THE LAND AND THE BLACKBERRY:
Aspects of the History of the Hereheretau and Kahaatureia Blocks with special reference to Hereheretau Station and the Maori Soldiers' Fund
Katherine Orr-Nimmo
7 April 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABBREVIATIONS MAPS: FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 GENERAL BLOCK MAP FIGURE 3 EARLY SUBDIVISIONS OF THE HEREHERETAUBLOCK FIGURE 4 CLEARING ON HEREHERETAU No.2 AND HEREHERETAU No. 2A, c1918 FIGURE 5 THE AREA OF HEREHERETAU STATION IN ITS FIRST FOUR DECADES FIGURE 6 CHANGES TO THE AREA OF HEREHERETAU STATION IN THE 1960s AND 1970s
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Two Purposes of this Project 1 1.2 Some Aspects of the Wider History of the Wairoa Area 2 1.3 Some Geographical Snapshots 5
CHAPTER 2: HEREHERETAU AND THE TEN OWNER RULE 2.1 Introduction 7 2.2 The Runanga Movement and the first Hereheretau Committee 8 2.3 The Early Native Land Acts 9 2.4 The 1868 Hereheretau Hearing 13 2.5 Events Surrounding the 1868 Hearing 14 2.6 Leases and Sales in the Hereheretau Block, 1868-1887 19 2.7 The Partitioning of the Hereheretau Block 20 2.8 The Repartitioning of the Hereheretau Block 23 2.9 The Partitioning of Hereheretau B 25 2.10 Hereheretau B and the Equitable Owners Act 1886 26 2.11 Hereheretau and the Native Land Court Act 1894 27 2.12 The Ten Owner Rule and the Court of Appeal 30 2.13 The Ten Owner Rule and the Appellate Court 31 2.14 The Determination of Relative Interests in Hereheretau B 35 2.15 The Repartitioning of Hereheretau B 37 2.16 Some Later Petitions 38 2.16 Conclusion 39
CHAPTER 3: HEREHERETAU NO 2 AND KAHAATUREIA HEARINGS AND REHEARINGS 3.1 Introduction 42 3.2 Native Land Legislation and Native Committees 43 3.3 Native Committees and the Kahaatureia Dispute 44 3.4 The Native Land Court and the Opoho and Nuhaka No 2 Blocks 46 3.5 The Hearing of Kahaatureia and Hereheretau No 2 48 3.5.1 The 1888 Hearing of Kahaatureia 48 3.5.2 The 1888 Hearing of Hereheretau No 2 55 3.6 The Rehearing of Kahaatureia and Hereheretau No 2 58 3.6.1 The Rehearing of Kahaatureia 58 3.6.2 The Rehearing of Hereheretau No 2 61 3.7 The Determination of Relative Interests in Hereheretau No 2A, Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia A 63 3.8 Survey Charges in Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia 64 3.9 The Subdivision of Kahaatureia and Survey Charges 65 3.10 Crown Purchases in Kahaatureia Subdivisions 65 3.11 The Partitioning of Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A 66 3.12 The Rehearing of Relative Interests in Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A 68 3.13 Conclusion 72
CHAPTER 4: CROWN AND PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS circa 1905-1920 4.1 Introduction 75 4.2 Maori Land Legislation 75 4.3 Some Private Alienations in Kahaatureia and Kahaatureia A 77 4.4 Private Alienations and Crown Purchases in Hereheretau B 79 Table 4.1 Status of Hereheretau B as at April 1917 84 4.5 Initial Interest in Crown Purchases in Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A 92 4.5.1 The Crown Purchase of Hereheretau No 2A 94 4.5.2 The Maori Soldiers' Fund and Initial Crown Purchases in Hereheretau No 2 99 4.6 Conclusion 106
CHAPTER 5: THE MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND TO 1925 5.1 Introduction 109 5.2 The Ideas behind the Creation of the Maori Soldiers' Fund 109 5.3 The Creation and Fund-raising of the Maori Soldiers' Fund 112 5.4 The Early Farming Activities of the Fund 117 5.4.1. Hoata Station 117 5.4.2 The Leasing and Farming of Hoia and Hereheretau Stations 120 5.5 The Trustees and the Disposition of the Maori Soldiers' Fund 126 5.6 Conclusion 127
CHAPTER 6: THE MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND AND HEREHERETAU STATION, 1925-1946 6.1 Introduction 128 6.2 The Transfer of the Maori Soldiers' Fund to the Native Trustee 128 6.3 The Maori Soldiers' Fund and Hereheretau Station under the Native Trustee, 1925-1934 130 6.4 The Maori Soldiers' Fund and Hereheretau Station 133 under the Native Trustee, 1935-1946 6.5 Conclusion 134 Table 6.1 Profit and Loss on Hereheretau Station 1925-1946 136
CHAPTER 7: HEREHERETAU STATION 1946-1996 7.1 Introduction 137 7.2 Development of Hereheretau Station 1946-1996 137 Table 7.1 Profit/Loss and Sheep and Cattle Numbers on Hereheretau Station, 1947-1996 139 7.3 The Proposal To Settle Maori Returned Servicemen on Hereheretau Station 142 7.4 The Purchase of the Station from the Crown 146 7.5 The Purchase and Sale of Land for Hereheretau Station 147 7.6 Conclusion 155
CHAPTER 8: THE MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND 1952-1996 8.1 Introduction 156 8.2 The Beginning of Grants by the Maori Soldiers' Fund 156 8.3 The Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957 161 8.4 Grants for Educational Purposes 163 8.5 Hardship, Funeral and Special Grants 164 Table 8.1 Funeral, Hardship and Special Grants 165 8.6 Debate about the Future of the Maori Soldiers' Fund to the mid-1980s 168 8.7 Debate on the Future of the Maori Soldiers' Fund from the mid-1980s 171 8.8 Trust Expenditure since the Death of the Last Veteran 177 8.9 Conclusion 178
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION 180
BIBLIOGRAPHY 185
APPENDIX 1 DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH
APPENDIX 2 SOME SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Minutes in Hereheretau Case 1868 A 1 Ko Te Whakataunga Tenei 0 Te Whakawa Mo Opoho A 6 Judgement for Opoho [1881] (translation of A 6) A 7 Renata Kawepo to Fenton 11 June 1881 (Maori) A 9 (English) A10 Judgment in Hereheretau No 2-Kahaatureia Hearing 1888 All Judgment in Hereheretau No 2-Kahaatureia Rehearing 1890 A17 1917 Petition to Native Minister regarding Hereheretau B2 A32 1917 Petition to Native Minister regarding Hereheretau B5 A37 Te Tahua Moni Ma Nga Hoia Maori (Heni Materoa) A41 Translation of A41, pp 1-9 (Piripi Walker) A53 THE AUTHOR
Tena koutou. My name is Katherine Orr-Nimmo. I am a Pakeha of Scottish, Irish and English descent. My family live in Wellington. I have a B.Sc.(Hons) in Economics from the University of Canterbury, completed in 1977. From the University of Oxford I have a D.Phi1 in Modem History and a B.A.(Hons) in Theology, both completed in 1983. I am an Anglican priest. Between 1986 and 1995, I worked in parish ministry and as an industrial chaplain. I also contributed entries to volumes one and two of The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Between 1995 and 1997, I worked on a report for Crown Forestry Rental Trust on the East Coast Maori Trust. I have been a research officer at the Waitangi Tribunal since April1997. I began work on this report in August 1997. As well as doing research, I am also responsible for facilitating claims for the East Coast area above Poverty Bay. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks to the following for provision of information and archives: the staff of the National Office and the Gisborne Office of the Maori Trustee; the staff of the Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisborne; the staff of National Archives, Wellington; the staff of the Head Office of LINZ; and the staff of the Alexander Turnbull Library. My thanks to Sir Henare Ngata, Lewis Moeau, Graham Butterworth and Nolan & Skeet, Gisborne, for providing information about possible sources for this project. My thanks to colleagues at the Waitangi Tribunal Division of the Department of Courts for advice and encouragement. ABBREVIATIONS
AJHR Appendix to the Journals, House of Representatives c circa (about) fol(s) folio(s) ibid ibidem (in the same book, etc) loc cit loco citato (in the passage already cited - same page) MA Maori Affairs MB Minute Book NA National Archives NLC Native Land Court NZLR New Zealand Law Reports NZPD New Zealand Parliamentary Debates op cit opere citato (in the work already quoted) pages(s) p,pp section(s) (of an Act) s, ss Wai Waitangi Tribunal claim N. Harris - Apr t 998
~~
Boy
LOCALITY MAP
o IOkm I I I I I I I ! ! ! ! i i o 6miles
Kahuitara
SH.2
Opoho Stm
WAIROA/NUHAKA REGION
FIGURE I LOCATION MAP N. Harris - Apr 1998 Mangapoike
o 5km I I I i o 3miles
Blocks in bold type - Kahuitara
Nuhaka Tutuotekaha No.2
Tukemokihi
Kahuitara
TeWhakaki
* Also 'Mangatieke' FIGURE 2 GENERAL BLOCK MAP from Native Land Court minute books co o, o, 0 5km - I I L. .Q. I i ...: 0 3miles
~ L. L. 0 J: :i
Hereheretau A
Lake Whakaki ~=~SH.2
Source: Adapted from map in AADS W3562, Box 312, Bundle 685, LS 2211984. File closed December ~ 1924, National Archives, Wellington
FIGURE 3 EARLY SUBDIVISIONS OF THE HEREHERETAU BLOCK N. Harris - Apr 1998
a Skm I I
3miles
/ !
,. ...., ... "'.,.,-'>.- ..• ,..., ..•. ,., ..
\ ~\ Bush ~ \, I
CLYDE. - S.D. S.D. /I E R £ 1/ £\ R E T,4 u .\ . ~ Here-h erda u N~ 2. ~ I opoiH, Clyde &. NI.I~DS: \ Propos",d Raads showh fh';s ____ _
Source: MA - MLP I, 1913/89, National Archives, Wellington FIGURE 4 CLEARING ON HEREHERETAU No.2 AND HEREHERETAU No. 2A, c 1918 co 0 Skm '"~ I I <;. I I 0 3miles ~ .", t :r:" Z
Original Station r:::z::::a - 2D - 2A2
Relinquish - 2A2 - pt 2D
Source: Adapted from map in AADS W3562, Box 312, Bundle 685, LS 22/1984. File closed December 1924, National Archives, Wellington
FIGURE 5 : THE AREA OF HEREHERETAU STATION IN ITS FIRST FOUR DECADES 'g J:" i
Transferred to Tangiwai Station Ltd
38 Kahaatureia, Sections 4 & 5
5 38 J
2C2D4CI
Lucky's o, 5km Paddock
SOLD - Lucky's Paddock Pt 2D ~ - Pt 2D transferred to Tangiwai
FREEHOLD ACQUIRED - Kahaatureia 3B, ESSS] - Sections 4 & 5, Block XVI, Opoiti Survey District. - Hereheretau 2C2D4C3, 2C2D4C I, Section I, Block I, Nuhaka Survey District (2C2C) - 2C2B
LEASEHOLD ACQUIRED - 2C2A2 c:::8
Source: Maps and List of Titles in Maori Trustee Head Office - File 701 I 12 vol 5
FIGURE 6: CHANGES TO THE AREA OF HEREHERETAU STATION IN THE 1960'S AND 1970'S CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Two Purposes of this Project This study of the Hereheretau and Kahaatureia area seeks to fulfil two purposes. Firstly, it is intended to provide background on the land blocks which became part of the Hereheretau Station. The land in this station is the subject of claim Wai 192, filed in 1991 by Walter Wilson and Albert Walker, the Sub-Committee elected by the Whakaki Maori Committee of Hereheretau. 1 Parts of Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A were leased by the Maori Soldiers' Fund to form the original Hereheretau Station. Other parts of Hereheretau No 2 and parts of Kahaatureia later became part of the station. The claimants asked the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate the progress of the blocks included in the station through the Maori Land Court; the process by which the land was transferred to the Crown and the Crown's decision making process regarding the land.2
Chapter 3 looks at the way in which the Native Land Court dealt with the ownership and partitioning of Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia between 1888 and 1916. Ngai Te Ipu, Ngati Hine, Ngati Hinepua and Ngati Rakaipaaka claimed some or all of the land before the court. Crown purchases in Kahaatureia in 1898 are also touched on briefly in Chapter 3.
Chapter 4 discusses Crown purchases of land in the Hereheretau, Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A blocks. Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A are blocks quite distinct from the Hereheretau block. The chapter also includes discussion of some alienations other than to the Crown, principally under 1909 and 1913 native land legislation.
Chapter 5 reviews the early years of the Maori Soldiers' Fund. This fund was started on the East Coast in 1917. The intention of the trustees of the fund was to use the money raised to run farms. The trustees planned to spend the income from these farms on assistance for Maori veterans of World War One. Hereheretau Station was one of the farms set up by the trustees. The fund's farming operations seriously drained the finances of the fund. In 1925, responsibility for the administration of the fund was transferred to the Native Trustee.
Chapter 6 looks briefly at the administration of Hereheretau Station and the Maori Soldiers' Fund by the Native Trustee from 1925 to 1946. In these years, the Maori Soldiers' Fund was in very serious financial strife. In consequence, Hereheretau Station came close to losing any Maori connection whatsoever.
Chapter 7 covers the much more obviously successful administration of Hereheretau Station by the Maori Trustee in the post World War Two period. In the early 1950s, after nearly selling the leasehold of the station to the Crown for the rehabilitation of World War Two Maori veterans, the Maori Trustee bought the freehold of the station from the Crown for the Maori Soldiers' Fund. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the Maori Trustee acquired and sold several smaller areas of land. The land bought was acquired
1 For Whakaki, see Figure 1 2 Wai 192 claims, claim 1.1, p 1. See Figure 2 from Maori landowners. A Maori Land Court judge expressed concern about the Maori Trustee's purchase of further lands for the trust.
Chapter 8 touches on the Maori Trustee's administration of the Maori Soldiers' Fund since 1952. At this point the fund finally had money available to distribute. In particular, mention is made of the recurring debate about the future of the fund once the last World War One beneficiary died. Since Hereheretau Station has been the only asset of the fund for virtually all of this period, this debate has effectively been a debate over the future of the station.
In addition to examining these areas, the study also looks at Hereheretau and Kahaatureia land beyond that included in Hereheretau Station. It does this in order to fulfil a second purpose: the provision of a case study of ways in which the Native Land Court, the various Native Land Acts and Crown purchases impacted on land in the larger Wairoa area. Only a few of the numerous transactions relating to these very complex blocks have been covered in the report.
Chapter 2 reviews a crucial forty years in the history of the Hereheretau block. In 1868, Judge Monro put ten owners into the title. In 1908, the Appellate Court greatly enlarged the number of owners in Hereheretau B, the only part of the block that remained in Maori ownership. This chapter should shed light on the issue of the ten owner rule in the Wairoa area.
Interwoven into the history of the operations of the Native Land Court regarding Hereheretau, Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia in chapters 2 and 3 is the story of the various Maori committees through which Maori sought to settle the dispute between Ngati Hine and associated hapu, based principally at Whakaki, and Ngati Rakaipaaka, based primarily at Nuhaka.3 These committees had no legislative authority. The sometimes violent land dispute between these two groups was eventually resolved through the forum of the Native Land Court. It remains an interesting question whether, with a more supportive legislative framework, Maori could not have settled the issue themselves without the enormously protracted processes of hearing and rehearing in the Native Land Court.
1.2 Some Aspects of the Wider History of the Wairoa Area This section summarises, very briefly indeed, certain aspects of the wider history of the Wairoa area. These events provide background for some of the evidence given in the Native Land Court, particularly at the hearing and rehearing relating to the Kahaatureia block.
Hippolite, in the first chapter of her Rangahaua Whanui district report on Wairoa, reviews the Maori occupation ofWairoa up to the late 1830s, drawing particularly on Ballara's thesis on 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu'. Many years earlier, Kahungunu is said to have had three sons, of whom the eldest, Kahukuranui, was born on the Mahia peninsula, at Nukutaurua. Kahukuranui and his wife Tuteihonga had two
3 See Figure 1
2 children, Rakaipaaka and Hinemanuhiri.4 Hippolite suggests that by the eighteenth century, these two children of Kahukuranui were at least as important in the Wairoa, Nuhaka and Mahia areas as were Kahungunu and Ruapani.
Between 1769 and 1840, the three main hapu in the Wairoa-Mahia area were Rakaipaaka, Hinemanuhiri and Kahu. Kahu were associated with the mouth of the Wairoa River. Rakaipaalca were to the east of Kahu. Ngati Hinemanuhiri were to the north. To the south were Ngati Pahauwera and hapu associated with them. The Ngati Ruapani were in the Wairoa-Waikaremoana area. Hapu with Mahia associations were Ngati Hikairo and Ngai (or Ngati) Tu. 5 Earlier, Te Huki, a descendant of Rakaipaaka, had had three sons by a Nuhaka wife, Te Ropuhina. Two of these sons, Tureia and Te Rehu, settled at Nuhaka. From Te Rehu came the hapu Ngai Te Rehu. 6
During the early period of European contact and on into the early nineteenth century, the life of the area was characterised by a persistent system of relatively independent hapu communitites. These were the most important social units, although major hapu were often linked with less important hapu, and individuals sometimes belonged to more than one hapu. The early nineteenth century, however, also brought an increasing consciousness of the value of some kind of wider identity. The most important pressure in this direction was the impact of invasions of the area by northern tribes. 7
The availability of muskets allowed a higher level of violence. Nga Puhi from Tai Tokerau, who had been the first to acquire the new weapons, made their first expedition to the East Coast in 1819. The following year, Te Wera Hauraki and Pomare ofNga Puhi landed between the East Cape and Hicks Bay. Te Wera made his way down through Waiapu as far as Nukutaurua. By April 1821, he was back in the Bay of Islands. Among his prisoners were Te Whareumu of Ngati Ralcaipaaka and a sister ofTe Whareumu who became a wife ofTe Wera. In 1823, Te Wera returned to Nukutaurua with Te Whareumu. Te Whareumu pointed out to the people at Mahia that Te Wera had brought him home. Te Wera was given land at Whangawehi and further wives to induce him to remain with his followers and muskets to protect the people of his brother-in-Iaw.8
Violence flared in other parts of the lower North Island. Various groups from the Heretaunga and Wairarapa districts moved to Mahia for safety.9 There they came into contact with two pakeha-generated activities. The first was the preparation of flax for export. The Mahia Maori traded this with Sydney firms in return for firearms. The second activity was whaling. Pal<:eha whalers called in the area. The food which they required could be also be traded for firearms. An increased supply of firearms improved the military position of Te Wera. 10
4 Joy Hippolite, Wairoa, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, November 1996 Working Paper: First Release, p 5 5 ibid, pp 8-9 6 ibid, p 7 7 ibid, P 9 8 ibid, pp 9-10 9 ibid, pp 10-11 10 ibid, pp 11-12
3 Before long, however, Tuhoe called upon various groups, including Pomare of Nga Puhi, to assist them in connection with various grievances they felt against the Wairoa peoples. This apparently intensified the process by which people from the Heretaunga and other areas of Hawke's Bay retreated to the Mahia peninsula. The invaders attacked a Ngati Rakaipaaka pa in the Nuhaka valley, with debatable success. Te Ratau ofNgati Rakaipaaka, the father of Ihaka Whaanga, tried to make peace with the invading groups, taking advantage of his distant relationship with some of the Tuhoe. He was unsuccessful. After an unsuccessful attack on the many groups who had taken refuge at the Pukekaroro pa at Nukutaurua, peace of a sort was made between Ngati Kahungunu and Tuhoe. There was further violence in 1826, but eventually a more lasting peace was made between these two groups. Hippolite, following Ballara, argues that the concentration of refugee groups at Nukutaurua had the effect of welding together a high proportion of the people of the Hawke's Bay and the Wairarapa into a much more coherent unit. This unit tended to identify itself as the iwi N gati Kahungunu. 11
After the wars were finished, however, the groups started to disperse to their traditional areas and the old hapu independence reasserted itself. Hippolite concludes that by the late 1830s, when hapu had returned home, the hapu which were based in the Wairoa area were Rakaipaaka, Kahu, Hinemanuhiri, Kurupakiaka, Ngati Hikairo, Rongomaiwahine, Ngati Tu and Ruapani. 12
Many of the people in this highly simplified account of the history of the Wairoa area will feature in the much more detailed study which follows. BaHara's study shows, however, the enormous complexity of the hapu within the Wairarapa and Hawke's Bay areas. In her Appendix II, Ballara gives a very long list of iwi and hapu from these areas. Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu, two of the three hapu associated with the Hereheretau area, appear on this list but the third, N gati Hinepua, does not. 13 N gati Rakaipaaka, the other important group involved in the history of the blocks studied here, gets considerable attention from Ballara. 14 But the land court minutes for these blocks also contain references to numerous further hapu within Ngati Rakaipaaka. 15
Ballara points out that the term Ngati Kahungunu could be used both at the wider iwi level, and also at the hapu level, as in Ngati Kahungunu-ki-Wairoa. 16 The Native Land Court minute books consulted here certainly suggest that the relationship of Ngati Hine and Ngati Rakaipaaka to Ngati Kahungunu is far from simple. For example, in 1890 Hoani Ngarara said that Ngati Hine were known as Ngati Kahungunu before they took the name Ngati Hine. He derived this name from Hinetapaeru, a descendent of Kahungunu. He also described Ngati Rakaipaaka as 'a sub-hapu of
11 ibid, pp 12-14; For Pakekaroro pa at Nukutaurua see Thomas Lambert, The Story of Old Wairoa and the East Coast District, North Island New Zealand or Past, Present, and Future: A Record Of Over Fifty Years' Progress, Reprint Christchurch, Capper Press, 1977, p 325 12 Hippolite, op cit, p 14 13 Heather Angela Ballara, 'The Origins ofNgati Kahungunu', PhD Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1991, fols 569 ff. For Ngai Te Ipu, see fo1574. For Ngati Hine, see fo1582. 14 See especially ibid, fols 175-177 15 See, for example, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 3, fo1277 16 Ballara, thesis cited, fo1137
4 N.Kahungunu,.17 On other occasions, however, Ngati Kahungunu is referred to as a separate group from either Ngati Hine or Ngati Rakaipaaka. 18
1.3 Some Geographical Snapshots Some points about the geography of this area may be helpful to the reader. The blocks looked at in this study lie on the East Coast ofthe North Island of New Zealand, along the coast between Wairoa and the Mahia peninsula.
The division of the land into these blocks reflect the units which the Native Land Court found it convenient to create. The block names do not necessarily represent the way in which the names were used by Maori prior to land passing through the land court. For instance, in 1868 Areta Te Rito said that certain people disputed his title 'to the part called Opoho' .19 This may well have included at least part of what was later called the Opoho block. But it certainly seems to have taken in at least part of what the court called the Kahaatureia block. Again, when Maori gave evidence to the land court, they often used 'Kahaatureia' to refer to a 'line' or 'boundary' or a specific place, rather than to a land block.
The Whakaki township, which was the home of many of the Maori mentioned in the pages that follow, lies in the Hereheretau block, rather than in the adjoining Te Whakaki block. One very important feature of Hereheretau is the Whakaki Lagoon, sometimes known as the Whakaki lake. The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment states that before farmland developed in this area, the lake was part of 'an extensive coastal wetland network'?O A series of maps in the office's Investigation Into The Management O/The Whakaki Lagoon shows how the wetlands between the Wairoa and Opoho Rivers have changed between 1874 and 1990.
Maori valued these wetlands for their wild-life. Eel-weirs were a particularly prized feature of the Opoho River. When the various blocks were before the Native Land Court, local Maori described the land in an enormous wealth of detail. They mentioned numerous features, from eel weirs to karaka trees to clearings. Here, however, are three much simpler pakeha descriptions of the physical nature of the land which may help to orientate readers totally unfamiliar with the area.
This is how John Hunter Brown, a pakeha farmer who leased and then bought part of the 8820 acre Hereheretau block, described this block to the Native Land Court in 1889. There is roughly 1200 acres of lake, & 1200 acres, roughly, of sand & little grass. There is a third quality of hill land to the extent roughly of 4000 acres, the balance is flat land. Of the flat land one half is always
17 Gisbome NLC MB 20, fo1210 18 See, for example, Hoani Ngarara, reference to 'N. Hine, & N.Kahungunu ofWairoa assembled at Te Ti.' Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fo164 19 Wairoa NLC MB 1, fo168. See Appendix 2 20 Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, investigation into The Management O/The Whakaki Lagoon: Background Report, Wellington, March 1993 (Wai 201 record of documents, doc D7), p 1
5 available, but the other half is often covered with water during the winter, & therefore is unavailable for use. In winter the lake backs up & covers this part of the flat land & on average I have to let the water out three times during the winter at an average cost of £4. If I did not do this very little of the flat land would be available during winter?l
Behind the Hereheretau block lay Hereheretau No 2. In 1918, the Crown was in the process of acquiring interests in the block. The Crown Lands Ranger, Gisborne, described the block to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier. The block is situated about 14 miles from Wairoa, and comprises fairly easy country, but no flat land of any extent. The land is covered principally with fern, tutu, and manuka scrub, with good mixed bush in the gullies and along the North bank of the Tahaenui Stream. There is also a block of mixed bush and scrub in the North-western portion of the block.22
The Kahaatureia block was on the eastern side of the Hereheretau and Hereheretau No 2 blocks. This block seems to have generated much less in the way of Native Land
, , , , Purchase files and other files than others looked at here. In 1894, when the purchase of the block was being considered, the block was described by an official as 'very good land somewhat broken and mostly bush' ?3
A last feature of this area is the blackberry. Local history attributes the introduction of the blackberry to the Reverend James Hamlin, an Anglican priest who arrived in Wairoa in 1844 and stayed for twenty years.24 This botanical pest was not confined to this area. Boast talks ofthe endless proliferation of this plant in the Mohaka-Waikare blocks, and the resultant difficulties for Maori farmers?5 Certainly in the blocks looked at here, the blackberry was, at least from the early twentieth century, a feature of the landscape repeatedly described as a menace. It will feature frequently in the pages that follow. It is not at all surprising that James Thorpe of Ngati Hine, writing to Judge Jones at a time the Hereheretau No 2 block was proving contentious, chose to refer to 'this thorniest of all blackberry-like cases,?6
21 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fol280 22 Crown Lands Ranger, Gisborne, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 27 March 1918, MA MLP 1 1913/89, NA Wellington 23 Cover ofNLP 93/289, included in MA-MLP I 1902/31, NA Wellington 24 Lambert, op cit, p 445; J G Wilson & others, History ofHawke's Bay, Produced as a Centennial Memorial by The Hawke's Bay Centennial Historical Committee, Dunedin & Wellington, A H & A W Reed, 1939, p 172 25 R P Boast, 'Report on Crown purchasing of Mohaka-Waikare blocks', June 1994 (Wai 201 record of documents, doc J3), pp 32-33, 50-52 26 James Thorpe to Judge Jones, 17 July 1916, Box 47, Hereheretau No 2, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisborne
6 CHAPTER 2: HEREHERETAU AND THE TEN OWNER RULE 2.1 Introduction This chapter begins by touching on the runanga movement, a development of the traditional runanaga of pre-contact times. This movement failed to gain lasting legislative support. Later Maori agitation in favour of legislation to allow Maori committees to settle land issues also bore little practical fruit. Yet the history of what became known as the Hereheretau and Kahaatureia blocks shows very clearly that Maori in Poverty Bay and Hawkes Bay were prepared to invest considerable time and energy in repeated efforts to settle the recurring disputes over the ownership of land covered by this study. These efforts form a thread interweaving with the operations of the Native Land Court in the area. The first known committee to look at part of the block will be covered in this chapter. Further committees are covered in Chapter 3.
The chapter also touches on the legislation under which the Native Land Court began its operations and the attitudes of the early Native Land Court judges, particularly Chief Judge Fenton and Judge Momo. Judge Momo was responsible for the 1868 hearing regarding what became known as the Hereheretau block. The court under Judge Momo dealt with numerous other Wairoa blocks within a very short time frame. Hereheretau was only one of a number of blocks where the ownership as settled by the Court under Judge Momo was later contested.
The 1868 Hereheretau hearing left the block with ten owners. The court minutes for this hearing take up a mere five pages in the first Wairoa minute book. This might give the impression that the resolution of the block's ownership was a relatively simple matter. Later hearings involving the block revealed, however, that much of the activity associated with the 1868 hearing was not mentioned in the original minutes. Local Maori disagreed about the legitimacy of the process which had led to the naming of only ten owners.
Many of these people felt aggrieved by their exclusion from the Crown Grant for Hereheretau. This discontent became very evident after the passing of the Native Equitable Owners Act 1886. Discontent among Maori excluded from ownership of other grants in the Wairoa area also surfaced at this time. The Hereheretau situation cannot be viewed in isolation from these other blocks. Cases in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal in 1902 regarding subdivisions of the nearby Tukemokihi and Kahuitara blocks had an important influence on the fate of Hereheretau B. This was the only portion of the block still in Maori ownership at that point.
Areta Te Rito was a leading owner in the Hereheretau block. He had been of critical importance in the 1868 situation. Te Rito firmly resisted attempts to enlarge the ownership of the block. After applications under the Native Equitable Owners Act 1886 and the Native Land Court Act 1894, petitions, a royal commission, and hearings in the Native Land Court and the Appellate Court, the list of owners of Hereheretau B, their relative interests and the partition of the block was finally resolved in 1908.
7 In conclusion, the chapter touches very briefly on some later petitions that reflect on going controversy over the block. Three of these petitions relate to the question of the loss of part of the block because of sales by some of the original grantees. The issue of the rights ofNgai Te Ipu is also raised. A further petition relates to the Whakaki Lake. The management of this very important resource has been an important issue for local Maori.
2.2 The Runanga Movement and the first Hereheretau Committee During the 1850s, several iwi and hapu put considerable energy into the runanga movement. Traditional runanga had been 'meetings where interested parties discussed a problem or dispute,.27 These had persisted into the mid nineteenth century from pre contact days. There was, however, a tendency for them to become more formal, and to develop law codes which dealt with matters such as theft, drunkenness, cattle trespass and adultery. Ward suggests that they were influenced in this direction by the korniti (committees) which had been set up in missionary congregations to perform similar roles. The term komiti was sometimes used for the more traditional runanga. During the 1850s, however, there was a reassertion of the traditional term as Maori sought to reassert their independence from pakeha and their own cultural identity?8 There was some discussion of the possibility of incorporating the runanga in the administration of Maori districts.
The Waitara dispute meant that by the early 1860s the issue of Maori land was in a particularly delicate state. In both London and New Zealand, the New Zealand government was criticised because it had not set up a due process through which overlapping Maori land claims could be resolved?9 In 1861, Sir George Grey, back in New Zealand for a second term as Governor, sought to implement this by introducing 'the Runanga system', also known as 'the new institutions'. The system was intended to incorporate Village Runanga working under the authority of a Resident Magistrate, and District Runanga under pakeha officials known as Civil Commissioners. The pakeha officials were to work with Maori Assessors. One of the functions of the Resident Magistrates and Runanga was to be the definition of Maori land interests and, once a Crown Grant confirmed these, the authorisation of land alienation to pakeha. Ward comments that This proposal envisaged the preservation of corporate tribal authority over land, during both the determination of title and alienation. It therefore contrasted with the alternative view, widely favoured among settlers, that Maori title should be individualised as quickly as possible and direct dealing between individual Maori and settlers permitted.3D
The Native Circuit Courts Act and Native Districts Regulation Act 1858 gave the system its legislative authority. Maori reactions to the new system were highly
27 A Ward, A Show ofJustice: Racial 'Amalgamation' in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Auckland, Auckland University Press/Oxford University Press, © 1973, fIrst published 1974 by the Australian National University Press, this reprint 1983, p 97 28 ibid, loc cit 29 Alan Ward, National Overview, vol 2, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, p 211 30 A Ward, A Show ofJustice .,', p 125
8 31 variable. The principal Hawkes Bay chiefs refused to co-operate with A H Russell in 32 forming a runanga. In Wairoa, however, which had not previously experienced visits from a magistrate, Russell met with 'a good reception, the Assessors supporting him and allowing him to modify the decisions of their own runanga. ,33
In July 1862, the premier, William Fox, introduced a native lands bill that set out to confirm the power of runanga to determine land titles and alienations to settlers. The latter were only to receive freehold title after ten years of occupancy of land. Fox was unable to persuade parliament to pass the bill, and the Fox ministry resigned shortly afterwards. The Domett ministry that succeeded it was more hard-line in its Maori policies. It was under this ministry that Maori policy took a significant new direction with the passage ofthe first ofthe Native Lands Acts. 34
About the time of this important new development, a Maori committee tried, apparently for the first time, to settle a dispute about the ownership of part of what later became known as the Kahaatureia block. The younger Ihaka Whaanga, son of the important Ngati Rakaipaaka leader Ihaka Whaanga,35 appeared as a witness for Ngati Rakaipaaka, his hapu, at the 1890 Kahaatureia rehearing. The younger Ihaka said that the 'present troubles' over the block had begun 'about 1861', when Whata of N gati Hine from Whakaki went and squatted on the land. According to the younger Ihaka, his father and Matenga, another Ngati Rakaipaaka leader, refused to let their hapu fight Whata. Instead, leading Gisborne Maori came to the area as a committee and spoke to Whata, who claimed the land. After Whata had heard what the committee had to say about peacemaking, Whata returned to Whakaki about 1862. The younger Ihaka seemed somewhat unclear as to whether this committee sat at Whakaki or at Nuhaka.36 He was also, of course, giving his hapu's perceptions of the situation. It seems, however, that about the time that the government turned their attention to the possibility of incorporating runanga into the administration, Maori in the Wairoa Poverty Bay area were using their own initiative to address problems over land ownership through the use of a committee.
2.3 The Early Native Land Acts The preamble to the Native Lands Act 1862 contained explicit references to the Treaty ofWaitangi. It also stated, however, that the settlement of the colony 'and the advancement and civilization of the Natives' would benefit greatly if Maori rights to land were defined and, in particular, if such ownership rights were 'assimilated as nearly as possible to the ownership of land according to British law'. When this act eventually received the royal assent, it was in force only long enough to allow the hearing of a few claims in the north. Ward comments that
31 For a wide-ranging review, see ibid, Chapter 9 32 ibid, P 135 33 ibid, P 141 34 Vincent O'Malley, Agents ofAutonomy: Maori Committees in the Nineteenth Century, Wellington, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1997, pp 10-11 35 Angela Ballara, 'Whaanga, Ihaka ?-1875', The Dictionary ofNew Zealand Biography, vol 1, Wellington, Allen & Unwin & Department of Internal Affairs, 1990, pp 584-585 36 Gisborne NLC MB 20, 15 October 1890, p 250; ibid, 16 October 1890, fo1269-270
9 The 1862 Act envisaged what was essentially a commission of the leading chiefs of the area under consideration, meeting under the chairmanship of the R.M. or Civil Commissioner of the district, and arguing out a consensus. This would have been an open flexible institution, not too removed from traditional mechanisms for resolving land disputes, and little relevant information would have escaped it. 37
Early in 1865, however, F D Fenton was appointed Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. He retained this position until 1882. Ward remarks that Fenton was 'very much concerned with power and status seeking and wanted to make his own position analogous to that of a Supreme Court Judge. ,38 Fenton set out to reorganise the court on a much more formal and eurocentric model that had strong affinities to the Supreme Court. The hardening of pakeha attitudes resulting from several years of war provided support for this approach. Under the Native Lands Act 1865, heavily influenced by Fenton, there was to be a chief judge and other judges, appointed by the Governor and holding office 'during good behaviour'. A judge was to sit with at least two Maori assessors, also to be appointed by the Governor, but holding their offices 'during pleasure' .39 The Chief Judge was given power to make and change the rules of the court.40 The four aims of the act were • to amend and consolidate laws relating to land 'still subject to Maori proprietary customs'; • to ascertain, under these customs, who owned this land; • to encourage the extinction of customary tenure and to provide for the conversion of customary tenure into titles derived from the Crown; • to regulate the succession to deceased owners of Maori land.
This preamble contained no references whatsoever to the Treaty of Waitangi. Very important for the fate of Hereheretau were sections 23 and 24 of the act. The effect of these was that the Court had three options when dealing with an area of land. Firstly, under section 23, it could issue a Certificate of Title to no more than ten individual owners. Secondly, again under section 23, it could issue a Certificate of Title to a tribe, as long as the area was more than 5000 acres. Thirdly, under section 24, it could subdivide the area and issue two or more Certificates of Title. These might be issued to up to ten individuals in each case or, if the block were of more than five thousand acres, to a tribe. The way the court used these sections was crucial.
Under the 1865 act, the land court had to investigate land titles on the basis of 'Maori proprietary customs', but could interpret those customs as it should 'think fit'. With each judge having his own interpretation of Maori custom, court decisions were not necessarily uniform. Hazel Riseborough argues that the court had 'ample leeway for
37 A Ward, 'Law and Law-enforcement on the New Zealand Frontier, 1840-1893', New Zealand Journal ofHistory, vol 5, no 2, October 1971, quoted in Vincent O'Malley, Agents ofAutonomy: Maori Committees in the Nineteenth Century, Wellington, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, pp 13-14 38 ibid, P 14 39 sections 6 and 12 of the Native Lands Act 1865 40 s 14
10 personal and idiosyncratic judgments. ,41 Certainly the views of individual judges could have a marked influence on the operation of this and successive native lands acts.
Fenton, not surprisingly, had a particularly marked effect on the interpretation of the legislation. One aspect that seems to have been significant for the Hereheretau block was his strong desire to favour the interests of leading Maori, rather than those with less status. He consequently made a practice of awarding very large blocks, which could have been awarded to tribes, to ten owners.42 This practice became prevalent in the land court. The rights of other Maori who had previously occupied such land disappeared completely under this system, because the act did not make the ten owners trustees for others with an interest in the land. Those on the certificate of title could alienate the land without reference to those not included.
The operations of the court soon aroused concern in some quarters. The Native Lands Act 1866 amended the 1865 legislation by giving the Governor in Council power to restrict the alienation of native reserves by sale or lease. The court was given a duty to consider whether such restrictions should be written into certificates of title. This act did not end dissatisfaction among those concerned for Maori interests.
Judge Monro did not share this dissatisfaction. This judge was to bring the operations of the Native Land Court to Wairoa, and to Hereheretau in particular. In 1867 he told the chief judge that 'The Natives, wherever I have been, have repeatedly expressed their satisfaction at the mode of procedure, and appear generally to have the utmost confidence in the Court. ,43 Monro was not a lawyer. Before his appointment as one of the first judges appointed to the Native Land Court as it was reconstituted in 1865, Monro had worked in the Native Department. He joined the department as an 44 interpreter and translator in 1857.
The agenda which led Monro to interpret the operations of the court in this favourable light can be seen in a further letter which he wrote to the Chief Judge in 1871. If, indeed, the transfer ofland had been the sole object the Legislature had in view, it might have been sufficient to have referred cases of sale only to the Court, for examination and confirmation, but inasmuch as it was plain that many of the rights of citizenship are inseparable from an individual tenure of property, and that land is one of the most important species of property, it was wisely determined to make the measure more general in its application, and, as far as possible, an instrument for the conversion of the Native communal into an English proprietary tenure, which would confer upon its possessors of either
41 Hazel Riseborough and John Hutton, The Crown's Engagement with Customary Tenure in the Nineteenth Century, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, July 1997, First Release, p 59 42 ibid, pp 61-62 43 Chief Judge F D Fenton, 'Report on the working of the Native Lands Act 1865, & correspondence related thereto', July 1867, AJHR, 1867, A-10, Monro to Fenton, 27 June 1867, enclosed in F D Fenton ... 44 Bryan D Gilling, 'The Nineteenth-Century Native Land Court Judges: An Introductory Report, pp 9, 24 (Wai 64 record of documents, doc G5)
11 race, not only the rights of owners of the soil, but those also of freeholders - in a word, of citizens. ,45
It is hardly surprising that this enthusiastic supporter of individual land tenure followed the practice of the chief judge in making grants to individuals rather than tribes.
In 1867, however, unease with the existing legislation prevailed, and the Native Lands Act 1867 was passed. Section 17 was meant to stop further certificates of title being issued to up to ten owners if there were more than ten Maori with customary rights to land within the block. Firstly, the section instructed the court not just to ascertain the rights of the applicant for the block and any other claimants who appeared in court, but also the rights of any other person or tribe with an interest in the block 'according to Native custom'. Secondly, where more than 10 people or a tribe or hapu were interested in land, if the certificate recorded that it was issued under section 17, the certificate could be issued to up to ten of those interested, with the names of all those interested being registered in the court. When this happened, section 17 further stated that such land was to be inalienable except by leasing for a period of no more than 21 years. If a majority of those interested in the land chose to subdivide it, however, it became possible to sell the land.
Fenton strenuously objected to the possibility this section opened up for more than ten owners to have their interests registered. He argued that it would 'make perpetual the communal holdings of the Natives' - a form of land tenure which he considered contrary to the 'declared intentions of the Legislature'. He made it clear that he would continue to issue certificates of title without the recording of extra names which section 17 made possible.46
Fenton's position not surprisingly had a marked influence on the procedure followed by other judges. Moreover, it seems that many Maori did not understand the native land acts. In 1871, T M Haultain reported to McLean on the operation of the acts. He claimed that Maori were in general satisfied with the performance of the Native Land Court. Yet he also commented that Napier Maori 'know nothing of the law, for they have never been instructed, and no translations of the Acts or full information of their details, have ever been circulated amongst them. ,47
Consequently the act failed to halt the particularly objectionable operations of the court. These had centred on Hawke's Bay. Many very large Hawkes Bay pastoral runs had been illegally leased prior to the native lands acts. When it became possible for up to ten owners to obtain a certificate of title, the owners often found themselves encouraged into indebtedness and then pressurised into parting with their land to meet their debts.48
45 'Papers relative to the working of the Native Land Court Acts, and Appendices relating thereto', AJHR, 1871, A-No 2A, P 14 46 ibid, P 41 47 1·b·d 1 ,p 4 48 Hazel Riseborough & John Hutton, op cit, pp 67-68
12 2.4 The 1868 Hereheretau Hearing How did the land with which this report is concerned fare under this early native land legislation? The first sitting of the Native Land Court at Wairoa took place on 16 February 1867. At this stage the 1867 amending legislation had not yet been passed. Judge Momo presided.
In 1902, Momo was required to give evidence before the Supreme Court over cases involving two other Wairoa blocks which he had investigated in September 1868.49 These cases will be touched on further in section 2.12. At this point, however, it is interesting to note that, according to A L D Fraser, who appeared on several occasions as counsel for grantees in various blocks, Momo in his 1902 evidence said that when he sat in February 1867, he explained the law to Maori and advised them to partition their land. Three days later the court adjourned. 50
The land court did not sit again in Wairoa until 17 September 1868. In 1902, Judge Momo gave evidence that he was familiar with the provisions of "The Native Land Act, 1867," when he held the sittings in September, 1868, and had a copy of the Act with him; that he explained the provisions of section 17 of that Act to the Natives on the first day of the sittings; that he applied and gave effect to that section in regard to several blocks ofland ... at that sitting, ordering certificates in favour of certain persons and registering others on whose behalf they were to hold ... 51
Momo did not, however, claim to have explained the legislation each time he moved on to hear a further block. The Hereheretau block came before the court on 21 September 1868. There is certainly no indication in the minutes that any such explanation was given to those present. Given the very brief minutes in this minute book, it is still possible that he explained the legislation. Yet even if he did, Maori unfamiliar with European concepts of land ownership would not necessarily have understood such an explanation.
The area initially before the court was somewhat larger than what subsequently became known as the Hereheretau block. It is, however, impossible to tell precisely how much larger, since the map which was placed before the court has not been located. 52 At any rate, the area in question was claimed by Areta Te Rito. Te Rito said that he was ofNgati Hine and lived at Whakaki. Te Rito claimed through Hinepua. Te Rito said that the principal owner of 'this piece' had been Kahukura of Ngatihine.
49 For background of cases, see Timu Kerehi and another v Duff and others; Turei Waata and another v Brown and others, Takerei v Shrimpton and others, C.A. [1902], NZLR vo121, 416-424. The case against Shrimpton involved an earlier hearing in Napier. 50 Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 11,15 February 1907, fo14 51 Timu Kerehi and another v Duff and others ... ,416,421 52 Unsuccessful efforts have been made to locate early ML plans for this area at LINZ National Office, LINZ Napier Office, LlNZ Gisbome Office and the Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisbome. It seems likely that the plan that was before the Court was destroyed in the Napier earthquake and subsequent fire.
13 Kahukura had given the land to Te Ipu, the grandson of Hinepua, from whom Te Rito was descended. According to Te Rito, Te Ipu took possession of the land and his descendants had possessed it ever since. Te Rito admitted that there was a dispute about the area called Opoho. 53
Other claimants to the block were from the Ngati Rakaipaaka who lived at Nuhaka. The first to speak was Te Matenga. Through the ancestor Te Rangihakahaka, Te Matenga claimed an area to the east of a line which began at Whakahoki on the coast. He denied that the creek - presumably the Opoho creek - was the boundary of the block. According to Te Matenga, the swamp land on either side of the creek had been valued by his ancestors for its eels. He insisted that only his Rakaipaaka ancestors had caught eels there. Other Rakaipaaka supported this position. They insisted that they alone had had eel pas, along with houses, in the Opoho creek area. Ihaka Whaanga said that Areta had let his land as a sheep run. Whaanga said that when this happened, he had allowed the sheep to run over the disputed area up to the Opoho creek because the creek was a convenient boundary for the stock. Whaanga claimed, however, that he had told Te Rito to give him 'a small part of the rent money in consideration.' The first year, he said, he had received ten pounds. Since then, he had been paid nothing.54
Te Teira, another Ngati Hine from Whakaki, insisted, on the contrary, that Ngati Hine had several pas on the Opoho creek and 'used constantly to catch the eels.,55
Eventually the two parties agreed to a proposal to cut out the disputed part of the block. The idea was to have that area heard at the next sitting of the Native Land Court. George Burton had surveyed the land on the plan before the court. He gave the area excluding the disputed section as 8175 acres, but this is corrected to 8820 acres in the margin of the minutes. Areta Te Rito then gave a list of ten owners to the Court. The Judge ordered that a certificate of title to Hereheretau should issue to these ten people. 56 No restriction was placed on the land. A Crown Grant for the 8820 acre 57 Hereheretau block was issued to Areta te Rito and nine others in 1871.
2.5 Events surrounding the 1868 Hearing The 1868 minutes give the impression that, with the exception of the disputed area in the vicinity of the Opoho creek, it was a simple and straightforward matter to determine the ownership of Hereheretau. Later hearings reveal, however, that the process was quite complex.
In the 1868 minutes, the licensed surveyor George Burton makes a brief appearance which deals only with his surveying work and the amount of other land - about 17,000 acres - that he says the claimants had in addition to the block for which a certificate
53 Wairoa NLC MB 1,21 September 1868, fo1s 67-68 54 ibid, fo1s 68-70 55 ibid, fo1 70 56 ibid, fo1s 70-71 The 8820 figure was placed in the margin of the minute book in brackets beside the 8175 acre figure. 57 Crown Grant dated 10 July 1871, registered 21 July 1871, LINZ, Wellington
14 was subsequently issued. Burton said that the disputed boundary had been surveyed 'and can readily be shewn on the map.,58
Burton had a much more central part in the events of 1868 than this might suggest. He had arrived in Wairoa to help survey what became the town, along with rural land bought by McLean for the Crown. He later surveyed substantial areas of confiscated 59 land.
In about 1867 - at any event before the block came before the court - Burton started 6o living on the block. In 1899, Horomona Taruna of Whakaki gave evidence at an enquiry into Hereheretau B at which certain people argued that the grantees were meant to be trustees, rather than absolute owners. Taruna was not one of the ten original grantees. He had been present at the original 1868 hearing - or at least at part 62 of it.6l He stated that before the hearing Burton had sheep running on the block. He said that there were a number of meetings in connection with the block. He had 63 64 attended one at Waihireri. Another was held at Whakaki. He said that at the meetings agreement was reached that Kahukura and Te Ipu were two of the ancestors to be set up in court and that all their descendents 'were entitled.' The other decision 65 was that Areta Te Apatu and Te Teira would be their spokesmen in COurt. Later he mentioned Hinepua as a third ancestor whom they had arranged to put forward in their case.66 According to him, the ten were 'not the only owners'. He said that most of the owners were left out of the list of grantees, although all had wanted to be selected. He claimed that it was at Burton's suggestion that 'We met outside the court and selected [the ten]' .67 This implied a collective decision. Later in his evidence, however, Taruna said that I do not know why Areta selected the persons he did for the title.
I considered at the time that Areta was robbing the people but did not know that I had any remedy. I went away believing that my land had 68 gone to others.
He said that they were only told that no more than ten people could be put into the grant at the conclusion of the case. According to him, Burton told the poeple that 'if any of the grantees misbehaved they could be removed and replaced by others.,69
58 Wairoa NLC MB 1, fol 70 59 Thomas Lambert, The Story olOld Wairoa and the East Coast District, North Island New Zealand or, Past, Present, and Future: A Record 01 Over Fifity Years' Progress, reprint published Christchurch, Capper Press, 1977, pp 405-406 60 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, 7 February 1889, fo1271 61 Wairoa NLC MB 11, fols 87, 88, 89 62 ibid, fa Is 89-90 63 ibid, fol 87 Waihireri or Waihirere has not been located. 64 ibid, fol 88 65 ibid, f0189. Areta Te Apatu was another name for Areta Te Rita. 66 ibid, f01 91 67 ibid, f01 87 68 ibid, fol 91 69 ibid, fo1 92
15 After the hearing, according to Taruna, Burton leased the land. For two years Burton paid rent which was 'distributed among all interested not among the Grantees only'. After two years, however, the people were so indebted to Burton that he kept the rent money to reimburse himself. Once Brown took over the lease, he advanced money to pay for the survey of Hereheretau No 2. After that, the grantees retained the 7o Hereheretau rent for themselves. Taruna said that he was cultivating on the land 'under my own rights.' 71
The next witness, Raniera Tawhiri, gave evidence which was mainly very similar to that of Taruna. He added that 'The whole hapu had rights.' He said that the 'whole tribe' had been at the Waihirere meeting. According to him, twenty people were selected for the title at that meeting. 72 At that point, the plan was to subdivide the block and put ten people into each. He said that this suggestion came from Burton and Areta Te Rito, and that Burton took part in the selection of the names. 73
It seems that Tawhiri would have found it difficult to oppose Te Rito. He commented: Areta was a rangatira and I would not object to what he did.
When we selected the twenty persons we knew there were others entitled. We did not consider that the twenty were to be the sole owners. 74
According to Tawhiri, both the ten and the twenty who were selected were intended to be trustees. 75 Unlike Taruna, though, Tawhiri said that when the list of names was read out in the court, he 'went out thinking that our interests were safe.,76
Areta Te Rito presented the train of events surrounding the court hearing somewhat differently. According to him, the meetings held at Waihirere and Whakaki before the land passed the court were simply and solely 'to consider my having taken the boundary to Opoho.' He categorically denied the idea that ten persons had been chosen to be trustees. He said that nobody objected to his actions inside or outside the court, because 'I had the mana over the land and the people.,77 'I had the mana and could put who I chose in.,78 According to Te Rito, Kahaatureia, Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau blocks were all held by the same ancestor. He said that he had provided well for his people on other blocks and that he had told them to go and live on Hereheretau No 2, leaving the Hereheretau block for the grantees.79
70 ibid, fols 87-88 71 ibid, fol 89 72 ibid, fols 93-94 73 ibid, fol 95 74 ibid, fol 96 75 ibid, fol 97 76 ibid, f01 94 77 ibid, fol102 78 ibid, foil 04 79 ibid, fols 104-105
16 Te Rito said twice that he had saved the land in question from confiscation. so He did not explain how he had done this, but he considered that this had added to his mana.
Te Rito also denied that the court said that the ten grantees were to be trustees. 81 He said that the rent from the lease of Hereheretau was paid to him by Burton and that he gave it all to the grantees. None, he said, was given to 'outsiders'. 82
The other witness for the grantees in 1898 was Rutene Tainguru, who also lived at Whakaki. Tainguru was one of the other 1871 grantees, and he had been present at the original meeting. The evidence of Tainguru was somewhat contradictory. In his initial evidence, he said categorically that the meetings at Waihirere and Whakaki had been called to discuss the dispute with Rakaipaka about Kahaaturiea and Opoho. Nothing 83 else, he said, had been discussed. Under cross-examination, however, he stated that We authorised Areta to speak for us in the Court at original hearing. This was done at Waihirere and Whakaki. The tupunas were arranged 84 at first meeting. We decided to set up Kahukura and Te Ipu.
In other words, Tainguru, like Tawhiri and Taruna, saw Areta's leading role in presenting the claim to the block as one which had been given to him by those attending the two meetings. These people had also been involved in the decision to set up certain tupuna as central to their case.
Tainguru remained firm in asserting that the court had not appointed him as a trustee when he was put into the title, and that he did not in 1868, and still did not, consider 85 himself to be a trustee. Yet other evidence he gave suggested that he saw himself as in the title essentially as a family representative - but that the absolute ownership supposedly bestowed by the court had somehow overriden this. I was put in the grant because I am the elder brother and according to Maori custom, the elder brother preserves the rights of the other members of the family. but the court has given me this absolutely.86
He said that the rights of his brother had been satisfied in other blocks, as he and his brother were both in the Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia blocks. Yet his brother was living on the Hereheretau block on what was now Tainguru's property. It was not surprising that Tainguru permitted this. For he conceded that Our relatives have the same right by occupation as ourselves. When we got the grant we did not turn them off. 87
80 ibid, fo1s 105, 108 81 ibid, fo1103 82 ibid, fo1 102 83 ibid, fo1 109 84 ibid, fo1s 110-111 85 ibid, fols 109, III 86 ibid, fo1 III 87 ibid, fo1 112
17 Even though Tainguru still did not want all those with rights by ancestry and occupation to Hereheretau No 2 admitted to the block, he nevertheless admitted that all who had such rights also had rights in the original Hereheretau block. 88
Tainguru admitted that he would not have objected if his name had been left off the title in 1868 'because I was ignorant.' Indeed, 'we were all ignorant then.' Tainguru was clear, however, that if his name had been left off the title had the case been heard at a later date, he would have objected. 89
In 1899 John Hunter Brown owned the 2501 acre Hereheretau A block, along with the 168 acre 1 rood Hereheretau c block. These were the parts of the Hereheretau block that had passed out of Maori ownership. He gave evidence that he had only ever dealt with the grantees and that he knew of no trust. He had, however, only been in the area since 1881. Under cross-examination, moreover, he had to admit to ignorance of efforts by other Maori to get into the title that went back to 1886. Brown mentioned that Burton had had a flax mill at Whakaki. The employees were mainly Maori living at Whakaki. According to what Brown had heard, Burton paid the Hereheretau rent to the grantees, particularly Areta Te Rito, but allowed Maori who were not grantees to run up accounts, with the amounts being deducted from their wages at the flax mill.90
These were the witnesses who were heard before the judge gave his decision on the nature of the grantees' ownership of the block. The court decided that the grantees had been intended to be trustees 'for natives not named in the title, who were then living and who had rights in the land by ancestry and occupation' .91 The court then went on to look at precisely who fell into this previously unnamed category. Particularly contentious was the issue of whether the relatives of grantees who had sold land should be seen as retaining any rights to the rest of it. In this context, some further evidence was given by Paora Rakau, another of the ten grantees. Unlike Te Rito and Tainguru, Rakau had sold his share of the land. Rakau, perhaps not altogether surprisingly under the circumstances, said that the grantees were 'trustees for others not in the title.' His version of events was that Burton told us that the ten persons put in the title would be trustees for all those who had rights in the land
The names for the title were selected by the people, not by Areta Te Rito. This was done after Burton told us we could only put in ten.92
He went on to testify that when he sold his interest he did not keep all the purchase money, but gave some of it to others. He listed various sums which he had given to other Maori. This included £ 100 to Horiwia, part of which Rakau had said was to be given 'to the people.' Two sums were given to people connected with the Hereheretau No 2 appeal. He testified to sending one ton of flour and half a ton of sugar to Whakaki 'for the tribe'. He also said that he bought 200 sheep from Napier and 'gave
88 ibid, fol 113 89 ibid, fol 112 90 Wairoa NLC MB 11, fols 99-101 91 ibid, fol114 92 ibid, fol 129
18 them to N. Hine at Whakaki' .93 This distribution supports the idea that Rakau had seen his position as a grantee as involving something akin to trusteeship.
To establish the events of 1868 from evidence given thirty years later presents major problems. The Maori witnesses who had experienced the events all had a vested interest in the outcome of the case, while the only pakeha witness was a late-comer to the situation.
It would seem, however, that the pressure to bring the block before the court in 1868 may well have come not from the Maori occupiers, but from the pakeha Burton. Burton, in his capacity as a sheep farmer, may well have wished to regularise his position in the block. His activities, not just as a surveyor, but also as a store-keeper and owner of the local flax mill, left local Maori heavily dependent on him for credit and for access to European goods and employment.
Areta Te Rito emphasised the importance of his own mana. He claimed that it gave him the power to make decisions, rather than to consult others of lesser mana. Several other Maori witnesses acknowledged that Te Rito's mana would have made it difficult for them to question him or object to his actions. Yet it would also seem that other Maori witnesses were agreed that two meetings had been held which had made important decisions about the conduct of the case. According to them, Te Rito received guidance from the wider group.
Given that in 1898 Tainguru was opposed to the admission of more owners to the block, it is particularly significant that he admitted that in 1868 both he and others were ignorant about the process of settling the title. It is also very significant that he admitted that all those with rights in Hereheretau No 2 also had rights in the original Hereheretau block. Possibly an effort was made to partition the block into two sections before the case was heard. Whether or not this happened, it appears likely that Maori who had traditionally occupied the block did not expect to lose their rights through the activities of the court. They had no previous experience of a system of individualised property rights, and there is no evidence that they received any explanation of this concept from Judge Monro or an assessor when this land came before the court. Whatever the intentions of Areta Te Rito may have been, many of the large group of other Maori involved probably expected the grantees to function as, in effect, trustees for the larger group.
2.6 Leases and Sales in the Hereheretau Block, 1868-1887 As indicated in 2.5, after the Hereheretau block had passed through the court, it was formally leased to George Burton. The lease, dated 7 October 1870, was for fifteen years. On 1 August 1874, Henare Pakura sold his interest in the block to George Burton. Hoani Ngarara later claimed that Pakura sold this block while he was living at Mohaka, the day before he died, and that the money for the sale was paid to his sister.94 Section 92 of the Native Land Act 1873 assumed that one or more grantees could alienate their share or shares in the land granted where the share of the owner or
93 ibid, fo1 130 94 For death bed sale information, see Wairoa NLC MB 3A, 8 February 1889, fo1274
19 owners selling had not been ascertained, for it made provision for the Court to ascertain the share or shares sold.
On 20 March 1875, Burton sold his leasehold and freehold interests in the block to William Spence Peter and Joseph Palmer. A further lease to Burton for 11 years from 1 May 1884 was dated 10 March 1874 and was signed by Areta Te Rito, Henare Pakura, Heperi Tiarere and Rutene Tainguru. The rent under this lease was to be £214 per annum.
On 13 June 1881, Peter and Palmer sold their rights to Adam Brown. There was to be dispute about the transactions of Heperi Tiarere regarding his share in the block.95 On 16 May 1887, Te Waka Kereru sold his interest in the block to John Hunter Brown.96 On 25 March 1885, Areta Te Rito and others leased the block to John Hunter Brown for 21 years from 1 May 1885, with the rent for the first nine years being a mere 'one shilling per annum if demanded'. The rent was then to rise to £250 per annum for the next six years and £300 per annum for the remaining six years of the lease.97
Some of the grantees, along with various other Maori, were able to remain on Hereheretau block because several reserves were set aside for them - '3 for cultivations & 1 for residing' .98 These reserves were apparently provided for not in a · 99 Iease but III a separate agreement.
2.7 The Partitioning of the Hereheretau Block In 1881, Hoani Ngarara had been one of those who had succeeded Te Teira in Hereheretau. In 1889, Ngarara applied for a partition of the block on behalf of those who had not sold their interests. The application raised the issue of the interests of the various grantees, both those who had sold and those who had retained their rights. The evidence given revealed further information about the basis on which the ten grantees had been selected.
Ngarara asked for the partition to be made in unequal shares, although the deed signed by Henare Pakura had conveyed one tenth of the block to George Burton. Ngarara asserted that this one-tenth 'did not belong to Henare Pakura to sell.,lOO He put Pakura's interest at 50 acres and that ofWaka Kereru, who had also sold, at 150 acres. He therefore thought that John Hunter Brown should receive 200 acres of the block freehold. He also considered that the other 8 interests in the block were unequa1. 101
There was considerable argument as to who should have the largest share in the block. Hoani Ngarara asserted that Te Teira had a right to this, apparently at least partly
95 See Section 2.8 96List of transactions in Hereheretau, signed H F E, Napier, 18 February 1889, following papers In the matter of the partition of ... Hereheretau Block. .. , signed by Judges Barton & Von Sturmer, 2 December 1890, File 122A, far basement, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisbome 97 In the matter of the partition of ... Hereheretau Block. .. , signed by Judges Barton & Von Sturmer, 2 December 1890, File 122A, pp 1-2 98 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fol273 99 ibid, fo1 280 100 ibid, fo1270 101 ibid, fo1271
20 because he had 'conducted the affairs of the tribe.,102 Areta Te Rito, on the other hand, said that Te Teira's interest was far less than his. Te Rito argued that Te Teira initially, and Hoani Ngarara subsequently, had conducted the affairs of the tribe because he had arranged that they should do SO.103 Paora Rakau, however, claimed the largest interest in the block for himself and Teotaea. 104 Judge Wilson eventually decided that Areta Te Rito's interest was the largest. He did not explain the rationale for this decision. It may have reflected the fact that Rakau admitted that the rent had been paid to Te Rito, although Hoani Ngarara claimed that it had been paid to Te 105 106 Teira. Te Rito was awarded 1076 acres in the block.
Secondly, Areta Te Rito argued that there was an ancestral boundary through the centre of the block. He claimed that the Ngati Hinepua used to be on the east side of this boundary and Ngati Hine on the west side. He said that the Ngati Hinepua had handed over their rights to Te Ipu to gain protection. He claimed that after some Ngati Hinepua had killed some eels and eaten them without giving them to Te Ipu, Te Ipu had killed some Ngati Hinepua. Others had run away. The rest of the Ngati Hinepua had remained on the land, but it had belonged to the grandchildren of Te Ipu. Because of these developments, Areta Te Rito argued that it was only through Aroha that any Ngati Hinepua had been put into the title. He said that Heperi [Tiarere] was the 'principal man of Ngatihinepua' and the only person put in because of Aroha. Waka 107 Kereru was a Ngati Hinepua, but also had a claim as one ofNgai Te IpU.
The judge apparently accepted the argument that the subordinate status of Ngati Hinepua meant that Heperi Tiarere had a lesser right in the block. He was assigned 108 673 acres in the block. The judge also assigned the same relatively small share to Henare Pakura, stating explicitly that this was 'by reason of his Mohaka connection' .109 In other words, occupation was an important factor in the court's decision.
The witnesses gave extensive evidence about the hapu affiliations and whakapapa and occupation of the various grantees. The judge apparently did not consider that this evidence justified any further distinctions among the grantees. The remaining seven 0 were each awarded 914 acres, or 10.4 per cent of the block. 11 Te Teira, as indicated above, had already died. His 914 acres was split up, with 685 1/2 acres going to his nephew Hoani N garara and his brothers Anaru Patea and Reupena Hakeri. The remaining 228 112 acres went to his adopted children Teira Waiotinirau and Maraea Waka. 111 No rationale for this division was given in the judgment.
102 ibid, fo1273 103 ibid, fo1274 104 ibid, fo1s 276-278 105 ibid, fo1s 271, 276 106 ibid, fo1302 This area represents 12.2 per cent ofthe total block. 107 ibid, fo1s 274-275 108 ibid, fo1302 This area represents 7.6 per cent of the total block. 109 ibid, loc cit 110 ibid, fo1s 302-303 111 ibid, fo1s 270, 303
21 The judge made it very clear that he did not accept the existence of the ancestral boundary which Te Rito had claimed ran through the centre of the block between the interests of Ngati Hine and Ngati Hinepua, with the latter having later been replaced by Ngai Te Ipu. Ngarara argued that the two men who had sold both belonged to Ngai Te Ipu. Thence he concluded that John Hunter Brown should take his land on the western side of the block where he said Te Ipu's land was. Ngarara also said that if Brown got land on the eastern side of the block, it would result in a European living 'in the middle of Maori land'. He did not wish this to happen. Il2
John Hunter Brown claimed a portion of the land from the Lagoon to a fence at the back of my homestead on the Hill, by a drain called Tarata, on the eastern side of the block. 1l3
It is unclear what plan the Court was using. It may have been the missing survey plan used at the original 1868 Hereheretau hearing. The plan on the Crown Grant for the Hereheretau block does not show the Tarata drain, and this makes the subsequent decision of the Court difficult to follow. ML 149/A is a plan of what became, after the rehearing of the partition, Hereheretau A and c. This plan is taken from an 1884 survey by Reardon, but it shows very little more than the area eventually assigned to Hunter Brown, and the Tarata drain is not included. 114
The judge stated that ... the Court does not find that the alleged boundary between N gatihine and Ngaiteipu said to pass through this block is established. Notwithstanding the allegations of Areta and Hoani, neither Areta or Te Teira have observed this boundary. The only use that has been made of this alleged boundary, so far as this Court can see, is as an instrument or lever for placing the award to be made to Mr. Browne upon the western side of the block. Great injustice might be done, were the Court to allow such evidence too lightly to weigh with it. 115
The decision of the judge may have been influenced by an apparent contradiction in the evidence of Ngarara and Te Rita about the alleged boundary. Ngarara argued that Brown's land should be on the western side because that was Ngai Te Ipu's side, but Te Rito said that it was Ngati Hine whose land was on the western side.116
In addition to awarding Hunter Brown half an acre of land at the outlet to the lagoon which he usually used for drainage, Judge Wilson awarded Hunter Brown 1586Y2 acres to be taken by a straight line extending from the sea beach to the back boundary of the block, in such way that said line shall coincide with & follow the direction of the fence or boundary ditch called Te Tarata; and
112 ibid, fo1281 113 ibid, fol 280 114 ML 149/A is a replacement for a plan destroyed in the fIre following the Napier earthquake. 115 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fo1302 116 ibid, fols 281, 275
22 by a line from the beach to the inland boundary of the block to be drawn parallel to the first line and to the westward of the same.l17
A last feature of this case is the apparent lack of clarity about the hapu affiliation of Areta Te Rito. At the 1868 hearing, as indicated in section 2.4, Areta Te Rito described himself as a Ngati Hine. At this partition hearing, too, Areta Te Rito said 'I claim through Ngatihine.' 118 Yet he also talked of how 'At the time of my ancestor Teipu, he was brought on this land as chief of the tribe Ngaiteipu.' He said that 'Ngatihine brought my ancestor Teipu to be a chief over them & their lands.,119 It is therefore not altogether surprising that Hoani Ngarara described Te Rito as belonging to Ngai Te Ipu. Ngarara considered that the two hapu Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu had 'equal interests in this land.' 120
2.8 The Repartitioning of Hereheretau Block This partition immediately sparked a request from Hoani Ngarara and others to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court for a rehearing. Ngarara complained that the decision meant that ... our pa, and also the blocks set apart for our cultivations Our Kainga, our pa, our three burying places, and our Church have all gone to 1. H. Paraone by that partition made by the Court. We are therefore very gneve. d .... 121
In 1891 J T Large wrote to the Native Land Laws Commissioners from Wairoa. He commented to the commissioners on the importance of site visits by Native Land Court judges. He gave the results of the initial partitioning of the Hereheretau Block as an example of what could happen when such a visit did not take place. When the Hereheretau subdivision case was being tried by the Court under Judge Wilson, the Natives interested made a strong effort to obtain the portion containing the homestead of Mr. J. Hunter BroWfl, the lessee of the block, and purchaser of several undivided interests therein. Whereupon Judge Wilson told the Natives that he would no more think of giving them the European's homestead than he would of giving the European their (the Natives') settlement. Yet, in spite ofthis assurance, the Court, in maldng the partition of the block - having failed to personally inspect the land - actually awarded to Mr. J. Hunter BroWfl the portion of the block containing the chief Native Settlement (Te Whakake), the church, and burial-ground.'
