust Board Regulations 1960 and amendments. 204 As the 1955 Act covered all the Boards, many of the subsequent amendments and regulations made under it have been specific to Boards other than Taranaki or have been of a housekeeping nature tidying up general provisions and making them consistent for all the Boards, for example those concerning election procedures. Therefore all the amendments have not been covered here. However the major amendment to the 1960 regulations of concern to Taranaki was the increase to eight members of the Board in 1969. 205 This gave Ngati Tama and Ngati Maru one member each.

202 National Parks Amendment Act 1977 copy in document bank pp 586-593

203 Mt Egmont vesting Act 1978, copy in document bank attached pp 596-599 •

. fl( :i: 204 S.R. 1960/103 Maori Trust Board Regulations 1960, copy in document bank attached pp 604-616.

205 S.R. 1969/102 Maori Trust Board regulation 1960 amendment no 3, copy in document bank attached pp 617-619. 107 L) In 1985 the Maori Trust Board Regulations 1985 were published,

again under the 1955 Act. 206 In addition two Taranaki Maori Trust Board orders have been published in 1987 and 1990 concerning the remedying of problems wi th the elections of members. 207 The membership of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board was confirmed at eight in 1985 and since then no major changes have been made concerning the Taranaki Board.

206 S .R. 1985/258 Maori Trust Board regulations 1985, copy in document bank attached pp 620-627.

207 Taranaki Maori Trust Board Orders 1987/360 and 1990/316, copies in ,document bank attached pp 628-9 and 630-1. I! 108 ) Chapter 7

The impact of the legislation and regulations governing the Taranaki Maori Trust Board on the spirit and terms of the settlement with the Crown.

As noted in previous chapters, the settlement between Taranaki iwi and the Crown was agreed in 1929-30 and again the subject of legislation in 1944. Since 1929-30 there have been a number of regulatory and legislative developments concerned with the settlement and in particular the body created to administer it, the Taranaki Maori Trust Board. There has been broad agreement between Crown and iwi on some aspects of what the settlement involved but in other important areas there has been a history of widely divergent views.

Some aspects of the settlement have never been disputed. It has

been generally recognised by all par~ies that the essential feature of the settlement was the Crown agreement to pay annual compensation of £5000 to the Taranaki Maori Trust Board in a spirit of atonement and reconciliation for the wrong done by the confiscations and in 1944 an additional £300 for the wrong of the damage done in the raid on Parihaka. The amount of compensation reflected the Sim commission recommendations for the wrong done. () This was made clear in parliament in 1928 and reaffirmed in 1944. It was not intended to be full compensation for losses suffered or even a means of achieving significant economic reconstruction of iwi damaged by the confiscations. It was not based on the value of land lost and it did not address the issues of lost resources, loss of wahi tapu or the loss of economic development opportunities. The sum was always acknowledged as nominal. It was also to be perpetual in perpetual acknowledgement of the wrong.

The settlement was also made in a spirit of consultation and partnership· between Crown and Iwi even if· it did have some limitations. The proposed settlement was taken direct to iwi for their agreement at the 1929 hui. The original 1928 legislation 109 ii::) under which the Trust Board was created·· provided for some consultation between the Crown and Taranaki iwi in deciding on the proposals for implementing the compensation awards. section 20 of the Act allowed for the implementation of the awards as recommended by Sim, or any modification of them. It was assumed that the Native Minister would at first obtain claimant agreement and a certificate was required to this effect. This procedure made iwi agreement to the proposal crucial and allowed for some modification by either party of the Sim awards. The 1929 meeting where Ngata and Pomare took the proposed awards to the people, also allowed direct iwi participation in the process. The 1930 Cabinet decision to implement the major award was based on Ngata's assurances that the majority of Taranaki claimants had accepted the proposals in 1929.

The compensation was also to be administered by a Trust Board controlled by iwi. within certain legislative and regulatory ~ .. guidelines iwi were free to determine how the compensation would be administered. It was hoped this would follow the pattern of the Arawa settlement which gave more autonomy and status to iwi than had been the case in more tradi tional types of claim settlement. This whole process at the time seemed to be a step forward in terms of consultation and partnership between Crown and iwi. However it was of course constrained by the attitudes of the time. It was not directly based on Treaty principles, it suffered from being effected in a hurried manner under considerable political pressure. In spite of Ngata' s hopes it was also soon more geared to welfare and aid type activities than economic development. Nevertheless the spirit of the 'settlement was recognisably in the direction of partnership.

There were also seriously divergent views of the terms of the settlement. Crown and iwi perceptions differed most in the areas of whether the agreement covered all the confiscation issues and whether it had been agreed that the payments were full and final or negotiable. The Crown view has been that the awards were for the wrong done, and although clearly nominal, were sufficient to 110 cover all claims arising out of the confiscations. The Crown kept closely to the Sim awards and although iwi agreement to the proposed compensation was necessary, it was apparently regarded as a formality. There were apparently no official notes even taken of the 1929 hui, newspaper reports are all that survive. Any qualifications iwi may have made to their agreement have therefore been treated as having no importance. Iwi on the other hand have placed high regard on the 1929 meeting. They have consistently regarded their agreement and associated qualifications at that meeting as the basis of the agreement. -2l There is evidence to show that iwi did in fact have reservations about the proposal and their qualifications were to some extent \ ) accepted. For example Ngata is reported as advising them that the matter concerned only the wrong and to take other issues up with him. There has been a consistent view that the £5000 was accepted without prejudice and there is good evidence from the time and since to support this. Iwi agreement was required for settlement and in terms of a spirit of partnership they appear to have grounds for the Crown at least accepting that their interpretation was at least as legitimate.

The subsequent legislation and regulations governing the Trust Board reveal the extent to which the government was willing to honour the original agreement and to continue to confirm the spirit of partnership and consultation begun with the original agreement.

Initially the Crown acknowledged the interim nature of the 1930 agreement and consistently admitted that the payments were no more than a nominal amount. However by 1944 it had become government policy to make the payments statutory and to view the payments although still admittedly nominal as sufficient to allow claimants to put the past behind them. The Crown stuck to this ,!l)iTI' policy and entrenched it in the 1944 legislation in spite of ~, repeated statements from claimants that this was not acceptable and was a breach of the terms and spirit of the original agreement. This had been made very clear by claimants and the 111 .. ."l.. .j Trust Board in petitions and meetings prior to 1944 • Nevertheless the 1944 Act declared the settlement full and final and claimed this was agreed to by claimants. In the period from 1930-44 the government also failed to rectify the uncertain nature of the annual payments .to the Taranaki Board although there was legislative opportunity to do so. After this government used the 1944 Act to reject all claims associated with the Taranaki confiscations. This was in spite of the fact that claimants had rejected many of the findings of the commission for example regarding wahi tapu. Successive governments also ignored the fact that the commission had been limited in its terms of reference

( from investigating some issues of concern to claimants for example the legality of the confiscation acts.

The original enactments implementing the award and creating the Trust Board entrenched some problems for Taranaki iwi from the beginning. As a result subsequent legislation and regulations reflect many of the efforts of Taranaki iwi to shape the Board in accordance with their needs, to retain their independence and mana and, given the limited avenues the government left open to them, to pursue their understanding of their Treaty rights. The history of some of the legislation and regulations has also shown a trend by the Crown for much of the time to act in a paternalistic rather than consultative way towards iwi. This has been apparent in Crown attitudes to the role and operations of the Trust Board and in a willingness by the Crown to impose its own view of the settlement regardless of the stated wishes of iwi. In some cases the Crown's failure to act has also threatened the terms and spirit of the settlement. For example the Crown initially failed to provide legislative certainty for the payments and later allowed their original value to erode significantly.

