Local Study: Tuparehuia, Otara, Oteaka, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia

Wai 1040, #A59

Te Paparahi o Te Raki

Local study: Tuparehuia, Otara, Oteaka, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia

______T.J. Hearn

June 2016

Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry (Wai 1040)

Frontispiece: The Otara, Oteaka, Tuparehuia, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks

Table of Contents The author ...... xii

Acknowledgements ...... xii

Definition ...... xii

Spellings and abbreviations ...... xiii

Introduction ...... 1 Key questions and methodology ...... 3 The structure of this report ...... 7 Sources employed...... 8 Difficulties encountered ...... 9

Chapter 1: From customary to proprietary titles, 1890 to 1950 ...... 11 1.1 Introduction ...... 11 1.2 Establishing ownership: Otara, Tuparehuia, and Oteaka ...... 14 1.3 Establishing ownership: Whangaruru-Whakaturia ...... 18 1.3.1 The Whangaruru-Whakaturia papatupu block committee ...... 21 1.3.2 Before the Native Appellate Court ...... 25 1.4 The Native Land Commission investigates ...... 26 1.5 The structure of Maori land ownership c.1908 ...... 29 1.6 Partitioning the blocks ...... 31 1.6.1 Whangaruru-Whakaturia ...... 31 1.6.2 Otara ...... 39 1.6.3 Oteaka ...... 41 1.7 Alienations to c.1950 ...... 41 1.8 Alienations: shingle rights ...... 43 1.9 Conclusions ...... 50

Chapter 2: Consolidating Maori land ownership, 1928 to 1952 ...... 52 2.1 Introduction ...... 52 2.2 Consolidating interests in land ...... 53 2.3 Consolidation: the proximate origins ...... 54 2.4 Consolidation as the solution ...... 56 2.4.1 Consolidation: the legislative framework, 1909 to c1950 ...... 57 iii

2.4.2 The Tokerau Consolidation Scheme ...... 60 2.4.3 The Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme ...... 61 2.4.4 Remitting survey charges ...... 63 2.5 Approaches to consolidation ...... 64 2.5.1 The comprehensive approach: Series D, Whangaruru ...... 65 2.5.2 Trial locations ...... 68 2.5.3 Trial locations and ‘final’ orders ...... 71 2.6 ‘Family consolidation’ in the Bay of Islands, 1940-1941 ...... 74 2.6.1 Family consolidation in the Whangaruru district...... 74 2.6.2 Beyond the ‘order stage’? ...... 80 2.7 Post-Acheson consolidation ...... 82 2.8 Conclusions ...... 87

Chapter 3: From land reform to land development: the Whangaruru development ‘units’ ...... 90 3.1 Introduction ...... 90 3.2 Investing in development: Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Otara blocks ...... 92 3.3 Assisting Maori farmers ...... 93 3.3.1 The Native Trustee ...... 97 3.3.2 Tokerau Maori Land Board advances ...... 98 3.4 State funding of Maori land development ...... 98 3.4.1 Four development schemes in Te Tai Tokerau...... 99 3.4.2 The Bay of Islands Development Scheme ...... 100 3.4.3 Land development, Series D, Bay of Islands Development Scheme ...... 102 3.5 The Whangaruru development ‘units’ ...... 104 3.5.1 Opai Matenga ...... 104 3.5.2 Erueti Reihana Pene ...... 109 3.5.3 Mohi Hare and Tamihana Mohi Rewiti (Thompson Davis) ...... 112 3.5.4 George Tamihana ...... 113 3.6 Land development and consolidation ...... 115 3.7 The roading saga ...... 116 3.8 Conclusions ...... 123

Chapter 4: The Ngaiotonga development scheme: origins and ownership, 1914 to 1980 ...... 126 iv

4.1 Introduction ...... 126 4.2 Otara and Whangaruru-Whakaturia: investment and development, 1914 to 1951 ...... 127 4.3 New approaches to land reform and land development ...... 131 4.4 The origins of the Ngaiotonga development scheme...... 133 4.4.1 Two reports ...... 133 4.4.2 The owners meet, February 1952 ...... 134 4.4.3 A detailed proposal ...... 136 4.5 A ‘pocket consolidation:’ the Ngaiotonga consolidation scheme ...... 138 4.6 Restructuring land ownership: conversion and live buying ...... 147 4.7 Ngaiotonga: the structure of ownership at two dates ...... 154 4.8 Land ownership: the course of reform ...... 156 4.9 Conclusions ...... 157

Chapter 5: The Ngaiotonga development scheme: promise and performance, 1954 to 1989 ...... 160 5.1 Introduction ...... 160 5.2 Plans, estimates, and projections ...... 160 5.3 ‘Unforeseen misfortunes:’ Ngaiotonga in the 1950s ...... 162 5.4 ‘ ... could never be subdivided:’ Ngaiotonga during the 1960s ...... 166 5.5 ‘A poor return for 24 years’ work:’ Ngaiotonga during the 1970s and 1980s ...... 177 5.5.1 Exploring options for utilisation ...... 177 5.5.2 Remitting interest ...... 179 5.5.3 The end of state support ...... 182 5.6 Measuring some outcomes ...... 183 5.7 The return of the Ngaiotonga development scheme...... 185 5.7.1 Re-purchasing shares ...... 186 5.7.2 A trust or an incorporation? ...... 187 5.7.3 The terms of the return ...... 190 5.8 Conclusions ...... 192

Chapter 6: Beaches, subdivisions, and allotment sales, 1951 to 2016 ...... 195 6.1 Introduction ...... 195 6.2 Roading the Whangaruru Peninsula ...... 196 v

6.3 Whangaruru-Whakaturia: amalgamations, beach sections, and alienations ...... 204 6.4 Owner-initiated and controlled subdivision and alienation ...... 205 6.4.1 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B ...... 205 6.4.2 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8, 1954 ...... 211 6.5 External purchase, subdivision and alienation ...... 212 6.5.1 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B ...... 213 6.5.2 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A and 1D7B ...... 214 6.6 The Maori Trustee, subdivision, and alienation: the Bland Bay subdivision ...... 216 6.6.1 First estimates of costs and returns ...... 219 6.6.2 Owners meet: 23 October 1965 ...... 221 6.6.3 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4: amalgamation and vesting ...... 226 6.6.4 An amended plan for subdivision ...... 228 6.7 The Crown intervenes ...... 229 6.7.1 The owners meet, 15 April 1967 ...... 230 6.7.2 The Maori Trustee appeals...... 233 6.7.3 The owners meet, 29 March 1974 ...... 237 6.7.4 The Maori Trustee applies for a loan, 1974 ...... 238 6.7.5 Owners meet, 16 September 1976 ...... 242 6.7.6 Excising Whangaruru-Whakaturia 5...... 245 6.7.7 Tenders, shares, and sales, 1983 ...... 245 6.7.8 Tenders, shares, and sales, 1988 ...... 251 6.7.9 The position in 2016 ...... 253 6.7.10 Bland Bay: a summary ...... 253 6.8 Conclusions ...... 253

Chapter 7: Reserving the land: the Crown, designation, and acquisitions 256 7.1 Introduction ...... 256 7.2 The nature and scale of the problem ...... 257 7.3 The implementation of coastal policy ...... 258 7.4 The Whangaruru North Head Reserve...... 260 7.5 Creating new public open spaces ...... 265 7.6 The Crown’s Otara purchases ...... 270 7.6.1 Otara 2C ...... 272

7.6.2 Otara 2B and Tuparehuia ...... 273 7.7 Private purchasers, private sales: Otara subdivisions ...... 282 7.8 Facilitating Crown purchase ...... 284 7.9 Designating land as proposed public open space ...... 286 7.9.1 Appealing designation...... 288 7.9.2 The case for designation ...... 291 7.9.3 The case for the appellants ...... 292 7.9.4 The appeal decision ...... 292 7.10 Post-designation transactions...... 293 7.10.1 Otara 4A1 ...... 294 7.10.2 Otara 4A3 and 4B ...... 295 7.10.3 Otara Pt 3A2...... 296 7.10.4 Otara 1 ...... 296 7.10.5 Otara 3B ...... 297 7.10.6 Otara 5 ...... 306 7.10.7 Otara in 2016...... 307 7.11 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6B ...... 307 7.12 Conclusions ...... 315

Chapter 8: Conclusions ...... 317

Index to supporting documents...... 327

Bibliography ...... 332

Appendix 1: Direction commissioning research ...... 366

vii

List of Figures

Figure 0.1: The broad structure of this report ...... 8 Figure 4.2: The course of land title and land ownership reform, 1930 to 1989 ...... 157

List of Maps

Frontispiece: The Otara, Oteaka, Tuparehuia, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia Blocks...... ii Map 1.1: Land tenure in Northland, c.1910 ...... 13 Map 1.2: Plan of Otara block, 1868 ...... 15 Map 1.3: Plan of Tuparehuia, 1892 ...... 17 Map 1.4: Plan of Oteaka, 1894 ...... 18 Map 1.5: Whangaruru-Whakaturia, sketch-plan, 1902 ...... 22 Map 1.6: Plan of the Whanaruru-Whakaturia black, 1894 ...... 23 Map 1.7: Plan of the subdivision of Whangaruru-Whakaturia, 1911 ...... 32 Map 1.8: Plan of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1B, 1C, 21D, and 2B, 1912 ...... 35 Map 1.9: Plan of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A and 1D7B, 1918 ...... 37 Map 1.10: Plan of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A, 1D9B, 1D10A and 1D10B, 1947 ...... 38 Map 1.11: Plan of the subdivision of Otara block, 1915 ...... 40 Map 1.12: Whangaruru shingle rights, 1928 ...... 48 Map 3.1: Blocks farmed by 'development units' during the 1930s ...... 105 Map 3.2: Land tenure, Whangaruru Survey District, c.1954 ...... 117 Map 4.1: Scheme of Pt Series D Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme, Ngaiotonga Sub-series 1954 ...... 145 Map 4.2: Sketch plan of Ngaiotonga A2 and E, c1964 ...... 146 Map 4.3: Ngaiotonga A3, 1991 ...... 147 Map 6.1: Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B, 1952 ...... 209 Map 6.2: The subdivision of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A1 ...... 215 Map 6.3: The proposed Bland Bay subdivision, 1965 ...... 217

viii

Map 6.4: The blocks proposed for amalgamation and those amalgamated as Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 ...... 227 Map 6.5: Lots 1-19, 31 & 33, and 47 & 48, Pt Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4, 1977 .... 243 Map 6.6: Lots 20-29 and 34-36, Pt Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4, 1977 ...... 244 Map 7.1: Whangaruru - North Head Scenic Reserve, 1968 ...... 262 Map 7.2: Whangaruru - North Head Scenic Reserve, 1980 ...... 264 Map 7.3: Area of interest to the Crown for reserve purposes, c1966 ...... 267 Map 7.4: Plan of Otara 2B and 2C Blocks and Lots 1 and 4 DP 78455, 1976 ...... 282 Map 7.5: Plan of Otara 3B, 1979 ...... 300 Map 7.6: The proposed partitition of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6B ...... 312 Map 8.1: Maori freehold land, Otara, Oteaka, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks, 2016 ...... 324

List of Plates

Plate 6.1: Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour, c.1966 ...... 197 Plate 6.2: Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour, 1976 ...... 241 Plate 6.3: Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour, 1985 ...... 251

List of Tables

Table 1.1: The Native Land Commission's recommendations for Bay of Islands County, June 1908 ...... 28 Table 1.2: The cost of surveying Whangaruru-Whakaturia ...... 33 Table 1.3: The partitioning of Whanagruru-Whakaturia 1C, 1D, and 2 ...... 34 Table 1.4: The survey of Otara 1914: costs incurred ...... 41 Table 1.5: 'Other lands' held by the vendors of Part Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4, 1918 ...... 42 Table 1.6: Shingle extraction agreement, January and July 1927 ...... 47

Table 2.1: Survey lien and interest remissions (£s) recommended by the Native Land Court, July 1936, Otara and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks1 ...... 64 Table 3.1: The Bay of Islands Development Scheme, 1935 to 1941 ...... 102 Table 3.2: Bay of Islands Development Scheme: amount expended to 31 December 1930 ...... 103 Table 3.3: Advances made to 'units,' Bay of Islands Development Scheme, by 1933 ...... 103 Table 4.1: The Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks proposed for inclusion in the Ngaitotonga development scheme (value in £s) ...... 137 Table 4.2: The proposed new titles and their constituent blocks, Ngaitonga consolidation scheme ...... 141 Table 4.3: Crown's original and amended charges Ngaitonga consolidation scheme, 1954 ...... 143 Table 4.4: Maori Trustee acquisitions in the Ngaiotonga development scheme to 29 January 1979 ...... 153 Table 5.1: Results (£s) expected from farming Ngaiotonga development scheme as a station ...... 162 Table 5.2: Ngaiotonga development scheme: key financial indicators (£s), ...... 166 Table 6.1: The proposed allocation of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B ...... 206 Table 6.2: The partitioning of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B, and Otara 2, 1966 213 Table 6.3: Bland Bay Subdivision: blocks proposed for amalgamation and vesting, 1963 ...... 218 Table 6.4: Blocks proposed for amalgamation: owners and shares, 1965 ...... 222 Table 6.5: Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4: lots, capital valuations, and prices paid ($), c.1984 ...... 247 Table 6.6: Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4: re-vestings, 1984 ...... 250 Table 6.7: Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4: lots and valuations, 1988 ...... 252 Table 7.1: Details of the Otara blocks the subject of the Crown's interest, October 1967 ...... 271 Table 7.2: Otara blocks of interest to the Crown, 1973 ...... 287

List of Graphs

Graph 2.1: 'Native' rats struck and collected, Whangarei County, 1921-22 to 1929-30 ...... 55 Graph 2.2: Block structure of Series D: Whangaruru, Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme, 1930-31 ...... 66 Graph 3.1: Capital and unimproved values and value of improvements, Otara and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks, 1930 ...... 92 Graph 3.2: The composition of improvements, Otara and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks, 1930 ...... 93 Graph 5.1: Ngaiotonga development scheme: total value, total debt, and excess of debt over valuation, selected years, 1958 to 1969 ...... 170 Graph 5.2: Ngaiotonga development scheme: distribution of capital expenditure by 31 March 1966 ...... 173 Graph 5.3: Ngaiotonga development scheme: trading results, 1961 to 1971 ...... 176 Graph 5.4: Ngaiotonga development scheme: debt ($), including interest, 1 April 1960 to 30 June 1971 ...... 176 Graph 5.5: Ngaiotonga development scheme: interest remitted and profit or loss, 1960 to 1976 ...... 181 Graph 5.6: Ngaiotonga development scheme: debt ($), 1971 to 1988 ...... 182 Graph 5.7: The Maori population of Whangaruru and Ngaiotonga, 1945 to 1971 ... 184 Graph 5.8: Ngaiotonga development scheme: structure of ownership, 1988 ...... 190

The author

This report was prepared by historical research and report writer Terry Hearn. He holds a Master of Arts (1 Hons) in Geography and a PhD from the University of Otago. From 1990 to 1995 he was Head of Distance Teaching in the University of Otago, and from 1996 to 2000 the Historian of British Immigration in the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. He is co-author, with Dr J.O.C. Phillips, of Settlers: New Zealand immigrants from England, Ireland & Scotland, 1800-1945. Since 2001 he has contributed to nine major technical research programmes dealing with claims lodged under the Treaty of Waitangi.

Acknowledgements

In preparing this report, the author has been assisted and supported by Waitangi Tribunal staff, in particular by Jeff Abbott and Noel Harris. The staff of Archives New Zealand (Auckland) was especially accommodating and helpful, the staff of Hocken Library dealt patiently with inquiries, while Te Puni Kokiri and Land Information New Zealand readily permitted access to restricted files. Lisa Gibson checked the text, but all remaining errors of omission and commission are claimed by the author.

Definition

The term ‘alienation’ is widely employed in this report. The definition adopted is that offered in the Native Land Act 1909 wherein the term:

Means, with respect to Native land, the making or grant of any transfer, sale, gift, lease, license, easement, profit, mortgage, charge, incumbrance, trust, or other disposition, whether absolute or limited, and whether legal or equitable, (other than a disposition by will), of or affecting customary land or the legal or equitable fee-simple of freehold land, or of any share therein; and includes a contract to make any such alienation.

xii

Spellings and abbreviations

As employed in this report, the term Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry District refers to the district as defined by the Waitangi Tribunal.

The spelling of Maori proper and place names varies considerably throughout the sources consulted for the preparation of this report. Where possible these were checked, but errors and inconsistencies may remain.

The following abbreviations are employed: AJHR: Appendices, Journals of the House of Representatives AJLC: Appendices, Journals of the Legislative Council ANZ: Archives New Zealand AT: Alexander Turnbull Library CT: Certificate of Title NZPD: New Zealand Parliamentary Debates n.d: no data n.a: not available No: number p. and pp: page and pages Pt: Part S.D.: Survey District Vol: Volume

xiii

Introduction

This report examines four blocks in the Whangaruru district, namely, Tuparehuia of two acres, Otara of 386 acres, Oteaka of eight acres, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia of 1,340 acres: they embrace the middle section of a small peninsula that encloses Whangaruru Harbour on the west (Frontispiece). The core objective is to establish the manner in which some of the major transformative forces and processes that influenced, shaped, and changed Maori society and economy in Te Tai Tokerau during the 20th century played out at a local level. The central themes explored are thus those of titling and partitioning, land title reform, land development, and the reservation and alienation of land.

Ngatiwai, the descendants of Manaia, occupied the coastal lands from Whangaroa to Tamaki and the Little Barrier and Great Barrier Islands and acquired a reputation ‘as coastal raiders and traders ...’1 The isthmus connecting the Whangaruru Peninsula to the mainland, in particular, was a site of great seasonal importance to the iwi. According to the anthropologist Erik Schwimmer, writing in 1963, Ngatiwai owned only a strip of land a few kilometres wide along the coast from the Bay of Islands to Whangarei, the chief settlement being located around the shores of Whangaruru Harbour. He also noted that originally nine hapu maintained those settlements, those nine subsequently fusing into two, namely, Uru o Hikihiki (occupying lands along the western side of Whangaruru Harbour), and Ngati Tautahi (occupying the Whangaruru Peninsula and to the north).2

Little of the post-annexation history of the district, and especially of the four blocks that form the subject of this inquiry, appears to have been recorded. During the 1860s and 1870s, the Daily Southern Cross recorded shipment of timber, posts, and

1 Rawiri Taonui, ‘Whangarei tribes,’ in Te Ara – the encyclopaedia of New Zealand, updated 17 February 2015. 2 Erik Schwimmer, ‘Guardian animals of the Maori,’ Journal of the Polynesian Society, 4, 72, 1963, pp.397-410.

shingles, and potatoes to Auckland from Whangaruru. 3 The Whakapakara block appears to have come into the possession of the Lloyd family in 1871, the same family, in 1887, acquiring the Papakura block in 1887 and farming the blocks together as ‘The Point’ on the southern end of the Whangaruru Peninsula (see Maps 7.1 and 7.2). In February 1871 the Daily Southern Cross recorded that a shipment of cattle to Whangaruru had been made, while in 1876 it recorded that a large block of land in the Whangaruru area was to be leased for grazing purpose.4 It appears that in the late 1870s Mohi Kaingaroa granted grazing rights over the district from Cape Brett to Cape Home to one Donald Sinclair.5 Around 1900 Sinclair sold to George Lloyd who in turn sold to one Corbett. In 1934 Corbett’s son-in-law, Alfred Cooper acquired the adjacent Kirikiri Pawhaoa and Papakura blocks. In 1943 the property was acquired by G.W.G. Simpson. ‘The Point’ will feature later in this report. Between 1887 and 1890 a whaling station operated at Bland Bay (where Marsden is said to have preached his second sermon in New Zealand).6

The rugged, largely forested, and isolated character of the area thus appears to have deterred Pakeha settlement. The Crown appears to have evinced little interest in acquiring any of the land immediately to the south of Ngaiotonga. During the years from 1919 to 1922 it did investigate the purchase of a number of blocks, including Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4A and 4G, along the route of the proposed road from Russell to Whangamumu, Cape Brett, and Whangaruru. It was claimed that the blocks

3 See, for example, ‘Auckland timber market,’ Daily Southern Cross (Auckland) 20 July 1867, p.3 and ‘Bay of Islands, Daily Southern Cross 31 March 1870, p.2. 4 ‘Bay of Islands Shipping,’ Daily Southern Cross 2 February 1871, p.2; and ‘Whangaruru,’ Daily Southern Cross 4 April 1876, p.2. See also Madge Malcolm, Where it all began: the story of Whangaruru taking in from Mimiwhangata to Whangamumu. [Hikurangi: Madge Malcolm, 1982], p.115. 5 Little about Mohi Kaingaroa appears in the historical record. He was listed among the vendors of the Parahaki block, acquired by the Crown in September 1872. See H. Hanson Turton, Maori deeds of land purchases in the North Island of New Zealand: Volume 1. Wellington: George Didsbury, 1873. Deed No 58. Mohi Kaingaroa was also one of five signatories to an 1894 letter addressed to the Native Minister in which they registered objections to Pakeha harvesting oysters, an important food source, in Whangaruru Harbour. They were advised that if licensed, Pakeha were entitled to take the shellfish. The Oyster Fisheries Act 1892 did not provide for the setting apart of oyster beds exclusively for Maori use, although section 14 did contemplate harvesting by Maori during the closed season. See ANZ Wellington ACGS 16211 J1/521/ae 1894/918. 6 Malcolm, Where it all began, pp.122 and 126. 2

along that route were eminently suitable for settlement by returned service personnel.7 Purchase of the blocks nominated was approved by the Native Land Purchase Board, an order prohibiting private alienation was issued in September 1920, and meetings of owners were called. 8 The owners of Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4A3 and 4A8 and Tutaematai B rejected the Crown’s offer and the matter was allowed to lapse.