Large described this as an 'extraordinary decision' .122 The words ascribed to the judge by Large are much stronger than those appearing in the minute book.
117 ibid, fo1 303 118 ibid, fo1275 119 ibid, fo1274 120 ibid, fo1273 121 Hoani Ngarara and others to Chief Judge, 16 February 1889, Box 42, file 7/Wr Hereheretau Applications up to and including 1905, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 122 'Correspondence in response to inquiries of the Native Land Laws Commission', AJHR, 1891, Sess II, 0-1, Correspondence, p 89
23 The rehearing took place in September 1890. On this occasion representatives of the grantees and of John Hunter Brown had come to an arrangement prior to the hearing. These minutes shed no further light on Judge Wilson's decision at the original partition hearing. The arrangement now made was that Brown would take the interests he had acquired in 2669 acres and 1 rood of land at the western end of the block, adjoining Tukemokihi No 1.
The area to be awarded to Brown was greater because since the original partition 123 hearing, Brown had acquired further interests. Paora Rakau had sold to J A Turner 124 for £951, and Turner had sold this interest to John Hunter Brown. Rakau did not dispute this sale.
Much more contentious was a claim by Hamlin on behalf of Brown that Heperi Tiarere had parted with one quarter of his interest in the block. This interest had subsequently been acquired by Brown. Heperi Tiarere categorically denied selling this part of his interest. Instead, Tiarere insisted that he had willed part of it to 'Sturm's children'. He claimed to have been told that they would not get the share until after he died. 125 He recognised as his a signature on a deed dated 30 June 1886 to Rudolph Sturm and others. He admitted having heard that there had been a notice posted at the resident magistrate's court house which said that his share had passed to Rudolph. He said that he had sent Te Kati to object to the deed, which he understood was a will. He did not go himself to the Trust Commissioner to object partly because he had sent Te Kati and partly because 'I knew the will was no good.,126 The Sturms were Tiarere's SIster. , SCIh·ld reno 127
Tiarere quite openly admitted that he had then gone on to sign two further deeds dealing with his interest in the land. The first was to Areta Te Rito. He again claimed that he had been told the deed to Areta was a will, not a deed of sale. He said that Areta and another had asked him for two days to sign the deed to Areta, telling him that if he signed this deed, the share sold to Sturm would return to him. He claimed he had been unhappy with both deeds. In the case of the deed to Sturm, ... my hand consented to sign but my understanding did not consent; this refers also to the deed to Areta ... 128
So he listened to a lawyer who told him that if he signed a further deed it would annul the one to Areta Te Rito. This last deed was to Kati and Heremaia. He claimed that the lawyer said that I was to give him £6 and that would destroy the 5/- stamp on the deed to Areta.... I was told by Cooper and Areta that my deed to Areta was a will: not a deed of sale: I did not know that any of the deeds
123 Gisbome NLC ME 19, fols 326-327 124 ibid, fo1 344 125 ibid, f01 331 126 ibid, f01s 331-332 127 ibid, fol 335 128 ibid, loc cit
24 were deeds of sale: I though the deed to Kati was only to destroy the stamp on Areta's. 129
This sequence of events is somewhat puzzling. If Tiarere did indeed believe that he was signing a succession of wills, then his behaviour is quite understandable. He said that that was his understanding. Yet in the minute book record of his evidence he also sometimes refers to, for instance, 'deed by which I sold to Kati and Heremaia' (emphasis added). This might suggest that Tiarere did know he was signing deeds of sale. On the other hand, what is in the minute books is presumably a translation of Tiarere's remarks, so this use of 'sold' may reflect the beliefs of the translator as to what actually took place.
The judge upheld the first deed signed by Heperi Tiarere. 130 He gave no reason for his decision. Eventually, on 2 December 1890, orders were made for Hereheretau A, to contain 2501 acres, in favour of John Hunter Brown and for Hereheretau C, to contain 168 acres 1 rood, also in favour of John Hunter Brown. A last order was made for Hereheretau B, to contain 6150 acres 3 roods. With successors to two grantees, Hereheretau B now had 16 owners. The block was made inalienable except by lease. I3I This was a response to a request by Hoani Ngarara that the land remaining in Maori ownership be 'restricted from sale or mortgage, or by Lease for more than 21 years' . 132
Following the partition, the lease of the block to John Hunter Brown was rearranged. The lessors agreed to enclose their cultivations and plantations within a substantial fence, and to compensate the lessee for any damage done by their animals. The lessee was released from the rent under the 1874 lease. The lessors, on the other hand, were released from all liability to pay compensation for improvements under the 1870 lease. 133
Also important to the lessee was a provision that he had power to let out the water of the Whakaki Lagoon by keeping open two drains and carrying out various drainage works. 134 The description of the block given in section 1.3 makes clear the importance of such drainage if much of the flat land in the block was not to be flooded in winter.
2.9 The Partitioning of Hereheretau H The partitioning off of John Hunter Brown's interests left Hereheretau B in the ownership of the seven grantees who retained all or part of their interests or of their successors. In 1894, the land court was asked to partition Hereheretau B among these people. The owners had apparently arrived at an agreement prior to the hearing.
129 ibid, fol 333 130 ibid, fol 342 131 Gisbome NLC MB 21, fo1182. See Figure 3 132 Gisbome NLC MB 19, fo1346 133 In the matter of the partition of ... Hereheretau Block. .. , signed by Judges Barton & Von Sturmer, 2 December 1890, pp 3-4, File 122A, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 134 same document, same file, pp 4-5
25 A list of the shares of the various grantees, each with an agreed area of dry land and an area of lake, was handed in by Te Watene Huka. Heperi Tiarere, unlike the other grantees, was assigned more lake than dry land. No reason was given for this arrangement. The court, with a brief adjournment to allow the parties to settle one disputed matter, then proceeded to order a partition into nine parts. Each grantee or his successors was assigned an agreed area of dry land. Heperi Tiarere was assigned an area of the lake. The balance of the lake was to become Hereheretau B9 and was put into the names of the remaining six grantees. l3S There was never any suggestion that the lake was the property of the Crown rather than the Maori owners of the block.
Given the way in which the partition had been settled through an agreement by all the parties, it might have been expected that this was the end of the matter. Instead, in December 1894 Areta Te Rito appealed against the partition. He complained that too much of the land assigned to him was 'in the water and swamp,.l36
Judge Gudgeon wrote to the Chief Judge, setting out the way in which the owners, including Te Rito, had spent a week settling the way in which they wished the land to be partitioned. He emphasised that it was careful consideration of the proportion of 'good land' to be given to each owner that had lengthened the time it had taken the owners to reach agreement. The judge observed that he had 'willingly acceded' to the applicants' request to be given time to settle the partition outside the court both to save the applicants expense and also 'to give them an opportunity to deal with their own lands.'
The judge therefore found the application for a rehearing incomprehensible. He could only offer as a highly speculative explanation a remark made in court to the effect that Areta Te Rito was 'deeply in debt to a Mr Brown and that his share of the land must be required by Mr Brown to liquidate the debt.,l37 No record of this remark appears in the minute book for the partition hearing. At any rate, when the appeal was finally heard in April 1896, it was dismissed. 138
2.10 Hereheretau B and the Equitable Owners Act 1886 While these various hearings and rehearing about partitions were taking place, deeper discontent over the status of the block was simmering among those who had been altogether excluded from the certificate of title for Hereheretau in 1868.
They were not alone. The Native Land Act 1873 had ended the practice of restricting the number of owners in a title to ten. The act did not, however, alter the situation of blocks where ten owners had already been put into titles under section 23 of the Native Lands Act 1865. Numerous acts affecting Maori land were passed in succeeding years without addressing the situation of these blocks. In January and February 1885, Ballance, the Minister of Native Affairs, toured the North Island
135 Wairoa NLC MB 8, 25 October 1894, fo1s 278-281 136 Application for rehearing of Hereheretau B Block, Wairoa, 14 December 1894, File 7/Wr , Box 42, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 137 Gudgeon to the Chief Judge, 14 January 1895, File 7/Wr, Box 42 138 Memorandum by John Brooking for the Chief Judge listing applications and transactions affecting Hereheretau B, 10 November 1897, File 7/Wr, Box 42
26 meeting with various Maori groups. A number of Maori made it clear to him that they remained unhappy about land awarded to ten owners under the 1865 legislation. Ballance himself believed that the exclusion from certificates of title of large numbers of customary owners was wrong.139 Ballance continued to concern himself with this Issue.. 140
In 1886, Ballance introduced what became the Native Equitable Owners Act 1886. The act permitted any Maori who claimed to be beneficially interested in a block of land where a certificate of title or crown grant had been awarded under the Native Lands Act 1865 to Maori nominally as absolute owners to have an inquiry made into the nature of the title to the land. The court was to ascertain whether those owners were intended to be 'trustees for themselves and others, members of their tribe or hapu or otherwise'. If the court found that such a trust was intended to exist, then it might declare who were the persons beneficially entitled to that trust. 141
Section 5 of the act contained a significant restriction. The act was not to apply to land any share of which had already been sold by any of the nominal owners. Whatever the status of the interest of Heperi Tiarere in the Hereheretau block at this time, there appears to have been no question that Henare Pakura had sold his interest in 1874. That being the case, the legislation did not apply to Hereheretau.
Many Maori were apparently unaware of this very significant restriction. This included a number who considered that they should have been included in the Hereheretau title. As early as November 1886, Riripeti Te Ariki and others put in an application regarding the block under the Equitable Owners Act. The Native Land Court dismissed this application on the ground that part of the land had been sold. 142 The Native Land Court also dismissed a number of other applications under the act. 143
2.11 Hereheretau B and the Native Land Court Act 1894 The government was aware that the exclusion of land where some interests had been sold created problems for some Maori. In 1889, the Native Equitable Owners Act 1886 Amendment bill was introduced into the legislative council by the Attorney General, Sir F Whitaker. Whital(er pointed out to the council the need to remedy the hardship still being suffered by Maori excluded from titles in blocks where one or more shares had been sold to Europeans. In the event, however, the government did not proceed with the bill and the problem remained. 144 Instead, section 18 of the Native Land Court Acts Amendment Act 1889 put a deadline of 16 September 1891 on the lodging of applications for rehearing under the Equitable Owners Act.
139 Grant Phillipson, 'The Ten Owner Rule: A Selection Of Official Documents With Commentary' (Wai 64 record of documents, doc K13), Commentary on Document 20 140 ibid, Documents 21, 22 and Commentaries on these 141 Preamble, ss 2-4 Native Equitable Owners Act 1886 142 Memorandum by John Brooking for the Chief Judge listing applications and transactions affecting Hereheretau B, 10 November 1897, File 7/Wr, Box 42 143 For example, Applications under the Equitable Owners Act with numbers 89/137; 89/642; 89/199, all in same file 144 Grant Phillipson, op cit, Document 26 and Commentary on document
27 The Native Land Laws Commission 1891 drew further attention to the problems 145 created by the ten owner rule. Section 14(10) of the Native Land Court Act 1894 once again gave the Native Land Court jurisdiction to determine whether the court or a nominal owner or owners had intended land to be held in trust for Maori not named in the title. It was to determine which Maori, if any, were entitled to such land and to order their inclusion in the title. Again there was a restriction on the operations of the sub-section. It was only to apply to land which had not been alienated 'other than by a lease, mortgage, or contract for sale, upon which the purchase-money has not been paid.'
On 13 April 1896, Piripi Te Amorakau applied for an inquiry into the title of 146 Hereheretau under this legislation. He was informed that this was not a case which 147 could be dealt with under the sub-section. This problem presumably arose, as with the 1886 act, because part of the land had been sold.
This situation finally changed in 1896. Section 21 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1896 stated that No alienation by any nominal owner of land held by him in trust within the meaning of subsection ten of section fourteen of the said Act or of any share or interest therein shall bar the provisions of the said subsection as to any portion of the land so held in trust, or any share or interest therein which has not been alienated as aforesaid ....
In 1897, Kararaina Kaimoana and 59 others petitioned the House of Representatives about Hereheretau. They complained of sales by three 'trustees' and 'the wrongful procedure of the Court in former days'. They said that as a result of these things, their 'cultivations, workings, cattle, pig and horse-runs, eel-weirs, sites of whares, and dead' had all been lost to them. They asked for an investigation and for legislation 148 which would allow them to obtain their rights and interests in Hereheretau.
John Brooking prepared a memorandum on the block for the chief judge. He commented that There is no mention of any trust in the minutes of the investigation of title, nor in the order or Certificate of title, but there is no doubt that the ten who were put into the title were not the only persons entitled to the 149 use ofthe land according to Maori Custom.
Chief Judge Davy told the Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee that he thought there was ground for an inquiry.150 On 19 September 1898 the governor signed an
145 ibid, Documents 28(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and Commentary on these 146 Application by Piripi Te Amorakau under sub section 10 of Section 14, 13 April 1896, File 7IWr, Box 42 147 Memorandum by John Brooking for the Chief Judge listing applications and transactions affecting Hereheretau B, 10 November 1897, File 7/Wr, Box 42 148 Petition No 173/97 Kararaina Kaimoana & 59 Others, 8 October 1897, MA Series 1 1907/468, NA Wellington 149 Memorandum by John Brooking for the Chief Judge listing applications and transactions affecting Hereheretau B, 10 November 1897, File 7IWr, Box 42 150 Chief Judge to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, MA Series 1 1907/468
28 order in council authorising the land court to inquire under the terms of the 1894 151 ac.t
Areta Te Rito petitioned the Governor in Council, pointing out that the order in council had been issued under subsection 14(10) of the 1894 act, and that this did not apply to Hereheretau because some interests had been sold. 152 The Under Secretary for Justice indicated, however, that the Native Affairs Committee had recommended inquiry under subsection 10 of section 14 of the 1894 act, as amended by section 21 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1896. The petitioner was consequently mistaken in thinking that the order in council was not authorised by the act. 153
The court started its inquiry at Wairoa in August 1899. It firstly set out to establish whether the land had been intended by the Native Land Court or by the nominal owners to be held in trust for Maori not named in the title. Section 2.5 reviewed much of the evidence given in this part of the case. Judge Butler decided that this had been the intention of the Native Land Court and the nominal owners.
One additional point that should be noted about Areta Te Rito's evidence in this case is that he reported that he had said to the court that his "take" was from Hinepua. 154 Shortly afterwards, Te Rito said that he belonged to two hapu, Ngati Hinepua and Ngai Te Ipu. He then went through the list of grantees, giving their hapu. He said that four were Ngati Hinepua and Ngai Te Ipu, four were Ngati Hinepua and one was Ngati Hinepua and Ngati Hine. He said that 'The Grantees derived their rights from Hinepua - I selected them for that reason.' 155 This seems decidedly at variance from other descriptions of the hapu of the grantees.
Once the judge had decided that a trust existed, the remainder of the inquiry consisted of a lengthy consideration of the names which should be put into the title. The court called for lists of names of those who claimed that they should be admitted. Where objections were made to these, those claiming admission had to argue their case. One important issue was occupation of the block. The judge excluded those whom he considered had failed to demonstrate occupation in addition to ancestry linked with the block. 156 Evidence about occupation tended to be given without precise dates. Where dates were discussed in this phase of the hearing, the issue tended to be whether a possible owner had been born in 1868. 157 The 1840 rule does not seem to have had a bearing on the judge's decision.
A second issue was the treatment of the children of those grantees who had sold. The judge decided to allow them some limited rights, despite the sales. He said that
151 Copy of Order in Council, 19 September 1898, File 7/Wr, Box 42 152 Areta Te Rito to The Governor in Council, stamped 14 April 1899 by Justice Department, MA Series 1 1907/468 153 Under Secretary to W L Rees & Son, 14 April '9', MA Series 1 1907/468 154 Wairoa NLC MB 11, fo1103 155 ibid, fo1 107 156 ibid, fo1s 370, 371 157 ibid, fols 118, 119, 128,
29 ... we are of opinion that the nominal owners were trustees for all the persons living who had a proprietory right in 1868 and not for any particular section of them. It is not denied that the children have some right and we decide to admit them. Parents having sold a larger proportion of the block than they and their children would have been entitled to under this proceeding may be urged as a reason for allotting their children a smaller share than others not so situated but it would not justify this Court in excluding them altogether. 158
The judge cancelled the order for Hereheretau B made by the court at the Hereheretau partition rehearing in 1890, along with the partition of Hereheretau B made in 1894. He then ordered that a land transfer certificate for the block issue in favour of 169 people. 159
2.12 The Ten Owner Rule and the Court of Appeal Hereheretau was not the only block where inquiries under the acts of 1886 or 1894 led to additional names being put into the titles of blocks which in the late 1860s had been granted to no more than ten. In May 1902, moreover, three actions brought by Maori in connection with the ten owner rule were tried at the Supreme Court in Napier. Further evidence was taken at Auckland. By consent of all parties, the pleading and evidence in each action was then removed into the Court of Appeal for judgment. In each case the Maori plaintiffs concerned sought to have the certificates of title issued by the Native Land Court in respect of the blocks, along with the corresponding Crown Grants, declared null and void. The main defendants were pakeha who held the lands concerned, which they had acquired from the Maori grantees. The plaintiffs wanted these defendants to be declared trustees for the plaintiffs and other Maori whom the plaintiffs claimed to represent. The plaintiffs argued that they and these other Maori were the owners ofthe lands according to Maori custom. 160
Two of these cases were particularly relevant to the Hereheretau block. One concerned Tukemokihi Nos 1 and 2. The Tukemokihi block adjoined Hereheretau and Hereheretau No 2. The original defendant, furthermore, was John Hunter Brown, the lessee and part owner of the Hereheretau block. The second case related to Kahuitara Nos 1 and 2. Kahuitara adjoined the Tukemokihi blocks on the opposite side from Hereheretau and Hereheretau No 2. Both these blocks had been heard in the Native Land Court at Wairoa in September 1868. The third action was brought against Walter Shrimpton. It concerned the Matapiro block. The Native Land Court had dealt with this block in August 1866.
In each case, the testimony of a Maori who had been present at the original hearing was taken. Judge Momo gave evidence regarding all three blocks. The relevant minute books were also introduced as evidence. In the case of blocks considered by the court in 1868, Momo testified that he had taken the minutes and that they were a correct account of the proceedings of the court. In both the Tukemokihi and Kahuitara
158 ibid, fo1371 159 ibid, fols 372-377 160 Timu Kerehi and another v Duff and others; Turei Waata and another v Brown and others, Takerei v Shrimpton and others, C.A. [1902] 21 NZLR416, 417-418
30 cases, the conduct of the cases had been similar to the Hereheretau proceedings. In each case, one Maori only had given short evidence of ancestors under whom the title was claimed, and had named certain people as the owners. In each case the only other evidence given was that of the surveyor. In each case objections had been called for, and none were made. 161
In both the Tukemokihi and Kahuitara cases, the Maori witness gave evidence that the judge had said that those whose names were put in were to be trustees. In both cases, Judge Monro denied having said this. Monro drew attention to the fact that, although ten names had been put in each of the subdivisions of these two blocks, other Wairoa blocks dealt with by the court at the same sitting had been handled differently. 162
The judges who dealt with the matter in the Court of Appeal were clearly less than impressed with the evidence of the Maori who talked of their memories of the ways in which the blocks were handled. They had no such problems with the testimony of Monro. They seem to have been concerned about the prospect of upsetting land titles which dated back more than thirty years.
For instance, Justice Edwards remarked, with reference to the cases dating from 1868, that The plaintiffs seek after the lapse of thirty-five years to upset titles to large tracts of country then in a wild condition, and which have been occupied under those titles during all this time, and improved by the expenditure of large sums of money. Under such circumstances the evidence of fraud should be of an overwhelming nature. The evidence which is here put forward is of a most shadowy character. 163
Justice Edwards stated that in the absence of fraud, the three cases were governed by the records of the Native Land Court. The Court of Appeal could not go behind the records of that court. 164
2.13 The Ten Owner Rule and the Appellate Court In 1903, the Appellate Court heard appeals by Watene Huka, Rutene Tainguru and Areta Te Rito and others against Judge Butler's 1899 decision. A L Fraser appeared for the appellants. Fraser argued that the ground for the appeal was that the land was not held in trust. He centred his argument around part of Monro's 1902 evidence. He focused on the variety of ways in which the Wairoa blocks dealt with by the Native Land Court under Judge Monro had been handled in September 1868. He examined the types of titles given to owners in the different blocks at considerable length. Some land had been given titles under Section 17 of the 1867 act. Some blocks had had less than ten owners put into them. Another group of blocks had been cut up to allow more than ten owners to be put in. He argued that this showed that if Maori with an interest
161 Kahuitara, ibid, 418-422; Tukemokihi, ibid, 418-419, 422-424 162 For treatment of other blocks, ibid, 421 163 ibid, 436 164 ibid, 435, 436
31 in Hereheretau had wanted some other kind of arrangement for the title at the time, they could have had it. 165
Ansell, who represented those whose names had been added to the title, appears to have been somewhat daunted by the detailed evidence regarding other blocks produced by Fraser. He pointed out, however, that in 1868 Maori were 'all Ignorance. , . 166 F'raser s response to th· IS was to remark t h at ' you cannot b e1· Ieve any 0 f these Natives! Their evidence is interested and not worthy of credence.' 167
Fraser's arguments, Monro's evidence and the judgment of the Court of Appeal clearly made a marked impression on Scannell and Edger, the judges who heard the appeal. They proceded to overturn the 1899 decision which had enlarged the number of owners in the title. They held that It appears that, at the sitting in 1868, Judge Monro disposed of a great number of blocks besides Hereheretau, issuing Certificates of Title in each case to one or more natives, up to ten in number, while in some cases in addition to the nominal owners other names, of individuals or hapus, were registered under Section 17 of the Act of 1867 - that is to say, that, in twenty-six blocks there were less than ten owners in each, in eighteen blocks there were ten owners, and in eleven blocks there were also registered owners, numbering in the case of Mohaka 131 persons. It appears also that in certain cases, especially where any dispute had arisen, the block was divided into two or more pieces, to enable all who were found entitled to be admitted. Mr Fraser argued that from these facts it was clear that the natives attending the Court fully understood the proceedings, that they were satisfied with the results, and that the Act of 1867 was given full scope. 168
Their assessment was that 'the proceedings of the Court of 1868 do not disclose the faintest suggestion that, in either the mind of the Court, or of anyone else, a trust was contemplated' . 169
Matters did not rest there. Parliament received six petitions dealing with the way in which the ownership of blocks had been affected by the 1886 and 1894 legislation. In the case of Hereheretau B, one petition came, ironically, from Areta Te Rito. In petition number 7 of 1903, he sought a rehearing of the 1899 decision. After the 1903 Appellate Court decision, however, Kararaina Kaimoana and others petitioned for the annullment of the court's decision and a rehearing of their claim. In 1904, the Native Affairs Committee was sufficiently concerned about these and a number of other petitions relating to Maori land to recommend further inquiries. In consequence, section 11 of the Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act 1904
165 Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 10, fo1s 89-93 166 ibid, fo1s 93-94 167 ibid, fo1 94 168 ibid, fo1 100 169 ibid, fo1103
32 authorised the setting up of one or more royal commissions to deal with the matters raised in the petitions. 170
The commissioners appointed in December 1904 were G B Davy, D Scannell and Apirana Ngata. They pointed out that the six petitions revealed conflicting decisions under circumstances which appeared to be virtually identical, apart from some evidence that had been before the court in the case of Hereheretau B but not in the other cases. This was presumably the material introduced by Fraser. The commissioners made no attempt to determine which decision was the correct one. They simply stated that there should be no such inconsistency. Whichever decision was correct, the fact that there was a difference meant that serious injustice had been done. They recommended that the Native Appellate Court, or some other tribunal, rehear all the decisions challenged by the petitions, in order that uniform decisions mIg. h t b e secure d . 171
Section 7 of the Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act 1906 cancelled final orders ofthe Native Land Court or the Appellate Court under the 1886 or 1894 legislation for six blocks: Hereheretau B, Potaka No 1, Wharepu No 1, Taumata 0 te 0, Ohuia and Te Kiwi. The Appellate Court was authorised to rehear the applications on which the various final orders were founded.
The court began to sit at Wairoa in February 1907. A L Fraser again appeared for the grantees. Once more he went through in considerable detail the pattern of decisions made by the Native Land Court at Wairoa in 1868. 172 He also read to the court Monro's 1902 Supreme Court evidence. He commented bluntly that 'In Sup: Ct, either the evidence of Natives is false evidence or evidence of Judge Monro is false.' He claimed that Maori who gave evidence claiming the existence of a trust were those who had sold their land. 173
On this occasion, however, Fraser's arguments met with more robust opposition. Down represented those whose names had been added to the titles of various blocks other than Hereheretau B. He pointed out in the most forcible terms how unlikely it was that in September 1868 Wairoa Maori would have understood the Native Lands Acts of 1865 and 1867. It was not just that the court had only previously sat in the area for four days the previous year. In addition, This district was at that time in a very disturbed state. There were no able Kaiwhakahaeres to expound the law. Everything was left to the Chiefs, and whatever the chief might say his statement would not be disputed by the people. 174
170 s 11, Second Schedule, nos 12, 13, 14, 19,20,21 of the act [relevant numbers drawn from report of royal commission] - Petition 20 in the Schedule (No 854 of 1903) was Kaimoana's petition. 171 'Report of the Royal Commission appointed under section 11 of "The Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act, 1904"', AJHR, 1905, G-l, pp 2,6-7 172 Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 11, fols 4-10, 14-15 173 ibid, fol 11 174 ibid, fol 17
33 He said that the judge might have explained the law to Maori at the time, but that did not mean that the people could be expected to understand it. 'With all our much greater education & advantages, we can barely understand it at the present day.,175 He challenged the assertion that those who were trying to get into blocks were descendants of grantees who had sold. 176
After prolonged argument of the case, Chief Judge Jackson-Palmer and Judges Jones and Sim delivered their judgment. This amounted to a ringing affirmation of the decisions of those judges who had ruled that there was a trust in each of these Wairoa blocks.
The judges held that the proceedings of the Native Land Court after the various decisions made by Judge Monro in September 1868 showed that if Monro had inquired further, he would have found that there were many more people interested in the blocks. They also held that the Court of Appeal had not decided the question of equitable ownership. Instead, it had decided that it did not have the jurisdiction to go behind the certificate of the Native Land Court. The three judges held that the Appellate Court which had heard the Hereheretau B case had misinterpreted the Court of Appeal case by stating that the Court of Appeal had declared that there was no trust. 177
The judges said that it was clear from the evidence of Judge Monro and from the minute books that the Court had not intended to constitute a trust. To this extent, although they did not state this, they differed from the 1899 Hereheretau judgment. On the other hand, they were very clear that the nominal owners - the grantees - must have been well aware of the existence of numerous other owners. The judges also thought that the beneficial owners would have considered that the nominal owners were holding the land as their representatives. They held that, under these circumstances, for the court to assume that in 1868 the nominal owners claimed to be absolute owners would be to assume that the nominal owners intended to defraud their fellow owners. Assuming then as the Court has a right to do that the nominal owners had an honest intention it must have been that they were only to hold as trustees and not as absolute owners. 178
They considered that numerous subsequent dealings in Hereheretau B and other blocks supported this contention. The judges appear to have familiarised themselves thoroughly with the records of Hereheretau which still survive in the Native Land Court. For instance, they were aware that in 1884 the grantee Heperi Tiarere had 179 applied to the court to have others included in Tiarere's share. Unlike Fraser, they did not assume that the Maori evidence was highly unreliable.
175 ibid, loc cit 176 ibid, P 22 177 Judgment of the Native Appellate Court, Reprinted from the Wairoa Guardian, 25 February 1907, following p 37 of Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 11 - fIrst page of printed judgment 178 ibid, second page of printed judgment 179 ibid, loc cit;
34 It is true that the witnesses often contradicted themselves but looking at their evidence as a whole it is no better or worse than the general class of native evidence. We have no hesitation in concurring with those Judges of the Court who have declared that there was a trust in each of these blocks and that the nominal owners intended to hold as trustees. Were we compelled to hold otherwise the Native Land Court which is supposed to protect the native owners would be the means of doing the real owners an injustice. 180 [Emphasis added.]
2.14 The Determination of Relative Interests in Hereheretau B This judgment was then followed by a lengthy process of determining the names of those with rights in Hereheretau B. The Appellate Court did not adopt the list of names settled, with considerable labour, in 1899. Instead, it set out afresh to try to settle a list as if it were sitting in 1868. It called for the preparation oflists which were to exclude those who had no right, those unborn in 1868 and, unlike the Native Land Court in 1899, the immediate descendants of those who had sold, as well as the actual sellers. 181
The court appears to have been interested in 1868, rather than in 1840, when they sought to determine ownership in the block. This is apparent from the treatment given to Tiki Matarae and his brother Heke. There was apparently agreement that the brothers were descendants of th e ancestor Kahukura. 1~ There was, however, a question as to their occupation.Tuehu Pomare's comments on Tiki's occupation are interesting as regards the situation in 1840: [Tiki] was taken prisoner by Ngapuhi but fight was not for the land. After treaty Waitangi prisoners brought back by Henare Apatari [7] a big chief and restored to their rights. When Tiki Matarae returned he married one of tribe and he has resided at Whakaki ever since No one ever called his claim cold before Land leased to European in 1868 & owners therefore did not occupy183
It would seem clear from this that Tiki had not occupied the block in 1840. Nevertheless, upon hearing this statement, the argumentative Fraser withdrew his objection to the brothers, and the court passed the list with them included. 184
Fraser did, however, try to argue for the complete exclusion of Ngati Hine from the Hereheretau block. He claimed that in 1868, Ngati Hine only claimed the disputed portion of the block, and that they did not dispute Te Ipu's claim to the rest of it. 185 This is certainly a novel interpretation of the minutes of the 1868 case. The court
The original application can be found at the Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Box 42, Hereheretau, File 7/Wr, Application numbered 84/1389 180 Judgment of the Native Appellate Court, Reprinted from the Wairoa Guardian, 25 February 1907, following p 37 of Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 11 - second page of printed judgment 181 TairawhitiAppellate CourtMB 11, fols l36-137 182 ibid, fo1180 183 ibid, fol 181 184 ibid, loc cit 185 ibid, fol138
35 refused to follow his line of argument. 186 Wi Kaimoana pointed out that in the dispute over the Opoho, Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu had not in fact been contending against each other but against Ngati Rakaipaaka. He said that there had been 'No dispute between them as to Hereheretau before today.,187 Over the following decade, the relationship between Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu sometimes became decidedly antagonistic. It seems not impossible that this argument of Fraser's was a contributing factor.
Despite Kaimoana's assertion that the two hapu had not previously disputed about the Hereheretau block, Kaimoana did comment adversely on the 1868 evidence of Areta Te Rito. Te Rito had said that Kahukura had given the land to Te Ipu. Kaimoana argued that there were ten generations between Kahukura and Te Ipu and that 188 therefore this gift could not have taken place. Maraea Waaka Kereru supported this position with whakapapa, and on these grounds described the gift to Te Ipu as 'a myth'. She claimed that Ngati Hine had a 'predominant interest' in the block, and that Te Ipu's children had ended up living on the land as a result of intermarriage with N gat!. H·me. 189
Once again, this case shows that there were joint and overlapping hapu affiliations for a prominent local Maori. Wi Kaimoana describes Areta Te Rito here as a Ngai Te 190 IpU. John Down, however, pointed out that Areta Te Rito had been described as a 191 Ngati Hine in Wairoa Minute Book 3A.
It was eventually decided that the court would settle not just the names of those to go 192 into the title for the block, but also their relative interests. There was considerable discussion about the position of N gati Hinepua. This was an issue which had been 193 debated at great length when the Hereheretau No 2 block was heard and reheard. The Appellate Court eventually decided to adopt the ruling of the rehearing court in Hereheretau No 2 that N. Hinepua had no distinctive hapu rights and that what might be done would be to cut out an area to satisfy their individual rights which could be divided up among them. 194
The local people involved then came to a unanimous agreement to allot 600 shares, 195 that is, 600 acres, to Ngati Hinepua. After further negotiation outside the court, it was agreed that Ngati Hine would accept 1800 acres of the block and Ngai Te Ipu the balance, which was estimated at 3750 acres. There were no objectors, and the court 196 therefore gave its approval to the arrangement.
186 ibid, fols 144-145 187 ibid, fol 140 188 ibid, fo1 140 189 ibid, fo1s 141-142 190 ibid, 10c cit 191 ibid, fo1 142 192 ibid, fo1s 185-186 193 See sections 3.5.2, 3.6.2 194 Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 11, fol 222 195 ibid, fols 224-225 196 ibid, fols 226-229
36 Final negotiations took place over the people to go in the lists of the various hapu. Areta Te Rito, who was now dead,197 was placed in a Ngai Te Ipu list. The only issue about this seems to have been the size of the share to be allotted to him. Again there was a brief but unclear reference to Te Rito having saved the block from 'confiscation owing to Hauhau troubles.' 198 Eventually the court decided, with the agreement of most of the hapu, that he should be assigned 500 acres. This was with the proviso, however, that this area would bear the sole responsibility for paying Fraser's expenses 199 as conductor.
Finally, on 13 August 1908, the court gave effect to its decisions in various orders. The 1894 partition was cancelled. The title was amended so that 184 names were 200 included in the title of Hereheretau B, as of the date on the original crown grant. It should be noted, however, that this decision did not affect the status of the rest of the Hereheretau block. This remained in European ownership. The larger group of owners had consequently gained rights to only about 69.7 per cent ofthe original Hereheretau block.
As the proceedings drew to their close, a number of important owners made it clear that they wanted the block to be made inalienable except by lease?Ol The court ordered that Hereheretau B should be 'inalienable except by lease' .202 There had also been considerable support for the idea of making Whakaki Lake a reserve. This matter, however, the Appellate Court left to be settled by the Native Land Court?03
2.15 The Repartitioning of Hereheretau B While the block had been the subject of all this litigious activity, the lease to John Hunter Brown had expired. Some of the grantees had arranged for one Vaughan to lease the block and depasture stock on it in common with other owners. He was to do so in proportion to the shares of those who had no stock of their own. In June 1908, members of all three hapu connected with the block applied for an order restraining Vaughan from depasturing sheep and other stock on the block. At this stage, the arrangement with certain owners had been in place for two years. Vaughan had been running an average of one thousand sheep on the block, although at the point the application for the injunction was made there were apparently 1400 sheep, along with some cattle. Vaughan, through his solicitor, asked for sufficient time to dispose of his 204 stock before leaving the land.
It is clear that at least some of the owners who opposed the presence of Vaughan's stock on Hereheretau B did so because they were keen to run sheep on the land themselves. Patu Te Rito, son of Areta Te Rito, also talked of the possiblity of dairy
197 ibid, fo1282 198 ibid, fol 282 199 ibid, fol 284 200 Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 12, fols 57-63 201 Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 11, fols 303-304 202 Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 12, fol 58 203 Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 11, fols 303-304 204 Tairawhiti Appellate Court MB 12, fols 215-216
37 farming on the block. 205 The court decided that Vaughan should leave the block, but effectively gave him two months grace?06
Later in the year, the Native Land Court pro ceded to partition the block amongst the new list of owners. This process was carried out primarily through extensive negotiations amongst the owners involved outside the court. The judge also visited the block twice. The first visit was to inspect the land and look at a road which it was 207 proposed to make through the block. This was intended to give access to some of the subdivisions?08 The second visit was made to settle a dispute about the amount of acreage for each subdivision?09 A written valuation was obtained from the surveyor employed to layout the road. The judge also consulted McRae, the manager of the block when it was leased by John Hunter Brown, and Taylor, who farmed adjoining land. The final subdivision was made as far as possible on the basis of the localities asked for by the various parties.
One feature of the subdivision was that subdivision 2, almost the whole of the area between the Main Road and the sea, was allotted to all the owners of Hereheretau B, except the 28 owners in subdivision 1, which was also on the coast. These subdivisions included the Whakaki lagoon or lake, along with sandhills and what the judge described as 'the poorer flats' ?10 In later years, this area, with its wildlife and its farming potential, was to be the focus of much contention. At this point, none of the subdivisions appear to have been made inalienable. In this regard, the wishes of the restored owners seem to have been defeated again almost as soon as they had finally won their battle.
2.16 Some Later Petitions The 1897 petition of Kararaina Kaimoana and 59 others which finally sparked the 1899 hearing relating to the ten owner rule included a complaint about the fact that several grantees had sold?ll The inclusion of many more Maori in the title of Hereheretau B did not remedy the grievance the petitioners felt about their lost land and resources.
In 1936, the grievance over the land lost to Maori ownership during the time of the grantees surfaced again. Te Rauna Hape and 64 others asked for the proceedings of the court regarding Hereheretau A to be 'annulled and reconsidered'. This was the main area that had passed to the ownership of John Hunter Brown?12 The under secretary ofthe Native Department reported to the Native Affairs Committee that Hereheretau A block having passed to a purchaser for value, it would be impracticable to investigate the title as the petitioners desire,
205 ibid, fo1221 206 ibid, fol 224 207 Wairoa NLC MB 17, fo125 208 ibid, fol 54 209 ibid, f01 53 210 ibid, fols 55, 56-57 For judgment and full list of subdivisions, see ibid, fois 54-65. See Figure 3 211 See section 2.11 212 Petition No 244/1936 ofTe Rauna Rape & 64 others, MA 1 5/13/95, NA, Wellington
38 notwithstanding that those persons who sold to Brown possibly held in trust for others?13 The committee reported that it had no recommendation to make on the petition?14
In 1945 and 1946, Te Rauna Hape and numerous others again petitioned about the Hereheretau block. The petitioners again raised the issue of land sold by the trustees. In addition, both petitions seemed to wish Ngai Te Ipu to be excluded completely from the title. They stated that the title was awarded in 1868 on the basis of an alleged gift from Kahukura to Te Ipu. They argued that this gift was impossible because whakapapa showed that the two ancestors were seven generations apart.2IS
The research conducted for the under secretary before he reported to the Native Affairs Committee on the first of these petitions led him to the understanding that the right claimed in the 1868 hearing had not been challenged in later proceedings. Section 2.14 has indicated, however, that the idea that Kahukura and Te Ipu were many generations apart had been raised previously in the Appellate Court. This had not, however, resulted in the exclusion ofNgai Te Ipu from the title.
These petitions reflect on-going grief over loss of a large part of the block under the grantees. It seems likely that they also reflect some tension between Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu. This tension had been evident in proceedings over relative interests in Hereheretau No 2 in 1915-16. The 1946 petition indeed quotes twice from one of the minute books in that case.
A last petition relates to the Whakaki Lake or Lagoon. This is a very significant issue that will not be dealt with in depth here?16 In 1927, an application was made to the Native Land Court to exempt Hereheretau B2L from rating. The court recommended the exemption of the block on the grounds that it was 'a sheet of water commonly called Whakaki lagoon and unproductive'. The Crown granted the exemption?17
2.16 Conclusion With the settling of the new list of owners in the title in 1908, the rights of many Maori who had lost any right to their traditional land in 1868 were finally resoundingly asserted. With the determination of relative interests and the partitioning of Hereheretau B in the same year, those owners who wished to farm in the block were finally given a firmer foundation on which to do so.
In 1868, Judge Momo heard numerous cases in the Wairoa area in a very short time. Hereheretau was one of the cases where only ten owners were put into the title. The
213 Under Secretary to Clerk, Native Affairs Committee, 12 October 1937, MA 1 5/13/95 214 Report on the Petition of Te Rauna hape & 64 others, same file 215 Petition No 70/1945 ofTe Rauna Rape & 149 others, same file; Petition No 1011946 ofTe Rauna Rape & 69 others, same file 216 See Office ofthe Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Investigation Into The Management O/The Whakaki Lagoon: Background Report, Wellillgton, March 1993 (Wai 201 record of documents, doc D7) 217 Recommendation by Judge Carr, Wairoa MB 38/244, In the matter of "The Rating Act, 1925" ... ; Extract from N Z Gazette No 60, 25 August 1927, both ill MA 1 1927/226, NA Wellington
39 precise sequence of events was later disputed. It seems likely that local Maori were well aware that more than ten people had rights in the block. There is no evidence that Judge Monro informed those at the Hereheretau hearing that more than ten could be put in the title. The surveyor who played a major role in having the block heard apparently said that only ten could be put in. Enormous ignorance about the court and about the 1867 legislation, together with respect for the mana of Areta Te Rito, probably contributed to the absence of objections at the time from those left out of the title. Te Rito was later to claim that he had saved the land from confiscation. Nothing has been found, however, to clarify his meaning. In any event, it seems highly likely that local Maori associated with the area expected that those who were put in would exercise some kind of trusteeship. There is evidence that this happened to a limited extent.
The block was leased to George Burton for fifteen years in 1870. This lease subsequently changed hands. In 1885, there was a new lease by Areta Te Rito and others to John Hunter Brown for 21 years.
Some of the grantees also sold 'their' shares. The court did not decide the size of the interests of the various grantees until 1889. Nevertheless, Henare Pakura sold his interest in the block to George Burton the day before his death in 1874. Te Waka Kereru sold his interest in the block to John Hunter Brown in 1887. At the original 1889 partition hearing, John Hunter Brown was awarded 1587 acres representing the shares of these two owners.
When the partition was reheard in 1890, the interests of two further grantees passed to John Hunter Brown. One of these was one quarter of the interest of Heperi Tiarere. This happened despite Tiarere's assertion that what he had signed some years earlier were wills, rather than deeds of sale. Paora Rakau had sold his interest to Hunter Brown since the original partition hearing. As a result of these various sales, John Hunter Brown received Hereheretau A, a block of 2501 acres, and Hereheretau C, a block of 168 acres 1 rood. The remaining grantees were left with Hereheretau B, a block of 6150 acres 3 roods.
For the first twenty-eight years of the forty year period beginning in 1868, no legislative means existed for rehearing blocks where inappropriate decisions had been made on the basis of the 'ten owner rule'. After the passing of the Equitable Owners Act 1886, there was still no provision for those blocks where interests had been partially sold. This situation was only remedied in 1896 in section 21 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1896. In the last twelve years of this forty year period, the Native Land Court and the Native Appellate Court devoted considerable effort to arriving at an equitable solution to the ownership of the Hereheretau block, and of numerous other blocks in the Wairoa area that were in a similar situation. It seems unfortunate, however, that while the court made Hereheretau B inalienable under its new owners, when the block was partitioned shortly afterwards, the subdivisions were apparently not made inalienable.
Furthermore, parliament had no intention of disturbing those landowners who had acquired interests from nominal owners in these blocks prior to the decision that the
40 nominal owners were actually trustees. This situation contributed to later petitions from some Maori with interests in the block.
Two 1940s petitions also suggest that there was some tension between Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu. A dispute over the correct relative shares of the two hapu was a feature of the 1915-16 rehearing of the relative interests in Hereheretau No 2. In earlier Hereheretau and Hereheretau No 2 cases, the relationship between these two hapu seemed much more harmonious. Indeed, in the case of Areta Te Rito, there were multiple overlapping hapu affiliations. It seems possible that the immense volume of proceedings over the two blocks, the separate existence of which was largely a creation of the land court, had fostered a more adversarial attitude than had previously existed.
41 CHAPTER 3: HEREHERETAU NO 2 AND KAHAATUREIA HEARINGS AND REHEARINGS 3.1 Introduction This chapter begins by noting the way in which Maori land legislation changed in 1873, so that the number of names put into land titles was no longer restricted. It also touches on the Maori interest in committees which came to the fore in the 1870s.
The chapter then traces, mainly from the minutes of the Native Land Court, the various efforts which were made to settle the status of disputed land in the area covered by this study. On the one hand, there were several more Maori committees. The last of these committees published its boundary line between N gati Hine and Ngati Rakaipaaka in 188l.
Only after this last committee had finished its work, did the Native Land Court again deal with land in this area. Later in 1881 it looked at the ownership of the Opoho block, part of the area the ownership of which was disputed by Whakaki and Nuhaka Maori. In doing so, it used the boundary set by the last Maori committee. Later it ruled on the ownership of the adjoining Nuhaka No 2 block, again using the committee boundary. When the ownership of the balance of the Hereheretau area was to come before the court, however, it was found that Ngati Rakaipaaka were effectively challenging the committee line by claiming land on the Ngati Hine side of the committee line. This led to a rehearing of Nuhaka No 2 in 1888 immediately before the first hearing for what became Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia.
The chapter then goes on to look at this first hearing. This occupied the Native Land Court for some months in 1888. The first major issue to be settled was the respective rights of the claimant Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu, on the one hand, and various Ngati Rakaipaaka counter claimants, on the other, to the land between the Hereheretau block and the Opoho block. This land became known as the Kahaatureia block. The second main issue was the extent of the rights of the N gati Hinepua hapu, who put in a counter claim for some of the land lying behind the Hereheretau block, in what became known as Hereheretau No 2. Judge Scannell, primarily on the basis of a site visit, awarded most of Kahaatureia to Ngati Rakaipaaka. The claims of Ngati Hinepua as a hapu were dismissed, although individual members were told that they could be admitted by the court if they proved their occupation of the land.
The judgment of the court was rapidly challenged by both Ngati Hinepua and the original claimants. The case was then reheard by Judges Barton and von Sturmer. As a result of this very prolonged rehearing, the previous decision over Kahaatureia was reiterated by the court. The court also rejected the claims of Ngati Hinepua, particularly in light of a searching site visit, but decided to award them a small area on the western side of the block.
The chapter then moves on to look at various partitions in these blocks. After the 1892 partition of Kahaatureia, the Crown began buying land in the supposedly inalienable subdivisions of this block. The Crown interests were partitioned out in 1898. Unfortunately the records which survive for this block are not particularly extensive.
42 Shortly after the turn of the century, there was a dispute over the use of the Hereheretau No 2 block. The Native Land Court partitioned the block in 1903. After prolonged agitation, the Native Land Court reheard the issue of relative interests in Hereheretau No 2 block in 1915-16. This generated no less than 700 pages of minutes, many largely illegible. These minutes have not all been read, but the chapter will touch upon the major points of the various judgments given by Judge Jones.
3.2 Native Land Legislation and Native Committees Between the 1868 hearing of the Hereheretau block and the first hearing for Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia twenty years later, parliament passed a mass of native land legislation. There is no need to review this here?18 The title of the Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia blocks were eventually investigated under the Native Land Court Act 1886 and its amendments.219 Suffice it to say that from the Native Land Act 1873, the name of every owner of a block was listed on the memorial of ownership. The problems caused by the insertion into the title of only a small number of those with rights consequently did not recur with Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia.
While parliament was passing copious native land legislation, and large areas of Maori customary land were passing through the land court, many Maori were seeking alternatives to this eurocentric approach. The 1870s saw much activity in the shape of Maori committees. Ward writes that Throughout the 1870s and 1880s ... , Maori leaders, anxious to forestall the sort of adjudication likely to be given by the Land Court, increasingly met in conference with the leaders of the neighbouring tribes and hapu, and frequently came to clear agreement upon boundaries which they wanted only to be formally ratified by the externa1 auth onty.· 220
Vincent O'Malley discusses the activities of unofficial committees in a number of regions during the 1870s?21 He argues that by the late 1870s, such committees 'appear to have been the rule rather than the exception in most Maori communities.' He instances the case of Wairoa, where the Resident Magistrate wrote in 1880 that 'each small kainga in this district has its komiti, and ... most Native cases are tried by this tribunal' ?22 The committees which concerned themselves with the blocks studied here need to be seen in the context of this energetic attempt by Maori to sort out their own issues.
218 For recent reviews, see Riseborough & Hutton, The Crown's Engagement with Customary Tenure in the Nineteenth Century, pp 68-74; Alan Ward, National Overview, vol 2, pp 227-245 219 Order on Investigation of Title, "The Native Land Court Act, 1886," and its Amendments, for Hereheretau No 2, Maori Land Information Office file for Hereheretau Station, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 220 A Ward, A Show ofJustice ... ,p 182 221 Vincent O'Malley, Agents ofAutonomy ... , Chapters 4 and 5 222 ibid, P 95, including footnote 287, citing Baker to Native Under-Secretary, 15 May 1880, AJHR 1880, G-4, p.lI.
43 3.3 Native Committees and the Kahaatureia Dispute At the 1868 Hereheretau hearing, both sides in the case had agreed that the disputed area within the claim should be cut out and heard at the next sitting of the Court. This did not, in fact, happen.
Samuel Locke was a key Crown land purchase agent in Hawkes Bay during the 1860s?23 In 1879, Hori Te Roi and nine others asked F D Fenton to send them a copy of the order made by Judge Momo's court, and also for 'the decision ("kota raka" qy of Mr. Lock'[sic] on Hereheretau. Te Roi was told that there was no such decision in the office?24 But evidence that Locke may indeed have undertaken some investigation not now recorded in the court files can be found in the minute books. In his 1888 evidence to the land court, Hoani Ngarara said that after the 1868 Hereheretau hearing, Locke investigated the disagreements over the boundaries on behalf of the government. Apparently he meant that Locke looked at whether the boundary between Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu, over against Ngati Rakaipaaka, should be at the Opoho Stream or whether it should be the Kahaatureia line. This contentious line seems to have gone inland from Whakahoki, the most easterly coastal point of the Hereheretau block and to have passed through a place called Kahaatureia. According to Ngarara, Locke decided in favour of his uncle [Te Teira] and Areta [Te Rito] and against Matenga and Ihaka [Whaanga].225 The date of such an investigation, if it indeed took place, is unknown.
At any rate, in January 1870, Areta Te Rito wrote to Momo. He complained that ... the men of Onuhaka are working on Te Poho, the land to which you said no one was to go, the piece you left unfinished at the investigation, that no one should go there. Now, we do not go to that land, but it is well that arrangement should rest with yoU. 226 It would appear from this that Momo had made some further arrangements over the land which he had not dealt with, but no other evidence of what they were has been found.
Section 2.2 noted what was apparently the first attempt by a Maori committee to solve the issue of the ownership of the disputed area between Whakahoki and the Opoho area. There are numerous further references to later committees in minutes relating to Kahaatureia and Hereheretau No 2. This section attempts to piece together a sometimes somewhat hazy series of events.
Judge Scannell reported in 1888 how an effort by some Rakaipaaka to put sheep on land at Opoho had met with 'armed resistance' from Ngati Hine. A Maori committee tried to settle the matter by arbitration in 1873. The attempt apparently failed?27 The
223 Hippolite, op cit, pp 23-24, 27-30, 32 224 translation ofHori Te Roi & 9 others to F D Fenton, 26 August 1879, File 7/Wr, Hereheretau, Applications up to and including 1905, Box 42, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisbome. Original also on file. 225 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fo166 226 translation of Areta te Rito to Monro, 7 January 1870, File 7/Wr [original of letter also on file] 227 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fol130
44 members of the committee seem to have been two Rakaipaka and two Ngati Hine representatives, who were to manage the 'estate', with Paora Te Apatu as chairman?28
Some time after this, Ngati Rakaipaaka, according to Hoani Ngarara, wanted to put sheep on the disputed area. They did not consult N gati Hine, as they should have under the arrangement about the joint committee. They were in the process of driving the sheep they had bought to Opoho when they were stopped by N gati Hine. A committee of Wairoa and Mahia chiefs was set up. Ngati Rakaipaka, with the consent ofNgati Hine, built a house for the convenience of the committee on the banks of the Opoho. Despite this, Ngati Rakaipaka persisted with their plan to put sheep on the disputed land. Eventually a fight ensued. Ngarara said that Ngati Rakaipaaka were defeated and their houses were burnt. Henare T omoana of Heretaunga stepped in and managed to make peace. Ngati Rakaipaaka returned to Nuhaka and Ngati Hine to 229 Whakaki.
In 1881, a final committee made up of Renata Kawepo, Paora Kaiwhata and Manaena Tini met at Kihitu and considered the boundary between Ngati Rakaipaaka and Ngati Hine.23o Hoani Ngarara also mentions 'Henare Tomoana & other chiefs'. He commented that this final committee was entirely made up of Heretaunga chiefs. According to him, the Wairoa chiefs who had had the matter repeatedly before them without result stood aloof.231 At any rate, the committee published its judgment on the 232 block on 28 April 1881. Ngati Rakaipaaka told the committee that their boundary went from the Whakahoki to a place called Te Kaha-a-Tureia. The committee's verdict was that Te Kaha-a-Tureia was not a land boundary, but 'the "Kaha" or tying of Tureia's axe.' N gati Hine, on the other hand, argued that their boundary was at Waiohinekura. The committee also ruled that this was incorrect.
The committee considered that the correct boundary actually began at the mouth of the Opoho. It said that the Opoho side belonged to Te Rehu and the other side to Te Ipu. The committee gave the boundary thus: Commencing at the mouth of Opoho to Puharakekenui to Te Kainga i Te Karaka Te Rae 0 Kaingarara. te Whakaumu ate Ruruku, on to Te Umahujoining Teira['s] boundy [sic] and you can finish it' ?33
No map showing precisely the location of Ngati Rakaipaaka's Kaha-a-Tureia line, the Ngati Hine line or the committee boundary has been located. It would seem, though, that the Ngati Rakaipaaka line was probably at least very close to the boundary line between the Hereheretau and Hereheretau No 2 blocks, on the one hand, and the
228ibid, fol 66 229 ibid, fol 67 230 Maori Original of Judgement in Box 62 Kahaatureia 1-9 1889-1954, File Kahaatureia 1-7 Applications up to 1905, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisborne. Information taken from English translation, same file. On Renata Kawepo, see Patrick Parsons & Angela BaHara, 'Kawepo, Renata Tama-ki-Hikurangi ?-1888', The Dictionary ofNew Zealand Biography, voll, pp 218-219 231 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fol86 232 See Appendix 2 233 English translation of Maori Original of Judgement in Box 62 Kahaatureia 1-9 1889-1954, File Kahaatureia 1-7 Applications up to 1905
45 Kahaatureia A and Kahaatureia blocks, on the other. The committee's boundary was apparently what ended up as the boundary between the Kahaatureia block and the Opoho and Nukaha No 2 blocks. 234 The boundary given by Ngati Hine was presumably, at least in some places, further to the east, since Ngati Hine regarded their acceptance of the committee line as a compromise between them and Ngati Rakaipaaka.
The committee found that those Ngati Hine with a right on the Ngati Rakaipaaka side should get it on that side, and vice versa. The tribes were enjoined to 'rest peaceably and quietly on this judgement and all use the land'. The committee said that its mana would remain over the land so that the owners could live in peace. It forbade one tribe from getting a survey done behind the other's back. A survey was only to take place after consultation between the two tribes and if the committee agreed. The committee did not want the government to send a survey team onto the land without the agreement of the tribes and the committee. The translation of the committee's judgment indicates a willingness to leave final judgment on the situation to the Native Land Court. When the N.L.Court find out the proper owners of the land the mana of the Committee ceases?35
In June, however, Renata Kawepo wrote to the Chief Judge about the committee's activities. The translation of this letter, unlike that of the judgment, seems to suggests that the committee did expect the land court to carry out their finding. He wrote ... there is no intention to interfere with your work. ... It will remain for you to give authority (or effect) to the finding of the Maori . 236 C ommlttee
The implication appears to be that the committee did not doubt that its decision was correct, but that it needed the land court to whakamana - give authority or effect to, as the translator put it - its decision.
Hoani Ngarara claimed in 1888 that the committee's decision was not aimed at pacifying the parties but was meant to be apermanent boundary.237 The committee's line effectively supported Ngati Hine's claim to the area between the Hereheretau and Opoho blocks, so his attitude is not surprising.
Unfortunately the only printed records found from the 1881 committee are the judgement of the committee and the letter to Fenton. Ngarara later said that the "deVl ence at Commlttees . was not so very vo 1ummous . , .238
3.4 The Native Land Court and the Opoho and Nuhaka No 2 Blocks
234 See Figure 2. A possible site for Kahaatureia from ML 149iB (LINZ Head Office), is shown on this map. 235 ibid, loc cit 236 English translation of Maori letter, Renata Kawepo to Fenton, 11 June 1881. See Appendix 2 237 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fol 86 238 ibid, fol 120
46 Meanwhile, apparently in late March 1880, E B Baker, the Resident Magistrate at Wairoa, telegraphed the Native Land Court. He stated that there was 'rather a serious row' between Maori from Nuhaka and Whakaki about 'Opoho on the coast'. He apparently thought that the Nuhaka Maori, Ngati Rakaipaaka, had previously objected to the area going through the Native Land Court. All parties were now wilIling to have the land go before the next land court. Baker on behalf of the Maori asked for this to happen. He was clearly concerned to get the dispute settled?39 Some further correspondence was required before the Native Land Court officials were clear where the block was. Once this happened, however, the matter was apparently not pursued until after the findings of the 1881 Maori Committee became available?40
What became Opoho block was dealt with by the Native Land Court in 1881. The block lies along the coast on the eastern side of the Kahaatureia block. Maika Taruke of Ngati Rakaipaaka in his 1888 evidence said that the applicants in the Opoho case followed the committee line?41 He appeared to be saying that this was done because Ngati Rakaipaaka were afraid that if they did not, further fighting would ensue. In comments formally in answer to a question from the Court, but apparently actually addressed to N gati Hine, he said I do not agree with your boundary at Pohatunui - it is not an ancestral one. We were afraid that N.Hine might come into collision with Rakaipaka. Rakaipaka were not afraid of you but we thought it best to leave it to the law. It was Ropitini's & Tiopira's quarrel when you took 242 the things & burnt them.
Hoani Ngarara ofNgati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu set up a case in what became the Opoho block. He attributed this to the refusal of Rakaipaaka to accept the committee's boundary?43 Although the 1881 committee had put Ngati Hine on the western side of the Opoho stream, Ngati Hine did apparently gain some rights in the Opoho block. These were apparently linked to N gati Hine rights, acknowledged even by Rakaipaaka, to use an eel weir on the Opoho Stream?44
When it carne to Nuhaka No 2, however, Ngarara appears to have taken the committee's boundary rather more seriously. He later claimed that part of his land was included in this block, but that Renata Kawepo had suggested when Nuhaka No 2 came on at Hastings that N garara should not set up a claim for it. Instead, N garara had agreed to the suggestion of the Native Land Court at that time that the boundary should be 'the Committee's boundary,.245 The court indeed stated in its 1888 judgment on the rehearing of Nuhaka No 2 that it had been led to believe that both parties, at the time of the original hearing for the block, accepted 'the Committee's line', and that the court had given its decision in accordance with this.
239 Telegram E B Baker to A J Dickey, NLC Office, 24 March [1880 apparently from adjoining correspondence], File 7/Wr, Hereheretau, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 240 Minute on backing paper attached to telegram Baker to Dickey; Telegram Dickey to Baker, both in file 7/Wr, Hereheretau 241 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fol106 242 ibid, fol 107 243 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fol 83 244 Evidence ofIhaka Whanga, Gisborne NLC MB 20, fols 266-267 245 ibid, fol 93
47 The title of Hereheretau No 2 subsequently came before the court after the first hearing of Nuhaka No 2. Otene Pomare of Rakaipaaka then claimed as much of the disputed area in Hereheretau as they had not gained from the Nukaha No 2 decision. The court saw this as unjust, given that its previous decision had been partly based on Rakaipaaka's supposed acceptance of the Committee line. A rehearing of Nuhaka No 2 was then held, partially to establish what ought to be the western boundary ofthe Nuhaka No 2 block.
This rehearing took place in February 1888. With the consent of all parties, it was decided that the western boundary of Nuhaka No 2 would be the line based on the Pohatunui and Makarai streams, the boundary set by the previous court on the basis of the committee's line. This decision was to be 'without prejudice' to the positions of any of the parties, and the disputed land was to be left to be heard in the Hereheretau case. This was to be held immediately after the Nuhaka No 2 rehearing?46
3.5 The Hearing of Kahaatureia and Hereheretau No 2 In accordance with the undertaking given in the Nuhaka No 2 rehearing, the Native Land Court on 22 February 1888 began its hearing of Hereheretau No 2. D Scannell was judge and Hemi Warahi assessor in the case?47 The claimant was Hoani Ngarara. He claimed the area that became both Kahaatureia and Hereheretau No 2 through his two hapu, Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu. He claimed by ancestry, occupation and conquest. In terms of his ancestry, he gave his whakapapa from both Kahukura and Te Ipu. He said that his ancestors and their descendants had held the land continuously to the present time. He also described his claim through Te Ipu as a claim by conquest. 248
Initially there were fourteen counterclaims. The judge encouraged a merging procedure. The case then proceeded with five counterclaims brought by Maori from Rakaipaaka and associated hapu. In addition, there was a counterclaim with Horomona Turoa conducting for himself, Heremaia Te Hikitangarangi and Ngati Hinepua. It seems most convenient to discuss the case in two parts, looking firstly at the area where Ngati Rakaipaaka were in contention with Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu and secondly at the area behind Hereheretau block where some Ngati Hinepua sought to assert rights.
3.5.1 The 1888 Hearing of Kahaatureia Chief Judge Fenton had said in 1866 that, except on rare occasions, in the Native Land Court the date at which titles were to be regarded as settled was 1840. ... all persons who are proved to have been the actual owners or possessors ofland at that time must (with their successors) be regarded as the owners or possessors of those lands now, except in cases where changes of ownership have subsequently taken place, with the consent,
246 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fols 65-66,60 247 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fo169. For Judgment in the case, see Appendix 2 248 ibid, fols 69-71
48 expressed or tacit, of the Government, or without its actual interference 249 to prevent those changes.
Ballara points out, however, that despite this 1840 rule, Native Land Court judges in practice generally expected witnesses to recount all their whakapapa and traditions relating to human occupation in the area before the court. The intention of this was to establish the claim of the witness. The court sought to follow 'ownership' down through the years, looking for links between 'winning' ancestors and present day . 250 C Immants.
This process was certainly followed in this particular case. Witnesses for the various claims supplied numerous whakapapa. Witnesses for Ngati Rakaipaaka and related hapu tended to look back to two different ancestors called Rakaipaaka, to Rangihakahaka and to Te Rehu and two ancestors called Tureia?51 One of these Rakaipaaka and Te Rehu and one of these Tureia were mentioned in the introduction?52 Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu, as already mentioned, tended to look back principally to Kahukura and Te Ipu?53
The witnesses also recounted a large number of traditions about conflicts over the land. Some of these related to the distant past. These often related to Te Ipu and Te Rehu, who were apparently contemporaries?54 Te Rehu seems to have been a grandfather of Te Ratau who, as noted in section 1.2, was the father of the noted 255 Rakaipaaka leader Ihaka Whaanga. Much evidence was also given about armed struggle in the area round about the time of the death of Te Ratau. One of the sons of Ihaka Whaanga, another Ihaka Whaanga, was one of the counter claimants for the block. In addition, evidence was given on subsequent conflicts about the block, right up to the time of the 1881 committee and the hearings over Opoho and Nuhaka No 2.
In his judgment, Judge Scannell reviewed the traditions recounted by the various witnesses. But the judge apparently found it impossible to arrive at a resolution of numerous contradictions in the evidence. It was certainly clear that the conflict between the two major groups ofhapu was very long-standing. But the details of these conflicts remained obscure.
249 Fenton, Important Judgements delivered in the Compensation Court and Native Land Court. 1866- 79, 1879. Passage cited by BaHara, op cit, fol 510, from I H Kawharu, Maori Land Tenure, Oxford, 1977, p 73 These words apparently referred to the Compensation Court, but Fenton then goes on to say that although the rule cannot be applied so strictly in the Native Lands Court, it is still to be applied there 'except in rare instances.' BaHara, op cit, fols 510-511 250 ibid, fol 511 251 See, for example, Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fol11; Wairoa NLC ME 3, fols 73, 75,85-86,162,163-164, 192, 194 252 See Section 1.2 253 See Section 3.5 and also Wairoa NLC ME 3A, fols 62-63 254 See, for example, Wairoa NLC ME 3, fo1141 255 See, for example, ibid, fol 85
49 The judge summarised the issues concerning which he had been unable to reconcile the evidence. In consequence of this, the court had had to lay aside these matters in coming to a decision. Putting aside the conflicting statements as to the ownership of the land previous to the termination of the fighting consequent on the death of Te Rataau, because we cannot now judge which of these conflicting statements is true and which is false, i. e., whether Rakaipaka, the ancestor ofNgati Rakaipaka, or Kahukura, the ancestor of Ngati Hine, owned the land originally; whether Rangihakahaka revived the boundary and transmitted the land to Te Rehu, or whether such a boundary never existed; whether the killing of Rangihauturu was a mere act of wanton aggression or a legitimate exercise of the owners' right of resisting any attempted appropriation of his land; whether the land from Te Waiohinekura to Tahaenui belonged originally to Tauepa, and was given by him to Te Kapua Matotoru as stated by Ngati Hine, or did such a thing never take place as asserted by Ngati Rakaipaka (this so-called gift, being in the Opoho block, could only affect the present case in an indirect way); whether Ngati Hine owned the eelweirs at Opoho, or did Ngati Rakaipaka, as stated by each, and many more statements to the same affect; putting these aside, not because they are irrelevant, or have no bearing on the issue, but because being contradicted they are only capable of being proved by the analogy of recent events. 256
This seems to indicate that, had the judge been able to arrive at a satisfactory way of resolving the contradictions, he would have taken these conflicts, many dating presumably to well before 1840, into account in his decision. As he did not, the earlier traditional stories will not be discussed further here. The judge's summary indicates the nature of the traditions which are described at much greater length at many points in the minute books.
Some significant points emerge, however, from a consideration of the stories associated with the death of Te Ratau and subsequent developments in the fate of Ngati Rakaipaaka. Whatever motivated the killing of Te Ratau, there was general agreement that he had been killed by the Whakatohea working with Te Matenga. Te Matenga was also of Ngati Rakaipaaka, but had a Whakatohea wife. Te Matenga fetched Te Ratau from Portland Island to Mahia, where the Whakatohea killed him. Subsequently Ngati Hine and their allies attacked Ngati Rakaipaaka. The dispute was also to some extent an intratribal one, for there were N gati Rakaipaaka on both ·d 257 SI es.
The results of the fighting that followed the death of Te Ratau are unclear. A battle at a place called Te Ti was apparently fought at this time, but witnesses differed as to whether Ngati Rakaipaaka or Ngati Hine emerged victorious.258 Ngati Rakaipaaka
256 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fo1132 257 See, for example, WairoaNLC MB 3, fols 174-175 258 For Te Ti as Rakaipaka victory over Ngati Hine, see Wairoa NLC MB 3, fols 111-111 and Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fol 34
50 witnesses emphasised this as a victory for their hapu. Whatever the details of the fighting, however, it does seem clear that eventually some of Ngati Rakaipaaka went to Turanga. There they were defeated at Panui.
Ngati Rakaipaaka seemed somewhat defensive about the land ownership implications of their absence from the area. This, for instance, is how Hirini Whaanga, son of the older Ihaka Whaanga, described the movement of his father Ihaka to Turanga: Rakaipaka would have lost these lands if they had been defeated, but they have retained them. Our old people did not accompany the people to the fight, but my father was invited by the Turanga chiefs to go & live with them. It was not thro fear of the Rakaipaka that he went to Turanga. It was not on account of defeats that Ihaka was taken away to save his life. Rakaipaka defeated Ngae Tu & N.Hikairo but they did not flee to Turanga. All the tribes of East invited Ihaka to go to Turanga after the death ofTe Ratau his father. 259
Some time after the fight at Panui, some of Ngati Rakaipaaka began to return to their old home at Nuhaka. Toroaiwhiti and some other Rakaipaaka killed a man called Kaihorohoro. This was apparently seen as at least partly a way of reasserting their rights to their land. 'It was a seal of their right to the land.' Toroaiwhiti and his people then spent some time in the Mangapoike, to the north of Kahaatureia, and in what 260 became Nuhaka No 2.