The Trust Board has always had an essential role in implementing the settlement although there have been differing and sometimes ambivalent perceptions of what this role should be. Throughout its existence it has been seen as a permanent reminder of the 112

wrongful confiscation of Taranaki lands and damage caused by the raid on Parihaka and as evidence of perpetual Crown acknowledgement of this wrong doing. It was created to administer compensation for this wrong, but from the beginning it has assumed a wider role than this might suggest. Ngata envisaged a more proactive development role than simply administering funds and early legislative provision was made to allow the Board to invest in land for example. This development role never functioned as well as Ngata hoped as successive governments preferred to foster more welfare type activities. with relatively small payments that soon lost value and in the beginning were uncertain, the Board soon became immersed in its welfare role. For many years most funding went to educational benefits and assistance with the maintenance of marae and community

facilities. 208 As the payment for the wrong came to be regarded as payment in full for the confiscations, the Trust Board was placed in an increasingly difficult position trying to meet the demands placed on it.

The Trust Board has also assumed a wider role in representing Taranaki iwi to government. This was forced on it in the beginning by faulty legislative provision as it'struggled to have the original agreement properly implemented. Governments have also encouraged this role for their own purposes as they have found one body they can easily regulate easier to deal with than many diverse iwi. The Board has, also had the apparent advantage of being an elected body that could be regarded as being clearly representative of Taranaki Maori. Government preference for , , dealing with the Board inevitably resulted in it assuming a role of taking issues to government on behalf of iwi. In many cases this was also encouraged by government policy as the relationship , between government and the Board was one of the few avenues open " to iwi' to press their case. However in some cases there has been 'concern that too much has been placed on the Board in this regard , and the direct Treaty relationship between Crown and iwi has been

208 see for example, summary of Trust Board grants to 1951 in MA26/5, v 4, copy in document bank attached pp 102-109 113

::) obscured. The importance of representation. on the Board in being recognised by government has also helped to fuel years of disputes over the recognition of individual iwi.

The Sim awards for Taranaki were based on a Te Arawa type settlement and may have been expected to yield simi lar advantages in terms of the sense of partnership and increased autonomy for iwi inherent in the agreement. However difficulties arose because in many respects the Taranaki situation was quite different. Most

,obviously the A~awa lakes agreement was basically about the management . of one resource, the lakes, and even then certain important use and access rights for iwi members were retained. The Crown agreement was also with one major iwi which had close common links and interests amongst its various hapu. In contrast, through confiscation, Taranaki iwi had entirely lost ownership or management of large areas of their land, as well as resources and wahi tapu which had formed a vital part of their existence. ~ The associated wars had also caused considerable dislocation for iwi making recovery even more difficult. There were also several quite separate iwi in Taranaki, who although willing to unite to pursue the claim, were in reality quite separate in history and outlook and who had in many cases suffered unevenly under the confiscations. This meant that the creation of one -Trust Board for all of them was bound to cause problems eventually.

These problems were entrenched through legislation and regulations implementing the awards and resulted in numerous subsequent amendments in an effort to improve the situation. Taranaki iwi found themselves having to fight for official recognition through membership on the Board and the Board's funds were even more inadequate when spread over all iwi. This was accentuated when it became clear that the payments to the Trust Board were all the compensation the government intended to pay for all Taranaki claims concerned with confiscation. This and an 111[1) increasing tendency for governments to prefer to deal with the Trust Board rather than directly with iwi made the Board an even more important focus for iwi. 114 ·:;V As already explained in chapter 2, the Simcommission had not felt the need to closely determine who were Taranaki iwi. It had received a variety of evidence on the iwi and hapu of Taranaki. This included a map of seven tribes based on the work of Percy smith and various often contradictory submissions from counsel. The commission never asked claimants to come to a def ini te consensus on this or attempted to make its own determination, probably as it was not felt necessary given that a general award was to be made. It is also likely to have been a very difficult if not fruitless exercise given the changing strengths and fortunes of iwi and hapu. The Sim recommendations would however have been closer to the Arawa model if they had been made to each of the major Taranaki iwi or groups of iwi related by waka as was later suggested, rather than attempting to cover them all. The 'wrong' of the confiscations was also made to cover a multitude of issues and areas of loss rather than a single issue such as the management of Te Arawa lakes. These facts caused inherent ~~ tens.ions with the implementation of the award but do not. seem to have been fully appreciated by the Sim commission, or the governments and officials involved in the subsequent implementation of the settlement.

To some extent the existence of separate iwi was ignored with genuinely good intentions as it was part of the thinking of the ( ) time that the best way for Maori to progress was to abandon the old tribal structures. Both Ngata and Pomare also seemed to accept this, possibly because it was felt that many tribes were gradually dying out., They may also have been convinced that it was the only way to achieve any kind of settlement with the government over the confiscations. The result however was that Taranaki iwi were faced with major problems in dealing with the various legislation and regulations in maintaining their autonomy as guaranteed by the Treaty and this has been an issue of 'continuing concern through much of the Board's history. '" ;;.; :,-,.:- •• , j

Wheri the proposed Trust Board was first discussed, suggestions '.-, .,' .," .' re

'., 115 accepted as being suitable proposals for the - time being. The newspaper report of the 1929 hui for example used the term 'working plan' when describing the proposals put to the meeting. 209 At the time it was also understood that the Trust Board was not likely to be the only possible source of compensation funds. Claimants still believed they could pursue associated claims. A major concern of the 1929 meeting appeared to be to limit the number of members in order to reduce expenses. The logic behind the proposed membership originally seemed to be to choose members who would between them represent all i wi, rather than having strictly separate representatives for each one. On account of his considerable mana, Sir Maui Pomare was accepted as representative of the four northern tribes and in this a long standing tradition was established of having one member represent more than one tribe. This continued for many years although alterations were made from time to time as to which tribes were represented in this way. The legislation and regulations initially reflected this general approach to Board membership.

Over the years however, membership on the Board began to be seen as· synonymous with official recognition of iwi. If there '",ere seven members for example, then it was commonly assumed especially by politicians and government officials that there must be seven iwi. As a result, differences of opinion arose among claimants between those who wanted to follow as closely as possible the precedent set at the 1929 hui and those who wanted to change the structure to having separate members for each iwi. This became especially important when government began using the Board membership as a guide to the existence of iwi and resulted in pressure over the years for several legislative and regulatory changes on this issue.

The membership of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board when it was established in 1930 closely followed the proposals accepted by

209 Taranaki Daily News report of 20 May 1929, copy in document bank attached p 632. 116 ;V 'the 1929 meeting. The schedule to the 1930 --order in council consti tuting the Board named 5 members. These were the four members proposed at the hui and Hapi wi Tako Love who had been

agreed in place of the late Sir Maui Pomare. 2~O The schedule did not specify who the members were to represent but presumably the order in council intended to follow the wishes of the 1929 hui where the five members were accepted as representing all the major iwi of Taranaki between them. As such, wi Kupe Raungaiti had been proposed for Taranaki, Rangihuna Pire and Tupito Maruera for 'northern and southern' Ngati Ruanui, and Rima Wakaruafor Ngarauru. Hapi Love would represent the same people as Sir Maui Pomare, that is Te Atiawa, Ngati Mutunga, Ngati Tama and Ngati Maru. The 1930 order in council did not specify any general purposes for the Board's funds as allowed for in the 1928 legislation.

At ~his time membership and separate iwi representation did not seem to be quite such an issue. The first meeting of the Trust Board drafted the 1931 regulations. Clauf?e 2 of these regulations named only four iwi. These were Ngarauru, Ngati Ruanui, Taranaki and Te Atiawa. It does not seem to have been the Board's intent to exclude iwi or hapu. In fact in 1938 the Board's returning officer confirmed with the Under Secretary of the Native Department that it was Board policy that its personnel should form a full representation of the tribes and hapus of the

district. 2~l. However it was apparently considered possible at this time to have everyone included in these four iwi and the Board seemed keen to follow the structure established by Pomare out of respect for him. Presumably Ngati Tama, Ngati Maru and Ngati Mutunga for example were considered part of Te Atiawa for this purpose as they shared the one representative and were

2l.0 letter signed by 73 members of Ngati Tama, Ngati Mutunga, Ngati Maru and Te Atiawa to Minister of Maori Affairs asking for :f!!lii!' 'Hapi Love to replace Pomare in MA 26/5/2 pt 1 (AAMK 869/789b) ~. . copy' in document bank attached p 148.