Until about 1950, therefore, most of the blocks in the Whangaruru district remained in Maori ownership. They were included in both the Bay of Islands Development and the Bay of Islands Consolidation Schemes. A small number of farmers secured assistance under the Maori land development programme of the 1930s, while the Native Land Court actively encouraged both individuals and families to consolidate interests in land. It was only after 1950 that the State took a more direct interest in the Whangaruru district, initially through its investment in the Ngaiotonga development scheme, and subsequently through the subdivision of land into beach-side residential sections, and the purchase of land for public recreation purposes.

Key questions and methodology

The key questions on which the investigation focussed, those that inform all the regional and/or district–level reports, are, first, whether the Crown sought to engage with Maori in a manner intended to consult, assist, guide, and encourage, or whether it sought to pursue and impose an agenda with an alternative set of objectives, and, second, the outcomes, intended and unintended, of the policies and programmes adopted and implemented.

Those two main questions are explored through the five areas specified in the research commission. The first focuses on the manner in which the titles and initial subdivision of the four blocks was determined. The second, the operation of the statutory protection mechanisms in respect of titling, alienation, and administration; third, the

7 Commissioner of Crown Lands, North Auckland to Under Secretary, Lands and Survey 19 November 1919, and Chairman, Bay of Islands County Council to Minister of Lands 1 August 1920, in ANZ Wellington AECZ 18714 MA-MLP1/230/e 1920/43. Supporting Documents Volume 5, pp.378ff. 8 ‘Prohibiting all Private Alienation of certain Native Lands,’ New Zealand Gazette 81, 23 September 1920. The order was extended in September 1921 for a further six months. See ‘Extending Prohibition of Alienation of certain Native Lands other than Alienation in favour of the Crown,’ New Zealand Gazette 82, 8 September 1921, pp.2293-2294. 3 extent and major forms of alienation; fourth, the extent to which the blocks were subjected to efforts to reform Maori land titles and ownership; and fifth, the kinds of Crown assistance available to assist owners to manage and utilise their lands. Given that titling was undertaken, it appears, on the initiative of owners, the report largely focuses on the matters of partition, title reform, Crown assistance, and alienation, and upon their close and functional interrelationships. Thus, for example, partitioning and the creation of individually-owned land holdings through either the consolidation of interests or the purchase of the interests of co-owners, were regarded by the Crown as essential precursors or complementarities for the award of grants for the purposes of land development. The alienation of the blocks (or parts thereof) the reform of the titles involved, and the provision of Crown assistance were not separate but, from the inauguration of the land consolidation and land development programmes in about 1930, intertwined issues.

As a first step in the preparation of this report, both the relevant statements of claim and technical research reports were examined. The former were employed to identify the issues of concern to claimants and to augment or refine as appropriate the key research questions. Those consulted included:

• Wai 244, 1.1, Lucy Palmer and others, representing Ngatiwai, concerning Ngatiwai lands and fisheries. • Wai 1384, 1.1.1 and 1.1.1(a), Elvis Reti, Henry Murphy, and Merepeka Henley, representing the Tangata Whenua of Whangaruru, concerning the failure of the Crown to recognise the tino rangatiratanga of the Whangaruru Hapu in their lands and rohe. • Wai 1512, 1.1.1, Michael Leuluai, representing the descendants of Wiki Te Pirihi Hetaraka and Raiha Heta Te Kauwhata, concerning Crown actions in relation to the Native Land Court. • Wai 1528, 1.1.1 and 1.1.1(a), Carmen Hetaraka, representing the descendants of Te Kauwhata, concerning the establishment of the Native Land Court that resulted in the individualisation, fragmentation, and alienation of various land blocks.

• Wai 1529, 1.1.1, Toru Hetaraka, representing the descendants of Hurikino Hetaraka and Mihi Terina Herewini, concerning the establishment of the Native Land Court that resulted in individualisation, fragmentation, and alienation of various land blocks. • Wai 1530, 1.1.1, Te Rina Hetaraka, representing the descendants of Hurikino Hetaraka and Mihi Herewini, concerning the Native Land Court and the Government actions that the claimants allege caused individualisation, fragmentation, and alienation of Maori land blocks. • Wai 1544, 1.1.1 and 1.1.1(a), George Davies, representing the descendants of Hairama Pito Kino, concerning Ngaiotonga, Orokawa, Kawa, Motairehe, Parangarahu, Rangiahua and other land blocks. • Wai 1722, 1.1.1 and 1.1.1(a), Iris Niha and Alwyn Niha, representing Ngapuhi and Ngai Te Rangi, concerning alienation of land, failure to guarantee right of ownership, failure to allow the practice of Maori lore in respect of taonga, and failure to allow undisturbed possession.

• Wai 1723, 1.1.1, John Paki, representing himself, his father Hone Toi Ututaonga Paki, his grandfather Hone Wiremu Ututaonga Paki, and Ngati Hine, concerning the Crown’s environmental policy and practice, failure to actively protect Taonga, the foreshore, and seabed and the failure to ensure that Ngati Hine received or receive the same economic development and sustainability opportunities as British settlers. • Wai 1837, 1.1.1: Deidre Nehua, representing the whanau and hapu of Te Tai Tokerau, concerning the Crown’s failure to actively protect the Treaty rights of Te Tai Tokerau to a just, fair, and equitable treaty settlement process. • Wai 1954, 1.1.1 and 1.1.1(a), Eta Haika, representing the descendants of Rongopai Haika and Atareria Heta Te Kauwhata, concerning the legislation responsible for the establishment of the Native Land Court and other attendant legislation that has resulted in the individualisation, fragmentation, and alienation of land blocks. • Wai 1961, 1.1.1, David Carpenter, representing the descendants of Pita Tunua, Isebella Tunua, William Carpenter, John Carpenter, Aileen Flemming, Tas Carpenter, and Lucy Carpenter, concerning the legislation responsible for the 5

establishment of the Native Land Court that resulted in the alienation, fragmentation, and individualisation of land. • Wai 1973, 1.1.1, Robert Carpenter, representing the descendants of Hone Tautahi Pita and Marara Henare Kaupeka Piripi, concerning local government and rating legislation.

The technical research reports also proved helpful in identifying key issues and themes, and in locating some sources, although the report relies to a significant extent on sources not otherwise employed or indeed only recently made available. Prime importance throughout is attached to primary source materials, while analysis and interpretation proceeded largely by way of corroboration. Thus multiple, largely official, sources were compared in an effort to establish the sequence and content of events, the reasons that underlay particular decisions, and the implications of those decisions. The assumption is that systematic comparison of a range of documentary sources is more likely to facilitate the definition of key issues and to allow the identification of areas of both accord and discord. The availability of some statistical data, in particular for the Ngaiotonga development scheme, also allowed some limited time series analysis. As a final step, the findings were then assessed in the light of the conclusions reached in the district-level reports and some general conclusions advanced.

It is worthwhile noting that commission included a specific direction to the effect that the themes of land titling, alienation, administration, title reform and development were to be covered to the extent that they applied to the four blocks but not already covered by existing scholarship and by technical research. While it became apparent that some of those themes, notably title reform and development, had been examined in the technical reports, it was considered desirable to extend the accounts offered to explore particular issues involving the four blocks. Thus Hearn’s account of land consolidation and land title reform in Northland was extended to cover the efforts made by the Native Land Court in respect of what was known as Series D of the Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme; the useful account of the Ngaiotonga development scheme offered by Bassett and Kay in their general survey of land development in the Northland was similarly extended in an effort to establish how conversion and live

buying worked in practice and why that scheme, in particular, failed to fulfil the promises made to owners; while Alexander’s equally useful account of coastal reserves in Whangarei County was extended to embrace all the efforts made by the Crown to acquire subdivisions of the four blocks for recreation purposes. The one important area that does not appear to have covered in any detail in the existing literature was the post-1950 subdivision and alienation of parts of the four blocks in response to the growing demand for beach-side residential sections. Those developments involved several of the key themes and demonstrated their close interrelationships and interactions: thus the Bland Bay subdivision in particular involved title reform (in the form of amalgamation and reconfigured subdivision), Crown financial assistance, management and administration by the Maori Trustee, and alienation.

The structure of this report

The report consists of eight chapters. Chapter 1 deals with titling, partitions, and alienations up to c1950, while Chapter 2 deals with the Crown’s first attempts to reform Maori land ownership through (primarily) the consolidation of interests (the fourth area specified). Chapters 3, 4, and 5 cover the Crown-led efforts to encourage and assist the commercial development of the four blocks whilst encouraging the further consolidation of interests in land and restructuring land ownership. Chapter 6 examines the subdivision of parts of the Whangaruru-Whakaturia, Oteaka, and Otara blocks in beach-side residential sections; Chapter 7 describes the efforts of the Crown to acquire subdivisions of the blocks in an effort to create public recreation reserves. Chapter 8 offers a set of conclusions. The bulk of the report deals with the period from about 1945 to 2016, that is, the period that saw the establishment and the trials of the Ngaiotonga development scheme; the efforts to reform Maori land ownership through amalgamation of titles, conversion, and live buying; the establishment of beach-side subdivisions; and the efforts by the Crown to reserve parts of the blocks as public open spaces.

To 1950 Titling, partitioning, and alienations

1909 to 1952 Consolidating ownership, developing the land: first phase

1953 to 2016 Reforming ownership, developing the land: second phase

19 51 to 2016 Beaches, partitions, subdivisions and alienations

1965 to 2016 Recreation, designation, and Crown purchases

Figure 0.1: The broad structure of this report

Sources employed

The report relies very largely upon three major groups of primary sources: the first comprised the minute books of the Tokerau District Maori Land Council/Board, the Native/Maori Land Court and the Native Appellate Court; the second the maps and plans prepared for the purposes of titling and partitioning, together with certificates of title (where appropriate); and the third, a large number of Crown files dealing with partitioning, alienation, ownership reform, development, subdivision, preservation, and recreation.

Secondary sources are few. As noted, earlier reports prepared for the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry were consulted. Of particular value were those by Alexander, Bassett and Kay, Gillingham and Woodley, McBurney, and Stirling. Each dealt with particular issues of relevance to this inquiry, Alexander with the extraction of shingle, Armstrong and Subasic with land and politics to 1910, Bassett and Kay with the Ngaiotonga development scheme, Gillingham and Woodley with school sites, McBurney with public works, and Stirling with rating matters. From my earlier report, I drew material dealing with Maori land legislation, Maori land ownership reform, and the underdevelopment of Maori farming. Collectively, the reports allowed key developments in respect of the four blocks to be placed in their regional and national context.

Difficulties encountered

The major difficulty encountered related to establishing and, especially, measuring the outcomes of the policies adopted and applied to the four blocks in question. Identifying the immediate outcomes land development, land consolidation and title reform, the planned subdivisions of the post-1950 period, and the Crown’s efforts to establish public open spaces was relatively straightforward. Establishing and measuring the wider social and economic outcomes for the comparatively small communities involved proved much less tractable. Neither the archival nor the official statistical record accords much assistance, although some material relating to population trends and housing standards was located and did offer some useful insights. A more detailed investigation of such outcomes would require a great deal of sifting through rating records, valuation rolls (although some were employed in this report), social security records, and (possibly) unpublished demographic data.

Some files relating to the ‘units’ assisted by the Crown during the 1930s appear to be missing. Further, some difficulties were experienced in establishing the existence of certain sources. It was assumed, for example, that the Maori Trustee retained files dealing with the subdivision of what became Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4, but efforts to establish that and to secure access were unsuccessful.

A final difficulty related to the reproduction of both the ML plans and other maps, notably inserting images that are clear and legible. It will be apparent that reproduction was not always successful. With respect to the ML plans, reduction has inevitably meant the loss of some detail. The other maps presented a range of difficulties that included the indifferent quality of the original images, the fact that some of them had been folded, and the fact that most had been bound into bulky and occasionally fragile files. Every effort has been made to enhance them.

Chapter 1: From customary to proprietary titles, 1890 to 1950

The first task in the investigation was to examine the matter of titling and initial subdivision, in particular to establish how the Papatupu Block Committee appointed in respect of Whangaruru-Whakaturia and the Native Land Court operated, to assess whether and how the Crown responded to the wishes and preferences of the owners and communities involved, and to describe the outcomes for owners. The commission also raised the related matter of protection mechanisms, specifically if and how they operated in respect of the titling, alienation, and administration of the four blocks, including reserves, wahi tapu, and commercial development. The limited alienation of land in the four blocks prior to about 1950, whether for leasing or for sale, meant that such protection mechanisms as the Native Land Act 1909 contained were, with one important exception, not invoked. That exception involved the granting of shingle extraction rights and the key question that emerged was the extent to which the Crown observed the obligations imposed upon it by section 220 of that Act and whether it acted to conserve the interests of the owners of the blocks involved. The matter of protection mechanisms also arose with respect to the consolidation programme implemented by the Native Land Court during the 1940s: that is explored in Chapter 2.

1.1 Introduction

A key task of the colonial state was the substitution of customary ownership of land with proprietary titles, such substitution being an essential pre-condition for its transfer into Pakeha ownership. By the middle of the first decade of the 20th century, just over a fifth of the land remaining in Maori ownership in Northland (defined as the Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Hokianga, Whangarei, and Rodney Counties) remained in customary ownership. In the Bay of Islands County, which at that time included the Whangaruru district, a quarter of the 228,738 acres in Maori ownership were held under customary tenure.9 A map showing land tenure for New Zealand as a whole in 1908-1909 (Map 1.1) suggests that during that first decade large areas in Northland

9 See AJHR 1908, G1G and G1J. 11

were clothed, the major blocks including Motatau 2, Waikare, Whakatere- Manawakaiaia, Maungakawakawa, Mataraua, and Kohewhata.

Opposition to the Liberal Government’s Native land policy in the 1890s (or more strictly its Native land purchasing policy) in the form of the Kotahitanga movement, efforts to impede surveying, a boycott of the Native Land Court, and petitions, generated some concern that the transfer of land out of Maori ownership had proceeded too far, that Maori were in danger of being rendered landless and ‘a burden on the State.’ In 1899, the Liberal Government decided to bring Crown purchasing of land to a close, a decision finally embodied (in qualified form) in section 22 of the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900. The Act also created a system of administration that in important respects paralleled that of the Native Land Court. Thus the Maori land councils, with a majority Maori membership, created under the Act were empowered to deal with the ‘ascertainment of ownership, partition, succession, the definition of relative interests, and the appointment of trustees for Native owners under disability.’ Further, the councils could review all transactions involving Maori land and terminate negotiations considered to be inimical to the interests of the owners involved.

The Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 encouraged Maori to move from what Belich termed ‘disengagement’ and to attempt to exercise control over their lands and their management.10 Thus in 1903, Hone Heke Ngapua recorded that owners had been ‘advised not to clothe the land with titles so long as the Government continued to buy up an interest in Native land.’ Upon the passage of the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 which embodied the Crown’s undertaking to cease purchasing, that advice appears to be have withdrawn.11 Map 1.1 indicates that by the end of the first decade of the new century, most of the lands remaining in Maori ownership in Northland had passed through the Native Land Court. Map 1.1 also indicates that those lands were confined increasingly to the area around the southern shores of Whangaroa Harbour, around the shores of the Hokianga Harbour, and, in particular, along the southern

10 James Belich, Paradise reforged: a history of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the year 2000. Auckland: Allen Lane: Penguin Press, 2001, p.194. See also Apirana T. Ngata, ‘Maori land settlement,’ in I.L.G. Sutherland, editor, The Msori people today: a general survey. Christchurch: Whitcombe & Tombs, 1940, pp.96-154. 11 NZPD 1903, Vol.127, p.530. 12 shores of the Bay of Islands southward to Whangaruru Harbour, westwards and inland to Kaikohe and Punakitere, and southwards again to Pakotai and Towai.12

Map 1.1: Land tenure in Northland, c.1910 (Source: AJHR 1910, C1)

12 T.J. Hearn, ‘Social and economic change in Northland c1900 to c1945: the role of the Crown and the place of Maori,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2006, p.86. Northland is defined as comprising the Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Hokianga, Whangarei, and Rodney Counties. 13

1.2 Establishing ownership: Otara, Tuparehuia, and Oteaka

The applicant for what became the Otara block was Mohi Kaingaroa of Whangaruru. A plan, ML 530 (Map 1.2), was prepared, in February 1867 transmitted to the Native Land Court, and on 1 August 1868 produced by Mohi Kaingaroa before Judge Maning sitting in Paihia.13 An order for a certificate of title in the names of seven owners was issued that day.14 The other six owners were listed as Tokawhati, Ene Taiwhatiwhati, Raiha Te Puhitewetiweti, Mihaka Te Whakaupo, Riwhi Paea, and Ngawiki Te Hapimana. The block was declared inalienable for a period of 21years from the date of the Crown grant. The area of the block was given as 386 acres, the block having been surveyed by F.T. Newberry.

