Te Matai and Pakaututu Was a Fringe Area
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TEMATAI and PAI<AUTUTU Dean Cowie Waitangi Tribunal, June 1998 THE AUTHOR Tena koutou. My name is Dean Cowie. I am a Pakeha male, of Scottish ancestry. My family live in Kaitaia, Muriwhenua. I am an historian, currently residing in Wellington. My qualifications relate to the study of New Zealand history. In May 1994 I graduated from the University of Auckland with a Master of Arts (1st class Hons) degree in History. I commenced work as a commissioned researcher for the Waitangi Tribunal in April 1994. I have facilitated the Mohaka ki Ahuriri claims inquiry since 1995. Since March 1996 I have held the position of senior research officer. Between November 1995 and August 1996 I researched and wrote an overview report about the principal means by which land was alienated in Hawke's Bay. Forming part of the Waitangi Tribunal's Rangahaua Whanui Series, the report was released in September 1996. In May 1997 I released a historical report on aspects of the Wai 168 (Waiohiki Lands) claim. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to several people who assisted in the writing of this report. Firstly, to Nigel Baker, Albert Eden, Angela and Haami Harmer who helped me understand the history of TeMatai and Pakaututu, and whose generous hospitality was greatly appreciated. Secondly, to Richard Moorsom whose related research topics enabled him to provide much needed advice on the research required for this report. Thirdly, to Grant Phillipson for providing insightful and erudite feedback on a draft of this report. Finally, my thanks are extended to Mike Fromont and the staff of the Hastings Maori Land Court, for their always friendly and courteous assistance to me. 11 CONTENTS Introduction .... .. I I Pakaututu Introduction . .. 4 Applications to investigate title ............................... 5 The Court's title investigation ............................... II The alienation of Pakaututu . .. 26 Post-alienation events ................ "~ . .. 34 2 Crown purchasing and the Te Matai I block Crown purchasing in the late 1870s . .. 36 The investigat..i,on of title to Te Matai . .. 38 The Governor's application ................................. 42 Confusion over boundaries . .. 44 Te Matai -1881 to 1922 ................................... 46 3 Renewed calls for title investigation 1922-1928 Introduction . .. 49 The applicants ........................................... 50 Where should the Court sit? ................................ 50 Where was Te Matai and did the Crown own it? ................. 57 Further delays . .. 65 4 The 1928 hearing Introduction . .. 67 The Ngati Tuwharetoa case ................................. 67 The Ngati Hineuru case .................................... 69 The Ngati Whitikaupeka case ................................ 72 The Te Turuki and Tawhao case ............................. 73 Paora Rokino' s response . .. 74 The Court's decision . .. 74 The aftermath ............................................ 75 5 The 1950s title investigation Introduction . .. 79 The Ngati Tutemahuta case .. .. 81 The Otene Claim ....................................... 84 The Te Tauri (Ngati Rangiita) case ......................... 84 iii The Ngati Hineuru case ... .. 85 The Tareha claim ........ .. 86 The Ngati Hawea claim .................................. 87 The Ehau and Rutene claim . .. 87 The Decision .......................................... 88 The Appeals ........................................... 91 Protest by Tuiri Tareha .................................. 93 6 Debt, Timber, and Access Introduction . .. 94 Debt ................................................. 95 Timber and Development . .. 98 Access. .. 105 7 Conclusion Introduction . .. 108 Pakaututu', . .. 108 Te Matai . .. 110 The Effect: . .. 114 Bibliography ll6 Appendices I Research Commission for Dean Cowie II Wai 216 Statements of claim MAPS Figure 1 General location map ................................ facing I Figure 2 Topographical map .................................. facing 3 Figure 3 The Pakaututu Plan ................................ facing 27 Figure 4 Pakaututu Farm Settlement ................... .. facing 34 Figure 5 Pakaututu Title Information Map ..................... facing 35 Figure 6 Confiscation Boundaries Map ........................ facing 44 Figure 7 Mohaka-Waikare 1868 Agreement Map ................ facing 45 Figure 8 Te Matai Plan 1951 ................................ facing 79 Figure 9 Roadway Order 1956 .............................. facing 105 iv ABBREVIATIONS app appendix AGG-HB Agent General Government, Hawke's Bay AJHR Appendices to the House of Representatives CB Waitangi Tribunal casebook (Mohaka ki Ahuriri) CCL Commissioner Crown Lands CJ Chief Judge CS Chief Surveyor DG Director-General, Department of Lands and Survey doc document DOC Department of Conservation fig figure FS Forest Service HO Head Office LINZ Land Information New Zealand LS Departm..ent of Lands and Survey MA Maori Affairs MB Minute Book (Native and Maori Land Court) Na Napier (Maori Land Court, Hastings, archival reference) NA National Archives, Wellington NZG New Zealand Gazette ROD Record of Documents USLS Under Secretary Lands and Survey Department USND Under Secretary Native Department Wai Waitangi Tribunal claim v INTRODUCTION This report uses official sources to document the title history of Pakaututu and Te Matai blocks. The six chapters are arranged chronologically. The report is written to enable the Waitangi Tribunal to inquire into claim Wai 216. This claim was received on 13 June 1991, and registered by the Tribunal on 20 June 1991. 1 The claimants amended their statement of claim on 16 January 1996 and added to it further on 8 January 1997.2 Copi~ are appended to this report (see app II). On 8 March 1996, claimant Nigel Baker was authorised to commission Buddy Mikaere to complete a report on behalf of the claimants. Mr Mikaere's report and collection of documents was released on 23 July 1997.3 On 21 August 1997 Nigel Baker was commissioned to provide further evidence on behalf of the claimants. I was also commissioned to provide a historical report on behalf of the Tribunal on 21 August.4 A copy of the commission for this report is attached as appendix 1. Pakaututu and Te Matai lie within the watershed of the Mohaka and Ripia Rivers (see fig 1). The divide between the two when surveyed was the Makiekie Stream and the Whakahu Bush. But the separation was a legal definition rather than a traditional one. Most Maori witnesses at Maori Land Court hearings stated that it was one area. Depending from which direction they were approaching the area, different hapu I Paper 2.43, Wai 201 Record of Proceedings 2 Papers 1.21(a), 1.21(b), Wai 201 Record of Proceedings 3 Document 01, and 01 (a)-( c), Wai 201 Record of Documents 4 Maori Land Court records and the relevant files of the Maori Affairs and Lands and Survey departments form the bulk of the primary evidence in this report. Two relevant files could not be located by National Archives staff; Land Purchase Department file 90/374, and Forest Service file 9/3/60. groups regarded Pakaututu and Te Matai as one self-contained area, or considered it as part of the larger Wharetoto, or Tarawera area. Each version was correct. Ngati Hotu were the original occupants of the area. It is from their chief Te Matai Ahinu that the block obtained its name. According to Paora Rokino's evidence given to the Native Land Court in 1928, Te Matai was slain in battle on the block by invading Ngati Kurapoto, who eventually occupied the land.5 Ngati Maruahine6 were closely associated with Ngati Kurapoto. Both descent groups' interests in the area were undisputed. The ancestral links of the next stage of traditional history are also not contested, although the political effect of the links differs according to each hapu group's tradition. Ngati Tuwharetoa claimed that they conquered Ngati Kurapoto - and Ngati Maruahine,-intermarryingwith them to occupy the area. Ngati Whiti were driven from the area to Patea, and following the defeat of Ngati Kahutapere at Te Kupenga Pa, the area north and west of the Mohaka River became part of the rohe of Ngati Tuwharetoa.7 Ngati Hineuru agreed with much of the above version. They claimed, however, that they had exercised autonomous control over the area underneath the Tuwharetoa umbrella. 8 Select Ngati Kahungunu hapu (Ngai Tamawahine, Ngati Mahu, Ngati Hawea) disputed Ngati Tuwharetoa's claim, instead arguing that Tawhao and Te Turuki ( who links with Maruahine) conquered and occupied the area. 9 It is not the purpose of this report to evaluate the ancestral history. As Ballara and Scott comment in their traditional history of the Kaweka area: 'the complex interaction of hapu of many different ancestral origins over time make it very difficult to establish any complete list of owners'. 10 5 Napier MB 74, Paora Rokino, p 180 6 Sometimes spelt Maruwahine or Maruawahine. 7 Napier MB 74, Paora Rokino, pp 180-182 8 For example, see Napier MB 74, Tuiti McDonald, pp 196-202; Wano Taungakore, 211-212; and Napier MB 89, Raroa Sullivan, typed extract, MA5/13/236, pp 16-17 9 For example, see Napier MB 74, Patu Te Rito, pp 217-218 10 H A Ballara and G Scott, 'Kaweka', p 4, in 'Crown Purchases of Maori Land in Early Provincial Hawke's Bay', 1994, Wai 201 Record of Documents (ROD), document II 2 Te Matai and Pakaututu was a fringe area. Many groups ranged over the blocks, occupying and using resources on a periodic and seasonal basis. Pakaututu and Te Matai were part of a buffer area between two