,-',' 213. letter of 4 March 1938 returning officer to Under secretary of Native Department in MA 26/5/2 pt 1 (AAMK 869/789b) copy(in document bank attached pp 135-140. 117 regarded as being closely aligned .

... The regulations as drafted at the first meeting did however provide for an increase from five to six members in order to better represent the iwi. The original minutes do not explain this but in the same letter of 1938 the returning officer explained that the extra seat was to ' ... represent three of the

associated hapus of Te Atiawa - Ngatimaru I Ngatimutunga and Ngatitama , to assist Mr Love whose district it was thought too

big for him to cover' 212. This explanation was later confirmed ,by Rima Wakarua who had been present at the first meeting. 2u

The first term of office for members of the Taranaki Maori Trust

Board expired in 1933. When asked to consider fresh appointments I the sitting members replied that they would all offer themselves again for appointment and they were concerned not to fill the sixth position in order to save extra expense. 214 This may well '-','":'" ,;'; .•• , '.1 ,'.' '. . c ," • ., • .'.' " have been a reflection of the severe financial problems of the early 1930s. In the end the appointments were not made until 1934 and an extra member was appointed. The ,appointments were the five sitting members plus Tukotahi Tokotaua of Ngati Maru. 2~!:> The . appointment of a sixth member meant that representation of the northern tribes could be shared between Tokotaua and Love; Tokotaua to represent Ngati Maru, Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga ) , 'and Love-to represent Te Atiawa. This was the arrangement accepted by the Board although the regulations still mentioned only four tribes. The discrepancy did not seem to have been considered a major problem at the time.

, .212 ibid

'213 letter of 14 November 1941 from Rima Wakarua to the Under Secretary of Maori Affairs in MA 26/5/2 pt 1 (MMK 869/789b) copy in document bank attached pp 120-122.

,,'., 214 letter 6 November 1933 concerning appointments in MA ····26/5/2 pt 1 (MMK/789b) copy in document bank a~tached p 146 . . . ': .. 21S notice appointing members dated 20 March 1934 in New, .., .••. Zealand Gazette 1934, copy in document bank attached p 481. 118 ::iillIWThe second three year term of office expiredin"'r~r:3"7 and although Taranaki iwi began considering possible members in 1937 the new appointments were not made until 1938. By the late 1930s however there appears to have been considerable concern in Taranaki about representation on the Trust Board. In 1937 a hui at Parihaka on 25 October described as a 'fully representative' meeting by the Board returning officer, agreed that each tribal district, 'namely Ngarauru, Ngatiruanui, Ngaruahine, Taranaki, Te Atiawa and Ngatimaru' would choose its own member. Nga Ruahine was presumably the northern Ngati Ruanui described in the 1929 newspaper report. These six tribes were those represented by the sitting' ~embers at the time. At this stage Te Atiawa Ylas considered as representing Kaitangata as well and Ngati Maru as also representing Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga. Five of the six new members were elected without incident and their names were submitted for appointment but there was a dispute among the );()riorthern.tribesof. Ngat.iMaru, ~gati Mutunga .. and Ngati Tama over

',.;:.. " nHl\r . ':::·"'\~~~~dtlid';;~~re~c=~t theI11.'·~h~ ~~turning Offi~el:" ~~ked ~h~"~~~er' secretary' of Maori Affairs to decide. In the end the sitting

. member supported by Ngati Maru was appointed. 21.6

"Later~ in 1941 Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga asked for their own ·····'repre·sentatives on the Trust Board. They petitioned acting Maori Affairs Minister Mason complaining they were not recognised by that the regulations were prejudicial as they still ) the:'B6a~'d~:and only recognised four tribes of Taranaki. They also raised the . .'

. J·:'of . each tribe. 21.7 At this time the Trust Board opposed the ',:", "'.t.": ..'. ~equest.

\940 Ngati Ruanui and Ngaruahine had also written to the .' ,', ":;~ ..·.:t::,, ~,:f. " .. ; '.

.":' :-. .. .,. . ' .: .•.. :.... .',' ,:",: .::!.,:,:. ; ::",.i,:_'~,: :~':.:.~ .;.):.l.~.·.:. 'l~'~::""::"'·';;':'~"'·';'·':':··;·";' ~:. .;'>.:~ :.. .(t:~~/~~,::··.\·:"\:·("·if?·i;\t;~:.r,:·:·.~::~~------,". .' • '. • >::;~;j(:::;~;::i:';yii'~f:/;\::;'~,~~:·;: letter from returnJ.ng off J.cer to NatJ. ve Department, 4 ;!lla:·;/t:>"March~i:'i938 in MA 26/5/2 pt 1 (AAMK 869/789b) copy in document ".1>At;S\;i1ii;;,bal}J{"F,~~ttached pp135-140. 1937. appointment of Board members in :):itii.:;NZ,:-:,Ga~e.tte .1938, P 1469, copy J.n document bank attached p 484 . .,·.(\j:;;,~~~~~~~1:J~t:t:;I~jJ~i.~g:~~~ltio~recei~ed23 september 1941 in MA 26/5/2 (AAMK . "<;fF:.!;l~:869/78~b).\·copyJ.n document bank attached pp 124-128 . .... •:i,~i~:t1!t;;~I;;t;!' ..... •... 119 Minister of Maori Affairs asking for -extra members to be appointed to the Board and asking that monies be paid out in

proportion to land confiscated from each tribe. 21.8 Although under clause 32 of the regulations any aggrieyed person could apply directly to the Minister, Mason replied in this case that the matter would first have to be considered by all the tribes of Taranaki. It does not appear that the issue of distributing funds according to loss was considered seriously. From the correspondence it appears that the Minister regarded all tribes of the district as Taranaki and he referred to individual iwi as sub tribes.

The government acted on this issue at the request of various groups wi thin Taranaki and legislation and regulations on the matter followed some time after the issues themselves were raised. However iwi were still forced into the position of having .. '. to go ,to government to havet:.heir., existence legally recognised .... ' .. " ',," . '," .... '::.; .. ~.~: ... .: ... " ..... , ,:':, ,: ...... ".' .... ::, ..... ,'·1.:·.···.'(>·;··.:,···::··:'<,,·, .... :... ; .. ~~: for the purpose of membership of the Trust Board. A series qf meetings and representations to government revealed strong . divisions on the issues. At a hui at Taiporohenui Pa in 1950, the Minister of Maori Affairs, Corbett, expressed support for an increase in membership. He told the hui that it was not land values that should be considered but human suffering, and the northern tribes had suffered the most. He is reported as appealing to Maori custom and of stating that each tribe should have its name lifted up and continued in the life of the

community I •• • and that this could be done only by separate

representation on the Board I .21.9 It is hardly surprising that given this official attitude representation became such an issue. Later in 1950 the Minister suggested that seven tribes, 'Ngati , Ruanui, Ngarauru, Taranaki, Te Atiawa, Ngati Tama, Ngati Maru and Ngati Mutunga should each have a member on the Board and in view of the more valuable land taken from Taranaki and Ngati 'Ru~nui

21.8 1940 petition to Minister of Maori Affairs_in MA 26/5/2 (AAMK 869/789b) copy in document bank attached p 133

,";': ,~ ,21.9 extract from Taranaki Daily News 29 May 1950 in MA, 26/5 pt 5, copy in document bank attached p 186 ., ,',.,; :.... .:.' ..... :. ,", 120 lum]) they should have an extra member each. This' would have brought

the total membership to nine. 220

On 22 April 1951 the Minister met representatives of Taranaki iwi at Puniho marae to discuss the question of representation on the n1 Trust Board. More meetings and repre~entations were made in the following months. Various suggestions were again made including having nine members including an extra one for Taranaki

to represent the Ti tahi people. 222 It was also suggested that representation reflect the three canoes, Tokomaru, Kurahaupo and -', Aotea. 223 In the end Corbett made the decision to recognise seven' members of the Board; one member each for Ruanui, Ngarauru, Ngaruahine, Taranaki, Te Atiawa and Ngati Maru and one member for both Tama and Mutunga. 224 Although he had listened to representations on the issue, Corbett finally made the decision for reasons of his own. He told members of a representation made '. .to him in December 1951 that in th~ event of the Taranaki people 'b~i~g unabl'~;t'o :~g~~e on tribal representation o'n the Boarci', he' ".. 'had decided there was no option but to step in and decide the

.. ',. matter himself. 225 He gave the main reason for his decision as '. • .•. being to m~ke the membership an odd number because he knew sides

·220 extract from letter Corbett to Raumati 21 August 1950 in , MA 26/5pt 5, copy in document bank attached p 186.