13 No record of this decision was located. Judge Maning did not maintain a record of his court’s proceedings. 14 Paula Berghan, ‘Northland block research narratives,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2006, Volume VI, p.212. 14

Map 1.2: Plan of Otara block, 1868

(Source: ML 530 - cropped)

Tuparehuia entered the historical record in 1892 when Mohi Kaingaroa had a two- acre site fronting Whangaruru Harbour surveyed as a site for a school. A plan was forwarded to the Chief Surveyor on 15 August 1892 and produced before the Native Land Court at Waimate North (J.S. Clendon, Recorder) on 1 June 1893.15 That plan, ML 6400, is reproduced as Map 1.3. The certificate of title, dated 3 August 1894,

15 Native Land Court, Tokerau, Northern Minute Book 12/1. Mohi Kaingaroa and others also claimed the 244-acre Kairaurau: the block was surveyed in July 1870 and the plan produced before the Native Land Court (F.E. Maning) in January 1872. See ML 2507. 15

indicated that Mohi Kaingaroa secured the block as from 8 June 1893. By a deed bearing the date of 11 June 1894, for the sum of 1s, he transferred the two-acre block to the Crown, the transfer taking effect from 10 September 1894.16 The school opened about 1895. Following the failure of efforts to negotiate the purchase of additional land, in 1913 the Crown gazetted a notice of intention to take six acres of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1C under the Public Works Act 1908 for a Native school. Owners were asked to accept £30 as compensation: in the face of an apparent reluctance on their part to engage with the Crown over the matter, the Court, in July 1921, awarded that sum as compensation. The two blocks, of two and six acres, will appear later in this investigation.17

Oteaka was the next block to appear in the record following an application lodged by Pita Puru and others in 1894 for an investigation of title. The application was heard on 12 December 1894 when Plan 6503 (reproduced here as Map 1.4) was produced before the Native Land Court (J.S. Clendon, Recorder) sitting at Kawakawa and when the eight-acre block was awarded in three shares: one share was allocated to Pita Puru and four others; a second share was allocated to Ritihia Kauwhata; and the third share was allocated to Paraire Hone Tautahi and five others. The minute book recorded that Pita Puru was to be trustee.18 ML 6503 shows the block adjacent to the Tuparehuia School Reserve and fronting the Whangaruru Harbour.

16 ANZ Wellington ABWN 8102 W5279/232 AUC 1869. 17 An account of the school can be found in Madge Malcolm, Where it all began: the story of Whangaruru taking in from Mimiwhangata to Whangamumu. [Hikurangi: Madge Malcolm, 1982), pp.128-133. The school was opened in 1892, Gordon Mackay taking charge from 1907 to 1913. The school closed in 1961. 18 Native Land Court, Northern Minute Book 11/52 and 55. 16

Map 1.3: Plan of Tuparehuia, 1892

(Source: ML 6400 - cropped)

Map 1.4: Plan of Oteaka, 1894

(Source: ML 6503 - cropped)

1.3 Establishing ownership: Whangaruru-Whakaturia

Whether or not the owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia had acted on the basis of the advice tendered by Hone Heke Ngapua noted above is not clear. What is clear is that moves to clothe the land with a title followed the passage of the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900. It was a process that would prove to be more complicated and protracted than had been the case in respect of Tuparehuia, Oteaka, and Otara. The first step was the appointment, in 1902, of a papatupu block committee as provided under the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900. The background to and

provisions of this Act have been described elsewhere.19 It is sufficient for present purposes to note that for a number of reasons the Liberal Government, during the late 1890s, reassessed its policy towards lands owned by Maori. Its proposals for a greater degree of Maori control over title investigation and alienation were not new, although the growing possibility of large-scale landlessness among Maori, especially in Northland, imparted added impetus to efforts to accommodate the emergent political and economic aspirations of Maori. The Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 not only brought a practical halt to Crown purchasing but also provided for the establishment of Maori Land Councils, such councils to exercise all the powers now possessed by the Native Land Court as to ascertainment of ownership, partition, succession, the definition of relative interests, and the appointment of trustees for Native owners under disability.

The Act also provided for the establishment of papatupu block committees to conduct investigations into land ownership in accordance with Maori custom. Section 16 allowed claimants or owners to elect such committees: each was to have not fewer than five and not more than nine members. Section 17 charged each committee, ‘having due regard to Maori customs and usages,’ with conducting a full investigation into ownership, while section 18 required each committee to prepare a report setting forth the names of all owners grouped according to family, relative shares to which each family and each member of a family was entitled. Section 19 required each committee to forward its report and a sketch-plan prepared by an authorised surveyor to the relevant Maori district land council: the latter, having given ‘all parties concerned full opportunity of being heard,’ could confirm the same with any modifications or alterations it considered necessary.

Although section 10 of the Act provided for appeals to the Native Appellate Court, section 8(6) of the Maori Lands Administration Amendment Act 1901 added to section 19 the words ‘subject always to the right of appeal.’ Section 11 of the Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1903 amended section 19, now specifying that a council

19 See, for example, Donald Loveridge, Maori land councils and Maori land boards, 1900-1952. Rangahaua Whanui Series, Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, 1996; Vincent O’Malley, Agents of autonomy: Maori committees in the nineteenth century. Wellington: Huia, 1998; Richard Hill, State authority, indigenous autonomy: Crown-Maori relations in New Zealand/Aotearoa 1900-1950. Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2004. 19

could confirm a report ‘or make such other order as it finds consistent with the evidence before it, and may before doing so refer the report, or any portion thereof, or any question in connection therewith, back to the Committee for any purpose which may seem necessary.’ Section 11 provided for the right of appeal to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court: the Chief Judge could either dismiss the appeal or refer the matter to the Native Appellate Court. Section 20 of the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 provided that only after a council had confirmed a report would a survey of the block be required. Where a council could not resolve objections to the report of a papatupu block committee, it could refer them to the Native Land Court, while appeals could be made to the Native Appellate Court. Once ownership had been established, the lands concerned could be transferred to a council for leasing or owners could enter directly into leasing arrangements with settlers.

The Tokerau District Maori Land Council began operating in 1902 and, having won some support from Maori, began appointing papatupu block committees, the first being elected and confirmed on 3 January 1902. The Council’s clear expectation was that owners, once established, would vest their lands in the Council ‘for administration.’ Some, at least, among Maori in fact evinced less interest in vesting or ‘transferring’ than in establishing incorporations, in particular as a means of securing and directing the interests and aspirations of geographically dispersed owners.20 Many Maori looked to the Council to assist them accordingly, a clear indication that they had a very different conception of the role and functions of the Council than those entertained by its first president (E. C. Blomfield). 21 By August 1904, 95 such committees were at work investigating titles to 240,000 acres, 39 having already reported.22

Indeed, by November 1902 the Tokerau District Maori Council was earning some praise for its ‘useful work’ in the Bay of Islands area. The Council had held meetings with Maori at which it had explained the Act, and it had moved to establish block

20 See, for example, Tokerau District Maori Land Council, Minute Book 2, p.201, ANZ Auckland AFKK 4711 1697 3516/226. 21 Blomfield practised as a lawyer and solicitor at Whangaroa and later at Kawakawa, and served as a stipendiary magistrate before returning to private practice in Auckland. He died in 1942. 22 Jane McRae, ‘Participation: Native committees (1883) and papatupu block committees (1900) in Tai Tokerau,’ MA Thesis, University of Auckland, 1981, p.98. 20

committees at Kororareka, Whangaroa, Mangonui, Kawakawa, Hokianga, and Kaikohe. Claimants to an aggregate area of over 300,000 acres had applied for an investigation of titles, including some 78,000 acres in the Motatau Survey District, 30,000 in the Whangarei District, and 60,000 in the Hokianga District, lands that according to the Auckland Star, had ‘hitherto been persistently held back from the Native Lands Court, the owners refusing to have the land dealt with in any way.’23

By July 1903, considerable progress had been made in clothing large areas of formerly papatupu land with titles. During August 1904, the Council, sitting at Russell, reviewed the reports of block committees relating to Ramaroa, Paremata- Mokau, Waihaha, Kopuakawau, Punaruku 2, and Waikare. The reports of the block committees evidently brought to an end protracted disputes over those blocks, the Council concentrating on revising the lists of owners, settling boundaries of divisions as necessary, and appointing trustees for owners.24 It is worthwhile noting here that in 1908 the Native Land (or Stout-Ngata) Commission, having been led to believe (by whom it did not say) that title investigation through papatupu block committees ‘had ignobly failed,’ described the results achieved through the papatupu block committee system as ‘astonishing.’ For all the counties north of Auckland it found that 175,393 acres had been dealt with: of that area, 28,316 acres had been affirmed by the Tokerau Maori Land Board and not appealed against; 73,218 acres had been appealed against and finally dealt with by the Native Appellate Court; while 72,420 acres had been referred to the Native Land Court or in respect of which no title had issued.25

1.3.1 The Whangaruru-Whakaturia papatupu block committee

Whangaruru-Whakaturia was mong the blocks the ownership of which was investigated by a papatupu block committee. The block came before the Tokerau District Maori Land Council, sitting at Russell, on 5 September 1902 and before ‘a great number of natives ...’ A sketch-plan of the block was located (Map 1.5), apparently prepared by Ngati Kura, Ngati Rongo, and Ngati Tai, but the first plan

23 ‘Northern Maori lands,’ Auckland Star 19 November 1902, p.5. 24 ‘Local and general news,’ New Zealand Herald 4 September 1904, p.4. 25 AJHR 1908, G1J, p.8. 21 appears to have been ML 6809 (Map 1.6), approved by the Chief Surveyor on 17 May 1901: it gave the area of the block as 1,340 acres.

Map 1.5: Whangaruru-Whakaturia, sketch-plan, 1902

(Source: ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A139/180/j 5303)

Map 1.6: Plan of the Whanaruru-Whakaturia black, 1894

(Source: ML 6809 - cropped)

Hone Tautahi Pita claimed the block on grounds of ancestry, ‘constant occupation and the strong arm,’ burial places, and pa on the block. Mita Wepiha claimed the block on the same grounds, but joined his claim to that of Hone Pita. Noa Pakaraka also lodged a claim, citing the same grounds, although a different ancestral line. The Tokerau District Maori Land Council ordered the establishment of a block committee: Hone Pita and others elected Hone Kaureka and Hare Matenga (both of Waimate North); Noa Pakaraka and others elected Te Waaka Rakauene (of Rawhiti). The three thus elected in turn nominated Rawiri Te Ruru (of Te Ahuahu) and Hiraura Piripo (of Waimate North). The latter two were elected without opposition or objection. Hare Matenga was elected chairman.26 It was August 1904 before Hone Pita could inform the Council that the parties involved had arrived at ‘an amicable settlement’ over Ngaiotonga 4 and Whangaruru-Whakaturia. He asked the Council to direct the komiti to finish its work and submit its report. Hare Matenga was directed to ‘take the matter in hand.’27 A meeting was arranged for 25 August and a report was presented to the Council when it met two days later, on 27 August 1904. 28

Two years later, on 17 and 18 August 1906, Ngaiotonga 4 and Whangaruru- Whakaturia were back before the Council. None of the parties interested, with the sole exception of Pou Werekake, was in attendance. The Council’s minute book recorded that ‘The presumption was therefore that they had no objection to make to the Block Committee’s decision.’29 The Council proceeded to consider the two cases: objections to the report, list of owners, and share allotments in respect of Whangaruru- Whakaturia were called for but none appeared. On the other hand, objections had been lodged in writing by Rihi Paea and others, Mita Wepiha and others, and Waati Paati: the grounds cited included the claim that the list of names had been ‘filled with strangers.’ Since none of the objectors appeared in support, ‘the Board after consideration decided to dismiss them.’30 The block committee’s report, among other

26 Tokerau District Maori Land Council, Minute Book 1/17, and 28-30, in ANZ Auckland AFKK 4711/1696. 27 Tokerau District Maori Land Council, Minute Book 2/146, 154 and 173, in ANZ Auckland AFKK 4711/1697. 28 A copy of the block committee’s report, in Te Reo, can be found in ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A139/180/j 1904/115. 29 Tokerau District Maori Land Council, Minute Book 5/186, in ANZ Auckland AFKK 4711/1700. 30 Tokerau District Maori Land Council, Minute Book 5/188, in ANZ Auckland AFKK 4711/1700. Dismissal where applicants or objectors failed to appear was standard. 24 things dividing the block into three, was affirmed. Three days later, on 21 August 1906, Waata Paati appeared to explain his non-appearance: the Board was distinctly unsympathetic, announced that the block was inalienable by sale, and indicated that concerns over the reservation of wahi tapu could be managed through partitioning.31

1.3.2 Before the Native Appellate Court

Hone Pita appealed against that decision, while Ngapera Wepiha appealed against the Council’s decision, taken the same day, in respect of Whangaroa Ngaiotonga 4. The appeals were heard on 11 September 1907. At the request of the appellants the appeals were heard together. First, Hone Pita sought to withdraw that part of his appeal in which he claimed that only two members of the block committee had been present when the report for the Council had been prepared.32 That apart, the ground for the appeal was the same in both cases, the blocks originally forming one area of land in which the claim was the same. Hone Pita argued that the Committee failed to inquire into ‘the rights of ... ancestors’ to the land, the Committee having asked those involved to ‘arrange [the] matter.’ Pita objected but a majority overruled him and hence, he claimed, he stood aside from that process, but drew up his own arrangement which included 130 acres (known as Te Pipi) for his ‘own kainga, self & family.’ All had assented to his proposal. Noting that the block committee had not altered the agreement reached (although the agreement contained no reference to the setting apart of a burial ground), he declared that he would be satisfied with the Board’s decision in respect of Whangaruru-Whakaturia as a whole. Otherwise, he would press to have the titles to both Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Whangaroa Ngaiotonga 4 ‘properly investigated.’

It appears that the difficulties involved the Kirikiri-Pawhao and Tutaematai blocks, against the partitioning of which, notwithstanding the agreement reached, Hone Pita had appealed. It was suggested that if part of the agreement were to be ignored then the whole should be ignored. Reference was also made to objections to the block committee’s report, namely, that many persons included in the title had no right, ancestral or otherwise, to the land. Those opposing Hone Pita now sought a full

31 Tokerau Maori Land Council, Minute Book 5/233, in ANZ Auckland AFKK 4711/1700. 32 Three members signed the report. 25

investigation of the title, while noting that he had, with respect to Te Pipi, ‘got too much.’ Some of his party, it was claimed, had no rights, while he belonged ‘to a large family & provision for them totals a large area.’ Finally, it was noted that the agreement did not define relative interests: rather, the heads of the claimant parties had submitted lists of owners and relative interests that the Committee approved. No objections were lodged at the time but subsequently were lodged over the manner in which the land had been considered. If the Court decided not to set aside the agreement reached, Roka Hopere would seek an opportunity to amend the share holding and the division of the land, claimed that the agreement constituted an alienation and was prohibited by section 45 of the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900, and noted that her clients ‘had the largest share in these lands but shd [sic] have more.’33

In a reserved decision, the Native Appellate Court noted that ‘Hone Pita really supports the decision of the Council.’ It went on to record that the minutes of both the block committee and the Council indicated that the cases had been settled by agreement among the several claimants. Those agreements had been recorded in writing and signed by or on behalf of the parties involved, approved by the block committee, and finally affirmed by the Council. The question that the Court addressed was whether the parties should be held to the agreement into which they had entered. It noted that it was prepared to interfere only where an agreement could be shown to be unreasonable or where someone having a genuine interest in the land was not a party to such agreement. In the Court’s view, neither ground of objection had been established, even while noting that some of the signatures were those of agents signing on behalf of their principals. The decision of the Tokerau Maori Council to affirm the agreement was thus endorsed.34

1.4 The Native Land Commission investigates

Even as the Native Appellate Court concluded its deliberations on Whangaruru- Whakaturia, the Native Land Commission commenced its investigations. The background to the appointment of that commission has been well traversed in a

33 Native Appellate Court, Minute Book 1907-1909/123-127. 34 Native Appellate Court, Minute Book 1907-1909/370-371. 26

number of reports. It is sufficient to note here that disappointment at the rate at which the Maori Land Councils were able to promote the leasing of lands owned by Maori led to the enactment of the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905: that measure provided for the transformation of the partially elective Maori land councils into Crown- appointed Maori land boards, the return of the councils’ judicial powers to the Native Land Court, a resumption of Crown purchasing, and the compulsory vesting of lands. A key requirement was to establish with as much precision as possible exactly how much land Maori needed or required and how much could be made available for the purposes of ‘general settlement.’ The Native Land Commission of 1907 was thus charged with identifying all those lands in Maori ownership that were ‘idle’ or not ‘profitably occupied’ and which could therefore be made available for selection, occupation, and development.

The Native Land Commission had before it two reports. In the first, entitled Unproductive Native land in North Island, Whangaruru-Whakaturia was listed as comprising 1,340 acres of ‘open and forest,’ including 300 acres of puriri. While ‘second class land,’ it was nevertheless ‘fitted for settlement,’ although it supported an estimated Maori population of 200.35 In the second report, Native lands in the North Island suitable for settlement, prepared especially for the Commission, Whangaruru-Whakaturia was listed as containing 1,340 acres, including 800 acres of bush, all valued at 7s 6d per acre. 36 The Commission travelled widely and heard submissions from Maori. The records created by both Stout and Ngata were examined for the purposes of this report: unfortunately, while Ngata kept a detailed record of his meetings with owners, Stout did not. Further, the Commissioners divided their attendances, so that it was Stout, at Russell on 21 April 1908, who heard the submissions regarding Whangaruru-Whakaturia. He did no more than record that owners wished to have a portion (1,123 acres) of the block incorporated. The block was partly improved and carried 900 sheep and 60 head of cattle.37 That desire for incorporation recalled Hone Heke’s advice tendered to Stout before the Commission commenced its work in Northland, namely, that Maori were averse to any further

35 AJLC 1906 Session II, No.5, p.3. 36 See Native lands in the North Island suitable for settlement, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16085 MA78/13/21b, p.4. 37 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16085 MA78/2/2, ‘Minute book containing notes of proceedings and evidence by Sir Robert Stout 23 March to 30 April 1908,’ p.137. 27 alienation of their lands, and that they desired to farm their land, preferably through incorporations.38

In fact, the Native Land Commission proved largely sympathetic to Maori views and aspirations, among other things criticising Crown land purchase methods, proposing strengthened protections against ‘landlessness,’ and recommending that Maori land boards have the power to assist Maori financially to develop their lands. It also proposed the initiation of efforts to reform Maori ownership through incorporation and, by means of exchanges, the consolidation of interests into ‘economic’ farm holdings. The Commission’s report also included schedules for each county in Northland that grouped the blocks into a number of categories. Table 1.1 sets out in summary form the recommendations offered in respect of Bay of Islands County: at that time, that county included the four blocks under review.

Table 1.1: The Native Land Commission's recommendations for Bay of Islands County, June 1908

Category Acres Category A: Lands leased or under negotiation for lease 9,378 Category B: Lands recommended for Maori occupation 1. Papakainga 45,138 2. Lease to Maori 844 3. Incorporation 22,593 Category C: Lands recommended for general settlement 1. By lease 41,889 2. By sale 3,053 3. Vested in board 45,115 Title unascertained 57,669 Not dealt with where title ascertained 3,060 Total 228,739

(Source: AJHR 1908, G1J, p.7)

38 Hone Heke to Stout 18 June 1907, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16085 MA 78/5/6. 28

Whangaruru-Whakaturia was not included in Category A. The second category, ‘Lands recommended to be reserved for Maori occupation under Part II of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907,’ was divided into ‘A. Papakainga, burial reserves, landing- places, and family farms:’ they included the 386-acre Otara and the 8-acre Oteaka, both occupied and ‘All improved.’ 39 It also nominated Tuparehuia of two acres (classified as a kainga) and Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1 (classified as a papakinga).40 The sub-category B3, lands recommended for incorporation (per section 61 of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907) included Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2 (of undefined area but with 248 owners).41 Category C, lands recommended for general settlement under Part 1 of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907, included Whangaruru- Whakaturia 3.42 The three owners of that block, it seemed, would be required to yield their land for ‘general settlement.’ The block was included among those for which the Commission recommended the issue of an Order in Council under section 10 of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907.43 That Order, prohibiting for a period of one year, all private alienations in respect of a large number of blocks in Northland, was issued in June 1908 and included ‘Whangaruru-Whakaturia and subdivisions,’ a total of 1,340 acres, and Whangaroa Ngaiotonga of 4,404 acres.44 A good many of the blocks nominated, with an aggregate area of some 75,000 acres – but not any of the four under review – were subsequently vested in the Tokerau Maori Land Board under Part 1 of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907. 45

1.5 The structure of Maori land ownership c.1908

It is worthwhile at this stage examining briefly the structure of Maori land ownership about 1908. In his analysis of Maori land loss in the Auckland land district between 1865 and 1908, Belgrave concluded that the distribution in terms of size of the remaining blocks indicated the emergence of ‘a pattern of family occupation and farming.’ He suggested that ‘in the transformation of Maori land holdings from the 1860s to the 1900s, is the increasing importance of whanau holdings at the expense of

39 AJHR 1908, G1J, p.31. 40 AJHR 1908 G1J, pp.33 and 34. 41 AJHR 1908, G1J, p,35. 42 AJHR 1908, G1J, p.36. 43 AJHR 1908 G1J, p.50. This appendix first appeared as AJHR 1908 G1I. 44 ‘Prohibiting all private alienation of certain Native lands,’ New Zealand Gazette 47, 18 June 1908, p.1681. 45 Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ p.200. 29

hapu blocks.’ 46 The available data do support that conclusion: what they do not support is any argument that the institutional basis had been laid for commercial ‘family farms.’ The Native Land Commission assembled data for 401 blocks (excluding burial reserves) owned by Maori in Bay of Islands County: of that number 49.1 percent were under 50 acres, while a further 16 percent were between 50 and 100 acres. Only 16 blocks exceeded 2,000 acres. For 388 blocks the Commission presented data relating to the number of owners: 262 or 67.5 percent had ten owners or fewer, while 28 blocks or 7.2 percent had over 100 owners. In short, the structure of Maori land ownership in Bay of Islands County as it had developed by 1908 was characterised, on the one hand, by a large number of small blocks each owned by a relatively small number of owners and, on the other, by a small number of large blocks with appreciably large numbers of owners.