Some indication of the timing of these events comes from Henare Mihingare, a N gae Te Rehu witness for Maika Taruke?61 Mihingare said that it was while Toroaiwhiti and his people lived at Mangapoike and Nuhaka No 2 that the Nga Puhi leader Te Wera came to live at Mahia. After some negotiations, according to Mihingare, arrangements were made that included provision that Te Wera and Whareumu should live at Mahia, Toroaiwhiti at Nuhaka and Rapa at Whakaki?62 The arrival of Te Wera and his residence at Mahia with Whareumu seems to date this part of the story to 263 about 1823.
It was round about this time, Mihingare said, that a European called Harry came to the Mahia and brought guns into the district. According to Mihingare, it was Toroaiwhiti that assembled the people at Mahia to scrape flax to buy guns. Toroaiwhiti invited Ngati Ruapani, from further inland, to the area, and they and Ngati Rakaipaaka lived together on the banks of the Tahaenui and Pohatunui on the Hereheretau side. Mihingare stated that
259 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fo1177; For Rakaipaka and associated hapu to Turanga and defeat at Panui, see ibid, fo1112 260 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fo1112. There is some inconsistency in the spelling of Toroaiwhiti's name. It sometimes appears in the minutes as Toroiwhiti. 261 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fol109 262 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fo1s 112-113 263 See Section 1.2
51 They are the people to whom that land belonged & I was brought up there. I have never seen any other hapus living there. I never lived amongst any other people. 264
Hemi Wairea of Ngati Rakaipaaka, giving evidence in Otene Pomare's case, also said that when Waaka - that is, Toroaiwhiti - and others returned to the disputed block, they had cultivations along the Tahainui & west of Opoho stream at Ngawhakahihi, Tapuaimamango, & at Te Rere. Last name place was to west of Opoho. Matenga had a cultivation at Tapuaimamango also?65
Hoani Ngarara, giving evidence for Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu, gave a significantly different version of the story of Waaka. According to him, the reason Waaka went from Toropapa where he had been living to the disputed block was that Ngati Hine had been living, cultivating and building canoes at Nuhaka under the mana of Te Waaka. The resultant friendly relationship, according to Ngarara, prompted Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu to ask Te Waaka to come onto the disputed block to cultivate and catch eels in the Opoho Stream. Ngarara's version of events was that Te Waaka and Ngati Hine then lived together on the land. Ngarara emphasised that at his death, Te Waaka told his nephew to leave the land ofNgati Hine and to return to Nuhaka.
Meanwhile, during the joint residence of Te Waaka and Ngati Hine, Matenga had returned from Nga Puhi, with whom he had been living. He came back preaching Christianity. Ngarara said that after the death of Waaka, Matenga and other Ngati Rakaipaka came from Nuhaka and cultivated in Opoho and at Tapuaimamango. Ngarara concluded that It is merely because they were allowed to cultivate that they now say they have a right. Tho' N.Hine lived and cultivated at Nuhaka they never attempte d to set up a fIg. h t t h ere. 266
Ngarara repeated and amplified this version of events several times?67 He said that the reason that Ngati Hine went to live at Nuhaka was that Wi Rapa, a chief of Ngati Hine, had been one of the main people who had made peace with Te Waaka, and that this had led to a feeling of friendship?68 He dated the residence of Te Waaka with Ngati Hine at Kohohu and Tahainui after the introduction of Christianity?69
The dating of events as before or after the introduction of Christianity is common in the minute books.27o It is more frequent than the dating of events in relationship to the Treaty. When was Christianity introduced? The missionary W Williams arrived in Poverty Bay in December 1839. The following spring he visited the Mahia Peninsula,
264 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fo1113 265 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fo136 266 ibid, fo1 77 267 For example, see also ibid, fo1s 90-91 268 ibid, fo1 81 269 ibid, fo1 122 270 For an example of dating 'before Christianity', see Gisbome NLC MB 12, fo1 159
52 Wairoa and other areas of Hawke's Bay. W L Williams records that in this area, Maori Christians had been at work before pakeha missionaries arrived. No regular teachers had as yet been placed in these parts, but, as in the case of the Ngatiporou near the East Cape, the way for the preaching of the Gospel had been paved by liberated slaves from the north, one of whom had come from the Bay ofIslands, and two from Rotorua?71
This suggests that the introduction of Christianity by Matenga and others may well have come before the Treaty. In that case, after the introduction of Christianity could refer to a period before the Treaty, or it could refer to a date after 1840. Later Ngarara said that Ngati Hine lived at Opoho and Waikoriri from 1854 to 1857, in Waaka Toroaiwhiti's time, and that Ngati Rakaipaka lived under them?72 It seems possible that nobody was living on the disputed area in 1840.
Henare Mihingare, on the other hand, did date some of his evidence in terms of the Treaty. He said that Toroiwhiti & Tamihana Taruke remained on the land & kept possession of it. They collected the fugitives belong to Rakaipaka. I remember when Te Matenga returned to this land. Ihaka came back after him. Matenga returned about time of the Treaty of Waitangi & Ihaka long after. ... Matenga returned to this district after Harry the 1st European came there. Ihaka was living at the Mahia when that European came. 273
This is rather confusing, but seems to suggest that Ihaka Whaanga, at least, was not resident in the contested area in 1840.
Ngarara also said that about the time ofthe death of Waaka, Ngati Hine left the block and went to Whakaki. Ngati Rakaipaaka went on living in the area now under dispute before the land court. A short time later, Ngati Hine built a pa so that they could fight Ngati Rakaipaaka. The latter, however, ran away to Nuhaka, so nobody was killed?74
In addition to the historical evidence ranging from the distant past up to conflict over the area in the early 1880s, some evidence was also given on the use of the block at the time of the 1888 hearing. For instance, Ngarara said that his parents lived on it at Mangatieke. Some of 'our people' were still living there at the time of the case. He said that part of Mangatieke was in the Hereheretau block and part 'where houses are stand mg· IS.. m t h·IS bl oce.1 ,275
271 W L Williams, East Coast (NZ.) Historical Records, Reprinted from the Poverty Bay Herald, Gisborne, New Zealand, pp 8-9. Quotation from p 9 272 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fo1126 273 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fo1124 274 ibid, fol 84 275 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fo189. See Figure 2
53 Henare Mihingare, a witness for Maika Taruke, admitted under cross-examination that only Ngae Te Rehu married to Ngati Hine lived on the block, although he also said that Ngati Hine lived only at Mangatieke on the boundary?76
As noted above, the court experienced considerable difficulty in coming to terms with the historical evidence, and in fact declined to try to sort out the contradictions in stories relating to the earlier history of the area under review here. The judge did state, however, that it was clear that up to the defeat of the Ngati Rakaipaaka at Panui, the quarrels and battles which took place periodically between Ngati Rapaipaaka and Ngati Hine, along with Ngai Te Ipu, had not produced a conclusive result. The Ngati Hine lived at Whakaki or Korotere, and returned to there [sic] places after each raid. They never remained on or occupied the land as conquerors after any of these engagements. Nor did any of the successes they claim appear to have kept their enemy from again coming on to the land.
Similarly with Rakaipaka they seem to have returned to their head quarters after each raid. This may have no doubt arisen in each case from the necessity of keeping together for mutual protection, and the danger of extermination which small isolated parties in those days were subject to, but when more peaceable times arose these parties quitting the shelter of the fortified places, and the protection given by numbers, no longer necessary, would spread out over the ancestral lands ... 277
The judge pointed out that when Te Waka Toroaiwhiti and his people returned to Nuhaka, nobody apparently questioned that they were entitled once again to take up their ancestral rights. They found the land at Nuhaka almost unoccupied. They took up their previous settlements and other members of the tribe gradually joined them.278
What was more at issue, however, was the situation at what Judge Scannell referred to as Tapuaemamangu. Did Te Waka live there as a guest of Ngati Hine or in his own right? The judge plainly saw this as a critical question. The court decided to try to clarify the position by a site visit to the disputed area. This is reported in some detail in the judgment, which can be read in full in Appendix 2 to this report.
The judge considered that the visit demonstrated that Ngati Rakaipaka had the knowledge of the area that could be expected from a group that had formerly occupied it. Ngati Hine, on the other hand, seemed much more ignorant about the Tapuaemamangu locality. The court therefore resoundingly rejected the Ngati Hine argument that Te Waka before his death had directed his people to return the land to Ngati Hine. The Ngati Rakaipaka were also, in the court's opinion, very familiar with the eel-weirs in the Opoho stream area. These appear to have been one of the main features for which the block was valued. Ngati Hine were again much more ignorant about this area.
276 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fol151 277 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fol132 278 ibid, 10c cit
54 The court admitted to feeling some reservations about setting aside the decision of the 1881 Maori committee. This was because of the status of the Maori who were members of the committee. From the known character of the members composing that committee and the upright and independent character of its chairman, the late Renata Kawepo, any award of this nature, where the parties were so conversant with native custom, should be treated with the utmost respect and should not be set aside without good and sufficient grounds, but there is no doubt whatever in our minds that their decision would, if carried out, have inflicted a hardship and an itDustice on Ngati Rakaipaka, inasmuch as such places as Te He, Owhangai, Waikoriri, and the Opoho eel stream, together with other parts of the block, undoubtedly the property of Ngati Rakaipaka would have been handed over to N gati Hine by that decision.279
At the same time, however, the court considered that there was evidence that Ngati Hine had clear and undisputed rights to a few small settlements in the block near the boundary with the Hereheretau block. Almost all of the land in the case other than that which became Hereheretau No 2 was awarded to various claimants representing Ngati Rakaipaka and its kindred hapu. But 500 acres along the western side of the block bordering on Hereheretau block was awarded to the Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu hapu?80
One concluding point of interest about this part of the judgment lies in the judge's decisions as to precisely which of the various N gati Rakaipaka claimants should be admitted. Pimia Aata, for instance, claimed by descent from Waioira, the daughter of Te Rehu. Pimia freely admitted that neither she nor her mother, through whom the descent ran, had ever lived on the land in question. Even her grandmother had left the land. Under these circumstances, the judge commented, she would normally have forfeited her rights to the land. Her relative Hirini Whaanga, however, told the court that he had kept her fires burning, and on these grounds, and because she had been admitted to Nuhaka No 2 on similar grounds, the judge admitted her to the part of the block awarded to Ngati Rakaipaka, despite her lack of personal occupation?81
No date is given for the departure of Pimia Aata's grandmother from the land. It is therefore impossible to establish how that departure related to 1840. There is no indication in the discussion of the rights of the various Ngati Rakaipaaka that the judge was making use of 1840 as a point for establishing ownership of the land.
3.5.2 The 1888 Hearing of Hereheretau No 2 In the disputed area between the Hereheretau and Opoho blocks, Ngati Rakaipaaka emerged from the 1888 hearing with the bulk of the land. In the land which became Hereheretau No 2, Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu met with much greater success. Here, too, Hoani Ngarara was the claimant and also the conductor of the case of the two
279 ibid, fol133 280 ibid, loc cit 281 ibid, loc cit; Wairoa NLC MB 3, f01 77
55 hapu. Ngati Rakaipaaka made no claim in this area. Instead, Ngarara asserted the rights of the hapu over against those ofNgati Hinepua.
Horomona Turoa conducted a N gati Hinepua claim, with Heremaia Hikitangarangi as his witness. They claimed part of the section of the land to the west of the Kahaatureia line. Even Heremaia admitted, however, that they had held this with Te Ipu. Heremaia traced his ancestry to Hinepua. He also produced a whakapapa showing Hinepua as an ancestress of Te Ipu and thus of Areta Apatu, that is, Areta Te Rito?82
Heremaia talked of N gati Hinepua defeating N gati Hine in Maungarua, a battle over the land?83 Hoani N garara, however, said that the battle of that name involved the defeat of N gati Hine by Hinaki of Wairoa, that the battle was not about land, and that Heremaia was mistaken about the battle's timing?84 He also disagreed with Heremaia about contributions which Heremaia claimed Ngati Hinepua had made to court 285 cases.
As regards the original Hereheretau block, Heremaia said that he did not set up a case in 1868 because he and Raniera had come to an agreement outside the court. He stated that when ten men were 'chosen to represent all owners according to the practice in those days', he appointed Heperi and Te Waaka for Ngati Hinepua.286 Ngarara, on the other hand, said that Te Waaka Kereru was admitted into that block as a Ngati Hine and a Ngae Te Ipu, and that Heperi, as a Ngati Hinepua, was admitted only 'thro' love, or affection' ?87 In the absence of any proof of the Ngati Hinepua position on this, Judge Scannell said that he must accept the Ngati Hine explanation of the matter. 288
Heremaia did admit, however, that Whakatohe, his father or grandfather, and Kopakopa, his uncle, were killed by Ngati Kahungunu and 'Areta's people'. He claimed that Ngati Hinepua remained on the land in question after their deaths?89 He said that Ngati Hinepua had the same standing on the block as Ngati Hine and Ngae Te Ipu. Yet he also admitted that Ngati Hinepua used to cultivate for Te Ipu?90
Ngarara talked of an earlier Ngati Hinepua, Whanaunga, being turned off the land by the son of Te Ipu for eating eels caught by stealth. He said that after the grandfather of Areta Te Rito had killed Kopakopa and Whakatohe, the rest of the Ngati Hinepua fled, mainly to Ngati Matewhaiti and Ngae Tahu. According to him, Ngati Hinepua had never since that time lived on either what became Hereheretau No 2 or on the
282 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fo1s 230- 231 283 ibid, fo1231 284 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fo1 74 285 ibid, fo1 76 286 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fo1232 287 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fo1 74 288 ibid, fol130 289 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fol230-231. The minutes and whakapapa are somewhat unclear as to whether Whakatohe was the father or grandfather of Heremaia. 290 ibid, fo1 240
56 original Hereheretau block. Horomona, he said, lived with the Ngati Matewhaiti and was one ofthem, whereas Heremaia lived with Ngati Matewhaiti and Ngae Tahu?91
Heremaia laid claim to a boundary which gave his hapu, along with Ngai Te Ipu, part of the block. He said that the committees and the courts had never interfered with the land he was bringing forward as his claim. 292 N garara, on the other hand, said that the boundary was quite a new one that had never been mentioned at any of the committee meeetmgs.. 293
Judge Scannell said that the question for the court to determine was whether the expulsion of Ngati Hinepua which Ngarara referred to after the deaths of Whakatohe and Kopakopa had taken place, and if so, were the rights of the hapu extinguished by it. In addition to the evidence, the court also took into account a site inspection. This inspection covered some parts of the block that Heremaia and Horomona claimed had been occupied by them after the hapu was supposed to have been driven off. The inspection apparently revealed no signs of plantations, houses or marks of occupation. The court therefore decided that these claimants' cases, and the claim of N gati Hinepua as a hapu, had not been sustained. But concessions were made to individual N gati Hinepua who could prove occupation . ... although the Court is of opinion that Ngati Hinepua were driven off the land at the time stated, and that by such expulsions the hapu rights were extinguished, it is admitted by the claimants that a few members were left, and became incorporated with Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu. Any of these or their descendants, or other members ofNgati Hinepua, who are not included in the list of names, will be admitted by the Court on provmg. occupatIOn.. 294
A final point of interest about the judgment concerns the relationship of Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu. In 1888 Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu chose to conduct one case, through Hoani N garara who saw himself as belonging to both hapu. The evidence in the case tends to present them very much as a united unit. As N garara himself put it, 'N.Hine & Ngae Te Ipu are one we have a joint case of which I am the conductor' ?95 The judge summarised the evidence he had heard on this point thus: It is ... asserted and not denied, that Te Ipu first became an owner by gift from Ngati Hine that the two hapus Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu had never any separate defined ownership, but in the past as well as the present, lived in common over the whole of the block. The members of each hapu living together at the different settlements, being in fact one hapu. 296
The original Hereheretau No 2-Kahaatureia hearing left Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu disgruntled about the small share they had been awarded in Kahaatureia, and Ngati
291 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, f01 75 292 Wairoa NLC MB 3, fo1240 293 Wairoa NLC MB 3A, fo1 71 294 ibid, f01 130 295 ibid, fo1 97 296 ibid, fo1 130
57 Hinepua disgruntled about their omission as a hapu from Hereheretau No 2. Their feelings soon bore fruit in the shape of yet more litigation.
3.6 The Rehearing of Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia Applications for rehearings were made by Hoani Ngarara, Areta Apatu, Pimia Aata, Heremaia Hikitangarangi and Horomona Turoa and were considered by the court in March 1889?97 The actual rehearing began on 30 September 1890?98 The court delivered its judgment on the main issues on 17 November 1890.299
The case takes up hundreds of pages in the official minute books of the Native Land Court. In addition to this, Judge von Sturmer, who sat on the case with Judge Barton, also kept his own set of minutes. These can now be found in the Alexander Turnbull Library. The time available for this project did not allow a detailed comparison between the two sets of minutes. Five pages of the official minutes were, however, compared with the relevant pages in Judge von Sturmer's records and no substantive differences were found. 300
The court decided to deal with the issue of the correct boundary between Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia first. Thus the case began with a prolonged reconsideration of the differences between Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu, on the one hand, and Ngati Rakaipaaka on the other. The latter hapu wished to sustain the decision made by the prevIOus. court. 301
3.6.1 The Rehearing of Kahaatureia Hoani Ngarara initially conducted the Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu appeal against the decision which had awarded them only 500 acres of Kahaatureia. Ngarara said that he had no new evidence to add to that given before Judge Scannell.302 Unlike the first case, however, he did call others as witnesses: Areta Te Rito, Watene Huka and Toha Rahurahu. Rahurahu had been a member of the second and fourth Maori committees that had looked at the land.3D3 He belonged to neither Ngati Hine nor Ngai Te Ipu nor Ngati Hinepua nor Ngati Rakaipaaka. He made the comment that the second committee, which sat at Opoho, decided 'to put the case before the Native Land C ourt ,304.
297 Gisbome NLC MB 12, fols 154, 157, 158, 159; Hoani Ngara and others to Chief Judge, 2 June 1888, File 87 Wr Application Hereheretau No 2, Box 47, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisbome; Areta Apatu and others to Chief Judge, 2 June 1888, same file; Heremaia Hiratangarangi [sic] to Chief Judge, 13 June 1888, same file 298 Gisbome NLC MB 20, fo167. For the Judgment in this rehearing case, see Appendix 2 299 Gisbome NLC MB 21, fo189 300 Spencer von Sturmer, Notes on Native Land Court cases vol4, qMS-1939, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington Hereheretau No 2 rehearing begins on fo1221; Spencer von Sturmer, Notes on Native Land Court cases vol5, qMS 1940, Alexander Turnbull Library Rehearing Judgment date recorded on fol 67 301 Gisbome NLC MB 20, fols 69-70 302 ibid, fol 97 303 Te Rito, ibid, fols 109ff; Huka, ibid, fols 139ff; Rahurahu, from Wairoa, fols 150ff - re committee membership, fols 151-152. 304 ibid, fol 151
58 On 9 October, Hoani Ngarara announced that Rawiri Karaha would take over as 305 conductor for Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu. Watene Huka, a witness for these appellants, resorted to blaming Ngarara's conduct of the original case for what these hapu saw as a loss in the case.
Huka claimed that they had not pointed out Owhangai pa on the ground at Judge Scannell's request because 'we were afraid of the law of the Court' .306 What this means is unclear. What is clear is that the site visit made by the court during the original hearing had left Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu very defensive. Other excuses were given by witnesses for Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu for their failure to show various places as desired by the court. They said they were frightened by the greater 30 numbers of Ngati Rakaipaaka present. ? An informant was said to have been ill.308 Posts were not located in the ground because they had rotted. 309 Ngati Rakaipaaka were accused of destroying their marks and of visiting the land while the case was in pro gress. 31 0
The rehearing, like the original hearing, involved extensive cross-examination of witnesses by other parties and by the court. This was not confined to the evidence given at the actual rehearing. Sometimes witnesses were asked questions related to evidence they or another witness had given at a former hearing of the court. For instance, while Hoani Ngarara was giving evidence, Judge Barton read out the evidence of Areta Te Rito from the 1868 Hereheretau hearing. Te Rito had mentioned a gift from Kahukura to Te Rito. Ngarara had just been emphasising the truthfulness of Te Rito. He was now obliged to qualify this remark somewhat. He said that this gift mention [sic] by Areta was by the descendants of Kahukura to Te Ipu a descendant of Kapumatotoru: Areta's statement in Book No 1 is wrong because Te Ipu and Kapuamatotoru were not living in Kahukura's time. 311
Areta then gave evidence that gifts were 'always being made' from the time of Hinepua down to that of Te Ipu?12 This issue of gifts was to be raised repeatedly in later years. The matter was brought up at the 1908 Appellate Court hearing on Hereheretau, at the rehearing of relative interests in Hereheretau No 2 in 1915-16 and in later petitions.
Later on, Hoani Ngarara was cross-examined by Otene Pomare, who was conducting the Ngati Rakaipaaka case. On occasion, Pomare asked the court to look at specific places in a former minute book. This seems to have been intended to bring out
305 ibid, foIlS 8 306 ibid, fol 172 307 For example, ibid, fo190 Hoani Ngarara admitted, however, that the court had taken steps to control noisy behaviour by Ngati Rakaipaaka. On relative numbers, see also ibid, fo1228 308 ibid, fols 90, 214 309 ibid, fo1228 310 ibid, fols 90, 226 311 ibid, fols 107-108. Variant spellings of Kapumatotoru are in the original minute book. 312 ibid, fol110
59 contradictions between Ngarara's evidence in this case with evidence he had given prevIOUS. I y. 313
Otene Pomare had been one of the claimants in the original hearing.314 He was the grandson of Te Matenga, whose role in the death of Te Ratau had caused Ngati Rakaipaaka so much strife. 315 Ngati Rakaipaka tried to paint their absence from the land in the best possible light. Otene Pomare denied that Te Matenga was taken prisoner by the Nga Puhi, or that he ran away because he was fearful after Te Ratau's death. Instead, he argued that Matenga went to Nga Puhi to try to get gunS. 316 Ihaka Whaanga remarked that 'To be an owner of land a person should have constant occupation. ' Ihaka claimed that Matenga went to the Bay of Islands, but that Matenga's sisters stayed on the land. Ihaka also said that his father Ihaka had only stayed away a short time in Gisborne after Te Ratau's death. Ngati Rakaipaka were not absent from this land 12 months at the time oftheir defeat at Panui.317
The court held that there were two questions for it to settle. Firstly, was Kahaatureia part of Nuhaka, which was admittedly the property of Ngati Rakaipaaka, or part of Hereheretau No 2, which was admittedly the property ofNgati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu at the point where it joined Kahaatureia? Secondly, who are the people who had occupied that block in recent years as its legal owners, given that both groups had occupied it.
The rehearing court's judgment gave a much more concise summary of the stories of the block than that of Judge Scannell. It began its history with the killing of Ratau, which it dated at about 1826, some time before the introduction of Christianity. The court saw the subsequent battles as a defeat for N gati Rakaipaaka and held that Matenga had fled to the Bay of Islands before he eventually returned as a Christian missionary. Given the use of conquest as a take, Ngati Rakaipaaka may have found this part of the judgment uncomfortable. The court dated these events, along with the return of Te Waaka and Tamihana and other Ngati Rakaipaaka to Nuhaka to their old possessions as taking place 'between the years 1825 & 1855.,318 There was no attempt to relate the timing of events to 1840.
While the court presented these earlier events as a defeat for N gati Rakaipaaka, it interpreted the presence of Wi Rapa of Ngai Te Ipu with Te Waaka on the Kahaatureia lands as the result of Wi Rapa fleeing Whakaki to escape from the wroth of an earlier Te Rito over the death of Whatupango.319 The court seemingly did not believe the Ngati Hine position that Te Waaka had occupied the disputed lands only at the invitation of their side.
313 ibid, fols 212-213 314 Pomare opened his case on 15 October 1890 - ibid, fo1234 315 ibid, fols 290-291 316 ibid, fols 309-310 317 ibid, fo1264 318 Gisbome NLC ME 21, fols 91-92 319 ibid, fols 92-93
60 The judgment traced the history of the various committees. The judgment only mentioned the three later committees, and dated the one that appointed five guardians for the block as early as 1868. More important, however, was the court's conclusion that all three of these committees had 'left the matter for the Native Land Court to settle.' The printed judgment of the 1881 committee was analysed to show this.32o It should be noted that the evidence of Rahurahu mentioned at the beginning of this section does support this interpretation of the activities of the second committee.
The court stated that it had considered the evidence given before it, the evidence taken before Judge Scannell, Judge Scannell's judgment and the evidence and judgments given at hearings in adjoining blocks. In addition, the court had made a further site inspection of disputed marks. It concluded that the judgment given by Judge Scannell's court was the correct one. The conductors were told to prepare their lists of hapu members accordingly.321
Von Sturmer's second minute book dealing with this case does not record the judgment of the court. Instead, it inserts a clipping from the Wairoa Guardian and County Advocate. The newspaper observed that the new judgment 'virtually re affirmed' the initial one. It goes on to make some highly critical comments on the issue of Maori committees. One matter which is especially noteworthy is the utter inability of native committees to settle vexed tribal boundary questions. In this case it was shown that three such native committee [sic] had been appointed to deal with it since the introduction of Christianity, but all that they had succeeded in doing was to provide a modus vivendi for t h e tIme. b'emg. 322
3.6.2 The Rehearing of Hereheretau No 2 The court then moved on to rehear the Hereheretau No 2 block. Here some Ngati Hinepua tried to reassert their right to ownership of a section on the western side of the block. Otene Pomare of Ngati Rakaipaaka was the conductor for the case of 323 Heremaia Hikitangirangi and Horomona Turoa. The main feature of this part of the rehearing was Heremaia's claim that he had forgotten to tell Judge Scannell's court 324 about an important boundary post called Marokore in the Hereheretau block. He claimed that the associated boundary ran up into what had become Hereheretau No 2. Ngati Hinepua had a right to land to the west of it, Ngati Hine to land to the east of it. 325 Ngai Te Ipu had rights on both sides.
Ngarara, on the other hand, argued that the significant boundary post in the area was at Kaingapipi. This post, he claimed, marked the boundary between Ngati Hine and
320 ibid, fols 93-96 321 ibid, fols 96-97 322 von Sturmer, Notes on Native Land Court cases vol 5, fo167, qMS-1940, Alexander Turnbull Library 323 Gisborne NLC MB 20, fol321 324 ibid, fols 372-373, 330 325 ibid, fol 348
61 Ngai Te Ipu on the east and Ngai Tahu on the west. He had never heard of a post called Marokore at Pukearuhe.326
The site visit to Hereheretau No 2 in the original hearing had been made by the assessor. It appeared from comments made during the application for a rehearing that in the course of this site visit, various Ngati Hinepua had told the assessor that they lived under Te Ipu.327 This position did little for the case of Heremaia and Horomona. The full court now made a site visit for the rehearing.
To decide on the antiquity of the post Marokore, the court undertook some detective work which had a highly damaging effect on the Ngati Hinepua case. Heremaia ... laid down a line as an ancient boundary line through the middle of Hereheretau No 2 block from NE to SW of it. He told us that this line started at Pukearuhe on the sea coast on the Hereheretau block proper and that it came up through that block and through this Hereheretau No 2 block and returned to the sea coast by the northern and the western boundaries of this block and of Hereheretau block.
He said that the line began at an ancient post called Marokore on the sea shore which post he told us had been put in by Kakari chief of the Ngai Tahu and by Ipu ancestor ofNgai Te Ipu, and by Pukutuna chief of the Ngati Hinepua.
The existence of this post was strongly disputed by Hoani Ngarara who relied on the fact that at the hearing before Judge Scannell all mention of it was omitted .... Hoani Ngarara insisted that so far from this boundary being a true ancestral boundary line the person called Pukutuna had been put by Ipu as his representative to guard another boundary post at Kaingapipi situated on the western boundary of Hereheretau block, a long way west of this post Marokore. The rights of the litigants depend very much upon the truth of each of these respective statements.
We visited on the land the post at Kaingapipi and also the post Marokore. The members of Heremaia's own hapu living near Kaingapipi shewed us the post put in by Ipu and volunteered the information that the place is called Kaingapipi, that the post there was put in by Ipu and that Pukutuna an ancestor of theirs guarded the post for Ipu ....
Having seen this post and pa and heard these statements (which were made on the ground by several persons of the N gati Hinepua hapu separately and to different members of the Court) we went on and visited Pukearuhe on the sea shore and were shown "Marokore" the post that stood there; we had Marokore pulled up out of the sand to see
326 ibid, fols 389-391, Gisbome NLC MB 21, foIl 327 Gisbome NLC MB 12, fols 156-157
62 whether it was a post cut and shaped with stone axes such as the natives used at the time when this post is said to have been erected.
On examining the bottom of the post it shewed that that post had been cut flat across by axe strokes made by a European axe of steel: we all felt quite satisfied that "Marokore" was not an ancient post of the time ofPukutuna, Ipu and Kakari, about 150 years ago. 328
The court pointed out that if Heremaia's boundary was valid, Ngati Hinepua would have owned about 1000 acres of the original Hereheretau block. Yet they had not claimed these in 1868. In addition, it had been Hoani Ngarara, not Ngati Hinepua, who had had the western boundary of Hereheretau No 2 surveyed. Ngarara strenuously denied Heremaia's claim that Heremaia and his people had contributed to · 329 t h e cost 0 f t hIS survey.
The court agreed with the decision of Judge Scannell's court that Heremaia and Ngati Hinepua did not have exclusive ownership of the land they claimed. Nevertheless, the occupation of a small part of the block by members ofNgati Hinepua had been proved before the court. The court agreed with Judge Scannell that 'those who lived on the land ought to be included in.' Therefore the court awarded 750 acres to meet the claims of Ngati Hinepua who had occupied land on the block. This area was to be known as Hereheretau No 2A. Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu, on the other hand, gained ownership of the Hereheretau No 2 block, which contained about 8750 acres. The court hoped that the parties would agree amongst themselves as to the location of the small area allocated to Ngati Hinepua. This was the only change achieved by nearly two months of intense litigation. The court asked the two conductors to hand in the names of members of their hapu. 330
3.7 The Determination of Relative Interests in Hereheretau No 2A, Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia A In later years, the determination of relative interests in Hereheretau No 2 was to become a burning question among Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu. Yet, strange to relate, the minutes do not indicate that the settling of the list of names for the various blocks and the interests of the various owners caused particular problems at this stage.
A first decision to locate the 750 acres for Ngati Hinepua in the south western of the block was rapidly reached by agreement between the parties.331 After a few objections had been dealt with, the N gati Hinepua list for Hereheretau 2A was passed by the court. Pomare's request that the block be made 'absolutely inalienable from sale Lease and mortgage' was granted. 332
328 Gisborne NLC MB 21, fols 98-100 329 ibid, foll0l The survey used for the hearing was apparently ML 149!B. According to the plan, this survey was done for Hoani Ngarara and others by C W Reardon and G Walker, under authority No 50, dated 11 January 1884. 330 ibid, fols 101-102, 104 331 ibid, fol 75 332 ibid, fols 76-79
63 It is true that once the Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia A cases arrived at this point, Ngai Te Ipu said they should have a bigger share. In consequence, Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu had separate conductors for the remainder of the case.333
The lists of names to be included by the two hapu in each of the blocks were, however, handed in to the court only four days after the judgment. Not one objection was made to any of the four lists. 334
Only one day later, Ngai Te Ipu confirmed an arrangement proposed by Hoani Ngarara who had negotiated for Ngati Hine. Under this, each of the Ngati Hine were to get 1 114 shares, and each of the Ngai Te Ipu 1 1/2 shares.335 According to Judge Jones, there was some modification of this arrangement before the finalisation of the shares.336 The minute book nevertheless shows no controversy over this.
3.8 Survey Charges in Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia Two issues emerged over survey charges for these blocks as the rehearing moved towards a conclusion. Firstly, in Hereheretau No 2 Henry Ellison, the assignee of the surveyor, Reardon, claimed £66 9s 2d over and above £200 which he admitted had already been paid by Brown for the Maori. Ngarara objected to this on the grounds that he had arranged with Reardon for the charge for the survey to be £200.337
John Hunter Brown was unable to provide documentary proof of an agreement to do the survey for two hundred pounds. Ngarara had hoped that Hunter Brown would have this. The pakeha farmer was, however, prepared to state that his impression from memory was that an agreement had been made for £200.338 Reardon denied this, but eventually admitted that he was 'not a Maori linguist'. He admitted there might have been a mistake.339 The court gave Maori the benefit of any remaining doubt over the issue. It refused to give Ellison a lien over Hereheretau No 2.
In the case of Kahaatureia, Otene Pomare asked that 893 acres be cut off the block to be put in the name of the surveyor, George Walker. This was to cover the cost of the original survey of Kahaatureia and the survey of the 893 acres. The court very strongly urged the owners to come to a voluntary arrangement to this effect to avoid a survey lien being placed over the whole block. It pointed out forcibly the danger that such a lien might fall into the hands of a European who might then try to get hold of as much land as possible in the block. If Walker were granted the 893 acres, on the other hand, he would have to absorb the risk that sale of that area would not meet his charges.
333 ibid, fo1s 81-82 334 ibid, fo1s 83-84 335 ibid, fo1 87 336 Judge Jones to Chief Judge, MA Series 1 1914/553 337 Gisborne NLC MB 21, fo1 58 338 ibid, fo1 171 339 ibid, fo1s 172-173
64 As certain owners objected to the arrangement, however, the court had no choice under the legislation of the day. It had to refuse Pomare's application.340 It would seem that in these cases the court was doing as much as it could to keep down survey costs to Maori and to try to encourage them to be handled in a way that would minimise risks and land loss to Maori.
3.9 The Subdivision of Kahaatureia and Survey Charges In December 1892, the Native Land Court was asked by Ihaka Whaanga and others to subdivide the Kahaatureia block. The block had an area of 4893 acres.341 It had no less than 551 owners. The names and shares of those to go into each subdivision were arranged by the various conductors outside the court. The names and shares for all but one block were settled with no objections.342 They also arranged where each subdivision was to go.
The only subdivision which proved in any way contentious was Kahaatureia No 7. It was proposed that Watene Huka should be put into this 600 acre block on his own. He would then pay George Walker's survey lien. This was clearly still unpaid at this stage. George Walker was happy with the proposed arrangement. A number of other owners, however, wanted to be put into the block along with Watene Huka.343
A meeting had been held at the Court House at which the subdivision and the survey lien had been discussed. Judge Barton's clerk, H Jackson, reported to the court that this meeting had agreed unanimously to put Watene Huka into the 600 acre block. The court decided that this course should be followed. The surveyor was instructed to lodge a paper declaring the other eight subdivisions free from his survey charges.344
Three days later, the court made orders for all nine subdivisions. In all but Kahaatureia No 7, it was very clearly stated that the land was to be inalienable. The court made an order for Kahaatureia No 7 charging the block with George Walker's survey 1len.· 345
3.10 Crown Purchases in Kahaatureia Subdivisions It might have been thought that the subdivision arrangements made by the court in 1892 would have protected the beneficial owners in the eight inalienable blocks from any threat to their land. But this was not to be.
As early as December 1893, John Brooking, Native Land Purchase Officer at Gisborne, indicated that shares had been offered in the 4893 acre Kahaatureia block. At this stage the partition orders made the previous year had not been issued, because the land had not yet been surveyed. 346 The Surveyor General was asked for a report on the block. A minute records that the block was 'very good land somewhat broken and
340 ibid, f01s 149-151 341 Wairoa NLC MB 7, fo132 342 ibid, f01s 32-36 343 ibid, f01s 36-39 344 ibid, fols 39-40 345 ibid, fols 57-60 346 John Brooking to P Sheridan, 26 December 1893, MA-MLP 1 1902/31, NA Wellington
65 mostly bush, but suited for settlement, worth 4/- an acre to purchase'. This was . 347 approve d as t h e purch ase pnce.
By 1898, the Crown had acquired nearly half the interests in the various blocks. In that year, the Native Land Court awarded 2920 acres of Kahaatureia to the Crown. It cancelled all partitions except for Kahaatureia No 3. This was a block of 61 acres 11 perches on the boundary with Hereheretau No 2. The Crown received 20 acres of this block, to be called Kahaatureia No 3A. The balance, Kahaatureia No 3B, remained in Maori ownership until it was purchased by the Maori Trustee for Hereheretau Station in 1963.
The other area awarded to the Crown was called Kahaatureia No 1. It was a 2900 acre block at the back of the old Kahaatureia block, with Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaaturiea A on one side and Nuhaka No 2 on the other. The rest of the non-sellers' land was situated on the sea side ofthe Crown area. 348
In 1902 the Crown received a further offer to sell from a Maori in Hastings, but no reply to this offer is recorded. 349 The Native Land Purchase file contains no hint as to why owners decided to sell land during the 1890s.
In 1912, a complaint was received from Hastings that five Maori owners had not been paid their purchase money for the Kahaatureia block. The Secretary of the Native Land Purchase Board responded that a check had revealed that four of them had been paid, and the fifth person mentioned was not an owner at the time ofthe purchase.35o
3.11 The Partitioning of Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A In 1903, orders relating to Hereheretau No 2 made by the rehearing court in 1890 were still unsigned. This was because a plan of the various divisions made by the 1890 court had not yet been lodged. Lack of money had caused the delay.351 In the meantime, considerable tension had arisen over the use of Hereheretau No 2. Some owners were running sheep on the block. Others had begun to cut timber on the block for sale to outsiders. In April 1903, Paora Rakau and others applied for an injunction to restrain other owners from cutting timber for sale. 352
347 Cover of file NLP 93/289, included in MA-MLP 1 1902/31 - Sheridan asked the Surveyor General to advise on the purchase, so it has been assumed that the advice quoted comes from him, although the signature is somewhat illegible. Minute dated 4 January 1894, in response to Sheridan's minute. Price approved in minute dated 30 January 1894, also on cover. 348 Brooking to Sheridan, 26 December 1893; Sketch shewing Awards to Crown in the KAHAATUREIA; T W Porter to Sheridan, 8 July 1898, all in MA-MLP 1 1902/31; For details of the names and shares of those who sold in the various subdivisions, together with dates and amounts paid, see 'Native Lands Sold to the Crown Blocks K. Lists of Owners and Payments. Native Land Court', AAMK 999/3, NA Wellington 349 Telegram Tame Te Oikau to P Sheridan, Wellington, 19 July 1902, MA-MLP 1 1902/31 350 MA-MLP 1 1912/30, NA Wellington 351 Wairoa NLC MB 12, fo1256 352 ibid, fo1255
66 One of those involved in the timber sales was told by the court and the assessor that running stock on the land did not injure the land. Taking away valuable fencing timber for sale to Europeans, on the other hand, injured the interests of other owners. The court consequently issued the injunction sought. It also issued an injunction for John Hunter Brown to retain in his possession the amount he had arranged to pay for 353 posts purchased by him from the block.
Despite the problems posed by the lack of a survey of the division of the Hereheretau No 2 area made in 1890, the court then pro ceded to deal with the partition of the block the following month. The court expressed the hope that the parties would be able to 354 reach an amicable arrangement out of court.
This did not eventuate. Instead, the court heard an application from Karena Rawhi and 355 others for partition. Rawhi asked for the area adjoining the 750 acre Hereheretau No 2A block to be set aside for those in his party. He claimed that this would put his 356 kainga and orchard within this subdivision. Watene Huka objected. He put forward an alternative scheme of subdivision, based on meetings held by 'the people' to settle 357 the matter.
The court pointed out repeatedly that what had to be established was the more recent occupation of the block. 358 It heard evidence on this from Karena Rawhi and from Watene Huka. Huka spoke for those who supported the scheme of subdivision developed by meetings of the local people. Huka,claimed that Rawhi's scheme would have the effect of absorbing into Rawhi's area improvements that had been made by other people.359 The court suggested, however, that the "'iwi"'s proposal would lead to Rawhi's kainga being absorbed by others?60
The court also chose to investigate further on its own initiative. It undertook a site inspection.361 Before doing this, in order to obtain further information about the occupation of the block, it also called two further witnesses not called by either Rawhi 362 or Huka.
From evidence given at this hearing, it seems that the Hereheretau No 2 block was basically deserted for many years. Watene Huka said that at the time Christianity arrived in the area, people ceased to live in this area and moved out to live in the coastal area, in what became the original Hereheretau block. 363 Opinions varied as to
353 ibid, fo1 269 354 ibid, fo1309 355 ibid, fo1 346 356 ibid fo1346-348 357 ibid' fo1 348-349 358 For 'example, Wairoa NLC MB l3, fo127 359 ibid, fol 55 360 ibid, fol 63 361 ibid, fo1 83 362 Piripi Te Amorakau, ibid, fo1s 64-67; Wiremu Kaimoana, ibid, fo1s 69-82 363 ibid, fo1 31
67 whether the first people back on the block were Karena Rawhi and his wife and family, in the late 187 Os, or Hariata Puaha and her family in 1881.364
Karena Rawhi, early in his time on the block, planted large numbers of fruit trees grown by his brother-in-law, Wiremu Kaimoana.365 Round about the time of the rehearing of Hereheretau No 2, however, Rawhi began sheep-farming on Hereheretau No 2. His example was followed by others. At that stage, John Hunter Brown's cattle and sheep sometimes left the Hereheretau block and roamed through Hereheretau No 2, as there was no fence between the two blocks.366 Hunter Brown complained when stock started straying in the opposite direction, and Maori erected a fence. In 1899, Maori farming on Hereheretau No 2 contributed £20 and fencing posts to Hunter Brown for the erection of a replacement fence. 367 Various Maori also erected a sheep dip, a shearing shed and sheep yards.368
Given this level of activity, it is not surprising that certain owners, at any event, were eager to have the block partitioned to protect their farming interests. On 23 June 1903, on the basis of the evidence of the various witnesses and its site inspection, the court partitioned the block into Hereheretau Nos 2B, 2c, 2D, 2E and 2F.369 In this case, there is no indication that the various blocks were made inalienable.
Later in 1903, Tuku Munro and others applied for a partition of Hereheretau No 2A, the Ngati Hinepua area. The lists and areas were arranged before the court heard the application. It was arranged that Heremaia Hikitangarangi and 14 others with 19 shares would take 139 acres, Kingi Rotoatara and 23 others with 10 shares would take 73 acres, and Tuku Meneroa and 85 others with 73 114 shares would take 538 acres.370
3.12 The Rehearing of Relative Interests in Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A With the partitioning ofthe two parts of Hereheretau No 2, it might have appeared that the farming aspirations of some of the owners would have a greater chance of bearing more long-term results. In fact, it turned out that the situation of the blocks was far from settled.
In 1898, there had been a petition from Ihaka Amuamu and others asking for a rehearing of the definition of relative interests in Hereheretau No 2. On 28 August 1899, the Native Affairs Committee decided that it had no recommendation to make .. 371 on t h e petItIOn.
364 ibid, fols 18-19,29 365 ibid, fols 70-72 366 ibid, fol 73 367 ibid, fols 74-75; Wairoa NLC MB 12, fols 380-382 368 Wairoa NLC MB 13, fols 79,81 369 ibid, fols 101-102 370 Wairoa NLC MB 14, fols 185-188 371 Under Secretary to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, 28 September 1908, MA 1 1914/553, NA WellirIgton
68 In 1907, Hohepa Kahukura and others sent in another partition relating to both Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A. The Under Secretary of the Native Department wrote to the Native Affairs Committee reporting on the process by which the titles of the blocks and the relative interests had been settled. He noted that the matter seemed to have been settled, 'to the satisfaction of all parties, outside the Court.' He observed that the first two petitioners had been aged 9 and 6 respectively when the title was investigated. He suggested that this might explain why their relative interests were smaller than those of some other owners.372 But the issue of relative interests in these two blocks could not be so easily dismissed.
Section 2.14 touched on the determination of relative interests in the contentious Hereheretau B block in 1908. It may well be that the attention that was given to the Hereheretau B block increased any residual concern about the relative interests in Hereheretau No 2. Judge Jones told the Chief Judge: The position however was accentuated in March 1908 when the Appellate Court sat to hear Hereheretau B the adjoining block. Many persons sought admission into the latter block by reason of their being owners in Hereheretau No 2. These matters being contested and keenly fought it soon became apparent that many persons without right of occupation had been included in Hereheretau No 2 and this practically on an equal basis with those who had rights.373
In August 1908, Kararaina Kaimoana and 64 others sent a further petition to the House of Representatives asking for legislation to amend the list of owners and the definition of relative interests in Hereheretau No 2. They complained: That certain persons were admitted to ownership whose rights were shadowy; others were admitted with their children and grandchildren and substantial awards to them individually, while recognised owners were only included as heads of famillies, their "whanau" being omitted 374 or overlooked.
The Under Secretary of the Native Department said that he had no way to verify or controvert this statement. He did, however, remind the Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee that it had already dealt with the 1898 petition by deciding that it had no 375 recommendation to make. Despite this, the committee reported that the petition 376 should be referred to the government for favourable consideration. Section 28 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1910 authorised the Chief Judge to refer to the Native Land Court or to any judge of the court various petitions including this one. 377
Judge Jones heard the matter at the Native Land Court in Wairoa on 27 September 1911. The judge reported to the Chief Judge that everyone who appeared before the
372 Under Secretary to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, 6 September 1907, MA 1 1914/553 373 Judge Jones to ChiefJudge, 24 October 1911, MA 1 1914/553 374 Copy of Petitit on 1908/548, MA 1 1914/553 375 Under Secretary to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, 28 September 1908, same file 376 Report on Petition No 548/08, by Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, same file 377 s 28 and Third Schedule Petition 11
69 court, other than one person whom it was claimed had little or no right in the block, wanted the definition of relative interests in both Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A reopened. They wanted those without rights to be removed from the title. They also wanted a readjustment of relative interests 'more in accordance with the rights of the parties.' Judge Jones observed that it was questionable whether people who had been in the title for more than 20 years should be removed from it. He suggested, however, that an attempt could be made to readjust the rights of the various parties by amending the order to leave the interests undefined, 'to be settled by the Native Land · . . h d' ,378 C ourt upon app1 lcatlOn In t e or mary course.
Section 8 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1913 laid down that (1.) The Native Land Court is hereby authorized and directed to cancel so much of the existing instruments of title relating to Hereheretau No.2 Block, in the Gisbome Native Land Court District, as determined the relative interests of the owners, and to again determine such interests. (2.) For the purposes of this section the Court may amend or cancel any partition orders relating to the said land, and make fresh partition orders. (3.) No appeal shall lie from any order or determination of the Court under this section to the Native Appellate Court.
The court under Judge Jones began to rehear the relative interests in the case in 1915. The case proved extremely complex, generating more than 700 pages of minutes over five minute books. As is commonly the case with the minute books of Judge Jones, the pages of these minute books vary from the difficult to read to completely illegible. Given this, it has not been possible to read the complete minutes in the time available for this commission.
In June 1915, the court delivered the first of several judgments in the case. Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu had each claimed 6750 shares in the block for themselves, and offered 2000 shares to the other hapu. The judge regretted this impasse at which the hapus had arrived, as it came, 'after years of battling together against their common enemies, and standing through thick and thin' .379
He saw the land as originally owned by Kahukura and Ngati Hine. Te Ipu, however, had made common cause with them. He claimed that the evidence did not clearly support a gift of the lands by which Te Ipu could claim all the lands. He specifically mentioned evidence that 'the land belonged to both ancestors & that both had occupation in common.,380 He decided that Te Ipu and his followers had had such a vital role in securing the land, however, that they should have a preponderance of the shares in it. This was in line with the arrangements arrived at in both 1890 in
378 Judge Jones to Chief Judge, 24 October 1911, MA 1 1914/553 379 Wairoa NLC MB 24, f0142 380 ibid, f0143
70 Hereheretau No 2 and in 1908 as regards the original Hereheretau block.381 He awarded Ngai Te Ipu 5150 shares, and Ngati Hine 3600.382
This decision does not seem to have pleased either hapu. In 1915, Karena Rawhi and 12 others asked that an appeal be allowed to the Appellate Court against the determination of Judge Jones.383 Rauna Hape and 14 others also petitioned in 1915, asking for a rehearing of Hereheretau No 2. 384 The Under Secretary of the Native Department pointed out that the decision Rawhi complained of was only a preliminary determination.385 The following year there were further petitions complaining about the work of the court on the issue. Again these arrived before the court had arrived at its final decision.386 Both Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu complained.387
Judge Jones then went through the long process of determining the proportion of shares to be allocated to various lists of names submitted to him, both on behalf of various Ngati Hine, and on behalf ofthe various children ofTe Ipu.388
In both instances, the judge complained that some of the evidence gIVen was contradictory. On one occasion he began his judgment by remarking that In this matter the court has had considerable difficulty in coming to a conclusion since the parties themselves seem to have a very hazy idea of their rights. The proposals made by the natives though of use to the court show clearly this want of knowledge of the general position of the land and the witnesses acknowledge that while they can speak as to their own rights they cannot speak as to others. Then again the evidence given in this court is contradictory of evidence given by the same witnesses in former courts & witnesses who once professed to know nothing about the rights now recite them for the side they are gIvmg. . eVI'd ence qUIte. firee 1y. 389
The case finally drew to a close on 18 August 1916. The court cancelled the titles for Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A dated 17 November 1890 in so far as these defined the relative interests. The various lists of names and relative interests passed
381 ibid, fo144 382 ibid, fo1 45 383 Copy of Petition No 105/15, MA 1 1915/2234, NA Wellington 384 Petition 10911915. See 'Reports of the Native Affairs Committee', AJHR, 1915,1-3, P 21 385 Under Secretary to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, 17 August 1915, MA 1 1915/2234 386 Petition No 48116 Materoa Huka & 25 others, MA 1 191611978, NA Wellington; Under Secretary to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, 12 June 1916, same file; Petition No 122116 Patu te Rito & 7 others, MA 1 1916/2220, NA Wellington; Under Secretary to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, 11 July 1916, same file; Petition No 155116 Patu te Rito & 3 others, MA 1 191612412, NA Wellington; Under Secretary to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, 11 July 1916, same file. 387 Registrar to Under Secretary, 5 July '6', MA 1 1916/2220 388 For the rights of the children of Te Ipu, see particularly Wairoa NLC MB 24, fo1s 105, 175-177; Wairoa NLC MB 25, fols 172-175; Wairoa NLC MB 27, fo1179; For the rights of the different Ngati Hine lists, see Wairoa NLC MB 27, fo1s 27-30 389 Wairoa NLC MB 27, fo127; For a similar complaint about the matter of the children ofTe Ipu, see Wairoa NLC MB 25, fol 172
71 by the court were substituted for those of 1890. The various partitions made in 1903 were also cancelled.39o Neither block was made inalienable.
The judge thus completed his task under section 8 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1913. He seems to have gone to great pains to try to achieve an equitable result. Yet he was clear that the nature of the evidence made this extremely difficult. This is hardly surprising, given that by 1913 the witnesses were far removed from the times of, for instance, the children of Te Ipu.
3.13 Conclusion The determination of the ownership of the Hereheretau No 2 and Kahaatureia blocks was a very lengthy and convoluted matter, both at the hearing and at the subsequent rehearing. Bryan Gilling points out that some land court cases were of 'a mind numbing complexity which must have baffled all but the most patient of investigators.' He also argues, however, that the evidence was 'frequently rigorously tested' .391 In the case of these blocks, there was an enormous amount of cross examination, both by the court and by other parties.
This included the practice of comparing the evidence of witnesses with evidence given in former cases. Gilling comments on the extraordinary situation whereby not even the decisions of the Maori Appellate Court were reported.392 Itt would seem that some Maori, at least, succeeded in getting access to the minutes of the Native Land Court in blocks in which they had an interest.
More than this, however, the court made site visits. In the initial hearing, the court seems to have used the evidence given in court to question the Ngati Hine and Ngati Rakaipaka involved quite rigorously while visiting the relevant land. The award of the greater part of the Kahaatureia block to Ngati Rakaipaka was largely based on the results of this questioning. At the rehearing, the conductor and witnesses for Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu made repeated efforts to explain away their inability to respond satisfactorily on various points. The amount of attention they devoted to this seems to indicate that they recognised the strength of the court's decision.
The rehearing court made a site visit in connection with the claim of various Ngati Hinepua in Hereheretau No 2. This included an investigation that proved that the post which Heremaia Hikitangarangi claimed was ancient was made with a European style axe. In light of this, it is hardly surprising that Ngati Hinepua rapidly accepted the decision of the rehearing court, although this made only very limited concessions as to their interest in Hereheretau No 2.
The omission of a site visit could be disastrous, as the need for a rapid rehearing of the partition of the original Hereheretau block had demonstrated. The court which
390 Wairoa NLC MB 27, fo1275-278 Order of the Court in the matter of Section 8 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1913 and ... Hereheretau No.2 and Hereheretau 2A, 8/8/82-16, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 391 Bryan D Gilling, 'Engine of Destruction? An Introduction to the History of the Maori Land Court', Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, vol 24, no 2, July 1994, P 120 392 ibid, P 117
72 partitioned Hereheretau No 2 in 1903 was even more thorough. It did not only make a site visit. In the interests of arriving at an equitable solution, it also called two witnesses over and above those called by the conductors.
Within the parameters set by legislation, the court sometimes tried to assist Maori in other ways. For instance, in the matter of the survey costs for Kahaatureia, it showed an awareness of the connection between survey costs and land loss. It tried to encourage the placing of a survey lien over only one subdivision of the block.
Some apparent efforts by the court to protect Maori interests were unsuccessful. All but one of the subdivisions of the Kahaatureia block were made inalienable in 1892. This did not stop the Crown beginning to purchase interests in the block only two years later. By the end of 1898, 59.7 per cent of this block had been proclaimed Crown land.
Evidence seems to be lacking that the court made use of the '1840 rule' in the various decisions made about this area. Indeed, it is difficult to see how it could have done so, for the dating of events by witnesses was, not surprisingly, generally far from precise in terms of calendar years.
In the early years of the twentieth century, there are signs of increasing tension between Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu. Judge Jones apparently considered that this represented a deterioration in a previously much more harmonious relationship between the two hapu. Again the possibility must be raised that this was at least partly generated by the very protracted and repeated series of hearings which the adversarial nature of the land court system seemed to encourage. By 1915-16, Judge Jones seems to have found it difficult to use the system to arrive at decisions on relative interests in Hereheretau No 2 in which he could have confidence.
Was there a realistic alternative to this system? The use of unofficial Maori committees was widespread in the 1870s. The history of the disputed land in the future Kahaatureia block shows that this area was no exception. Between about 1861 and 1881, no less than four committees looked at the dissension between Ngati Rakaipaaka on the one hand, and Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu on the other.
In 1890, after the Hereheretau No 2 - Kahaatureia rehearing, the Wairoa Guardian and County Advocate reported in scathing tones on how the case showed the 'utter inability of native committees to settle vexed tribal boundary questions'. The newspaper failed to consider the possibility that what had hampered the committees was not so much an inability to settle questions as an inability legally to enforce any decision made. It is clear that the second and fourth committees, at least, were very well aware of this restriction of their powers. They could restore peace for a time, but not insist on long-term obedience to their rulings.
It is evident that Maori in this area had a good deal of energy for exercising their own authority to settle land disputes. It is also clear that both in Hereheretau No 2 and in the original Hereheretau block there were Maori who were keen to develop their own land for farming. The protracted uncertainties which they experienced under the land
73 court system were unhelpful in this respect. Regrettably, the second decade of the twentieth century was to see substantial further discouragement of Maori farming through the activities of those who worked to buy interests in these blocks for the Crown.
74 CHAPTER 4: CROWN AND PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS circa 1905-1920 4.1 Introduction This chapter begins with a brief review of the legislation which governed Maori land alienations during this period. Three features of the Native Land Act 1909 which were important for the blocks studied here were the Native Land Purchase Board, proclamations prohibiting alienations other than to the Crown and the powers given to meetings of assembled owners of Maori land blocks.
The chapter then reviews examples of alienations in the Kahaatureia and Kahaatureia A blocks, in Hereheretau B, and in Hereheretau No 2A and Hereheretau No 2. The alienations reviewed are a mixture of private and Crown alienations.
The chapter gives particular attention to Crown purchasing within Hereheretau No 2A and Hereheretau No 2. Sir Apirana Ngata and others involved with the Maori Soldiers' Fund took a strong interest in both these blocks. They wanted to lease the Crown's interests in them for the use ofthe fund. Subdivisions ofthese blocks allotted to the Crown formed the original area of Hereheretau Station.
Members of a small number of pakeha families sought to build up land-holdings in the area through both leases and purchases. Most transactions with a pakeha party involved these families. Members of a number of prominent local Maori families also took steps to try to lease or buy land.
These developments took place in the context of repeated attempts by pakeha dominated local authorities and other prominent pakeha to get Maori land in the area opened up for farming by pakeha. One frequently repeated theme here was that of noxious weeds. In particular, blocks under Maori control were repeatedly described as infested by blackberry. This was depicted as a serious threat to other farmers.
4.2 Maori Land Legislation This section sets out to give a very brief account of significant developments in Maori land legislation between 1905 and 1913.393 There had been a great deal of alienation of Maori land in the first decade of Liberal rule, from 1890 to 1899. Of the blocks looked at here, however, all but Kahaatureia had escaped the attentions of the Crown's land purchase officers during the 1890s.
From the tum of the century, James Carroll, the first Maori to become Native Minister, worked to secure a breathing space for Maori from the pressure to sell land. In 1905, political pressure forced him to modify his policy. This led to the passing of the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905. This act set up Maori Land Boards, replacing the Maori Land Councils created in 1900. Unlike the land councils, the land boards did not have to have a Maori majority. Instead they had a President and two members, at least one of whom was to be Maori. In the Tairawhiti district, the Native Minister had power, under section 8, compulsorily to vest in the board land 'which in the
393 For a longer review written for a report on the not too distant Mohaka-Waikare blocks, see R Boast, 'Report on Crown purchasing of Mohaka-Waikare blocks', pp 23-42
75 opinion of the Native Minister is not required or not suitable for occupation by the Maori owners.' The president of the board was usually the judge of the land court for the same area.
Section 3 of the Maori Land Settlement Act Amendment act 1906 permitted the Native Minister to vest in a board any Maori land which the minister considered had not been properly cleared of noxious weeds. This was a marked threat to the Hereheretau blocks, given their serious blackberry problems.
In 1909, parliament passed a huge consolidating native land act. The Native Land Act 1909 established three very important institutions and processes which will feature repeatedly later in this chapter.
Firstly, section 361 set up the Native Land Purchase Board. This consisted of the Native Minister, along with the Under Secretary for Crown Lands (later the Under Secretary of the Department of Lands and Survey), the Under Secretary of the Native Department, and the Valuer-General. Section 362 laid down that the board was to undertake, control and carry out all negotiations for the purchase of Native land by the Crown and the performance and completion of all contracts of purchase so entered into by the Crown.
Secondly, section 363 permitted the Native Land Purchase Board to make a proclamation which prohibited the alienation of a block of Maori land other than to the Crown. Such a proclamation could be made when negotiations with a view to Crown purchase were in progress, or even merely contemplated. Such prohibitions could be repeatedly extended. In 1909, the length of such prohibitions was restricted to a maximum of 18 months, but later legislation relaxed this restriction.
Boast argues, and this chapter demonstrates, that such proclamations 'could have the effect of totally freezing a block into limbo, preventing any effective utilisation of it' .394 These prohibitions did not simply prevent owners from selling a block privately or mortgaging it. They also prohibited leasing, including the rationalisation of farming through the leasing of a block to one or more of its owners. Furthermore, if such a prohibition was imposed at a time when a block was not leased, it effectively prevented owners from drawing income from the block until it was lifted. Yet owners could still find themselves in serious trouble with the Agriculture Department if noxious weeds were considered to be out of control on the block. Such a development was only too likely when owners were prevented from leasing blocks for themselves.
A third feature of the Native Land Act 1909 was the procedure it set up for meetings of assembled owners of Maori land blocks, which was dealt with in Part XVIII. These meetings were to be called by the local Maori Land Boards and presided over by the President of the board. Under section 341(1), the Native Minister could direct a board to call a meeting.
394 ibid, P 37
76 Where a block had more than ten owners, an individual could only alienate a share in the block when • a meeting of assembled owners had passed a resolution to allow alienation; • the local Maori land board had consented and confirmed the resolution.395
It was the usual practice, where land was being sold in this way, to allow minority dissentient non-sellers to have their interests cut out of the block.396
When Maori land was bought by the Crown under this act, the Crown was directed by section 372 not to offer less than the existing capital value. It was possible for this to be several years out of date, and thus below the level of current local land prices.
These matters remained of relevance as the Crown began to purchase Maori land in the various Hereheretau blocks. By that time, however, the powers of the Crown had been strengthened further. The Native Land Amendment Act 1913 was the work of the new Reform goverment and its Native Minister, William Herries.
This act made two very significant changes which the Crown would find useful in the various Hereheretau blocks. Firstly, under section 109, the Crown could buy any Maori land whatsoever, including reserve land, trust land, and land with a prohibition of alienation. Secondly, again under this section, the Crown was permitted to buy interests in a block with more than ten owners without agreement from a meeting of assembled owners or the permission of the local land board. This opened the way for what Brooking has described as 'the ultimate Maori land grab of 1912_20.,397
4.3 Some Private Alienations in Kahaatureia and Kahaatureia A Early in 1909, the 500 acre Kahaatureia A block was vested in the Tairawhiti District 398 Maori Land Board under section 8 of the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905. The board checked whether the owners wished to lease the block to Horomona Taruna, but claimed that there was 'very strong opposition' to this idea. The board seems to have 399 been concerned to provide appropriate papakainga land within the block.
In early 1914, Patu te Rito and Materoa Huka asked the Maori Land Board to lease a 20 acre reserve set aside in Kahaatureia A. They had been threatened with a summons for the blackberry and other weeds on the reserve, which they said they did not occupy. 400 In July 1914, Peta Hape asked for the twenty acres to be reserved as papakainga with ten acres for himself.401
395 ss 209, 348 396 B oast, op CIt, . p 39 397 Tom Brooking, "'Busting Up" The Greatest Estate of All. Liberal Maori Land Policy, 1891-1911', The New Zealand Journal ofHistory, vol 26, no 1, April 1992, p 80 398 Extract from New Zealand Gazette No 18 p 644 4 March 1909, File Bd Misc 8 MA BiM 8, in box labelled 'Kahaatureia. Kahotea. Kahuitara. Kaiaua', far basement room, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisbome 399 A Keefer to Under Secretary, Native, 31 March 1909, File Bd Misc 8 MA BiM 8, in box labelled 'Kahaatureia. Kahotea. Kahuitara. Kaiaua' 400 Patu te Rito & Materoa Huka to President, Tairawhiti Maori Land Board, 11 January 1914, same file 401 Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board Minute Book No 6, p 54, Repro 906, NA Wellington
77 In January 1915, the Inspector of Noxious Weeds for the Wairoa area complained to the land board that 'blackberries and sweet briars are getting such a hold that what ought to be valuable land is fast becoming not only useless but a menace to the locality.,402 At the same time, he wrote to Peta Hape and Terauna Hape, whom he understood occupied the land in question. He asked them to clear the weeds, but received no response.
Later in the year when the board decided to lease the land in question, the inspector warned the board that he did not think the Hapes would prove suitable tenants.403 Walter Powdrell also objected to the idea of leasing the block to a Maori, were his wife's tender to be unsuccessful, on the grounds that the block was seeding his land with Californian thistle and blackberry.404 The block was eventually leased to Myra Powdrell at 10 shillings per acre, after a lower tender from her had been turned 405 down. Myra Powdrell was married to W D Powdrell, a Hawera sheepfarmer. A sister of W D Powdrell, Lucy Whitehead, was also to feature in land dealings in this 406 area. At this stage, Myra Powdrelllisted her land holdings as Kahaatureia 2A (part) (110 acres); Kahaatureia 2c (66 acres 2 roods 6 perches); Kahaatureia 2D (241 acres 3 perches); Kahaatureia 2F (222 acres 31 perches) and Opoho 1 (part) (290 acres).407 The ownership of various improvements on the block was debated, but the board permitted two Maori to remove a building and fruit trees respectively.408
In 1918, the Maori land board considered a resolution from a meeting of assembled owners to sell part of Kahaatureia A 'to Powdrell'. The resolution was dismissed. No explanation is given in the minutes.409
Later that year, the board did go ahead and confirm the sale of the interest of Arapata Parata in Kahaatureia 2A to Myra Powdrell. The board's decision is interesting given that Arapata was 'away at the war'. The board consequently decided that it would 41o receive Parata's purchase money on his behalf. It is unclear what role, if any, Parata
402 Inspector to the President, 'Tairawhiti Native Land Board', 12 January 1915, file Bd Misc 8 MA BIM, Box 'Kahaatureia ... ' 403 Inspector to the Registrar, Tairawhiti Native Land Court, 27 April 1915, file Bd Misc 8 MA BIM, Box 'Kahaatureia ... ' 404 W D Powdrell to President, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Court, 3 April 1915, file Bd Misc 8 MA BIM, Box 'Kahaatureia ... ' 405 Tairawhiti Maori Land Board Minute Book No 6, p 296; Two forms - Tender for Lease, Lot 1 Kahaatureia A, in file Bd Misc 8 BIM, Box 'Kahaatureia ... ' 406 W D Powdrell to Tairawhiti Maori Land Board, 14 November 1910, File Bd Misc 8 MA BIM; Application for Confirmation dated 1 February 1917, File No S 275. Both files in box labelled 'Kahaatureia. Kahotea. Kahuitara. Kaiaua' 407 Declaration of Qualification by Purchaser or Lessee from a Maori Land Board, file Bd Misc 8 BIM, Box 'Kahaatureia ... ' It is unclear from the Schedule in the declaration whether Powdrell was the owner or the lessee of the various blocks mentioned. 408 Tairawhiti Maori Land Board Minute Book No 6, P 296; W D Powdrell to President, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, 19 April1915; Telegram Horomona Taruna and Materoa Huka to President Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, both in Bd Misc 8 BIM, box 'Kahaatureia ... ' 409 Tairawhiti Maori Land Board Minute Book No 8, p 264, Repro 908, NA Wellington 410 Tairawhiti Maori Land Board Minute Book No 8, P 283
78 himself had in this sale, because an earlier reference to him in the minute book in 411 connection with this block seems ambiguous.
4.4 Private Alienations and Crown Purchases in Hereheretau B Within Hereheretau B, the blocks closest to the Kahaatureia blocks attracted much attention from pakeha farming families. For instance, Lucy Whitehead, sister of W D Powdrell, leased Hereheretau B11 for 42 years from 7 June 1911 at £69 14s per 412 annum. Her lease represented 556 1/2 of the 793 112 shares in the block.
In December 1912, Hereheretau B9 was leased to Harry Skilton, a Nuhaka sheepfarmer, for 21 years from 1 October 1912, at a yearly rental of £113 12s, with a right of renewal for a further twenty-one years at a rent equal to five per cent of the t h en unlmprove. d government vaI uatlOn. . 413
The continuing controversy surrounding this transaction indicates that on occasion Maori found the system for dealing with land through Maori land boards far from satisfactory. A meeting of assembled owners had been held on 13 February 1911. At this, the owners passed the resolution regarding Skilton and turned down resolutions to sell or to lease to Lucy Powdrell. The minutes clearly state: Karena Rawhi wishes his interest cuts [sic] out from sale or lease also 414 that of Mere Tai Tapihana whom he is trustee fOr.
Taylor, another prominent local pakeha, represented Lucy Powdrell at the meeting. He complained about certain developments prior to the meeting, although to some extent it appears his solicitors may have been to blame. He told the meeting that 'he would be willing to pay much more for the land.,415
On 31 March 1911, the Maori land board confirmed the lease to Skilton. Rawhi' s interest was not cut out, despite his clearly expressed wishes. Keefer, the president of the land board, apparently believed that Rawhi had plenty of other land. His attitude evoked a very bitter reaction from James Thorpe, or Hemi Topi. Thorpe had left the 416 district for thirty years and returned qualified as a surveyor and civil engineer. Thorpe took up the cause of Rawhi, along with various other Maori land issues. He wrote angrily to the Native Minister: ... I suppose so long as a man has a patch large enough to grow potatoes elsewhere, Mr Keefer reckons any further land quite superfl uous - £or a maon..,417
411 ibid, P 86. Mr Cooper stated that 'all interests had been acquired except Arapata Parata [name 'Hemi Mete' placed above Parata's deleted name] - transfers registered except those of Arapata Parata' 412 Under Secretary, Native, to Under Secretary, Lands, 10 July 1917, AADS Box 312 LS 22/1984 file 24 April 1917 to 23 December 1924, NA Wellington 413 Goffe to Under Secretary, Native, 18 June 1914, MA-MLP 1 1913/88, NA Wellington 414 Hereheretau B9 Meeting of Assembled Owners, MA 1 1919/693, NA Wellington 415 Hereheretau B9 Meeting of Assembled Owners, same file 416 James Thorpe to Chairman, Tairawhiti Land Board, 3 January 1911, file Bd Misc 8 MA BIM 8 in box labelled 'Kahaatureia ... " Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, far basement room 417 James Thorpe to Native Minister, 25 January 1915, MA 1 1915/329, NA Wellington
79 It is clear that Thorpe felt that the standard used to assess the adequacy of Maori holdings of other land was, at least in this case, quite inadequate.