221 notes of meeting to discuss representation on the Taranaki Maori Trust Board held at Puniho marae 22 April 1951, in MAl, 26/5 v 4, copy in document bank attached pp 98-99

. '<222 Letter to Minister of Maori Affairs of 2 December 1951 . '. i, fr~inTaikomako Te Rangitaawa and others in MA 26/5 v 4, copy in :~'i:"idoc;:ument bank attached pp 75-76 . • ,. : ':'~';;"':I'·" . -'" :/~;. -

···.. :\,},.?'-·~23 newspaper report on membership debate in Taranaki Daily "':';:,':News21 April 1951 in MA 26/5 v 4, copy in document bank attached .- ;: '~':':,<,:, p ; 93;: , . ~i· .. ;;: \ 'I " ." ". ~ ,~ .' ,." ·.'D:i}~B,~;:J;i::i::,(W::·~;~'1:(:;~{~~~ memo from ,Minister of Maori Affairs' to Under secretary .,,!!i!,.;"i"':: 25 ":October 1951." in MA 26/5 v 4, copy in document bank attached , ,\:

121 +m~ were taken on issues along tribal 'lines "and'-as-lo~~ as there was an even number of members there would be trduble. He had also long been of the personal opinion that there were seven tribes of Taranaki and the membership should reflect this. He claimed that Peter Fraser had been of the same opinion and had previously intended to act on it. Nevertheless his decision still left one member to represent both Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga. Members of the representation clearly did not all agree with him on this. There was apparently also mention made of concerns with the amount of compensation and the West Coast settlement rese:r:ves but the Minister refused to discuss them at the time. There was also some opposition to the Minister being the one to have the final say and it was claimed that the people had never been happy with

this power right from the beginning. 226

The regulations that followed in 1952 provided for seven members, .'three' to represent .Atiawa, Ngati,Tama, "Ngati,.Mutungaand Ngati , :;:' ':.:, ;':~" •• ,'0:.. ',;.:'''"' •. .": "".', ,.:" " '."1 ,"-' :: .....; •..•. ::- ~. ,;., ••..!, ', ...;':- '''(~~:"\~;':,;i'',;','<';;~~:,-, -, :~',Lr:, :, .... :'~: .. '., ...;; '.. " Maru~ two 'to represent Ngati Ruanui and Ngaruahine and one each iorTaran~ki and Ngarauru. 227 This was later amended .in 1960 to "~ '. allow more ,separate tribal representation. The Board was to have seven members; one each to represent Taranaki, Ngarauru, Ngati Ruanui, Ngaruahine, Atiawa, and Ngati Mutunga and one for both

Ngati Tama and Ngati Maru. 228 In 1969 the . regulations were amended again to recognise eight members on the Board by giving

) Ngatl 'Tams. and Ngati Maru one member each. 229

As having members on the Trust Board has' continued to be . p'erceived as official recognition of iwi however ,there have been 'coi}t::inued disputes over the years regarding iwi membership of the Board. Throughout the 1940s and 19505 for· example th~'Minister , :,:~

'.; '-.

'. 226 notes of representation made to Minister of Maori Affairs >:on ,~2 December 1951 in MA, 26/5 v' 4, ,copy in document bank, . " ,.attached pp 65-:70. " "" il!:" \'"" " ' • '\);~?,S,~R.195?/132, copy in document bank attached p 601.

,;;/:,.'< :~U,srIfi~~::\:~;.R~ 1960/10?, copy in document ba~~, a:t~~~~d~\~y~04-616.,"

"'. '229 's'~'R:19'69/102 copy in doc~m~n1: bank at-tabhed pI?/.6~ 7:-619. -T' .,'., 122 wll~ received petitions and representations ... both-----supporting and opposing the increase in membership. 230 The rights to iwi status of various Taranaki tribes have also become embroiled in this process. For example in the 1950s the Titahi and Kaitangata tribes were recommended for some recognition and more recently there have been efforts by Pakakohe and Tangahoe to gain recognition as iwi. Of course the policy of using Trust Board representation to recognise iwi was no more than a rough attempt to reflect the political reality of iwi in the district at the time and did not necessarily definitively define Taranaki iwi.

The process· of selecting Board members also became an issue in ( ) later years . Initially members were selected by general consensus and this was followed later by beneficiaries and the Board developing their own voting and selection process. In 1942 after a disputed nomination,_ it was pointed out that the regulations .:.forth.~:Taranaki. ~aori Trust Board did not lay down a procedure "'~6;~i::~;~~!'~~mi'nation-of ~emb~~s.· An official des~~ib~d the Informal' . election. system as having apparently been adopted in the area 23 from motives of policy and convenience. 1. The 1955 Act and " .. (;issociated regulations later imposed an officially sanctioned process of nominations and election procedures for all the Maori .-Trust '. Boards. This was met by a mixed reaction from those who . supported a more regularised system and those who wanted to keep . >'the system developed by iwi. 232 The 1962 Maori Purposes Act -.. allowed for the setting aside of uneconomic interests in the West 'C6as~ Settlement Reserves for educational purposes. The funds '" ". 'were to be administered by the Trust Board. At this time the' ':-:"

~'" -..': ::':\ ;", .!. '/:'.:, ------....' ",::>, 230 see for example, correspondence and representations ,.::. 1940s-50s in MA 26/5 v 4 & 5 and MA 26/5/2 pt 1. Copies in -/,_,:.,document bank attached pp 60-113, 174-209 and 117-148. , "·~:,'>;.l:'.'·""::;·;:'·-':':·" -' :' ,. ."":" .. - -,,:-::,;-i,.i·,;./;-.~31.letter 5 June 1942 from Maori Affairs to Native Affairs :>/;Fj~omm1ttee in MA 26/5/2 pt, 1 (AAMK 869/789b) copy in document bank ,}f:;!Yi/1955'::Billin MA26/1 pt 1 (AAMK 869/764b), copy in document bank ·.• ·)·;·'1(:.~;~~i1'r3 -59

:.' ,:':.:,\ .' ': . " .. ~: ..;' ,:,; 'r. ,.":: .'.~ ;'.. ;;. " ",': .. :', .'·>.J/,!,:·;;,'!::'::),i' l.,.,j~.. ;: 123

;:iiJliii by the Board to exclude tribal members'-'livihg outside the , ' . district from educational grants and from voting. This was felt ,to be contrary to the 1955 Act where membership of a Taranaki , tribe was the sole test of the right to be a beneficiary. By 1963 however the Trust Board informed the government that all residence restrictions had been removed. n3

Membership of the Board has remained a continuing issue in Taranaki. In 1975 for example, a remit from the Taranaki iwi was supported by a general meeting of beneficiaries and a majority of the Trust Board in favour of increasing the membership of the Board to nine by allowing the Taranaki iwi an additional member. () In this case the main reasons given were to have an uneven number of members on the Board to guard against deadlocks and to get around the problem of the chairman's casting vote effectively giving two votes to the iwi to which he happened to belong. At