The four blocks of immediate concern did not quite fit the larger pattern. Thus Oteaka had eight acres and 12 owners, Otara had 386 acres and seven owners, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2 had 919 acres and 248 owners, and Whangaruru- Whakaturia 3 had 130 acres and three owners. The available data suggest that a significant degree of population and title congestion had emerged by 1908. Although the owners involved, or some of them at least, had ‘other lands,’ it could scarcely be said that they retained land sufficient for more than subsistence purposes: perhaps it was for that reason that Whangaruru-Whakaturia 3 was not vested in the Tokerau Maori Land Board for disposal to settlers. On the other hand, no action was taken on the Commission’s recommendation that Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2 should be incorporated. That meant that the provisions of section 23 of the Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act 1906 were not available to owners. Section 23(1) provided that incorporated bodies, subject to the approval of a Maori land board, could borrow money by way of mortgage from any state lending department. It is of interest to note here that the Commission’s recommendations in respect of incorporation appear to have been made in recognition of the improvements made to the lands concerned during the previous five years by ‘working bees,’ that is,

46 Michael Belgrave, ‘Auckland: counting the hectares: quantifying Maori land loss in the Auckland district, 1865-1908,’ Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, c1997, pp.38-39. 30

collective effort.47 Finally, it should be noted that no other action was taken with respect to the lands that the Commission recommended should be set apart for occupation by Maori per Part II of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907. In turn, that meant that owners were not able to take advantage of section 60 which provided that any Maori who leased land set apart under Part II of the Act could borrow, ‘for the purpose of farming, stocking, and improving the land subject to his lease,’ money from State lending departments or any person approved by the Native Minister.

1.6 Partitioning the blocks

Once the block titles had been determined, the owners of Otara, Oteaka, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia embarked upon a series of partitions.

1.6.1 Whangaruru-Whakaturia

Whangaruru-Whakaturia appears to have first been partitioned in October 1909 when, in the Native Land Court sitting in Russell, the block was partitioned into three blocks, namely, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1 (of 200 acres and as a papakainga), 2, and 3 (of 130 acres for Hone Pita and others). Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2, the area of which was given as 1,010 acres, was then partitioned into six blocks.48 That same month, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1 was partitioned into four blocks. In March 1910, in response to a request by Henare Tamihana and others, C.E. Cooke was authorised to survey Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1 and 2. 49 ML 8109 (reproduced as Map 1.7) indicates that the survey was carried out in July 1911 and approved in October of the same year.

In March 1910 Hone Tautahi Pita, Marara Hone Pita, and Matiu Pita applied for an advance from the Crown to defray the cost of surveying the 130-acre Whangaruru- Whakaturia 3 (Te Pipi). In June 1910, Henare Tamihana and others asked the Chief Surveyor to ‘taihoa’ until they had considered the matter given that Hone Tautahi Pita was ‘the sole owner of that subdivision – the order for which we, in the near future,

47 AJHR 1908, G1J, p.4. 48 Native Land Court, Northern Minute Book 43/53-55. 49 Chief Surveyor, Auckland to C.E. Cooke, Whangarei 31 March 1910, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/148 20/772 Alt No XRP_0005295. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.199-229. 31 will apply to be amended.’50 The block was surveyed by Percy Ward. Informing the desire to have the land surveyed was, according to Pita Puru, a wish, on the part of some owners at least, to improve their land.51

Map 1.7: Plan of the subdivision of Whangaruru-Whakaturia, 1911 (Source: ML 8109 - cropped)

50 Henare Tamihana, Whangaruru to Chief Surveyor, Auckland 9 June 1910, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/148 20/772 Alt No XRP_0005295. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.199-229. 51 Pita Puru, Maungatapere to Chief Surveyor, Auckland 22 June 1911, in ANZ Auckland ABWN A1109 A180/148 20/772 Alt No XRP_0005295. 32

The costs of surveying Whangaruru-Whakaturia are set out in Table 1.2. Of the total cost, £97 5s 10d had been paid by 19 October 1911, to leave outstanding the sum of £25 6s 5d.

Table 1.2: The cost of surveying Whangaruru-Whakaturia

Blocks Costs: £ 1A 1 7 10 1C 5 3 3 1D 14 19 0 2A 12 3 11 2B 20 6 7 2C 10 6 5 2D 9 11 3 2E 4 15 6 2F 27 1 9 3 11 10 0 Total 97 5 10

(Source: ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810 20/772 Alt No XRP_0005295)

Further partitioning followed. In March 1912 the Tokerau Maori Land Board requisitioned the survey of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1C (Nos 1 and 2), 1D (Nos 1 to 10), and 2B (Nos 1 to 4). Of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D, the Native Land Court’s Northern Minute Book recorded that the ‘Block has been divided into a great many pieces none of which has been surveyed.’52 ML 8801 (reproduced here as Map 1.8) indicates that the survey was conducted in 1912 and approved in March 1913.

Table 1.3 summarises those partitions and provides details of the additional survey costs.

52 Native Land Court, Northern Minute Book 44/192-194. See also Northern Minute Book 44/204-206. 33

Table 1.3: The partitioning of Whanagruru-Whakaturia 1C, 1D, and 2

Blocks Area (a r p) Owners Cost of survey: £ Remarks 1C1 11 3 10 4 4 11 9 - 1C2 - - 3 13 10 -

1D1 14 3 28 5 2 7 10 - 1D2 6 2 16 46 3 5 0 - 1D3 16 3 26 5 4 15 4 Paid in full 1D4 30 1 27 10 5 4 1 - 1D5 3 3 15 1 3 0 5 - 1D6 21 2 25 7 4 7 10 Paid in full 1D7 13 0 37 4 3 12 1 - 1D8 13 0 32 4 4 0 3 - 1D9 18 3 24 6 2 13 10 Paid in full 1D10 12 1 08 4 2 17 6 -

2A 152 1 00 41 2B 392 0 00 108 2B1 150 2 00 48 7 5 4 - 2B2 87 0 00 26 6 6 7 Paid in full 2B3 70 3 00 16 12 17 0 - 2B4 83 3 00 18 10 7 7 Paid in full 2C 120 0 00 23 2D 103 0 00 33 2E 68 0 00 2F 83 3 00 23 Total 78 1 3

(Source: ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/148 20/772 Alt No XRP_0005295)

Map 1.8: Plan of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1B, 1C, 21D, and 2B, 1912

(Source: ML 8801 - cropped)

Prior to 1950 two further rounds of partitioning involving Whangaruru-Whakaturia took place. The first (Map 1.9), in 1916, saw Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7 divided into 1D7A (7.25 acres for Hone Pita and three others) and 1D7B (5.75 acres for Pita

Puru and 16 others). 53 The second, in August 1944, saw Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9 partitioned into 1D9A (eight acres for Ngatiwai) and 1D9B (11.75 acres for 25 owners), and 1D10 into 1D10A (4.5 acres for Ngatiwai) and 1D10B (7.25 acres for three owners). Partitioning followed exchanges intended to increase the iwi’s interest in the marae site, while the partition orders were dated 17 August 1944.54 Both blocks carried survey compromise charges (13s and 10s respectively, and survey charges and interest from 1 January 1935 of £9 13 1 in each case).

Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9 and 1D10 were both located astride a narrow isthmus that joined Whangaruru North Head to the mainland, and thus had with frontages to both Whangaruru Harbour and Bland Bay, a location that would later encourage efforts by the Crown to acquire them. Both blocks had long been used by Ngatiwai, especially during the spring and summer months of each year. In 1945 the iwi sought the appointment of trustees to assume responsibility for further consolidating and otherwise managing its interests in five blocks, including Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A and 1D10A. Several buildings were located on the site and plans had been prepared for extensive new buildings, including a wharenui and a wharekai.55 On 20 June 1945 the Native Land Court accordingly appointed 18 persons, representing the 18 hapu of Ngatiwai, as interim trustees of both blocks (and several other blocks owned by the iwi).56 ML 13373, prepared in March 1947 and approved in January 1948, (reproduced as Map 1.10) shows 1D9A with an area of just over eight acres and 1D10A with an area of just over 4.5 acres. 57 On 7 January 1948 the Court recommended that 1D9A and 1D10A should be set aside, under section 5 of the Maori Purposes Act 1937, as a Maori reservation for the Ngatiwai Tribe. A notice to that effect was gazetted a few months later, while the interim trustees were made permanent trustees.58

53 Native Land Court, Tokerau Minute Book 12/151-152. 54 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 22/43-45. 55 Native Land Court,Whangarei Minute Book 23/327-328. 56 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 22/176-178. 57 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 22/44-45. The partition orders were dated 17 August 1944. 58 ‘Setting apart Maori Land as a Maori Reservation,’ New Zealand Gazette 33, 10 June 1948, p.711. See also ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/442 21/3/165. For the appointment of trustees, see Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 23/327-328. 36

Map 1.9: Plan of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A and 1D7B, 1918

(Source: ML 11018 - cropped)

Map 1.10: Plan of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A, 1D9B, 1D10A and 1D10B, 1947

(Source: ML 13373 - cropped)

1.6.2 Otara

Otara was the second of the four blocks to be partitioned. It was before the Native Land Court on 19 December 1910, when it was recorded that:

It now appears that although the Ct was informed that the owners had agreed on a partition they had not had any meeting nor prepd any lists or otherwise prepd for the case and the Ct plan has not been sent to the Survey Office. Had there been agreement the case might have been disposed of on plan in Ct ... but a contested partition cannot be dealt with without a plan.59

The matter was adjourned sine die.

Otara was back before the Native Land Court (Judge C.E. McCormick) in September 1911 for partition. Hori Matenga wanted the Court to excise the interests of three owners aggregating 105.25 acres: there were no objections and the new block was named Otara 1. The shares owned by Harata Ngere and Hori Ngere were excised as the 55-acre Otara 2, while the shares of Mihaka te Wharaupo were set apart as the 55- acre Otara 3, and those of Mohi Hare and Piripi Hare as the 55-acre Otara 4. The remaining 50 acres were designated Otara 5. The owners of all blocks except Otara 2 were to have a right of way to Whangaruru Harbour. 60

In April 1914 applications for a survey of Otara were forwarded to Auckland’s Chief Surveyor.61 Table 1.4 sets out the costs incurred, while Map 1.9 depicts the results of the survey. Some limited further partitioning took place. In 1935, on the application of Ngawiki Hukaatai Taka, Otara 4 was partitioned into two equal blocks, 4A and 4B. The compromised charges were distributed equally, in each case £2 on account of rates, and £2 15 in respect of survey charges.62

59 Native Land Court, Northern Minute Book 45/228. 60 Native Land Court, Northern Minute Book 46/275-277. 61 Hunt and Sandford, Whangarei to Chief Surveyor, Auckland 8 April 1914, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. 62 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 17/280. ‘Compromised’ refers to the reductions in rates and survey charges negotiated by Ngata as part of the consolidation programme initiated in 1928. 39

Map 1.11: Plan of the subdivision of Otara block, 1915

(Source: ML 9722 - cropped)

Table 1.4: The survey of Otara 1914: costs incurred

Blocks Acres (a r p) Survey costs: £ Otara 1 162 3 02 22 1 10 Otara 2 53 2 37 10 4 0 Otara 3 53 3 30 9 10 5 Otara 4 53 3 10 13 1 4 Otara 5 52 3 09 16 0 9

(Source: ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 202/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055)

1.6.3 Oteaka

By agreement among the owners, in 1914 Oteaka was partitioned into three blocks, namely, Oteaka A with two acres and six owners; Oteaka B of less than an acre as an urupa for the use of all owners; and Oteaka C of five acres and six owners.63

1.7 Alienations to c.1950

Only two transactions appear to have been recorded in respect of Otara prior to 1950. The first was in 1910, when Mohi Kaingaroa agreed to lease 286 acres of Otara to Gordon MacKay for 50 years at £39 16s per annum.64 At that stage the block had a government capital valuation of £796, including improvements of £410. An application for confirmation was struck out.65

Although his efforts to lease Otara were unsuccessful, MacKay did acquire Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1A (3.75 acres) for £7. The sale and purchase were confirmed by the Tokerau District Maori Land Board in January 1911. Mackay acquired the interest of Harowe Mokaraka.66 By 1941 MacKay was at the Tikitiki Native School on the East Coast. There was no house on the block that fronted Whangaruru Harbour but it did contain a valuable spring that was used by many people. Having paid £7 for the land in 1910/1911, McKay wanted £100, while Maori

63 Native Land Court, Northern Minute Book 54/216-217. Oteaka B was set apart as a burial reserve in 1916. See New Zealand Gazette 1916, p.4. 64 The son of Mohi Kaingaroa. 65 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A139/182/c 1910/22. 66 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A139/180/j 1904/115. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.1-8. See Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20A/116. 41

residents considered that it should be acquired for the benefit of the whole settlement. It is worthwhile noting here that the block was transferred in 1960 to J.G. Mackay and, under the Joint Family Homes Act 1964, settled on J.G. and K.L. Mackay. In 1978 it was transferred to D.C. Mackay, G.S. Mackay, and J.M. Robinson as tenants in common.67

In October 1917, Reihana Pene acquired the shares of Henare and Mere Tamihana and Wepiha Reo in Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4, the area being 9.25 acres: the price was £30 and the sale was confirmed on 10 June 1918. As part of the sale process, the Court requested, in order to meet the requirements of section 220(c) of the Native Land Act 1909, the preparation of a schedule of the other lands held by the vendors. The results are set out in Table 1.3. The possession of scattered and small blocks of lands was evidently no bar to alienation.

Table 1.5: 'Other lands' held by the vendors of Part Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4, 1918

Name of vendor Lands occupied or suitable for Other land personal occupation (acreage) Henare Tamihana Whangaruru Wh 2D: 2ac 2r 37p Te Ramaroa Pt: 1ac 3r 11p Tuatematai B: 33 0 02.19 Motairehi 2: 26 0 00 Motairehi 4B: 11 1 10 Mere Tamihana Whangaruru Wh 2D: 2 2 37 - Wepiha Reo Whangaruru Wh 2D: 2 2 37 Te Ramaroa Pt: 3 2 22 Whangaroa Ngaiotonga 4G: Tutaematai B: 18 0 15 6 0 00 Waihaha 1: 2 0 30 Waihaha 2: 8 1 13

(Source: ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A39/77/k 2912)

The remaining pre-1950 transactions appear to have been among Maori and to have involved Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A and Otara 3A2. The former was a block of 7.25 acres with four owners holding 22/15 shares, including Hone Tautahi Pita: in 1917

67 ANZ Auckland ABWN 25479/148 6900/0772 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0038796. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.233ff. 42

he acquired a further 21/15 shares for £25 4s.68 In 1949, To Roera Pita sold his share to Rihi Tamihana: he advised the Court that he had left the Whangaruru district some 21 years previously, and that he lived in Auckland and worked at Hellaby’s.69

On 16 November 1928 the sale by Waaka Hepi of the 52.75-acre Otara 5 to Moses Hare was confirmed. The alienation file offers few details, although Hare financed the purchase by borrowing £252 from one James Nairn. The block had a capital value of just £180, so that F.O.V. Acheson, as President of the Tokerau District Maori Land Board, made it plain that he would not recommend that any mortgage should be granted.70 It appears that the Board itself made an advance to Hare, of £175, retaining the monies due to Waaka Hepi under section 92 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1913 and releasing them only for approved purposes.71

1.8 Alienations: shingle rights72

For some years prior to 1924 the shingle deposits at various locations within Whangaruru Harbour had been removed by the operators of scows operating without permits and without paying any royalties. On the other hand, they made some payment to Maori. In 1924, Karana Mokaraka and 25 others petitioned Parliament over, among other things, the removal of shingle from ‘the beaches Whangaruru: removal from up to the high water mark had affected the adjoining land and hence they sought the restoration of the ‘sea mark to ... half way between high water mark and low water mark.’ The petition was referred to the Marine Department. In June 1925, the Department’s Secretary reported that the title to the beaches ‘as far as the high-water mark of ordinary spring tides is vested in the Crown, and there is no

68 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A39/72/m 2760. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.293-298. 69 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 25/11. 70 President, Tokerau Maori Land Board to Registrar, Auckland 27 January 1929, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A39/147/b 4801. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.373ff. Acheson began work, in 1913, as a clerk to the Native Land Purchase Board. He was made Native Land Purchase Officer in 1918 and a year later Judge of the Native Land Court. In 1924 he was appointed Judge of the Native Land Court for the Tokerau district and President of the Tokerau District Native Land Board. See John Acheson and Richard Boast, ‘Acheson, Frank, Oswald Victor,’ Dictionary of New Zealand biography. Te ra – the encyclopaedia of New Zealand, updated 21 May 2013. 71 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A39/147/b 4756 and BAAI 11466 A39/147/b 4801. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.335-372 and p.373ff. 72 The following account is based in part upon David Alexander ‘Land-based resources, waterways, and environmental impacts,’ commissioned research report, Crown Forestry Rental Trust: Wellington, 2006, pp.915-926 and 930-934 and upon his Supporting Papers. 43

reason why any portion below this limit should be alienated to the Natives, who have absolutely no vested interest in it or in the shingle thereon.’ As for the adverse effects claimed by the petitioners, he went on deny absolutely that any damage was being inflicted and, in fact, added that there was ‘no possibility of any such damage occurring owing to the nature of the adjoining land itself.’ He went on to note that ‘certain of the Natives at Whangaruru’ had accepted payment from scow masters for the right to remove shingle, payments to which they had no legal authority: it thus followed that if damage had ensued, ‘these Natives would have rendered themselves liable as contributors to the damage.’ 73 Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the Native Department suggested that the Secretary of the Marine Department had misconceived the position, indicating that the Crown title reached only to the high water mark of medium tides between spring and neap tides. 74 The Native Affairs Committee, nevertheless, had no recommendation to make.75

Whangaruru Harbour was among a number of sites identified as suitable for the extraction of shingle: it was, noted a report prepared for the Marine Department, ‘well known for the quantity and quality of its shingle ... [and] that thousands of yards have been taken away without payment of any royalty.’ The beach at the head of the harbour had been ‘cleaned bare’ of its shingle, but Whenuakite contained ‘a fair deposit ...’ At that time [March 1924] shingle was being extracted from below the high water mark from both Whenuakite and the adjacent bay, Pawharoa, without any payment of royalties, although a small payment was being made to Maori. 76 The Minister of Marine was advised to set the price per cubic yard removed at 1s 6d.77

In 1926 the owners of lands fronting the beaches agreed to grant J.J. Craig and Company, an Auckland shingle contractor, an exclusive right to remove the shingle