Rawhi was a fighter. He took the Maori Land Board and Harry Skilton to the Supreme Court. This was particularly costly given that the case was heard in Auckland. The Supreme Court took the position that before confirmation, steps should be taken by the board to cut out the shares of dissentient owners.418
But Rawhi gained no satisfaction from this apparent victory. In October 1911, the board decided that, given that the resolution had in fact already been confirmed, it had no option other than executing the lease. Rawhi only finally managed to get his interest partitioned when the rest of the block was eventually sold. But his area was still subject to the lease which he had originally opposed. As late as 1919, he petitioned parliament regarding the lease, pointing out that he earned his living through 'farming pursuits'. Carr, the Tairawhiti registrar, told the under secretary that he could see no prospect for relief for Rawhi other than through an arrangement with the lessee.419 The Native Affairs Committee reported that it had no recommendation .. 420 to m ak e on t h e petItIOn.
Rawhi was not the only person with concerns over the lease to Skilton. Other Maori and Taylor protested that the proxy votes given at the meeting had been misused, and that as a result the owners had obtained a lower rent than they would have received had a lease to Lucy Whitehead been accepted by the meeting. Maori also objected to the fact that some owners who had not formally succeeded to their interest were not a11 owe d a VOIce. at t h e meetmg. . 421
Despite the controversy over the B9 lease, in July 1913 the Tairawhiti Maori Land Board resolved to allow meetings of assembled owners to be called to consider a proposal to sell Hereheretau B9 to Winifrid Ellen Taylor, another prominent local woman, along with meetings to sell Hereheretau BI0 and Bll to Lucy Whitehead.422 Shortly afterwards, the board authorised a further meeting of assembled owners to consider a sale ofB9 to Harry Skilton.423
In 1915, Nolan, a prominent local solicitor, told the board, that although previous proposals to sell Hereheretau B9 .had been lost, many of the owners now desired to dispose of the block. The board allowed another meeting of assembled owners to be called.424 The land was eventually sold to the Opoho sheepfarmer James Middleton
418 Karena Rawhi v Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board and Another, [1913] 32 NZLR 1, 1-6 419 Copy of Petition from Karena Rawhi to the Speaker and members of Parliament, 13 September 1919; H Carr, Registrar, to Under Secretary, Native, 16 June '20', both in MA 1 1919/693, NA Wellington 420 'Reports of the Native Affairs Committee', AJHR, 1919,1-3, P 22 421 Petition of at least 13 owners to W MacDonald re 'Hereheretau 2B 9' block; J M Taylor to Sir James Carroll, 7 September 1912; P Kaimoana to Native Minister, 16 October 1912, all in MA 1 1919/693 422 Tairawhiti Maori Land Board Minute Book No 5, pp 135-6 Repro 905, NA Wellington 423 ibid, pp 162-3 424 Tairawhiti Maori Land Board Minute Book No 6, P 256, Repro 906, NA Wellington
80 Taylor, with the land of Karena Rawhi partitioned out as Hereheretau B9A. Provision was also made to fence a 'cemetery' .425
In 1915, the board confirmed a resolution of a meeting of assembled owners to sell Hereheretau B 10 to Lucy Whitehead of Patea. The interests of the Hape family were excluded. The board was required to investigate the ability of owners selling to maintain themselves. The evidence called in the case of two Hereheretau BI0 owners is interesting. Rewi Whatahoro gave evidence that he knew the block and knew Hariata Waaka and Wiremu Waaka. In the case of Hariata Waaka, the board was told that she was married to a half-caste who lived at Hastings. Wiremu was said to live on B2 and to be a hard-worker at bush-felling and shearing. He could shear more than 200 sheep a day. As the sale was allowed to proceed, this was apparently acceptable evidence to show that these two people were able to maintain themselves.426
Certain Maori names feature repeatedly in the records of the Tairawhiti Maori Land Board, giving a picture of sustained efforts at farming by both races. In 1911, the board gave notice of a meeting of assembled owners to consider a resolution to lease Hereheretau B2 to the Whakaki farmer Watene Huka for 21 years with a right to 427 renewal for a further twenty-one years. . This seems to have been the subdivision in the block with the most significant blackberry problem. A few days earlier, the board had given notice of a meeting of assembled owners of Hereheretau No 2F, one of the subdivisions of Hereheretau No 2 which existed at that point.
The Under Secretary of the Native Department drew the attention of the land board to the fact that the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court was investigating matters relating to Hereheretau No 2 under section 28 of the Native Land Court Adjustment Act 1910.428 The meeting for Hereheretau 2F was consequently adjourned. The meeting for Hereheretau B2, which was actually unaffected by the 1910 legislation, was also adjourned. Attempts by Keefer, the land board president, to have the Hereheretau B2 meeting re-instated were unsuccessful. 429
In 1916, Patu te Rito and Materoa Huka both apparently tried to buy the interest of Karena Taranui in Hereheretau B4H and B4L. After prolonged arguments before the Maori Land Board the following year, the board decided that the initial transfer to Huka was irregular. It had been executed on a date other than that on the transfer and at a time when there were more than ten owners, so that a meeting of assembled owners would have been needed. The board, subject to being satisfied that it was in the interests of the vendor to entrust him with all the proceeds of the sale, did,
425 Minutes of a Meeting of Assembled Owners, ... 26 June 1915; Resolution re block, both in Box 'Hereheretau Full B8-11', far basement, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisbome; Tairawhiti Maori Land Board Minute Book No 7, pp 314-6, Repro 907, NA Wellington 426 Tairawhiti Maori Land Board Minute Book No 6, pp 241,256-7, Repro 906 427 Notice of Meeting of Owners under Part XVIII of the Native Land Act, 1909, dated 5 August 1911, MA 1 1914/553 428 Under Secretary to President, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, 21 August 1911, MA 1 1914/553; See section 3.12 429 Handwritten page summarising events August 21 to August 30 1911, MA 1 1914/553
81 however, accept the transfer to Patu te Rito. This was despite finding that there were irregularities in that the consideration money had not been paid over in the presence of t h e suppose d wItness.· 430
Sometimes assembled meetings of Maori owners rejected proposals to lease to Maori. In April 1917, for instance, a meeting of assembled owners considered four proposals to lease Hereheretau B2. Those wishing to lease were from the Huka, Hape, te Rito and Carroll families respectively. None of the four resolutions were carried.431
Meanwhile, pakeha made strenuous efforts to draw the attention of the government to these and other blocks. In July 1913, the secretary of the East Coast Rabbit Board forwarded to W H Herries, the Minister of Native Affairs, a resolution relating to three blocks which their Wairoa inspector reported were 'infested with blackberry and other noxious weeds'. This was supposedly giving cover to rabbits and making their destruction impossible. The board strongly urged the Native Minister to exercise his statutory power to lease the lands so that the noxious weeds and rabbits could be eliminated. The blocks in question were Mohaka, Tutaekuri and Hereheretau.432
At much the same time in 1913, a deputation waited on the Native Minister. The only named member of the deputation is Hunter Brown. This was, presumably, the Hunter Brown whose family had acquired Hereheretau A and C in the late nineteenth century. The deputation raised several matters. The last one was the question of certain blocks of land in the vicinity of Wairoa. Hunter Brown reported that the dairy company - presumably the Wairoa dairy company - were 'complaining very bitterly that they could not get land for dairying'. He alleged that Maori were 'doing very little' with Paeroa 2, the balance of Paeroa No 1, Taumataoteo and Whakapau blocks. Hunter Brown claimed that some Maori were willing to sell. These blocks, amounting to 1901 acres, were Maori land close to the dairy factory.
In addition, Hunter Brown mentioned five further much larger blocks as suitable for sheep farming. These were Hereheretau B, Hereheretau No 2, Tutuotekaha No 1, Tutuotekaha No 2, and Tutuotekaha No 3. He thought these blocks should be opened up. Herries undertook to have any block which the local authority said was overrun with noxious weeds vested in the Maori Land Board. If this was not the case, however, a meeting of assembled owners would have to be called to see whether owners were willing to sell. One of the deputation claimed that there was a problem 433 with noxious weeds on some of the blocks.
The Native Land Purchase Board opened files on Taumataoteo, Paeroa No 2 and the balance of Paeroa No 1 but apparently took no further action over them. Initially,
430 Decision, pp 113-114, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board Minute Book No 8, Repro 908, NA Wellington 431 Report to board of meeting held Wairoa 19 April 1917, ibid, P 154 432 Secretary, East Coast Rabbit Board, to Native Minister, 7 July 1913, MA 1 191312935, NA Wellington. It is unclear whether the board meant Hereheretau B or Hereheretau No 2. The resolution of the board simply referred to 'HereHereTau (comprising 8,000 acres)'. 433 Memorandum on Deputation signed by Herries and referred to the Under Secretary of Native Affairs on 4 August 1913, MA-MLP 1 1913/86, NA Wellington
82 Hereheretau Band Hereheretau No 2 also remained undisturbed. Judge Jones, the President of the Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, reported to the under secretary in connection with the rabbit board resolution. He commented on the 'strong desire' of Europeans to 'get these blocks thrown open to the public'. As regards Hereheretau B, he said that he believed Maori strenuously objected to the idea of the block being purchased by the government. 434
It was not just pakeha, however, who referred to blackberry over land issues. As indicated above, various local Maori were keen to acquire further rights in Hereheretau B2. In December 1913, Watene Huka wrote to the Native Minister. He pointed out that the land was not meeting its legal requirements in terms of noxious weeds. Nor was it paying the rates owed to the county councilor the drainage board. It was producing nothing for the owners, including him and his family. He asked the minister to exercise his authority under section 288 of the Native Land Act 1909 and bring the block under the control of the Tairawhiti Maori Land Board. In addition, he asked the minister to instruct the land board to lease the land to him under section 293 435 ofthe 1909 act.
Huka's approach to the minister was supported by two letters, one apparently from the noxious weeds inspector, and one from John Hunter Brown. Hunter Brown commended Huka and commented that the land was 'at present a mass of blackberries and the sooner it is under some management of some sort the better.,436 The minister did have the matter investigated, but eventually decided - yet again - that since the quite separate Hereheretau No 2 block was the subject oflitigation the matter should 437 be left.
In 1914, William Heslop wrote to the Under Secretary of the Native Department on behalf of an elderly owner in the contentious Hereheretau B9 block. He said this 438 owner wished to sel1. Goffe, the Native Land Purchase Officer at Gisbome, reported on the status of the block.439 The under secretary apparently decided to take 44o no further action. Heslop also wrote from Hastings to the Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board about this owner's wish to sell, as she had apparently approached the board herself and received no response. The rationale for the proposed sale was that the owner was elderly and did not intend to return to the Gisbome area. She wanted to spend part of the proceeds of the sale on buying a small piece ofland by her kainga.441
434 President, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board to Under Secretary, Native, 23 August 1913, MA 1 1913/2935 435 Watene Huka to Native Minister, 15 December 1913 [translation], MA 1 1914/553, NA Wellington 436 T F Mullaly to Native Minister, 17 December 1913; J H Brown to Native Minister, 15 December 1913, both in MA 1 1914/553 437 Under Secretary, Native, to Secretary, Agriculture, Industry & Commerce, 27 February 1914; Secretary, Agriculture, Industry & Commerce, to Under Secretary, Native, 27 March 1914; Minute by WHH[erries] on cover ofNI4/553; all in MA 1 1914/553 438 Wm Heslop to Under Secretary, 22 May[in pencil]/June[in pen] 1914, MA-MLP 1 1913/88 439 Goffe to Under Secretary, Native, 18 June 1914, MA-MLP 1 1913/88 440 Under Secretary, Native, to Wm Heslop, 22 June 1914, MA-MLP 1 1913/88 441 Wm Heslop to Chairman, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, file Hereheretau B. Correspondence 1909 to 1920, in box 'Hereheretau Correspondence Full', far basement, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court
83 In April 1915, the Chairman of the County Council urged the government to buy and cut up Hereheretau B. He claimed that the owners were willing to sell, and urged the government to buy, rather than leaving purchases to others.442 In July 1915, the Native Land Purchase Board resolved to call meetings of assembled owners and take steps to acqUIre. t h e varIOus . subd· IVlSIOns . . 0 f H ere h eretau B. 443
Only in 1917, however, did the Crown finally take vigorous action. In April of that year, the title situation of Hereheretau B was as set out in Table 4.1
TABLE 4.1: STATUS OF HEREHERETAU B AS AT APRIL 1917444 Subdivision Area Number of Alienations a r p Subdivisions 1 268 025 2 2702 1 14 3 9 029 4 635 o 31 25 2/3 of 4H and 4L sold 5 499 o 31 6 204 o 12 7 409 o 17 8 110 2 34 3 8A sold 9 410 o 31 2 Block 9 leased 21 years from 1912, right of renewal for 21 further years. 9B sold lOA 233 1 28 2 10A2 sold lOB 185 3 18 lOB sold 11 599 3 39 Leased 42 years from 1911 - lease affects some interests only.
That month, the Crown submitted an offer to purchase Hereheretau Bl, B2, B3, B5, B6 and B7 to the Tairawhiti Maori Land Board. The prices offered were the capital value, 'being not less than the value as assessed under the Valuation of Land Act, 1908.'445 In May, all alienations of these blocks other than to the Crown were forbidden for one year from 4 April 1917.446 Table 4.1 shows that these particular blocks were those in which no alienations had previously occurred.
442 Memorandum, apparently from Office of Minister of Public Works and Mines to Minister of Lands, 15 April 1915, referred to Chairman, Land Purchase Board and Under Secretary, Native, MA- MLP 1 1913/88 443 Native Land Purchase Board Minutes 16 September 1913 to 7 October 1932, p 57, MA-MLP 5/2, NA Wellington 444 Table taken from Under Secretary, Native, to Under Secretary, Lands and Survey, 24 Apri11917, AADS Box 312 LS 22/1984, file 24 April 1917 to 23 December 1924, NA Wellington 445 Offer by the Crown to Purchase Native Land ... , 28 April 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/88 446 Extract from New Zealand Gazette, No 78 3 May 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/88
84 Not content with this, the Under Secretary of the Native Department sought the advice of the Lands Department as to whether the unalienated subdivisions of sections 4, 8 and 10 or the leased sections, 9 A and 11, should be acquired. He also asked whether subdivision 3 was 'used by the Natives for any special purpose,.447
The Crown Lands Ranger, Gisborne, reported on the partially alienated blocks and on B3. He stated that there were eight families living on Hereheretau B4. He did not think it advisable to buy the unalienated subdivisions here. B3, he said, was 'intensely cultivated, and is the recognised kumera, taro and melon ground and kitchen garden for the owners of Hereheretau Block. ,448 There is no indication in the files, however, that this consideration had any effect whatsoever on the Crown's desire to purchase this particular subdivision.
The imposition of the prohibition on the private alienation of the six subdivisions of Hereheretau B brought a very significant response from the owners of two of the 449 subdivisions. On 14 July 1917, the Native Minister received two petitions. One of these related to Hereheretau B5. The petitioners said that they were owners of the block. They expressed regret about the issue of an order prohibiting alienation other than to the Crown, 'as your petitioners are not desirous of selling or leasing their interests in the said lands to the Crown'. They pointed out that many of them had houses and other buildings on the block and were farming it and wished to make 45o permanent homes there. They also pointed out that a scheme of partition of the block had been lodged with the Native Land Court. They stated that the land was the central part of the Whakaki Native Township and was close to the Whakaki Post Office and the Whakaki Native School, which many of their children attended. None of their other lands were so conveniently located or so suitable for cropping and dairy farming. Given that the Crown was in the process of purchasing in Hereheretau 2, in which they also had interests, they felt
that their interests in their home blocks and Papakainga should be held 451 sacred to them and should not be placed under the said restriction.
They wanted the partition scheme completed as soon as possible so that they could fence their land and farm more efficiently. The restriction placed on the land was d e 1aymg· tIS.h· 452
447 Under Secretary, Native, to Under Secretary, Lands, 24 Apri11917, AADS Box 312 LS 2211984, file 24 April 1917 to 23 December 1924 448 Crown Lands Ranger to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 16 May 1917, same file 449 See Appendix 2 450 Petition to the Minister of Native Affairs and Chairman of The Native Land Purchase Board 'In the matter of "The Native Land Act, 1909" and its amendments AND IN the matter of ... Hereheretau B5 ... , P 1, MA-MLP 1 19l3/8811, NA Wellington 451 ibid, P 2 Despite the use of the term 'Whakaki Native Township', the area does not appear to have been gazetted under the Native Townships Act 1895. For list of the 18 townships gazetted, see Suzanne Woodley, The Native Townships Act 1895, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series (preliminary report), September 1996, p 3 452 Petition to the Minister of Native Affairs and Chairman of The Native Land Purchase Board 'In the matter of "The Native Land Act, 1909" and its amendments AND IN the matter of ... Hereheretau B5 """' P 1, MA-MLP 1 19l3/88/1, pp 2-3
85 They continued: ... your petitioners respectfully draw your attention to their rights under the Treaty of Waitangi, the charter of their rights and privileges as made between their forbears and the British Government, and urge that in view of their hereby expressed desire not to sell or lease their lands to the Crown favourable consideration should be given to their petItIOn... 453
They concluded with a request that an Order in Council prohibiting alienations other than to the Crown be revoked if it had already been made. If one had not been made, they asked that no such order should be issued. They asked that a special sitting of the Native Land Court at Whakaki should immediately partition the block.454
The second petition dealt with Hereheretau B2, the largest subdivision in the block. It started by expressing the same concern about a prohibition on alienation other than to the Crown. It again stated that the petitioners did not wish to sell or lease their interests to the Crown. Some of the petitioners had homes, cultivations, grazing stock and orchards on the block, and wanted to make permanent homes there.
They had several other reasons for not wanting to alienate the block. It contained a high proportion of the Whakaki Lagoon and its outlet to the sea. The petitioners relied 'to a great extent' on eel and deep sea fish from the lagoon and the bordering sea coast for their food. 455 They also drew 'a large portion' of their food from native and imported game frequenting the lagoon and lands adjoining. Furthermore, the shores and parts of the adjoining land were 'of great historical interest' to the petitioners because of 'several old ancestral burying grounds which the owners of the said land desire always to revere and possess. ,456 They were also mainly dependent for their firewood supply on driftwood from the sea beach bordering the block.
They stated that the lands could be advantageously drained if the government would help either the block's owners or the Whakaki Drainage Board with the project. They pointed out in passing that the drainage board levied rates on the land but had done nothing to benefit it. If the land were to be successfully drained, this would bring into profitable use much valuable land now slightly submerged by the lagoon water. (g) Your petitioners are desirous of farming and working this land themselves or of granting leases to Native Owners thereof for long terms with right to compensation for improvements to a limited extent in order that the lands may be profitably worked and their descendants may in time have a reversionary interest in improved lands.457
453 1'b'd 1 ,p 3 454 ibid, loc cit 455 Petition to the Minister of Native Affairs and Chairman of The Native Land Purchase Board 'In the matter of "The Native Land Act, 1909" and its amendments AND in the matter of ... Hereheretau B2 """' P 1, MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1 456 1"bOd 1 ,p 2 457 ibid, loc cit
86 They then referred to the Treaty of Waitangi in words identical to those in the other petition. They asked for a revocation of the order prohibiting alienations other than to the Crown, or that if such an order had not been made, that it not be issued, and for other appropriate relief.
At virtually the same time, a pakeha perspective on the rich swamp lands between Wairoa and Whakaki Lagoon emerges in a letter from Sir John Findlay to the Native Minister. Findlay asked Herries on behalf of the Wairoa County Council whether the government would take over the drainage of lands within the district of the Whakaki Drainage Board. The board considered that the project was too big for it to tackle. The blocks affected were Ohuia, Kopua, Wairau, Whakaki, Ngamotu, Hanewhaki and subdivisions of Hereheretau B. Findlay claimed that drainage would mainly benefit Maori land. Pakeha landowners did not want to bear the burden of draining Maori land. The project was considered desirable because it would make available several thousand acres of dairying land. One option given by Findlay was to drain the land and charge the cost against it. The other option was for the government to buy the Maori land concerned and finish draining it.458 Herries had the question investigated, but the drainage scheme did not proceed at this stage.
Meanwhile, how did Herries respond to the two petitions from Hereheretau B owners? The Native Minister responded rapidly to the references to the Treaty of Waitangi in a letter to Arthur Lynch, the Wairoa solicitor who had forwarded the petitions to him. He asked him to tell Maori that ... there is no intention of forcing them to sell their interests or of taking the land compulsorily. All the Order in council does is to provide that if they do wish to sell, they can only sell to the Crown. This is carrying out the provisions of the Treaty ofWaitangi ...
Herries went straight on to quote Article Two in English. Once the Crown had bought the interests of those who did wish to sell, the Native Land Court would be asked to partition out the Crown's interests. Maori could then point out to the court which portions they wished to retain, and the court would make a decision about this.459 Three days after Herries wrote this letter, the Native Land Purchase Board decided that no action would be taken regarding the petitions and that the purchase would proceed as already authorised.46o Herries told Lynch that the Board considered that those Maori who wanted to sell to the Crown should have an opportunity to do SO.461
Lynch forwarded copies of the minister's letter to the Maori owners. His reaction to the minister's interpretation of the treaty shed interesting light on the way in which he perceived the operations of the Native Land Act 1909 were affecting Maori. Lynch stated that he was aware that the prohibition on alienation other than to the Crown did not amount to 'actual compulsion as regards sales'. But he clearly felt that the
458 J Findlay to Native Minister, 10 May 1917, MA-MLP 1 1917/63, NA Wellington 459 Native Minister to A D Lynch, 16 July 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1 460 Native Land Purchase Board Minutes 16 September 1913 to 7 October 1932, p 118, MA-MLP 5/2, NA Wellington 461NativeMinistertoADLynch,27 July 1917,MA-MLP 11913/88/1
87 prohibition did in fact put considerable pressure on owners to sell. He argued that the treaty needed to be attended to at more than a purely formal level. He wrote: ... I respectfully submit that in cases like the present where you have received a petition in which certain owners distinctly and clearly decline the Crown's offer to purchase and no price can be agreed on that the shares of such owners, should if the spirit and tenor of the Treaty of Waitangi were adhered to, be immediately partitioned and the Order in Council revoked so far as it affects their interest.
The Crown could still go on with the acquisition of the shares of those who are willing to sell and the non-sellers would be in a position to make profitable use oftheir lands and to get their titles thereto.
In fact the revocation of the Order in Council as to the whole of the land would not prevent those natives who desired to sell to the Crown from doing so.
The effect of successive Orders in Council is to create a feeling of uncertainty and to prevent improvement and proper farming and working of the lads [sic] and thus frequently persons not at all desirous of selling when the Proclamation is first gazetted are practically forced through such uncertainty and doubt as to the period for which the lands will remain subject to the order in Council, to sell their lands against 462 their will. [Emphasis added.]
Lynch went on to reiterate the point that the B5 block was basically a papakainga 463 block. He pointed out that it was short-sighted for the Crown to buy Maori homes.
Herries responded to this last point with a minute to the Under Secretary to get a report from Goffe on B5. He concluded: 'We do not want to buy papakainga land.,464 Lynch's broader argument about the undesirable effect of this sort of order in council made no apparent impact whatsoever.
Already in June 1917, however, meetings of assembled owners at Wairoa made the owners' feelings very clear. Pera Tataramoa said that the owners required Hereheretau 465 B1 'for their own use'. The offer of the Crown was unanimously declined. Patu Te Rito said that Hereheretau B2 ... is the home of a large number of Natives. The urupas and lagoon are on this block. Eels from here are used for food at all huis.
462 Arthur Lynch to Native Minister, 13 September 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1 463 ibid, loc cit 464 Minute by Herries to Under Secretary, 22 September 1917 on letter Lynch to Native Minister, 13 September 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1 465 Minutes of Meeting of Assembled Owners, Hereheretau Bl, Wairoa 27 June 1917, Tairawhiti Maori Land Board File No 165, in one of the boxes labelled 'HEREHERTAU Full' in far basement, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisbome
88 The offer of the Crown was unanimously declined.466 Patu Te Rito said that Hereheretau B3 'was cut out for papakainga. Church and Meeting house'. The offer of 467 the crown was unanimously declined. Paetai Wirihana said that Hereheretau B5 'is a home of those owners who are living there and cultivating'. The offer of the Crown 468 was unanimously declined. Horiana Tawhiri said of Hereheretau B6 that 'they were working this block and were living there.' The offer of the Crown was unanimously declined. 469 Watene Huka said that the owners of Hereheretau B7 'are living on the block and are cultivating it. Their elders did likewise.' The offer of the Crown was unammous. 1y d ec l'me d .470
It is difficult to see how the owners could have made their position clearer. And yet this was not the end of the matter. The Under Secretary for Native Affairs considered that further investigations of title and special valuations would be desirable. 471 Meanwhile, Goffe was told to take no steps to acquire individual interests. The prohibition on private alienations on blocks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 remained in force. It was extended, firstly, in April 1918 for a further six months, and then in October 1918 472 for a further eighteen months.
In 1920, shortly before this last prohibition expired, W A Chapple of Gisborne asked the Native Minister whether the prohibition on the Whakaki Lake and surrounding swamp would be renewed. He talked of draining it if it could be secured. He claimed that it was being 'over-run with Blackberry to such an extent as to menace the whole district.' He considered that the Crown or 'private enterprise' should deal with it immediately.473 By this stage, however, the Native Land Purchase Board had apparently decided not to persist with further prohibitions on alienation other than to 474 the Crown.
After the June 1917 failure to obtain the agreement of meetings of assembled owners to Crown purchases of the six wholly unalienated subdivisions, the Lands Department was asked whether private alienations of 8B, 8c and 11 should also be prohibited. The Commissioner of Crown Lands at Napier reiterated the opinion of the Crown Lands Ranger, who had expressed concern about the Maori residents of subdivison 4, that parts of that subdivision should not be acquired. The commissioner also commented that the two partitions of subdivision 8 mentioned would 'malce a nice little farm'. He did, however, ask the Under Secretary for Lands 'to consider the matter carefully from its social side' before recommending the purchase of these two areas. He suggested that 'Small Crown holdings in the midst of Native settlements are not in my humble
466 Minutes of Meeting of Assembled Owners, Hereheretau B2, Wairoa 27 June 1917, same file 467 Minutes of Meeting of Assembled Owners, Hereheretau B3, Wairoa 27 June 1917, same file 468 Minutes of Meeting of Assembled Owners, Hereheretau B5, Wairoa 27 June 1917, same file 469 Minutes of Meeting of Assembled Owners, Hereheretau B6, Wairoa 27 June 1917, same file 470 Minutes of Meeting of Assembled Owners, Hereheretau B7, Wairoa 27 June 1917, same file 471 Under Secretary, Native, to Native Minister, minute dated 28 June 1917 on letter Under Secretary, Native, to Native Minister, 4 April 1917; Under Secretary to Goffe, 10 July 1917, both in MA-MLP 1 1913/88 472 Extract from New Zealand Gazette No 55,18 April 1918; Extract from New Zealand Gazette No 135,3 October 1918, both in MA-MLP 1 1913/88 473 W A Chapple to Native Minister, 21 February 1920, MA-MLP 1 1913/88 474 Under Secretary to W A Chapple, 14 April 1920, MA-MLP 1 1913/88
89 opinion very desirable.' Elsewhere in the letter he implies that the Under Secretary for Lands might consider this opinion to be 'frivolous' .475 Seemingly it took courage to oppose the purchase of Maori land on other than purely economic grounds.
Despite being instructed in July 1917 not to buy individual interests, it seems that Goffe was doing so shortly thereafter. In August 1917, he asked urgent advice from the under secretary because the principal owners of Hereheretau B2 were pressing for a partition of the block.476 The under secretary told him to suggest a partial partition of the block.477 The Native Land Court took the attitude, however, that the whole block should be partitioned.478 This was a victory for the Maori petitioners - but only a partial one, as the court then repeatedly delayed actually making the partition.
Goffe's attitude to the purchase of the block was apparently purely pragmatic. He seemed to have scant respect for Maori with whom he dealt. Earlier in August he reported that he had 'had to take another signature in the [B2] sale as he was very ill and sorely pressed for comforts'. Again, he favoured reserving the four burial grounds in the block, not because of their value to the owners, but on the grounds that 'the people in opposition are making a great deal of capital out of the fact that the Crown are going to grab these burial places. ,479
In response to the query about the B5 block he reported that it was indeed seen by Maori as a papakainga block, and that it was occupied by the Huka family as such. He did not, however, recommend against attempts to purchase there on those grounds. Rather, he said that: ... it would be a very hard block to make any progress in by the way of Purchase of individual shares, and an assembled owners meeting would be turned down - small shares could be bought480
Goffe advised that the Crown continue to pursue a policy of buying up individual interests in Hereheretau B2. He did not think that another meeting of assembled owners would result in 'any progress' - progress being clearly seen from the point of view of the Crown's determination to acquire land in the block.481 On Goffe's advice, owners were offered only the unimproved value for their interests in the block. He told the under secretary that the block was 'much over-grown with blackberries', and much of it was under the water of the Whakaki Lagoon. He did not expect to be able to obtain the part of the block that had been improved.482
475 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Under Secretary, Lands, 1 August 1917, AADS Acc W3562 Box 312 LS 22/1984, file 24 April 1917 to 23 December 1924 476 Telegram Goffe to Under Secretary, 14 August 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1 477 Telegram Under Secretary to Goffe, 14 August 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/8811 Despite this, there were considerable delays over the partition. 478 Telegram Goffe to Under Secretary, 16 August 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1 479 Goffe to Under Secretary, 5 August 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1 480 Goffe to Under Secretary, 11 October 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1 481 Goffe to Under Secretary, 20 September 1919, MA-MLP 1 1913 / 88/1 482 ibid, loc cit; Under Secretary to Goffe, 29 September 1919, MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1
90 In 1919, Ariki Mete, Tuihana Mete, Wairoa Mete, Harata Kohea and Taraipine Pango asked the Native Minister to exchange their interests in Hereheretau 2 for an equal area in Hereheretau B2. F J Foot told the minister that his clients occupied fully improved land in the centre of Hereheretau 2, and that the proposed exchange would simplify the settling of Hereheretau 2 and improve its value. The B2 block, on the other hand, was near his clients' interests and residences in Hereheretau B. He argued that the exchange would consequently benefit both the Crown and his clients.483
Local Maori may well have been making efforts to retain or increase holdings in land in the Hereheretau B block, close to Whakaki township and the precious lagoon, while relinquishing land more readily in the more distant Hereheretau No 2 block. Goffe's report on the proposed exchange, however, resulted in the Native Minister turning down the proposal. Goffe pointed out that, given the significantly higher price being paid for land in Hereheretau No 2, it would be necessary to give nearly three acres of land in Hereheretau B2 for one acre in Hereheretau No 2. He did not propose any negotiation to see whether the Maori concerned would have been prepared to proceed on any other basis. He was slighting over their previous reluctance to sell their interests in Hereheretau No 2. He remarked: These people have had ample opportunity to sell (some of them having sold in other blocks), but they have never shown any desire to take in Hereheretau 2, although reminded that the money was waiting for them. But this is no guide. Natives are peculiar people. They will sell when least expected to do so. 484
By June 1921, Materoa Huka and Patu Te Rito had apparently not been informed that the prohibition on alienations other than to the Crown was no longer in place for Hereheretau B2. They were still waiting for the Native Land Court to partition the land. The Inspector of Noxious Weeds was demanding that the blackberry on the block be removed. They were not willing to do this, however, since the land was held in common and part of it was owned by the Crown. Following their approach to the Native Minister, the minister applied to have the Crown's interests partitioned out.485
By 1923, the non-selling owners were still waiting for their partition. Taylor of Whakaki resorted to wiring Apirana N gata on their behalf to beg his assistance to persuade the Native Minister to get the partition pushed through the Native Land Court. Lysnar was also brought in to bring additional pressure to bear on Coates.486
The Gazette of 26 July 1923 finally contained a proclamation that Hereheretau B2K, a block of 256 acres, had been proclaimed Crown land.487 The non-sellers had had a very long wait for their partition. Later, however, this block of Crown land was vested
483 F J Foot to Native Minister, 24 September 1919, MA 1 1919/542, NA Wellington 484 quotation from Goffe to Under Secretary, 17 October 1919; offer declined in Under Secretary to F J Foote, 28 October 1919, both in MA 1 1919/542 485 Coates to Under Secretary, Native, 8 June 1921; Under Secretary, Native, to Under Secretary, Lands, 5 July 1921, both in MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1 486 Telegram Taylor to Apirana Ngata, 9 January 1923; Telegram Lysnar to Coates, 9 January 1923 - note this latter telegram refers to Hereheretau No 2, but this may well be an erroneous reference to Hereheretau H2. Both in MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1 487 Extract from New Zealand Gazette No 60, 26 July 1923, in MA-MLP 1 1913/88/1
91 back in Maori as a result of an exchange related to the Urewera Consolidation.488 It has not been possible in the time available for this project to discover the rationale behind this exchange.
Meanwhile, there had been numerous other transactions in connection with other subdivisions of Hereheretau B. For instance, on 24 July 1919 a sale by various Maori owners of Hereheretau BIlE to Myra Powdrell was confirmed subject to various conditions about payment. On the other hand, on the same day the board refused to confirm a sale of an interest in Hereheretau B10A1 to Myra Powdrell on the grounds that the sale 'would be against the interest of the Native vendor.' The reason is not stated.489 In August 1919, however, a sale of an interest in Hereheretau B10A1 by Te Rauna Hape to Myra Powdrell was confirmed by the land board subject to an increase in price and proof that payment had been made. 490
As had been the case prior to the attempted intervention of the Crown, local Maori were also involved in transactions which came before the Maori Land Board. For example, in January 1920 Patu Te Rito succeeded in leasing the interests of an owner in B4F for fifteen years. The board required him to agree to lay down 'Good English grasses at least two years before the end of term' , and to return it to the owner with the grass in place.491 The following month, the board apparently confirmed a sale of an interest in B4E by a member of the Te Rito family to Ariki Mete.492
4.5 Initial Interest in Crown Purchases in Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A Section 4.4 mentions that Hereheretau No 2 was one of the blocks which a 1913 deputation including Hunter Brown advocated opening up for sheep-farming. Three years later, the Native Minister received a further deputation. J Corkill, the Mayor of Wairoa, G Ormond, the chairman of the Wairoa County Council, and A Sinclair, a member of the Wairoa County Council, told the minister that returned soldiers from the Wairoa district wanted something done for them. They advised the purchase for this purpose of two blocks of Maori land. One was Hereheretau No 2. The other was the much smaller Kopua block. The minister agreed to investigate the situation.493
Goffe, the Native Land Purchase Officer, reported on both blocks. His report is particularly interesting in light of the delegation's claim that both blocks were 'lying idle'. He pointed out that Judge Jones was still engaged in reassessing relative interests in Hereheretau No 2 under the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1913.494 Apart from this, however, he stated that
488 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Under Secretary,Native, 8 November 1926; Registrar, Tairawhiti Native Land Court to Under Secretary, Native, 18 November 1926, both in MA MLP 1 1913/88/l. 489 Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board Minute Book No 9, pp 40, 44, Repro 909, NA Wellington 490 ibid, P 67 491 ibid, pp 158,287 492 ibid, pp 179,236 - Note that the handwriting in the minute book is particularly difficult to read here. 493 Office of the Minister for Native Affairs to Under Secretary, Native, 24 July 1916, MA- MLP 1 1913/89 494 See section 3.12
92 The Block in question is very desirable land to purchase for the purpose of close settlement and would cut up well into small holdings. The Principal owners are farming this improved property and I do not think would sell except at a very high figure. Still there are a great many outsiders and small holders who no doubt will readily sell at the Govt Value if the land is opened up for sale to the Crown495
Once again it would appear that Goffe' s attitude is dominated by a desire to achieve maximum sales of desirable land to the Crown. There is no sign here of any desire to promote Maori efforts to farm their own land.496
Shortly afterwards, the Wairoa County Clerk informed the Native Minister that the Native Land Court had determined relative interests in the block, and that pakeha were trying to buy these.497 The Native Land Purchase Board responded by prohibiting alienations other than to the Crown for a year from 2 October 1916.498 Goffe was instructed to begin the purchase of individual interests in the block. He was warned to check that none of the sellers would be left landless. 499
Almost immediately, however, the Native Minister received a petition from Patu Te Rito and twenty-four others asking for the lifting of the restriction on the grounds that the owners had made arrangements to lease the land to themselves for the owners to farm. Many of them would be left landless without this land. Other well-known local family names which appeared among the signatories were Huka, Munro and Hape. In the words of the translated petition they wrote: We have received notices in regard to the restrictions which you have had palced [sic] upon Hereheretau No.2, staying the intentions of the owners to work it. This is very distressing to us in view of the fact that we had completed arrangements to lease the land to ourselves, to be farmed by the owners. Therefore we who have hereunto subscribed our names now entreat of you to have the consideration to withdraw that restriction from against our interests in the block. We ourselves own 5,000 acres of this land, and no one of us want to sell. Because, this is our only land which is suitable for us to farm for ourselves. Not only so but there are many of us who have no other interests at all. We hear that you propose to buy this land for soldiers. Listen to this, thirteen of our young men who are owners in this block - have already gone to the war. How are these, who have gone off expecting to return to their own places in our midst, to fare if their interests here are sold; they have no other land. ... We still have your solemnly given word before us, namely, that you never would bar the Maoris from properly working and improving their lands. Now, this land, excepting a very small portion, has been so improved by us that it carries over 4,000 sheep
495 Goffe to Under Secretary, Native, 30 July 1916, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 496 For a map indicating Maori clearing of Hereheretau No 2 and No 2A, presumably mostly for farming, see Figure 4 497 County Clerk, Wairoa County Council, to Native Minister, 30 August 1916, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 498 Extract from New Zealand Gazette No 113 5 October 1916, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 499 Acting Under Secretary to Goffe, 4 October 1916, MA-MLP 1 1913/89
93 already. This will show you that we have busily improved it, despite our difficulties about Courts, during the past 45 years. One report we hear is that our Pakeha friends, Paura, Teomana, Hinikerea and others, have advised you to buy our land. Now these men hold probably 20,000 acres. Why then should purchase be diverted (kotiti) towards our remnant ofland? Why not, instead take the land ofthose men .... 500
The registrar of the Tairawhiti Maori Land Court had informed the Acting Under Secretary for Native Affairs that applications had been lodged for a lease of Hereheretau No 2 to Teo Rangikangaehe Winiata and for a lease of Hereheretau No 2A to Morehu Mumo. The acting under secretary assumed that both ofthese would be blocked by the prohibition, but asked Goffe for further information about them. 501
Shortly thereafter, James Thorpe protested to the Native Minister that he had read in the Gisborne Times that Goffe was about to visit Wairoa to try to secure interests in Hereheretau No 2. He claimed that the block was still sub judice. He questioned the propriety of allowing land purchases under these circumstances. He argued that those who were uncertain of their rights would hurry to sell, and that this would cause considerable problems.s02
In December 1916, Goffe told the under secretary that an application by Teo and Watene Winiata to lease Hereheretau No 2 had been withdrawn. The application for Hereheretau No 2A by Morehu Mumo was, however, still active. It applied to a distinct block unaffected by the existing prohibition. He recommended that a prohibition should be issued for this block too.
As regards Hereheretau No 2, Goffe admitted that the judge had not drawn up his order regarding the block, and that he could not proceed until this had been done. Nevertheless, he claimed that Patu Te Rito was now delighted about the supposed protection of the block by the Crown.
It is difficult to know how much credence to put on Goffe's version of the views of Patu Te Rito. He claimed, however, that Patu Te Rito was pleased that the prohibition would stop sales to private persons who had advanced money to owners on their interests in the block. He asserted that Te Rito would be happy if either the Crown bought the whole block and gave him and his people a lease 'somewhat on the lines of the Hurakia Block scheme', or if the Crown bought out those with small interests and outsiders - presumably those not resident locally - and partitioned the block so that he and his people could work the rest of it. He said that the petitioners wanted to farm only three to five thousand acres of the block. 503
4.5.1 The Crown Purchase of Hereheretau No 2A
500 Translation, Patu Te Rito and 24 others to Native Minister, 12 October 1916, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 501 Acting Under Secretary to Goffe, 17 October 1916, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 502 James Thorpe to Native Minister, 26 November 1916, MA-MLP 1 1913/89; see also telegram Thorpe to Herries, 16 December 1916, same file 503 Goffe to Under Secretary, 2 December 1916, MA-MLP 1 1913/89
94 In December 1916, an order in council placed a year's prohibition on alienations of Hereheretau No 2A other than to the Crown. 504 A meeting of asssembled owners of Hereheretau No 2A was called for 19 April 1917 at Wairoa. 505 Goffe told the under secretary that he had 'left no stone unturned' to get the resolution to sell to the Crown passed. Having been promised a new valuation to allow the owners the benefit of any increase in value since 1913, the majority had agreed to the resolution. 506
The under secretary for Native Affairs instructed Goffe to try to get those opposed to the sale to change their minds. Goffe was to seek to buy these shares by individual purchases. The under secretary commented that It is possible that the dissentients may change their minds within a short time and be quite prepared to sell upon receiving cash for their shares. 507
Four owners - Marara Houmea, Pari Munro, Kati Tiarere and Mutu te Kaweaka - filed a Memorial of Dissent to the sale. 508 Later it emerged that there were more dissentients. These were almost all members ofthe Menero or Monro family. 509
The Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board refused to confirm the resolution until the interests of these owners had been partitioned out. 510 The under secretary tried strenuously to get the board to reverse this decision. He argued that other boards had confirmed resolutions subject to the interests of dissentient owners being partitioned out later. He claimed this process had two advantages. Firstly, the Native Land Purchase Board could adopt the resolution and pay the appropriate purchase money to vendors, who got their money without delay. Secondly,the Crown gained an opportunity to negotiate to buy the interests of non-sellers. It is frequently found that dissentients change their minds and dispose of their land to the Crown by direct sale, and advantage accrues to both parties in that the cost of partition and survey is saved. 511
It seems possible that the Crown, in advocating this course, hoped that the sight of money actually in the hands of owners who were selling would induce non-sellers to change their minds. In this particular case, however, the president of the land board simply refused to change his position.512 The under secretary demanded an explanation of his bald refusal. He claimed that subsection I (c) of section 348 of the Native Land Act 1909, as amended by section 100 of the Amendment Act 1913, under which he assumed the board was acting, was in conflict with subsection 2 of section
504 Extract from New Zealand Gazette No 142,21 December 1916, MA-MLP 1 1917/52 505 Telegram Registrar, Gisbome, to Under Secretary, 5 April 1917, MA-MLP 1 1917/52 506 Goffe to Under Secretary, 24 April 1917, MA-MLP 1 1917/52; Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board Minute Book No 8, p 154, Repro 908, NA Wellington ~ Under Secretary to Goffe, 1 May 1917, MA-MLP 11917/ 52 508 Registrar, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, to Under Secretary, Native, 12 May 1917, MA MLP 1 1917/52 509 Registrar to Under Secretary, 24 November 1917, MA-MLP 1 1917/52 510 Under Secretary to Native Minister, 14 September '7', MA-MLP 11917/52 5lJ Under Secretary to Registrar, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, 23 May 1917, MA MLP 1 1917/52 512 Registrar to Under Secretary, 9 July 1917, MA-MLP 1 1917/52
95 348 of the Native Land Act 1909. He claimed that the board could confirm the resolution of the meeting of assembled owners under the latter subsection, and that neither the vendors nor the non-selling owners would be disadvantaged by this.513 His efforts proved unsuccessful. The board did not finally confirm the sale until the Native 514 Land Court had partitioned the block.
The evidence given to the land court over the partition indicates that the Crown chose to buy this block at a time when one family amongst the beneficial owners was making considerable efforts to farm the block. Other owners had used the block to graze seeph or cut tIm. b er. 515
The first owner to use the block for sheep was apparently Heremaia Hikitangarangi. This owner had been prominent in the various hearings involving Ngati Hinepua and their place in Hereheretau No 2 which were discussed in Chapter 3. He had lived on 516 the southwest corner of the block. Heremaiahad been dead since about 1906.
The main people to use the block in more recent years had clearly been Tuku Monro and his family. Morehu Monro, whose lease application has been mentioned above, gave evidence ... I am one of the sons of Tuku Monro There were 8 of us. 1 gone to the war & 7 at home on the block farming. I am about 26 years old, & have been all my live [sic] on this block. My father Tuku died last year. he had been occupying this block as long as I can remember had 600 sheep, some horses. Formerly lived on block & had orchards & cultivations there. The orchard is still there & traces of the houses. My father & brothers cleared northwards from our house More than half the block has been cleared & grassed by us. It is clean now. The Munro family did all the work. . ..
No one else lived on the block except Heremaia and us. We made large improvements 3 years ago. All the work was done by our family & one Warihi a wages man. We sowed 24 bags of grass seed I do not know if my family paid rates or rent. ...
We were in expectation of getting a lease. A resolution of Assembled Owners was passed but as the relative shares had not been defined the Board would not confirm the resolution. By a "Wash up Bill" the relatives [sic] shares were defined & before we could get a valid lease the Crown issued a proclamation There was no lease previously to meeting of assembled owners. We arranged a verbal lease. I do not know t h e partlcu. Iars. . .. 517
513 Under Secretary to Registrar, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, 18 July 1917, MA MLP 1 1917/52 514 Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board Minute Book No 8, P 201, Repro 908, NA Wellington 515 Extract from Wairoa MB 29, 3rd page [unnumbered extract], MA-MLP 1 1917/52 516 Extract from Wairoa MB 29, 4th page, 5th page, same file 517 Extract from Wairoa MB 29, 3rd-4th pages, same file
96 The Crown's decision to forbid alienations other than to the Crown seems to have had the effect of preventing the other owners from obtaining long overdue rental income from their land. This may quite possibly have been a factor influencing the decision of the majority of owners to sell to the Crown. In addition to this, the Crown's intention to purchase the block plainly put enormous difficulties in the way of owners who had given clear proof of their wish to regularise their occupation of this block and to develop it further for farming purposes.
Once the shares of the non-selling owners were clarified, the Crown was left with a block consisting of 675 acres 1 rood 13 perches, called Hereheretau No 2A2. 518 The Crown paid purchase money of £2894 3s 18d for the area. 519 The non-sellers' part of the block, Hereheretau No 2A1, consisting of about 75 acres, was located in the southwest corner. The Commissioner for Crown Lands in Napier was not displeased with this location. He reported to the Under Secretary for Lands It only affects a very small area and in fact the more inconvenient it 520 may be, perhaps it will be the better for US.
Meanwhile, the Crown continued to use prohibitions on alienations other than to the Crown as it sought to secure the balance of the block. The prohibition was extended for a further six months in December 1917. 521
In March 1918, Judge Gilfedder, who had partitioned the block, wrote to the Minister of Lands to forward a request from J M Taylor and D Pryde, two European sheepfarmers from Whakaki. Both men wanted the Monro family to be granted the lease of Hereheretau No 2A block. He enclosed a letter from Taylor. This revealed that both Taylor and Pryde employed some of the eight young men in the family and that they considered them to be 'deserving'. Gilfedder commented that the family were 'practically "Landless" within the meaning of the Native Land Act 1909.' He thought that two of the boys were then at the war, and that the remaining land was too little to provide a living for a family of this size. He himself clearly favoured them having the first chance to lease the block. 522 It seems somewhat ironic, given the war service of family members, that they were to lose the use of the block to the Maori Soldiers' Fund.
In March 1919, the Native Land Purchase agent Goffe reported that one of the remaining owners had offered his interest to the Crown at £3 lOs an acre, the price paid to earlier sellers. This owner expected two others to follow him. 523 A year's prohibition on alienations other than to the Crown was again placed on the block in
518 Extract from N Z Gazette, No 37, 14 March 1918, MA-MLP 1 1917/52 gives area of new block. 519 Under Secretary, Native, to Under Secretary, Lands, 19 March 1918, MA-MLP I 1917/52 520 Commissioner Crown Lands, Napier, to Under Secretary, Lands, 10 December 1917, same file 521 Extract from N Z Gazette No 179, l3 December 1917, same file 522 M Gilfedder to Minister of Lands, 15 March 1918, with J G Taylor to Judge Gilfedder, 14 January 1918,both in AADS Acc W3562 Box 312 Bundle 685 LS 22/1984, file 24 April 1917 to 23 December 1924 523 Goffe to Under Secretary, Native, 14 March 1917, MA-MLP 1 1919/12
97 April 1919.524 The under secretary told Goffe that it had been decided to purchase the block by buying individual interests at the original price.525
The Monro family, however, were clearly most reluctant to part with their land, despite this pressure from the Crown. In April 1920 the prohibition on alienations other than to the Crown was extended for a further six months. 526 By 28 August 1920, the Crown had succeeded in acquiring only 9 acres 1 rood and 12 perches of the remaining Maori land, and Goffe was planning a trip to Wairoa to assess the position of the family holding the balance. 527 This was presumably the Momos. In September 1920, the prohibition on alienations other than to the Crown was extended again, this time for 18 months.
In February 1921, the Land Purchase Agent John Harvey reported to the under secretary that he did not think there was 'much probability' of being able to buy further interests in the block. The non sellers are a particularly obstinate family deluded with the idea that they are farming this land. 528
The non-sellers' block had amounted to just under 75 acres. Farming such a small area presumably presented considerable difficulties. At any rate, Harvey was concerned that the state of the non-sellers' block would be a problem for the adjoining Crown area once that had been cleared. In the meantime, the Crown land had been leased by the Maori Soldiers' Fund. The manager of the trust farm had repeatedly asked whether the non-sellers' land could be acquired by an exchange with Hereheretau B2, where the Crown also had interests. Harvey had had a third party check whether the owners of Hereheretau No 2Al would consider such an exchange. Apparently they were willing to do SO.529
A year later, Harvey again suggested this exchange. He said that it would be advantageous to both the Crown, with its adjoining land, and to Maori. He pointed out that Hereheretau No 2A 1 ... is getting over run with blackberry chiefly for the reason that it is not worth anyone's while to work the land properly on account of quality and quantity.
He noted that although Hereheretau B had been included in the Urewera scheme, such an exchange had been provided for to deal with the Hereheretau No 2Al situation.53o In April 1922, after the previous prohibition on private alienations had finally expired, a further prohibition was put on the block. 531
524 Extract from N Z Gazette No 44, 10 April 1919, same file 525 Under Secretary to Goffe, 23 April 1919, same file 526 Extract from N Z Gazette No 36, 8 April 1920, same file 527 Goffe to Under Secretary, 28 August 1920, same file m Harvey to Under Secretary, 14 Feb mary 1921, same file 529 same letter, same file 530 Harvey to Under Secretary, 25 May 1922, same file 531 Extract from N Z Gazette No 33, 27 April 1922, same file
98 The exchange proposal might well have given the Momos access to land which could have been more successfully farmed. The suggestion came to nothing. The Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, pointed out that the adjoining Crown land was leased for 33 years with a right of renewal for another 33 years. He claimed that the act under which the lease had been made did not give the power to lease any of Hereheretau No 2Al, should the Crown acquire it. He thought the Crown should leave its interest in the small block undefined. He refused to recommend the exchange.532
The Native Department did not agree with his opposition to acquiring the rest of the block. Harvey suggested the Crown might have a duty to gain control of the area, given local publicity about the 'blackberry menace' and the fact that it bordered on the land of 'responsible European settlers' .533 Alienations other than to the Crown were 534 prohibited again for a year from 22 December 1923. Finally, in May, June and August 1924 the remaining owners, almost all Momos, sold their interests to the Crown. The last portion of the land the family had hoped to continue to farm thus passed from them. On the other hand, these later sellers received £4 4s 4 3/4d an acre, a somewhat higher price than those who sold initially.535 The block was proclaimed 536 Crown land in October 1924.
4.5.2 The Maori Soldiers Fund and Initial Crown Purchases in Hereheretau No 2 Section 4.5 indicated that a year's prohibition of alienations other than to the Crown was imposed on Hereheretau No 2 from October 1916. It is only after this step had been taken that the first signs of interest in the block on the part ofthe Maori Soldiers' Fund emerge. The more general early history of the fund will be covered in Chapter 5. This section will deal with the interactions of people associated with the fund, partiCUlarly Sir Apirana Ngata, with those involved in the purchase and leasing of part of Hereheretau No 2.
On 11 September 1917, James Carroll and Apirana Ngata wrote to the Native Minister. They noted that the Crown seemed to have acquired 'a substantial footing' in Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A. They suggested that the land the Crown had bought should be set aside to be settled by Maori soldiers, or to be leased by the Trustees of the Maori Soldiers' Fund. They proposed that the interests already bought by the Crown should be partitioned and that the trustees of the fund, or Maori soldiers, should be given an opportunity 'to acquire the rest of the blocks or as much thereof as the owners will allow by way oflease.,537
Herries told the pair that the disposal of the land was a matter for the Minister of Lands. He suggested an application to that minister.538 September also saw a six month extension of the prohibition on alienation other than to the Crown.539
532 Commissioner for Crown Lands to Secretary, Lands, 23 September 1922, MA-MLP 1 1919/12 533 Harvey to Und er Secretary, 18 October 1922, same file 534 Extract from N Z Gazette No 1, 10 January 1924, same file 535 Sheet showing names of owners, shares and amounts and dates of payment, same file 536 Extract from N Z Gazette No 68, 23 October 1924, same file 537 JCarroll&A T Ngata to Native Minister, 11 September 1917,MA-MLP 11913/89 538 Native Minister to J Carroll & A T N gata, 17 September 1917, same file
99 On 23 October 1917, Sir James Carroll, Dr Pomare and Ngata took their ideas to W F Massey, the Minister of Lands. Ngata immediately followed this up with a memorandum on their hopes for Hereheretau No 2 and No 2A. Although the lands in question are not out of the hands of the Native Land Purchase Board, we want if possible to arrive at an understanding with you regarding their destination and disposition after they are proclaimed Crown lands. The Trustees of the Maori Soldiers Fund desire to obtain leases over the same as an investment for the Maori Soldiers Fund, an investment authorised by Sec. 13 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1916. The Trustees have sufficient money in hand to commence operations next summer or autumn if the above lands were available: and are anxious to do so, so that they may command a good revenue from farming operations before the Maori Soldiers return and make demands on the fund.
The Maoris of the Wairoa District where these lands are situated were the first to offer their services at the commencement of the war, and have in money and men splendidly contributed to the resources of the country. It was their wish expressed to Sir James Carroll and myself at a large meeting held in April last that this application should be made to the Government.
The alternative to the leasing of these lands to the Trustess [sic] mentioned above is to set the same aside for settlement by Maori discharged soldiers.
In case it is decided to hand the lands over to the Trustees I presume that legislation will be necessary, but it is too soon to ask that such legislation should be introduced this session. It will be sufficient if you will assure us that this application will be favourably considered. 54o [Emphasis added.]
The response to this letter was somewhat confusing. A letter sent under Massey's signature on 21 December 1917 told Ngata that Maori soldiers could apply for land on an equal footing with other New Zealand returned servicemen under the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915 and its amendments. It was, the letter said, 'inadvisable' to use Crown land to benefit Maori soldiers only. It would be the function of the Hawke's Bay Land Board to allot land proclaimed under the act to the best qualified soldiers in that area.
In March 1918, however, Massey minuted the letter to say that it
539 Extract from N Z Gazette No 143,20 September 1917, same file 540 A T Ngata to Minister of Lands, 23 October 1917, AADS Acc W3562 Box 312 Bundle 685 LS 22/1984 file 24 April 1917 to 23 December 1924, NA Wellington
100 ... was written under a misapprehension. A promise was made to the Native members that the block referred to here would be reserved for Native soldiers and settled in the same way as for European soldiers.541
Meanwhile, back in December 1917, Patu Te Rito and three other owners in Hereheretau No 2 wrote to the Native Land Purchase Officer in Gisborne. They described themselves as the principal non-sellers in the block. They said that they now wanted to sell to the Crown. The price offered, £2 13s 9d was, however, much lower than the value of the land. They offered to sell at four pounds an acre. They asserted that this price would be approved by all the non-sellers, and that the sale could take place through a meeting of assembled owners. This process 'would wipe up the whole of the block.' 542
The price originally offered represented the 1913 valuation of the block. Up to 21 December 1917, the Native Land Purchase Board had acquired about 4184 acres of the 8750 acres in Hereheretau No 2. Goffe told the under secretary that he was sure that with the assistance of these particular owners, they could gain assent for a sale from almost all the remaining owners. He did anticipate continuing refusal to sell from Karena Rawhi 'and his section'. This would necessitate cutting out 500 to 700 acres. On the other hand, the Crown would benefit as it would acquire small shares and 'other dead persons' shares'. These would take a long time fully to acquire otherwise.
Goffe recommended that the application for an increase in the price should be granted. He said that he was 'fully satisfied that a fresh valuation would warrant the same. ,543 This seems to suggest that he considered that the price being paid to owners up to that point was in fact decidedly on the low side.
It is unclear what had changed the attitude of Patu Te Rito and his fellow owners. Were they driven simply by the desire to drive up the price of their land to what they considered a fairer level? Were they disheartened by the prohibition on alienation other than to the Crown? This, as their earlier petition had noted, stood in the way of their previous plans to lease to some of the owners. Was the situation of the Maori Soldiers' Fund a significant influence on them? Did they expect that the land needs of returned servicemen among their own people would be met through this fund? Perhaps all three of these factors had an influence upon their decision.
N gata' s October 1917 letter said that the application to have land leased to the fund, or alternatively to Maori returned servicemen, emerged out of the wishes of Wairoa Maori expressed at a meeting held in April 1917. Efforts have been made to establish what happened at this meeting. Unfortunately the local newspapers did not report in any detail on this gathering. The only report which could conceivably refer to Hereheretau is the statement that while visiting Wellington the committee of the Maori Soldiers' Fund
541 W F Massey to Ngata, 21 December 1917, with minute by Massey, 6 March 1918, AADS Acc W3562 ... same file 542 Patu Te Rito and 3 others, 15 December 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 543 Goffe to Under Secretary, 21 December 1917, MA-MLP 1 1913/89
101 ·.. interviewed the Hon W.H.Herries relative to obtaining grazing rights over native land being purchased on the East Coast by the Native Land Purchase Board. The committee desired grazing rights for the purpose of depasturing stock. The Minister was sympathetic, and said that he would look into the request. 544
There is, however, no mention of arrangements being made at the Wairoa meeting about any specific block or blocks. This meeting with the Minister may have concerned some other area of the East Coast. The most likely block seems to be N gamoe. In June 1917, the executive committee of the Maori Soldiers Fund Council considered a letter from the Native Minister dated 10 May. This was in reply to an application for grazing rights over the Crown's undivided interests in the Ngamoe block. The minister agreed to grant such rights over about 1500 acres in various subdivisions of the block at 5s per acre per annum until the Land Department needed the land for settlement. Ngata reported that the land was currently unsuitable for grazing, and the offer was therefore turned down. 545
There is also no sign in the correspondence about Hereheretau No 2 later in the year that this particular area had already been discussed with Herries. It has therefore not been possible to shed any further light on Ngata's statement to the minister. Consequently it is impossible to gauge whether what happened at this meeting did in fact have any bearing upon the actions of Patu Te Rito and other owners who considered selling much later in the year.
The Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, reported to the Under Secretary for Lands that, on the basis of information supplied by the District Surveyor, he was oppposed to increasing the price paid for Hereheretau No 2 to £4 an acre. He did recommend an increase to about £3 3s. To jump up the price 50% in sympathy with increases in improved lands in the district is too much.
It will be an expensive block to road and the cost of this in conjunction with all other charges would mean the opening of the lands at an average of over £4 per acre, and it is only a few months ago that a special valuation for the purchase of Section 1 Block XIV Opoiti (Clydebank Settlement) determined the unimproved value of that sectIOn. at £5 .546
He also thought that the non-sellers' interests would prove to be more than the 500 to 700 acres expected by Goffe. He supplied a map of the block. He commented that about 2000 acres of the block had been cleared and grassed. This land was 'probably of fair value'. Not very surprisingly, he expected the non-sellers to try to have their interests defined in part of this area.
544 Poverty Bay Herald, 10 April 1917, p 3 545 Minute Book of the Proceedings of the Maori Soldiers' Fund Council & Trustees, p 8, MA Acc W2685, NA Wellington 546 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Under Secretary, Lands, 19 February 1918, AADS Acc W3562 ... , file cited above
102 Further debate ensued about the correct price. The Crown Lands Ranger in Gisborne told the Commissioner for Crown Lands in Napier that he considered the price which was already being paid for the block 'a very fair value in its present state.' He admitted that the District Valuer in Hastings had placed a £4 per acre unimproved value on a southwest area of the block. This area had advantages in terms of access. He considered this value to be at least ten shillings per acre too high. He suggested that the price be raised to £3 per acre, with valuation for improvements. 547
The Commissioner for Crown Lands, however, favoured going three or five shillings higher. 548 Meanwhile, Gaffe was pressing for £4 per acre. He feared that Patu Te Rito would withdraw his offer. He said that the block in question is a really fine piece of land and cheap at the price compared with other lands in the district now selling at very high prices which make the Natives discontented with the Govt price549
In March 1918, the prohibition on alienation other than to the Crown was extended for a further 18 months.55o In May, the Native Land Purchase Board authorised the purchase of remaining interests in the block at £3 5s.551 By November, the Crown had bought about 720 acres of the block at the new price. 552
Meanwhile, the Maori Soldiers' Trust were still hoping to lease the block. In December 1918, Ngata forwarded a draft clause to authorise this to the Under Secretary for Lands. 553 The government proposed to introduce the legislation in the following session.554 Ngata pressed the Minister of Lands to allow the trustees to occupy the land at an early date. He wanted temporary tenancies of the block to be terminated. 555
This idea prompted a very blunt exposition of the ideas of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, on Maori and Maori farming. It seems curious that the Crown should spend large sums of money in buying land from certain Natives for the benefit of other Natives to be worked by the latter apparently on the communal system. I am unkind enough to think it is an admission that the average Maori is a failure as an individual farmer, but as a shareholder may receive dividends - after the management expenses have been met.
547 Crown Lands Ranger, Gisbome, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 27 March 1918, same file 548 Commissioner Crown Lands, Napier, to Under Secretary, Lands, forwarding letter from Crown Lands Ranger dated 27 March 1918, same file 549 Goffe to Under Secretary, 7 March 1918, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 550 Extract from N Z Gazette No 40, 21 March 1918, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 551 Under Secretary to Goffe, telegram 26 May 1918, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 552 illegible, Gisbome, to Under Secretary, 6 November 1918, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 553 Ngata to Under Secretary, Lands, 3 December 1918, AADS Acc W3562 ... , same file 554 Minister of Lands to James Carroll, 6 December 1918, AADS Ace W3562 ... , same file 555 Ngata to Minister of Lands, 15 January 1919, AADS Ace W3562 ... , same file
103 What the Dominion requires in the vicinity of Wairoa is a good white farmer on every section that will support one, and as Commissioner of Crown Lands I should be very sorry if Hereheretau is not wholly or nearly wholly acquired and opened for settlement by suitable men. 556 [Emphasis added.]
In accordance with his instruction, however, the commissioner proposed a basis on which the rent to be paid by the Maori Soldiers Fund could be set. 557
The existing tenants were instructed to move their stock by the end of February 1919. 558 It seems that the pressure from the fund to occupy the block was somewhat premature. The Crown interests had not yet been partitioned out. Moreover, the legislation to allow the fund to lease it had yet to be passed. The commissioner started to press for rent of £930 for the block. 559 The fund pressed for a partition. Pitt, the secretary, argued that the fund could not undertake any work on the block until the Crown's area was defined. 560
By October 1919, J Thomson, a Native Land Purchasing Officer, supported the idea of partition. He argued that it was only fair that non-sellers should be given an opportunity to farm their areas properly, 'as at present it is farmed in the usual Maori fashion.' He reported that the property was reverting to fern and scrub as a result of owners who had sold having removed their stock. 561
In January 1920, Ngata wrote to the Minister of Lands asking for a remission of the rent because the Crown's interest in the block would not be partitioned until the end of t h at month. Consequently the trustees had not been able to occupy the land. ~ The partition order for Hereheretau No 2D from the 30 January hearing before Judge Browne shows the Crown as owning 5697 acres 1 rood and 5 perches.563 Karena Rawhi appealed on the grounds that the part of the block that had passed to the Crown contained all his improvements.564 This appeal was subsequently withdrawn.565
In February 1921, Hereheretau No 2D was proclaimed Crown land. For reasons that will require further research the area of the block was now given as 6144 acres 3 roods
556 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Under Secretary, Lands, 24 January 1919, AADS Acc W3562 ... , same file 557 ibid, loc cit 558 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Under Secretary, Lands, AADS Acc W3562 ... , same file 559 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Under Secretary, Lands, 3 September 1919; Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Under Secretary, Lands, 21 November 1919, both in AADS Acc W3562 ... , same file 560 Pitt, Secretary, Maori Soldiers' Fund Council, to Native Minister, 11 September 1919, MA MLP 1 1913/89 561 Thomson to Under Secretary, 6 October 1919, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 562 Ngata to Guthrie, 17 January 1920, AADS Acc W3562 ... , same file 563 Partition Order, Hereheretau No 2D, 8/8/82-16, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 564 Registrar to Under Secretary, 5 March 1920, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 565 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to Under Secretary, Lands, 16 December 1921, AADS Acc W3562 ... , same file
104 4 1I 2 perches. 566 The lease of Hereheretau No 2D and No 2A2 began on 1922. It was to run for 33 years with a right ofrenewal for another 33 years. The annual rental was 567 set at £1125 per annum.
While the partition and the Maori Soldiers' Fund lease were dragging on, the Crown's desire to buy land in Hereheretau No 2 continued. A further year's prohibition of alienation other than to the Crown was made in October 1919. In September 1920 this 568 was extended for a further six months.
By 1921, Ngata was aware that the Maori Soldiers' Fund could not cope with more 569 Hereheretau land, were the Crown to acquire more. There was, however, continuing pakeha pressure to gain access to this land, and to parts of Hereheretau B. The Gisbome Returned Soldiers' Association had been less than pleased when it heard that 570 preference was to be given to Maori soldiers in Hereheretau No 2.
W D Lysnar, on behalf of various unnamed Wairoa people, protested to the Native Minister in February 1920 about the position of the two blocks. Lysnar had a very clear perception of the unfortunate effects of constantly extended restrictions on alienation other than to the Crown. He suggested that .. .it is unfair to the natives living on the improved part that they should be hampered by this proclamation, and that the government should not attempt to buy their homes over their heads, and that the areas which they are cultivating and using should be exempt from the portion to be acqUIre. dby t h e government. 571
At the same time, though, he advocated 'more energetic steps' to acquire the 'virgin portion' of Hereheretau No 2, along with the swamp land. This presumably referred to at least part of Hereheretau B. Once again, Lysnar raised the spectre of the dreaded blackberry. The restrictions placed on the land by the government resulted, he argued, in Maori not taking as great an interest in clearing it. It was becoming 'a menace to the whole locality.,572
566 Extract from N Z Gazette No 18,17 February 1921, MA-MLP 1 1913/89 [Checked against original Gazette] Maori Land Information Office Research Summary has an incorrect Gazette date reference for this proclamation. 8/8/82 - 16, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court It is possible that the discrepancy may relate to the boundary between two Survey Districts. 567 Memorandum for the Native Trustee on the Maori Soldiers' Fund, 30 July 1925, MA 1 70/1 vol 4, NA Wellington For area of the original Hereheretau Station, see Figure 5 568 Extract from N Z Gazette No 126,30 October 1919; Extract from N Z Gazette No 83, 30 September 1920, both in MA-MLP 1 1913/89 569 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Under Secretary, Lands, 16 December 1921, AADS Acc W3562 ... , same file 570 Secretary, Gisborne Returned Soldiers'Association, 15 May 1919, AADS Acc W3562 ... , same file 571 Lysnar to Native Minister, 2 February 1920, MA-MLP 1 19l3/89 572 ibid, loc cit
105 In October 1925, Hereheretau 2B, a block of 166 acres and 6 perches, and Hereheretau No 2c2c, a block of 281 acres, were proclaimed Crown land. 573 The background to these further purchases will not be explored further here. In October 1925, Hereheretau 2B, a block of 166 acres and 6 perches, and Hereheretau No 2c2c, a block of 281 acres, were proclaimed Crown land.574 The background to these further purchases will not be explored further here.