Th,espirit of the settlement also originally included a significant element of partnership with iwi self management of " the Board and consultation between .iwi and the Crown although iwi -,-were still not given' full recognition as Treaty partners. For ,"',,:exa~ple the sim commission itself had been set up by government 'without consulting iwi and the terms of reference excluded .. , 'consideration of Treaty principles regarded as essential by "claimants. Iwi were also faced with making the best of what was '»off~red by government in terms of the Sim awards. NeVertheless ""the element of iwi participation and self management in the ,,':':,:i.i'pr6posed Trust Board was important in their support of the ",,';/,.:'/Cigreement. This element was developed under Ngata's influence and , '.~~':;.~~,:~.. ", '.<:.;.... . ;; ,\::~·:alth6ugh Pakeha politicians and officials may have regarded the ::':I'"T'B'~~;d more as a convenient method of distributing funds, the -' '~,. '. ;', :" ';!.:::'-:_:;.I;:.. >,' ,'. ,: .• '" 'I:;·". ~.~., • , t;;:::;;~;T/;:'crown was still aware of its' importance to iwi. This was made

;,li~!(1;i;~;:;;::;:: m' . . " .. . •...•. . ..' . . • ::{:r(;':::-;:!":,:;:";;/",'i:",:correspondence 1962-63 re res~dent~al requirements in MA r:,")j.~';,;:26/5~ pt,:6;copies in document bank pp 211~2, 214-218. ::,:;;;

:.' 0,:, . ,-' ~ 124 !::Ult~ clear at the time the Sim report was discussed-.--Inthe debat,e on the introduction of the 1928 legislation for example; Mr Uru the member for Southern Maori told parliament that Maori supported the concept of self help and self government in the creation of the Boards; 'I notice that the measure authorises these Boards to be self governing; and I agree with that because the Maoris

,know exactly what they want ... '235

The spirit of partnership and consultation in the agreement between Crown and iwi has remained very important to' Taranaki Maori throughout the subsequent history of legislative and regulatory changes affecting the settlement. The Crown has recognised the importance of this to Maori but has been less consistent in protecting this feature of the settlement in changes it has made. In particular there has been a tendency for governments to assume a paternalistic rather than partnership role in making legislation and regulations and iwi have had to . ~ .- . " . ." ... 'make strenuous efforts to protect their indepe'ndenceand ma'na in the face of this. There has also been a marked tendency for officials to come up with their own versions of the history of previous negotiations and understandings that often differ , markedly from the ascertainable facts. These have however tended to be relied on when making policy concerning legislation and "regulations while claimant versions have tended to be ignored or ) , 'dismissed.

,The sense of consultation was initially continued when the first Trust Board was encouraged to draft its own regulations under the ,;guidance of Ngata. These regulations were later published as the .':;,:::1931 Maori Trust Board regulations. The process' of direct , " ,'-',cC':,nsul tation was undermined in later legislative and regulatory, changes however. The. 1931 ,regulations were apparently the last '" ,to be drafted by the Trust Board and although the government heard representations on various issues from various Taranaki " ,r Maori, 'iwi and the Trust Board, the later regulatory process was

;..... ' " c,' 235 Uru to parliament in NZPD 1928 v 219 P 947, ,copy in document bank p 498 ~'. . . .

.\

125 much less directly consultative.

Consu1t~tion on the settlement itself also became more restricted. The original 1929 type meeting where the Crown took proposals to iwi was later replaced by a process of governments inviting small numbers of claimant representatives to parliament to talk on 'strictly limited issues. This can be seen in the series of conferences held in 1935 and 1938 leading up to the legislative settlements of the 1940s. At. these only certain selected representatives were invited to parliament and discussions were within strict boundaries decided by government.

) The government's final policy on any legislative change was then made with the advice of officials. In the case of Taranaki, ,representatiyes were only invited to the later 1938 conference

. and.. . then the..' . issue . was very limited. Discussion was only allowed on the parihaka 'award and the Sum recommended by Sim was regarded ';, .~' .:.ii~.an: .. ;u~p~rj,.timit.:Althoughthiswas.regarded by officials.as. '.·~~~~e~fi~'i~~t i~:~.i~~ er~ded~he cons~ltati~n process with iwi.

The?§'3~;':r~C~ confirmed the 1928 provisions but by 1944 the government-felt able to impose its view of the terms of the settlement Although it felt obliged to agree to the perpetual n~ture'ofthe paymeAt it was now to be considered full and final '~ettlement of all the claims. The government claimed it had Tara~~ki:C:agreement.to this but it appears the only area of ,claimant agreement ~as in making the sum statutory. It is clear that claimants were not happy with the amount paid and were still '.' ~ttempting to pursue: other claims. The policy of full and final ··~:·:<'~·ettl~inent' asena:ct~d in 1944 was' regarded as a major betrayal ;;~;:\X';:\6'f:~h~~>g~iginal:~ettlement and Ngata., s promises that other issues <\{: :·;i~. /.>:.:}·~:~~i ;.:;!~.:'{;:;:.. :(. ~ ;~",~/ .: . ::.,' " ' .. ' " \. ,:. '.' .'.;;:,' : . , .,.:.;.. ;',could,.be pursued. ','It'also left the Trust Board as the only source i.:!liii;~j~t~I~~~i.c:;nT=~~=kt~~ spreading the nominal payments over

:::.;:)t:iG~T;;~!\'4:S~~~~)~?i;:(:\\~c::t, '·:'~,~~lle,ug~:> described as simply bringing some ',;' _.- ,.,\ ... ::,:u:r;ti~q~~#Y;,:~o .. the,operation of the various boards, also confirmed .. ;.~ .!-,'~' ':~rf!;~ ~~t!!':{":i{~:!1 I~' ", ,+;', '!'~ " " ::Z\.;~;i:fc'::.\Y,~h, :esse~~ng·.... ·~o1J1llli tment'·. of the Crown to· consul tatJ.on , and a \ . i·! .. /;·t~mi,·.;'·:'}J.f:\:;·') ." ··::·i;(:i'<\'.";:~i:::VU: .':~::.:.

~"i:yl;~.< "~.

'.,>';: 126

strengthened desire to more closely' control.. the-oper~tions of the Board. When the Bill was debated Maori members 9f parliament reported concern within their electorates on the Bill. Thls included the lack of opportunity to present submissions. Mrs Ratana for example felt unable to comment a great deal on the Bill becausJ she had not been able to fully canvass her electorate on it. Mr McKay a member of the Maori Affairs committee replied to this concern by declaring that the Bill had been carefully considered by the committee. He thought that

'most' of the Maori Trust Boards had been sent a copy. 236

There was some Maori support for some of the 1955 amendments such as the improvements in voting procedures. For example, Mrs Ra tana supported the provisions that allowed each adult beneficiary who had a land interest within the Boards' boundaries to have a vote ~i[) whether or not they Iivedwi thin the boundary. However most concern seems to have, been with: the ,increased power MI~i~ter in the affairs6i' Tr~'~t'iB()ard~>37':"<"

various legislative and regulatory changes aiso show the / increasing trend for government to want to more closely supervise . the Board, and influence the direction of its spending. In some ways it was' apparent from the beginning that governments would be concerned about the operations of the Board. The attitude to iwi was still generally very paternalistic and the concept of the Trust Board was still ~ very tentative move towards recognition of the status of iwi. In fact Ngata and others used the potential of some government influence on Board spending to promote the creation of th;e Board in the first place.' In the del?ate 'on the pr~s'~ntation of the Sim report, Ngata used' the example of. the , Arawa'trust fund as a sui table precedent for the Sim awards .•' The annual fund was for the purpose of performing a public utility totl'l~:~~ibe concerned. The Te Arawa f~~d' had in fact been <~~~'d

:'