73 Secretary, Marine Department to Under Secretary, Native Department 26 June 1926, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 1924/326, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, pp.865-866. 74 Under Secretary, Native Department to Chairman, Native Affairs Committee 2 July 1925, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 1924/326, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, p.867. The Marine Department’s claim was derived from Harbours Act 1923. 75 AJHR 1925, I3, p.5. 76 Tanner, Marine Department to Secretary, Marine Department 3 March 1924, Tranpsort Auckland file 54/14/5 Part C, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, pp.3747-3750. 77 Secretary, Marine to Minister, Marine 7 March 1924, Transport Auckland file 54/14/5 Part C, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, p.3751. 44

from the foreshore. Among them were the ‘Native owners of all land between the western end of Whangaruru-Whakaturia Block, to the southern boundary on Kerikeri Pawhao B Block.’78 The payment to owners was intended to forestall any complaints concerning erosion, J.J. Craig intending to dredge the ground in such a way as to induce a very large quantity of shingle above the high tide mark to fall into the sea. The company had agreed to pay a royalty for all shingle whether taken from above or below the high water mark. The agreement was subject to the approval of the Tokerau Maori Land Board: in 1926 the company secured a grant of shingle rights for 14 years over three Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks, that is, 1D8, 1D9, and 1D10, plus Otara 2, and Oteaka A and C. A royalty of 4.5d per cubic yard was payable with a minimum payment of £25 in any year, payment to be distributed among the owners of the blocks according to the length of each block’s coastline.79

The grant of shingle rights to J.J. Craig and Company was before the Tokerau Maori Land Board in July 1927. Consolidation Officer William Cooper noted that the proposed grant ‘comprises nearly all the interests’ in Otara 2, Oteaka A and C, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8, 1D9, and 1D10. 80 The company, he indicated, proposed to pay all the royalty to the Tokerau Maori Land Board and to retain the shares of those who had not signed. Gravel was being extracted from both above and below the high water mark: some 80 percent of the ground lay below the high water mark and thus fell ‘under [the] jurisdiction of [the] Crown.’ The royalty paid to Maori was at the rate of 4.5d per cubic yard, while that payable to the Crown has been reduced from 1s 3d to 1s. The company, he reported, was working on the beach and to the end of March 1927 had removed some 1,699 cubic yards, the company having

78 General Manager, J.J. Craig Ltd, Auckland to Secretary, Marine Department 9 April 1926, Transport head office file 54/15/28 Part A, Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers p.18775. 79 ‘Licensing J.J. Craig (Limited) of Auckland to occupy a portion of the Foreshore and land below Low-water Mark in Whangaruru Harbour for the Purpose of taking Shingle and Sand,’ New Zealand Gazette 41, 17 June 1926, p.1648. That notice was modified in ‘Licensing J.J. Craig Limited and Wimstone Limited of Auckland to occupy a portion of the Foreshore and land below Low-water Mark in Whangaruru Harbour for the Purpose of taking Shingle and Sand,’ New Zealand Gazette 83, 23 December 1926, pp.3520. With effect from April 1932, a flat fee of £200 was made payable. See also ‘Amending Order in Council of 13th December 1926, licensing J.J. Craig Limited and Winstone Limited, both of Auckland, to occupy parts of the Foreshore and Land below Low-water Mark at Whangaruru Harbour . . . for the Purpose of taking Shingle and Sand,’ New Zealand Gazette 2, 12 January 1933, p.22. 80 William Turakiuta Cooper was appointed by Ngata in 1928 to take charge of consolidation schemes in Northland. See Steven Oliver, ‘Cooper, William Turakiuta,’ Dictionary of New Zealand biography. Te Ara – the encyclopadiea of New Zealand, updated 30 Octoebr 2012. 45

paid into the Board a royalty of £26 17 1 (an amount difficult to square with 1,699 cubic yards at 4.5d each). The proposed 14-year lease (with a right of renewal for a further seven years), he informed the Court, provided for a minimum annual royalty of £25 ‘to ensure that the beach will be properly worked.’ Mita Wepiha, Tamati Mokaraka and others raised concerns over the danger of erosion in front of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 and 1D9: the Board rejected those concerns. According to Acheson, ‘all reasonable objections by the Natives have been met and there are now no owners opposing the leases.’81

The licences drawn up by the Marine Department were finally confirmed, with minor amendments, by the Tokerau Maori Land Board in April 1928.82 That confirmation applied only to those owners who had signed the licences despite the fact that the blocks as a whole were affected: the Board decided that those who had not signed the grant were not entitled to receive any of the royalty payments. Craig and Company paid the survey liens owing on Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9 and 1D10 and Otara 2, a total of £34 13 11: that amount was deducted from the royalties payable. The company forwarded regular statements to the Tokerau District Maori Land Board setting out the royalties payable by the individual blocks, that is, Otara 2, Oteaka A and C, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8, 1D9, and 1D10. 83 The company was required to keep an accurate record and to submit it for inspection at the end of each month by the Auckland’s Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, while its records were to be made available to the Tokerau District Maori Land Board. In 1938 the Board’s Registrar recorded that he could find no trace that any inspection had been conducted.84

81 Native Land Court, Tokerau Minute Book 13/332-336, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, pp.4350-4354. 82 Native Land Court, Tokerau Minute Book 13/332-337. 83 See, for example, Towle and Cooper, Auckland to Registrar, Tokerau Maori Land Board 23 December 1927, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, pp.4187-4190. 84 Registrar, Tokerau District Maori Land Board to Judge Acheson 26 January 1938, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, p.4206. 46

While the Tokerau District Maori Land Board had insisted that J.J. Craig pay the full royalties to it, it also acceded to the company’s request that royalties not be paid to those who had not signed the licences. That arrangement persisted until 1932 when Acheson, as President of the Board, noted that payment could not be withheld indefinitely from those owners.85 The company declined to accede and Acheson was left proposing that those who had not signed should be advised to do so.86 J.J. Craig and Company were clearly determined that all owners should be bound by the terms of the licences, specifically, the grant of sole and exclusive right and authority to remove shingle until 14 June 1940, and the right to construct all such works and plant as it might require upon the land concerned.

Table 1.6: Shingle extraction agreement, January and July 1927

Blocks Area (a r p) Owners signing Proportion of royalty Otara 2 53 2 27 3 11/44 WW 1D10 12 1 08 3 9/44 WW 1D9 18 3 24 17 10/44 WW 1D8 13 0 32 7 2/44 Oteaka A 1 2 12 1 5/44 Oteaka C 5 0 23 8 7/44

(Source: Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, pp.4194-4204)

85 President, Tokerau District Maori Land Board to Registrar, Tokerau District Maori Land Board, on Registrar to Judge Acheson 22 December 1932, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, p.4191. The Board retained the unpaid royalties. 86 Towle and Cooper to Registrar, Tokerau District Maori Land Board 13 January 1933, and note thereon Registrar to Judge Acheson, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, p.4192. 47

Map 1.12: Whangaruru shingle rights, 1928

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2091/a 18/14/12 Part 4)

By 1938 damage to Oteaka C, including urupa and land near the Tuparehuia wharenui, had become apparent. The matter was before the Native Land Court in April 1940 when owners sought cancellation of the licences and compensation for damage inflicted. J.J. Craig denied responsibility for any damage but did not object to cancellation. The company’s licences granted by the Marine Department and by the owners were scheduled to expire in June 1940. In February 1938, Acheson directed that payments should now be made to those who had not signed the licences on the grounds that they had not disturbed the licensee, requested that an inspection be made of the company’s records, directed that the company lodge a declaration in respect of its operations over the past several years, and asked that an inspection be made of the land reportedly damaged.87 At a thinly attended meeting held at Mokau on 19 April

87 Acheson to Registrar 2 February 1938, on Registrar to Judge Acheson 26 January 1938, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, p.4206. 48

1938, the company attributed the damage to a severe storm that had lashed the area during the past winter, at the same time assuring owners that scow masters had clear instructions not to remove shingle from the foreshore of any burial grounds as depicted on charts supplied. In September 1938, Pita Pene again complained of damage to Oteaka A and behalf of its owner indicated that he wished to apply for an injunction to halt the removal of shingle.88 The Registrar concluded that the master of the scow Alma had been ‘quite within his legal rights in taking gravel from this spot [Oteaka A B] on behalf of the grantees.’89

The matter was back before the Native Land Court on 18-19 April 1940 when the owners sought cancellation of the grant and asked the Tokerau District Maori Land to press, on their behalf, for damages. In addition, they asked that legal steps be taken to prevent the removal of any more shingle from Maori-owned land fronting both Whangaruru Harbour and Bland Bay.90 The company disclaimed responsibility for the erosion and produced records that indicated that during the period from January 1938 to March 1940 it had removed a mere 76 cubic yards from Whangaruru.91

From the Whangaruru-Whakaturia, Oteaka, and Otara blocks, a total of 7,615 cubic yards were removed, the years of peak extraction being 1927, 1936, and 1937, extraction ceasing in 1939. Alexander concluded the owners secured a good arrangement since the minimum annual payment of £25 exceeded that otherwise due on the volume of shingle removed in all but two years.92 While that may have been so, it is apparent that extraction had caused considerably more damage than had been expected, in particular at Mokau Bay (opposite Motukehua or Nop’s Island).

88 Pita Pene to Judge Acheson 2 September 1938, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, p.4208. 89 Registrar, Tokerau District Maori Land Board to Judge Acheson 25 October 1938, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, p.4210. 90 Judge Acheson to Registrar, Tokerau District Maori Land Board 20 April 1940, in Alexander, ‘Land- based resources,’ Supporting Papers, pp.4211-4212. 91 J.J. Craig, Auckland to Registrar, Tokerau District Maori Land Board 3 and 6 May 1940, in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ Supporting Papers, pp.4213-4216. 92 Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ p.926. The minimum payment was, under the National Expenditure Adjustment Act 1932, reduced by 20 percent. 49

1.9 Conclusions

The clothing of the four blocks the subject of this investigation with English titles and the subsequent partitioning of the blocks were, with the partial exception of Otara, processes for which the details are reasonably clear. The evidence indicates that both processes, titling and partitioning, were planned and initiated by owners. Although the evidence is slight, there is sufficient, in respect of Whangaruru-Whakaturia in particular, to suggest the objectives owners sought, namely, to take advantage of section 122 of the Native Land Court Act 1894 and section 30 of the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900, the latter providing that ‘the owners of any Maori land held under any class of ascertained title by more than ten owners may form themselves into a body corporate as provided by Part II of “The Native Land Court Act, 1894 ...”’ Incorporation would serve several purposes, among them, the separation of land required for occupation and maintenance from that suitable for commercial utilisation; the subsumption of individual interests in land into a collective entity with a defined management structure and with a qualified power to alienate; the prospect of borrowing for development purposes; and avoidance of the difficulties associated with the unregulated use of lands held in common. With respect to Otara, the small number of owners appears to have allowed partition into blocks owned solely or jointly. Partitioning was also carried out in an effort to define and protect sites of historical and cultural importance to Ngatiwai, including urupa, to embrace the opportunities that formal education appeared to promise, and to define and set apart sites for common use.

It is not clear whether the owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia took any steps towards incorporation, that is, beyond making some representations to both the Tokerau Maori Land Council and the Native Land Commission of 1907. On the other hand, it is clear that neither the Tokerau Maori Land Council/Board nor the Crown evinced any interest in acceding to the request of the owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia in particular to incorporate certain subdivisions of the block. While it is difficult to assess the results that might have flowed from incorporation, it is at least possible that the failure involved inhibited or constrained efforts to develop the land involved. At a more general level, the failure to secure incorporation suggested a reluctance of the

Crown to engage with Maori on terms that the latter clearly considered offered some potential advantages.

While titling and partition involving the blocks at the heart of this inquiry, appear to have paralleled proceedings elsewhere under the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900, the few alienations that did take place raised questions over the efficacy of the ‘protection’ mechanisms purportedly embodied in section 220 of the Native Land Act 1909, and certainly over the rigour with which they were implemented and monitored. It is clear that the Tokerau Maori Land Board failed to monitor either the activities of the licensees or the payment of royalties, and indeed appears to have allowed the licensees to act with respect to such payment in a manner that bordered on the coercive. Moreover, the Board, relying it appears on its own judgement, failed to heed the concerns raised at the outset by owners of the adjoining lands over possible environmental damage. In short, Section 220 offered the Board the scope and the authority it required to ensure that the alienations involved were ‘not contrary to equity or good faith, or to the interests of the Natives alienating.’ Over the fears of environmental damage, the Board singularly failed to act.

Chapter 2: Consolidating Maori land ownership, 1928 to

1952

A third major area for investigation relates to land consolidation and land title reform, specifically whether, to what extent, how, and with what outcomes the policies devised and implemented by the Crown were applied to the four blocks. Approaches to Maori land reform, and the outcomes that followed, changed very considerably through the period from about 1930 to about 1990. Commencing about 1930 in the form of a large-scale land consolidation programme, reform efforts proceeded through efforts to assist selected owners to purchase the interests of co-owners, the ‘pocket consolidation’ undertaken by the Native Land Court in the 1940s, amalgamation of titles and compulsory conversion, amalgamation and subdivision, to the establishments of trusts to manage the Ngaiotonga development scheme on its return to owners and the Bland Bay Trust to manage the unsold sections in that subdivision. Chapter 2 explores the first approaches to Maori land reform, including the Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme and the place of the four blocks within it, and the consolidation efforts initiated by the Native Land Court in the 1940s.

2.1 Introduction

Towards the end of the 1920s the Crown formulated and adopted policies intended to encourage and assist Maori to turn to commercial account such lands as they retained. The two policy initiatives of immediate interest were, first, that intended to consolidate land ownership by grouping individual and/or family interests, and, second, that intended to offer direct Crown financial and technical assistance to those Maori owners who wished to transform their lands into sources of commercial output. The first was to be pursued primarily through large-scale land title consolidation schemes, and the second, through a Maori land development programme intended both to assist individual Maori farmers and to bring undeveloped land into production. Conceived initially as largely separate policy initiatives, the consolidation of interests and the subsequent restructuring of ownership, assistance to Maori farmers, and the development of land would eventually be merged (largely) into a single programme. For the purposes of this report it will be useful in the first instance to discuss them separately: Chapter 2 thus deals with the efforts made during the 1930s and 1940s to 52

consolidate Maori land ownership; Chapter 3 will examine the efforts made during those same two decades to assist Maori farmers; while Chapters 4 and 5 will examine the post-1950 efforts to restructure Maori land ownership and to develop Maori- owned land.

2.2 Consolidating interests in land

The difficulties that title congestion and the geographical fragmentation of ownership might pose to the effective utilisation of land were recognised well before the large- scale consolidation programme of the 1920s. Thus the Native Land Court Act 1894 empowered the Court to make orders effecting exchanges of interest, while the 1907 Native Land Commission concluded that ‘wholesale exchanges’ of interest were an essential pre-condition for effective use.93 The Native Land Act 1909 included new provisions relating to consolidation, section 130 establishing the legal basis for the later Crown-initiated schemes of consolidation and thus marking the beginning of what would, for two decades, constitute a major effort by the Crown to reform Maori land ownership.

That effort took place in three broad phases: from the 1920s to the 1940s, the Crown attempted to implement large-scale consolidation schemes intended to group individual and whanau interests into single and compact ‘economic’ holdings; the second, embracing the 1950s and 1960s, sought to reduce excessive partitioning through amalgamation of titles and to restructure ownership through conversion and live buying; while the third, covering the hand-back phase of Maori land development schemes, emphasised the adoption of structures, that is, trusts and incorporations, intended to step over title fragmentation and congestion by strengthening collective control and management. Efforts to reform Maori land ownership were grounded in the conviction that the legal and geographical fragmentation of land ownership, title congestion, non-registration of titles, excessive partitioning, and lack of appropriate management structures were largely responsible for the relatively unproductive state of much of the land that remained in Maori ownership. 94 All three approaches to

93 AJHR 1907, G1A, p.9. 94 For a recent examination and discussion of the importance of the institutional arrangements underpinning land ownership and economic development, see T.J. Hearn, ‘Maori economic 53

consolidation would be applied to the blocks the subject of this investigation and in particular to the Whangaruru-Whakaturia block.

2.3 Consolidation: the proximate origins

The proximate origins of the large-scale land reform programme that Coates and Ngata initiated in the late 1920s are usually found in the pressure that was exerted, with increasing urgency from about 1920, by local authorities, primarily county councils and town boards, over unpaid rates on lands owned and occupied by Maori. Confronting declining land values but high and mounting costs on their substantial capital debts, local authorities were increasingly anxious to secure the payment. In fact, much deeper forces were at work. By 1920 it was clear that the transfer of land out of Maori ownership, particularly in the Tokerau Maori Land District, had proceeded beyond the stage at which Maori retained sufficient for commercial purposes.95 It was also clear that Maori material living standards, measured in terms of health and housing, indicated serious economic marginalisation, and that a demographic revival was under way with major implications for the employment of what would soon be a burgeoning Maori work force. But it was also clear that the New Zealand economy was experiencing major structural changes as rural extractive industries declined, the small farm frontier reached its geographical limits, and the associated labour-intensive phase of development passed. Finally, it was apparent that the institutional arrangements underpinning Maori land ownership did not provide the stability, certainty, transparency, and enforceability necessary to encourage investment of labour and capital.

Graph 2.1 describes the ‘problem’ of rates arrears on lands owned by Maori in Whangarei County for the period from 1921-1922 to 1929-1930. The average annual rate struck on those lands over the period was £1,643 while the proportion collected ranged between 0.7 and 4.21 percent. The total ‘Native rates struck’ over the entire

development in Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District a.1885 to c.2006,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal,2014, especially Chapter 8. 95 For a discussion of the area of land in Northland remaining in Maori ownership about 1910, see T.J. Hearn, ‘Maori, land, and the Crown in Te Rohe Potae c1900 to c1935,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2011, pp.86-95, and 533-535. By 1928, Maori in the Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Hokianga, Whangarei, and Rodney Counties retained an average of all types of land of 35.8 acres per capita. 54

eight-year period constituted a mere 5.7 percent of the total rates struck by the County, rendering what the Council had chosen to call the ‘Native rating problem’ one of very small dimensions. The data, moreover, need to be treated with considerable care: they were generated by the County Council itself, while the lands rated included substantial areas that, owing to their ‘unproductive’ character, should not have been rated at all. It was in the political and financial interests of the northern counties that the problems posed by unpaid rates on lands owned by Maori were presented in the worst possible light. Thus, in 1927, on the occasion of the Te Kuiti conference on Native lands, the Whangarei County Council claimed that for the period from 1920 to 1927 it was owed £10,343 1s 6d in rates on lands owned by Maori.96 It is worthwhile noting here that until 1927, at least, the Whangarei County Council did not seek charging or vesting orders in respect of those lands the rates of which remained unpaid.97

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

Native rates struck

Pounds 800 Native rates collected 600

400

200

0 1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1929-30 Source: ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 407/ 20/1/14 Part 3

Graph 2.1: 'Native' rats struck and collected, Whangarei County, 1921-22 to 1929-30

96 Whangarei County Council Minute book, 1925-1927, Whangarei District Council Archives. For an account of the conference, see Hearn, ‘Maori, land, and the Crown,’ pp.700-706. 97 Bruce Stirling, ‘Eating away at the land, eating away at the people: local government, rates, and Maori in Northland,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2008, p.317. 55

2.4 Consolidation as the solution

For Ngata, who would play the major role in the consolidation efforts of the 1920s and early 1930s, Maori land reform offered a comprehensive and enduring solution to the difficulties posed by unpaid rates. Resolution required that Maori land ownership should be shaped towards what he termed ‘modern requirements:’ if Maori were to turn such lands as remained in their possession to productive and commercial account, owners ideally would have to secure compact and economic holdings with single titles or owners encouraged to establish incorporations. Land reform was, for Ngata, thus an essential pre-condition for effective Maori participation in the commercial economy, itself necessary if the Maori people and their culture were to survive and flourish.98 Ngata discerned in land reform an opportunity to relieve Maori freehold land of much of the incubus represented by survey liens and court charges, as well as rates arrears; to allow owners of reformed titles to apply to the newly established Native Trust Office for development finance and thus circumvent those Maori land boards, state lending departments, and private lenders unwilling or reluctant to assist Maori; to allow the Crown to deflect the insistent pressure applied by local authorities to allow the enforced sale of land for non-payment of rates and thus to avert the large- scale dislocation that could follow; to allow the Crown to consolidate its own small, scattered, and often undivided interests in land; and to facilitate the administration of land by State agencies. In short, for Ngata the reform of Maori land ownership would meet both immediate and longer-term economic structural issues and challenges.