4.6 Conclusion During the years between 1905 and 1920, the pakeha community was making strong efforts to gain more land for pakeha farmers. Some of this happened as individual farmers or members of their families sought to lease or buy through meetings of assembled owners. Local bodies and prominent individuals also made repeated efforts to persuade the Crown to purchase land which could then be sold on to pakeha farmers. Some government officials in this area made it abundantly clear that they had little or no respect for Maori farming. The obnoxious blackberry was repeatedly referred to as some pakeha argued that Maori were not properly caring for their land.
The Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board was set up under the 1905 legislation and given further powers in 1909. The experience of Maori with the board seems to have been mixed. Karena Rawhi's dissatisfaction about his difficulties over Hereheretau B9 seems wholly understandable. The actions of the land board in confirming the sale of the interests of an owner who was serving overseas are interesting.
On the other hand, the land board could sometimes take a stand that the Native Land Purchase Board, focused on alienating Maori land, found exasperating. The refusal of the board to confirm the resolution of the majority of assembled owners of Hereheretau No 2A to sell to the Crown until the non-sellers' interests had been partitioned out is a case in point.
On occasion, Maori themselves were apparently reluctant to lease to fellow Maori. In the case of the Hereheretau B2 block, it is possible that the value of the lagoon or lake in terms of traditional foods such as eels was a contributing factor. In other cases, however, Maori were keen to see their land leased to one or more of themselves. In Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A, some Maori owners had put considerable effort into sheep farming. They wanted to be able to regularise their position. Many of the divisions of Hereheretau B were valued by their owners for various purposes.
The Crown could have probably have made a significant impact on the well-being of the local Maori community had it chosen to foster Maori farming at this time. Instead, the Crown used its powers under the 1909 and 1913 legislation to press on with Crown purchases in these blocks regardless of vociferous Maori protests. Some owners in two Hereheretau B subdivisions invoked the Treaty of Waitangi, but Crown efforts to purchase, at least in Hereheretau B2, continued despite this. In 1923, 256 acres of this block was proclaimed Crown land. For reasons that are currently unclear,
573 N Z Gazette No 68,8 October 1925, Maori Land Information Office Research Summary, 8/8/82-16, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court. Reference checked against Gazette original. 574 N Z Gazette No 68,8 October 1925, Maori Land Information Office Research Summary, 8/8/82-16, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court. Reference checked against Gazette original.
106 however, this block was vested back in Maori through an exchange related to the Urewera Consolidation. he Treaty of Waitangi was invoked, but to no avail.
The rehearing of relative interests in Hereheretau No 2 and No 2A blocks had held up farming efforts there. Just as this situation was finally in the process of being clarified, the Crown imposed prohibitions on alienations other than to the Crown in both blocks. Owners who wished to lease and farm more effectively could do nothing. Owners who did not wish to lease, but who might well previously have approved a lease to a fellow-owner, now received nothing - unless they sold to the Crown.
Such prohibitions were also repeatedly imposed in Hereheretau B. Even where land was eventually not lost, the development of Maori farming was impeded by this process.
It seems likely that these prohibitions on alienation were a very significant factor in allowing the Crown to gain as much land as it did in Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A. By late 1925, the Crown owned all of Hereheretau No 2A1 and Hereheretau No 2A2, a total of 750 acres. This was all the land specially set aside in 1890 for Ngati Hinepua. The Crown also owned Hereheretau No 2D, Hereheretau No 2B, and Hereheretau No 2c2c. The total area of these three blocks was about 6591 acres. This was about 75 per cent ofthe original Hereheretau No 2 block.
Where the Crown could buy through a meeting of assembled owners, it did. But it showed no hesitation in resorting to purchasing the interests of individual owners if a meeting seemed unlikely to bring about the desired result.
Once an area became too small to farm economically, blackberry tended to get out of hand. Fear of trouble over noxious weeds could be used to bring pressure on owners to sell. Living out of the area, the need for ready money and owning a very small share also seem to have been factors influencing owners to sell.
It seems that the purchases of Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A were standard Crown purchase operations. Ngata's October 1917 letter seems to imply that some decision about the block was taken at a meeting in April 1917, but no confirmation or explanation of the nature of this has been located.
These purchases do seem particularly ironic. It was apparently the desire of pakeha to acquire land locally for settling returned soldiers that finally succeeded in sparking off serious Crown interest in Hereheretau No 2. Meanwhile, Maori families who owned land in both blocks actually had sons at the war. This did nothing to restrain the Crown.
Then, after the Crown had got purchasing under way, trustees of the new Maori Soldiers' Fund began to press the Crown for a lease of the Crown interests in both blocks. From 1 February 1922, they had a long lease of both blocks. There is, however, no sign that any Maori soldiers whose families sold their interests in the blocks benefited from the presence of Hereheretau Station when they returned from
107 overseas. They certainly received nothing from the Maori Soldiers' Fund itself.
108 CHAPTER 5: THE MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND TO 1925 5.1 Introduction This chapter begins by looking at the ideas of Apirana N gata relating to financial suppport for Maori returned servicemen, and at fund raising activity on the East Coast prior to March 1917. It then moves on to the more formal creation of the Maori Soldiers' Fund, often known as the East Coast Maori Soldiers' Fund or the Gisborne Maori Soldiers' War Fund, in March and April 1917.
The chapter then looks at the trust's experiences with Hoata, Hereheretau and Hoia. These were the three stations leased by the fund. The stations were meant to bring in the income that was to be used to assist Maori soldiers. Almost without exception, however, during this period the stations instead drained the financial resources of the fund. By 1925, the fund was in such a severe financial crisis that it survived only by transfer to the Native Trustee.
The chapter concludes by touching on some ideas about the use of the fund which emerge from the minutes of the Maori Soldiers' Fund Council and Trustees.
5.2 The Ideas behind the Creation of the Maori Soldiers' Fund W T Pitt gave evidence about the East Coast Maori Soldiers' Fund to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission. He said that the fund began at the dedication of a 'carved hall in Mr Ngata's house' at Waiomatatini near Ruatoria in March 1917. He said that those present at the marae for the occasion contributed about £3,880 towards the expenses of the building. Apirana Ngata then told those present that there were no remaining expenses for the building. Ngata suggested starting a fund for Maori soldiers and handed over the money collected to form the nucleus of the fund. The idea won the support ofthe gathering.575
The explanation of the Maori Soldiers' Fund published by Heni Materoa (Lady Carroll) shortly after its 1917 launch indicates, however, that the emergence of the fund at this point and in this form was the result of experimentation with fund raising by Ngati Porou and of considerable thought by Maori members of parliament, particularly Apirana Ngata.
Sections 9 to 15 of the War Funds Act 1915 made provision for the administration of war funds by private trustees. In section 4 of the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915, provision was made for soldiers to take part in a ballot for Crown Land specially set aside for discharged soldiers. The provision applied regardless of race.
The Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1915 included provision, in sections 5 and 6, to allow Maori, with the permission of the Native Minister, to set aside part of the revenues of their lands for patriotic purposes. The insertion of these sections was a Maori initiative. 576
575 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, pp 1374-1375, MA Acc W1369 Box 35 [111], NA Wellington 576 A TNgata, 5 October 1915, NZPD, 1915, vol 174, P 618; Francis Bell, 6 October 1915, ibid, P 634
109 When the report of the Native Department was discussed in the House of Representatives in July 1916, Apirana Ngata argued that in what he called 'Maori districts', Maori soldiers would be so ignorant about the provisions of the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act that they would in practice be unable to take advantage of them. He and others concerned about the issue had considered asking the Crown to set aside blocks in certain districts for these men. But he commented that It seemed to be almost an improper thing to ask the Crown, when it was popularly supposed that the Maoris had sufficient land for the purpose.577
He consequently asked the Crown to make various legislative provisions which would help Maori to provide for their own veterans. Two of the measures which Ngata proposed are very interesting in view of the subsequent creation of the East Coast Maori Soldiers' Fund and the Crown purchase of parts of Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A and their leasing to the soldiers' fund.
Firstly, Ngata proposed asking Maori people to alienate land to the Crown, with the lands being earmarked by the administration for settlement by Maori veterans. Now, in the ordinary course, probably such lands would not change hands - they would not be made over to the Crown; but if a question was put or an application made to meetings of Natives throughout the two Islands, in the method prescribed by the Native Land Act called the "assembled owners," the Maoris would have the proposition put to them in such a way that they would be bound to agree to a resolution to sell land or lease land to the Crown for settlement by Maori soldiers. 578
Another proposal of Ngata's related to patriotic funds. He claimed that there was a feeling in some Maori districts in the North Island that they would not benefit very much from patriotic funds that were centralised in Wellington or other large cities. Maori in some outlying areas were therefore keen, he said, to raise their own funds to benefit Maori soldiers and to retain these funds. It has been suggested to some of them that they would be doing a good thing if they invested the funds they have raised in the purchase of farms in their own districts, to be administered by themselves and farmed for the benefit of the returned Maori soldiers. 579
He told the house that in his own district they had begun raising money and proposed, with the necessary legislative assistance, to invest it in buying a farm. His people had said that if they could not contribute money they would contribute stock. Ngata was fearful that the Native Minister would not trust Maori to administer such an enterprise. He asked that the Maori trustees who raised funds might be empowered to acquire and hold 'such lands and farms under such safeguards as the Governor in Council may Impose.. ,580
577 A TNgata, 13 July 1916, NZPD, 1916, vol 177, p 70 578 ibid, loc cit 579 ibid, P 71 580 ibid, P 72
110 The government responded by making prOVlSlon for land for discharged Maori soldiers in the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1916. Section 10 of the act allowed meetings of assembled owners to accept an offer made by the Crown to purchase or lease land for the settlement of discharged Maori soldiers. Section 11 allowed the Governor, on the recommendation of any Maori Land Board, to set aside land vested in the board for the settlement of discharged Maori soldiers. Particularly relevant for the Maori Soldiers' Fund were sections 13 and 14: 13.(1.) The trustees for the time being of any war fund raised for the relief, assistance, or support of Maori members of the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces or of their dependants, who are trustees duly incorporated under the War Funds Act, 1915, are hereby authorized to expend any moneys belonging to such fund in the purchase or lease of land (whether Native land or not), and to occupy and manage that land as a farm, and to carryon any agricultural or pastoral business thereon for the benefit of such fund. (2.) For the purposes of any such business, or for the discharge of any charge or incumbrance affecting the land, or for the improvement of the land, the trustees shall have the powers of a committee of management under section three hundred and thirty-four of the Native Land Act, 1909, in respect of land vested in a body corporate under Part XVII of the last-mentioned Act; and may with the precedent consent ofthe Native Minister, on the security of a mortgage or charge of the land vested in them or under their control, borrow money from any person or body corporate or from a State Loan Department. (3.) The powers hereby conferred upon the trustees shall be in addition to powers conferred upon them by the War Funds Act, 1915, or any regulations made thereunder.
14. For the purposes of the four last preceding sections a "discharged Maori soldier" means any person who is a discharged soldier within the meaning of the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act, 1915, and who belongs to or is descended from the aboriginal race of New Zealand.
Ngata's speech and the subsequent legislation reads like a blueprint for what transpired on the East Coast the following year. In the meantime, as his speech indicated, a sort of trial run was taking place on the East Coast. Heni Materoa told Maori that in 1916, Ngati Porou had collected £1100. This was used to purchase a flock of sheep. It was also intended to pay for grazing, but a hapu ofNgati Porou gave land for Ohe year's grazing 'out of their feelings of aroha.' Heni Materoa reported that the wool and meat from the flock had generated £1650, so that the scheme had raised £550 'this year'. 581
Heni Materoa put this achievement forward as an example of what could be achieved by trustees authorised to purchase or lease land and to farm it for the benefit of Maori
581 Translation of pamphlet: Reni Materoa, 'The Maori Soldiers Fund', pp 1-2 [translation by Piripi Walker] ( Original: 'Te Tahua Moni Ma Nga Roia Maori', MA Ace W1369 Box 31 [102] ) See Appendix 2
III soldiers. It is clear, then, that Ngata's March 1917 proposal at Waiomatatini was not simply the launching of the fund, but the culmination of considerable thought and work.
5.3 The Creation and Fund-raising of the Maori Soldiers' Fund Pitt's 1934 account gives the impression that the idea of the fund was sprung on those at the Waiomatatini hui out of the blue. Heni Materoa's much earlier version of events portrays the Waiomatatini launch as a much more planned affair. Once the law had established the kaupapa with clarity, the first step was taken by the iwi. Thereafter, it was decided by the organisers of this project on the East Coast to call a large hui; from that hui the views of the iwi could be gathered, in relation to the many issues relating to this project, and at that hui also, the initial contribution to the fund would be made. That hui was held at Waiomatatini, Waiapu on the 15 February 1917, up until the final days of that month. The details of the project ... were agreed to at that hui and the money raised was £3883 8s 4d. At this hui the people of Gisborne agreed to send in to the fund the money they held at that time, which they had collected prior to the hui at Waiomatatini. This comprised two funds, the fund of the Gisborne people generally, and the moneys held by the Committee of Rongowhakaata and Ngati Maru. 582
The idea was that the money collected would be used for buying or leasing one or more blocks of land as farms. The trustees would have the power to farm the land and to raise mortgages. Profits would be used to benefit Maori soldiers.583
Those nominated by the meeting to serve as trustees were: Heni Materoa, Hetekia Te Kani Pere, Hutana Ihaia, Teo Kara, A T Ngata, Tukaha Pokiha and Heni Houkamau. The hui also decided to expand the project to all the Maori people.
On 10 March 1917, a second hui was held in the Hawke's Bay at Pakipaki. The hui was held to honour Sir James Carroll on his return from England. People from Gisborne and Waiapu went to the hui and asked Ngati Kahungunu to support the project. Ngati Kahungunu from the Hastings area agreed to collect £2000 as their contribution. The committee of trustees were instructed to go to Wellington to seek ministerial approval for the fund. 584
A further hui was held in Wairoa in early April. Reports from this hui indicate the widely varying accounts which circulated about money raised for the fund. The Hawke's Bay Tribune reported that £1400 was 'realised' for the fund at the gathering.585 The Hawke's Bay Herald reported that Ngata had said that ten thousand pounds had been raised up to the time of the meeting and that a similar sum was still needed. It gave the 'Wairoa collection to date' as £2163, including five hundred
582 1·b·d 1 ,p 2 583 1"bOd 1 ,pp 1- 2 584 1"bOd 1 ,p 2 585 Hawke's Bay Tribune, Saturday, 7 April 1917, p 4
112 586 pound s from J C Ormond. The Poverty Bay Herald, on the other hand, stated that Ngata 'reported that £20,000 from the East Coast was already in hand', and that a similar sum was still needed. It agreed in putting the 'Wairoa collection to date' at £2163, but credited the £500 donation to G C Ormond. 587 Heni Materoa gives the amount raised by Maori and pakeha at this hui as £1600. 588
In April 1917, the trustees of the Maori Soldiers' Fund Council's War Fund were incorporated under section 12 of the War Funds Act 1915 as the 'Maori Soldiers' Fund Trustees'. 589 The fund technically had both an executive committee or council and trustees. The relationship of these was slightly ambiguous, but as they apparently consisted of the same people the problem of their relationship was probably an acad emiC· one. 590
The trustees of the fund at the time that it was incorporated are listed in the report of the 1934 Native Affairs Commission as Heni Materoa, who was the Chairwoman, A T Ngata, Dr Tutere Wi Repa, Henare Ruru, Paetai Wilson and Pita te Hau, with W T Pitt as the secretary.591 There were various changes of trustees, to some extent reflecting the widening scope of the organisation. For instance, at the meeting held at Carterton on 29 March 1918, Ngata reported the resignation of Tuhaka Fox. He was succeeded by Dr Wi Repa. At the same time, three new members were elected, Pite Te Hau for Takitimu, L Te Urupu for Kahungunu and Iraia Te Whaiti for 'Rongokako' .592 George Ormond Junior was also appointed to the council later in 593 1918.
The Minute Book of the Proceedings of the Maori Soldiers' Fund Council & Trustees has no further minutes after 30 March 1925.The trustees in theory remained in existence in 1934, although many had died. According to Pitt, when the fund was taken over by the Native Trustee in 1925, the trustees received balance sheets from the Native Trustee for three years. These were distributed to the council and to 'others who wanted a copy.' Later the Native Trustee did not keep them informed about the progress of the fund. 594
Heni Materoa sought through her explanation of the fund to turn it into a truly national organisation. She suggested that Maori from various other areas could contribute to the fund by committing some of their future rental income to the fund.
586 Hawke's Bay Herald, Saturday, 7 April 1917, P 4 587 Poverty Bay Herald, Thursday, 5 April 1917, p 3 588 Heni Materoa, 'The Maori Soldiers Fund', p 3 of translation 589 Extract from NZ.Gazette No 60, 5th April, 1917, IA 1 30/5/59, NA Wellington 590 Wm Pitt, Secretary, Maori Soldiers' Fund Council, to Officer in Charge, War Funds Office, 4 May 1918, IA 1 30/5/59 591 Native Affairs Commission, 'Report of the Commission on Native Affairs', 1934, AJHR, 1934-35, G-ll, P 118 592 Minute Book of the Proceedings of the Maori Soldiers' Fund Council & Trustees, p 18, MA Acc W2685, NA Wellington 593 ibid, pp 23-24, 26 594 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1382, MA Box 35 [111]
113 The fund would then be able to borrow against this promised income. 595 Alternatively, the different tribes could find other fund-raising methods. 596
There were certainly some contributions to the Maori Soldiers' Fund from beyond the East Coast area. The fund did not succeed, however, in becoming the sole national fund for Maori returned servicemen. The records of the National War Funds Council indicate that there was also a Central Maori Fund and a West Coast Maori Fund.597 Given the existence of other Maori war funds, it is not surprising that, although the trustees were given the name Maori Soldiers' Fund when they were approved under the War Funds Act, the words 'East Coast' or 'Gisborne' tended to be added in front of this. This happened even in some official documents.
By 1934, there was enormous discontent over the fund. Much of this occurred because of the lack of any significant benefits to veterans. Pitt told the commission that £400 was sent 'Home' to the office of the High Commissioner, to be used to buy comforts for the wounded. He put other money spent on relief of soldiers ,at not more than one hundred pounds. 598 Elsewhere in his evidence, he claimed that Ray Vercoe ... was sent specially from Rotorua and we went through all the books and reports and he seemed well satisfied with the whole thing - he got £50 out of it - he was practically the only soldier who benefitted.599
It should be borne in mind, however, that this comment about Vercoe seems to have been made about someone who had been critical of the fund of which Pitt had been secretary. A treasury file indicates that in 1927 Captain H R Vercoe inquired on behalf of the Arawa Trust Board about details of the receipts and outgoings of the Maori Soldiers' Fund, Gisborne, prior to its transfer to the Native Trustee. A letter which was drafted but not sent gave figures 'from details forwarded to the Department' for receipts and expenditure up to 30 September 1921. Included in the expenditure was an item of £508 12s for 'Comforts to soldiers'. This presumably represented direct relief to so ldlers.' 600
Reweti Kohere, who was very critical of the fund, told the 1934 Native Affairs Commission that his records of the fund showed that only £200 was sent to London.601 The minute book of the fund records that initially the High Commissioner - presumably in London - had said that money was not required to help Maori members of the Expeditionary Forces. Subsequently, however, the commissioner cabled suggesting that two hundred pounds be sent. In May 1918, the executive committee of the fund agreed to forward this to the Defence Minister for transmission
595 Heni Materoa, 'The Maori Soldiers Fund', pp 4-5 of translation 596 ibid, P 6 of translation 597 Confidential. The National War Funds Council. Report of the Executive to be presented ... Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Council, p 3, IA 1 30/3/20, NA Wellington 598 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1377, MA Box 35 [111] 599 ibid, P 1380 600 Under-Secretary to Capt H R Vercoe, Arawa Trust Board, 9 August 1927,T 1 40/580, NA Wellington 601 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1401, MA Box 35 [111]
114 to the High Commissioner.602 In March 1918, the executive committee had agreed to send £74 to the Lady Liverpool Fund for 'Trench Comforts' .603
In a sense such criticisms missed the point. It should be clear that right from the inception of the fund, it was intended to use the money collected for farming. It was only intended to be the profits made through farming that would go to assist veterans.
R P Milner, who had been active in collecting contributions for the fund, was clear in his evidence to the 1934 commission that the money was not to be given to soldiers directly, but was to be put into a farm, with the profits then being distributed to soldiers. He said that Ngata brought the idea up and the people supported this posItIOn... 604
Pitt supplied the 1934 commission with a statement showing subscriptions to the fund. According to this list, contributions were made between March 1917 and some point in 1919. They came predominantly from a variety of activities and gatherings held on the East Coast from Potaka down to Grey town. A few contributions came from further afield. For instance, there were two contributions totalling just over eighty pounds from the North Taranaki League, £1000 from a hui at Ruatoki and £1300 from the 'Arawa Tribe'. Pitt's list put the total contributions, excluding sums for dishonoured cheques and an advance from the fund, at £38,518 16s 8. 605 An account was opened at the Bank of New Zealand. Pitt told the commission that he held the cheque book and filled in cheques according to the minutes, but that the signatories were Lady Carroll and Hetekia te Kani Pere. The minutes confirm that t h ese two were III. d ee d th' e sIgnatones. . 606
The precise amount contributed to the fund was to become a very vexed question indeed. Reweti Kohere seems to have recorded in his journal all the totals of contributions published after hui. He put the fund at 'about £51,367 3s lId'. But he thought that the actual cash contributed could be reduced to about £42,000. This was, firstly, because some Tuhoe land near Ruatoki was initially to become part of the fund, but eventually remained with its owners. 607 There were debates about the value of this land, but Kohere valued it at £3150 on the basis of a figure from a manifesto of
602 Minute Book of the ... Council ... , pp 31-32 603 ibid, p 17 604 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1430, MA Box 35 [111] 605 AmR, 1934-35, G-ll,p 118 606 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, pp 1375-1376, MA Box 35 [111]; Minute Book of the ... Council ... , p 2 607 On an April 1919 offer by a Maori meeting to contribute certain Ruatoki leases to the council of the fund for 21 years rent-free, see MA 1 1919/529. See s 24 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1919 for legislative provision for a meeting of owners to consider the proposal. The file does not indicate what subsequently happened over the proposal. Pitt told the 1934 commission that the land was 'handed back in 1931 where we had the hui.' [Evidence ... , p 1378] Reweti Kohere was asked ifhe knew why the lease of the Ruatoki land was handed back. He replied: 'I met a chief of the Tuhoe tribe who attended the Supreme Court, and I advised him to stick to the land because the rest of the fund had been lost, and they were lucky that they could not spend the land.' [Evidence ... , p 1400]
115 Apirana Ngata. Secondly, apparently some rent was promised from Rotorua but did not eventuate. 608
There were, however, certainly other problems for those involved in collecting contributions. Apparently some cheques contributed to the fund were dishonoured. As Pitt commented, it was impossible to sue for a cheque that was a donation. 609 Other cheques could not be put into the fund because they had been contributed to committees in existence prior to the creation of the Maori Soldiers' Fund. Yet apparently some cheques of this nature were incorporated into the accounts at one stage. 610
More generally, some of the total contributions announced at hui were undertakings to contribute rather than actual cash contributions. This was seemingly not made clear at the gatherings involved. Ngata commented that 'Most of the native committees broke down and the promises were not made good. ,611 While some promised contributions were made years later, the Native Trustee eventually had to write off the remainder. 612 It is not surprising that the 1934 Native Affairs Commission commented that 'We have been unable to clear up this matter more satisfactorily.'
Gould identifies W T Pitt as one of the officers sent back to New Zealand 'under a cloud' in 1915. Pugsley attributes Pitt's return to medical grounds, unlike that of the other three officers involved. 613 Gould assumes that Pitt was the 'Captain B' referred to by P S O'Connor. O'Connor describes Captain Bas . .. a veteran both of the South African War and of a financial contretemps involving regimental funds. Sir James Carroll had forced the reluctant Allan to let him have a commission.614
Gould remarks that this 'did not augur well for his subsequent control of the Soldiers' Fund', and that 'The Commission into Native Affairs appeared to view the activities of Pitt in the administration of the fund with some suspicion. ,615 It is unclear, however, quite what about the report of the commission lies behind this comment. The history of the farming operations of the fund suggests that at least some responsibility for the unsuccessful finances of the Maori Soldiers' Fund may lie at the door of W G Sherratt. In addition to his involvement with the stations of the Maori Soldiers' Fund, Sherratt was a farmer and the director of three companies.616
608 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1400, MA Box 35 [111] 609 ibid, P 1381 610 ibid, pp 1381-2 611Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, pp 2109-2110, MA 87/2, NA Wellington 612 See section 6.2 613 Christopher Pugsley, Te Hokowhitu A Tu: The Maori Pioneer Battalion in The First World War, Auckland, Reed, 1995, p 44. Cowan also mentions Pitt as 'very sick'. James Cowan, The Maoris in the Great War: A History o/The New Zealand Native Contingent and Pioneer Battalion GALLIPOLI, 1915. FRANCE AND FLANDERS, 1916-1918, Auckland, Christchurch etc., Maori Regimental Committee [Whitcombe & Tombs Limited], 1926, p 51 614 P S O'Connor, 'The Recruitment of Maori Soldiers, 1914-18', Political Science, vol 19, no 2, December 1967, p 59 615 Ashley Nevil Gould, 'Proof of Gratitude? Soldier Land Settlement in New Zealand After World War 1', PhD thesis, Massey University, 1992, fo1324 footnote 62 616 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1417, MA Box 35 [111]
116 5.4 The Early Farming Activities of the Fund As indicated in section 5.2, section 13 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1916 gave power to war funds to purchase and lease farm lands and to mortgage them. Under this legislation, the Maori Soldiers' Fund acquired leases of three properties.
5.4.1 Hoata Station This station was near Opotiki. Its history was investigated at length by the 1934 Native Affairs Commission. The commission, in the absence of many of the relevant records, was unable to establish clearly some aspects of its history. It is impossible at this stage to clarify its history significantly, since even documents available to the commission at the time have not been located. It was probably, however, the dealings related to this station which generated much of the criticism of Apirana Ngata in connection with the Maori Soldiers' Fund.
Hoata Station was made up of parts of Waihoata Band Awaawakino B. In 1909, the Maori owners of this land leased it to Arthur Hemy Wall. The area was 5005 acres 3 roods and 20 perches. The lease was for forty two years from 4 November 1909. The rent was Is 3d per ace for the first twenty-one years and 2s 6d per acre for the second twenty-one.617
On 9 May 1917, the Commission found, A H Wall made an agreement to sell his leasehold interest in the land to W G Sherratt at £4 2s 6d per acre. Sherratt was to obtain possession on 30 June 1917. At the same time, Wall sold to Sherratt all the stock and plant of the station. Apirana Ngata wrote to the Gisborne law firm Nolan and Skeet. He stated that it had been decided to form a company to buy Wall's lease. It was to be called 'Hoata Station, Limited'. It was to consist of R P Milner, a station manager from Pakarae, inland from Gable End Foreland, along with Hira Paenga, a station manager, and Ngarue Hinaki, a sheep-farmer, both from Whangara, up the coast from Gisborne. Ngata said these persons were chosen '[f]or the sake of convenience'. On 8 June 1917, Hoata Station, Ltd. was incorporated. It was to be a private company with a capital of £5000. The memorandum of association was subscribed by the three men named above. This remained the case after the capital of the company was increased.
In May 1917, however, Nolan and Skeet made it clear in correspondence that they considered Apirana Ngata to be 'the real purchaser'. They described Sherratt as 'merely' Ngata's agent.
To complicate matters further, in 1934 Apirana Ngata informed the commission that there were actually fifteen shareholders, holding a total of 5514 shares, but that Milner and others signed for the shares to enable the company to be formed. This longer list
617 Native Affairs Commission, 'Report of the Commission on Native Affairs' , AJHR, 1934, G-11, P 119
117 of shareholders included both Apirana Ngata himself and Heni Materoa. Ngata and Heni Materoa were, of course, both trustees of the Maori Soldiers' Fund.618
On 14 June 1917, a valuation in writing put the value of the stock on Hoata Station at £6385 8s 8d. On 25 June 1917, a memorandum by Sherratt apportioned liability for the stock between the company and the Maori Soldiers' Fund. The liability ofthe fund was set at £5756 18s 8d. The audited balance-sheet for the Maori Soldiers' Fund for April to December 1917 indicated that this amount included stores and furniture at Hoata as well as stock.619
The evidence given to the commission failed to clarify precisely what was involved in the transactions over the station. For one thing, R P Milner of Whangara gave evidence that his only knowledge of Hoata Station was that it was in the Bay of Plenty district. He said that he had never heard that he was one of the company called Hoata Ltd until the day he was called as a witness. 62o
This is somewhat strange, as the minutes of the Maori Soldiers' Fund indicate that Milner, Paenga and Hinaki, 'comprising the Hoata Stn Ltd' attended a meeting of the council to look at the lease of Hoata on 22 June 1917. The minutes state that this meeting considered a report by Sherratt, also dated 22 June 1917, about the purchase of stock and grazing rights. The council decided to acquire the grazing rights of Hoata Station Ltd from 1 July 1917 to 28 February 1920 at a rental of 6s an acre, and to buy the stock and stores at a valuation approved by Sherratt.. 621
According to W T Pitt, Sherratt said that it would be a good idea to buy stock and graze them at this station 'which was at that time not carrying any stock. ,622 This statement was, as the commission realised, in direct contradiction of the fact that the fund had already paid for stock on Hoata.623
Sherratt gave evidence to the commission on 1 June and 2 June 1934. On 1 June, he put great emphasis on the role of Ngata in the various transactions. He repeatedly referred to the Hoata company as 'Ngata & Co', on the grounds that 'Ngata had more
618 ibid, pp 120-121 619 ibid, P 121 620 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, pp 1428, 1431, MA Box 35 [111] 621 Minute Book of the ... Council ... ,pp 11-12 622 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1379, MA Box 35 [111] 623 AJHR, 1934, 0-11, P 121. An apparently separate purchase of cattle by the fund caused more questions and confusion. On 29 March 1918, the council authorised the spending of £5000 on cattle. These were to be grazed free of charge on the Waipiro Consolidation Blocks, and then used to stock up the farms. A rather higher sum was actually spent on cattle between April 1918 and January 1919. Some of the cattle seem to have died of starvation and through being overdriven. Charges were also, in fact, incurred for grazing. In 1925, Sinel and Fawcett recommended the writing off of a sum representing cattle no longer owned by the trust. R Sinel, Accountant, Native Trust Office, Wellington & E J Fawcett, Instructor in Agriculture, Hastings, Memorandum for The Native Trustee, Maori Soldiers' Fund, 30 July 1925, P 14, MA 1 70/1 vol 4, NA Wellington. There were several mentions of cattle and Waipiro in evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission. Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, pp 1401, 1421, MA Box 35 [111]
118 to do with it than anybody else.'624 On 2 June, however, he observed that Ngata 'was only a friendly advisor to the syndicate as far as I know. ,625
He contradicted himself on other matters. For instance, on 1 June he said that he made no recommendation about acquiring the lease and that he was not asked for one. He also said that he did not remember the date he began supervising the property and that he did not think he supervised Hoata up to the time it was abandoned by the fund. 626 On 2 June, however, he stated that Ngata raised with him the possibility of the soldiers' fund leasing Hoata and that Ngata asked him what rent the fund should pay, and that shortly afterwards he became the supervisor of Hoata and continued in that 627 role until the lease expired. The minutes of the fund indicate both that he prepared an initial report on the proj ect and that he was asked to supervise the grazing right 628 from the date the arrangement was made with Hoata Station Ltd.
The Hoata lease was not a commercial success. The 1934 commission commented that no profits seem to have been made from the lease in 1917, 1918 and 1919. Hoata was apparently poor farming country. Nevertheless, the commission concluded that the unfavourable results were unexpected given the livestock and wool prices at this time. The commission did not impute blame for these results to Sherratt. His evidence seems, however, to be unexpectedly and strangely vague for a businessman,629 as well as contradictory.
Reweti Kohere, in his evidence to the 1934 commission, was highly critical about the Hoata lease. He accused Hoata Station Ltd. of becoming insolvent and making 'scapegoats' of the soldiers' fund. 63o The commissioners were more muted in their comments. They concluded that ... after the lapse of seventeen years and in the absence of records, we do not think that we are justified in drawing any conclusions as to what actually occurred when the soldiers' money was first expended in connection with Hoata Station. There is certainly no evidence whatever which would justify us in imputing fraud to Lady Carroll or Sir Apirana Ngata, the two trustees who were members of the Maori syndicate. It is regrettable, of course, that they permitted themselves to be placed in a position in which their interest conflicted with their duty.631
At any rate, the venture was certainly a most unfortunate one for the Maori Soldiers' 632 Fund. On 28 February 1921, the fund abandoned Hoata. They had spent £19,885 on the property. The net loss was £5395, although there was a book credit of £23 Os 2d. In 1925, Sinel and Fawcett recommended writing off the £54 5s 4d still due to
624 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1397, MA Box 35 [111] 625 ibid, P 1424 626 ibid, P 1398 627 ibid, P 1416 628 Minutes ofthe ... Council ... , p 13 629 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, pp 1417-8, MA Box 35 [111] 630 ibid, P 1402 631 AJHR, 1934,0-11, P 122 632 Minutes ofthe ... Council ... , p 67
119 creditors. They also noted that Hoata Station Ltd had recently been dissolved and struck off the Company Register. 633
5.4.2 The Leasing and Farming of Hoia and Hereheretau Stations Hoia Station was on the East Coast near Hicks Bay. In April 1919, the trustees paid £10,580 to George Kirk of Port Awanui for five Maori leases, involving Wharekahika Blocks 8A, 8c, 8D and 18K.The leased area totalled 5121 acres 3 roods. 732 acres of this was already cleared. The transaction was carried out on the basis of a valuation 634 and report by W G Sherrati. The Wharekahika 8A lease was for 21 years from 1 July 1917. The two Wharekahika 8c leases were for 42 years from 31 August 1911. The Wharekahika 8D lease was for 21 years from 1 May 1915. The Wharekahika 18K lease was for 21 years from 1 July 1916.635
Section 4.5.2 has indicated that the leasing of Hereheretau No 2D and No 2A2 by the Maori Soldiers' Fund was a long-drawn out process that seems to have started in late 1917. Under section 35 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1919, the Governor-General was empowered to lease to the Maori Soldiers' Fund Council Incorporated Trustees, Hereheretau 2A2 and 'such portion of Hereheretau No.2 Block as may hereafter be proclaimed Crown land.' No lease was to be granted under the section for more than thirty-three years, with a right of renewal for no more than thirty-three years.
Eventually the trustees leased 6372 acres 2 roods 16 perches, made up of Hereheretau 636 2A2 and 2D, from the Crown. As mentioned in section 4.5.2, the lease was for 33 years from 1 January 1922, with the right of renewal for a further 33 years. The rent was £1125 per annum.
Arrangements for the management of Hereheretau changed rapidly. In March 1919, the executive committee agreed to ask the George Ormonds senior and junior to visit the block and report on fencing and stock required. It was agreed that George Ormond Junior be the manager.637 At the same time, the executive decided to apply 'at some future date' for the freehold of Hereheretau.638
The following month, however, the council decided to appoint Joe Carroll as manager.639 In June 1920, Jim Taylor became the manager of the station. He undertook to acquire the Munro's interest in Hereheretau No 2A and to give an option on this to the fund. 640
633 R Sinel, Accountant, Native Trust Office, Wellington & E J Fawcett, Instructor in Agriculture, Hastings, Memorandum for The Native Trustee, Maori Soldiers' Fund, 30 July 1925, P 14, MA 1 70/1 vol 4, NA Wellington 634ibid, p 15 635 1·b·d 1 ,p 5 636 1·b·d 1 ,p 8 637 Minutes of the ... Council ... , p 47 638 ibid, loc cit 639 ibid, P 50 640 Letter stuck into back cover of Minutes of the ... Council ... , 11 June 1920 - see also p 60 of Minutes
120 In February 1924, the Crown Lands Ranger, Hastings, gave a depressing report following an inspection of the Hereheretau area leased to the Maori Soldiers' Fund. He had made the inspection ... in company with the Manager, Mr. Taylor, who resides at Whakaki. There are no Native Soldiers employed on the block and only one bush clearing contract was taken up by Native soldiers. The Manager states he had more trouble with these men than he had with any of the others.
matters are at present practically at a stand still through want of funds to carry on. I am of opinion that present arrangements are unsatisfactory. In all there are some 1800 acres of improved country in the Eastern portion of the block, but the Manager tells me the number of stock are not enough to cope with the fern. 641
Meanwhile, in August 1919, the trustees appointed W G Sherratt Supervisor of all three stations.642 The 1925 report into the fund said that as a result of friction between the trustees and Sherratt, the Supervisor submitted his resignation in June 1921. Sherratt withdrew this resignation only after obtaining an agreement with the trustees which gave him very considerable power. He was to have full powers of management and control over the stations belonging to the fund, and to keep all the accounts and books relating to these. He was to receive copies of audited balance sheets to 30 September 1921, and to be the financial adviser of the trustees, and to arrange finance necessary for the management of the fund's stations.
On the other hand, he was to submit a quarterly report and statement of accounts to the trustees and an annual balance sheet. He was to try to collect amounts owing to the various trust stations. He was to keep separate accounts for each station. The trustees and the fund's Secretary, W T Pitt, undertook to try to collect outstanding donations to the fund, with the Supervisor being advised of progress in this area. 643 Apparently as early as 1921, Williams and Kettle, the stock and station agents, were threatening b anl auptcy procee d··mgs agamst b ot h statlOns. . 644
Even in late 1920, the trustees were experiencing financial problems. They raised a loan of £8500 over the land and stock of Hoia Station from Sydney Williamson. The 1925 report indicated that Sydney Williamson was an absentee from the district and that his attorney was none other than W G Sherratt. Over and above his salary as supervisor, Sherratt received £168 lOs in fees for arranging this transaction.645 The
641 Crown Lands Ranger, Hastings, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, 25 February 1924, AADS Acc W3562 Box 312 Bundle 685 LS 2211984, file 24 April 1917 to 23 December 1924 642 Minutes ofthe ... Council ... , p 53 643 R Sinel, Accountant, Native Trust Office, Wellington & E J Fawcett, Instructor in Agriculture, Hastings, Memorandum for The Native Trustee, Maori Soldiers' Fund, 30 July 1925, p 2, MA 1 7011 vol 4 644 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1418, MA Box 35 [111] 645 R Sinel, Accountant, Native Trust Office, Wellington & E J Fawcett, Instructor in Agriculture, Hastings, Memorandum for The Native Trustee, Maori Soldiers' Fund, 30 July 1925, p 15, MA 1 7011 vol 4
121 1925 report also stated that Sherratt was 'interested in the Matengareka and Te Kumi Blocks, whence stock was drafted to Hoia Station,.646
In 1922, there was further friction between the supervisor and the trustees. The 1925 report on the fund indicated that Sherratt again laid down demands about full control over the lands, finances and accounts of the fund if he were to continue. He gained this control, but failed to submit the reports and accounts required by the trustees. Furthermore, he apparently did not completely separate the accounts of the various stations. The trustees were therefore ill-informed about the farming operations.647 It is only too clear, however, that these were not prospering.
In 1922, the stock on Hereheretau was mortgaged to Williams & Kettle on current account. The initial amount involved was £1125. The 1925 report on the fund indicated that Sherratt arranged an overdraft on the Hoia Station with the Gisborne Sheepfarmers' Frozen Meat Company at 8 percent. 648 Sherratt was a director of the 649 meat company.
It is interesting, in view of all these transactions involving Sherratt noted by Sinel and Fawcett in 1925, that in 1934 Sherratt told the Native Affairs Commission that his control related to the working of the fund's stations, and had nothing to do with 'the finance'. He also denied any friction in his relationship with the council of the fund, although later he qualified that by stating that there had been friction between himself 650 and Pitt, the secretary-treasurer. The minutes of the fund make it clear, however, that there was sometimes extreme tension between Sherratt and the council. 651
In 1923, the trustees tried to raise money from the National War Funds Counci1. 652 This council was established under section 3 of the War Funds Act 1915 to secure 'efficient administration and control of war funds'. Once the papers went out in preparation for that council's meeting, one of its Auckland members was so concerned about the state of the soldiers' fund that he suggested to the Minister of Internal Affairs that a special commission was needed to investigate it. 653 The National War Funds Council asked for an immediate audit.
This was not the first audit. Auditing on at least an annual basis was a requirement for war funds under section 19(1) of the War Funds Act 1915. Between 1917 and 1919, the accounts for Hoata Station, at least, were apparently kept by E Adair, a Gisborne
646 ibid, P 16 647 1·b·d 1 ,pp 23- 648 1·b·d 1 ,p 4 649 ibid, P 16 650 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1399, MA Box 35 [Ill] 651 For instance, at a meeting headed 'Minutes of Meeting as adjourned from 29th September', the members voted unanimously to refuse to receive a letter written by Sherratt. Dr Wi Repa regarded it as showing 'want of courtesy'. Pages Uilllumbered in Minutes of the ... Council ... 652 Extract from the Minutes of the Eight General Meeting of the National War Funds Council held ... 31 May 1923, IA 1 30/5/59, NA Wellington 653 W J Lamer to Minister of Internal Affairs, 8 February 1923, IA 1 30/5/59
122 accountant. 654 Auditing was initially done by C G Piesse, a local accountant and auditor.
Thereafter the auditor was J L Arcus of Wellington.655 He reported to the Auditor General on the affairs of the Maori Soldiers' Fund on 21 November 1921. Clearly he was most dissatisfied with the state of the accounts. He commented that it had been impossible to check the cash received from the various contributors.656
The Auditor General was so concerned about what the 1921 audit had disclosed that he refused to have the 1923 audit asked for by the National War Funds Council carried out by a Gisborne accountant. He insisted on instructing Arcus to go up from Wellington again. 657 Arcus reported on 30 May 1923. He was later to comment to the Auditor General that both his first two reports showed that 'the position of the fund is extremely precarious.' In September 1921, the surplus of assets over liabilities in the fund had been £34,638 12s 9d. This included, however, £7907 19s 7d of promised donations. By 31 May 1923, the surplus of assets over liabilities had sunk to £23,81918s Od. £6741 2s 9d of this consisted of promised donations. 658 The balance sheet of the fund at this point showed losses of £3203 Os 8d for Hereheretau Station and £992 18s 10d for Hoia Station.659
Sherratt appeared before the National War Funds Council in connection with the Maori Soldiers' Fund application for funds. He admitted to the council that Hereheretau Station was too large, and that both properties, to become profitable, would require very considerable expenditure. Sherratt was not prepared to assure the council that if it granted a loan of £20,000 to the fund, the funds at risk would be saved. The councillors, not surprisingly, decided not to risk lending to the Maori Soldiers' Fund.66o
Subsequently the council notified Apirana Ngata that it would be taking action to liquidate the fund. On the request of a minister ofthe Crown, however, the matter was deferred until the end of the current sitting of parliament. When the secretary of the council told Ngata just before the end of that sitting that the council was about to work towards an immediate liquidation, Ngata told him that the fund had obtained £3000 from the Native Trustee. 661
654 Evidence given to the 1934 Native Affairs Commission, p 1386, MA Box 35 [111] 655 ibid, P 1377 656 ibid, P 1373 657 Under Secretary to Secretary, National War Funds Council, 20 March 1923; Controller and Auditor-General to Under Secretary, Internal Affairs, 21 March 1923; Secretary, National War Funds Council, to Under Secretary, Internal Affairs, 29 March 1923; Under Secretary to Secretary, National War Funds Council, 12 April 1923; Secretary, National War Funds Council to Under Secretary, Internal Affairs, 19 April 1923; Controller and Auditor-General to Under Secretary, Internal Affairs, 3 May 1923; all in IA 1 30/5/59 658 J L Arcus, Auditor, to Controller and Auditor-General, 14 November 1924, IA 1 30/3/20 659 The Maori Soldiers' Fund Council War Fund Account. Balance Sheet as at 31 st May 1923, IA 1 30/3/20 660 Extract from the Minutes of the Eight General Meeting of the National War Funds Council held ... 31 May 1923, IA 1 30/5/59 661 Statement by Davies, Secretary, War Funds Council, re Maori Soldiers' Fund, 28 September 1923, IA 1 30/5/59
123 In June 1924, an effort was made to surrender 2535 acres of bush on Hereheretau Station. This bush area was held unduly to burden the property. Apirana Ngata was authorised to negotiate with the Maori owners of the various Wharekahika blocks making up Hoia Station in the interests of obtaining a remission of rent. 662 A reduction was not apparently obtained.
Arcus again reported on the fund to the Auditor General on the basis of the accounts up to the year ended 31 May 1924. By this stage, the surplus of assets over liabilities had fallen to £22,641 9s 9d, including £5298 lIs lId of promised donations. 663 Hereheretau Station had lost a further £1110 13s 3d, although Hoia Station had supposedly made a profit of £193 12 9d during the year. 664 Even this small profit was questionable.665 Despite this, the auditor regarded Sherratt as 'a man of considerable ability', whom the fund was fortunate to having controlling its stations. He also reported continuing tension betwen Sherratt and Pitt, the Secretary to the Maori Soldiers' Fund Council. He concluded that it would take a considerable number of years of good management and good seasons before the fund's losses could be made up and its liabilities be paid off. 666
The Acting Chairman of the Executive Council of the National War Funds Council, L 0 H Tripp, continued to be most concerned about the operations of the Maori Soldiers' Fund. He noted that, in addition to other problems, the value of the properties was not being written down in the accounts to take into account the fact that the properties were leasehold. Consequently big profits would have to be made to show a return.
Apirana Ngata had said in mid 1924 that there were no indigent Maori soldiers in 'the District', presumably meaning the East Coast. 667 Tripp pointed out, however, that the executive council had received applications for assistance from Maori returned servicemen living near Gisborne. The Gisborne Citizens Defence Committee had also received claims for assistance. The Hawke's Bay War Relief Association in Hastings was also apparently paying assistance to two disabled Maori veterans. It had sought information on the state of the Maori Soldiers' Fund.668
662 Minutes of the ... Council ... , Minutes of Meeting ... 26 June 1924, pages unnumbered; R Sinel & E J Fawcett, Memorandum for The Native Trustee, Maori Soldiers' Fund, 30 July 1925, pp 1-2, MA 1 7011 vo14 663 J L Arcus, Auditor, to Controller and Auditor-General, 14 November 1924, IA 1 30/3/20 664 The Maori Soldiers' Fund - Council War Fund Account. Balance Sheet as at 31 st May 1924, IA 1 30/3/20 665 L 0 H Tripp, Chairman, Executive, National War Funds Council, re East Coast Maori Soldiers' Fund, 20 February 1925, IA 1 30/3120 666 J L Arcus, Auditor, to Controller and Auditor-General, 14 November 1924, IA 1 30/3/20 667 The National War Funds Council. Minutes of the Ninth Annual Meeting ... 17 July 1924, p 3, IA 1 30/3/20 668 L 0 H Tripp, Acting Chairman, Executive Council, Confidential, re East Coast Maori Soldiers' Fund, pp sent out with The National War Funds Council Tenth General Annual [order sic] Meeting of the Council ... 2nd April 1925. Agenda Paper, IA 1 30/3/20
124 Confusion surrounded a debt of about £1400 which Apirana Ngata had told the 1924 Annual General Meeting of the National War Funds Council was against himself, although not a personal debt. He said that this had been paid off in sheep and cattle contributed to Hereheretau Station.669 Tripp subsequently denied that this payment had occurred.670
Not altogether surprisingly, at its 1925 Annual General Meeting, the council decided that the Attorney General should be asked to take the steps laid down in sections 3 and 4 of the War Funds Amendment Act 1918, with a view to closing the fund. 671 On 1 July 1925, the Minister in Charge of War Funds instructed R Sinel, the Accountant at the Native Trust Office in Wellington, and E J Fawcett, an Instructor in Agriculture from Hastings, to report on the trust properties and to make recommendations as to what should be done. They reported on 30 July.
The report made clear that it was impossible to continue to work either Hoia or Hereheretau Stations along the lines used up to that date. On the other hand, they did not recommend disposing of the leases for either station, as this would involve writing off about £15,000 in the case of Hoia Station and about £360 in the case of Hereheretau Station. Instead, they recommended that reductions in rent should be sought in some of the Hoia leases. This would bring the rents down to a level comparable with other local properties and make the station potentially financially 672 Via. bl e.
For Hereheretau Station, they recommended completing the surrender to the Crown of the 2535 acres of bush on the western side ofthe station. This should be coupled with seeking a reduction in the rent. Section 6 of the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Amendment Act 1923 allowed a discharged soldier who was a lessee of Crown land used for farming to apply for a revaluation of the land in the lease within six months of the passing of the act. As the fund was intended to be for the relief of Maori veterans and their dependants, it seemed reasonable that the trustees should have enjoyed the benefit of this section. As the time provided for in the act had expired, Sinel and Fawcett strongly recommended legislating to extend the operation of the clause to the Maori Soldiers Fund. That would enable the valuation and rental of Hereheretau Station to be brought before the appropriate Re-valuation Boards.673
More generally, they recommended a complete rearrangement of the trust's management. At the time of the report, the overhead costs were £920. This went to
669 The National War Funds Council. Minutes of the Ninth Annual Meeting ... 17 July 1924, p 2, IA I 30/3120 670 L 0 H Tripp, Acting Chainnan, Executive Council, Confidential, re East Coast Maori Soldiers' Fund, pp sent out with The National War Funds Council Tenth General Annual [order sic] Meeting of the Council ... 2nd April 1925. Agenda Paper, IA 1 30/3/20 671 The National War Funds Council. Minutes of the Tenth Annual Meeting ... 2 April 1925, p 2, IA 1 30/3/20 672 For report and recommendations relating to Hoia, see R Sinel, Accountant, Native Trust Office, Wellington & E J Fawcett, Instructor in Agriculture, Hastings, Memorandum for The Native Trustee, Maori Soldiers' Fund, 30 July 1925, pp 4-8, MA 1 70/1 vol 4, NA Wellington 673 For report and recommendations relating to Hereheretau, see ibid, pp 8-11, MA 1 70/1 vol 4
125 pay Sherratt, his secretary, the trust secretary, Pitt, office rent for the trust secretary, and the managers of Hoia and Hereheretau.
They recommended that the Native Trustee should take over the administration of the fund and the management of the stations. He should report to the Fund Council regularly. They argued that the main fund was 'virtually defunct', with the trust's entire funds being invested in Hoia and Hereheretau and that the fund's council were 'wholly ignorant' of the positions of Hoia and Hereheretau, whereas it was desirable for them to have reports on them periodically. They felt that, even with reduced rentals, it would be difficult to get 'private capital' to fund the ventures under current management. The Native Trustee, on the other hand, had the necessary funds to develop the stations, and could provide supervisors and accounting support for the stations at much lower cost. The Native Trustee, they considered, would be in a better position to negotiate reduced rents in Maori owned blocks, and would also be under continuous government audit. They favoured disposing of the services of William Pitt and W G Sherratt immediately, along with those of the station managers.674 Despite Arcus's favourable comments about Sherratt, Sinel and Fawcett felt that there had . f' 675 b een some mIsmanagement 0 trust statIOns.
5.5 The Trustees and the Disposition of the Maori Soldiers' Fund The trustees of the Maori Soldiers' Fund clearly found themselves in the position of seeking funds rather than distributing them. Nevertheless, in light of much later debate over the fund, it is interesting to note a few references in the early minutes to the issue of distribution.
Firstly, there was some interest in the issue of education. On 30 September 1918, the executive agreed to the principle of founding scholarships for the children of Maori soldiers.676 This issue again arose at an Annual General Meeting of the council of the fund held in April 1919. Council members 'and about 500 representatives from all parts of the Tairawhiti District' were present. The meeting received an explanation of the Pioneers &[?] Hokowhitu Scholarship Fund. A motion was passed giving authority to the executive to 'consider the Hokowhitu Scholarship Fund and if necessary to grant aSSIstance.. ,677
The executive meeting which considered the issue of children's scholarships also considered 'Relief. The executive decided that the principle that assistance should be 'on the basis of equal shares' 'must obtain'. Such assistance would be granted 'at some later stage'. 678
It seems, then, that the idea of educational scholarships and the idea of distributing assistance to veterans on an equal basis are in line with the views of the early trustees of the Maori Soldiers' Fund.
674 For general recommendations, see ibid, pp 11-13, MA 1 70/1 vol 4 675 1'b'd 1 , pp 5 , 9 676 Minutes of the ... Council ... , P 43 677 Minutes ofthe ... Council ... , pp 49,52 678 Minutes of the ... Council ... , p 43
126 5.6 Conclusion The earliest evidence of the ideas behind the Maori Soldiers' Fund can be found in the words of Apirana Ngata. He called for and obtained the passage of the necessary legislation. Ngati Porou provided a practical model of the possible financial benefits obtainable through the investment of war funds in farming. In conjunction with Heni Materoa and other leading Maori, N gata brought the fund into being in March and April of 1917. From the East Coast it spread down through Hawke's Bay and the Wairarapa and, in a more limited way, to other parts of the country.
It is clear that the initial years of the Maori Soldiers' Fund, leading up to its vesting in the Native Trustee, were extremely unfortunate. To some extent, this can be attributed to problems in the agricultural sector in the early 1920s. To some extent, promises of contributions to the fund which did not eventuate led to an unfair degree of suspicion about those most closely involved with the fund. Apirana Ngata and Heni Materoa seem to have had a somewhat unfortunate conflict of interest over the affairs of Hoata Station.
It would also seem that there was probably some serious mismanagement. The role of the secretary, Pitt, is difficult to assess. Sherratt, who supervised Hoata, Hereheretau and Hoia Stations, seems to have had several conflicts of interest in his dealings with the fund.
Sherratt also seems to have withheld much financial information from the council. All the same, the minutes show that during the 1920s, the council was engaged in an increasingly desperate search for funds to develop the stations it had so eagerly leased. Taylor, the manager of the Hereheretau Station, also saw the funding available for the station as completely inadequate.
Only a mortgage from the Native Trustee eventually seems to have stood between the Maori Soldiers' Fund and liquidation on the initiative of the scandalised National War Funds Council. And it was only the vesting of the fund in the Native Trustee in 1925 that would eventually carry the fund and Hereheretau Station safely through the ravages of the Great Depression.
127 CHAPTER 6: THE MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND AND HEREHERETAU STATION, 1925-1946 6.1 Introduction This brief chapter begins by describing the steps taken by the Native Trustee once he gained control of the Maori Soldiers' Fund under the Appropriation Act 1925. It then reviews the profitability of the two remaining trust stations, Hereheretau and Hoia, and the indebtedness ofthe Maori Soldiers' Fund to the Native Trustee.
In the first ten years of this period, the picture was very bleak. The stations had to contend with heavy indebtedness, the Great Depression and, in the case of Hoia, the closure of the local freezing works. The second decade saw an improvement in the position of Hereheretau Station back into profitability. As late as 1945, however, the fund was still in debt to the Native Trustee. Maori First World War veterans obtained no benefits whatsoever from the fund during these decades.
6.2 The Transfer of the Maori Soldiers' Fund to the Native Trustee The transfer of the fund from the Maori Soldiers' Fund Council Incorporated Trustees, Gisborne, to the Native Trustee was included in the Appropriation Act 1925. The act described the fund as 'commonly known as the Gisborne Maori Soldiers' War Fund'. It vested the fund in the Native Trustee from 1 November 1925. He was to administer the fund in the same way as a trustee appointed under the War Funds Act 679 1915. The act also permitted the Native Trustee, at any point up to 31 December 1925, to apply to the Dominion Revaluation Board established under the Discharged 680 Soldiers Settlement Amendment Act 1923. The Minister of Finance gave a one sentence summary of the purpose of the section to the House of Representatives. There was no debate on the issue. 681
The supervisor Sherratt was no longer employed from 1 November 1925. The Native Trustee's accountant visited the East Coast in November to look at the affairs of the two stations and to work on getting rents reduced. 682 By 17 November, Pitt had handed over the fund's books. 683 The rent for Hereheretau Station was reduced to £387 lOs Od per annum, although this was subsequently increased to £425 per 684 armum. On 8 January 1926, the Governor General accepted the surrender from the Maori Soldiers Fund Council Incorporated Trustees of 2535 acres, consisting of Hereheretau 2A2 and part of Hereheretau 2D.685
679 s 23(1) Appropriation Act 1925 680 s 23(2) Appropriation Act 1925 681 Nosworthy, 30 September 1925, NZPD, 1925, vol 208, P 904 682 Accountant, Native Trustee, to Native Trustee, 24 November 1925, MA 1 70/1 vol 1, NA Wellington 683 File Note, Maori Soldiers Fund, 17 November 1925, MA 1 70/1 vol I 684 Deputy Native Trustee to Under Secretary, 15 February 1936, followed by long typed summary, p5, MA 1 70/1 vol 3, NA Wellington 685 Mention of Hereheretau 2A2 only in Acceptance signed by Charles Fergusson [sic], 8 January 1926, on basis of recommendation by Minister of Lands, 6 January 1926, but the full, more accurate Description includes part of Hereheretau 2D - both in MA 1 70/1 vol 3 For areas relinquished and retained, see Figure 5
128 Almost immediately there were signs of a some ambiguity in the relationship of the Native Trustee to the fund. In December 1925, the Native Trustee wrote to the East Coast Commissioner. He said that some promises of contributions to the fund made by the commissioner on behalf of blocks under his control had been met. But he indicated that he would be very grateful to receive any further promised contributions to the fund now under his control, as 'its financial obligations are very heavy.'686 What the memorandum fails to record is that the Native Trustee and the East Coast Commissioner were, at this stage, one and the same person, W E Rawson. Shortly afterwards, Harvey, the East Coast Commissioner's Agent, paid £311 2s 4d into the Native Trustee's account on behalf of the Mangapoike A, Tahora 2c2 section 2 and 687 Tahora 2c3 section 2 blocks.
This was part of a process of collecting outstanding debts and promises. Various other outstanding donation promises had to be written off. The Native Trustee also wrote off certain debts. He paid off mortgages and overdrafts for which the original administration of the fund was responsible. Instead, the trustee approved Native Trust 688 overdrafts for the two stations totalling £7,500. This meant that the Native Trustee was both the trustee and the mortgagee of the fund. This, far more than the identity of the Native Trustee with the East Coast Commissioner, produced a potential conflict of interest for the trustee.
In 1927, R F Gambrill, the President of the Gisbome Returned Soldiers' Association, wrote to the Native Trustee raising the issue of assistance from the Maori Soldiers' Fund for local Maori veterans. The family of a local Maori veteran who had been hospitalized were being helped by the Charitable Aid Board and the local RSA. Gambrill sought help from the Maori Soldiers' Fund for this and, potentially, other cases. He commented that The local citizen's defense relief funds are not available for assistance of dependents of Native Soldiers, for the reason that the moneys subscribed 689 by Natives for the purpose were not contributed to this fund.
It would seem that there was some feeling in Gisborne over the basis on which the Maori Soldiers' Fund had been raised. The Native Trustee made it clear, however, that the circumstances of the fund made it impossible to grant the assistance sought.69o The attitude of the Gisborne RSA was echoed beyond Gisbome. In 1929, the National War Funds Council decided that, as it had been asked to assist 'the East Coast Maori soldier', grants made would be debited to a special account. Once the East Coast Maori Soldiers Fund was in a position to pay relief, a claim would be made for sums paid to men 'who rightly are the responsibility of the Fund. ,691
686 Native Trustee to East Coast Commissioner, 17 December 1925, MA 1 7011 vol 1 687 Harvey, Agent to East Coast Commissioner, to Native Trustee, 22 December 1925, MA 1 70/1 voll 688 Unsigned typescript, headed EAST COAST MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND [date August 1933 handwritten onto top of fIrst page of document], pp 1-2, MA 1 70/1 vol 3, NA Wellington. 689 President, Gisborne RSA to Native Trustee, 23 May 1927, MA 1 7011 vol 1 690 Native Trustee to President, Gisborne RSA, 2 June 1927, MA 1 7011 vol 1 691 The National War Funds Council. Report of the Executive to be presented to the Fourteenth Annual Meeting ... , p 2, IA 1 30/3/20
129 6.3 The Maori Soldiers' Fund and Hereheretau Station under the Native Trustee, 1925-1934 The steps taken by the Native Trustee to rescue the fund were initially far from wholly successful. The 1934 Native Affairs Commission reported that, as at 31 May 1925, had the two stations been realised, they were expected to have been able to raise a total of £12,446 12s 8d. 692 The fund had certain other assets and liabilities when the Native Trustee took it over but, as noted in section 6.2, some of these had to be written off. Assets written off totalled £6712 19s. Liabilities written off totalled £12255s. After certain other necessary adjustments were made, the books showed the capital account of the fund to be £17,167 3s. lId., and this is the figure used by the Native Trustee in his accounts. 693
This was, however, only a book figure. The actual realizable assets of the fund when the trustee took the fund over were only the two stations and £3 Is 7d in the Bank of New Zealand. At the same time, there was a mortgage of £3000 owing to the Native Trustee on Rereheretau and £8500 owing to Sydney Williamson for Roia Station.
By 31 May 1930, the book value of the fund had been absorbed by losses. By 1934, the two stations owed the Native Trustee a total of £55,882. Ifthe Native Trustee had not written off some interest payments, the liability to the trustee would have been £64,046, rather than £55,882. 694 Row did this deterioration in an already unfavourable financial situation come about?
In 1925-26, the two stations made a combined loss of £4,518. The losses declined to £2,823, £2,908, and £2,204 in 1926-27, 1927-28 and 1928-29 respectively. The situation of Roia Station was not helped by the fact that the Tairawhiti Maori Land Board, which acted for the Maori owners of the station land, refused to agree to a reduction in the rent. The board argued that its function was to insist on the rent being paid in terms of the lease. 695 In the year ended 31 May 1928, however, Rereheretau Station actually made a profit for the main fund, although this amounted to only £18 Is Od. The Native Trustee was full of optimism that the policy of gradually bringing in unimproved lands and improving the quality and quantity of the stock would eventually result in a 'steady and increasing return' from this station.696
Thereafter, however, as the economic situation deteriorated, the situation of both Rereheretau and Roia also deteriorated dramatically. The very weight of debt with which the stations had been burdened at the time of their take-over by the Native Trustee was a significant problem. The closing of the freezing works close to Roia
692 Native Affairs Commission, 'Report of the Commission on Native Affairs', AlHR, 1934-35, G Il, P 122 693 ibid, P 123 694 ibid, P 124 695 ibid, P 123 696 MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND. REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF THE NATIVE TRUSTEE. FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31st MAY, 1928, ... HEREHERETAU STATION. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ... , and p 3, MA 1 70/1 vo12, NA Wellington
130 697 Station was also unhelpfu1. Total losses for the two stations were £3,787 in 1929- 30, £7,452 in 1930-31, and £7,160 in 1931-32.698 In 1930, the Native Trustee incurred further debt by leasing 1393 acres of Maori land adjacent to Roia Station in an attempt to increase the carrying capacity and returns of the station. The Native Affairs Commission described this land as Waikohu block,699 but it was apparently made up of Wharekahika 18J and Wharekahika 18L. The lease for the former expired on 30 June 1936. The lease for the latter expired on 30 December 1939.700
By 31 May 1932, the Maori Soldiers' Fund owed the Native Trustee £3,000 for a fIrst mortgage over Rereheretau Station and £8,500 for a fIrst mortgage over Roia Station. In addition, there was a current account debt of £21,396 to the Native Trustee for Rereheretau Station and a current account debt of £27,363 to the Native Trustee for Hoia Station. The Maori Soldiers' Fund therefore owed the Native Trustee more than sixty thousand pounds. This was substantially in excess of the total assets of the fund, and represented a serious drain upon the depleted fInances of the Native Trustee. 701
By 1931, the Auditor-General had become most concerned about this situation. He drew the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury to the parlous state of the station fInances. Treasury in tum expressed great concern to the Native Trustee.702 The Reserves ofthe Native Trust OffIce were in the vicinity of £100,000. Not surprisingly, the Audit OffIce and Treasury became increasingly concerned that the involvement of the Native Trustee in the farming of Hereheretau and Roia and in the development of a number of other stations was putting such strain on the fInancial resources of the Native Trustee that it was likely that the trustee would need to call on the Consolidated Fund for advances. 703
In November 1932, the Acting Minister of Finance decided that 'some immediate and drastic action is essential in the interests of both the Native Trust OffIce fInances and the Consolidated Fund.' 704 As a result of this, J R Franklin of Wanganui investigated the fund's situation independently. 70S
697 All these factors were seen as significant by the Treasury when they became concerned about the Native Trustee's involvement in the fund in the early 1930s. The Treasury, EAST COAST MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND, 11 November 1931, p 3, T 1 40/580, NA Wellington 698 For losses of Hereheretau Station, see Table 6.1 699Native Affairs Commission, 'Report of the Commission on Native Affairs', AJHR, 1934-35, G-11, P 127 700 Board of Native Affairs, 'Report on Native Land Development', AllIR, 1936, G-lO, P 42 701 Unsigned typescript, headed EAST COAST MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND [date August 1933 handwritten onto top of first page of document], pp 2-3, MA 1 70/1 vol 3, NA Wellington 702 Controller & Auditor-General to Secretary to the Treasury, 23 October 1931; The Treasury, EAST COAST MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND, 11 November 1931; Secretary to the Treasury to the Native Trustee, 12 November 1931, all in T 1 40/580, NA Wellington 703 Deputy Controller & Auditor-General to Secretary to the Treasury, 16 December 1931, p 2; Secretary to the Treasury to Native Minister/The Chairman, National Expenditure Commission, 2 May 1932, both in T 1 40/580 704 G Forbes, Acting Minister of Finance, to Minister in Charge of the Native Trust Office, 4 November 1932, T 1 40/580 705 Report headed on first page: MR FRANKLIN'S REPORT - MAY 1933, on last page signed by J R Franklin, 1 June 1933, T 1 40/580
131 In May 1933, while this investigation was underway, the Solicitor-General told the Auditor-General that, given the information he had about the finances of Hereheretau and Hoia, the Native Trustee was not legally justified in advancing further money for the two stations. 706 The Audit Office therefore refused to authorise any further advances for the Maori Soldiers' Fund without an assurance that the government wouId pass val I'd' atmg 1egis . l'atlOn. 707
Franldin clearly had reservations about Hereheretau. He described it as a 'very stubborn piece of country'. He saw about 700 acres as good sheep country, but the balance as 'dirty unattractive country, growing fern, ti-tree, tauhinu and blackberry.' He considered that Hereheretau would never be an attractive place to sell. All the same, he was surprised at the amount of stock the station was carrying, and consequently also described it as 'a very deceiving piece of country for any outSI'd er ,708.