NZPD 1955 v 127

, ••• to concentrate on those very things wi).ich--the"pakehas want the Maoris to concentrate on - education, health, and assistance

to utilize their lands'. 238

However it was acknowledged as part of the settlement that the Soard offered some independerice and self management in administering the funds. For example as noted in chapter 6, the first countersigning officer of the Board was instructed to limit supervision to procedures and not to the way the funds were spent. The process of eroding this concept of independence varied with different governments. On one hand as late as 1944 Maori Affairs ,Minister Mason replied to the inevitable concern of Pakeha politicians that the Board might not be using the payments in the best way, by stating that while there would be general supervision of the spending of the funds, the intent of the Hill) agreement was for the funds to be used ' ••• for the advantage of ,the Maori people as visioned by them and not to be distributed ":\:Erit~¥~i~'as'the ':pak~ha thinks they ought to "be 'distributed ~ The are not for our amusement, but for the Maoris'

,satisfaction. ,239

However there had already been controls placed on the Board and attempts to ,influence the areas it funded. For example section 48 of the 1931 Act provided for the continuation of the Maori Arts 'and Crafts Board and under 48(6) enabled the Taranaki Maori

':;<: Trust Board and other Boards to pay such monies as they felt " " expedient out of their accounts to the accounts of the Maor i Arts

"and: Crafts Board. 240 There were also stricter controls introduced ,on the administration of funds. For example the 1935 Native Purposes Act, section 17, enabled Maori Trust Boards to 'be::ii~~al authorities for the purposes of the Local Government

" . ,.. \ i~j~~tlt,I~~~~rt::::: ::4::::::::: :: :::: :::: : ::: : :::: :::: :: :: ,,:':;';:,',:document bank p 523. r!~f~~~~\rf~;~~~~~":~::Native purposes Act 1931, copy in document bank pp

- ".~. :.: - ~.: .. ; ":' ..':' ',. n···· , .... :. ": ", ..;:,; ..:" :', ":''t.~~'~.', ;::1.< .:':.~. :.. ~" <: :.;.; ,<:.~.. ·~,~?:,~,".:. .. '. , 128 :Loans Board. This had the ef'fect of treating.,theBoa'rds as public .. . bodies for loan purposes and placed the borrowing powers of . Boards under the control of the Government Loans Board. The intention was to make the powers to borrow as restricted as 2 possible to encourage Boards to live within their income.

The 1955 Act provided for much more detailed' control of the Board's spend:i,ng. . For example the Board had to provide a statement of proposed expenditure each year and this had to be approved by the Minister. The government also continued to try and influence the areas of funding by the Boards. For example in 1961 the Maori Purposes bill also included provisions allowing !is) Maori Trust Boards to make grants to the proposed Maori Education Foundation. In a letter to the chairman of the Trust Board of 14 J~r;':~~~;;i':;~6~"Mini~ter of'~~~~i'Aff:~i:';;'a~k~d for'C~~t'ributions ' .. ' . t~ .thepr6posed fund given that the Hunn' report had shown . .' disturbing'features relating to Mao:ri education. He suggested that it 'would be a good idea' if the Maori. Trust Boards would devote 'say, half their expenditure to it for a few years ... ' as an example to the rest of the community. 243 .' .

~~.' .' ( It·· was also clear that for most of its history the government viewed the Board as distributing compensation as aid rather than :Lniti'ating development. There had always had been possibility of . ·'development initiatives' in farming and acquiring land and this .• asp~'ct was supported by Ngata and Pomare. However. governments

.i;::':)~~ letter from Under secre~a~y Native Department to Minister' /6f;Maori<"'Affairs 26 July ·,.1935·., anq. '. explanatory memo in MAl, :. 19/1/177 cOPY' in document bank. attached pp 42-45. :>;~~~:)';i; "',f';;;!}:':":"':::""': . ,...... •... .;';...... '" ., ."" . '.' .:...... 1•• ,;>:~:y:.~42/Native' purpo~ie'sAct>1935' copy of'section 17 from MAl, ",,19/1/177, 'copy in docuinent bank attached p 44 •.

. "., :, .. <.'J::':"-"/.'\~'" '",), .. ~' I • • .' • • ,~,,' .... '-.1.::.;, ~':~:'~'ilett~r of 14 July:'1961 from Minister,of Maori Affairs to ,:·'-.:.}the':: ..'bhaiiinan of: the Trust Board, in MA 26/5 pt 6, copy in '(.';·.:.'do.'f?ment~,'bank ·PP. 221-222 •. ' ", ':.:. ,.; ....., .. ;.

'. ····(' ..• ',:;rf0!:d·f~f~¥·; i'. . . . .

.. ' . '~.

129 ·were more concerned with encouraging welfare '-type funding. The > Trust Board also found itself unable to do more than provide "'grants for various purposes due to the nominal value of the compensation. This was made worse by short and irregular payments caused by faulty legislation before 1944 and the erosion in the value of the amount after the depression resulting in great difficulties for the Board in meeting the demands placed on it. Accounts and minutes show that for many years the Board did meet the immediate demands placed on it in areas approved by governments, for example in' restoration of marae buildings, educational grants and medical and welfare payments. Even then there was continuing pressure for government to take a more active role in deciding the areas Boards would spend funds. Members of parliament complained for example of funds wasted on tangis and such like. There is an issue of whether much of the funding wasn't in areas that Pakeha would have been entitled to , expect assistance from government anyway. For example in roading, ~~rittatioil, maintenance of community halls and medical assistance' . •'. e~pecially after 1935. Compensation might have been expected to •..•.. have beeri additional to this. Nevertheless iwi still seemed to value having some control of spending even in those areas.

"'For many years the Board had great difficulty in initiating any development programmes and the possibility of using the "compensation to buy up land for example as held out byPomare . seemed remote. Eventually by the mid 1950s the Board was in a '. ·.po~ition to be able to seriously try and buy land. 244 The Board wanted to buy a farm and hoped income from this would be able to

'. supplement the compensation payments. In 19~7 the Board began . making attempts to try and buy a farm and eventually in 1959 was

abl~ to purchase a farm near Otorohanga. 245 The process of buyin9 the farm required Ministerial consent and in effect the

.... ·i:·:>·jY:;.';·(.~:: '244. for example see letter re proposed purchase from Maori ": .. \" Affairs to Minister 5 April 1957 in MA 26/5 pt 5, copy in . ". ' document bank pp 182 -18 3 . '

.~ ,. 245 letter from Minis:ter of Maori Affairs to Board . lawyers July;i959 in MA 26/5 pt 6, copy in document bank p 233' , ...',"".".,:,. :'.,

130

close interest of officials in advising the,JHnister'~ The process ,revealed the strong paternalistic official attitude of the time which allowed the Board little room, to make its 'own decisions. Officials at times insisted on a lower price causing the Board to lose some properties to other purchasers. H6 They also felt obliged to advise against purchase where they felt for example the type of farm was wrong. In 1958 for example they felt it was

the wrong time to get into dairying .247 Eventually the Board purchased a farm outside the Taranaki district and later in the 1970s spent some time trying to move out of this and invest in

Taranaki instead. 248 The Board also had to obtain Ministerial consent when it wanted to take out a loan to stock the farm, if it wanted to sell or if it wanted,to capitalise its funding to 'enable it to invest in other property. Al though ,the Board was , obliged to have official reports on proposed properties it was

:liik- ,'also 'government policy to charge fees for the service. 249 The , ,'inflexibilitythe Board faced ',' in trying ,to obtain conse~t ,:):;~~~ttL~i~~l:)f'~~"'iri~e~"f~~rits:'as";~eii '~s:more pressing' welfare type , ~em~~ds.Place~ on it 'possiblY' contributed to limiting the Boards \ :.< :activ:i. ties ill this area. It has only been in more recent years

, '~', ' :that'provisi~ns have been made for Boards to become more active 'in'Emt~rprisedevelopments for example, but they still face major :' ,prC?blems caused by government failure to protect the value of the nominal 'sums paid.,

cases Crown actions that are liable to criticism from "'tOd~y'S' perspective were nevertheless clearly undertaken 'tJith gemriinely good if paternalistic intentions. However i. other .: ,', :~~.'~ :<, .'. , '"

see correspondence re purchases 1957 on MA 26/5 pt 5, in document bank pp 175-6, 181-4.