In October 1927, in the wake of the conference on Native lands held in Te Kuiti, Native Minister Coates announced that consolidation proceedings would be initiated in the King Country and Northland where Maori land problems were deemed to be of a ‘most urgent’ character. ‘The collection, consolidation, and placing of the scattered interests of a native in blocks throughout a district into one compact block more easily financed and worked,’ he claimed, ‘would give such native a greater incentive to make use of such land or to see that it was productive ....’ 99 Informing the

98 See, for example, AJHR 1931, G10, p.vii. 99 Northern Advocate 2 December 1927, in T.J. Hearn, ‘Land titles, land development, and returned soldier settlement in Te Rohe Potae,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2009, pp.44-45. 56

government’s proposals were at least two major assumptions: first, that individual Maori retained sufficient interests that once consolidated would create ‘economic’ holdings; and, second, that ‘productive use’ would follow consolidation. In short, land reform was regarded as both necessary and sufficient if development and productive use were to take place. The Maori land development programme, on the other hand, recognised that land reform was just one of many conditions and requirements involved in transforming traditional and semi-subsistence farming into commercial agriculture.

2.4.1 Consolidation: the legislative framework, 1909 to c1950

Sections 130 to 132 of the Native Land Act 1909, as noted above, made some provision for land reform, primarily through exchanges of interests. Little action followed, the Crown’s interest in Maori-owned land remaining focused principally on its acquisition and redistribution among settlers. Amendments were made in 1913, 1919, and 1921: that made in 1913 (section 63 of the Native Land Act Amendment Act 1913) directed Native Land Court judges to report ‘from time to time any cases in which consolidation’ could be effected. The establishment of the Native Trust Office in 1920 and the opportunity thus created whereby Maori could borrow development capital against the security of their land imparted considerable impetus to land reform efforts. The two key measures were the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Acts 1923 and 1927. Together, they established the legal basis for the large-scale consolidation programme that Ngata would launch.

The consolidation schemes developed for Northland were based on section 6, 7, and 8 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1923. Essentially, section 6 empowered the Native Minister to apply to the Native Land Court to prepare a scheme of consolidation for a specified area, and to submit such scheme, in part or in whole, to the Native Minster for formal confirmation. Section 6 did not refer to the need for any consultation with nor the agreement of owners concerned. In practice, Maori were consulted. Section 7 provided that once a scheme had been confirmed, the Court could make all such orders of exchange and any other

57 orders within its jurisdiction considered necessary. No order of exchange was to be subject to the limitations and restrictions specified by section 127 of the Native Land Act 1909: section 127 had specified that an exchange had to be for the ‘benefit’ of the owner concerned, that no person was to be rendered ‘landless’ (as defined by the Act) through any order for exchange, that interests exchanged had to be of approximately equal value, and that all persons involved in any exchange should consent. In short, once a consolidation scheme had been confirmed, the Native Land Court and ultimately the Crown could proceed without the need to consult with or secure the consent of owners involved. Further, section 7 empowered the Court to vary or cancel any partition order; for the purposes of partition ‘treat several parcels of land as a single area owned by the several areas in common ...;’ to define and vest in the Crown any interests that the Crown might hold in the area subject to consolidation proceedings; and to award to the Crown any additional land to liquidate any survey, rates, or other charges.

Two other provisions were important. The first, section 7(15), provided that all orders could be made by the Court ‘on its own motion and in such manner and in accordance with such procedure’ as it saw fit, while section 7(16) took away any right of appeal to the Native Appellate Court. Whereas section 132 of the Native Land Act 1909 had empowered the Crown to issue an order prohibiting private alienation in respect of land subject to an application to the Native Land Court for a period of 12 months, by section 8 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1923 any such order could be renewed for subsequent terms. Such order effectively suspended most of the incidents or rights attaching to the ownership of land.

The Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1927 conferred, with respect to consolidation, further powers on the Native Land Court. Section 25 enabled rates to be ‘liquidated’ by the Crown during consolidation proceedings: Maori would pay for such ‘liquidation’ in land. In practice, efforts were made to load all compromised rates arrears and survey liens, as well as other charges, on to a ‘sinker’ block or blocks, such blocks to be awarded to the Crown.100

100 The term ‘sinker’ was also applied to blocks to which ‘scrap’ interests in land were allocated. 58

The provisions relating to exchange and consolidation were also covered, respectively, by sections 155 to 160 and 161 to 168 of the Native Land Act 1931. Of particular importance was section 163. Section 163 empowered the Native Land Court, subject to specified qualifications, among other things to cancel, vary, and amend any succession or exchange orders, and to authorise any survey required, to exercise all the powers of incorporation set out in Part XVII of the Act (including appointing a committee of management), to vest any interest (with the consent of the owner) in a consolidation scheme in some other person or persons subject to payment of ‘fair value,’ and by order to vest any area of interest of Native freehold land in the Crown subject to payment to the local Maori land board for distribution. In the last instance, such vesting would be deemed a purchase or acquisition of Native freehold land. Section 163(10)(a) did not specify that the consent of the owner(s) was required. Section 164 dealt with the liquidation of rates on land subject to consolidation and empowered the Court, in the event that a proposed consolidation scheme did not proceed or was not approved or carried into effect, to vest the land concerned in the Crown. These initial provisions relating to exchange and consolidation did not have as their primary objective the redistribution or restructuring of Maori land ownership, although, as will be discussed below, some tentative steps in the latter direction were taken in advance of Maori Affairs Act 1953.

The provisions relating to exchange and consolidation appear to have been founded on several key assumptions. The first was that the Native Land Court and ultimately the Crown required quite extraordinary powers to do all that was necessary to implement a scheme of consolidation. The second assumption appears to have been that, with respect to the productive and commercial utilisation of land owned by Maori, the key difficulties were the areal and legal fragmentation of titles. The third assumption was that Maori retained sufficient land so that, when grouped, owners would secure compact and economic holdings with new and secure titles. The fourth and fifth assumptions were that once consolidation had been completed, development would speedily follow and that consolidation proceedings would be largely completed within two years of initiation. Consolidation as undertaken in Northland generally and in respect of the blocks at the heart of this inquiry would subject those assumptions to

a severe test. It will helpful, first, to outline the massive scale of the land consolidation programme Ngata envisaged for and sought to implement in Northland.

2.4.2 The Tokerau Consolidation Scheme

It was Judge F.O.V. Acheson who, as President of the Tokerau District Maori Land Board, played a key role in the formulation of the large and complex Tokerau Consolidation Scheme.101 Practically from the outset of his appointment in 1924 as President of the Tokerau District Maori Land Board and Judge of the Native Land Court, Acheson had made clear his dismay at the widespread poverty he observed among Northland’s Maori communities. That poverty he attributed to what he regarded as the indiscriminate selling of land under his predecessors, Crown land purchasing, and the few steps taken to prevent landlessness. Further, such State financial assistance as was available was channelled through the returned soldier settlement and the small-farm schemes for the benefit of Pakeha settlers. In his view, any improvement for Maori rested upon long-term development schemes, a conviction that gained early expression in the establishment in 1925 of the Te Kao dairy scheme for which he utilised accumulated Board funds.102 Land tenure reform and the provision of development assistance were thus matters of very considerable moment to Acheson. It was with respect to the former, in particular, that Acheson, initially at least, entertained unrealistic expectations over both the possible speed of implementation and the likely outcomes.

As finally adopted, nevertheless, the scheme was divided, not into Acheson’s proposed eight sub-schemes, but into four major schemes each of which was, in turn, divided into series and, in some instances, sub-series.103 As at 31 December 1936, the total area under consolidation in the Tokerau Maori Land District was 522,287 acres in 6,583 blocks. The number of owners prior to consolidation stood at 42,266 with a

101 Acheson to Coates 14 November 1927, ANZ Wellington 16036 MA1/ 551 29/2 Part 1, in T.J. Hearn, ‘Social and economic change in Northland c.1900 to c.1945: the role of the Crown and the place of Maori,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2006, Supporting Documents, Volume 7, pp.313ff. 102 For a succinct expression of his views, see Acheson to Under Secretary, Native Department 22 July 1935, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/3281/a 10/1/6. 103 The Maori land development programme would adopt the same scheme districts. 60

further 48,194 successors.104 The task confronting the land consolidation officers and the Native Land Court was of unprecedented proportions.

2.4.3 The Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme

Among the sub-schemes proposed by Acheson was one for the Bay of Islands and Native Minister Coates subsequently accorded priority to it. 105 The government moved quickly to implement consolidation proceedings. From 1-3 February 1928, Ngata, Tau Henare (as MP for Northern Maori), Judge Acheson, and the Surveyor- General, and the Valuer-General attended a hui at Otiria to discuss the proposed consolidation scheme for the Bay of Islands. According to Balneavis (Coates’s private secretary), that ‘large and representative meeting’ accepted consolidation.106 Ngata’s proposal, that the Crown, in the first instance, pay the Bay of Islands County Council the sum of £1,500 to cover arrears of rates for the three years ending 31 March 1928 was accepted. By the end of March 1930, Ngata assured Acheson, ‘it is expected the scheme will be completed in its essentials ...’107

Having secured the consent of those who attended the hui at Otiria, Ngata set out to negotiate with the local authorities involved. The Bay of Islands County Council claimed £12,689 in unpaid rates for the three years ended 31 March 1928, and indicated that a further £9,000 would accrue by 31 March 1930. It seems likely that only a very small proportion of that total sum was legally recoverable, the reason perhaps the County accepted a rate compromise of £1,500 per annum until 1930. It may also have been influenced by Ngata’s public observation that the sum represented a ‘windfall’ for the County. 108 That sum would be apportioned over ‘specified blocks in the scheme ...’ At Kororareka on 17 February 1928 the County’s application for the compromise was heard and, after taking evidence, the Native Land Court issued an order authorising the payment of £1,500 in settlement of all rates up to 30 March 1930. Motatau 2 residue was charged with payment.

104 AJHR 1937, G9, p.6. 105 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16064 MA31 4/4, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.318-317. 106 Balneavis, Ngata, and Henare to Minister, Native Affairs n.d. [3 February 1928], ANZ Wellington ACIH 16046 MA31/4/4. 107 Ngata to Acheson 3 February 1928, ANZ Wellington BAAZ 1109/208/a 3/1075 Part 1, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 16, pp.285-294. 108 See Northern Advocate 16 March 1928. 61

The Whangarei County Council claimed £8,042 for the four years up to 31 March 1928: in fact, only about half of that sum was legally recoverable. Ngata proposed a compromise sum of £1,500 to £1,750 while noting that a great deal of the land involved should never been rated at all. Nevertheless, the sum settled on was £1,750 and was again described as a ‘windfall’ rather than a sacrifice for the County given that the entire sum outstanding would otherwise have been lost.109 The compromise was before the Court on 22 March 1928 when questions were raised over whether Maori had in fact participated in the meeting between the County and the consolidation commissioners. After Maori held private discussions, on 23 March Pirimiha Whareumu advised the Court that ‘the people are now all agreed that whatever arrangement was made by Sir Apirana Ngata with the Whangarei County Council is to be adopted by all the people.’ They also asked that their lands should be included in the Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme. 110 The compromise was approved on 24 March 1928 and in May payment was made and apportioned to the various ridings in accordance with their shares of the arrears claimed. Payment for the two years to the end of March 1931 was left in abeyance, but subsequently, the County claimed £3,550 for the two years ending 31 March 1930 and £1,544 for the year ending 31 March 1931: the County was offered two further payments totalling £786.111 No evidence was located to indicate that that the rates claimed were ever independently verified.

On 7 March 1928, the proposed Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme was before the Native Land Court: after what was recorded as ‘considerable discussion,’ the many Maori present indicated that they were ‘in full accord with the proposals and promised to give every assistance.’ 112 Almost a year later, in the Native Land Court on 16 January 1929, William Cooper offered an assurance that those parts of the Tokerau Consolidation Scheme located in the Bay of Islands and Whangarei Counties would be completed during 1930.113 Ngata had described the Bay of Islands as ‘the hub of

109 Northern Advocate 19 March 1928. It is worthwhile noting here that later in 1928 the Whangarei County Council wrote off all rates arrears for 1924-1925 as unrecoverable, the compromise notwithstanding. 110 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 15/189-191. 111 Summary details of the compromises agreed are set out in AJHR 1932, G10, p.4. 112 Native Land Court, Bay of Islands Minute Book 9/178. 113 Native Land Court, Bay of Islands Minute Book 9/323. 62

the northern problem.’114 The scale of the proposed Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme soon become apparent: it embraced the Kaikohe Town District, the Bay of Islands County, and part of Whangarei County. In 1932 it was recorded as covering just over 201,733 acres of Maori-owned land and 2,201 titles, while the ownership lists contained 30,203 names.115

2.4.4 Remitting survey charges

As important as settling the matter of rates arrears was that of establishing the extent of survey liens registered against the blocks within a consolidation scheme. A governmental interdepartmental conference on survey liens, conducted in 1930, put the principal and interest owing in respect of lands within the Bay of Islands consolidation scheme at £22,538 (including interest of £8,973). 116 That sum was to be liquidated through the Crown’s acquisition of 17,468 acres that included Motatau 2 (7,751 acres), Punaruku (1,303 acres) and parts of Tutaematai, Ngaiotonga, and Waikare (600 acres). 117 In the event a protracted debate developed over how the Crown was to recoup the rates and survey lien compromises.118 It was not until July 1936 that the Tokerau District Native Land Court approved for the consideration of the Minister of Lands recommendations under section 503 of the Native Land Act 1931. 119 Those recommendations were based on the findings of the 1930 interdepartmental conference: for the Bay of Islands consolidation scheme, the principal was set at £13,915 and interest at £9,805, a total of £23,720. The remissions totalled £18,677, leaving a balance of £5,043 to be paid either in cash or land. Table 2.1 sets out the details for the Otara and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks:

114 Native Minister to ? 9 March 1928, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 29/1, quoted in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ p.641. 115 AJHR 1932, G10, p.3. 116 AJHR 1932, G10, p.5. Estimates of outstanding survey liens and the interest thereon vary considerably. For Bay of Islands County, Ngata gave the figure as £15,571 (including interest to 31 March 1927). See Ngata to Acheson 3 February 1928, ANZ Auckland BAAZ 1109/208/a 3/1075 Part 1, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 16, pp.285-294. Another, later, summary gave the principal as £9,995 and the interest as £6,831, or a total of £16,826. The comparable figures for Whangarei County were £3,866 and £2,950 respectively. See ANZ Auckland BAAZ 1109/209a 3/10/75 Part 3, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 16, pp.311-322. 117 AJHR 1932, G7, pp.9-10. 118 See Hearn, ‘Social and economic change in Northland,’ Chapter 8. 119 Section 503 provided that where the Native Land Court decided that survey charges ‘might reasonably be remitted,’ it could recommend accordingly, while the Minister of Lands could approve and direct the remission and discharge of any mortgage, charge, lien, or other incumbrance imposed in favour of the Crown in respect of the survey of any Native land. 63

Table 2.1: Survey lien and interest remissions (£s) recommended by the Native Land Court, July 1936, Otara and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks1

Blocks Principal Interest to Amounts to Amounts to 31.3 1936 be remitted be paid in land or cash Otara 1 15 7 0 12 4 6 21 11 6 6 0 0 Otara 3A 3 7 0 2 13 3 4 10 3 1 10 0 Otara 3B 6 13 11 5 6 6 9 10 5 2 10 0 Otara 4 13 11 0 10 16 6 18 18 4 5 10 0 Otara 5 14 1 3 11 3 6 19 14 9 5 10 0 Whanga-Whaka 1C1 3 10 5 3 9 11 5 10 4 1 10 0 Whanga-Whaka 1C2 8 8 6 7 16 7 12 15 1 3 10 0 Whanga-Whaka 1D3 6 17 1 6 5 9 10 12 10 2 10 0 Whanga-Whaka 1D4 6 4 8 5 15 8 9 0 4 3 0 0 Whanga-Whaka 1D6 7 5 3 6 13 7 10 18 10 3 0 0 Whanga-Whaka 1D7B 3 8 0 2 3 7 4 11 7 1 0 0 Whanga-Whaka 2A 13 9 4 12 19 3 20 18 7 5 10 0 Whanga-Whaka 2B1 16 14 5 15 13 1 25 17 6 6 10 0 Whanga-Whaka 2B2 12 9 4 11 12 1 19 1 5 5 0 0 Whanga-Whaka 2B3 17 4 4 15 16 3 26 10 7 6 10 0 Whanga-Whaka 2B4 7 16 11 8 14 7 13 1 6 3 10 0 Whanga-Whaka 2C 11 11 0 11 3 2 17 15 0 5 0 0 Whanga-Whaka 2D 10 6 2 9 18 1 15 4 3 5 0 0 Whanga-Whaka 2E 5 10 5 5 5 0 8 5 5 2 10 0 Whaka-Whaka 2F 7 16 8 7 9 8 12 6 4 3 0 0

1 The survey lien for Whangaruru-Whakaturia 3 appears to have been paid. (Source: ANZ Auckland BAIE 4725 A646/1/a)

2.5 Approaches to consolidation

Three main approaches to consolidation in the Tokerau Maori Land District were employed: the first was the comprehensive scheme or ‘group book method,’ involving for large areas the collection of data, the preparation of trial locations, securing exchange orders, and the issue of final consolidation orders. The second was generally termed family consolidation in which the objective was to group the 64

interests of individuals or families into compact blocks of an area approximately equivalent in value to the previously dispersed interests. This approach proceeded through several steps, from meetings with families desirous of consolidating their interests, a detailed examination of titles, the identification of what were termed the ‘real family blocks,’ family exchanges, and amalgamated partitions in which all the blocks involved were grouped and individual owners or families identified for each. Such partitions had the added value of not requiring any additional survey work and expense. The third, and not very popular method, involved sales of land under Part XVIII of the Native Land Act 1931 and the use of vesting orders per section 163 of that Act, in each case used to secure sole ownership. 120 In the case of the blocks the subject of this report the group book method was first employed only to give way to family consolidation, while, concurrently the Native Land Court employed its ordinary jurisdiction to encourage the consolidation of interests through such mechanisms as gifts and sales of interests.

2.5.1 The comprehensive approach: Series D, Whangaruru

The Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme was divided into 20 series, among them, Series D: Whangaruru. The latter embraced 19,736 acres in 127 blocks with 1,545 original owners and 1,770 ‘consolidation successors.’ 121 Graph 2.2 depicts the approximate block structure.122 Four blocks, among them, Whangaruru-Whakaturia, formed the core of the scheme.