As a result of Franklin's report, several steps were taken regarding Hereheretau Station. Accumulations of interest to the Native Trustee were written off. This led to a loss of £11,489. Maintenance costs were rigorously pruned. A revaluation of the property for rating purposes was sought. A section was inserted in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill 1933 to enable the Native Trustee to apply for a remission of arrears of rent and of the assessed rental. 709 Franklin also favoured the retention of Hoia Station, although again under very careful management. As a result of the concerns of the Auditor-General, however, the fund was only allowed to continue on the basis that payments be submitted to Treasury for approval on a quarterly basis.71o
After considerable effort on the part of the Native Trustee, the arrears of rent on Hoia Station were postponed, and the future rent was reduced. 711 The trustee was also successful in obtaining a remission of one third of the rent on Hereheretau for the three years ended 30 June 1933. Given that wool and stock prices had improved by 1934, the rent then returned to the previous £425 per annum. 712
In 1934, the affairs of the Maori Soldiers' Fund were very thoroughly investigated by the Native Affairs Commission. The commissioners looked at the situation of the fund both before and after its vesting in the Native Trustee. Despite Franklin's investigation, they were plainly unconvinced that the steps taken by the Native Trustee would solve the long-standing problems of the fund. Consequently they recommended that the Native Land Settlement Board seriously consider whether any further advances to either station could be justified.
706 Arthur Fair, Solicitor-General, to Controller & Auditor-General, 31 May 1933, T 1 40/580 707 Controller & Auditor-General to Native Trustee, 8 June 1933, T 1 40/580 708 MR FRANKLIN'S REPORT - MAY 1933, pp 5-6 on Hereheretau, T 1 40/580 709 Deputy Native Trustee to Under-Secretary, Lands, 3 November 1933, MA 1 7011 vol 3; s 10 Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1933 710 Secretary to the Treasury to Minister of Finance, 7 July 1993; Native Affairs Commission, 'Report of the Commission on Native Affairs', AJHR, 1934-35, G-l1, P 126 711 ibid, loc cit 712Under Secretary, Lands, to Commissioner Crown Lands Napier, 5 April 1934, AADS Acc W3562 Box 312 Bundle 685 LS 22/1984, file closed 5 May 1943
132 6.4 The Maori Soldiers' Fund and Hereheretau Station under the Native Trustee, 1935-1946 The Board of Native Affairs assumed control over expenditure on all the Maori Trustee's farming operations under section 7(1)(b) of the Board of Native Affairs Act 1934-35. By this stage the position of Bereheretau and Boia was beginning slowly to improve as the economic situation became more favourable. Gradual steps were taken to provide for the stations to pay interest charges, although in 1937 a further £1469 6s lId of interest owed to the Native Trustee was written off. 713
In the year ended 31 May 1937, Bereheretau made a net profit of £1394, and Boia also had a profitable year. 714 It is hardly surprising that an attempt in 1937 to gain further rent relief for Bereheretau Station was unsuccessful. The sub-committee who assessed the property described it as 'an attractive property', well-run and carrying good pasture.715 Blackberry, however, continued to be a threat. In its report on the 1936-37 year, the Board of Native Affairs commented that the station had been badly infested with blackberry. Annual cutting was expensive. The board was optimistic, though, that the purchase of a herd of goats had the situation under control. 716
The leases of two of the Wharekahika blocks in Boia Station expired in 1936. One more expired in each of 1937, 1938 and 1939. In all these cases, the lessee was entitled to full compensation for improvements.717 Compensation awards were made to the Native Trustee. The trustee secured charging orders through the Native Land Court. A receiver was appointed to enforce these. Unfortunately, the awards were not great enough to cover the indebtedness of the fund to the Native Trustee. Indeed, the Native Trustee told the Secretary of the National War Funds Council in 1941 that 'it would require a lease of the whole property for 50 years to 1/- per acre to satisfy the Charges.'
As section 6.2 points out, the Native Trustee was in a somewhat peculiar position, for he was both the mortgagee and the person in whom the Maori Soldiers Fund, and therefore Boia Station, was vested. If the land were to be sold by the Native Trustee as mortgagee, the trustee would still face a loss, and the fund and the owners would gain nothing. On the other hand, it was considered that, if the land were to be leased, it would not necessarily succeed in repaying the debt to the trustee, and the owners would receive nothing during the term of the lease. Consequently, the Native Land Court was asked to allow farming by the trustee to be continued. It was hoped that this would enable the land to be saved for the beneficial owners, with some payment being
713 Controller & Auditor-General to Native Trustee, 28 August [193]6; Native Trustee to Secretary to the Treasury, 1 March 1937; Secretary to the Treasury to Acting Minister of Finance, 13 April 1937, all in T 1 40/580 714 Deputy Native Trustee to Secretary to the Treasury, 15 March 1938, T 1 40/580 715 Memorandum to accompany report of sub-committee of special valuation committee on application by the Native Trustee ... , 7 December 1937; Assistant Under-Secretary, Lands, to Native Trustee, 9 February 1938; Native Trustee to Under-Secretary for Lands, 21 February 1938, all in AADS Acc W3562 Box 312 Bundle 685 LS 22/1984, file Closed 5 May 1943 716 Board of Native Affairs, 'Report on Native Land Development', AJHR, 1937-38, G-I0, P 85 717 Board of Native Affairs, 'Report on Native Land Development', AJHR, 1936, G-lO, P 42
133 made to them in place of the rents which they had been receiving. 718 Two final leases 719 expired in 1953. In 1954-55, the fund's involvement with Hoia was finally wound up. 720
There were no further dramatic developments over Hereheretau in the later 1930s or during the war years. Initially the Native Trustee had put considerable effort into developing the station. In the first year of trust office control, Hereheretau had carried 1362 sheep, producing 25 bales of wool. There were also 265 cattle on the property. In 1933, Franklin was surprised to find the station was carrying 5400 sheep. Flock numbers fluctuated somewhat later in the decade and during the war years. In the 1935-36 season, for instance, there were 5205 sheep producing 169 bales of wool, along with 570 cattle. 721 In 1937, the sub-committee looking at a possible rent reduction for the property expressed concern that Hereheretau was overstocked. This is hardly surprising. Sheep numbers had risen rapidly to 7592 sheep. There were still 508 cattle. 722 At 31 May 1941, there were 5713 sheep and 588 cattle. 723 FIve. years later, there were 4884 sheep and 453 cattle, a lower figure than any of the war years. 724
As Table 6.1 indicates, Hereheretau Station was now profitable. In spite of this, the station and the Maori Soldiers' Fund of which it was part were still working their way out of debt to the Native Trustee. On 31 May 1941, for example, the Maori Soldiers' Fund remained £45,020 in debt to the Native Trustee.725 As late as 1946, the Auditor General told the Minister in Charge of War Funds that the position of the East Coast Maori Soldiers' Fund was 'undesirably complicated'. He suggested that the Native Trustee be asked to prepare a report so that the minister could consider whether the trust should continue.726 But at this point it does not seem that there was a serious threat to the continued existence of the fund.
6.S Conclusion When the Native Trustee took over the Maori Soldiers' Fund in 1925, there was still a small surplus of assets over liabilities when the value of the fund's two stations was taken into account. The trustee proceeded to develop both Hereheretau and Hoia. Initially it appeared that the level of losses of the stations were falling. But after one
718 Native Trustee to the Secretary, National War Funds Council, MA 1 70/1 vol 4, National Archives 719 See section 5.4.2 720 Maori Soldiers' Fund (Cash Portion), fol154, MA 1 70/1 vol 6, NA Wellington 721AnIR, 1936, G-10, P 43 722Memorandum to accompany report of sub-committee of special valuation committee on application by the Native Trustee ... , 7 December 1937, AADS Acc W3562 Box 312 Bundle 685 LS 22/1984 file closed 5 May 1943 723 SHEEP ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MAY 1941; CATTLE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MAY 1941; both in 13/1/1 vol II, Maori Trustee Office, Gisborne 724 SHEEP ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31STMAY 1946; CATTLE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MAY 1946; both in 13/1/1 vol II, Maori Trustee Office, Gisborne 725 Native Trustee to the Secretary, National War Funds council, 12 September 1941, MA 1 70/1 vol 4, NA Wellington 726 Controller and Auditor-General to Minister in Charge of War Funds, 24 October 1946, MA 70/1 vol 4
134 small venture into profitability by Hereheretau in the year ended 31 May 1928, the situation began to deteriorate. The factors dragging down the properties, and hence the soldiers' fund, were the closing of the freezing works near Hoia Station, the weight of debt which both properties were carrying, and the Great Depression.
The Native Trustee took seriously his statutory responsibility for the fund. In the early 1930s, the stations repeatedly sustained very serious losses. They became a not insignificant threat to the financial viability of the Native Trustee. In the face of pressure from the Audit Office, Treasury and the 1934 Commission on Native Affairs, it would have been relatively easy for the trustee to refuse further advances to the stations. Both properties could have been lost, along with any hope of eventually salvaging the Maori Soldiers' Fund.
But this did not happen. Through the writing off of interest and careful management, the trustee carried on the stations. By the time the Korean War wool boom arrived, Hereheretau was well placed to take advantage of these years of extraordinary returns for sheep-farmers.
135 TABLE 6.1: PROFIT AND LOSS ON HEREHERETAU STATION 1925-1946 Year to 31 May Profit (Loss) - Hereheretau 1926 (£2,032) 1927 (£ 323) 1928 £ 18 1929 (£ 26) 1930 (£1,795) 1931 (£2,645) 1932 (£2,628)"" 1LO 1933 £ 412 or (£1,481) 1934 £ 98 1935 (£ 597)'L'J / 1936 £ 398 .:>u 1937 £1394fjj 1938 No figure located 1939 No figure located 1940 No figure located 1941 £4245/, jL 1942 £1 ,275J.:>.:> 1943 £1 ,984/ j4 j 1944 £ 587/ ) / 1945 £1 ,440 ':>0 1946 £ 231 fjf
727 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... Year ended 31st May 1932 [completed pounds only], AADS Acc W3562 Box 312 Bundle 685 LS 22/1984 file closed 5 May 1943 728 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... Year ended 31 st May 193 3 [completed pounds only], AADS Acc W3562 Box 312 Bundle 685 LS 22/1984 file closed 5 May 1943 729 Second figure for 1933 and figures for 1934 and 1935 from Memoranda to Secretary to the Treasury, 24 October 1935, T 1 40/580, NA Wellington 730 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... Year ended 31 st May 1936 [completed pounds only], AADS Acc W3562 Box 312 Bundle 685 LS 22/1984 file closed 5 May 1943 731 Deputy Native Trustee to Secretary to the Treasury, 15 March 1938 [completed pounds only], T 1 40/580 732 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... Year ended 31 May 1941 [completed pounds only], 13/1/1 vol II Maori Trustee Office, Gisborne 733 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... Year ended 31 May 1942 [completed pounds only], 13/1/1 vol II 734 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... Year ended 31 May 1943 [completed pounds only], 13/1/1 vol II 735 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... Year ended 31 May 1944 [completed pounds only], 13/1/1 vol II 736 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... Year ended 31 May 1945 [completed pounds only], 13/1/1 vol II 737 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... Year ended 31 May 1946 [completed pounds only], 13/1/1 vol II
136 CHAPTER 7: HEREHERETAU STATION 1946-1996 7.1 Introduction This chapter begins by providing a brief overview of the development of Hereheretau Station over the half century following World War Two. Of particular interest is the frequently recurring mention of the blackberry problem which had led to much of the pressure on Maori to sell land early in the twentieth century.
The chapter then discusses the proposal for the Maori Trustee to sell the leasehold of the station to the Crown so that it could be settled by Maori returned servicemen from World War Two. Only an unexpected death prevented this diversion of the station lands from the veterans of World War One.
The chapter then looks at the Maori Trustee's purchase of the freehold of the station from the Crown for the Maori Soldiers' Fund. It concludes by looking at a number of other sales and purchases of land for the fund. The tendency seemed to be for such land to be bought from Maori. The chapter touches upon the involvement ofthe Maori Land Court in this process.
7.2 Development Of Hereheretau Station 1946-1996 Profits from Hereheretau Station escalated rapidly in the late forties and early 738 fifties. As with other farming ventures, the Korean War wool boom brought previously unprecedented prosperity to the station. W J Berry managed the station very competently for fifteen years, before finally retiring in 1953.739 Hand in hand with rising profits went a steady reduction in the indebtedness of the station. On 31 May 1947, it still had a £3,000 mortgage with the Maori Trustee. Total indebtedness 740 to the Maori Trustee, inclusive ofthe mortgage, stood at £8,188. A year later, it was down to £5383. 741 In July 1949, the Registrar at Gisborne wrote triumphantly to the Maori Trustee to report that the Maori Trustee now owed Hereheretau Station £314.742
Hoia Station, however, remained in debt to the Maori Trustee. That station's mortgage and current account debt totalled £19,132 at 31 May 1949. When plans were afoot to sell the lease of Hereheretau Station to the Crown so that Maori returned servicemen could be settled there,743 it was suggested that the proceeds of the sale of the Hereheretau lease and the Hereheretau stock could be used to repay the remaining 744 liabilities once the final Wharekahika leases expired in 1953. The rehabilitation settlement scheme did not proceed. In 1951, instead of selling the fund's lease of
738 See Table 7.1 739 District Officer, Gisbome, to Secretary, Maori Affairs, 7 July 1953, MA 1 70/5 vol 2, NA Wellington 740 completed pounds only - Hereheretau Station. Balance Sheet as at 31st May 1947, MA 1 70/5 vol 1, NA Wellington 741 completed pounds only - Hereheretau Station. Balance Sheet as at 31st May 1948, MA 1 70/5 vol 1 742 amount in completed pounds - Hereheretau Station. Balance Sheet as at 31st May 1949, Registrar, Gisbome, to Maori Trustee, 6 July 1949; Maori Trustee to Registrar, Gisbome, 2 August 1949 - all in MA 1 70/5 vol 1 743 See section 7.3 744 Memorandum [illegible initials]: EAST COAST MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND. HOIA STATION; Memorandum [illegible initials]: EAST COAST MAORI SOLDIERS FUND - both dated 2 March 1950, in MA 1 70/5/- vol 1, NA Wellington
137 Hereheretau Station to the Crown, the Maori Trustee began negotiations to buy the Crown ,.s mterest m. testatIOn. h . 745
The spectacular financial success of 1950-51 was not repeated. The exceptionally competent management of Les Greaves, the manager who replaced Berry, seems to have contributed to many profitable years. 746 Stock and wool prices, weather and the quality of management have all had a role to play.747 By 1996, the station was carrying nearly twice as many sheep and cattle than was the case fifty years ago. Better quality pasture, the development of previously unused areas of station land and limited land purchases would all have contributed to this.
In the early twentieth century, pakeha used blackberry as an argument to push for the acquisition of Maori land in Hereheretau. Consequently it is interesting to note that one recurring theme in files relating to Hereheretau over this half century is blackberry. In 1954 Greaves, in his very first annual report on the station, noted that blackberry had cost the station 'a lot of money by spoiling the wool and killing sheep besides covering a big area of grazing land.' 748 In 1955, Greaves attributed the death of71 sheep over the course ofthe previous year to blackberry.749 In the same year, the Director of Maori Land Settlement wrote: Over a very long period - in fact in some areas ever since the bush was cleared, blackberry has been an encroaching enemy, and while goats have done good work in preventing the runners from taking root, they have only partially controlled the blackberry growth and certainly done nothing · . . 750 toward sera d Icatmg It.
In 1956, a Field Research Officer from Ivon Watkins Limited told the Secretary for Maori Affairs that blackberry from the Wairoa area was renowned for particular toughness. 751 Despite considerable efforts to control the plant, in 1962 there were still about 1000 acres of the station 'severely infested' with blackberry.752
745 See section 7.4 746 A mong t h e numerous very posItlve. "fi re erences to th" IS manager, see: District Field Supervisor, Wairoa to District Officer, Maori Affairs, Gisbome, 21 April 1954, MA 1 70/5 vol 2, NA Wellington; Report by District Field Supervisor to District Officer, fol 562 MA 1 70/5 vol 6 747 See, for instance, District Field Supervisor to District Officer, Report on Hereheretau Station 1961162, MA 1 70/5 vol 5, NA Wellington; District Accountant to District Officer, Gisbome, folio 744, re accounts year to 30 June 1967 [first loss for over 30 years]; A B Atkinson for Secretary to Auditor-General re dismissing manager, both in MA 1 70/5 vol 7, NA Wellington Four managers in ten years: District Field Officer - report on Visit to Wairoa - Hereheretau Station undated but after end of 198112 year. 13/0/- vol I, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome Serious effect of drought on profitability: General Manager Operations and Finance to Senior Trust Manager Gisbome, 8 September 1992, 13/1/16 voll, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 748 Annual Report on Hereheretau Station 1953-54, MA 1 70/5 vol 2 749 Annual Report on Hereheretau Station 1954-55, MA 1 70/5 vol 2 750 Director of Maori Land Settlement to Secretary, Maori Affairs, 30 May 1955, MA 1 70/5 vol 2 751 P S Ferens, Field Research Officer, Ivon Watkins Limited, to Secretary, Maori Affairs, 11 July 1956, MA 1 70/5 vol 3, NA Wellington 752 District Field Supervisor to District Officer, Report on Hereheretau Station, 1961162, MA 1 70/5 vol 5
138 The problem has persisted right up to the present.753 In 1973, for instance, the annual report on the station made to the trust committee commented on the problem posed by blackberry.754 And when, very recently, information about the station and the trust was needed for a reunion of the 28th Maori Battalion, the only comment made in the document produced by the Maori Trustee under the heading 'Problems' was The greatest on-farm problem is blackberry. This is a difficult weed which is spread across the farm. Goats are used as the major control method.755
How much employment has Hereheretau Station given to Maori over the years? To have a chance of answering this question with any degree of precision, it would be necessary to make a careful study of files related specifically to Hereheretau Station employees. Such files have not been reviewed for this study.756 But it is interesting that in 1956 the Assistant District Officer at Gisborne recommended for a long-service bonus one Tangaroa Ruru. Ruru had then just stopped working for the station at the age of 81. He said that he had worked on the station since just after World War One, about the time it was acquired by the East Coast Maori Soldiers' Fund. He had worked at various times as a bushman, a packman and a fencer, as well as doing some 757 sheep work in the yards. In 1973, a member of the trust committee commented on the good work of the Maori who was Head Shepherd 'and spoke generally about using Maori workers wherever possible.' 758 It is unclear whether any particular action was taken about this. Two years earlier, indeed, the station had been employing Fijian 759 Indian labour to make progress with the clearing of scrub.
TABLE 7.1: PROFITILOSS AND SHEEP AND CATTLE NUMBERS ON HEREHERETAU STATION, 1947-1996 Year Profit (Loss) Sheep (Total) Cattle (Total) /0V 1946-47 £ 1, 753 5201 [31 March] 483 [31 March] 101 1947-48 £ 2,629'0""
~3 . For example: Hereheretau Station. Manager's Report to 30th June 1968; A B Atkinson for Secretary, Maori & Island Affairs, to Auditor-General, 3 March 1969; Sheet headed 'Hereheretau Estimates 1969/70', fo1346, all in MA 1 70/5 vol 7, NA Wellington District Field Officer - Report on Visit to Wairoa - Hereheretau Station - undated but after end of 198112 year. 13/01- vol I, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 754 Maori Soldiers' Trust. Minutes of Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee Annual Meeting ... 9 November 1973, p 7 Report on Hereheretau Station, MA Acc W2490 Box 323701111 vol 4, NA Wellington 755 Paper headed Maori Soldier's Trust - undated - 701113 vol 12, Maori Trustee Head Office 756 The Head Office and the Gisbome Office of the Maori Trustee both hold numerous files relating to detailed aspects of the farming of Hereheretau Station. 757 Assistant District Officer to Maori Trustee, 7 March 1956, MA 1 70/5 vol 3, NA Wellington 758 Minutes ... Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee ... 9 November 1973, p 8, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 701112 vol 3, NA Wellington 759 Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee. Minutes of the Annual Meeting ... 30 November 1971, p 2, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 70/1/3 vol 6, NA Wellington 760 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... Year ended 31st May, 1947 [completed pounds only], MA 1 70/5 vol 1, NA Wellington 761 Stock figures from G.-10. TABLE 1 ... ,MA 1 70/5 vol 1 762 Hereheretau Station. Profit and Loss Account ... 31st May, 1948 [completed pounds], MA 1 70/5 vol 1
139 /0 1948-49 £ 3025, .:\ 1949-50 £ 5845, /04 5310 [31 March] 578 [31 March],OJ 1950-51 £11 ,287 /00 4796 533 1951-52 £ 5 , 146 /0 4849 531 1952-53 £ 7,430 4622 547 lOIS 1953-54 £ 6,178 4337 526 1954-55 £ 7,389 4325 545 1955-56 £ 2,926 4577 565/09 1956-57 £ 5,189 4258 624 1957-58 £ 2,792 4093 645 fifteen month period - change to year ending 30 June 1958-59 £ 4,638 4261 580~ 1959-60 £ 8,143 4845 636 1960-61 £ 7,271 4876 647 1961-62 £ 4,565 5016 703 ' 1 1962-63 £ 6,521 5071 729 1963-64 £ 8,545 5451 723 1964-65 £ 7,922 5518 681 '/L. 1965-66 $ 14,090 5601 582 1966-67 ($ 1,284) 5688 668 1967-68 $ 6,254 7128 737//.:l 1968-69 $ 16,164 7384 860 1969-70 $ 22,963 7805 886 114 1970-71 $ 14,961 7686 886 1971-72 ($ 3,341) 7930 954
763 Hereheretau Station. Balance Sheet as at 31st May, 1949 [completed pounds], MA 1 70/5 vol 1 764 Hereheretau Station. Balance Sheet as at MaF€h-[sic], 1950 [completed pounds], MA 1 70/5 vol 1 765 Stock figures from 0.9. DEY.FORM 2., MA 1 70/5 vol 1 766 Hereheretau Station. Balance Sheet as at 31 st May, 1951 [completed pounds], MA 1 70/5 vol 1 767 Hereheretau Station. Balance Sheet as at 31st May, 1952 [completed pounds], MA 1 70/5 voll 768 'Profit' figure for 1952-53 and Sheep (Total) and Cattle (Total) for 1950-51 to 1952-53 from HEREHERETAU STATION. STATISTICAL SUMMARY for 1950-51 to 1952-53, MA 1 70/5 vol 2, NA Wellington 769 'Profit' and other figures for 1953-54 to 1955-56 from HEREHERETAU STATION. STATISTICAL SUMMARY for those three years, MA 1 70/5 vol 3, NA Wellington 770 'Profit' and other figures for 1956-57 to 1958-59 from HEREHERETAU STATION. STA TIS TICAL SUMMARY for those three years, MA 1 70/5 vol 4, NA Wellington. Profit figure for 1958-59 year corrected in pen on typed copy. 771 'Profit' and other figures for 1959-60 to 1961-62 from [HEREHERETAU] STATION. STATISTICAL SUMMARY, MA 1 70/5 vo15, NA Wellington 772 'Profit' and other figures for 1962-63 to 1964-65 from STATISTICAL & FINANCIAL SUMMARY for Hereheretau Station for these three years, MA 1 70/5 vol 6, NA Wellington 773 'Profit' and other figures for 1965-66 to 1967-68 from STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY for Hereheretau Station for 1965-66 to 1967-6. MA Acc W2490 Box 32370/1/1 vol 4, NA Wellington. 774 'Profit' and other figures for 1968-69 and 1969-70 from STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY-SCHEMES for Hereheretau Station for 1968-69 to 1970-71, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 70/111 vol 4
140 1972-73 $ 64,927 7961 1123 m 1973-74 $ 35,820 7435 1257 1974-75 ($ 2,917) 7077 1255 11tl 1975-76 $ 41,058 7,051 1314 111 1976-77 $ 45,920 7,587 1230 1977-78 $ 13,271 8,102 1118 1978-79 $119,822 8,297 976 1115 1979-80 $ 99,063 8,780 1111 1980-81 $ 87,509 9,123 1165 11 1981-82 $ 1,280 9,743 1102 " 1982-83 $ 75,975 10,425 783 1983-84 $ 69,820 10,426 971 1984-85 $130,808 10,808 905 /15V 1985-86 $ 11,930 5,385 573 1986-87 $235,307 11,109 327 1987-88 $106,421 10,842 9787lIT 1988-89 ($ 7,056) 10,772 684 1989-90 ($ 90,329) 9,280 664 1990-91 $ 60,230 9,558 751 /15L 1991-92 $ 56,224 9,769 807 11 /154 1992-93 $166,299 9475, \j 824 1993-94 $111,829 9,696 875
775 Figures for 1971-72 to 1973-74 from STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY-SCHEMES for Hereheretau Station covering those years, MA Acc W2490 Box 32370/1/1 vol 4. Note that Profit (Loss) figures are described on form as 'Profit and Loss' . 776 Figures for 1973-74 and 1974-75 from STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY SCHEMES for Hereheretau Station covering 1972-73 to 1974-75, MA Acc W2490 Box 32570/5 vol 9, NA Wellington. Note that Profit (Loss) figures are described on form as 'Profit and Loss'. 777 Figures for 1975-76 from STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY-SCHEMES for Hereheretau Station for the period 1975-76 to 1977-78, AAMK 869 1455a, NA Wellington 778 Figures for 1976-77 to 1978-79 from STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY SCHEMES for Hereheretau Station for this three year period, AAMK 869 1455a 779 Figures for 1979-80 to 1981-82 from STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY STATIONS for Hereheretau Station for this three year period, AAMK 869 1455a 780 Figures for 1982-83 to 1984-85 from STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY- STA TIONS for Hereheretau Station for this three year period, 70/1/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office. Profit (or loss) on this sheet is described as 'Profit (or loss) from farming (before interest). 781 Figures for 1985-86 to 1987-88 from HEREHERETAU STATION. STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY for this three year period, 70/1 vol 1, Maori Trustee Head Office 782 Figure for Profit (described as 'Profit/loss from farming' and for Sheep (Total) for 1988-89, and for Cattle (Total) for 1988-89 to 1990-91 from HEREHERETAU STATION STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY in 70/1 vol 1, Maori Trustee Head Office 783 Figures for Profit (described as 'Net Profit') and Sheep (Total) for 1989-90 to 1992-93 are from HEREHERETAU STATION. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1993, in MAORI SOLDIERS. ACCOUNTS. GENERAL HEREHERETAU STATION. ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1993 in 70/1/1 vol 8, Maori Trustee Head Office. There do not appear to be any figures for the total number of cattle in this table. 784 Cattle figures for 1991-92 and 1992-93 are from HEREHERETAU STATION. HIGHLIGHTS STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30TH JUNE 1994, Note that this from page 3 ofa Draft copy ofthe Accounts. 13:1:1 - 1, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome
141 1994-95 $ 58,501 9,292 930 1995-96 $ 33,201 9,217 977i5J
7.3 The Proposal To Settle Maori Returned Servicemen on Hereheretau Station During World War Two, the question of the rehabilitation of Maori returned servicemen again became an issue. Such servicemen could apply for rehabilitation assistance through the same channels as pakeha. This practice was not, however, necessarily strongly encouraged. In 1943, the Under Secretary of the Native Affairs Department told the Director of Rehabilitation:
I have discussed this matter with the Lands Department and we agree that any Maori will be eligible to apply for Crown Lands and provided he meets the full requirements demanded from the other applicants and can show that no Native Lands are available to him he will receive equal treatment to that given to the Pakeha soldier. As Crown Lands will be in limited supply it is however hoped that all Maoris requiring land will be rehabilitated on their own triballands.786
There was also resistance in the media to the concept of buying land to settle Maori returned servicemen if Maori land was available.787
On 26 November 1943, the Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee was created with the approval of the government. The committee was responsible for attending to the needs of Maori ex-servicemen. By 1946, regional Tribal Executive Committees had been co-opted to make recommendations about applications. These were then lodged with the Registrar of the Native Land Court district from which the applicant came. After a report by the local departmental farm or building supervisor, the Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee would make a decision. The Board of Native Affairs also had to authorize any proposal which involved the expenditure of public money.
The Native Department implemented the decisions of the Rehabilitation Finance Committee. It was also involved in other rehabilitation work. Up to 31 March 1946, the committee had approved the expenditure of £201,570 for 'housing, tools of trade, furniture, establishment in businesses, and settlement on land'. The Native Affairs Department, under other legislation, had approved the expenditure of £6,601 on land settlement and £18,871 for the housing of returned servicemen.788
785 1993-94 to 1995-96 figures from HEREHERETAU STATION. HIGHLIGHTS STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30TH JUNE 1996, P 37, MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST, DOCUMENT WITH GREEN COVER, 70/1/1 vol 9, Maori Trustee Head Office 786 Memo from the Under Secretary, Native Department, to the Director of Rehabilitation, 2 December 1943, LS 1 26/1/12, NA, quoted in Ashley Nevil Gould, 'Proof of Gratitude? Soldier Land Settlement in New Zealand After World War 1', PhD Thesis, Massey University, 1992, fo1329 787 Claudia J Orange, 'A Kind of Equality: Labour and the Maori People 1935-1949', MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1977, folios 200-210 788Native Department, 'The Development and Settlement of Native Lands and the Provision of Houses for Maoris ... ',AJHR, 1946, G-I0, pp 41-42
142 The Tairawhiti Maori Land Board hoped to replace some farmers on their development schemes who had proved unsatisfactory with returned servicemen. Huramua Station, near Wairoa, was purchased to train returned Maori servicemen.789 The intention was eventually to subdivide and settle it. 79o A T Carroll had offered to sell the land for Maori rehabilitation purposes. Carroll kept in close touch with the . . 791 M aon tramees.
Maori in the Wairoa area, however, wanted more done to settle returned servicemen. Many Maori were unwilling to alienate their land for rehabilitation. There was also a prolonged disagreement between the Rehabiliation authorities and the Department of Maori Affairs as to the terms of leases to Maori returned soldiers. The Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee wanted much more protection of the interests of the servicemen than the Board of Maori Affairs was willing to provide.792
As early as 1945, Hereheretau Station was employing as a cadet Kingi Keiha, a son of Lieutenant Colonel Reta Keiha of the Rehabilitation Department. 793 Given the history of the block and the problems of obtaining suitable land, it is hardly surprising that Hereheretau Station attracted attention on a wider scale. There was apparently a perception after the Second World War that the initial purpose of the fund had been to develop the fann and then cut it up for Maori First World War veterans. 794 On 16 March 1947, the Native Minister visited Taihoa Meeting House at Wairoa. Pura Solomon of Whakaki, a Maori fanner, 'asked that Hereheretau Block be made available for settlement by Returned soldiers.' The following day, the Minister visited Hereheretau Station with Pura Solomon and Native Department staff. There was some doubt as to whether the scheme was possible.795 The Field Supervisor, A C Carlson, was asked to report, and to co-opt the services of the three fanners who made up the District Rehabilitation Farming Committee.796
A C Carlson, along with D T Robertson, G W Powdrell and A T Carroll, reported unanimously that to subdivide Hereheretau Station into three units would present no major problems. They did not go into the issue of the costs involved. Carlson was, however, clearly concerned that the new settlers be very carefully selected. He
789 Native Department, 'The Development and Settlement of Native Lands and the Provision of Rouses for Maoris ... ',AJRR, 1945,G-10,p7; Department of Maori Affairs, 'Annual Report of the Board of Maori Affairs and of the Under Secretary ... ', AJHR, 1950, G-9, P 13 790 Native Department, 'The Development and Settlement of Native Lands and the Provision of Rouses for Maoris ... , AJHR, 1945, G-lO, P 7 791 Jane R M Thomson, 'The Rehabilitation of Servicemen of World War II in New Zealand 1940 to 1954', PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1983, fols 317-318, 325 792 Claudia J Orange, thesis cited, folios 196-198 793 Registrar, Gisbome, to Native Trustee, 25 September 1945, 13/1/- vol 1, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 794 unlabelled cutting, headed 'Trust Sucess. Rereheretau Land. War Fund Purchase. Farmed in One Block', in 13/1/- vol 1, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 795 Notes of Representations made to Rt.Ron.Native Minister at 'Taihoa' Meeting-house, Wairoa, Sunday, 16 March 1947, MA 1 70/511 vol 1, NA Wellington 796 Under Secretary, Native Department, to Registrar, Gisbome, 28 May 1947, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 1
143 warned that 'this property, unless expertly farmed and supervised, will quickly revert to scrub, fern and blackberry.' 797
The following year, A F Blackburn, the Chief Supervisor, informed the under secretary that he considered the proposed scheme too expensive in terms of roading. He also saw it as impractical because one subdivision of the station would contain all the poorest country on the station. He therefore recommended selecting three Maori returned servicemen 'to occupy the station as tenants in common or for it to be run as a Communal Farm.' He claimed that the District Farming Sub-Committee saw this as 798 the most practical solution. A special valuation of the station was made.799
The Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee subsequently voted to approve the purchase of the lessee's interest in the station, provided that the Maori Trustee had power to sell. Investigation was to be made into the constitution of the East Coast Maori Soldiers Trust. This investigation was to be used to determine the areas from which applications for settlement would be taken. The Farming Sub-Committee was to recommend a Maori returned serviceman from the applicants to become the manager. Two other Maori returned servicemen were to be selected from the applicants by ballot after vetting by the sub-committee. 800
Sir Apirana Ngata was asked about the nature of the fund. In line with his views as portrayed in sections 5.2 and 5.3, Ngata said that the fund was intended as an investment to provide for veterans. But he thought that this should not prevent the subdivision and settlement of the station by returned servicemen, provided that revenues eventually went to the fund's original object. On one occasion he wrote that the 'selection should conveniently be of local men.,801 On another occasion, Ngata informed the registrar at Gisborne that there was no undertaking given to settle men from any specific district on the station. In any event, Ngata saw 'no objection' to settling men from the Wairoa district on it. 802
Subsequent events were somewhat confused. In June 1948, Jack Hema, an eligible returned serviceman, gave up his chance to be in the ballot for land at Huramua because he understood that he would be settled on Hereheretau Station. The Farming Sub-Committee agreed to this. Furthermore, two Maori returned servicemen had found employment on the station and expected to be given settlement there. The Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee consequently decided to acquire the Maori Trustee's interest in Hereheretau by the most suitable means. They sought clarification of any understanding made with Hema.
797 'Report on Sub-Division of Hereheretau Station' for the Registrar, Gisborne, by Carlson, Robertson, Powdrell & Carroll, 19 August 1947, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 1 798 Chief Supervisor to Under-Secretary, Maori Affairs, 23 February 1948, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 1 799 Field Inspector Tuke, Farm Supervisor Dickin and a Farm Appraiser to Registrar, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, 5 May 1948; Valuation ... , 3 May 1948, MA 1 70/5/1 voll 800 MAORI REHABILITATION FINANCE COMMITTEE. Hereheretau Station. Report before recommendations approved 25 February 1959, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 1 801Minute by A T Ngata on Registrar, Gisborne, to A T Ngata, 20 October 1948, 13/1/- vol 2, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 802Minute by A T Ngata on Registrar, Gisborne, to A T Ngata, 10 November 1948, 13/1/-, vol 2, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome
144 The Wairoa men who made up the Farming Sub-Committee were clearly determined to protect the positions of not only Hema but also Te H M Huka and M Rongo, the two who had been working on the station for a year. They referred to unspecified promises made to the two men. S03 Similarly, C W Taylor, the Rehabilitation Officer in Wairoa, while admitting that there had been some confusion, defended the rights of Hema, Huka and Rongo to be the three settlers. He pointed out that Huka was a Whakaki man. S04
At this point, it appeared that the settlement of Hereheretau Station would go ahead. In May 1949, T T Ropiha, the Maori Trustee, formally approved the sale of his interest in the property, subject to the necessary legislative authority and payment for improvements effected by him.80s On 1 June 1950, Hema, Rongo and Huka took over the block, subject to supervision by the Maori Affairs Department. On 5 June, Hema died unexpectedly.
Moves were made to replace him with another Maori returned serviceman related to Hema. 806 After Hema's death, however, relationships on the station became much more difficult. 807 A member of the staff of the Department of Maori Affairs also questioned whether the sale of the station was permissible in terms of the trust under which the Maori Trustee was operating.808 The District Maori Land Committee inspected the station. The members took the position that, with the advent of aerial topdressing, the subdivision of the station into three economic units was now possible. They wanted the subdivision of the property undertaken at once.809 The Farming Sub Committee also believed the block could be subdivided into three economic units for S10 settlement of Maori returned servicemen under Maori Affairs supervision. The Maori Rehabilitation Finance Committee decided, however, to rescind their decision to acquire Hereheretau Station for rehabilitation purposes and to make appropriate arrangements to compensate Huka and Rongo. 811 A Lands and Survey representative negatived a suggestion that the area be used for general settlement by the Land 812 . S13 Settlement Board. Huka was eventually selected for a sectIOn of Huramua. Meanwhile, Hereheretau Station remained under the Maori Trustee.
803 C W Taylor, Rehabilitation Officer and V Holst, Registrar, to Under-Secretary, Maori Affairs, 18 May '9', MA 1 70/5/1 vol 1 804 C W Taylor, Rehabilitation Officer, to District Rehabilitation Officer, Napier, 19 April 1949, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 1 805 Approval of the Maori Trustee, 31 May 1949, recorded at bottom of Memorandum for:-The Maori Trustee, Hereheretau Station, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 1 806B H Beale, DRO, Napier, RE: Successor to Jack Wiremu Hema ,." 16 June 1950, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 1 807 W Berry [Station Manager] to the Registrar, Gisbome, 17 October 1950, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 1 808 MEMORANDUM for THE DEPUTY MAORI TRUSTEE, 12 December 1950, folios 73-74, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 1 809 HEREHERETAU STATION, REPORT OF DISTRICT MAORI LAND COMMITTEE, signed by Chairman, folio 95, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 2, NA Wellington 810 Robertson, Carroll, Powdrell, Chrisp & Wake1in to the District Rehabilitation Officer, Napier, 16 April 1951, MA 1 70/5/1 vol2 811 Folios 116, 120, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 2 812 Director of Rehabilitation to District Rehabilitation Officer, Napier, 3 August 1951, MA 1 70/5/1 vol 2
145 The decision not to proceed with the settlement of the block by the servicemen generated considerable anger. The Commissioner of Crown Lands, Gisborne, belonged to both the Wairoa Farming Sub-Committee and the recently appointed Maori Land Development Committee. He wrote pointedly to his head office noting the strong local feeling in favour of the settlement of the block by three Maori . 814 servlCemen.
D H Robertson and G W Powdrell, the farming members of the Wairoa Farming Sub committee, were so emaged that they resigned. They told the Director of Rehabilitation:
A great deal of our work in this district has to do with Maori ex servicemen. We know that you will believe us when we say, that we have done all in our power for these lads, with an eye, through them, to the future betterment of the Maori people as a whole. It is distressing to see promising young Maoris complete their farm training at Hurumua or elsewhere and then find there is no land for them. We had hoped to settle at least three of these young men on Hereheretau - in fact two of them were actually on the place for two and a half years with the promise of ultimate settlement there; but after nearly three years of "messing about" we were blandly told by the Department of Maori Affairs that Hereheretau was not for settlement. It is presumably to be kept on in a Trust -- for whom?815
This was to prove a very real question for the Maori Trustee.
7.4 The Purchase of the Station from the Crown By the time Robertson and Powdrell wrote to the Director of Rehabilitation, a whole new stage in the history of Hereheretau Station had begun. On 12 June 1951, the Under Secretary for Maori Affairs asked the Director General of Lands whether the Crown would consider selling the freehold of Hereheretau Station to the Maori 816 Trustee and, if so, at what price. The idea was to acquire the freehold of the station for the Maori Soldiers' Fund. In July 1952, the Crown offered to sell its interest in the station to the Maori Trustee for the unimproved value of the land plus the present value of improvements due to revert to the Crown on 31 December 1987, using an 817 interest rate of 5 per cent. After a special valuation, the price for the 3837 acres 2 818 roods 18 perches of part Hereheretau 2D involved was set at £11,883 lIs Id. The 819 Maori Trustee acquired the land for the Maori Soldiers' Fund on 3 February 1953.
813 BOARD OF MAORI AFFAIRS. HEREHERETAU STATION. BONUS TO EX-SERVICEMEN WORKERS, Approved by board on 31 July 1951, folio 138, MA 1 70/5/1 vo12 814 Wakelin to Director General of Lands, 30 May 1951, LS 122/1984, NA Wellington 815 Robertson & Powdrell to the Director of Rehabilitation, 20 October 1951, MA 1 70/511 vol 2 816 Under Secretary, Maori Affairs, to Director General, Lands, 13 May 1952, MA 1 70/5 vol 1 817 Director General, Lands, to Under Secretary, Maori Affairs, 8 July 1952, MA 1 70/5 vol 1 818 Under Secretary, Maori Affairs, to Director General, Lands, 24 July 1952; Director General, Lands, to Under Secretary, Maori Affairs, 21 November 1952, both in MA 1 70/5 vol 1 819Sheet headed 'Hereheretau Station Titles', 70/1/2 vol 5, Maori Trustee Head Office
146 Files reviewed at National Archives, the Head Office of the Maori Trustee and the Gisborne Office of the Maori Trustee give no indication that there was controversy in the Whakaki area over the sale of the Crown's freehold interest to the Maori Trustee. Rather, the only bone of contention seems to have been the failure of the Maori Trustee to obtain prior approval of the purchase from the Board of Maori Affairs.82o
It is possible, however, that local Maori may have been quite unaware that the transaction was taking place. A subsequent incident indicates that Whakaki people took considerable interest in the station. In 1956, Hereheretau was providing grazing for stock from beyond the station. This practice was not clearly understood, even by at least one station employee. This lack of knowledge apparently led to wholly unjustifiable questions about the honesty of the manager. Eventually the District Officer and A T Carroll explained the station's practices to 'a very representative meeting at Whakaki', completely clearing the manager from any unfortunate accusations.821 It is unclear whether this incident simply demonstrates curiosity about a local station, or a feeling by local Maori that they had a right to take a special interest in the affairs of this particular station.
7.5 The Purchase and Sale of Land for Hereheretau Station822 In 1961, Maori Affairs staff in Gisborne began to look at the possibility of several land purchases and sales on the edges of the station. They considered these would make Hereheretau easier to work. This process proved to be far from straightforward.
A first proposal was intended to increase the size of the holding paddocks close to the woolshed. The inadequate size of these had been causing difficulties at shearing time. The District Officer argued that shifting all the relevant buildings and yards would not greatly improve the situation and would also be costly. Instead, he set out the possibility of buying three blocks on the western boundary by the existing woolshed site 'which would suit our purposes admirably.' Hereheretau 2c2D4cl (21 acres 2 roods 37 perches), Hereheretau 2c2D4c2 (72 acres 2 roods) and Hereheretau 2c2D4c3 (136 acres) were owned by Maori. The length of these alphanumeric subdivision names points to the very pronounced degree of fragmentation of Maori land which had taken place in Hereheretau. The Huka family were the principal owners of these particular blocks. The District Officer commented that . .. although they have previously been adverse to selling, it is now reasonably certain that if a meeting was called, the majority would be in favour of selling. 823
In addition, the District Officer also suggested the purchase of three small blocks adjacent to an area the station already owned across the Makaretu River. This area on the north-east boundary of the block was then under development. These purchases
82°Controller & Auditor-General to Secretary of the Treasury, 5 May 1953; Maori Trustee to Secretary to the Treasury, 25 May 1953; Secretary to the Treasury to Maori Trustee, 24 July 1953, all in MA 1 7015 vol 2, NA Wellington 821 District Officer to Maori Trustee, 5 February 1957, MA 1 7015 vol 3, NA Wellington 822 S ee F·19ure 6 823 District Officer, Gisbome to Maori Trustee, 27 June 1961, MA 1 7015 vol 5, NA Wellington
147 would give increased production and a better return for the sum the station was spending on bridging the river. The land involved was Kahaatureia 3B (40 acres 3 rood), and blocks inaccurately described by the District Officer as Kahaatureia 4 (31 acres), and Kahaatureia 5 (20 acres). 824
The latter two blocks were owned by a pakeha neighbour of the station. The river made it difficult for him to handle them, so he wished to sell them. Kahaatureia 3B, however, was Maori land. Again it was owned by, among others, the Huka family. And again, the District Officer understood that the owners were willing to sell. 825
The last proposed transaction was the sale of 'Lucky's' paddock. This was made up of 226 acres at the southern end of the station. It was steep, broken and blackberry infested. But the neighbours were very interested in buying it as it was close to their homestead. The idea behind this proposal was that the proceeds of this sale would help to offset the costs of the various proposed purchases, while ridding the station of an area which was difficult to manage. 826
Later in 1961, the trust committee of the Maori Soldiers' Fund approved negotations to effect the proposed purchases. They also approved negotiations to sell 'Lucky's' 827 paddock, subject to the purchases going ahead. It proved more difficult to carry out the proposed programme than the District Officer had anticipated. In 1963, although the purchasing programme was incomplete, the Maori Trustee agreed that negotiations could go ahead for the sale of Lucky's paddock to F M Hickling, who was enthusiastic about the sale. 828 In the same year, sections 4 and 5 Block XVI Opoiti Survey District were acquired from I S Wratt. Wratt transferred his land without charge to avoid meeting the cost of fencing it off from that of the Maori Trustee. 829
Also in 1963, the Maori Trustee bought Kahaatureia 3B from its Maori owners.830 The application for confirmation of a resolution passed by a meeting of assembled owners to sell to the Maori Trustee was heard by Judge Sheehan in June 1963. The purpose of the acquisition was to give a better fencing line. Counsel argued that there was a lack of access to the land, and gave the capital value as £60 and the value of timber on the block as £262 2s 6d. The Maori Trustee proposed to pay £325. Judge Sheehan insisted on a special valuation of the land. He clearly wanted to know why its unimproved value had fallen steeply since a 1930 valuation.831 In 1960, the roll valuation of the
824 Subdivisions of Kahaatureia numbered 4 and 5 had ceased to exist in 1898 (see Section 3.9) The District Officer should have referred to Sections 4 and 5 Block XVI Opoiti Survey District - see CT lA/4, File 8:8:82-16, Hereheretau Station, at Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisbome) 825 District Officer, Gisbome to Maori Trustee, 27 June 1961, MA 1 70/5 vol 5 826 District Officer, Gisbome to Maori Trustee, 27 June 1961, MA 1 70/5 vol 5 827 illegible initials for Secretary, to Gisbome Office, 27 October 1961, MA 1 70/5 vol 5 828 District Officer, Gisbome, to Maori Trustee, 12 March 1963; Maori Trustee to 'Gisbome', 20 March 1963; District Officer to Maori Trustee, 7 October 1963 - all in MA 1 70/5 vol 5 829 S S Hardman for District Officer to District Commissioner, Inland Revenue Department, Gisbome, 6 June 1963, 13/1/9 vol 1, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 830 S S Hardman for District Officer to Secretary, 18 December 1963, MA 1 70/5 vo16, NA Wellington 831 Extract of Minutes from Wairoa Minute Book Volume 67 - Folio 51 - 52, 13/1/9 vol 1
148 block was £30 unimproved and £30 improvements. In 1930, however, the unimproved value had apparently been £120. The Valuation Department was asked to explain the discrepancy.832 After this enquiry, the court finally confirmed the sale. The conditions set by the court effectively increased the price received by the owners above that which the Maori Trustee had intended to pay. Despite this, the £1425 received for the sale of Lucky'S paddock more than offset the costs of fencing Wratt's land and buying Kahaatureia 3B. A balance of £498 remained to go towards the purchase of the Hereheretau blocks, should this eventuate. 833
The purchase of the Hereheretau blocks proved anything but straightforward. The Maori Trustee and other local station owners had constructed an airstrip for the use of top-dressing aircraft on Hereheretau 2c2D4cl. In 1954, the District Officer had made enquiries about buying the area from Ngarongo Huka and her sister, since the lessee, Smith, was gazing the area so heavily that the airstrip was difficult to use. 834 In 1960 the lease expired. The land was sold to Matuakore Huka.835
When the Maori Trustee looked at acquiring the three blocks in 1962, Hereheretau 2c2D4c2 and Hereheretau 2c2D4c3 still had multiple Maori owners. These blocks had a long association with the Huka family. Apart from their ownership, they had also had a long-standing role in farming them. Both blocks were leased in 1943 by Te 836 Ariki Huka Jr., a Whakaki farmer. In 1953, Te Ariki Huka leased or rented land in seven subdivisions of Hereheretau B, along with these two blocks, to make an economic unit. The seven areas from Hereheretau B were all small, ranging from 3 837 acres 2 roods to just over 17 acres 3 roods. The pattern of land ownership certainly sometimes presented challenges to Maori who wished to farm.
In 1962, a meeting of assembled owners turned down a proposal to sell the blocks to the Maori Trustee for the soldiers' fund. Owners present favoured a proposal to sell them to Winki Huka. Winki Huka hoped to be able to buy in a few years. Owners were told that if he could not find the finance within two years, the Maori Trustee 838 would make another approach to them at the end of that time. Huka had a small dairy farm on the Whakaki flats. He needed additional land as a run-off. 839
In 1964, the Maori Trustee tried a somewhat different approach, apparently intended to accommodate the interests of Winki Huka as well as those of the station. During the previous year, Te Ariki Huka Jm, the lessee of Hereheretau 2c2D4c2 for 21 years,
832 F E Quayle for District Officer to Branch Manager, Valuation Department, Gisbome, 13/1/9 vol 1 833 Senior Estates Clerk to District Officer, 18 October 1963; Estates Clerk to District Officer, 13 February 1964, both in 13/1/9 vol 1 834 District Officer, Gisbome, to Ngarongo Huka, 24 May 1954, MA 13/1 vol III, Maori Trust Office, Gisbome 835 S S Hardman for District Officer to Farm Manager, Hereheretau Station, 13 December 1960, MA 15124/2, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 836 O'Malley & Jones to Registrar, Maori Land Court, Gisbome, MA 15/24/56,21 March1945, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 837 Declaration by Purchaser/Lessee, 4 September 1953, signed by Te Ariki Huka, MA 15/24/56 838 Statement of Proceedings of Meeting of Assembled Owners, MA 15/24/56 Identical set of Minutes for the other block is in MA 15/24/54, both in Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 839 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, 15 October 1965, MA 1 70/5 vol 6, NA Wellington
149 finishing in 1974, had died. His executors and trustees were Matuakore (Winki) and Materoa Hook (Huka).840 This is apparently why, in subsequent negotiations, Winki 841 Huka was sometimes referred to as the lessee of Hereheretau 2c2D4c2. Winki Huka did, however, have a lease of Hereheretau 2c2D4c3 which would run to 1984. But Huka was having difficulty meeting a requirement in the lease to clear fresh land annually. This was hardly surprising, as this land, too, was heavily infested with blackberry as well as with heavy scrub. The Maori Trustee was also asking for the fencing between this block and the station to be renewed. He claimed that Huka's stock kept breaking through to better feed on the station land. 842 It is perhaps hardly surprising that Winki Huka was willing to look at some compromise arrangement with the trustee.
The Maori Trustee applied on behalf of Winki Huka for a meeting of owners to 843 consider a proposal to sell Hereheretau 2c2D4c2 to Winki Huka. This proposal was turned down, however, because Horomona Kahukura had heard it might be possible to get a far higher price from an adjoining land owner. 844 A meeting of assembled owners was called for the same day to consider a proposal to sell Hereheretau 2c2D4c3 to the Maori Trustee on behalf of the East Coast Maori Soldiers Trust. 845 The minutes record that Te 1pu Huka said 'I am against any sale. I do not wish to sell (Maori principle.)' A second member of the Huka family also opposed the sale. Matuakore (Winki) Huka supported it. The resolution was lost. Nevertheless, Horomona Kahukura said that if nothing definite came of the potential offer on 846 Hereheretau 2c2D4c2, he would notify the Maori Trustee.
The District Officer met with the owners and Winki Huka. Sir Turi Carroll, a member of the Maori Soldiers Trust Fund Committee, was also present, arguing for the sale of the land. He said the station needed it 'virtually at any cost'. Higher possible prices 847 were suggested to the owners.
On Christmas Eve 1964, the Maori Trustee's plans came under threat. Judge Sheehan wrote to the District Officer, refusing to call new meetings of assembled owners unless Sir Turi and K te Hau and the District officer could convince him that this was necessary. He wrote: I have always been uneasy at the purchase by the Maori Trustee of further lands for this trust - see Section 23 Appropriation Act 1925. The future of the trust is obscure to me after the final war veterans die and the thought persists:
840 Copy of Minutes of Maori Land court re Hereheretau 2C2D4C1, Decision, 14 February 1966, p 2, MA 1 70/5 vol 6 841 District Officer to the Secretary, 4 November 1964, MA 1 70/5 vol 6 842 E H Morice for District Officer to Greaves, Wairoa, 13/1/9 vol 1, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome District Officer to Manager, Hawkes Bay Farmers Co-op Co. Ltd., 20 April 1964, MA 15/24/54, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court. 843 Application to Summon A Meeting of Owners. The Maori Affairs Act 1953 ... , MA 15124/56, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 844 Statement of Proceedings of Meeting of Assembled Owners, Hereheretau 2C2D4C2, MA 15/24/56 845 This particular title for the fund was that used on the Statement of Proceedings ... 846 Statement of Proceedings of Meeting of Assembled Owners, Hereheretau 2C2D4C3, MA 15/24/54 847 District Officer, Gisbome, to the Secretary, 4 November 1964, MA 1 70/5 vol 6, NA, Wellington
150 Is it advisable for a comparatively landless people to sell? The matter can not be prejudged but the M. T. has already had his chance to buy & I think he should look for another solution.848 (Emphasis added.)
As a possible alternative solution, he suggested exchanging the 4c1 and 4c2 blocks, with the Maori Trustee then leasing 4c1 for 25 years. Furthermore, if the lease of 4c3 was to be surrendered, new leases could be arranged for the parts required by the station and Winki Hook. 849 Presumably the result of all this would have been that Winki Huka would have ended up owning the 4c2 block of which he was already one of the trustees, while the group of Maori owners would have retained ownership of both the other blocks.
The District Officer argued that this scheme was impracticable because the flat 4c1 block was 'considerably more valuable' than the larger but hilly 4c2 block. To carry out the judge's scheme, on the basis of the figures in the latest proposal, would have cost the owners ofthe latter block £350. They, on the other hand, had apparently only 850 agreed to the scheme because they would be paid £600 for 4c2.
Presumably this argument must have convinced Judge Sheehan. Matters went ahead on the basis of the increased prices negotiated by the District Officer and Sir Turi Carroll. In August 1965, the assembled owners agreed to sell Hereheretau 2c2D4c2 to 851 Matuakore (Winki) Huka for £600. A special valuation filed when the Maori Land Court looked at the transaction put the capital value at £365. Also in August 1965, a motion was carried to sell Hereheretau 2c2D4c3 to the Maori Trustee. Despite all the prior negotiations, some of the owners were clearly less than happy. Te Ipu Huka said that 'I am always against sale of land. What rent we get from land is what we are living on.' He agreed to sell if the sale money was used to pay his housing mortgage. He was concerned that Winki Huka's situation be protected. Materoa Huka, apparently Winki's brother, said he was 'against sale.,852 Apparently he declined to . 853 vote on t h emotIon.
In February 1966, Judge Sheehan confirmed the sale of Hereheretau 2c2D4c 1, solely owned by Matuakore Huka since 1960, to the Maori Trustee purchasing under section 7 of the Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957. This section stated that the Maori Trustee, upon the recommendation of the Trust Committee and with the consent of the Minister, may acquire for the purposes of the Trust any land or interests in land.
848 Judge Sheehan, to District Officer, 24 December 1964,13/1/9 vol 1, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 849 ibid, 10c cit 850 District Officer, Gisbome, to the Secretary, 4 November 1964; District Officer to Secretary, Maori Affairs, on bottom of District Officer to Sir Turi Carroll, 4 January 1965, both in MA 1 70/5 vol 6 851 Resolution of Assembled Owners, meeting Whakaki 5 August 1965, MA 15/24/56, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 852 Statement of Proceedings of Meeting of Assembled Owners ... ,5 August 1965, MA 15/24/54 853 Copy of Minutes of Maori Land court re Hereheretau 2C2D4C1, Decision, 14 February 1966, p 2, MA 1 70/5 vol 6, NA Wellington
151 The price was £950, over against a special government valuation capital value of £575.
The judge made it clear that factors other than price were involved in his decision as to whether confirmation was in the interests of the owner. He treated the transaction as part of a rearrangement of ownership of all three blocks referred to above. The confirmation was conditional upon the resolution to sell Hereheretau 2c2D4c3 to the Maori Trustee being confirmed and the Maori Trustee then selling back to Matuakore Huka about thirty acres along the main road frontage of the block, the precise area being determined by the best fencing line.
The resolution to sell Hereheretau 2c2D4c2 was confirmed subject to confirmation of the resolution to sell Hereheretau 2c2D4c3 to the Maori Trustee being confirmed. The £600 price was to be paid out of the account of Matuakore Huka holding the £950 being paid by the Maori Trustee for the first block.
The Hereheretau 2c2D4c3 sale to the Maori Trustee was confirmed on the basis of the splitting of the block so that the new Hereheretau 2c2D4c3A passed to Matuakore Huka. Matuakore Huka was a part owner in the block, and was therefore due to receive part of the proceeds of the sale to the Maori Trustee. If the amount due to Matuakore Huka because of the sale to the trustee was less than the cost of the part of the block which he was buying, the difference was to become a charge on the new block Hereheretau 2c2D4c3A. Huka was apparently expected to have to pay about £50 under this arrangement for the new block.
In addition, Judge Sheehan also confirmed an 'oral collateral agreement'. Under this, the Maori Trustee ws to develop about thirteen acres of flat land on Hereheretau 2c2D4c3A and Hereheretau 2c2D4c2 for Huka. This was to be another use for part of the £950 proceeds ofthe sale of Hereheretau 2c2D4c1 by Huka to the trustee. Various other arrangements were also made regarding rates, fencing and the lease on Hereheretau 2c2D4c2.
Judge Sheehan commented that the 'primary purpose' of the three interdependent transactions submitted to the land court was 'to improve for farming purposes the Hereheretau Station by providing needed holding paddocks.' But it is clear that the judge was very concerned to see that Huka obtained the run-off and the flat land he needed to operate his dairy farm. Moreover, he was determined to try to ensure that Huka obtained flat land with pasture in good condition. 854 The long negotiations had certainly improved Huka's position. The price he received for Hereheretau 2c2D4c1 was £150 higher than the price he was to have received under an agreement for sale and purchase which he had actually signed in June 1964.855
The sale of Hereheretau 2c2D4c1 to the Maori Trustee was finally confirmed by the Maori Land Court on 5 Spetember 1967.856 There were further problems over the
854 1·b·d 1 ,pp 1- 4 855 Agreement for Sale and Purchase, signed by Huka on 24 June 1964 but not signed on behalf of the Maori Trustee, 13/1/9 vol 1, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 856 Assistant District Officer to the Secretary, 15 November 1967, MA 1 70/5 vol 7, NA Wellington;
152 arrangements made by the court for the Maori Trustee to assist with the flat area, apparently because Huka could not obtain the finance necessary to fulfil his part ofthe arrangement. 857
In the early seventies, the Maori Trustee embarked upon another series of land transactions with respect to Hereheretau Station. The Native Trustee had leased 146 acres 2 roods 30 perches, part of Hereheretau 2D, to E W Magee from 1 May 1930 for 858 25 years and 7 months at £22 per annum. Magee later transferred this lease to the Williams family. The lease involved land adjoining Tangiwai Station. It expired on 1 January 1955. The lessee failed to ask for renewal of the lease within the period specified. The District Officer in Gisbome favoured re-entering the property.859
In the event, the lease was renewed. It was due to expire again in 1988. In 1972, the District Officer, Gisbome, proposed selling the leased area to Tangiwai station, and putting the proceeds towards buying Hereheretau 2c2c and Hereheretau 2c2B. This 86o would provide an area of 428 acres quite close to the station headquarters. The sale to T anglWaI. . StatlOn . went a h ea d .861
Hereheretau 2c2B was leased to Areke Mete, otherwise known as Alec Smith, in 862 1930. It was later leased by Joe Smith. In 1972, it was still Maori land. The sale had to be approved by a meeting of assembled owners.863 Many of the owners did not live locally.864 The meeting was attended by P J Brewster, the District Officer from Gisbome. He came in a dual capacity as a representative of the Maori Trustee. The Maori Trustee was both an owner in the block and an applicant to buy the block. Brewster told the owners present about the increased level of payments that were being made from the Maori Soldiers' Fund to all known [Maori] First World War veterans. 865 He used the nature of the trust as an argument in favour of the sale. He made it quite clear that the sale of this particular block if approved, would mean more land for the Station and this in turn would ensure continued benefit for Maori Ex-Servicemen. Although the initial trust
Extract of Minutes from Wairoa Minute Book Volume 72 - folio 15931 January 1968, 13/119 vol 1 857 Greaves, Field Supervisor Wairoa to Gisbome, 31 March 1971, 13/119 vol 1 858 Handwritten Statement with illegible initials dated 13 October 1933 re Hereheretau, MA 1 7011 vol 3, NA Wellington 859 District Officer, Gisbome, to Maori Trustee, 25 February 1955, MA 1 7015 vol 2, NA Wellington 860 District Officer, Gisbome, to Head Office, 7 June 1972, 13/1/9 vol 2, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 861 District Solicitor to Messrs Bisson, Moss, Robertshawe & Co, Napier, 17 April 1973, 13/119 vol 2 862 Minutes of Meeting of Assembled Owners held under Part XVIII of the Native Land Act 1909, Wairoa 16 April 1930; Acting Registrar to Messrs. Simpson & Bate, Hastings, 19 December' 4', both in MA 15/24/52, nearer basement, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 863 A note on J H Dark for Maori Trustee to Gisbome, 18 September 1972 describes 2c2c as European land. The District Officer's letter to Head Office, 7 June 1972, however, refers to both blocks and then refers to 'The Maori owners of these lands ... ' Both from 13/119 vol 2, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome CT HB 981118 for the block refers to one of the owners before Joe Smith as 'Hera Waaka Mete or Smith'. Copy in 1311/9 vol 2. On the sale see also: District Officer to the Supervisor, Wairoa, 17 May 1972, same file 864 Greaves, Field Supervisor, to Gisbome, 13/119 vol 2 865 This was presumably a reference to the practice of making 'Special Grants' to all World War One Maori veterans. This started in late 1972. See section 8.5
153 referred to World War I Ex-Servicemen, it was envisaged that in time the benefits would go to other Maori Ex-Servicemen.'
Only two owners with small shares who lived away from the area voted against the sale. 866 They were notified when the Maori Land Court was about to sit to consider the sale, but they did not appear. The court then confirmed the resolution to sell to the M aon. T rustee. 867
Hereheretau 2c2c was technically not Maori land. This was one of the blocks proclaimed Crown land in October 1925. 868 Nevertheless, at the time it was bought by the Maori Trustee for the Maori Soldiers' Fund, the block was Maori owned. It had been freeholded by the estate of Alec Smith on 20 September 1963.869 The idea of leasing Hereheretau 2c2c and Hereheretau 2c2B apparently came from Greaves, then the District Supervisor at Wairoa. Greaves thought the land was Crown land. 870 It may also be that the purchase, rather than the leasing, of Hereheretau 2c2B was suggested to Greaves by Smith, rather than being initiated by Greaves. 871
In May 1973, the Maori Trustee bought the two blocks. From this point, apparently as a result of an error about boundaries, the station also grazed Hereheretau 2c2A2.872 This block was still Maori land. In 1945, a meeting of assembled owners agreed to lease it to Areke Mete for twenty-one years. 873 Areke Mete was one of the owners.874 By 1966, Joe Smith, the former owner of Hereheretau 2c2c, held the lease. In 1967, the Maori Land Court confirmed a resolution of a meeting of assembled owners to lease the land to Smith for 21 years with the right of renewal for a further 21 years. 875 In 1976, however, Joe Smith sold the lease to the Maori Trustee. 876
866 Minutes of Meeting - Hereheretau 2C2B Block; Alienations Clerk to Senior Estates Clerk, 20 December 1972, both in MA 15124/52, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 867 Extract of Minutes from Gisborne Minute Book Volume 102 folio 302, 7 February 1973, MA 15/24/52 868 See section 4.5 869 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, to District Officer, Maori and Pacific Island Affairs, Gisbome, 29 April 1971, 13/1/9 vol 1, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome The block is Section I Block 1 of the Nuhaka Survey District. See Certificate of Titlein 8/8/82-16, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 870 District Officer - Note for File - 20 April 1971; District Officer to Supervisor, Wairoa, 5 October 1971, both in 13/1/9 vol 1 871 Greaves, Field Supervisor, to Gisborne, 28 October 1971, 13/1/9 vol 1 872 Minute Sheet (illegible initials), fo1394-393; District Field Supervisor to District Officer, 3 March 1976, both from 13/1/9 vol 2, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 873 Resolution carried at meeting of assembled owners Form NLC - 80, MA 15/24/51, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court 874 Registrar to District Land Registrar, Napier, 15 April [194]8, MA 15/24/51 875 Extract of Minutes from Wairoa Minute Book Volume 72 - folio 226, MA 15/24/51 876 District Officer to Head Office, 21 April 1976; District Solicitor to Messrs Tonkinson & Galbraith, Wairoa, 17 August 1976; Notice of Change of Ownership or Occupancy, 27 October 1976, all in 13/1/9 vol 2
154 The District Field Supervisor wanted eventually to buy the freehold of this block. He stated: 'This is the last piece of available Maori land in the area which will fit in with Hereheretau.,877 This purchase of the freehold of Maori land did not eventuate.
7.6 Conclusion This chapter has not tried to give a comprehensive picture of the development of Hereheretau Station. The station has been affected by the same sort of influences as other farms. Quality of management, stock and wool prices, government policy and the weather have all played a part. Over a fifty year period, the level of stock carried on the station has approximately doubled. The blackberry has been an on-going problem, despite mammoth efforts at controlling it by people like the very competent manager Greaves.
At the end of World War Two, the station had still not provided any assistance whatsoever to World War One veterans. It is consequently hardly surprising that in 1947 Pura Solomon of Whakaki asked the Native Minister to make Hereheretau Station available for settlement by veterans. This scheme was explored in depth. It had considerable local support, not just from Maori but also from pakeha. Experience had proved, however, that this was not easy land to farm productively. There was debate as to whether it could be farmed by several Maori veterans in separate units. Eventually it was decided to make the enterprise a communal one. The sudden death of the man chosen to lead the enterprise led to the eventual collapse of this scheme.
Ironically, instead of selling his leasehold, the Maori Trustee then bought the freehold of the station land from the Crown for the Maori Soldiers' Trust. During the 1960s and early 1970s, some further areas of land were bought by the trust. Two small areas of the former Kahaatureia block were transferred by a pakeha neighbour to the Maori Trustee for the soldiers' fund at no cost to avoid an obligation to fence. Other than this, it would seem that the station has tended to buy or lease land from Maori.
In the 1960s, Judge Sheehan expressed concern about the Maori Trustee's purchasing of Maori land. He helped to negotiate a modification to the trustee's purchasing plans in one area. The resultant somewhat complicated scheme was intended to assist the farming activities of one of the Maori concerned.
As had been the case earlier in the century, it would seem that both Maori and pakeha continued to farm in the locality. Many of the same names, Maori and pakeha, recur. The scheme worked out with the assistance of Judge Sheehan was not, however, entirely successful. This was apparently because the Maori farmer involved lacked the capital necessary to complete it. The extent of land purchasing by the Crown in the early twentieth century, along with the lack of access at that time to finance for the development of Maori farms, may have had long-term negative consequences for what Judge Sheehan described as 'a comparatively landless people'.
877 District Field Supervisor to District Officer, 3 March 1976, 13/1/9 vo12
155 CHAPTER 8:THE MAORI SOLDIERS' FUND 1952-1996 8.1 Introduction In 1952, in the wake of the Korean War wool boom, the position of the Maori Soldiers' Fund was greatly improved. A debate about the use of the fund began among veterans, other Maori, the Maori Trustee and members of the staff of the Department of Maori Affairs. This chapter begins by looking at this debate.
The chapter then looks at the Maori Soldiers' Trust Act 1957. For the last forty years, this has been the principal legislation under which the Maori Soldiers' Fund has operated. The act gave greater power to World War One veterans to share in decisions about the fund.