,'(,;':,,',:J'(',,';",\ : .•',:.~~e for example memo from Maori Affairs to Minister 21 '5ff: in MA 26/5 pt 6, copy in document bank p 243 '.: ". ,':!, ' '. "t' , ~ . '" .• ' ,', • , ' ,~~~";f6f~xampi~'6orrespondence of 6 and 20 December 1973 '"'""1-T.'·""",, ...... ,f.linister and Trust Board in MA 26/5 pt 7( document bank ,12 May 1982 in MA 26/5 pt 8, (document bank p 347) ;';',:"'",,1',:""",·:<, :,g)~I:':f:\):\;f;:(;~!~!ll"'m;""n;"'::>~~:~'~~~o :from Maori Affairs off ice solicitor ,8::on:,MA':26/5ipt 6, document bank p 242 : : '! ": ;:,:" " .• ,:":~'~I,)\ ':: ." "::.,:,:" ,I".""

'. ! 131 areas government actions appear to have '-been~bk~n with more concern for motives such 'as 'political survival and fiscal requirements than with genuine attempts,to honour the agreement and deal fairly on the claims. The lack of Crown action in' protecting the value of the admittedly nominal annual sum in spite of continued requests from claimants appears to have been a conscious breach of the terms of the settlement. In this case the use of the 1944 Act to refuse any review allowed the value of the payment to erode significantly. The award of £5000 per year was an essential feature of the settlement.' Its adequacy was disputed from the beginning by claimants and it has always been ( admitted to be nominal by the Crown.

In fact the Crown failed to clearly protect the payments in a number of ways. The first payment to the Trust Board was short paid and the Board suffered through uncertain and irregular payments. ·before .1944. as '. has .already"been.,'l?qt:ed",JI1.,preyiou~" .',.": .:, . ch~pters~ Claimants' a'iso only~anaged"t~:':g~t;ij':;p~~~~'6~i~~'>"f;~'~: , . , . . ;,

taxation for the payments after considerable effort. 2so,The :.;., matter was only clearly settled with the provis.ions of the 1955 .. . .. Act and later amendments. Later and much more seriously the Crown . failed to protect the value of payments from erosi,on through . ',:" .' inflation. The lack of government action to protect the value of the annual sum became an issue in later years and appears to be a serious attack on the spirit and terms o~ the settlement. As an admitted minimum for the wrong done, ,allowing it to erode significantly without creating structures such ..... as periodic reviews or automatic adjustments for inflation appears to be a '.( major breach of the agreement. The 50% increase a~lowed for in 'the 1977 Maori Purposes Act was a far from realistic adjustment that' appears to have b~en made more o~t of e~pediency' than a commitment to fair dealing. The Robinson',' r~~ea:rch pi:tper previously referred to shows that the. only'ti~e'the'~laimahts' beriefitted from the effects of' inflati~n ~as:durrng~,the:wor~t" " '1.. ,.", ..' '. ' .• '

'". ",

;, .';';"'~~';'s;:~~ for example discussions . retax~tion in : '(AAMK,'S69/764b)' copy in document bank,pp46-52~:::',":';:' .:~ , '. .; -: . :-.. ~.,' '.. :;. .

. ~' .. ' " 132

years of the depression. 25~ This is approximatelY the time the Taranaki Board took voluntary cuts in payments to help the government in the financial crisis. After this the government has gained as the real value of the payments have been severely eroded. The government has never reciprocated the Trust Board's gesture and has failed to make any adequate legislative provision to really correct the loss in value of the compensation payments. The paper shows that the total loss in value of the payments alone (disregarding lost opportunities) to the Taranaki Maori Trust Board from 1931-92 has been $10,972,298.

A final issue to be cpnsidered is the level of goodwill shown by : ) the Crown in negotiations leading up to legislative measures. The 1930 agreement itself was only made after strong political pressure. The 1944 Act entrenched a policy of full and final settJenu:mt in spite of claimant wishes to continue negotiations .,on-:th:esettlement. This process appears to have continued into ··';;"'::;.',i;.'.. :-'· ;'\'~':~;l::;~~·~i'~:·~f.;i~;:E~·:r:~~:\';~:;:·'". "'. ': " " : '.\. ,.>" :. ,..~:. ',; ~:~.. -..... ,.: ':: .,~ :.' '" . "~ ". :. :...',. ~:;. (';.';" .... -.the.. 1970s w~th the Mount Egmont Vest~ng Act~ The deta~ls have .' '. ..'~ ::.~.:. '.~' . "',' ':::' . been covered in chapter 5, but in brief the government appears to:h~ve taken only those parts of a proposed package that happened to suit it at the time. The mountain was symbolically ··.·r'~t1i~ned and immediately gifted back, but other parts of the .... p~~~age ~uch as the name change that were politically difficult ; "':.'~>::-. at .the time, were excluded. The Crown's failure to directly ..... i~v()iveiwi in consultations over the mountain also caused some concern in Taranaki. This has raised issues of the level of Crown to its Treaty partners in the development of

on Indexation of Payments to Maori Trust Boards

.updated to 1992, submitted to Treaty of waitangi " .~ " copy of extract in document bank pp 633-635. 'Possible Issues

--~--~. ---- possible limitations of the Sim inquiry;- its restricted terms of reference, eg it was not able to investigate the legality of confiscation legislation; its relection of Pakeha attitudes of the time, eg its disregard for the importance of wahi tapu; and its limited scope of inquiry eg its refusal to inv~stigate details of previous awards and promises made by the Crown concerning confiscations.

possible limitations of the Sim recommendations, eg the compensation was for wrong doing only, it was not sufficient compensation for economic loss or many other issues involved in the full Taranaki muru raupatu claim

possible problems with the system established to.administer compensation awards, eg one Trust Board to cover all the iwi of Taranaki and one award to cover all the loss regardless of the extent of loss suffered by various iwi

Apparent Crown refusal to seriously consider 1W1 understandings of.1930 agreement, eg lack of consideration .!Jf. iwi ...• qualificCitions in'accepting '., payments, unilateral 'decision to'make"settlement full and final in 1944/ refusal' to . seriously consider. the many subsequent petitions and representations

Apparent Crown interference in' running of Trust Board and . direction of spending eg treatment of compensation money as public money ~ Encouraging payments . for welfare activi ty such as drainage, health, etc that may have been expected to have been provided for general community anyway, especially after 1936

Apparent Crown willingness to use relationship with Trust Board to replace direct consultation with Taranaki iwi as .Treaty partners and to use representation on Board, .. decided finally by Ministerial decision,. as offical recognition of existence of Taranaki iwi

, '-, ·:·i ,'::~': /.. YApparent Crown neglect to provide·' certainty for annual ,~,payments before 1944 and to protect their real value

~!.J.n. /;;,;!I~'~~i~ent. Crown. use •... of '. 1944/ Act,.>.to '. refuse .... serious '·:';:'!:.:)\;;\iJ~(),nsideration ,of, adequacy., of·> Sim ,',' awards, ' with, Treaty ,:; ;:;:;';:iCW::i:};>~;"!=~~l:"s~c:,uritil: establishment.of w,ai t~ng~; Tri~unal., . and .,.:,!!;};,/:,::~~;,~appar~p.t'lack ofg60dwill' in somenegot1at10ns w1th 1W1 eg

"

., . "." ';;;.