120 For a useful summary, see Consolidation Officer, Auckland to Secretary, Maori Affairs 9 June 1953, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/3283/b 10/11. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.11-19. 121 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/551 29/2 Part 1, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 7, pp.313-402. 122 Not included are three Tutaematai blocks. 65

Whangaroa Ngaiotonga Whangaruru Whakaturia Parematamokau Oakura Otetao Otara Ramaraoa Kairaurau Acres Karaka Huarua Kirikiri Pawhao Waikaramihi Poike Ohawini Oteaka

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Source: Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 16/158-178

Graph 2.2: Block structure of Series D: Whangaruru, Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme, 1930-31

Table 2.2 sets out some data, apparently assembled by 1930, relating to Oteaka, Otara, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia. Title fragmentation in the case of Whangaruru- Whakaturia was relatively pronounced, especially in the case of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 2, while only a small number of blocks – 1C1, 1C2, 1D4, 1D8, 1D10, and 3 – carried significant improvements. It will be recalled that the owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2 had long sought the block’s incorporation, a wish supported by the Native Land Commission of 1907. On the other hand, the Commission had recommended that Whangaruru-Whakaturia 3 should be set aside for general settlement: its three owners had instituted considerable improvements on the land, and in fact the block represented 10.5 percent of the area and almost 17 percent of the government capital value of Whangaruru-Whakaturia as a whole. In the case of both Oteaka and Otara, title congestion was comparatively modest and the value of improvements comparatively high.

Table 2.2: Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme, Series D: Whangaruru,

c1930, Whangaruru-Whakaturia, Oteaka, and Otara blocks

Blocks Area (a r p) Owners Unimproved Value of value: £ improvements: £ Wh Wh 1B 0 2 00 2 10 - 1C1 11 3 10 4 50 170 1C2 26 2 20 10 115 130 1D1 14 3 28 5 40 50 1D2 6 2 16 46 20 - 1D3 16 3 26 5 45 55 1D4 30 1 27 10 115 370 1D5 3 3 15 1 15 10 1D6 21 2 25 7 95 75 1D7A 7 1 25 4 30 40 1D7B 5 3 12 17 20 30 1D8 13 0 32 4 55 200 1D9 18 3 24 6 75 80 1D10 12 1 08 4 50 140 2A 152 1 00 41 150 - 2B1 150 2 00 48 200 50 2B2 87 0 00 26 130 - 2B3 70 3 00 16 100 - 2B4 83 3 00 18 120 - 2C 120 0 00 23 180 50 2D 103 0 00 33 150 - 2E 68 0 00 19 90 75 2F 83 3 00 23 120 50 3 130 0 00 3 225 490 Totals 1239 3 28 2200 2065

Oteaka A 2 2 12 6 25 215 B 0 2 00 12 5 -

Blocks Area (a r p) Owners Unimproved Value of value: £ improvements: £ C 5 0 23 6 50 430 Totals 8 0 35 80 645

Otara 1 162 3 29 3 330 110 2 54 1 10 2 170 335 3A 18 0 17 12 55 50 3B 36 0 33 15 50 115 4 54 1 10 2 140 220 5 53 0 25 1 100 75 Totals 379 0 04 845 905

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/3281/b 10/4)

2.5.2 Trial locations

In March 1930, the Native Land Court, before ‘a large number of natives,’ considered a provisional scheme for Series B, T, S and D of the Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme. 123 Table 2.3 sets out the subdivisions of Oteaka and Whangaruru- Whakaturia and, where given, their areas and the number of owners to whom they had been allocated. The trial locations constituted a series of recommendations: they offered a brief description of the land in each series, noted provision for awards to the Crown for any purchases, scenic and even ‘climatic’ purposes along tourist routes, and recorded adjustments for interests acquired by Pakeha. Those recommendations revealed a good deal about the complexity of consolidation proceedings, identifying those whose interests would be located out to other locations and those who would have to ‘migrate,’ wishes as to successions, any boundary adjustments, gifts, reserves for urupa and marae, provision for roads, forest, and scenic reserves, partitioning out of the Crown’s interests, blocks to be incorporated, and locations for ‘overflow values’ or ‘surplus areas.’

123 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute book 16/121. 68

The recommendations in respect of the trial locations also offered useful insights into the potential scale of movements that would be required, that is, the numbers of persons that the transfer or re-location of interests involved. They suggest that large numbers of persons would be required to ‘vacate’ and re-locate. In the case of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2, for example, the gross number of owners would contract from 247 to 56. Individuals would have to accept the transfer of their interests elsewhere, including out of Series D completely. Others would have to accept the transfer of their interests to what were termed their ‘group locations:’ what was termed the ‘Paremata-Mokau leasehold’ constituted one such ‘group location.’

It is clear that consolidation as proposed for Series D involved the redistribution of interests within the existing partition structure. In other words, the underlying structure of land title was left largely intact. Working within the existing structure obviated any need for costly re-survey and re-partitioning. On the other hand, it is not entirely clear what the redistribution of interests was intended to accomplish other than that the interests of particular families would be concentrated into particular blocks: the blocks themselves, with the partial exception of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2, remained small.

The trial locations were, in April 1931, forwarded by the Native Land Court to the Native Minister with a recommendation that he approve them: confirmation was gazetted in June 1931.124

124 ‘Portions of Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme Confirmed,’ New Zealand Gazette 45, 4 June 1931, p.1705. 69

Table 2.3: Trial locations, Oteaka and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks, 1930

Parent blocks Subdivisions Area Owners allocated Oteaka A 2 2 12 3 Oteaka B 0 2 00 Oteaka C 5 0 23 9 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1B Wahi tapu 1C1 11 3 10 1 1C2 26 2 20 6 1D1 14 3 28 2 1D2 6 2 16 Urupa 1D3 16 3 26 1 1D4 30 1 27 9 1D5 3 3 15 1 1D6 21 2 25 3 1D7A 7 1 25 3 1D7B 5 3 12 6 1D8 13 0 32 6 1D9 18 3 24 8 1D10 12 1 08 3 2A & 3) 152 1 30 ) 3 ) 130 0 00) ) 2B1 150 2 00 12 2B2 87 0 00 2 2B3 70 1 00 7 2B4 83 3 00 2 2C 120 0 00 5 2D 103 0 00 14 2E 68 0 00 3 2F 83 3 00 8

(Source: Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 16/158-178)

2.5.3 Trial locations and ‘final’ orders

The question is whether these trial locations were translated into final orders. In fact, Series D was caught up in the difficulties that beset the wider Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme. William Cooper, the officer responsible for that Scheme was redeployed to the Hokianga Development Scheme, the former being left practically in abeyance. In March 1935 Acheson, firm in his belief that consolidation should precede any grant of development assistance, pressed for the allocation of additional staff to consolidation lest ‘a landslide of trouble may occur in certain districts if the patience of the people becomes exhausted by the continued delay.’ 125 When he repeated his predictions in October 1937, he insisted that Maori could not secure assistance until their titles had been ‘fixed’ and that required the allocation of additional staff.

Acheson’s diagnosis was familiar enough, but it gave rise to an interesting exchange of views in which Native Affairs Minister Langstone insisted that:

Development is a matter of first importance and in all future cases where Native lands, not under consolidation, are placed under the Native Department for development, attempts will be made to get the Natives themselves to select and nominate the units, and so avoid having immediate recourse to the laborious process of consolidation of interests.126

Langstone went on:

Development is bigger and better than consolidation. It provides everything that consolidation does and more. By making lands productive, income is derived therefrom and the beneficiaries[’] interests become rent producing and those not occupying the land can only have their interest determined in money. This is not a consolidation matter. It resolves itself into a money question based on the

125 Acheson to Under Secretary, Native Department 11 March 1935, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/551 29/2 Part 1, in Bassett and Kay, ‘Tokerau Maori land development schemes,’ Supporting Papers, Volume 4, p.W438. 126 Native Minister to Secretary, North Auckland Associated Chambers of Commerce 27 August 1937, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/551 29/1 Part 1, in Bassett and Kay, ‘Tokerau Maori land development schemes,’ Supporting Papers, Volume 4, p.W437. 71

mathematical calculation of the various interests in the particular piece of land and the income derived therefrom can be distributed accordingly ... Too much time and expense has been given to consolidation.127

At the end of August 1937, Auckland’s Registrar (predictably, perhaps, given his relationship with Acheson) offered some trenchant criticisms of the Tokerau Maori Land Court’s handling of consolidation matters. 128 A close inquiry, he suggested, would reveal that the principal result had been ‘to throw a large body of the Native title in the North into a state of chaos and confusion. That few, if any, consolidation titles has [sic] been issued, that the consolidation staff are discontented ... that the expenditure on the work has been out of proportion to the results achieved, and the Department is not getting value for its present expenditure.’129 A few weeks later, in September 1937, Robertson acknowledged that it was ‘impossible to deal with this area which is only one of the many areas in which the Natives are pressing for consolidation, consolidation in many of these cases being a necessary preliminary to ... development works ...’130 Acheson did not let those observations go unchallenged. In the Native Land Court, in November 1938, with respect to the Whangarei Consolidation Scheme, he expressed the Court’s regret that lack of money and lack of consolidation staff prevented the Court from formalising consolidation titles. ‘The leaders of the people,’ the Minute Book recorded, ‘expressed their sorrow ... Lack of certainty as to their titles for farming purposes was retarding their progress, preventing them from getting assistance, and disturbing the minds of the people.’131

Table 2.4 offers a summary, prepared in 1937, of the Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme and of Series D: Whangaruru. It appears that although the scheme covered 208,674 acres, and involved 2,909 blocks and 18,516 original owners, just one series

127 Native Minister to Under Secretary, Native Department 30 August 1937, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/551 29/2 Part 1, in Bassett and Kay, ‘Tokerau Maori land development schemes,’ Supporting Papers, Volume 4, p.W436. 128 J.H. Robertson was Registrar of both the Native Land Court and the Tokerau District Maori Land Board. 129 Registrar, Auckland to Under Secretary, Native Department 31 August 1937, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1333/a 61/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents Volume 4, pp.296-321. 130 Registrar, Auckland to Under Secretary, Native Department 17 September 1937, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA 1 29/2/4 Part 2, quoted in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.108-152. 131 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 18/219. 72

had been completed, the 118 consolidated sections covering 13,000 acres and involving 723 owners. Series D had not been completed.

Table 2.4: The Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme and Series D: Whangaruru, c1937

Bay of Islands Series D: Whangaruru Before consolidation Total acreage covered 208,674 19,736 Original number of blocks 2,909 127 Number of original owners 18,516 1,545 Number of consolidation successors 15,070 1,770 Series completed Number of series completed 1 - Number of sections after consolidation 118 - Area (acres) 13,000 - Number of owners in consolidated titles 723 - Number of units under development solely 237 30

(Source: ANZ Wellington ACIH 16035 MA1 29/2 Part 1, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 7, pp.313ff)

In March 1940, the Native Department’s Chief Clerk (R.L. Jellicoe), having conducted a review of all the Tokerau consolidation schemes, concluded that consolidation proceedings should either be accelerated, abandoned, or deferred. Of the 60 series into which the four schemes had been divided, just 15 had been completed up to the stage at which new titles could be issued. His preference was that the schemes should be completed as quickly as possible. ‘So much is at stake,’ he recorded, ‘the security for development and housing loans, the future progress of development, the rating problem, the feeling of unrest among the Maori people while the title position of their lands is at present ‘in the air,’ and pressure from outside, all point to the need for completing the schemes as quickly as possible.’132 Registrar Robertson acknowledged that progress had been slow and, predictably perhaps, cited

132 Chief Clerk, Native Department to Under Secretary, Native Department 27 March 1940, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 29/2 Part 2, in Hearn ‘Social and economic change in Northland,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.2-58. 73

a lack of ‘coordination’ between the Native Land Court, that is, Judge Acheson, and consolidation staff.133

2.6 ‘Family consolidation’ in the Bay of Islands, 1940-1941

The major alternative to the comprehensive consolidation schemes envisaged originally by Ngata was what was termed ‘family consolidation,’ an approach that by 1953 was extensively employed in the Bay of Islands. ‘This method,’ observed Auckland’s Consolidation Officer, ‘of gathering together the interests of one person or one family and locating them in a single compact area of approximate equivalent value of the former scattered interests is becoming more widely used ... The main advantages ... being that the original parcels of land remain undisturbed and the whole procedure can be completed within a very short period.’ The process involved:

• Meetings of families desirous of consolidation or other title improvement; • Examination of the titles of all family lands, followed by field inspections; • Determination of family blocks, that is, those that were or should be occupied and consolidated by a particular family; • Family exchanges, intended to excise ‘any outside or foreign interests,’ with exchange orders being employed before vesting orders; • Amalgamated partitions, that is, grouping all blocks together and identifying individual owners or owners of groups, but maintaining existing boundaries and so obviating any further survey; • The use of vested orders to effect a final ‘clean up,’ usually in favour of that member of the family actually farming the land. 134

2.6.1 Family consolidation in the Whangaruru district

It was that approach to consolidation that Acheson, in 1940, decided to apply to Series D: Whangaruru. Completion of the series constituted one element of what appear to have been larger plans for the district that included the construction of roads

133 Registrar, Auckland to Under Secretary, Native Department 9 October 1841, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 29/2 Part 2, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change in Northland,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.2-58. Acheson was dismissed in 1943. 134 Consolidation Officer, Auckland to Secretary, Maori Affairs 9 June 1953, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 29/2 Part 3, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.59-82. 74

and the provision of development assistance to Maori communities in this isolated part of the Northland. In April 1940, at Mokau, Acheson set out the issues that he thought required attention, namely: road access to ‘Tuparehuia Peninsula ...;’ whether the objective should be to seek development of the entire district on what he termed ‘a face, rather than as individual sections;’ whether public reserves should be set aside for Ngatiwai ‘to give a background of support for the Tribe;’ the matter of the Treasury loan in respect of Paramata-Mokau; the position in respect of the ‘Punaruku timber;’ the establishment of a base farm; and shingle rights and the matter of damage to the Whangaruru beaches.135

With respect to the road, Acheson pointed to the need for a road-line order connecting the surveyed road-line of the Peninsula with the ‘new Ngaiotonga-Parekura Bay metalled road’ (see Frontispiece). It would, he predicted, ‘open up a very big area of good country capable of easy development,’ and avoid any necessity for expensive bridges that had delayed construction of the ‘old surveyed road.’ The Minute book recorded that all present, among them, Ngahina Waitai Pita, Waitai Rata, Hone Pita, Waipu Pita, Pita Reihana, and Hoana Piripi ‘expressed approval.’136 On the matter of development, Acheson advised those present to accept development ‘on a face ... as the quickest and best means of securing the development of a large area of good country. Such a scheme,’ he claimed, ‘would not hold up consolidation proceedings, but would facilitate them by assisting the necessary surveys and roading.’ The Minute book recorded that ‘People generally expressed cordial approval of the proposal and asked that the matter be investigated and more definite proposals submitted, showing which areas might be made available.’ 137 As for tribal reserves, Acheson advised Ngatiwai to take advantage of consolidation ‘facilities’ to secure reserves to meet future community needs, notably on Paramata-Mokau and Punaruku 2. After ‘considerable discussion,’ the proposal was ‘approved in principle.’138

All of these matters were adjourned to Whangaruru North for consideration by local people. There, Acheson recorded, ‘The people ask[ed] for an early sitting of Court to

135 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 19/51. 136 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 19/52. 137 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 19/57. 138 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 19/57-58. 75

finalise our Consolidations.’ Ngatiwai claimed to have ‘large areas of good land lying idle because the titles have not been consolidated yet.’ Roads and tribal reserves were also required. The iwi also sought the appointment of ‘a special officer unattached to any other district’ to deal with consolidation matters, while indicating that it would appoint a committee to assist him. The Minute book recorded that the Court would arrange special sittings for June and July.139 On 19 June, at Whangaruru, the Court offered ‘a full explanation of the principles of consolidation and the results invariably achieved.’ Examples drawn from ‘successful’ schemes elsewhere in the Tokerau Maori Land District were cited. The end, Acheson indicated, was ‘separate ownership with all its advantages,’ and that prospect would render ‘all the trouble [involved] very well worthwhile.’ Indeed, Acheson went on to insist that ‘from its experience [it] states emphatically that consolidation is by far the biggest boon the Maoris of the Tokerau district can be given, and it is the only solution of the great majority of their land troubles.’140

In October 1940 Acheson announced that the Court would sit in the Whangaruru district during the coming summer months to deal with consolidation. On 16 November 1940, accompanied by consolidation officer J.T. Waetford, Acheson arrived at Ngaiotonga where, after a welcome, and having noted the efforts of a ‘consolidation committee’ comprising Hohepa Ngari and Pita Reihana Pene, the Court opened the consolidation proceedings for the Ngaiotonga and other portions of the Whangaruru sub-series of Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme.141

As a first step, the Court endeavoured to clear away ‘contested matters’ and the marae sites.142 Whangaruru North Marae or Tuparehuia Marae was located on the 2.5-acre Oteaka A: a hall and two cottages were on the site. Trustees had been appointed in 1933 or 1934 ‘to look after’ the marae. Differences of view over the suitability of the site saw the Court conduct its own inspection: the fact that the block was dissected by a stream and was in close proximity to an urupa saw it abandoned. 143 The Court proceeded to inspect Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9 and 1D10 and found that they

139 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 19/74. 140 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 19/87. 141 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/217. 142 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20A/26. 143 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20A/27-28 and 37-38. 76

were ‘extraordinarily suitable,’ being high, dry, almost flat, and to be crossed by a new road. ‘The Court,’ Acheson recorded, ‘knows of no other marae site in New Zealand more favourably situated than this one will be,’ while ‘No more desirable place for the old people of the tribe could possibly be imagined.’ The owners of both blocks were prepared to gift the land: 15 acres would not, it was decided, ‘be too big to allow for future requirements in this district, especially ... house sites for pensioners.’ 144 A large meeting of Ngatiwai leaders, held on 21 November 1940, decided in favour of Whangaruru-Whakaturia over Punaruku and the Court issued partition orders accordingly for 1D9A and 1D10A (discussed briefly in Chapter 1).145

In December 1940, Acheson outlined the programme for the proposed six weeks of sittings that would deal with consolidation matters. That programme was referred to ‘the committee of the people for discussion and recommendations so that finality might be assisted and expedited.’ The committee appears to have comprised 11 people. 146 When the Court resumed sitting in January 1941 at Whangaruru South (Mokau Hall), it first dealt with rights of way and road access involving Whangaruru- Whakaturia 2A, 1D3, 1C1, and 1C2, while the matter of access to Whangaruru- Whakaturia 3, in use for dairying purposes by Hoani Tautahi Pita, was given over to the consolidation officer and consolidation surveyor to prepare possible solutions.147 On 11 January 1941, the Court dealt with Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6, specifically a complaint by Hoani Tautahi Pita over the Tuparehuia roadline as laid off by the Whangarei County Council, namely, that it crossed the flat instead of keeping close to the foot of the hill. The Council insisted that the route selected was the best available. The matter was referred to Consolidation Officer J.T. Waetford.148 On 13 January 1941 the Court dealt with a dispute over a right of way involving Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D5 and 1D6, again raised by Hoani Tautahi Pita who sought to have the existing right cancelled. He suggested an alternative route to give access to the marae and hall. On the grounds that the right of way had been formed and had long been in

144 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20A/60-62. 145 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute book 20A/86. 146 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute book 20A/101. 147 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute book 20A/115-116. 148 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Nook 20A/117. In 1964, James Waetford assisted Judge Ivor Prichard in an inquiry into Maori land legislation and the powers of the Maori Land Court. He died in 1966. See Te Ao Hou 58, December 1966, pp.3-4. 77

use, Pita Reihana Pene and others objected, insisting that it gave convenient access to the marae, the urupa, and the school. At the heart of the issue lay some personal rivalries, but the matter was again referred to Consolidation Officer Waetford.149

On 5 February 1941, sitting at Whangaruru North, the Native Land Court resumed its consideration of consolidation matters. The outcome was, ten years after trial locations had been announced, a lengthy series of complex exchanges as efforts were made to consolidate the interests of individuals and families into particular blocks. The deaths of some owners in the interim and the fact that some owners had secured development assistance made a substantial revision of the original trial locations necessary. Of central concern to the Court was the matter of balancing the monetary values of the shares or interests exchanged, and it is clear that the preparation of exchange orders involved a great deal of intricate detail and careful negotiation. Acheson appears to have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that those affected understood the implications of proposed exchange arrangements. 150 Further, he required all involved to agree to any exchanges and made approval. Indeed, his usual practice appears to have been to require those involved to agree prior to a hearing. Agreements reached were then normally approved by the Court, although on occasion approval was conditional, that is, ‘subject to proof of agreement by the adult members’ of the families concerned. It is also clear that Waetford played a central role in those negotiations and in preparing the orders for the Court’s consideration. A key consideration was to try to concentrate a family’s interests in a particular block as a preliminary to a grant of development assistance. Indeed, some assistance appears to have been granted on the basis of the trial locations, a practice that would soon generate considerable anxiety over the matter of security for loans and protection for investment even though nominated occupiers were (normally) members of the land- owning family.