The chapter then reviews the various categories of grants made by the fund. Initially there was considerable provision for Maori educational funding. For many years, however, the bulk of the available money was used to pay hardship grants to veterans and funeral or tangi grants to the next of kin of veterans. From the 1973-74 year, the bulk of funding was paid out in 'special grants'. These were once or twice yearly payments of a uniform sum to all surviving World War One veterans.
The chapter concludes by looking at the debate over the future of the fund. The issue was what was to happen to the fund after the death of the last veteran. Up to the mid 1980s, the debate was principally about using the fund for Maori education, particularly for the children of World War One veterans, and/or for the dependants of Maori World War One veterans, and/or for the Maori veterans of World War Two and other later wars.
From the mid 1980s, the debate widened. The issue of the possible return of the land in Hereheretau Station to local Maori was raised and debated. The chapter finishes by reviewing expenditure from the fund after the death of the last two veterans in mid 1993. To date, such expenditure has been directed, along the lines laid down by the 1957 act, towards assistance for dependants of veterans and towards Maori education.
8.2 The Beginning of Grants by the Maori Soldiers' Fund The year 1952 did not simply see the Native Trustee looking seriously at the option of purchasing the freehold of the Hereheretau Station. The Native Trustee saw a need for active administration of the fund. His first thought was apparently that the bulk of the money available should be spent on education, with the beneficiaries being children of veterans of World War Two. It was envisaged that legislation would be needed to · h 878 carry out t hIS sc erne.
The District Officer of the Department of Maori Affairs, Gisborne, on the other hand, proposed that consideration be given to using some of the station's revenue for the original purposes of the trust. 879 Later, he proposed using some fund income for
878 Memorandum for Mr Apperley by someone with illegible initials, 26 February 1952, MA 1 70/1 vol 5, NA Wellington 879 District Officer, Gisborne, to Maori Trustee, 3 April 1952, MA 1 70/1 vol 5
156 helping with the repayment of housing loans for needy First and Second World War veterans and t helr· WI·d ows. 880
The trustee remained enthusiastic about using funds for education. He took the position that the East Coast Maori Soldiers' Fund's original purposes were in 1952 'very largely' met by Social Security benefits. He suggested to the Minister of Maori Affairs that it would fulfil the spirit ofthe original trust if £5000 were to be donated to the Ngarimu V.C and 28th (Maori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund. This level of donation would bring that fund up to the level at which it would qualify for a promised government subsidy. The trustee said that he had discussed the idea with some East Coast Maori leaders, and that they agreed that this would be 'a proper use of the East Coast Maori Soldiers' Fund.' He reported that 'they also agree generally with the proposal that the Fund should be used principally for educational purposes.' 881
But the issue of the use of trust funds was not to be left to be determined by the trustee. As the year progressed, the issue became a very lively one among First World War veterans and other members of the Maori community, particularly on the East Coast, who saw themselves as having contributed to the original fund. Some early enquiries related to the possibility of financial assistance being granted for the erectIOn. 0 f war memona. 1 s or fior cemetery up k eep. 882
In June 1952, the Matakaoa 1st NZEF Maori War Veterans Club invited the Under Secretary of Maori Affairs, who at this stage was also the Maori Trustee, to a hui at Tikitiki near Ruatoria. The club hoped the unveiling of a memorial to Sir Apirana Ngata, at which veterans from Te Arawa, Tuhoe, Ngaiterangi, Te Whanau-a-Apanui, Whakatohea, Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Porou would be present, would be a good opportunity for them to hear about the fund and express their views about the disposal of the profits and the administration of surplus funds. 883 Before this meeting took place, Judge Smith wrote to the Maori Trustee to draw his attention to rumours on the East Coast that the objectives of the fund were to be changed. He pointed out that East Coast people wanted to be consulted. 884
The trustee,T T Ropiha, met a group of veterans at Waiomatatini on 13 July 1952. He told them that there was 'every possibility' that efforts would be made to take the Hereheretau and Hoia funds and pay them into the National Patriotic Fund. He used this as an argument to persuade them to support his proposals for the fund. The meeting unanimously passed motions to recommend • the payment of £5000 to the Ngarimu V.C. and 28th Maori Battalion Scholarship Fund • the purchase of the freehold of Hereheretau Station
880 District Officer to Under-Secretary, 4 July 1952 881 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, 12 June 1952, MA 1 70/1 vol 5 882 Secretary, Te Arawa Returned Services League, to Under-Secretary, 3 July 1952; Hon Secretary, Hinerupe Marae Committee and War Memorial Committee, 7 July 1952, both in MA 1 70/1 vol 5 883 E M Potae, Hon Secretary, to Under-Secretary, Maori Affairs, 18 June 1952, MA 1 70/1 vol 5 884 Judge Smith to Maori Trustee, 8 July 1952, MA 1 70/1 vo15
157 • that the balance of accumulated profits and future revenue from the two stations be used to form an educational endowment fund to be called "The Sir Apirana Ngata Educational Endowment Fund", to be used for under-graduate and post-graduate study in New Zealand and overseas • that a Board of Trustees be formed, made up of Reiwhata Vercoe, Turi Carroll, Wiremu Ngata, Rangi Royal and M Rotohiko Jones 885 • that legislation be prepared to be passed that session to carry out the resolutions.
These motions were later reaffirmed by a meeting of Arawa First World War veterans, a group from whom much previous criticism of the fund had come. Ray Vercoe commented that We honestly thought that [the East Coast Maori Soldiers fund] was a name and nothing else - we criticised the handling of that fund by Apirana Ngata, but we are big enough to say now that his efforts though misunderstood by us were for the good and have now paid 886 excellent dividends.
Provision for a payment of up to £5000 to the scholarship fund was subsequently 887 made in section 4 of the Maori Purposes Act 1952. The full £5000 was paid over during the 1953-54 year. 888
The Maori Trustee's educational thrust for the fund did not go unquestioned. A group of World War One veterans and kaumatua soon wrote to protest about what they saw as a proposed breach of the trust. They argued that veterans should benefit from the fund in their old age. R Keiha, Maori representative on the Gisborne Returned 889 Services Association, was appointed as their representative. Keiha spoke at a meeting of the Kahungunu Tribal Executive in Wairoa in August, apparently stating that there was a division within the Department of Maori Affairs as to whether the fund should be spent on educational scholarships or on the veterans. The meeting supported Keiha's objection to the proposed use of the fund for educational purposes.890 This episode earned Keiha, as a member of the department's Gisborne staff, a reprimand for speaking out on a subject which the Maori Trustee considered d1'd not concern h'1m. 891
Despite this, the trustee clearly felt the need to follow up the issue of the needs of veterans. He had a survey of the circumstances and needs of World War One veterans undertaken in all districts.892 The Controller of Maori Welfare, Rangi Royal,893
885 Notes of Meeting at Waiomatatini, East Cape 13th July, 1952, MA 1 7011 vol 5 886 Meeting at Arawa Trust Board 7.30pm on Tuesday 2nd September 1952, p 5 - motions reaffIrmed on pp 18-20, MA 1 7011 vol 5 887 This section was repealed by s 6 of the Maori Purposes Act 1956 888 Maori Soldiers Fund (Cash Portion), fol154, MA 1 7011 vol 6 889 Numerous veterans and kaumatua to Minister of Maori Affairs, 18 July 1952, MA 1 70/1 vol 5 890 Extract from Meeting ofthe Kahungunu Tribal Executive held at Wairoa on the 15th August, 1952, MA 1 70/1 vol 5 891 Maori Trustee to Reta Keiha, Maori Affairs, Gisbome, 6 October 1952, MA 1 7011 vol 5 892 Maori Trustee to all District Officers, District Welfare Officers, Welfare OffIcers, 7 August 1952, MA 1 70/1 vol 5
158 reported that 330 of 567 veterans surveyed did not require assistance. He viewed a number of the types of needs noted, particularly housing and farming, as matters for which the Department of Maori Affairs, not the soldiers' fund, should take responsibility. He admitted, however, that there were still needs that were legitimate matters for the fund. Like the trustee, he was concerned that the fund might be lost to Maori control through merging with other patriotic funds. He therefore supported the Waiomatatini motions, but wanted only fifty percent of the balance of funds available spent on education. The other fifty percent, he suggested, should be allotted to Maori veterans of World War One. At any rate, he observed, legislation would be required to extend the scope of the fund. 894
Very shortly after Royal reported, a further meeting of veterans was held at Kaiti Pa, Gisborne. The meeting unanimously approved the action of the Maori Trustee in donating £5000 to the Ngarimu Scholarship and in buying the freehold of Hereheretau Station. Argument emerged, however, over the expenditure of the balance. A committee elected by the gathering supported using this for the relief needs of World War One veterans, with the balance going to Maori education. Other veterans pushed hard for a payment to be made to all veterans. The Maori Trustee firmly resisted this, stating that . .. the present request by the speakers at the general meeting for a distribution out of the cash balance held by the Trustee as a straight out grant to all surviving ex-servicemen of the first World war cannot be acceded to without special authority by legislation. 895
Meanwhile, in December 1952, Rangi Royal had visited a needy veteran and recommended him to the Maori Trustee for an immediate cash grant and possible future assistance. 896 This seems to have been the first grant made by the Maori Soldiers' Fund during this new stage of its existence.
The debates which took place within the department and among veterans between February 1952 and March 1953 foreshadow subsequent debate about the distribution and future of the fund right up to the mid 1980s. There was to be on-going debate between those who favoured an emphasis on education and those who focused on the needs of veterans. There was also to be on-going debate about the issue of making grants to all veterans regardless of their circumstances. A last issue which appeared in one of the suggestions of the District Officer, Gisborne, was the question of the inclusion of Maori veterans of World War Two in distributions from the fund.
During 1953, Rangi Royal held twenty meetings around the country. Nineteen of these were attended by Maori World War One veterans. The returned servicemen, along with tribal executives and others present, approved various proposals which set the course of the Maori Soldiers' Fund for some decades. These were that
893 R Royal's position mentioned in Report on meeting of Maori returned soldiers ... Kaiti Pa ... 7th March 1953, p 1, MA 1 70/1 vol 5 894 Controller to Maori Trustee, 5 March 1953, MA 1 70/1 vol 5 895 Report on meeting of Maori returned soldiers ... Kaiti Pa ... 7th March 1953, p 1, MA 1 70/1 vol 5 - Maori Trustee's comment on pI 896 Rangi Royal to Maori Trustee, 16 December 1952, MA 1 70/1 vol 5
159 • grants of not more than £50 be made to World War One veterans and their dependents for relief and assistance; • an automatic grant of not more than £50 be made to the next of kin or dependents upon the death of any Maori World War One veteran • World War One veterans in Waikato, Hauraki, Bay of Plenty, Rotorua, Murupara Ruatahura, Wairoa, Hawkes Bay and Wairarapa agreed to a reduction in the amount of compensation payable by the owners of Te Hoia blocks with respect to improvements to not less than £8000. 897
The last point reflected the fact that it seemed that the value of compensation assessed by arbitration many years before had been excessive. 898 Section 27 of the Maori Purposes Act 1953 allowed the Maori Trustee, with the approval of the Board of Maori Affairs, to write off an appropriate amount of the compensation charged on the blocks. Section 26 of the act amended section 23 of the Appropriation Act 1925.
The Maori Purposes Act 1953 also permitted the Maori Trustee to use the balance of net income from the Maori Soldiers' Fund to establish a scholarship fund and to use this to assist the higher education of Maori within or beyond New Zealand.899 In addition, the Maori Trustee was authorised to delegate his powers under the 1925 legislation to district committees to be set up in each Maori Land Court district. Each committee was to consist of a representative of the Maori Trustee who was to be the chairman, and not more than four persons appointed by the Maori Trustee from members of the First New Zealand Expeditionary Force.90o The committees could only approve grants of up to £50, but could recommend that a higher grant be made by the Maori Trustee.901
Substantial sums were paid to veterans during the years that followed. Up to 31 March 1955, veterans received £5598, in the following year £5427, the next year £4988, and in the period from 1 April 1957 to 31 December 1957, £3888.902
During the 1954-55 year, £10,000 was transferred to the Scholarship fund, and a £60 educational grant was paid out.903 Further small education grants were made in 1955- 56. The following year, much larger grants were made to a number of people including I H Kawharu.904
897 Rangi Royal, Controller, to Maori Trustee, 3 November 1953, MA 1 70/1 vol 6, NA Wellington 898 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, 12 November 1953, MA 1 70/1 vol 6 899 Sections 26(1) - 26(5) of the Maori Purposes Act 1953 900 s 26(6) 901 s 26(7) 902 Schedule. Extract from Secretary's report dated 7th-8th on Gisbome District Office, p 2, MA 1 7011 vol 8, NA Wellington 903 Maori Soldiers Fund (Cash Portion), fo1154, MA 1 70/1 vol 6 904 page numbered 89 in pencil - includes list of scholarship grants paid, MA 1 70/1 vol 7, NA Wellington; 'Scholarships', MA 1 70/1/1 vol 1, NA Wellington
160 Veterans met in conferences, with the Maori Trustee contributing to the costs of those who found it difficult to attend. 90s
8.3 The Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957 By 1956, the Maori Trustee wished to make detailed statutory arrangements regarding the trust. The result was the Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957. This came into force on 1 April 1958.
Under the act, the property of the fund continued to be held by the Maori Trustee. Money needed for the trust's farming operations was held in a General Account. A Sir Apirana Ngata Scholarship Fund Account was set up to hold money previously held in the scholarship account set up under section 26 of the Maori Purposes Act 1953. Any other money held for trust purposes was to go into a Maori Soldiers Fund Account. 906
The Maori Trustee continued to be able to farm freehold or leasehold interests held for the purposes of the trust. If the trustee wished to borrow money, he now needed the prior approval of the Trust Committee set up by the act. Sales and purchases of the freehold or leasehold of land were to take place only upon the recommendation of the committee, as well as with the consent of the Minister of Maori Affairs.
The Maori Soldiers Trust Committee had the Minister of Maori Affairs as its Chairman and the Maori Trustee as its Deputy Chairman. The six members were each to represent one of the Maori Land Court districts. Ikaroa and the South Island were treated as one district. The members were to be, as far as possible, World War One Maori veterans. Failing that, they were to be 'persons who have at any time served overseas as members of the armed forces of the Crown'. They were to be appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs. The Minister's appointments had to give effect to nominations made by a general meeting of Maori World War One veterans. To advise on the expenditure of money from the Scholarship Fund, the committee could invite to its meetings the Director of Education and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New Zealand, or any person nominated by either of them.907 When the University of New Zealand was abolished, provision was made to substitute the Chairman of the University Grants Committee for the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New Zealand.908
Money in the Maori Soldiers Fund Account was to be administered by the trust committee for the benefit of World War One Maori veterans and their dependants. Purposes for which payments from the fund could be authorised included • relief, assistance and support of Maori World War One veterans and their dependants; • grants towards funeral and tangi expenses of such veterans; and • grants towards the expenses of holding general meetings of such veterans.
905 fol 73 - opinion of Maori Returned Soldiers Assn (lst W.W.) re funding ofreunions, MA 1 70/1 vol 7 906 s 4 Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957 907S 8 Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957 908 s 59 and First Schedule of the Universities Act 1961
161 'Dependant' was stated to include 'the children or grandchildren of Maori veterans. ,909
The trust committee was also to administer the Scholarship Fund Account to promote the higher education of Maori. The committee was to give preference wherever practicable to descendents of World War One Maori veterans. The fund could be used to pay for a wide variety of purposes: • providing post-graduate scholarships in New Zealand or overseas; • providing travelling expenses in connection with post-graduate scholarships; • making grants to Maori for other special study or research; • making grants to schools or other institutions to promote higher education for Maori; and • granting bursaries to Maori to help them gain university degrees.910
The trust committee had power to appoint district committees to which it could delegate its powers, except that, as in the 1953 act, district committees could not make any single payment greater than fifty pounds.911
The trust committee also had power to transfer funds between the Maori Soldiers Fund Account and the Scholarship Fund Account.
This act represented a significant move towards a higher level of involvement and control of the trust by its original intended beneficiaries - Maori veterans of the First World War. Two large groups of veterans had made their wishes for greater consideration of their interests clear by the identical remits they brought to their conference at Taihoa Marae, Wairoa, in March 1957. They wanted more funding to assist veterans. They wanted priority for their descendents insured in educational spending. They wanted veterans' gatherings to have financial support from the fund. They wanted the fund administered as a body corporate, with a committee of management made up of World War One veterans. Reta Keiha, in particular, apparently advocated the latter step. 912
The precise contents of the bill were not revealed to the veterans. Later, before the bill was passed, there was further consultation with representatives from the land court districts. There was some ill-feeling that the executive of Te Hokowhitu-A-Tu Association were not included in this. Despite this, the consultations done at this point moved the bill further towards putting the interests of the W orld War One veterans to the fore. 913 It seems to have been necessary to put some pressure on the Maori Trustee
909S 9 Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957 910 s 10 Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957 911 s 13 Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957 912 Maori Veterans of World War I - Conference to be held at Taihoa Marae, Wairoa, Sunday the 17th. March 1957; Memorandum to the Maori Trustee re Maori Soldiers Fund Bill, 3 May 1957, both in MA 1 7011 vol 7; Hokowhitu-A-Tu Maori Veteran's [sic] Association. 1957 Report and Conference Minutes. 17th March 1957 TaihoaPa Waitoa [sic], MA 1 70/1 vol 8 913 Note for File: Maori Soldiers Trust Bill, fo1143, MA 1 7011 vo18; Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, 30 August 1957, MA 1 7011 vol 8
162 to achieve a level of consultation acceptable to the veterans. The bill as originally introduced told the Minister of Maori Affairs to 'have regard' to the wishes of district committees when appointing trust committee members, but it did not bind him to do so. When the bill came before the house, Corbett, the Minister of Maori Affairs, at the request of the members for Southern and Eastern Maori, announced that he would move an amendment that would ensure that the wishes of a general conference of veterans regarding trust committee membership would bind the minister. The minister was an enthusiastic supporter of giving veterans power in the affairs of the truSt. 914
For nearly two decades, annual meetings of Te Hokowhitu-A-Tu Association, as well as meetings of the central trust committee and the district committees, ensured that veterans had a voice in the current and future affairs of the fund. In 1976, Te Hokowhitu-a-Tu Association reunion decided that no further reunions would be held.915 Once the decision was taken that the annual reunions would end, Te Hokowhitu-a-Tu Association apparently disbanded.916 In 1983, there was a further reumon.. 917
The district committees were finally officially allowed to lapse in 1988. By that stage, there was no functioning committee in any district, and only nine veterans were left in the country. 918
Apart from some relatively minor amendments, the Maori Soldiers Trust has now operated for half a century under the 1957 act. Section 35 of the Maori Purposes Act 1959 amended section 4(4) of the 1957 act by laying down fixed terms for membership of the trust committee. Previously appointments were made 'during the pleasure of the Minister.'
Section 10 of the Maori Purposes Act 1962 in effect allowed the number of members of the trust committee to change if there were to be a change in the number of Maori land court districts. Section 9 of that act allowed the trustee, with the prior approval of the trust committee, to borrow for the general purposes of the trust. Under the 1957 act, borrowing was only mentioned under section 6, a section dealing with farming.
8.4 Grants for Educational Purposes The power given to veterans seems to have meant that the level of funding given to education tended to fall away as the fund focused on the needs of veterans and on making funeral and tangi grants. On 1 July 1958, the trust committee reduced the amount in the Sir Apirana Ngata Scholarship Fund from £11,000 to £8000.919 Initially
914 Corbett, 19 September 1957, NZPD, vol 314, pp 2482-2484 915 MINUTES OF MEETING HOKOWHITU-A-TU ASSOCIATION ... 28TH FEBRUARY 1976 AT l.30P.M. , P 4, AAMK 869/1455b, NA Wellington 916 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING ... 16 November 1976, p 5, AAMK 86911455a, NA Wellington 917 B R Green for Maori Trustee to Thomas B Wilson, Napier, 6 April 1984, 70/1/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office 918 Maori Soldiers Trust. Minutes ... Trust Committee ... 15 October 1988, section 8., 70/1/3 vollO, Maori Trustee Head Office 919 Maori Soldiers Trust. Report on Accounts at 30 June 1959; Maori Soldiers Trust. Report on Accounts at 30 June 1960, both in MA 1 70/1/1 vol 1
163 a decision was taken to go on funding individuals, rather than making grants to institutions, as the act permitted.92o A Maori who was later to playa prominent role in national life who received assistance from the scholarship fund was Paul Reeves.921 Education grants, including amounts given for overseas scholarships, totalled £1350, £882, £1634, and £1200 in the years ended 30 June 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961 respectively.922
With the creation of the Maori Education Foundation, the trust committee decided to grant £ 1000 to that body, with the proviso that any grants made by the foundation from Maori Soldiers' Fund money were to retain their identity as a memorial to Sir Apirana Ngata.923 As the Maori Soldiers' Fund ran low in 1962, the trust committee decided to transfer £4000 from the Scholarship account to the Maori Soldiers Account. 924 In the mid 1960s, expenditure for educational purposes virtually stopped.925 In 1966, the trust committee decided to grant what was in effect the 926 balance of the fund to the Maori Education Foundation.
A further grant of $500 was made to the Maori Education Fund in the 1970-71 927 year. The intention was that sufficient capital be held by the Maori Education Fund for the Sir Apirana Ngata Memorial Scholarship to allow requirements to be met from interest. By the following year this requirement had been met. 928 For many years no further provision was made for the scholarship.
Right from 1958, however, there was also provision for assistance to dependants for educational purposes. In 1972, for instance, the trust committee decided that grants of 929 up to $20 might be made to dependants on these grounds.
8.S Hardship, Funeral and Special Grants Table 8~ 1 shows the level of grants made by the fund to veterans and their dependants since the passage ofthe Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957. Over the years, the maximum level of grants made by the fund was gradually increased with inflation and the reducing number of veterans. Up until the recent death of the last veteran, however, there has been only one main change in the process of making grants.
920 'Scholarships', p 2, MA 1 70/1/1 vol 1 921 Sir Apirana Ngata Memorial Scholarship Fund Account [year to 30 June 1960], MA 1 70/1/1 vol 1 922 Maori Soldiers Trust. fo1339 showing various grants made by trust in 1957-58 to 1961-62, MA 1 70/1/3 vol 2, NA Wellington 923 Maori Soldiers Trust. Minutes of Meeting of Trust Committee ... 17 October 1961 ... , P 2, MA 1 70/1/1 vol 2, NA Wellington 924 Maori Soldiers Trust. Minutes of Meeting of Trust Committee ... 16 October 1962 ... , pi, MA 1 70/1/1 vol 2 925 Maori Soldiers' Trust, Reports on Accounts for years ended 30 June1964, 1965, 1966, all in MA 1 70/1/1 vol 3, NA Wellington 926 Maori Soldiers' Trust. Report and Accounts as at 30 June 1967, MA 1 70/1/1 vol 3 927 Maori Soldiers' Fund Sir Apirana Ngata Scholarship Trust Account ... year ended 30 June 1971, MA Aee W2490 Box 323 70/111 vol 4, NA Wellington 928 Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee. Minutes of the Annual Meeting ... 24 November 1970, p 1; Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee. Minutes of the Annual Meeting ... 30 November 1971, p 2; both in MA Ace W2490 Box 323 70/1/3 vol 6, NA Wellington 929 Secretary to District Officers, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 70/1/2 vol 3, NA Wellington
164 For many years, the Maori Trustee firmly maintained his initial policy that grants to veterans were to be made on the grounds of hardship and for funerals and tangi. In 1964, the Wanganui committee was criticised by Head Office for having made a five pound Christmas payment to veterans in its area. 930 In 1972, the Auckland office was gently but firmly warned not to repeat the provision of a special Christmas dinner to all veterans who could be contacted. The policy of making payments for 'more direct assistance such as clothing, heating, lighting, medical expenses and the like, particularly to the more needy ofthe old chaps' was emphasised.931
Yet only a few months later, the trust committee decided, subject to obtaining legal confirmation that such a grant would be in order, to pay $50 to all veterans alive on 23 November 1972.932 The District Solicitor, apparently in Gisborne, subsequently gave an opinion that it was intra vires - within the powers of the trust - to make such a payment, and the grant was accordingly made.933
In 1974 and on a number of other occasions, the trust committee borrowed from the Maori Trustee's General Purposes fund to obtain sufficient funds to make the special grants. The committee argued that the current needs of elderly veterans justified borrowing against the substantial assets of the fund. 934 It apparently took some time for the existence of these special uniform grants to become clear in the accounts. But at least from 1973-74, these grants became the main form of assistance given by the trust to veterans.935
TABLE 8.1: FUNERAL, HARDSHIP AND SPECIAL GRANTS Year Funeral Grants Hardship Grants Special Grants 1957-58 £ 5,211 1958-59 £ 2,198 £ 1,841 1959-60 £ 1,945 £ 3,264 1960-61 £ 1,921 £ 2,447 1961-62 £ 1,665 £ 3,156"'';0 1962-63 £ 1,575 £ 3,419 1963-64 £ 2,090 £ 2,585 1964-65 £ 2,272 £ 2,329:1.01
930 District Officer, Wanganui, to Head Office, 13 April 1967 [sic], MA Acc W2490 Box 32670/117 vol 1, NA Wellington 931 District Officer, Auckland, to Head Office, 9 June 1972; J H Dark for Maori Trustee to Auckland, 14 June 1972, both in MA Acc W2490 Box 32370/112 vol 3, NA Wellington 932 Maori Soldiers' Trust. Minutes of ... Annual Meeting ... 23 November 1972, pp 5-6, MA Acc W2490 Box 326 70/117 vol 2, NA Wellington 933 Maurice Gavin, District Solicitor, to District Officer and Senior Estates Clerk, 27 November 1972, MA Acc W2490 Box 324 7011/3 vol 7, NA Wellington; Memorandum from Secretary, 4 December 1972, MA Acc W2490 Box 32670/117 vol 2, NA Wellington 934 Maori Land Board Executive Committee. Application for an Advance from the Maori Trustee's General Purposes Fund, p2, AAMK 86911455a, NA Wellington 935 See Table 8.1 936Funeral and Hardship Gramts for 1957-58 to 1961-62 from page headed MAORI SOLDIERS' TRUST, folio 339, MA 1 70/113 vol 2, NA Wellington
165 1965-66 $ 3,486 $ 8,110 1966-67 $ 2,769 $ 9,763 1967-68 $ 2,394 $ 4,347':1~1l 1968-69 $ 2,394 $ 4,347':1~':1 1969-70 $ 3,300 $ 2, 142 01'+v 1970-71 $ 3,600 $ 2544':141, 1971-72 $ 1,790 $ 2,922':1'+L. 1972-73 $ 5,200 $18,634 01'+-> 1973-74 $ 7,760 $ 6,583 $39,000':144 1974-75 $ 8,628 $ 9,982 $29,967':1'+~ 1975-76 $ 7,006 $ 6,517 $19,700 01'+0 1976-77 $ 4,030 $ 8,327 $26,150':141 1977-78 $ 5,875 $ 6,041 $30,646':1'+0 1978-79 $ 7,064 $ 5,623 $27,097"'+01 1979-80 $ 6,207 $ 5,253 $27,900':1~V 1980-81 $ 7,400 $ 4,712 $27,400':1~1 01 1981-82 $ 8,427 $ 1,632 $43,100 -',0 1982-83 $11,722 $ 400 $34,500':1J~ 1983-84 $ 9,366 $ 739 $36,550':1J4
937 Funeral and Hardship Grants for 1962-63 to 1964-65 from Maori Soldiers' Trust. Agenda of ... Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee ... 23 November 1965, MA 1 70/1/3 vol 4, NA Wellington 938 Funeral and Hardship Grants for 1965-66 to 1967-68 from Maori Soldiers' Trust. Agenda of ... Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee ... 19 November 1968, p 7, MA 1 70/1/3 vol 5, NA Wellington 939 MAORI SOLDIERS FUND. ACCOUNTS GENERAL. MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ACCOUNT [Year ended 30 June 1968], MA Acc W2490 Box 32370/1/1 vol 4, NA Wellington 940 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ACCOUNT ... YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1970, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 70/1/1 vol 4 941 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ACCOUNT ... YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1971, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 7011/1 vol 4 942 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ACCOUNT ... YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1972, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 70/1/1 vol 4 943 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MAORI SOLDIERS FUND ACCOUNT ... YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1973, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 7011/1 vol 4 944 MAORI SOLDIERS' TRUST. FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1974, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 70/1/1 vol 4 945 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MAORI SOLDIERS FUND ACCOUNT... 30 June 1975, AAMK 869/1455a, NA Wellington 946 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MAORI SOLDIERS FUND ACCOUNT... 30 June 1976, AAMK 869/1455a 947 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MAORI SOLDIERS FUND ACCOUNT... 30 June 1977, AAMK 869/1455a 948 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MAORI SOLDIERS FUND ACCOUNT... 30 June 1978, AAMK 86911455a 949 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MAORI SOLDIERS FUND ACCOUNT... 30 June 1979, AAMK 869/1455a 950 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MAORI SOLDIERS FUND ACCOUNT... 30 June 1980, AAMK 869/1455a 951 MAORI SOLDIERS' TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... 30 June 1981, AAMK 869/1455a 952 MAORI SOLDIERS' TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... 30 June 1982, AAMK 869/1455a 953 1982-83 figures from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... 30 June 1983, 70/1/1 vol 6, Maori Trustee Head Office
166 1984-85 $10,600 $ 1,163 $32,30~ 1985-86 $ 974 $20,594 $31,000~)() 1986-87 $ 7,500 $ 495 $17,015~) 1987-88 $ 3,000 $ 500 $12,250~)1S 1988-89 $ 5,600 - $10,750~)~ 1989-90 $ 4,200 $ 1,412 $13,750~oV 1990-91 $ 8,900 $ 3,750~()1 1991-92 $ 3,750~OL 1992-93 $ 6,270'JOS 1993-94 $ 2,600~()'I 1994-95 [$1,000] [$1,500] $7,500 [but it seems that $1,500 was a hardship grant to a widow, $1,000 was a grant for a headstone for a widow, and $5,000 Christmas grants to widows of veterans. ]965
954 1983-84 figures from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... 30 June 1984, 70/1/1 vol 6, Maori Trustee Head Office 955 1984-85 figures from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... 30 June 1985, 70/1/1 vol 6, Maori Trustee Head Office 9561985-1986 figures from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1986. MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... , 70/1/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office 957 1986-87 figures from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1987. MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... , 70/1/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office 958 1987-88 figures from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1988. MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... , 70/1/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office 959 1988-89 figures from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1989. MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... , 70/1/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office 960 1989-90 figures from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ... 30 JUNE 1990. MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT..., 70/1/1 vol 8, Maori Trustee Head Office 961 1990-91 figures from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ... 30 JUNE 1991. MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... , 70/1/1 vol 8, Maori Trustee Head Office 9621991-92 figure from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ... 30 JUNE 1992. MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ... , 70/1/1 vol 8, Maori Trustee Head Office 963 1992-93 figure from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ... 30 JUNE 1993. MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT..., 70/1/1 vol 8, Maori Trustee Head Office 964 MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT. INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1994, P 4, MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST ACCOUNT. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 30 JUNE 1994, 70/111 vol 9, Maori Trustee Head Office 965 Pink covered document: Maori Soldiers Trust, p 20, Maori Soldiers Trust Fund Account ... 30 June 1995; P 48, Assistance to Beneficiaries of Soldiers Fund Account, in 70/1/3 vol 12, Maori Trustee Head Office
167 1995-96 [None gIVen III $ 9,000 accounts, but a [of which different page $5,000 was reveals $4,000 was Christmas grants to for burial or widows of veterans] headstone expenses 966 of widows of veterans] 1996-97 [$1,500 burial $ 3,000 expenses of the [Christmas grants to widow of a veteran] widows of veterans t 67
8.6 Debate about the Future of the Maori Soldiers' Fund to the mid-1980s Section 8.2 indicates that as soon as the fund became a reality, rather than a burden upon the finances of the Maori Trustee, debate began about its expenditure. The Maori Trustee, his staff and the veterans were also well aware of the fact that at some point there would be no more veterans left. The last fifty-five years have consequently seen considerable debate about the ultimate destiny of the fund. Until it was decided in 1976 that it was time to stop the annual reunions ofTe Hokowhitu-A-Tu Association, this organisation provided a forum for debating the issue. The question was also debated by the trust committee and the public servants involved in the administration of the fund.
Until the mid 1980s, there were three basic strands in proposals made about the future of the fund. Firstly, there has been considerable emphasis placed on education. Although expenditure on education was wound down in the 1960s and 1970s so that the fund could concentrate on the needs of surviving veterans, provision for expenditure on higher education for Maori, particularly the descendents of World War One veterans remains in the act. There were those within Te Hokowhitu-A-Tu Association, as well as in the Maori Trust Office, who supported channelling funds to Maori education once all veterans and close relatives have died.968 While veterans
9661994_95 and 1995-96 figures from MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT. STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1996, P 24, MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST, document with green cover, 70/1/1 vol 9, Maori Trustee Head Office For breakdown of grants to Beneficiaries, 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997, see p 54 ofthis document (GRANTS TO BENEFICIARIES). Note that for many years the term 'Special Grants to Veterans' was used to refer to uniform grants made to all surviving veterans at some given time of the year, often Christmas. Here, in the main accounts, it is actually used for a combination of such grants, but for widows of veterans, not veterans, and for expenses some of which would previously have been paid out as funeral grants had the beneficiary been a veteran. 967 p 54 of MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST (document with green cover cited in last footnote), 70/1/1 vol 9 968 For example, see Minutes of Annual Meeting of the Hokowhitu-A -Tu Association held at Ranginui Meeting House, Hairini, Tauranga on 26 March 1966, pp 1-2; Agenda Papers for 1968 meeting of trust committee, pp 10-11 - both in MA 1 70/1/3 vol 5, NA Wellington;
168 were still alive, however, the idea of channelling funds to the Ngata Memorial Scholarship was firmly opposed by H K Ngata, who wanted strict adherence to the use of the funds for the relief, assistance and support of Maori veterans and their 969 dependants.
A second focus of future disposal of the fund was provided by descendents or dependants of World War One veterans. Indeed, provision for them was a real issue even with many veterans still alive. Section 9 of the Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957 referred to grants from the Soldiers Fund Account being made to dependants of veterans, and stated that 'the term "dependants" includes the children or grandchildren of Maori veterans'. Section 10, on the other hand, indicated that in the allocation of the Scholarship Fund Account, preference was to be given to 'the descendants of Maori veterans.' It may have been this use of both terms that caused some initial confusion in the minds of the trust committee over the terms descendant and dependant.
In 1958, the trust committee, in the words of a 1970 agenda item, purported to delegate to District Committees the power:- (ii) To approve grants for the relief or assistance and support of veterans or their descendants provided that no one payment shall be in excess of £50, and (iii) To approve a grant to the descendants of veterans of up to £5 for educational purposes at secondary school level or beyond.
The writer of this 1970 agenda item commented that the word 'descendants' in the resolution may have been a typographical or clerical error, since the relevant agenda item had referred to 'depend~nts'. At any event, the purported delegation was seen as beyond the terms of the statute. As a consequence, the 1970 meeting of the trust committee made a new delegation to district committees, confining grants for these two purposes to dependants, rather than the wider descendant group.
The 1970 item went on to remark that The children and grandchildren of veterans whether living or dead could be "dependants" in terms ofthe statute, so the number of "dependants" might 970 well exceed 10,000.
In 1970, the committee were firmly agreed that, while it might be legally possible to assist other dependants of deceased veterans, 'this power should not generally be used.,971 There was not an enormous amount of sympathy within the Maori Trustee's
MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING ... 4 November 1975, pp 5- 6, AAMK 869/1455a, NA Wellington 969 illegible initials to Mr. Atkinson, '28/3' - fol 516 - probably round 1978, judging from dating of nearby paper - 70/1 vol 7, Maori Trust Head Office 970 Maori Soldiers' Trust. Agenda of Meeting ... 24 November 1970, pp 9-10, MA W2490 Box 323 70/1/3 vol 6, NA Wellington 971 Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee. Minutes ofthe Annual Meeting ... 24 November 1970, p 5, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 70/1/3 vol 6, NA Wellington
169 office in the early 1970s for assistance for 'mokopunas', even when the matter was raised by the trust committee. The trustee wrote that ... while we are not prepared to consider a general policy of assisting mokopunas we will, in exceptional circumstances, consider such an application. Any district, therefore, which thinks it as [sic] a genuine case may submit it to Head Office for consideration .... good arguments will need to be adduced to satisfy the central committee (e.g. the mokopuna concerned would need to be under 16 years of age; he or she would need to have resided with the grandparents for a continuous and fairly lengthy period; if not orphaned the person concerned would have to be fairly substantially dependant upon the grandparents; and so 972 on.)
Assistance to widows has been gradually extended over the years. In 1974, for instance, the trust committee decided to extend to five years the period after the death of a veteran within which assistance might be granted to a widow. This had been set at a maximum of two years after death in 1970.973
A third frequently mentioned possible destination for the trust's funds has always been to direct them to assist in some way Maori veterans of World War Two or any wars after World War One.974 This would, however, require a change in the legislation. Such a change has never been enacted. Various attempts were made over the years to combine the Hokowhitu-A-Tu Association with the organisations linked with the 28th Maori Battalion and returned servicemen of other wars. 975 Not all World War One veterans felt comfortable with these proposals.976
Occasionally other possible uses ofthe trust were raised. In 1974, for example, Matiu Ereatara Nia Nia of Ngati Hinehika asked for 'the recovery of the $10,000 donated by my Tribe to rehabilitate those whom [sic] fought in World War 1.,977 The information
972 Maori Trustee 17 January 1974, MA Acc W2490 Box 326 70/117 vol 2, NA Wellington 973 Maori Soldiers' Trust. Minutes of the Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee ... 12 November 1974, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 70/1/1 vol 4, NA Wellington 974 For example, see Agenda Papers for 1968 meeting of trust committee, p 10, MA 1 70/1/3 vol 5, NA Wellington; Paper entitled 'FUTURE OF THE MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST', folio 432, AAMK 86911455b, NA Wellington; MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING ... 4 November 1975, pp 5- 6, AAMK 869/1455a, NA Wellington; MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST. MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING ... 15 November 1977, p 4, AAMK 86911455a; E W Williams, Deputy Secretary, to Minister of Maori Affairs, 6 March 1978, 70/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office 975 For example, see Minutes of the Annual General Meeting ofTe Hokowhitu-A-Tu Association ... 28th February 1970, p 5, MA 1 7011/6, NA Wellington 976 Maori Soldiers' Trust. Minutes of the Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee Annual Meeting ... 12 November 1974, pp 7-9, MA Acc W2490 Box 323701111 vol 4, NA Wellington; On controversy over one of these proposals: District Officer, Gisbome, to Head Office, 20 September 1974, 70/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office 977 M Nia Nia to Minister of Maori Affairs, 23 February 1974, MA Acc W2490 Box 323 70/1/2 vol 3, NA Wellington
170 about the level of original donations in his letter does not seem particularly accurate. The trustee did not agree to Nia Nia' s request.978
In November 1983, a reunion of Maori veterans was held at the Taihoa Marae. The meeting resolved: (a) The present situation continue until the passing ofthe last veteran; (b) Then the funds go to a scholarship fund to commemorate the services ofthe late Sir Apirana Ngata. 979
8.7 Debate on the Future of the Maori Soldiers' Fund from the mid-1980s
Since the mid 1980s, Maori education scholarships, dependants and descendants of World War One veterans and the 28th Maori Battalion have been the options most frequently mentioned when the disposal of the trust funds after the death of the last veteran was considered. But other possibilities have also been raised.
In 1986, there was an investigation of the possibility of running Hereheretau Station as a training farm for Maori wishing to make a career in agriculture. This idea had been raised at a meeting of the Maori Soldiers' Trust Committee. The scheme appeared, however, to be financially impractical.98o
Ngati Porou, who had taken a lead in the establishment of the fund, were interested in the fate of the truSt. 981 The idea circulated that it was to be used to provide bursaries for Ngata College in Ruatoria. 982
But there were other Maori who felt a strong interest. The rumour about Ngata College apparently precipitated a letter from T B Wilson of Ahuriri, Napier, asking for information about this idea, ... as [our people] believe it should be handed back to the descendants of ongma. . I owners. 983
Wilson was told that when the last veteran died,
978 Head Office will research claims made: J H Dark for Maori Trustee to Gisbome, 1 March 1974; also in response to Nia Nia: Assistant District Officer to Head Office, 12 March 1974, both in MA Acc W2490 Box 323 70/1/2 vol 3 979 Green for Maori Trustee to T B Wilson, 6 April 1984, 70/1/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office 980 Field Officer, Wairoa, to Director, Gisbome, 1 April 1986; Director Land Development to Gisbome, 14 February 1986; Director Land Development to Gisbome, 7 March 1986; District Field Officer, Gisbome, to Head Office 7 July 1986; Director Land Development to Gisbome, 27 July 1986; Distric Field Officer, Gisbome, to Head Office, 23 September 1986; all in 13/1/- vol 4, Maori Trustee Office, Gisbome 981 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, 31 January 1985, 70/1 vol I, Maori Trustee Head Office 982 M J Fryer for Maori Trustee, to Head Office, 22 February 1984, 70/1/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office 983 T B Wilson to McGuire, Maori Lands, Gisbome, 10 February 1984, 70/1/1 vol 7, Maori Trustee Head Office
171 ... it is proposed to set up a scholarship fund to commemorate the services of the late A T Ngata to the Maori people. This scholarship fund will be available as set out under Section 10 of the [Maori Soldiers' Trust Act 1957] and is 984 therefore not exclusively for pupils ofNgata College.
T B Wilson asked for a meeting with the trustees as early as possible, on the grounds that the family believed they should 'have at least a say in what happens to this land that was originally ourS.,985 He was promised that the matter would be placed before . 986 t h e centra 1 trust commIttee.
In May 1988, Te Runanganui 0 Ngati Kahungunu made a submission to Koro Wetere, the Minister of Maori Affairs, at a Mohaka hui. This asked for the return of Hereheretau. Initially the hapu principally mentioned in connection with the 987 Hereheretau blocks were the Ngai Te Ipu and Ngati Hine. Later, Albert Walker, as Chairman, Wairoa Tai Whenua, Te Runanganui 0 Ngati Kahungunu, asked that the 988 Ngati Hinepua hapu be added as a third Hereheretau hapu. The Minister responded to the initial Ngati Kahungunu approach: .... the Maori Soldiers' Trust ... was formed to administer funds that were initially provided by public subscription on a national basis .... Any disposal of land that is part of that property must be recommended by the Trust Committee and must be consented to by the Minister of Maori Affairs.
Until now, priority has been given to the Trust's objective of providing for the welfare of the 1914-18 veterans. Now that these beneficiaries are so few in number, there may be a case to apply more trust revenues towards the Sir Apirana Ngata Memorial Scholarship Fund which is also an objective ofthe Trust.
He suggested that if they wished to take their proposal any further, they should 989 arrange for it to be discussed at the next meeting of the trust committee.
Tiopira Rauna, writing to the Maori Trustee on behalf of Ngati Kahungunu, acknowledged that there was some merit in the section of the 1957 act which dealt with the Sir Apirana Ngata Memorial Scholarship. He also stated, however, that 'it is our desire that as much of the Maori Trust Office functions be placed back in Hapu hands via the Iwi Authority.' He considered that further research was required on 1egIS . 1atlOn . connecte d Wit . h t h e trust. 990
Further questions about the return of Hereheretau Station were asked at a hui at 991 Takitimu Marae, Wairoa, on 5 December 1989. Research on the background of the
984 M J Fryer for Maori Trustee to T B Wilson, 9 March 1984, 70/1/1 vol 7 985 T B Wilson to M J Fryer, 12 March 1984, 70/1/1 vol 7 986 B R Green for Maori Trustee to T B Wilson, 6 April 1984, 70/1/1 vol 7 987paper 'Future of Trust', 70/1/3 vol 10, Maori Trustee Head Office; Tiopira Rauna to Minister of Maori Affairs, 18 May 1988, 7011 vol 1, Maori Trustee Head Office 988 Albert Walker to Minister of Maori Affairs, 20 April 1989, 70/1 vol 1 989 Minister of Maori Affairs to T Rauna, 7011 vol I 990 Tiopira Rauna to Maori Trustee, 11 November 1988, 7011 vol 1 991 Maori Trustee to Wira Gardiner, General Manager, Te Tira Ahu Iwi, 11 December 1989, 70/1 vol I,
172 station proceeded fairly slowly. A number of possible uses for the station were examined. A background paper prepared in 1990 for the Minister in Charge of the Iwi Transition Agency took a position that was not particularly sympathetic towards the concept of returning Hereheretau Station to local Maori. It stated: The Hereheretau Station is part of the domain ofthe Ngati Te Ipu hapu of N gati Kahungunu. The history of how this station was alienated from their ownership has been explored. It was bought in parcels from Maori hands, it was paid for at market prices, and if the Crown is to entertain requests to return the station to local hapu ownership, there would be considerable resistance to this. Not only is the property owned by an entity other than the Crown, but it was paid for out of privately subscribed moneys. Moreover, there already exists a body of opinion that the original owners have been paid for their land once and to return it to them at no cost or at a reduced cost would be to pay them twice for the same asset. Finally, if any of the land was acquired unfairly and the hapu is to be compensated for this, it is for the Crown to compensate them and not the Trust.
Against this argument is the one that although the land was acquired from the "owners", were they the owners or merely the heirs of persons that were trustees of the land on behalf of the hapu. If that is so, then the land was alienated to the detriment of the true owners and should be returned. 992
The minister had wanted discussions on the future of the trust taken back to the people who promoted the concept. He had suggested consulting Te Runanga 0 Ngati Porou.
After consultation with Sir Henare N gata, a meeting was held on 31 May 1990 at the Mangatu Incorporation Conference Room in Gisborne. Before the meeting, the Maori Trust Office prepared a Discussion Paper. This listed various possible future beneficiaries for the fund, once the last veteran died. The possibilities were: • the runanga or the appropriate section of Kahungunu becoming the beneficiaries • Maori veterans of World War Two or all wars in which New Zealand has been involved becoming the beneficiaries • using the farm as some sort of a training centre • using the farm as a rehabilitation centre for Kahungunu-ki-te-Wairoa youth • transferring the fund to the Maori Education Foundation • transferring the administration of the act to an organisation representing the major donor areas for the original Maori Soldiers' Fund. 993
Doug Hauraki, the Acting Deputy Maori Trustee, chaired the meeting. He described its aim as being ... to enable Iwi to consider and give the Maori Trustee some views for the
992 P 6, Background Paper on 'Maori Soldiers Trust Fund and Hereheretau Station' , sent to Minister in Charge ofthe Iwi Transition Agency with covering letter dated 'May 1990', 7011 vol 1 993 Maori Soldiers Trust Fund and Hereheretau Station A Discussion Paper Prepared by the Maori Trust Office ... , file Wai 192/0, Waitangi Tribunal. In this copy of the discussion paper, the reference to the runanga, as opposed to the 'appropriate section' of Kahungunu, has been deleted.
173 future of the trust. This would only occur once the last World War I Maori veteran had passed away.994
One hundred to one hundred and twenty people were present, representing Ngati Porou, veterans of the 28th Maori Battalion and Ngati Kahungunu. The Ngati Kahungunu included a large number from Whakaki.995 Members of the trust committee were present to listen to the views expressed.
The Gisborne branch of the 28th Maori battalion suggested continuing the trust with a scholarship fund named after Te Hokowhitu-A-Tu rather than Sir Apirana Ngata, and for the benefit of World War One veterans' dependants and descendants.996
There were several requests for the return of the Hereheretau Station land. They came from Te Runanganui-a-Kahungunu as well as from the Ngai Te Ipu, Ngai Te Hine and Ngati Hinepua hapu ofWhakaki. The basis of these requests was that: • the land was located at Whakaki; • there had been 'possible land confiscations in the 1800's'; and • local hapu had not been consulted about the management of either the trust or the 997 station.
Some considered that if Kahungunu wanted Hereheretau Station back they ought to buy it, with the purchase money then being invested for the scholarship fund. 998 The decisions taken by the meeting were that • (a) The trust should continue as a scholarship fund for the descendants ofTe Hoko-Whitu-Atu Soldiers. • (b) The Maori Trustee research the titles to Hereheretau Station and then meet at Whakaki to inform the people on the findings of the research. • (c) That a small working party be convened to write the new policy for the fund andlor station.999
Doug Hauraki did some incomplete research on the history of the station following the 31 May meeting. He drew the attention of Joe Paenga, the Trust Manager at Gisborne, to file 8/8/82-12 at the Maori Land Information office. It has not been possible to locate this file. Apparently it referred to petitions to the government 're the confiscation of lands in and about the Hereheretau block.' Hauraki also mentions a further file relating to the findings of the Confiscated Lands Commission. As he notes, however, 'There were no findings in favour of the claims made for Hereheretau station. ,1000 This is not surprising, for nothing has been found to indicate that land in Hereheretau, Hereheretau No 2 or Kahaatureia was ever confiscated.
994 For proceedings see 70/1/2 vol 5, Maori Trustee Head Office - for purpose see 5.3 - Doug Hauraki 995 For a list of some of those present, see Minute Sheet dated 31 May 1990, 70/1/3 vol 11, Maori Trustee Head Office 996 Proceedings of meeting, section 6.1, 70/1/2 vol5,Maori Trustee Head Office 997 ibid, 6.2 998 ibid, 6.3 999 ibid, 7. 1000 Doug Hauraki to Joe Paenga, undated but between 31 May and 26 June 1990, 7011 vol 1, Maori Trustee Head Office
174 T W Wilson wrote to the Registrar of the Tairawhiti District Court applying for research on the history of the Hereheretau Station land title. He said that: 'It appears that the property was obtained by the Crown under the Appropriation Act of the time.' He sought an investigation of the titles 'from the original owners to the time of appropnatIOn. . b y t h e Crown. ,1001
The findings of the resultant research were made available to T W Wilson and Albert Walker, as the sub-committee of the Whakaki Maori Committee. In view of the fact that the Maori Land Information Office had undertaken this research, Doug Hauraki told Wilson and Walker that it would be more appropriate for the Land Information Office, rather than him as a member of the Office of the Maori Trustee, to attend any meeting they might wish to call at Whakaki. 1002 R J Emmanuel from the Tairawhiti Maori Land Court who had undertaken this Maori Land Information Office research commented to T W Wilson, however, that his research was ... deficient in that much of the documentation relating to the acquisition of land interests by the Crown is not included. The reason for this is that those interests were acquired largely by purchase from individual owners by the Land Purchase Officer acting on behalf of the Native Land Purchase Board, which was set up by the Native Land act 1909, and the records are held "somewhere" in Wellington. 10m In 1994, when John Emmanuel retired from the Maori Land Court, these records had not been located. 1004
In the early 1990s, the Maori Trustee and the trust committee considered obtaining an historical report from professional historians. This course of action was not pursued. Instead, information collected by the Gisborne Maori Trust office was to be forwarded to trust commIttee. members. 1005
Meanwhile, in 1990, the Wanganui office sent to Head Office a solicitor's opinion on the interpretation ofthe word 'dependant' in the 1957 act. This supported a very broad interpretation of the word, to include widows and family members after the death of veterans. Hyslop wrote: 1. As a dependant is a person who is dependent upon someone else for support it may seem to be impossible for a person to be a dependant at a particular time if there is not any person upon whom he is dependent at that time. It is necessary, however, to look at the overall intent of the Act, namely to benefit veterans and their families who are in
1001 T W Wilson, Research Sub-Committee, Whakaki Maori Committee, 18 June 1990, l3/1I15 voll, Maori Trustee Office, Gisborne 1002 J D T Hauraki, Acting Deputy Maori Trustee, to Pohatu, Wilson and Walker, 1 August 1990, 70/112 vol 5, Maori Trustee Head Office 1003 R J Emmanuel for Registrar, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, to T W Wilson, 1 August 1990, 70/112 vol 5, Maori Trustee Head Office 1004 Registrar to Under Secretary, Native Department, 12 June 1940; B A Murray to Isobel McIntyre, 7 June 1994, both in 70/112 vol 5 1005 Minutes ... Trust Committee ... 20 May 1994,7011/3 vol 13, Maori Trustee Head Office; Minutes ... East Coast Maori Soldiers Trust Trustees ... 2 April 1993, p 3, 70/112 vol 5
175 straightened [sic] circumstances. Given this criteria it is irrelevant that the veteran has died.
2. Section 50) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1924 provides that every act shall receive such fair large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the Act and of such provision or enactment according to its true intent meaning and spirit. If Section 9 of the Maori Soldiers Trust Act should be interpreted narrowly, this would not in my opinion be an interpretation consistent with Section 50) of the Acts Interpretation Act. I accordingly consider that a dependant remains a dependant within the intention of Section 9 notwithstanding the Maori veteran has died.
3. It will be noted that Section 9(3) states that "dependants" includes the children or grandchildren of Maori veterans but does not specifically refer to the widow. The word "includes" is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute ... and I have no difficulty in saying that the word "dependant" is not restricted to children or grandchildren but includes a widow. 1006
This opmlOn was to have a marked impact on the VIews of the Maori Trustee regarding the interpretation of the 1957 legislation.
The hapu of Hereheretau continued to want attention to be given to their concerns over the station land. On 11 April 1991, Walter Wilson and Albert Walker, the Sub Committee 'elected by the Whakaki Maori Committee of Hereheretau to represent the three hapu of Whakaki, Ngati Hinepua, Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipi', made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal concerning Hereheretau Station. This claim was registered as WaI. 192 on 20 May 1991. 1007
The claimants asked the tribunal to investigate: 1/ the progress of the blocks concerned through Maori Land Court, including the investigation of ownership rights, 2/ the process of transfer of the land to the Crown, and loos 3/ the decision making process of the Crown in regard to this land.
In making the claim, the claimants emphasised that they were concerned merely with the actions of the Crown. They stated that they had 'no wish to contest the rights of the Hokowhituatu ofWWl, or disturb them in any way.' They also said that they did not wish, in making the claim, 'to make any statement on the interests of other groups in the assets as represented by Hereheretau Station.' 1009 Indeed, they stated that part
1006 I J Hyslop, Solicitor, Wanganui, to Head Office, 6 April 1990, 7011 vo11, Maori Trustee Head Office 1007 Tribunal Direction to register claim, Wai 192 papers in proceedings 2.1, p 2 1008 Wai 192 claims, claim 1.1, pI 1009 ibid, loc cit
176 of their complaint was the way in which the past and present actions of the Crown 'have se t and t hreaten to set M"aon agamst M aon.·,1010
The relief sought by the claimants was: 11 A stay on the decision making process on the land until this claim is investigated by the Tribunal. 21 Return of any land wrongly lost to us through the actions of the Crown, and any other relief as the Tribunal considers appropriate. 1011
The Maori Trustee was invited to make a preliminary response to the issues raised by the claimant. The Deputy Maori Trustee, Pita Paraone, wrote in response in December 1991. He quoted the very broad 1990 legal opinion about the meaning of the word 'dependant'. He noted that, because of this, the Maori Trustee considered that dependants under the 1957 legislation included children, grandchildren and widows of veterans, whether the veterans were alive or dead. In consequence, the trustee considered that his obligation to beneficiaries under the Maori Soldiers Trust Act would continue into next century. Despite this rather long-term outlook, Paraone concluded by observing that the trust committee and the Maori Trustee would consult with a number of iwi groups and other parties before they developed a future direction for the trust. 1012
In 1994, the Tribunal asked for information on the present situation of the fund and the station. 1013 At this point, the Maori Trust Office indicated that the trust committee considered that there was already a large pool of beneficiaries. Consequently the committee had agreed to take no action to change the 1957 act at that stage. lOl4
8.8 Trust Expenditure since the Death of the Last Veteran Hira Tapihana and George Skerrett were the last two surviving Maori soldiers from World War One. They died in mid 1993. 1015 The direction of trust expenditure since then has been very much along lines predictable in terms of the 1957 legislation and discussion of the issue over the last forty years.
Firstly, as Table 8.1 shows, attention has been given to the needs of surviving widows of Maori World War One veterans.
Secondly, steps were taken to revive the Apirana Ngata Scholarship. Sir Henare Ngata commented on behalf of his family on the news that the Apirana Ngata Scholarship was being revived:
1010 1'b'd 1 ,p 2 1011 ibid, loc cit 1012 Pita Paraone - Memorandum - Preliminary Response by Maori Trustee, Wai 192, 19 December 1991, file Wai 192/0, Waitangi Tribunal 1013 Registrar to Chief Executive, Office of the Maori Trustee, 26 May 1994, file Wai 192/0 1014 I A Mcintyre for Maori Trustee to Waitangi Tribunal Division, 7 June 1994, file Wai 192/0 1015 J E PaId for Maori Trustee to Private Secretary, Minister of Maori Affairs, 2 July 1993, 70/1 vol 2, Maori Trustee Head Office
177 With none of the World War I veterans now surviving, it can no longer be said that funds which should properly have been directed towards their personal benefit, have been diverted to a scholarship set up to [commemorate] our father.
He expressed particular pleasure that preference was to be given to descendants of 1016 Maori veterans of World War One. In 1996, sixty-five applicants sought 1017 scholarships. Three scholarships, with a total value of$II,OOO, were granted.
During the 1990s, World War Two Maori veterans have continued to press for their inclusion in the trust. 1018 At a 1994 meeting of the trust committee, there was some support from the committee for including World War Two veterans as beneficiaries. It was also argued, however, that the legislation provided for dependants, defined as children and grandchildren of Maori veterans, as well as for the actual veterans. This position is in line with the 1990 legal opinion referred to at the end of Section 8.4.2 .. The Chairman made it clear that he was uneasy about starting any change in the fund when 'there was still such a big pool of beneficiaries.,1019 As a result of these considerations, the direction of the trust has remained unchanged.
8.9 Conclusion The fund made its first grant to a needy Maori World War One veteran in 1952. Further grants followed. The passing of the Maori Soldiers' Trust Act 1957 provided for the participation of veterans in the decision making processes of the fund. From that year, the fund made hardship grants to veterans and funeral or tangi grants to dependants when veterans died. From the 1973-74 year, most expenditure from the Maori Soldiers' Fund was made in the form of 'special grants'. Up to this point, the Maori Trustee had argued that the making of grants of an equal sum to all surviving World War One veterans was not within the powers of the trust. At this point, however, the policy of the trust changed completely. With the death of the last veterans in 1993, the focus ofthis sort of expenditure shifted to widows of veterans.
In the early fifties, the Maori Trustee was a strong supporter of using the fund for Maori education. Substantial sums were spent on this in the early years. Later, the fund concentrated more on the needs of veterans. After the death of the last veterans, however, support for Maori education in the form of the Sir Apirana Ngata Scholarship again became an important part of the expenditure of the trust.
From 1952, debate has raged periodically over the fate of the trust once the last veteran died. The beginning of grants by the fund took place just before the involvement of the fund with Hoia Station ended. Consequently, for virtually the whole of the period of the on-going debate, Hereheretau Station was the sole asset of
1016 Henare K Ngata to the Maori Trustee, 26 March 1996, 70/1/3 vol 12, Maori Trustee Head Office 1017 p 56 in MAORI SOLDIERS TRUST (document with green cover), 70/1/1 vol 9, Maori Trustee Head Office 1018 For example, Nader to the Hon. D.Kidd, 26 March 1992, 70/117 vol 3, Maori Trustee Head Office 1019 Minutes of Meeting of the Maori Soldiers Trust ... 20 May 1994, pp 4-5, 70/1/2 vol 5, Maori Trustee Head Office
178 the soldiers' fund. The debate was therefore effectively also a debate about the future of the station.
Until the mid 1980s, two of the main suggested uses for the fund after the death ofthe last veteran were those provided for in the Act, Maori education and dependants of Maori World War One veterans. There has also been some support for using the fund to provide for the needs of Maori veterans of later wars, particularly World War Two. Section 7.5 indicated that a meeting of assembled owners of Hereheretau 2c2B agreed to sell their block to the Maori Trustee for the soldiers' fund after a representative of the Maori Trustee had told them, among other things, that 'it was envisaged' that the benefits of the fund would eventually go to other Maori veterans. Such a use of the fund would require a change in the fund's legislation.
From the mid 1980s, the issue of the fate of Hereheretau Station itself attracted more attention. Consideration has been given to the idea of using the station for some sort of farm training centre. There has been debate over the idea of returning the land to its original owners. In 1991, Walter Wilson and Albert Walker, on behalf of the Ngati Hine, Ngati Hinepua and Ngai Te Ipu hapu, made a claim, Wai 192, to the Waitangi Tribunal about the station. To date, however, the Maori Trustee and other interested parties, such as Ngati Porou, who were very involved in the creation of the Maori Soldiers' Fund, have not supported the concept of the return of the land without payment.
179 CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION This study has set out firstly to examine the way in which the ownership of land in the Hereheretau and Kahaatureia blocks was determined by the Native Land Court. The first case involving land in this area occurred in 1868. Judge Monro had sat very briefly in Wairoa in 1867, before the Native Lands Act 1867 was passed. In September 1868, he arrived back in the town and dealt swiftly with a large number of blocks in the area. In some blocks the interests of more than ten owners in the block were recorded under section 17 of the 1867 legislation. In a further group of blocks, less than ten owners were put into the title. Sometimes blocks were subdivided to increase the number of owners in the title. In a significant group of blocks, however, exactly ten owners were put into the title, as if the court were operating under the Native Lands Act 1865. The Hereheretau block was one of those blocks where there were ten grantees.
In 1902, Judge Monro testified that he had explained section 17 to Maori on the first day of his September 1868 sitting in Wairoa. There is, however, no evidence that he explained it at the beginning of the Hereheretau case. Even if some of those with rights in the block did hear an explanation of the new legislation then or some days earlier, this does not necessarily mean that they would have understood it. There seems to have been widespread ignorance about Maori land legislation among Maori in the Hawke's Bay.
Whatever Monro mayor may not have said, it seems likely that Burton, the surveyor who had stock on the block, told local Maori on the day of the hearing that only ten names could be put in. After a very brief hearing and the exclusion of a disputed area, there were no objections when only ten names were mentioned for the block. It is probable that a combination of ignorance about the court and respect for Areta Te Rito, who played a major part in chosing the names of those put into the title, made it unlikely that those whose names were omitted would complain. It is also very probable that they expected that those whose names were included would in effect act as trustees.
It seems likely that for two years after the hearing, a number of Maori over and above the ten put into the title did receive a share in the rent paid by Burton. Certainly more than the ten continued to live on the block. Some reserves were provided there.
There was widespread awareness that the practice of putting ten owners into a title that gave them absolute rights was unfair in cases where there were actually more Maori with customary rights in a block. Yet only in 1886 did the Crown make legislative provision in the Equitable Owners Act for Maori disadvantaged by such ten owner arrangements. Even then, the legislation was useless for blocks such as Hereheretau because it excluded any block where interests had been sold. Only when the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1896 was passed was there a legislative means by which Maori in such blocks could seek to have their rights acknowledged in the title.
The Native Land Court and the Native Appellate Court put considerable effort into hearing cases under both the 1886 and 1896 legislation. Some of the judgments were
180 contradictory. It took a Royal Commission and a further rehearing dealing with a number of Wairoa blocks before many with customary rights as of 1868 finally found themselves included in the title of the relevant block.
No legislation has ever been passed to deal with those aggrieved by the fact that some grantees sold land of which they were later held to be trustees, rather than absolute owners. In the case of Hereheretau, thirty per cent of the block passed into pakeha ownership in this way.
The 1868 Hereheretau hearing started out to consider an area larger than what became the Hereheretau block. As the case proceeded, however, the court became aware of a conflict. Evidence given in various later hearings indicates that there was a very long standing conflict between Ngati Rakaipaaka, based at Nuhaka, and Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu, based in Whakaki in what became the Hereheretau block. It appeared that the rights to land and resources such as eel-weirs in between these two groups were hotly contested from time to time. The court decided to leave this controversial area to be dealt with in a later sitting.
Evidence given later suggests that it is possible, although by no means certain, that the Kahaatureia block, the section of the contested area dealt with in this study, may have been basically unoccupied in 1840. The chronologies of Maori witnesses rarely referred to specific years. The various courts which considered the disputed area appeared to be interested in evidence of reasonably long-standing occupation up to at least a point fairly close to the hearing in question. The 1840 rule does not seem to have been explicitly applied in these blocks.
The earliest Maori committe that tried to sort out a dispute between the two groups of hapu seems to have been active about 1861 or 1862. A second committee was active in the early 1870s, or possibly the very late 1860s. A third committee tried to settle matters, and then a fourth in 1881. The last committee published its boundary. This committee appeared to defer to the mana ofthe Native Land Court for a final decision. The committee may, however, have expected the court simply to give effect to the committee's decision.
The 'committee line' seems to have determined the western boundaries of the Opoho and Nuhaka No 2 blocks. When Hereheretau No 2 was to be brought before the court, Ngati Rakaipaaka refused to accept the committee line. They claimed land to the west of it. The court then insisted on rehearing Nuhaka No 2.
Between 1888 and 1890, very prolonged hearings and rehearings were held to determine the ownership of the disputed area that was given the name Kahaatureia block, and the ownership of the other disputed area that lay inland from the Hereheretau block. This was given the name Hereheretau No 2. Some members of Ngati Hinepua claimed rights in Hereheretau No 2. These rights were disputed on the grounds that the hapu had been either driven out of the block completely earlier, or only remained there serving Ngai Te Ipu.
181 V oluminous evidence was given, and there was much cross examination of witnesses by other parties and the court. A great deal of the evidence in both blocks was contradictory. Site visits to both disputed areas saw the court displaying considerable skill in testing some of the contradictory testimony. Another sitting of the land court that partitioned Hereheretau without a site visit, on the other hand, produced a result that was grossly unfair for Maori owners. The case had to be rapidly reheard.
With the notable exceptions of the 1868 hearing and the Hereheretau partition hearing, the court on the whole seems to have worked hard to produce equitable results for Maori. Such concern extended to matters like survey costs. Some judges, at least, wished to try to minimise the likelihood of such costs leading to the alienation of the block.
On the other hand, the whole adversarial and eurocentric court process, with its strong drive to individualise titles, was time-consuming and likely to set Maori at odds with each other. It was difficult to fit the subtleties of Maori land use into the black and white of a pakeha land title system. The numerous Maori committees that tried to deal with the disputed area demonstrated that Maori in this part of the country were keen to sort out their own land disputes. Some local pakeha claimed that the failure of the four committees to arrive at a permanent solution over the future Kahaatureia block showed up the inadequacies of Maori committees. It can be argued, however, that had Maori committees been given suitable legislative authority, they might have been far more effectual.
Considerable attention has been given to the hapu affiliations mentioned by and for Areta Te Rito. He is at various times described as being Ngati Hine, Ngai Te Ipu and occasionally even Ngati Hinepua. The variety supports the idea that in the 1860s, at least, Ngai Te Ipu and Ngati Hine were a cohesive social unit. As more and more hearings were held in connection with the Hereheretau and Hereheretau No 2 blocks, the two hapu seem to have become increasingly at odds with each other. Relative interests that were settled expeditiously in 1890 were reheard at enormous and somewhat acrimonious length in 1915-16. By this stage even the judge lacked confidence that the decisions arrived at were necessarily the correct ones.
With the two exceptions noted above, judges of the Native Land Court active in these blocks generally appear to have been concerned to protect the land rights of Maori within the parameters laid down by legislation. The possible social divisiveness of the court process, however, strongly offset good intentions on the part of individual judges. The long-drawn out court proceedings were also most unhelpful for those Maori whose actions showed that they were keen to develop farms in these blocks.
Little can be learned about the sale of parts of various subdivisions in the Kahaatureia block to the Crown in the 1890s. This happened despite the fact that all but one of the 1892 subdivisions of the block had been made inalienable.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, various Hereheretau blocks were still in Maori ownership: Hereheretau B, Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A. In the second decade of the twentieth century, all three became caught up in the Reform
182 administration's push to purchase Maori land. The efforts of Maori to lease and to farm their own land were either severely impeded or stopped altogether by repeated proclamations prohibiting alienations other than to the Crown, by actual Crown purchases in Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A, and by long delays in partitioning out Crown interests.