I"'";.:.'-, , .-"

,'t' BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Archives: From National Archives, Wellington Maori Affairs department records

MAl,. 1/16/3 pt 2 MAl, 1/16/3 pt 3 MA 5/13 pt 3 MA 5/13/102 MA 8/0 (AAMK 869/2126) MA 8/0 v 2 MAl, 19/1/177 () MA 26/1 pt 1 (AAMK 869/764b) MAl, 26/5 pt 4 MA 26/5/1 MA 26/5/2 pt 1 (AAMK 869/789b) MA 26/5/2 (AAVN accn 3599) MAl, 26/5/3 . MAl, ·26/5/6 pt 1 >.MAseries 51, 12/100 Maori Land claims :/,:/' ::~;> :.'-::\{r,;.I}i~::~·'::::',:·L ... ::::;:~:'.: '.:·\\,~;:,.';'!:i';'.. :':'::'.'."':~)':" . .:, .. ,. Personal papers

-~,Peter Fraser' papers - 3/3 .:,::t

From Te Puni Kokori, Wellington ," :. (oidMaori Affairs department files)

:MA 26/5 pt 5 '; MA 26/5 pt 6 :. MA . 26/5 pt 7 ,..... MA '26/5 pt 8 .. ' . .: .....

Official Publications: .N·ew' Zealand Gazettes

.. ;.:,:~~~,:.;,~ealand Parliamentary Debates .< .<. ;.. ". statutes

statutory Regulations .,', " - ~'.," ~, , , ,.;"

• ",' .:. '~ ! ' 'L;~";~};SECONDARY SOURCES~; ',". ,",' '" .':> ; .. :

Newspapers: Taranaki Daily News 20 May 1929

Books:

Sorrenson MPK (ed) Na To Hoa Aroha, From Your Dear Friend. The . correspondence between sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Peter Buck Auckland University Press 1986 - copy held in Waitangi Tribunal Division library

Jones, Pei Te Hurinui in Erik Schwimmer (ed) The Maori People in the 1960s Blackwood and Janet Paul 1968 - copy held in Waitangi Tribunal:Division library

Unpublished reports

.->.. Robinson Dr J L, Indexation 'of Payments to Maori Trust Boards i~U,m~.>~\Report, including updates to Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit, iJ1.:';.).'~'Department of Justice i 1990.

~i:;"t!,~fli~~f;4'r~~~.1~d~~~ims)Record of Document ......

.::;;':j:'-A8'~Affidavit . CP 135/88 M R R Love Love v Attorney General Hig:l '.. ·:~;.SG'f::!c;~:.-:.;;.~'~.,~o~~:;E'· ~~ ~ 1 ington • ::'-':-.L A.15 .. ·:~aitan:gi Tribunal Raupatu Document Bank

.'" ··};;'~;·:'~~L·· ... :'./.' ":~X/':~-·~/.\"'.':: .. ~ ::.' ',":, ',>' ",.' ." " .• :' •••.•. :"-:: :}:::;f;YA21\):.'Report of· Commission of Inquiry into Maori Reserved Land .:!.:::-:> .•.. :.,;'-1975 . • ,'.. :,=. .•"!:';.. : . ,':.: ... ,:. - . ',.",'.. '.;.;".; j' '" ' • .' • ~ ," : ••.\?:.~~,;.\::. . .' '.,<:s A26Bentinck stokes' report - . ;;'~":':;~{:":';~ar'~:~" Crown Policy on Major Crown/Iwi claim agreements of ;::.',t:.:·;·1940S and 1950s report to Treaty of waitangi Policy. unit,

'~llilll~~i~:nt OfJUstice,:;9:~nd Provincial

······,',~;,;~~Wal.·'62 (Tuwharetoa Kl. Kawerau land~iaimj Record of Document Ki Kawerau Raupatu claim

.,' . :'"

'.' INDEX TO DOCUMENT BANK

Archives:

From National Archives, Wellington:

Maori Affairs department files

MAl, 1/16/3 pt 2 Correspondence re Land Matters 1-10 MAl, 1/16/3 pt 3 Correspondence re Land Matters 11 MAl, 5/13 pt 3 Land claims 12-23 MAl, 5/13/102 Petition re Waimate plains (accn 2459) 24-29 MAl, 8/0 west Coast Settlement Reserves (AAMK 869/2126) 30-32 MAl, 8/0 pt 2 west Coast Settlement Reserves 33-41, MAl, 19/1/177 Taranaki Maori Trust Board 42-45 MA 26/1 pt 1 Trust Boards - general (AAMK 869/764b) 46-59 " " MAl, 26/5 pt 4 Taranaki Maori Trust Board - general, ',,' ,60-113, >MA26/5/1' Taranaki Maori" Trust Board '- ' regulationsi."'\:i,::;Y).~;';i,\:;'d:14..:.i1'1:6;:"::~))7:':::'j "'MA 26/5/2 pt 1 Taranaki Maori Trust Board - members '" ' ' (AAMK 869/789b). "MA '26/5/2 Taranaki Maori Trust Board - members " . (AAVN accn3599)

". MAl, 26/5/3 Taranaki Maori Trust Board - .. ,~" countersigning officer 152-153, MAl, 26/5/6 pt 1 Taranaki Maori Trust,Board - minutes 154-169 ,MAseries 51, 12/100 Maori Land claims

Personal Papers

'.' .:< ". 'Peter Fraser papers 3/3

• '," < •• . '." :.: ..... '. FrOIa,Te Puni Kokori, Wellington: , ,";',,"

';,', ',.:: ,., , ... ,', Old Maori Affairs files Taranaki" Maori Trust, Board - Taranaki Maori Trust'Board­ Taranaki Maori TrustBoard<~ Taranaki Maori Trust,Board- INDEX

...... Page

Official Publications:

New Zealand Gazettes

NZG 1926 no 73.28 October 1926 p 3021 - Notice establishing sim commission 472-475

NZG 25 September 1930 p 2833 Order in council constituting Taranaki Maori Trust Board 11 May 1931 476

/ i NZG 21 May 1931 no 40 p 1543 - Taranaki Maori Trust Board 1931 principal regulations 477-478

NZG 1931 no 52 p 2076-7 Taranaki Maori Trust Board amended reguiations dated 23 June 1931 479-480 (ill]!) ~~ NZG 1934~~,i3~ 976 Taranaki Maori Trust Board - notice

i, "';'.:!:i::;;':"(;::':'C;~:~J?,~~f;j~.~?:;':\f,~~0~,~~?:,~~t.,T? .' 20 .M,arch 1934 . . . . '.. NZG '11 October.,1934;"'1934/76 p 3193 Taranakl. Maorl. Trust " ···:Board:·-:-~:amendt no2 to 1931 regulations 8 October. 1934 482 •.•.. , .."... 1 '. '.. . ,. .',.', • ", ~ _ " .... \ .', ~ :' ~:: (." .,;,.: 1934· p 37181934/85 -'Taranaki Maori Trust Board-' amer-Hit nO'3"jt01931 regulations dated 13 November 1934 483

" .! .'. :',. NZG16'June 1938 - P 1469·- Taranaki Maori Trust Board ..•...... ;., ... notice dated 7 June 1938 appointing members 484

. New zealarid Parli~menta~y Debates - , ....

, .. ,:::,: .. ' ' .. NZPD,1923 v 200 485 , . NZPt) , 1924 v 205 486 ~·f',\ , ...... NZPD>1925 v 208 .' 487-490 . .... 491-511 , 512 513-514 l.(c"'i~i!!~unf~·'i~i . 515-516 944:;;y:267 '·517-526 ,."',;~~: v.275 .527-529 07.. ·.. 530 13·"" 531-543 544-548

-.".: .; Page

New Zealand statutes

1922 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 549-550 1928 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 551-554 1931 Native Purposes Act 555-557 . 1944 Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act 558-559 1955 Maori Trust Boards Act 560-585 1977 National Parks Amendment Act 586-593 1977 Maori Purposes Act 594-595 1978 Mount Egmont vesting Act .. 596-599 , ".:',;

, . .' ~

New Zealand Statutory Regulations

'.:: (193l - 1934'regulations and amendments are.in New.Zealand Gazettes)

,; '. ·S~ R~'~~193 7 :'i';i;::.i~~ 3 7/17 9

"" .,; .:"'/:

.,;". ~ """ \ " .',~~~~papers .,?t~~:: ..... ,

~ ,. , '," • ':,~<,:, Daily News 20 May 1929 632