Native Department officials and the Commissioner for Crown Lands, Napier, were permitted to display contemptuous attitudes towards Maori and Maori farming. Maori efforts to claim the protection of the Treaty of Waitangi were ignored. The Crown continued to impose restrictions on alienation other than to the Crown and to pressurise Maori who made it clear that they did not wish to sell.
During these years, local bodies dominated by pakeha and prominent pakeha individuals repeatedly urged the Crown to buy land in these and other blocks in the Wairoa area. The menace of the blackberry, a noxious weed which pakeha had introduced, was used to show the supposed unsuitability of Maori as landowners.
Meanwhile, in March 1917 the Maori Soldiers' Fund came into being further up the East Coast. By early April 1917, the fund became active in the Wairoa area. Apirana N gata told the Minister of Lands later that year that Maori in the Wairoa area at a large meeting in April had expressed to him and James Carroll the wish that the fund should apply to the government for a lease of Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A.
No further information to flesh out this statement has been located. The initial Crown decision to prohibit private alienations in these two blocks seems, indeed, to have been generated by a pakeha campaign to provide land for the settlement of World War One veterans, without any preference being given to Maori.
The net result of the Crown purchase and the leasing of the blocks by the Maori Soldiers' Fund seems to have been the loss of potential farms for Maori. Ironically, at least one member of the Menero family, for instance, had his chances of a future career in farming severely damaged by Crown purchasing that occurred while he was at the front. The original Hereheretau Station took up much of the Hereheretau No 2 and Hereheretau No 2A blocks.
Under the administration of the Maori Soldiers' Fund, the station provided virtually no employment for Maori returned servicemen. The development of the station was severely hampered by lack of finance as the fund moved ever closer to insolvency. It is not possibly at this point to obtain clear information on precisely how much was contributed to the fund, and why the finances reached such an unfortunate state. Sherratt, who was responsible for the fund's three stations and for some financial matters, presumably bears some of the responsibility, however reluctant later pakeha investigators may have been to acknowledge this.
In 1923, only a mortgage from the Native Trustee saved the Maori Soldiers' Fund from liquidation. In 1925, the Maori Soldiers' Fund passed from the control of the fund's own trustees, under the chairmanship of Heni Materoa, to the Native Trustee.
183 The Native Trustee lent on a large scale to Hereheretau Station and the other remaining Maori Soldiers' Fund station, Hoia. By the early 1930s, however, the indebtedness of the Maori Soldiers' Fund to the Native Trustee was so great that it threatened the financial viability ofthe Native Trustee. The trustee managed to get the permission of a concerned Treasury and Auditor General to carryon farming the stations. In this way, the land in Hereheretau Station was preserved for the future benefit of Maori veterans.
The last Hoia lease expired in 1953. Since the surrender of Hoia Station, Hereheretau Station has remained as the sole asset of the Maori Soldier's Fund. The Maori Trustee has continued to be responsible for the farm and the fund up to this day. The station was nearly sold to the Crown in the early 1950s for settlement of World War Two Maori veterans. Instead, the Maori Trustee bought the freehold of the station from the Crown.
Subsequently the Maori Trustee acquired and sold various smaller blocks of land on the fringes of the station. Most of the land bought has been Maori land. In the 1960s, this aroused the concern of the Maori Land Court, on the grounds that local Maori were almost landless. It is clear from land court records that certain Maori families continued to farm in the area. The Crown sales in the early twentieth century often seem to have left them, however, with the task of piecing together numerous very small subdivisions of blocks in an attempt to make up a viable economic unit.
The profitability of Hereheretau Station was such that grants to veterans finally began in 1952. They continued until the death of the last veterans in 1993. Meanwhile, debate went on intermittently about the future of the fund once the last veteran had died. The Maori trustee, assisted since 1957 by a central trust committee, has continued to direct the fund towards veterans, their dependants, and Maori education. These are the directions laid down by the Maori Soldiers' Trust Act 1957.
In doing so, the trustee seems to have been carrying out the sort of pattern of distribution of profits contemplated by the original Maori Soldiers' Fund trustees in the early years of the fund. It is ironic, however, that the station has continued, down through the years, to have a serious problem with blackberry. Blackberry was a potent weapon in the hands of those who sought to part Maori from their lands in this area in the second decade of the twentieth century. Yet even the Maori Trustee, with far greater resources than any single Maori farmer, has been unable to rid the land of the blackberry.
184 BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Unpublished Official Hereheretau and Kahaatureia Block Files, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisborne Hereheretau Station and Maori Soldiers' Fund Files, Maori Trust Head Office, Massey House, Wellington Hereheretau Station and Maori Soldiers' Fund Files, Maori Trust Office, Gisborne Internal Affairs Files, National Archives, Wellington Maori Affairs Files, National Archives, Wellington (MA, MA-MLP, AAMK) Lands and Survey Files, National Archives, Wellington (LS, AADS) Maori Land Court Minute Books, Tairawhiti Maori Land Court, Gisborne Maori Land Court Minute Books, National Archives, Wellington Native Land Purchase Board Minutes, National Archives, Wellington Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board Minute Books, National Archives, Wellington Treasury Files, National Archives, Wellington Crown Grant and ML Plans, LINZ, Head Office, Wellington Unofficial von Sturmer, Notes on Native Land Court cases vol 4, qMS-1939, Alexander Turnbull Library von Sturmer, Notes on Native Land Court cases vol 5, qMS-1940, Alexander Turnbull Library
Published Official Appendices to the Journals ofthe House ofRepresentatives New Zealand Law Reports New Zealand Parliamentary Debates Unofficial The Hawke's Bay Herald The Hawke's Bay Tribune Poverty Bay Herald
Secondary Sources Unpublished Reports Boast, RP, 'Report on Crown purchasing of Mohaka-Waikare blocks', June 1994 (Wai 201 record of documents, doc J3) Gilling, Bryan, 'The Nineteenth-Century Native Land Court Judges: An Introductory Report', 1994 (Wai 64 record of documents, doc G-5 Hippolite, Joy, 'Wairoa', Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, November 1996 Working Paper: First Release Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Investigation Into The Management Of The Whakaki Lagoon: Background Report, Wellington, March 1993 (Wai 201 record of documents, doc D7) Phillipson, Grant, 'The Ten Owner Rule: A Selection Of Official Documents With Commentary' (Wai 64 record of documents, doc K13)
185 Riseborough, Hazel and John Hutton, 'The Crown's Engagement with Customary Tenure in the Nineteenth Century', Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, July 1997, First Release
Theses Ballara, Heather Angela, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1991 Gould, Ashley Nevill, 'Proof of Gratitude? Soldier Land Settlement in New Zealand After World War 1', PhD thesis, Massey University, 1992 Orange, Claudia, 'A Kind of Equality: Labour and the Maori People 1935-1949', MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1977 Thomson, Jane R M, 'The Rehabilitation of Servicemen of World War II in New Zealand 1940 to 1954', PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1983
Published Brooking, Tom, '''Busting Up" The Greatest Estate of All. Liberal Maori Land Policy, 1891-1911', The New Zealand Journal ofHistory, vol 26, no 1, April 1992 Cowan, James, The Maoris in The Great War: A History o/The New Zealand Native Contingent and Pioneer Battalion GALLLIPOLI, 1915. FRANCE AND FLANDERS, 1916-18, Auckland, Christchurch etc., Maori Regimental Committee [Whitcombe & Tombs Ltd], 1926 Gilling, Bryan, 'Engine of Destruction? An Introduction to the History of the Maori Land Court', Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, vol 24, no 2, July 1994 Lambert, Thomas, The Story of Old Wairoa and the East Coast District, North Island New Zealand or Past, Present, and Future: A Record Of Over Fifty Years' Progress, Reprint Christchurch, Capper press, 1977 Oliver, WH (ed), The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume 1: 1769-1869, Wellington, Allen & Unwin and Department of Internal Affairs, 1990 O'Connor, P S, 'The Recruitment of Maori Soldiers, 1914-18', Political Science, vol 19, no 2, December 1967 O'Malley, Vincent, Agents of Autonomy: Maori Committees in the Nineteenth Century, Wellington, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1997 Pugsley, Te Hokowhitu A Tu: The Maori Pioneer Battalion in The First World War, Auckland, Reed, 1995 A Ward, A Show of Justice: Racial 'Amalgamation' in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Auckland, Auckland University Press/Oxford University Press, © 1973, first published 1974 by the Australian National University Press [1983 reprint] Ward, Alan, National Overview, vol 2, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 1997 Williams, W L, East Coast (NZ.) Historical Records, Reprinted from the Poverty Bay Herald, Gisborne Wilson, J & others, History of Hawke's Bay, Produced as a Centennial Memorial by The Hawke's Bay Centennial Historical Committee, Dunedin & Wellington, A H & A W Reed, 1939
186 WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
AND CONCERNING a claim by Walter Wilson and others of N gati Hinepua and other I wi relating to Hereheretau station
DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH
1 Pursuant to clause 5A(1) of the second schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal commissions Dr Katherine Orr-Nimmo, of Wellington, to complete a research report for this claim covering the following matters:
(a) the manner in which Maori ownership of the Hereheretau and Kahaattireia Blocks was determined by the Maori Land Court;
(b) a block history of the alienation of land in these blocks, with particular reference to the acquisition of land by the Crown;
(c) the establishment of the Hereheretau Station as part of the Maori Soldiers' Trust Fund, and its administration since 1925 by the Maori Trustee.
2 This commission commenced on 1 August 1997.
3 The commission ends on 28 February 1998 at which time one copy of the report will be filed in unbound form together with an appendix of relevant documents and copy of the report on disk.
4 The report may be received as evidence and the commissionee may be cross examined on it.
cont. page 2: 5. The Registrar is etc. Page 2, Wai 192, Orr-Nimmo.
5 The Registrar is to send copies ofthis direction to:
Dr Katherine Orr-Nimmo Claimants Counsel for Claimants Office of the Maori Trustee Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Secretary, Crown Forestry Rental Trust
Dated at Wellington this in ti'aay of October 1997.
efudf!fg~urie~ Chairperson WAITANGI TRIBUNAL V ~~9',.. " /,1:'. ~
' .. ~...... ' ~
../~., .. ,
NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF NEW ZEALAND
Archive ReferenceR.t.f.~ .. ~?:? ... ~.L.f: ..
NOT TO BE USED IN PUBLICATIONS WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES l
~'I¥""""'-"/~<-.rA<--' ': I.ca ~"J'~:"",~.'",,;, ~;~t;~~ .,.J~.~~ "'-- " ,>. ·r-:-:- ' .....
_. '- ~ ---~,----....---
Y?VLL ie~_ ..' ;j-~tU I~/ J u/,~~L c:L.d ~ d--C-~aA'~ , ~.AZ~ ~d /~~ ~- ?it;;:A- "-"--~ 'f-o C!d / "-'" ~ a::::- ~ ~"W-e.-~~~~~ ~~ . ~ ,(c- C-~ uy e.....e. . - Jr- ~ L ~~ a..L-/.A.-;&:::::04--- ~~..-G '. . f<44'-~d L 4-<- ~-;a....-( L~ ~ /-L ~c- ~ ~ ~"wL .ac:;- ?Z-7~ Uvh ~. ~--~ .-£:!. -- e~- , ~~'
/,1 •
./ 4:. .~-::-~' - - We~ //,u- C.- ~'e~ ~ C2Z r
I ~L~ cPa-~ V?~.a-w ~ ;P~.v ~~~~' ~Lt7Z-r' ~ ~",-,' ~.~~
,//. .h..,' .:L,; ~(~~. ~ &. wa---k~ ~ ~~ 'I V~!~ "'--,,, ~~ -yf"'-<--?
~~ ~!'--g-,o ""e.,., (. r..~--,<- ~O ~) ~~ ~. {JX~~~ i i 'I' .~. l'
I j TENEio TE.JVHAKA WA . M()~ . ,.! ) . • ,:' ) .. e.' ( . j- t
1. K6~te ~Ohe'~l{~tahi,Arakaipaka, kO.,te ;Wha:kahoki, a-tureia., ,.." " Ko te he oti:rnef'~ohe kp te kiinga
Tirohia ana·~··te komiti tona U'-"-""Hi~"'1. '::~~
· " _ I,' /t - ~ '1 ~~
/
tv;/, 7~~ ..i··· .. ·.>t.·· ....
Ji-t U~' • - •••• '. " # • lJJ;. . ,: . /
~··hI
0.-1 ~ ... ···.····~
.. . " '.: -" ..' :. .: .~ '_. '; , :' • '. -' , ''r~.<:.~.. , ~,..~ (.. ;:(,,:,':",:\ , > .
.. . . ~ . .;/ ..,...... -..
. I /k/~
/1,1"" . //) . '/ '".•... ". I U""~ .-"~aA.L~e--'!., ~ 'P-cJQ~.
~~a-. ,Y-~~
,I-..> ~::At:.L.~:~~:,;;~J ~"o~·£~.~,A.....-.-J'7~' ~:;:::t.4V-:;;t .~ .. ~d- ~,,~~ ~ 4dL
-·-f;~~~7~~·;~-;/_q~~·--·,~ 7- Yo ""'''''' ...... ,-- .. ,-----~-- /~::3j;}'~2 ·~~7 ,/d'd7c?" /~v..--i!- fr..:J ~ i J" ~ ~";"-;~~' HER E HER TAU E -I:-Pirrifa Aata;" for -11erself o.n:1 others, Oil tho whole Llllck through Ttl Kl!.JlUll r.1:ttotllru J.UDGIdENT. R,ml bdore him 'Inrdu. by.allce.stry, o!Jcup"" tWII, amI cou(Jue~t. I II. Maikil Tu.ruke, hy ancestry, conquest" and OcctlpIJ.!ion ff r himself and of lienI, (!n~ th:lt portl' 11 of the bloul~ lying eastwu.rd ofl the linl! lnl:Jwn ns the K.tdl!l.·a~'r~il'eiu. bound.1 , at'V. II,. I~r. Ropalilli Te Rito, by at1celitry, oceu- . pU.tllltl, u.lld COllqU6lit, fClrhitnself ll.llU Othll18,; , on the l>llme part of the b {JOlt clu.imeu by 1 • Maika. Taruke. I, ' . 1V •. Iilll.ka Whanga, by a.nol:'slry ancl oc()u. i . ,pat~of .on t,hl' J; \mc portion of the ulock, J "H,Helnl WUMen, by ancestry ulld 'oeou ' pu.tjq'~, on thG "o,rnc pu.rt of the block', , VI;' Ti '·pira Ku.ukuu, by ;lliof.'s~I'Y and cupalioll for the saml:! part (If the biock. , VII. Petn. R'pi; by u.'lce~try HIlll tion over lhe whole block. V JII. H~r(!lll:J.ifl Hikital1gn. Arn.ngi lind 00 !llpo.tioll for iliml:l(Jli t~utl , IHIl(JPUIi on t1l'1t PMt· oC or tho· lillU kuuwu I '! l I !, . ! \ .1 97 , I, • , .. '," It:'" I:"" I ·-f , i~ i.: .'9"'\9' .' 'I';~ . .' J, ''''''. • . i . . (:': '001 · ' ,";;' t)' Il:l -the matter of "Th8 Native Land ~,--- .~~., Act,1909" and its aro,endments " ~ AND in tl1e me,tter 0:::' 0, Bloci: of Nat1ye Land f known as Rel"ehereta.u E.2 Block, situated I in the Oounty of WairQa. NATIVE MINISTER'S Of'Fi;. i' 1 4 JUL 1917 RECEIVED. To the Honourable ~he Minister ot NatiTe Affairs 'and Ohairm.anot the Native Land-- Purchase Board. ) i I The ,~UlII.ble Petition ot us, the undel'si~ned male and female ! Natives of the Dominion of 1T6W 7.eale,nd showeth::- ,1 That your petitioners a:('8 respscti-;-ely owners of." i , tho 'beneficig,l estate in fee simple as tenants in OOD'J110n .. in uneq,ual sha.res in the a'bove-naIned Herehel'etau B2 Bloo],:;. I 2. 'That you:tJpe;t.itioners -:ievi wit:" reibl'et that your 1 Boal'dis a,bout to iSGue or he,s issued an Order in Counoil. "~ under Section 36301' "The 2TaU'18 Land Actj19ID9~ pre7sntinzj , ! the alienation of' the said lands to, pl'i-mte persons, as you~ petitioners are not desirous' of sellin~ or leasinr; their:;~:"::1 , ~ interests in ~he aQo~e land to the Cro\'Tn tor the tollowin~ "J, reasons: - ",,' l (a) Several of your petitioners have homes;~-"~l' " aul tivations, B,nd orohards on the said lands" I ,I. ~nd hov." stook of all deBol'1ptions l:r"z~ni, •• ·1 thereon and desipe to m6Jce thereon permanent ~ .' . honi'es tor t1;1.emsel'res and their ohildren, (b) . A large portioD of the Wha1::aki La,goon and the outlet thereof lie, within the boundaries 'of,~ J the said Blook'and your petitioners depend to e. .~:reat .extent for their food B,nd me.intena.nce on the eel and sup:;;ly of' de Gp sea. f'i sh to be fi8hin~ shor§ls~o:r , obtC),ined\ ,. ". by on the ·"'C., the .' .. : I laioonanJ on th8 se~ co~st border1na th~ 6~idj I la.nds., _.-J ( c) YOU1', petitioners &,180 dori', (3 oene:i:'i t a,ncl D, laree portion of t~cir fnod su~~ly from thH the said 1~2oon &nd t~~ B~iJ ,l~nds. (d) The shores ot t~~l' hJ;::d &,nd 'portions o~' the •. said land ~r8 0: ersGt hiBtoric~l interest to possess. (e) Your petitioners :ur~her dspdnd fu~inly for •.. their supply of firewood on the driftwGod •..•. I de]?osi ted alone til'=' seu, 08Ll,L;h bor'derin({ the •. st:dd h,nds. I YOU!' GO".Tornment could b.ssiDt the oViners or The lfhakakiDre,inC'uCE; Bot..rd(wc.ioh now 18~Ti6s r',f>,tes on the s6,id l&,nds but whose oper,,,tions up to the present haTe'lnot be~~ited the said lands) I in a soheme tor drainiBi whioh it successful i would brini intoprotiDable use muoh valuable .,1 land now sliihtly submeried by the laioon ••• I waters., (~) Your petitioners are desirous ot farmini and workini this land themselves or ot irantini leases to Native owners thereot forloni terms with riiht to oompensation tor improvements to a limited extent in order that the lands may k' be protita.bly worked and their descendants may! i in time haTe a reversionary interest in ••••• i :lmproved lands. (h) That your petitioners respeotfully draw your attent ion to their ril:hts under the Trea.ty -~- --'-'---'------~------,____ ,_~ ______.-0 of Waitanei , the charter of their riehts .•. and priT+le~es a~ made between their torbears and the British Government, and ur~e that in Tiew ot their hereby expressed desire not to sell or lease their lands to the Crown favourable •••• oonsideration should be ~iTen to their petition. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray:- 1. That the Order in Council if made be reToked and if not made be not issued. 2. Suoh further and other relief in the pre~ises as may seem meet to you as Minister ot Native AX:! Affairs And your petitioners will ever paay -- .- .-- -''.---' ..~-- ---==::---- -~ ) "'--, In the matter of liThe native Land Act,1909" and its •..... amendments AnD In t~e matter of a Bloct of native Land known as the Hereheretau B~ Block,situated in the County of Jairoa • ... NATIVE M!I\iSTEW3 OFFiCi:.. 1 4 JUL 1917 RECEIVED. To the Honourable The Minister of Native Affairs and Ohairman of The Native Land Purchase Beard. The humble petition of us the undersi~ned male and ••. fe~ale Natives of the Dominion of New Zealand showeth 1. That your petitioners are respectively owners of beneficial estates in fee simple as tenants in common in unequal shares of the above mentioned Hereheretau B5 Block of ratiTe Land. 2. That your petitioners view with recret that your Board is about to issue or has issued an Order In •.•• Counoil under Seotion 353 ot "The NatiTe TJand Act,l909 11 preventin~ alienation of the said land to private •••• persons, as your petitione~s are not desirous of •••• sellini or leaain~ their interests in the said lands to the Crown, tor the tollowin~ reasons:- (a) Uany of your petitioners have erected modern and up to-date dwellinz houses, and out buildinis consistin~ ot storehouses and •••• implement sheds, and your petitioners are 1Xz farmini and cultivatin~ the said lands to the best ot their ability and desire to mate ...• thereon permanent homes for themselTes and their children. (b) A scheme of Partition of the said lands ..... amon!!st tour petitioners has been a~reed \ upon and the applioations ~or partition have been duly lod~ed in the Natiye Land ••• Court and would,but ~or the adjournment of the sittini of the sai(i Oourt at lfairoa i~ 19113, have been duly made by the said Court. (0) That ,the saili lands form the oentral part of the lf4akaki N.ative Township and front the main lfairoa-Gisborne road aad are within easy distance of the lfhakaki Native school and the lf~lakaki Post O:ffice and the children of many of your Petitioners now attend the said •..•. Native school. (d) That none of the other lands of yo~r petition- -ers are as suitable as these lands for ~he establishini o~ permanent homes inasmuoh as the sald lands oomprise valuable flat land suitable for croppin~ and dairy ~armini and are as aforesaid oonvenient of aCcess and close to - ,,' ~he Post offioe and school. (e) That the crown has purchased and is stil~ •.••• purchasini interests in the Heeeheretau No.2. Blook in whioh your petitioners have interests and your petitioners feel that their interests in their home blocks and Pa~akain~a should be held saored t.o them and should not be plaoed ~nder the said restriction. (~) That your petitioners desire that the above- mentioned partition scheme should be oarried into e~fect as soons as possible in order that they may ~enoe their respeotiTe sub-diTisions and thereby be enabled to more efficiently and profitably farm and oultivate the said lands whioh are now their matn means of maintenance and support. ( - (~) That the placin~ of the said restriction on the said lands will delay the said partition. (h) That your petitioners respectfully draw your attention to their ri~hts under the Treaty of ffaitan~i, the charter of their rizhts and privile~es as made between their forbears ••• and tho British Government, and ur~e that in Tiew of their hereby expressed desire not to sell or lease their lands to the Crown •..... favourable consideration should be ~iven to that!' petition. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray: 1. That the Order in Council under the said •.• section 353 if made be revoked and if not ••• made be not issued. 2. That the partition of the said lands be immediately proceeded with by a speciaL •. of the Native Land court at Whkaki near the said Bl.ock. 3. Suct :Urther and other relief in the matters above set out as may seem meet to you as ••• Minister of Native Affairs \ • I TE TAHUA MON! MA NCA HOIA MAO'RI. r f WHAKAilfARAMA. , He whakaatu tenei ki nga I wi :Maori pUta noa 'nga motu € l·]1a, kei te whakithaerea tetahi tahua moni, heL awhina IUO nga HO,ia Maori a muri 0 te pakanga. Ko tenei whakaaro i huaina i roto i te mamae, ite' aroha, 0 te hunga' inoho, mo a: ratou: tamariki, mokopuna, mo 0 ratou tungaane, 'mo a ratoll tane i haere ra ki taw-hitL Na 0 ratou roimata i whakawairakau ,i tupu ai, a tae mai ki tenei wa kua kitea he taonga._ TE KAUPAPA. Ko te kaupapa kua whakatinanatia e nga im 0 te Tai rawhiti i roto i enei tau e rna koia tenei:- (1.) Me kohi he tahua llloni nui e te iwi Maori 0 Aotearoa, 0 te Wilipounamu. (2.) Kia kotahi te takotoranga'mo taua tahua, ara, kia kotahi te Komiti Nui, te Rppu Kaitiaki ranei, hei pupuri,hei whakahaere. (3.) KO taua tahua, ko taua Ropu Kaitiaki, me whaka mana i raro i te Tine mo nga Moni Whawhai, kia ' marama ai ona tikanga katoa, kia riro ai ma nga Apiha Kawanatanga e ata tirotiro nga kaute 0 nga moni i kohia mai, onga moni hoki i whakapaua. (i.) Ko te tinana moni i kohia ino te tahua me tuku hei hoko, hei riihi ranei i tetahi, i etahi whenua ranei, hei paamu. Me ,whaimana nga Kaitiaki ki 'te whakapau moni hei whakapai i taua whenua, hei tango kararehe, liei whakahaere i nga tikanga katoa 0 tera hanga 0 te paamu. Me whaimana hoki nga Kaitiaki ki te mbkete'moni i runga i'te punga 0 te paamu, 0 nga taonga ranei i raro i tona mana. NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF NEW ZEALAND Archive Reference lt1..r1£?Y.:.:?f...... 4' o 'Z? NOT TO BE USED IN PUBLICATIONS WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES, 2 (5.) Ko nga moni e hua mai 0 nga paamu hei painga mo nga Roia Maori 0 nga motu e rua, ahakoa i haere i roto i nga ope Maori, i Iiga ope pakeha ranei. Ara, ko te tikanga kiatakoto toitu te tinana 0 te tahua, ko ona ,hua B. haere hei painga mo a tatoutamariki, i haere ki' te pakanga. TB TINANA MONI 0 TE TARUA. No te tau 1915 ,ka hanga. etahi rarangi ture, e taea ai e nga iwi Maori te tuku nga hua 0 0 ratou whenua, moni reti, moni hoko ranei, mo nga take.o te whawhai .. , (Tirohia te Kupu Apiti Ttw,tahi A ki tenei panui). . No te tau 1916 ka kohia e Ngati Porou te moni £1,100, 'heitimatanga mo te tak~ kua whakamaramatia i runga ake nei. Ara, i whakaritea kia hokona he' kahui hipi ki aua moni, ka mea ai he whenua hei takanga mo aua hipi.. Na tetahi hallU ano 0 Ngati Porou.i tuku mai he whenua mo te tau kotahi, he aroha na,atou. Na, ka hokonahe hipi, ka tukua ki runga ki taua whel)cua. No tenei tau ka puta mai 0 nga wuuru, 0 nga tinana hoki onga hipi i hokohokona atu, £1,650: ara, e £550 te moni i tapiritia ki te £1,100 i runga i tenei .whakahaere. Rei. whakaahua tenei roo te kaupapa. No te Paremata 0 te tau 191(l ka tonoa e nga Merna Maori, kia whakamanaia e te ture tetahi kaupapa awhina i nga Roia Maori, pera. i te ·kaupapa kua whakamaramatia i runga ake nei. Whakaaetia ana e te Paremata, a himga ana.ki roto ki te Ture Whakatikatika i nga Ture Whenua Maori, 1916-kei te rarangi 13 Ine te 14. (Tirohia te Kupu ApitiTuatahi B ki tenei panui.) , .' Reoi ka ma1'ama te taha ki te .. ture,ka,takoto hoki te tapuae tuatahi i te iwi. . Na, ka maluiratia . e nga kai whakahaere 0 tenei kaupapa i roto i te 'Tai~rawhiti, kia karangatia he hui nui,. hei roto. i taua hu1 whakarapopoto ai i nga whiriwhiri a til iwi mo nga take maha i rare) i te kaupapa, hei rei1'a hoki whakatakQto. ai i te. tim'atanga 0 te tahua. I tu tauahui kiWaiomatatilli, Waiapu, i te 15 0 11ga ra 0 Pepuere, 1917, 'a'tae at]1. ki riga 1'.a whakamutunga {) taua marama. I whakaaetia i reira' te kaupapa lma whakamaramatia ake ra,.a kohia ana te moni e £3883 8s. 4d. No tenei hui ka whakaaetia e nga iwi 0 Turanga kia tukua ki rot6 ki tenei tahua a raton moni i kohi ai imua atn 0 , ,,-.,,~='-"'~'~~'-'~ £,~.~:,"""u.:-.;.. I I .. 3 te hui ki ',vaiomatatini, a e mau 'ana i roto i"o ratou,ringa i taua, wa. E rua enei tahua"ko te tahua nui .0 Turanga katoa, a ko te moni e puritia ana e te Komiti 0 Ngati Maru, o Rong'owhakaata. I whakaaria e te hui ]1ga tangata hei kaitiaki, hei 'kai whakahaere mo taua moni,al;a ko'Roni Materoa' (Lady Carroll), Hetekia Te Kani Pere, Hutana lhaia, Tep Kara, A. T. Ngata, Tuhaka Pokiha me Heni Houkamau.l whakaritea. hei te PeekeQ Nui TipmL L Turangatako~o ai taua moni. I whakahaua hoki e te hui kia whakawhanuitia tenei take ki te iwiMaorikittoa. ", .. ' ,,' No te io. 0 :riga' ra:oMaehe, 1917, ka: HENI MATEROA (Lady Ca~roli)o:1iuranga,Tili~an~ " HETEKlA TE KANl PERE , ":,, APIRANA TURUPA NGATA.o'Waiapu TUHAKA POKlHA ' 'l'EO KARA 0 Te,Wairoa, , ", MOHl TE ATAlHlKOIA o Heretaunga. P ARAIRE HENARE TOMOANA. A ka huaina ratou ko " Te Kauniherli 0 te Tahua Mimi rna nga Hoia Maori." 4 'e No, taua wa hoki ka 'whakamanaiae, te,Minita ,nga tangata heLwhakaputa tiwhikete (pennits) e ahai ai ,nga ropu, ,e ,hiahia ana, ki te kohimonimo .. tenei tahua" Ko auatangata enei:- ' A. T. Ngata-mo te takiwa 0 Wai4pu taeatu ki te Pei , 0 Pereti. C , ' .' ' ! ' Heni Materoa (Lady Carroll) mo Takitimu metetahi , wa~i 0 E:ahungunu. ' , " ' Taranaki teUa,:)no te toengao Kahungimu, 'ahu'mai , kiEleretalUigame Wairarapa;' , ',' No 1;aua wa ana hokika whakarit~a e nga 'Kaitiaki ma HEmi :Materoa raua ko Te }{aIrl Pere' ellitina, ngatieki(haki) i, runga i tekaute moni j' te Peeke <> Nui' Tirem'i' Turariga:' a ko Kapene WirenruT)ltepuaki Piti (Cap~ai:q, W, T: Pitt o te Ope Maori rril!itahi) 1,leiHekeretari mO'lrga Kfiithiki, ,Heoi h tutukineinga taha ki te Tlirei kakiiakiahui te Komiti ki'te Wairoa, Hera 0 te 'hui a Ngati-Kahungunu (0 te'Wairoa}i fuj te 2 onga 1'8. 0 Aperira; 1917; Na tena hui i whakapUlllau, a i tautokonga take i whakahaerea mai ra i Waiomatatini, i te Pakipaki: a'i kohia e nga iwi Maori, pakeha hokiji,tae mai kitena hui te moni, £1,600, " Ko 'nga mea mihar9i kitea i roto i enei huihuinga 0 nga iwi 0 te Tai-raw-hiti; ko te kahao te jllamae 0 te ngakilu, a te tangi hoki ki o'ratouuri i haere'raki te pakanga.:.ko te kotahi 0 te whakaaro, kia kohia tetahi t8huamoni nui hei putanga mo, to 'ratou'aroha:: ,ko tekaha'o te, hun:~a , wahine ki nga mahi kawa i, tikil ai timei take, ;Ko te mea nui kote aroha, kote niamaej' nana i wl1ak;angawari"llga , ~ ,whakaaro katoa 0 te iwi;' i 'whakakotiihi' 0' ratourigakliu,' i; IfI,:' whakatopuo'ratou 'kaha. "Koiara nga hua'o :enei h)1i e toru, i kohia ai, i whakarapopototia aiki roto 'ki,te'tahua' 1,,1: kotahi, ki raroki te Komiti kotahi, nga moni'nuku atu i te 1- £11,000. Ko nga monii kohia i muri mai ;nei, ko te kaute , 0 nga moni i takoto ki te Peeke i Turanga, ko nga whaka paunga 0 nga moni, tenei nga whakamarama kei'fe Kupu Apiti Tuarua ki tenei,'panuL " ,'/ ", i .. ,· \, "<" i" , . ". Iii',; .' 'T~TINANA WHENUA, TAONGA,'OTEiTAHUA. ,E ,rua nga kUpu .;vhak~hau nu~ui iutl,L~na ki runga ki te Konliti e nga im i roto i.llga h1,1i,e toru, kua whakahuatia ~ke ra.'" " '" 5 (1.) Kaua te moni e whakamangeretia,' engari me ·whakamahi kia hohoro ai te whai hua. ' (2.)' Me kimi e te Komiti he whenua, he taonga,hei tinana rno te tahua moni kua kohia uei e 'nga' iwi. I teo poto 0 te wa bLore i taea e te Komitite kimi ,he whenua tuturu, hei takotoranga mo te tahua nei. ,Wha kaarohia ana me riihi tetahi whenua,mo tetahi wa. poto, ara, he riihi tarutaru. Ko te whenua i tangohia e te Komiti i runga i tena huarahi kei Torere, Opotiki: ko te wahi 0 taua whenua e ahei ana: hef takanga kararehe e 4,000eka: ko nga kararehei runga e4,000:;nga hi:pi"e215 uga kau, Na, kua riihitia mai e te Komiti tena:whenua 'mo nga tau. erua me te hawhe, ko te monireti .tarutaru .El"9nO hereni i te ek3 i tetau.. Kua hokonllj'lnai nga hipime·.nga kau me etahi atu tiwnga 0 tewhei+ua; Ii. ko nga: 'moni); pau e£7007. Kua whakaritea he tangata,'liei'whitkahaere' mo te paamu; me te kaute moni hei tiekiI]loana'niaht:'Rei te Maehe e heke iho neie mohiotia ainga hua.·o ··tenei whakahaere.· .. ...,.'.' . Otira kei te kimi tonu te Komiti he whimuatuturuliei paamu. Ko tetahi whenua e whakaarohia' a'nitko ;ff~re heretau Nama 2, kei te takiwa oteWairoa.. Tera ati.(~tahi. Tera e ata whakaarohia e te Komiti, e ata ti1'otirohia,' k::. whakatuturu ai i tana whakaaro..· .. ' . ." TE NUl 0 TE TAHUA E'HIAHIATIA"ANA',i .' , ' .. ,". 1" Na, ka marama mai nga iwiki te ahua otenei kal:\i;ap~, nanga iwi,o'teTai-raw,titi) timata,'e ,karanga atu:ana':lti nga iwi; ki nga hapu, ql'tfga motu'erua,.kia awahina1;i!ii,;hei painga;mo a tatou.'tamariki. katoa."-;· . . ," ; ..f . Kote hiahia 0 te Komiti kia tae·te tinana 0 -te moni e kohia i roto i te tau' neL ano ki te £25,OPO; mana ka ,nukU ake i tera ka tino pai rawa hoki. Ko tetumanako !lokin te . Komiti kia whakakotahitia he tahua ma te iwi Maori, ~a kotahi tonu te take, ko te awhina.i te. oranga 0 ngahoia Maori a muri (j te pakanga, kia kotahi te Komiti Nui hei whakahaere: me.kowhiri ona mema'iroto i nga:i'Yi,ka;toa na ratou te tahua i kohi. Ko te Komiti e tu nei, e tu. ana mo tenei wa noa, hei tima tanga.. Ina kumea e: te aho ·moni ki era atu' rohe, kei era rohe etahi mema hei. mangai,imo ngaiwi e manaaki ana mai i tetake. . . .'! .... ,' '. ,Ka. taea ranei e te I wi Maori katoa te 'kohl kia eke te tinalJ:a 0, teO tahua ilei i tenei wa ki te £25,0001 'Ki til whakaaro a tc ·Komiti ka taea. Kua taea e tetahi wahanga o te Tai-rawhiti te wahi nui. Ko Te Arawa; .ko Matatua, ko Wairarapa e toe' anA" Kei te korikori ano nga iwi 0 Heretatinga, 0 te Wairoa, 0 Turanga, 0' Waiapu i tenei raumati: a he maha nga huikua whakaaria mo te tauhou, ··e kohia ai ano he monL ., . TE TAfRAUAURU,,; Tera ranei hea'Whinak!li~ga::hvi '.~ t6Tai-hauauru 1 'Kei te hanga l):aupapa aNgati-Raukawa.;·kuafllkoto tetahi "wahl i tonaKoiniti. K11.a tuku whemiaaNgatituwharetoal '3, Ngati-Whiti rauaki;Ngati~Tama; ko' Owhaoko. Ket,te • rangona atu,kei te whakahuihui nga'hvi. oTaranaki, ietahl kawhe kau. Otira kaore ano i tino marama .he pe.w:heate whakaaro 0 'nga iwi' 0 teTai~hauauru,. e kOJ1i ana .ratim mo tehea take 1 E whakaae ana rallei ratou kia: whakakotahitia o ratou kaha ki runga ki te kaupapa,. kua timataia maie 0 ratou hoa 0 te Tai-rawhiti; hore rall(~i '. '. Ko te 'ope Maori i haere ra}U te'pakallgahe ope k(jtahitollu, norot(ji teiwi Maori ~otahi: ko te kaupapatika,llla'teiwi Maori moratou hei te kaupapa kotl>hl." '.' . : 'cc'.', .." . Kei te titiro atu tetahua nei ki'nga kaha.kei roto i te awa 0. WhangauuL iKit~a ,atuaua katp.~ll; ~.. Whanganui te kohimai he nioniimi; .. e £2;500, nukU atu: ranei .. Ina ,,'hoki ra ko nga monireti:e puta. aria.ite' tall< 0 nga.whenua; . o:Whanganui.kei raro i te; Poario·,Aotea ·nuku, atuli,te £8,000. 'Mehemea e whakaae ana a.Whanganui kitetuku mai i tetahi £5000 a ratou moni retLi tetau.mo'nga'tau e rima, he mamatena.. A ka:taeae teKomiti.te.'tikii atu i tetahi Peeke te £2,500, me;punga.ki,rungaki te whakaae- . tanga a Whanganui...... Na;ka titiro atuhokite·KoriritikiTaranakL.; Kitea atu 'ana 'kei'runga noa·ake.te hui 0 ngamoniteti;e' puta ana ki Taranaki;i·,nga.nioni.irethma;Whanganuii .Ka aroha . ,;"ranei. nga' iwi· 0' ,Taranaki.,ki, te ;kaupapa nei 1:. 'Ka;taea ranei e ratou.te mea atu ki te Kaictiakiote!Katoa·rra,;~.' E .j whakaae ana matoul,kia. puritia e koe £1,000 o· a· omatou ',moni reti iia tau; i.ia>tau mo nga tau e rima; hei whakanui i te tahua ma nga·,Hoia ,Maori."."Mehemea. ka:waimari!) 7 mai tena 'ka taea e te KDmiti te tiki atui ietahi Peeke te £5,000, me punga ki run,ga ki te whakaat)tanga 'a Tal;anaki. Na, ka titirD atu hDki te Komitiki te RDhe PDtae, ki a Ngati-Maniapoto, kei reira ano etahi mo1'ehu whenua e 1'iihi ana, na te PDari etahi i riihi, na te hunga whenuaano etahi. He aha ra nga kaha, 0 nga moni reti 0. nga taone nei 0. Taumarunui, 0. Te Kuiti, 0. OtorDhanga 1 Ka taea ranei e Ngati-ManiapotD te whakaaro mai tetahi £300 i te tau mo nga tau e rima, me pungaki runga ki nga moni reti' 0. Dna whenua, me Dna taone, kia puta mai ai he £1,5001 " 1vlehemea ra ka pena ka ,taeae te Komiti tetiki atn i tetahi , Peeke £1,500; me' p11llga kirunga' ki te :whakaaetanga a 'Ngati~ManiapDtD. ,." ., ' ' ."., ,',' Na, e hoa ma; kite taeae enehvahilligae torn '0. te'Tai hauauru: te whakaae kia puritia enei w!lhiDa J;atDu I\loni' reti, ,kakitea tera e ea i !Ii ratou moni tetahi whenua' nur tDnu }:lei paamu, etahi kararehe mahi;t mD mnga, a tutuki rawa ake te rima <> nga tau, ka whiwhi tatDu i tetahf oranga ,a-tau.pumau mD a tatDu tamariki. 'KD'OwhaokD i tapaea e te hunga nonatera whenua ki te Kawan;atanga hei whakanohonoho kinga Hoia' MaDri. Ki te'whakaaro ihohe pakeke rawa maratou; 'Pai ke mehemea'B hokonaatu'anatera whenua ki:te Karauna; a ko nga monre uta ki mnga ki te tinana ote tahua ma'}Jga Hoia Maori: ' Ka hoki maite ,titiro kite kaupapa a Ngati-RaukaW1J kua'rangona nei, he kOnlltitona, he tahuatana. E kDl'e 'ranei e pai kia: whakakotahitia' he kaupapi mo nga 'ial e wha nei1'E kore'ranei epai kia whakauma: ta:' :Ngati Raukawa ki'rot6kite tahua,kuli'takotowhaimi Y' ;, " ~', I . . ! . TE,TAI~TOKERAUI\ .,' Ka huriki tuao TamaHko te' Tai~Tokerau tera:' No te ope tuatahi i haere ai nga tai-tamariki 0 tera rohe ki te , pakanga, a taea ,noatia mai tenei ra. ' E tata ana ki, te 'I , rima rau nga tamariki 0 tera tai kua, haere klli te pakanga. . !'; Na, kei 'hea e, takoto ana Mam kiupapa whakaar9 ma Ngati-Wb.atua,' ma Ngapuhi, ma Te Rarawa, ,in!, Te Aupouri ki a l'i\tou tamariki, ina mutu mai te. p:aklinga ? Haunga; a' l'l\tou aroha 0 enei ra, e tukua ra' hei' kai: ka mutute'pakangakam1(t'q.hoki,te kaha 0 era awhina:"Ko '. muri atuo te pakanga ki pehea 1 ., , :!I 8 'I Kote iuoi atu ate Komiti 0 te Tai-Rawhiti kia titiro mai te Tai-'l'okerau ki te kaupapa kei te takoto whanui,na ka uta mai ki runga, kia kotahi ai te hoe a nga waka,katoa. E nga wahine ra, rna koutou tenei takee awhina. TE WAIPOUNAMU. Kaore i rohea rnai i Raukawa ngap~ingapte tahua Irna whakatakotoria nei e te Tai~Rawhiti, imgarii whiti atu ki llga topito katoa 0 t~ WaipounalI!u~.No reira.katae atu nga whakaaro 0 te Korniti ki tera motu, ki ngarnorehu 0 Ngaitahu. Kua raunga iti. rawa ' ngaI)lorehu ,0 te Waipounarnu, otira kei reira, 0 ratou hOW',pakeha,rnaha, hei awhina i a ratou. Ka taea anae ratou,te £l,OOO,kanui t~L" " .. NGAHUARAHIKOHIMONL " E kore e ta'ea e te Komiti't~ tohutohu;1tu,ngahuarahi kohi rna ia iwi, rna ill. iwi. HeLtoru t\lnef'.ino nga tau, a e If haere ana ki te wha 0 nga tau,e kohi ana taua te iwi Maori 'ki ngatahua rnaha, a 0 tatou hoa pakeha: a kua rnarama i a tatou nga hUarahi k:itoa. Kua inariaakitianuitia" e te Korniti te RopU: Poi, ine te Ropu Waiata 0 Heretaung(l., hei ' il whakangahau i nga iwi pakeha, ,Maori, engawarl ai,ratou i ki te kohi rnoni,rno tenei kaupapa;' Kua'tae'ae auaropu l nga rohe 0 Heretaunga tae atu, ki,teWairo'a,a Turanga, aPoneke; a mea ake llei haere ai ki,Akarana, kiWaira,rapa, ki Otautahi (Christchurch) ite W'aipouna.mu:, KO"etahi l!l',:,f,' iwi kei te rnau ana ki nga tikanga a rnua e karanga hui nei, .': : a ko nga ohaoha 0. nga hui ka tukua rno tenei take.' No , reira ka waihoki nga iwi ano tan;t huarahi, ,tana huarahi. " Ko te huarahi hohoro tonu rna nga iwi, whai whenua, '" rnehernea kei te riihi aua whenua, ko tera kua whakaaturia I i runga ake ra,ara, me whakarnana e ratou te Poa'ri,' te, I Kaitiaki ranei 0 te Katoa, t,e Kaitiaki ranei 0 a ratou moni, I kia puritia te wahi e rite ana '0 aua moni, ka, tukuai ki tenei tahua. ", ' Heoi ano rna te Korniti he wha,karnahara atu, ~etulrn I rnai nga rnoni e kohia, ki te kaute kotahi e kiia nei ko te Maori Soldiers' Fund, ki te Peeke '0 Nui'fireni,Gisborne . .-=~':"" 9 Heoi.. Kia tau nga manaakitanga maha ki runga k:i ta tatou kaupapa,]w tona tikanga nei he aroha, he mamae. Na HENI MATEROA (Lady Carroll). Waikanae, Gisborne. 'l'iamana 0 te Kaunihera 0 te Tahua Moni ma nga Hola. Maori. TE KUPU APITI TUATAHI. (A). Te Ture Whaka.tikatika Ture Whenua MilOri,Whakariterite. Kereme Whenua Maori, 1915. 5. (1.) Ina whakamanaia tetahi tukunga I tetahi whenua Maori ka ahei te Poari Whenua Maori, I roto i nga monl I utua kl te Poarl mo te taha kl nga Maori na'ratou i tuku,·kl te pupurl I -temonl (mehemea rahe monl) e hiahiatla ana e nga Maori na ratou I tuku Ida hoatu hel monl rna nga mahl 0 te whawhal e pakanga mai nef. (2.) Ko taua monl me utu e te Poarl ki rota kl te putunga monl e whakalngoatia ana e' nga Maori na ratou I tuku a rna te Minlta· Maori e whakaae. (3.) Mo runga rna te tuku a nga tangata no ratoU: e"noho hulhul ana, ma'·te whakaatu-a-motinl I paahitla I te hul'o' nga tangata no ratou e noho huihul ana,' I runga ranel I tetahl atu huarahl e tatu al nga mahara a te Poarl kl te whakaaetanga 0 nga tangata no ratou kl tauautunga, e whakaatu te whakaaetanga a nga tangata: Maori na ratou i tuku. Mo .runga Ina te tukunga I te hea, paan,ga takitahl ranel, me tono' e te Poarl kill. tlikua mal te whakaaetanga-a-tuhutuhl kl taua utunga a teMaorl, a nga Maori ranel i tuku. 6; Kua· whakatikaina e tenei Ture te wahanga-tekiona tahi 0 teklona toru rau e wha tekau rna ono 0 te tino Ture,' ara kua apitia atu te rarangl e whai'ake' nel;-' . .. (k.) Ka ahel te Poarl Whenua Maori, tetahl tangata ranel kel a la e pupurl ana tetahl monl e utua ana ranel kl a la, ko la ranel kl te utu I. aua monl rna te taha kl nga tangata no ratou, kl te pupurl, kl te utu hokl mo nga mahl 0 te whawhal I tetahl monl ki tetahl putunga monl e whakalngoatla ana I roto I taua motlnl, I roto \ ~-.---.-.-.. ----..... _-- .. ---.. _-_._------._-_.... _------.... --- ....- .. I 10 ! etahi man! ret! ! rota ranel ! etahl monl ! whakaputua, ! roto ranei ,i etahi atu moni ahakoa pehea e 'noho utua ana, hei utunga rane! kl nga tangata no ratou tetahl whenua (aplt! atu kl tetahl whenua ! whakatakalna kl raro kl tetahi Poarl Whenua' Maor!, kl te Komlhana ranel 0 nga Whenua Tlaki Maori 0 te Ta! Rawhit!, ! tetah! atu kaitiakl rane!). Kia'puta rawa te whakaae tanga a te M!n!ta Maar! katah! ka utu a! ! taua monl." (B). Te Ture Whakatikatika Ture Whenua Maori, Whakariterite Kere7lte Whenua Maori; 1916. ' 13. (1.) Ko nga ka!-t!ak! mo la'wa 0 tet,.h! monl I whakaputua mo te whawhal.! kohla he! whakaoraora, hel awh!na, hel oranga rane! mo nga hoia Maor! 0 roto ! nga Ope Hoia mo te Pakanga ! ng'" tangata rane! e noho ana ko aua ho!a' te oranga, he kal-, tlakl nel ratou ! ata whakakaporelhanat!a I raro I te Ture mo nga Monl I Whakaputua mo te Whawha!, 1915, kua whakamana!a e tene! Ture k! te 'whakapau ! nga man! 'a roto ! aua man! I whakaputua he! 'hoko whenua rna!, hei rllhl whenua mal rane! (ahakoa whenua Maar!, whenua ke atu rane!) , a k! te whakanoho hok!, k! te whakahaere hok!! taua whenua hel paamu, a kl' te ngakl, k! te whakamah! hok!! taua whenua 'hel pa!nga mo taua monl I whakaputua. . (2.)' Mo rung,. rna taua ,tu mahl, morunga ranel ,mo' te utunga i tetahl mon!, taumahatanga ranel e pa ana 1!:1 te whenua,. mo runga'rane! mo te whakapaingaI te whe,nua, me.. wh!whl nga. ka!-tiakL ki. nga mana 0 te kom!t! whakahaere .! raro I teklona. torlJ. rau e toru tekau'ma wha 0 te Ture ,whenulL Maar!, 1999,:, mo runga mo te whenua !whakataka!a kl raro k!,te kaporelhana., ! raro !, Wahl XVII a te Ture kua huaina tatat!a aka nel;. a )ra ahe!, Ina matl,Ja whakaaetla e te Minita Maori, ina pung,.la)d tetahl mokete, taumahatanga rane! ki runga, kl te whenua, i: whakatakalna kl raro k! a ratou, kl' raro ranel ~ kl ,ta ratou ,., whakahaere, k! te mokete mon! mal! tetahl tangata, kapore!hana rane!, ! tet\lh! Tar! 'Tuku mon! rane! a te Kawanatanga., ,.-, ~ (3.) Me apit! atunga mana, kua whakawh!wh!a ,ne!.kl nga: kaHlak! 'e tenel ,Ture 'k! nga mana kua whakawh!whla, k! runga kia ratou e'te Tuni roo nga' Monl,! Whakaputua roo te Whakhal, 1915, e nga rekureihana ranel 1 hangala ! raro I, taua Ture. 14. Mo runga roo nga t!kanga a nga tekloIi.a e \vha' I runga tata ake ne!, ko te "ho!a Maori kua whakamutua': ko tona tlkanga he tangata hoia kua whakamutua! rota I te tikanga 0, te Ture Whakanohonoho Ho!a kua Whakamatua, 1915, a no te)w!' Maori a N!u T!renl, ! heke !h'o rime!.! taua'iwi. ' ' 1", I"~: '-~------:'-~~~"'''''"'~-",, __.'_"""'_C-' ~~-..-,;,"~,;..;., ....-~~.-. -' .~ ..;---. fA). TE KUPU APITt TuARUA.· I rI !; RECEIPTS. EXPENDITURE. 1917.. . £ s. d. 1917. , '. £ s. d. March-Amount collected in cash atWaioma· ApriF-Dishonoured Cheque 56 0 0 tatini Meeting at inauguration of Salary-Secretary, 1st March to 30th Fund 3,883 8 4· SepL . 75 16 8 Sheep returns Tawhiti, etc. .. 1,367 5 2' Stationery 5 17 0 April-Amount collected at Wairoa Meeting 1,600 o 0 Travelling, Expenses 9 19 2 Amount forwarded from Po taka Petty: Telegrams,' etc. o 10 3 Meeting 250 0 0 Cheque Book 0 4 0 June--Net result of Poi Entertainment, Stamp Duty refund Nolan Street.. 3 15 0 Gisborne 219 4 0 June--Purchase Stock Hoata. Station 5,399 18 6 Amount received from Gisborne Maori Stores Hoata Station 312 5 6 Committee . . 100 0 0 Furniture Hoata Station 44 14 8 August-Amount collected Muriwai Maori " Stock Dalgety &.Co. ' 1;050 0 0 Sports 159 o Paid to Cr. Maori Soldiers' FuIid Amount paid ,in by Hawke's Bay Station Account, Opotiki 200 0 Maori Committee" 1,000 0 0 Sept.-'-Paid Solicitors Hoata Station first Sept.-Net result Maori Sports MOhaka 126' 0 10 . half year's rent .. 600 0 0 Amount received from Mangahauini Paid to Cr. for M. S> F. Station A/c. Station 250 0 0 . ", Opotiki '. ' '.. 100 0 October-Balance to Credit at B.N.Z. Gis· borne Current Aecount .. 1,095 17 7 £8,954 i84 £8;954 18 4 WM.PITT, E. & O.E. S.ecre.tary and Treasurer, Gisborne, 6th Octobe~, 1917. Maori Soldiers' FUlid Council War Fund . . ,-,-,---- .~- .... '.-----'...... --.. 12 (B). MAOHr:SOLDIERS FUND"OOUNOIL WAR FUND Statement by ,t;he tr'u~tees of certain funds held by members ,ot the Glsborne Maori Patriotic Committee, which funds 'have peen donated ~o 'the 'Maori Soldiers' !i'und Councll, but left In tb,e hands of the :a,foresa(d tr~tee~ In, the meantime. ' 1\'Po)1nl: 'Wh.r~ D.posll.d : ' Term. : Tl usl .... : £6.00/0/0 National'Bimk of N.Z',;: 24 months from H.ni Carroll and :' Gi~born.' , :)6Ih Deo. ':14% E. E. D.'Hooper £760/9/0 PO: B,aviiig. ):lank At .,all 3%' E, E. D.Hooper , Trustee for Heni Oa.rroll #)250,0/0 P.9.Bavi,Dg~:IlaDk ,AI' .;'113% 'H.,Carrand F. :: ' ' "Iubbing ,~13/19/11 Bank N.Z • ~i.borDe Currenl Aoo. Wm.Cooper,and , . (to meet any urg.nl E. E,. D. Hoop.r ,ne.d. of ,o!diers) '.' ,'c, " ~--- £1624/8/11 100/0/0 Paid into'cre\lil ofMaroi S~ldier. Fund CO;;D~il W.r:Fund' Aocounl al Bank of N.Z', GiBborn.. le.eStat.menl) I 200/0/0 Paid ,10 Credit of Maori Soldier. Fund Sialion Account . . Bank d N,Z;, Opotiki. " ' j £1924/8/11 j E.&O;E: E. E.W. HOOPER" ! Glsborne 61'10/17. WM. COOPER. I hereby certify, that' .tp.~ amounts as shown as paid Info the Fund and th~ Sta1;l.Pil, '47jlount ,,,,re ,~Grrect. ,WM:PITT" Sectetar.y: and Treasurer'Maorl Soldiers Fund : ,Councll War Fund.' , :' Glsborne, 6/10/17,' (C). AMOUNTS RECEIVABLE OUTSTANDING;, S. d. Held by Trustees as~~r .st~tement (B) abov~'l,6~! '811 Paid by such Trustee~ direct to Maori Soldiers' FUIid Station Accoun,t(Opotlk!)' and 'to be adjusted ... 209 0 0 Amount held by Hawke's ,Bay Trustees" , ' '1,210' 0 0 ,Amount outstanding 'from wool' and sheep (Tawhltl)' ,; awaiting adjustmerit 'ot, rates and "fencing a,c,' , ,Net ::E¥!~to~ c~i;~;;8.';B.aY:~~Orl.;E~t~'f~n~r.s: ,'. ::: .~ 0 1'3,576 16 4 I[~t ...... _~.. ls THE MAORI SOLDIERS FUND EXPLANATORY This booklet is to explain to the tribes of both islands, that there is a special fund being established to assist Maori soldiers after the war. This idea has come out of the pain and sympathy of those they left to go to war, thinking of their children and grandchildren, their brothers who travelled to distant places. Their tears have been the fertiliser of the seed, which made this grow, up until the present where this treasure is now visible. THEKAUPAPA The project which has been initiated by the people ofTe Tai Rawhiti over the last two years is as follows: There should be a significant fund established by the Maori people of both islands, North and South. That the fund should remain a single entity, that is, there should be one governing committee, or one group of Trustees, to both hold and administer it. That fund, and that group of Trustees should be established under the War Funds Act, in order that its functions be clear, in order that officers of the Government might examine accounts of money received, and money expended. The substance of the fund collected should be given over either to purchase or lease a block, or blocks of land, as farms. The Trustees should be empowered to spend money on improvements, to purchase stock, in order to conduct all of the business of managing a farm. The Trustees should also have authority to raise mortgages with the farm as security, or against any other assets they may hold. All profits generated should be for the benefit of Maori soldiers from both islands, whether they served in Maori or European contingents. It follows that the actual fund capital should remain intact, the profit generated thereby only is what is to assist our children who went off to fight. THE MONIES OF THE FUND In the year 1915 certain legislative articles were passed allowing the Maori people to direct that the profits from their lands, and rentals, or proceeds from sale could be used to assist the war effort, (See Appendix A to this notice.) In the year 1916 Ngati Porou collected 1,100 pounds to begin the project outlined above. In this case, it was arranged that the money be used to purchase a flock of sheep, and thereafter to obtain pasture for them to be grazed. A hapu of Ngati Porou gave land for one year, out of their feelings of aroha. A flock was bought and run on this land. This year, a total of 1650 pounds was generated from both wool, and meat from the sheep sold, in other words, 550 pounds was added to the 1,100 as a result of this scheme. This serves as an example ofthe project. During the sitting of Parliament in the year 1916, the Maori members requested that a law be passed enacting a scheme, in order to assist Maori soldiers, of the kind described above. Parliament subsequently agreed, and this was agreed to in the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1916 in sections 13 and 14. (See Appendix B to this notice) Once the law had established the kaupapa with clarity, the first step was taken by the iwi. Thereafter, it was decided by the organisers of this project on the East Coast to call a large hui; from that hui the views of the iwi could be gathered, in relation to the many issues relating to this project, and at that hui also, the initial contribution to the fund would be made. That hui was held at Waiomatatini, Waiapu on the 15 February 1917, up until the final days of that month. The details ofthe project as outlined above were agreed to at that hui and the money raised was L3883.8sAd. At this hui the people of Gisborne agreed to send in to the fund the money they held at that time, which they had collected prior to the hui at Waiomatatini. This comprised two funds, the fund ofthe Gisborne people generally, and the moneys held by the Committee of Rongowhakaata and N gati Maru. That hui nominated the persons to serve as Trustees and administrator for that money, they are, Heni Materoa (Lady Carroll), Hetekia Te Kani Pere, Hutana Ihaia, Teo Kara, A.T.Ngata, Tuhaka Pokiha and Heni Houkamau. It was decided that the monies should be deposited in the Bank of New Zealand in Gisborne. It was also decided at this hui that the project should be expanded to the whole of the Maori people. On the 10 March 1917 a further hui was held at Pakipaki in Hawkes Bay. The purpose ofthat hui was to honour Sir James Carroll, on the occasion of his return from England. The people of Gisborne and Waiapu came down to this hui, and made their request to the people ofNgati Kahungunu, throughout their tribal area, to join their project. Ngati Kahungunu of the Hastings area of Hawke's Bay agreed at that hui to collect L2,000 for the fund, and people of Gisborne and Waiapu collected 210 pounds, as a contribution to the effort ofNgati Kahungunu. At that hui also the Trustees Committee nominated at Waiomatatini was renewed, and the Committee was instructed to go to Wellington to see the Minister for War Funds, to seek the approval of such a fund, and to empower the Trustees, in otherwords to legislate for the operation of the fund. On the 28 March 1917 The Minister (Hon G.W.Russell) approved the fund which was to be known as "Te Tahua Moni Mo Nga Hoia Maori" (The Maori Soldiers Fund). The Trustees were also approved, namely:- HENI MATEROA (LADY CARROLL), of Gisborne, Chairperson HETEKIA TE KANI PERE, APIRANA TURUPA NGATA, ofWaiapu TUHAKA POKIHA 2 TEO KARA, of the Wairoa MOHI TE ATAIHIKOIA of Hastings PARAlRE TOMOANA They were to be known as 'The Council for the Maori Soldiers Fund'. At that time the Minister also authorised the people able to issue permits to those organisations wishing to collect monies for the fund. These were the people:- A. T.N gata - for the region of Waiapu to the Bay of Plenty Heni Materoa (Lady Carroll) for Takitimu and part of Kahungunu. Taranaki Te Ua: for the remainder of Kahungunu, from Hawkes Bay to Wairarapa At the same time it was agreed by the Trustees that cheques could be signed for the banle account in the Bank of New Zealand in Gisborne, by Heni Materoa and Te Kani Pere. It was also agreed that Captain Wiremu Tutepuaki Pitt (Captain W.T.Pitt ofthe First Maori Contingent) would be Secretary to the Trustees. Once the legal underpinnings were sorted out, it was announced that the first hui of the Committee would take place in Wairoa, at the hui ofNgati Kahungunu to be held on 2 April 1917. That hui reinforced, and supported the work done on the issues starting at Waiomatatini, at Pakipaki; Maori and Pakeha at that hui donated 1,600 pounds to the fund. The main features of these hui of the tribes of the East Coast were the depth of painful feelings, their grief over their offspring who went to war, their unity of purpose in collecting this fund as an expression of their concern, and the strength of the women in all of the activities associated with initiating this project. The main thing was their aroha, their pain; and this predisposed the people to support the idea, unified their hearts and joined their collective strength.These are the fruits of these three hui, whereby more than 11,000 pounds were collected and placed in a joint fund, under the stewardship of a single committee. The funds gathered after the hui, the accounts of money in the banle account in Gisborne and the expenditure of those monies are given in Appendix 2 at the back of this document. ASSETS OF LAND AND OTHER FIXED ASSETS OF THE FUND There were two main instructions issued by the people to the Committee at the three hui mentioned above. Do not leave the monies idle, get them into operation in something that will raise a profit. That the Committee should look for lands, and other assets, as capital assets for the 3 fund collected by the tribes. Because time has been short it has not been possible to locate land for outright purchase, where this fund might be invested. Instead the Committee has decided to lease some land for a temporary period, in other words to lease pasture. The land which the Committee leased thus was at Torere, Opotiki. The area of those lands where sheep could be run was 4000 acres, stock thereon were 4000 sheep, and 215 cattle. So the committee has leased this land for four and a half years, the lease of pasture is for six shillings an acre per year. Sheep and cattle, and some other farm items have been purchased, incurring expenditure of7,007 pounds. A person has been located as farm manager, and accounts are being kept to keep track of his work. Next March the profit from this activity will be known. But the Committee is still looking for a freehold farm to purchase. One piece of land being considered is Hereheretau No 2, in the Wairoa area. There are some others. This will be carefully thought through by the Committee, and reviewed, before making its final decision. THE SIZE OF THE FUND BEING SOUGHT Now that people (readers) are clear about the nature of this project, which the people of the East Coast began, they now issue a call to all iwi and hapu of both islands that they might help in order to benefit all of our children. The wish of the Committee is that the body of the fund to be collected in this year reach 25,000 pounds, if it were to exceed this so much the better. The hope of the Committee is that there be a unified fund for the Maori people, with one aim, assisting the livelihood of soldiers after the war, that there should be single organising committee, the members should be drawn from all of the iwi who have contributed to the fund. The Committee now in existence is only for now, as an initial body. When the project has been drawn by the thread of financial contributions to other areas, representatives will be found from there to represent those benefactors. Can the whole of the Maori people together raise the level ofthe fund to 25,000 pounds? The Committee thinks so. A section of the East Coast has able to raise the large part of it. Te Arawa, Matatua and the Wairarapa are to come. The people of Hastings, the Wairoa, Gisborne, and Waiapu are working hard this summer, there are many hui called for the New Year, when money will again be raised. THE WEST COAST Is there to help for this project from the tribes of the West Coast? Ngati Raukawa are pursuing their scheme, and a portion of the goal is already with their committee. Ngati Tiiwharetoa, Ngati Whiti and Ngati Tama have given land at Owhaoko. It has been heard that the people of Taranaki are raising calves. It is not yet clear what the West Coast tribes think, and where their efforts are directed. Do they agree to join the 4 scheme that has been begun by their friends on the East Coast or will they not? The Maori battalion that travelled away to the war was a unified battalion, from the Maori people as a unit; the right scheme for the Maori people to enter for the soldiers is a joint one. The fund is looking also at the strengths in the valley of the Wanganui river. One can see that Wanganui is capable of collecting a very large sum of money, at least 2,500 pounds, possibly more, because the annual return from rentals on the land beneath the Aotea Trust Board is more than 8,000 pounds. IfWanganui were to agree to put forward 500 pounds from their rental income each year, for five years, that would be affordable. Then this Committee would be able to approach a bank and raise 2,500 pounds, with the agreement ofWanganui as security. The Committee is also looking at Taranaki.We can see that Taranaki's income from rentals is far in excess of that ofWanganui. Will the people of Taranaki feel aroha for this project? Will they be able to say to the Public Trustee "We agree that you withhold 1,000 pounds of our rental income each year for five years to increase the Maori soldiers fund?" If this fortunate outcome were achieved, the committee could go to a bank and raise 5,000 pounds, on the basis of the guarantees from Taranaki. The Committee is also looking at the region ofNgati Maniapoto, where there are some remaining lands out to lease, the Board has some land it leases, the home people have some. What is the level of rentals from townships such as Taumarunui, Te Kuiti and Otorohanga? Is Ngati Maniapoto able to consider a contribution of 300 pounds per annum, for five years, guaranteed on the basis of rentals from its lands, its townships, in order to raise 1,500 pounds? Ifthat were the case this Committee could raise 1,500 pounds from the ban1e, on the basis of guarantees from Ngati Maniapoto. Now, friends, if these three sections of the West Coast iwi could agree to withhold these amounts of their rental income, you can see that a very significant amount of land as a large farm there could thus be paid for, and much stock, by the end to the five years we would have established a very significant annual earner for the benefit of our children (the soldiers). Owhaoko has been donated by the persons who owned the land for the settlement of Maori soldiers. One might surmise it will be too difficult for them to farm. It might be better to sell the land to the Crown, and put the proceeds towards raising the level of this fund for Maori soldiers. To return to the Committee ofNgati Raukawa, where we have heard, they have their own project, and their own fund. Would they not agree to join instead a scheme which covers the four corners ofthe country? Might they not agree to place Ngati Raukawa's scheme within the general scheme? TE TAl TOKERAU - NORTHLAND 5 We turn now to Auckland (Tamaki) and come thereby to Northland. In the first contingent many young people from that area went away to fight, and continue to do so. Nearly five hundred young men from that area have gone to the war. Where is the scheme undertaken by Ngati Whatua, Nga Puhi, Te Rarawa and Te Aupouri for their children, when the war is over? In addition to their aroha of the moment, sending food parcels and so on; when the war is over the effectiveness of that aroha will fade. After the war what will happen? The committee from the East Coast pleads with the Northern tribes to look at the general scheme, and to join it, so the paddles may beat together. To the women, it is for you to help this cause. THE SOUTH ISLAND The benefit of this project initiated by the East Coast is not cut off by Cook Strait, but crosses over to cover all parts of the South Island. Therefore the thoughts of the Committee go over there to Ngai Tahu. The sections ofNgai Tahu are widely dispersed geographically and few, but they have many Pakeha friends to help them. If they can find 1,000 pounds that will be sufficient. THE METHODS OF COLLECTING The Committee cannot formulate the ways of raising money for all tribes. This will be the third year, going into the fourth, that we the Maori people have joined in with the many schemes conducted by our Pakeha friends, and we now know all the methods. The Committee has given much assistance to the Poi and Waiata Concert Party of Hawkes Bay, to entertain both Maori and Pakeha, to help them raise funds for this project.Those groups have been around Hawkes Bay, up to Wairoa, to Gisborne, Wellington, soon they go to Auckland, to Wairarapa, Christchurch and the South Island. Some iwi who hold to the old ways are calling hui, and the gifts laid down at the hui are being donated to the fund. So we leave each tribe to find its own ways. The quickest way for the iwi with land, if it is being leased, is the one explained above; in other words that the Board or the public Trustee, or the Trustee of the monies raised, agree to reserve a portion of the income, to contribute to the fund. All the Committee has to do then is to explain that monies should be deposited in the one bank account known as the Maori Soldiers' Fund, in the Bank of New Zealand in Gisborne. That is all. May many blessings be upon our project, its motivation is our aroha and our grief. By Heni Materoa ( Lady Carroll) Waikanae Gisbome 6 Chairperson of the Council of the Maori Soldiers Fund 7