Subsequently, in some instances, Acheson went to very considerable lengths to preserve the exchanges effected during 1941. A notable example was Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1C1. In October 1942 the Native Land Court considered an application

149 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute book 20A/118. 150 See, for example, Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/154. 78 for the partition of the block: following the exchanges completed during 1941 the block had six owners holding shares valued, respectively, at £63 7 3; £3 18 2; £3 17 11; £9 4 6; £10 1 4; and £9 9 8, total of £99 18 9. The block thus had a consolidation value of £100: a house valued at £120 had been excluded when working out those share values. The Court decided that it had first to decide the ownership of the house. The latter was claimed by Hooro Tamihana (and his father Tamihana Hinui), a claim contested by members of the Taka family (holding collectively shares valued collectively at £79 7 10. The Court turned to kaumatua for advice: they did not support Hooro Tamihana. The Court was unimpressed and indeed claimed that it had ‘allowed much useless evidence to be given,’ but had done so in order that the parties involved might ‘feel ashamed at quarrelling over a matter that should have been settled outside the Court by a friendly conference. The parties,’ Acheson noted, ‘are related but more or less estranged.’ It was, he concluded, ‘high time’ that the rift between the families was repaired ‘as it disturbs the Whangaruru community, and it is wasting the time of the Court.’ The parties were given 24 hours to resolve the issue themselves: in the event that they could not do so the Court would partition out the house and a small area of land and then partition equally between both families the balance of the land, each family to have equal access (six months annually) to the house. The Court was clearly intent upon forcing the issue. Acheson then noted that ‘Probably the house itself will fall down or be blown down before long.’151

The matter was back before the Court on 10 October 1942 when Waetford proposed the sale of the house and the division of the proceeds. Clearly the protagonists were averse to sharing the house. An alternative was for one family to buy out the other: the Tamihana family thus offered to sell its interest in Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1C1. In the event, the families agreed to dismantle and divide the materials between them in equal shares, that is, after the lapse of five months in order to give the occupier, Ngawiki Taka, time to complete the season’s milking and construct a home elsewhere. Gifts within the Taka family and other ‘vacating out’ would also form part of the agreement. Acheson was clearly pleased that the parties had independently arrived at what he termed ‘a settlement by agreement.’ The settlement was adopted

151 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute book 21/251-261. Acheson’s comments are on p.261. 79

and confirmed by the Court.152 The gifts and partition were dealt with promptly. The outcome was that Ari Taka would acquire shares to the value of £80 13s (out of a consolidation value of £100). It was expected that she would also fill the share of her brother, a further £9 4 6. The Court was keen to see the remaining owner, holding £10 1 4, consulted to see if he would also vacate. Accordingly, the application for partition was dismissed.153

While exchanges were the major consolidation tool employed by Acheson, gifts and sales in interests also featured. Thus Honore Kaupeka gifted five shares in Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2F with a net value of £9 1 3, to her son, the development unit dairying on the land, such gift ‘to assist him in his consolidation and his farming.’ The gift would be offset against her estate. The Court approved and the shares were vested accordingly.154 Other interests were sold – thus Naiti Waipo sold 3.5 shares in Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1C2 to Haehae Weripa Tariora ‘to help him fill this block under consolidation.’ The net value was established as £22 16 1. Tariora was an owner in the block and the development unit. A vesting order was made under section 163 of the Native Land Act 1931.155

2.6.2 Beyond the ‘order stage’?

In October 1941, the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court was advised that the Tokerau District Consolidation Scheme was too large, that effort should be concentrated on the Hokianga scheme, and that the ‘vast’ Bay of Islands scheme should be deferred ‘for the time being,’ although Judge Acheson should be pressed to complete the Bay of Islands A series: Motatau up to the order stage. 156 The Government, in fact, decided to focus its efforts on the Hokianga scheme, followed by Series A: Motatau, while Acheson was instructed to direct his attention to Series A of the Mangonui Consolidation Scheme. With respect to 16 of the 20 main series and the three Motatau subseries into which the Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme had

152 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute book 221/266-270. 153 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute book 21/288-289. See also 21/394-395. 154 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/76-77. 155 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20A/57-58. 156 Commissioner (M.V. Bell), Senior Consolidation Officer (J.A. Mills), and Chief Clerk (R.L. Jellicoe) to Chief Judge, Native Land Court 31 Ocober 1941, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 29/2 Part 2, in Hearn ‘Social and economic change in Northland,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.2- 58. 80

been divided, while ‘Certain preliminary’ work had been initiated, practically no fieldwork for final consolidation had been undertaken. Among them was Series D: Whangaruru. Further, for nine series, again including Series D: Whangaruru, provisional schemes had been approved in 1930 and 1931: the subsequent passing of owners almost certainly meant that some re-working of the original trial locations would be necessary.157 At the heart of the unrest among northern Maori communities evident by 1940 lay the use of trial locations, themselves often based on verbal rather than formal arrangements. Neither offered owners the stability and certainty required to encourage the investment of capital and labour in land development and farming: clearly defined, transparent, and enforceable property rights constituted an essential pre-condition.

A 1941 summary of progress in respect of the Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme recorded for Series D: Whangaruru that:

A considerable amount of fieldwork has been dealt with in this area by Mr Waetford and Judge Acheson. Further work will be required to be undertaken in this area before final scheme can be brought forward. Further survey work will also be required. Numerous exchanges have been approved and made by Court as a preliminary to final consolidation. Provisional scheme herein was submitted to and approved by the Native Minister ... but any final scheme should be submitted for final approval.158

By this report, the issue of orders of exchange thus appear as a step in and not the conclusion of the consolidation process. It is worthwhile recording here that a 1960 inspection of the Tokerau District Maori Land Court’s minute books for 1941-1943 conducted in 1960 found that with respect to the Mangonui A and E Series and the Bay of Island A Series, 419 ‘final orders’ had been made and recorded in the minute books, but that there were no completed group books to show the movement of the interests involved. In fact, none of the orders was ever acted upon: they were thus regarded as merely the Court’s approval of proposals still to be implemented through

157 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 29/2 Part 2, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change in Northland,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.2-58. 158 ACIH 16036 MA1 29/2 Part 2, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.2-59 81

exchanges, vestings, and allied mechanisms. 159 Those were the mechanisms that Acheson and Waetford employed to considerable effect in respect of Series D. On 10 October 1942, Acheson announced in Court that, with respect to Series D, a large number of exchanges and related orders had been carried forward to the data sheets and that the consolidation surveyor had prepared several topographical sketches to assist the Court in the remaining phases of the Whangaruru consolidation. Acheson announced that the Court would hold another consolidation sitting in the district ‘in the summer, at a time to suit the people and the Court.’160

By that stage, active steps were under way to exclude Acheson from consolidation efforts in the Tokerau district, the source of the difficulties that had emerged between him and his Registrar having been attributed to his apparent desire for power and control.161 He was subsequently ‘retired’ at the end of 1943, the outcome in part of the protracted, unbefitting, and rancorous dispute with Registrar Robertson, the practical insolvency of the Tokerau District Maori Land Board, the financial difficulties in which the Te Kao dairy scheme was mired, long-running disputes with the Department of Native Affairs over the allocation of resources, and, his biographers suggested, his ‘strongly pro-Maori stance.’162

2.7 Post-Acheson consolidation

The efforts of the Native Land Court to effect consolidation through its ordinary jurisdiction continued after Acheson’s departure. Thus, in December 1943, the Court issued exchange orders in respect of Whangaroa Naiotonga 4F and Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1C2 whereby the interest of Neri Rata Wiapo was vested in Hare Mohi upon payment of the consolidation value to Tokerau Maori Land Board, the money to

159 On this matter, see District Officer and Registrar, Whangarei to Secretary, Maori Affairs 25 March 1960, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/552 29/2 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.314-320. 160 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 21/297. 161 Archives New Zealand Wellington holds a file AEKO 19181 SSC5 1/, labelled simply F.O.V. Acheson, but without dates. Almost certainly the file contains a copy of the 1941 report prepared by Sir Francis Frazer on his investigation into the difficulties that had long hampered consolidation efforts in the Tokerau Maori Land District, specifically the relationship between Acheson and Registrar J.H. Robertson. It was not thought necessary to view the file, supposing that permission to do so could have been secured. 162 See John Acheson and Richard Boast, ‘Acheson, Frank Oswald Victor,’ Dictionary of New Zealand biography. Te Ara – the encyclopaedia of New Zealand, updated 21 May 2013. 82

be held by the Board under section 281.163 In 1949, Waetford sought five exchange orders by which the interests held by five members of the Reihana family would be vested solely in Tokomauru Torea Pihema (of Otamatea). In return, the shares held by the latter in Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4, that is, 33/4 shares valued at £26 8s, would be vested in the Reihana family. Exchange orders were issued accordingly. Table 2.5 summarises the details. It will be noted that the total value of the shares exchanged was £26 2 7.

Table 2.5: Reihana family interests to vest in Tokomaru Torea Pihema

Raekau 2A Otioro 1B Otairu B2 Otamatea H Total value Erueti Reihana 1/40 2 12 9 5/48 1 1 4 1/8 0 16 2 15/128 0 16 7 5 6 10 Pene Pita Reihana 1/40 2 12 8 5/48 1 1 4 1/8 0 16 2 15/128 0 16 7 5 6 9 Pene Himi Reihana 1/40 2 12 8 5/48 1 1 4 1/8 0 16 2 15/128 0 16 7 5 6 9 Pene Peti Reihana 1/40 2 12 8 5/48 1 1 4 3 14 0 Pene Tamati Reihana 1/40 2 12 8 10/48 2 2 10 1/8 0 16 2 15/128 0 16 7 6 8 3 Pene Totals 1/8 13 3 5 30/48 6 8 2 ½ 3 4 8 60/128 3 6 4 26 2 7

(Source: Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 25/11-12)

In most if not all of these exchanges, gifts, and sales, the Native Land Court sought to consolidate family ownership with a view to facilitating the nomination of occupiers and thus the utilisation of the land. The Court was also intent upon strengthening the position of occupiers and encouraging and facilitating sole ownership.

In 1945, Commissioner Bell recorded that little progress had been made on the four Tokerau consolidation schemes since that 1941 assessment, perhaps not surprising

163 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 21/397. Section 281 of the Native Land Act 1931 empowered a board to pay the vendor or to deposit in full or in part with the Native Trustee or otherwise invest the same for the vendor’s benefit. 83

given the diversion of resources, including manpower, to the war effort.164 Again, it was proposed to concentrate, with respect to the Bay of Islands Scheme, on Series A: Motatau, leaving the Native Land Court to effect what consolidation it could through its ordinary jurisdiction (partitions, exchanges, and arranged successions). Native Land Court Judges Beechey and Prichard, in 1945, reported that the difficulties had arisen primarily out of ‘the attempt to deal with a ridiculously large area,’ and noted that consolidation had to be a ‘continuous process’ lest the work done were undermined by established succession practices. They also suggested that interests worth less than £50 ‘might be taken out of blocks and held ... in a fund for land purchase [by remaining owners or by the Crown on their behalf] at a later stage.’ That clearly foreshadowed the future conversion scheme. 165 Beechey himself identified ‘one of the principal difficulties ‘ as the inability of consolidation officers to secure timely sittings of the Native Land Court, the delays, sometimes of several years’ duration, undoing all the preliminary consolidation work.166

In 1946 Registrar Roberston classified the Tokerau consolidation schemes into three categories: the first included those that it was desirable, on account of work completed, to finalise; the second, those in which work should proceed; and the third, those in which only preparatory work had been undertaken and ‘where consolidation need not be pressed.’ Of the 20 series in the Bay of Islands scheme, only Series A: Motatau fell into the first group. Whether Series D: Whangaruru fell into the second or third groups is not clear. In yet another report, prepared in 1946, Judge Carr summarised the position that had been reached by July 1946. He classified the series of each major scheme into one of six categories, namely: A – Schemes approved by Minister and given effect to by consolidation orders; B – Schemes approved by Minister for submission to Court for consolidation orders; C – Schemes approved by Minister and almost ready to be submitted to Court for consolidation orders; D –

164 M.V. Bell had been Senior Clerk and Development Officer in the Native Land Court in Auckland, but in 1940 had been made Commissioner of the Court under section 7 of the Native Lands Act 1931, and thus able to exercise the powers and functions of a judge of the Court. In Bell’s case, those functions and powers were limited to consolidation matters. 165 Judges Beechey and Prichard to Chief Judge, Native Land Court 13 June 1945, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 29/2 Part 3, in Hearn ‘Social and economic change in Northland,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.59-82. 166 Beechey to Chief Judge Native Land Court 5 April 1945, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 19/2 Part 3, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change in Northland,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.59- 82. 84

Schemes prepared and ready for submission to Minister; E – Schemes approved by Minister, now considered more appropriate that present titles remain and necessary changes in ownership effected by exchange and partition orders; and F - No scheme prepared, present titles to remain, operations as in E. In the Bay of islands Consolidation Scheme, only a part of the Motatau Series fell into Category A. Series D: Whangaruru fell into Category E. 167 It seems a fair inference that Acheson’s enforced retirement left Series D in an incomplete state.

As a result of the consolidation conference convened by the Department of Maori Affairs in 1949, a decision was taken to complete first the southern Hokianga scheme, then the Pangaru scheme, and finally the Motatau Series that Bell had completed up to the stage of final orders before he was redeployed and his work largely undone.168 It was during that conference that Robertson noted that the whole of Tokerau was ‘trial located,’ and that on that basis some 600 or 700 units had been established. Predictably, he again criticised Acheson for entering into consolidation ‘very, very enthusiastically, and ... [going] very much too far,’ although he acknowledged that Acheson had been subjected to unspecified political pressures. Rather than confine proceedings to limited areas, Acheson had ranged far and wide and brought into schemes ‘foreign’ or distant interests ‘which were quite impracticable.’ He went on to remark, somewhat ruefully, that while schemes had been devised and approved, progress had never proceeded beyond that point, a state of affairs he attributed primarily to a lack of, changes in, and redeployment of staff, the very matters to which Acheson had repeatedly drawn attention.169

The 1949 conference also arrived at three major findings, namely, that consolidation and land development should proceed together and should concentrate on the best lands within schemes; that any new consolidation schemes should focus on small groups of holdings rather than large zones; and that after consolidation, the position

167 Judge Carr to Chief Judge, Native Land Court and Under Secretary, Native Department 24 July 1946, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 29/2 Part 3, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change in Northland,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.59-82. 168 ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074 1001a 29/1 Part 2, in Hearn, ‘Land titles,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.239-304. 169 ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074 1001a 29/1 Part 2, in Hearn, ‘Land titles,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.239-304. 85

should be maintained through arranged successions and exchanges, and by funding development occupiers/lessees to acquire small interests.170 The original enthusiasm for consolidation had long since waned. Future effort would be focused on lands declared subject to Part 1 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1936 and reform effected through what were termed ‘pocket consolidations’ in which amalgamations and conversions would feature prominently.

By 1952, only limited progress had been made in the entire Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme: of the total area of 208,674 acres, just 13,000 acres had been ‘consolidated’ into 118 sections with 723 owners.171 In 1953 the Government decided that all applications for consolidation schemes not finally disposed off should be withdrawn. Among the reasons cited was a recent decision to resolve the ‘unit’ problem by granting leases of the lands they occupied and Cabinet’s approval of the conversion scheme. Henceforth, consolidation would be restricted to lands that had been developed or were under development and where necessary to allow what was termed ‘effective settlement ...’ Where as a result of consolidation proceedings, interests had been left ‘in suspense,’ the Government would consider allowing work to continue. Further, consolidation would, ‘save for some extraordinary reason, be confined to a compact area,’ and that proceedings once initiated would be completed without delay.172

By way of response, Auckland’s District Officer claimed that it had been obvious to him for some years that all the Tokerau provisional and other consolidation schemes were never likely to be completed, ‘particularly the provisional schemes.’ He went on to note that such schemes had been ‘relatively easy’ to prepare but difficult and time- consuming to implement. He nominated the schemes that he thought should be completed. They did not include Series D. ‘There are,’ he reported, ‘a number of provisional schemes which have received Ministerial approval but which, it is

170 Under Secretary, Maori Affairs to Minister, Maori Affairs 9 June 1949, ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074 1001a 29/1 Part 2, in Hearn, ‘Land titles,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.239-304. 171 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 W2490 69/3/1. 172 Secretary, Maori Afffairs to District Officer, Auckland 25 June 1953, ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030 10/1/0, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 16, pp.357-381. 86

thought, need not be carried any further.’173 The only series in the Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme on which work continued was Series A: Motatau.174 Series D: Whangaruru, approved by the Minister in 1930, appears, in its original form, to have been abandoned. Attention was in fact directed to the Panguru and Parapara consolidation schemes, while Waetford devoted his attention to Motatau ‘and other urgent work in [the] Bay of Islands Scheme area.’ By March 1954, Waetford had made some considerable progress, carrying scheme proposals into effect through exchanges, vestings, and amalgamated partitions, but in connection with the Ngaiotonga development scheme rather than the larger series D or the Ngaiotonga sub-series (see Chapter 4).

2.8 Conclusions

Land consolidation as conceived and implemented in the two decades from about 1928 centred on the redistribution of interests in land within the existing structure of land holdings. Partitioning of Whangaruru-Whakaturia in particular had resulted in the creation of mostly small blocks of land evidently ill-suited for the purposes of commercial agriculture (setting aside matters relating to soil quality, climate, and access), and, further, blocks the titles of most of which were by 1930 increasingly congested. The redistribution of interests in land was essentially a conservative approach to a complex problem that also required reform of the underlying structure of land holdings. Redistribution of land was as important as redistribution of interests in land: whereas the latter was possible, the former was constrained by the availability of land and by growing demographic pressures.

The evidence indicates that little progress was made in respect of the blocks at the heart of this investigation until the Native Land Court, through Acheson and Waetford, elected to embark upon a more limited reform effort. The record indicates that they took considerable care to enlist – and received – the active participation, support, and advice of those whose lands were involved and sought to work with owners. Indeed, it is unlikely that much, if any, progress would otherwise have been

173 District Officer, Auckland to Secretary, Maori Affairs 18 August 1953, ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030 10/1/0, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 16, pp.357-381. 174 District Officer, Auckland to Secretary, Maori Affairs 14 July 1954, ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030 10/1/0, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 16, pp.357-381. 87 made. Further, the evidence suggests that the redistribution of interests did confer some benefits by, for example, facilitating the nomination of occupiers and thus the granting of development assistance. On the other hand, consolidating individual and whanau interests into small blocks of land was unlikely to establish a firm basis for commercial agricultural enterprise. No evidence was located that would indicate that the consolidation involving Whangaruru-Whakaturia in particular effected through the Native Land Court encouraged or was followed by increased investment and productive activity. It is, though, possible that the outbreak of the Second World War and the diversion of capital and manpower into the national war effort undermined such opportunities as consolidation may have offered.

It is worthwhile noting here that Acheson’s efforts in respect of Series D would be eclipsed by the establishment of the Ngaiotonga development scheme; among the blocks included in the amalgamated Ngaiotonga A2 were a number of subdivisions of Whangaruru-Whakaturia involved in the exchanges of interests arranged by the Native Land Court in 1940-1941. Further, the Ngaiotonga development scheme would prove to be among the least successful of all the schemes established under the Maori land development programme. In short, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, with respect to the redistribution of interests in land, the outcomes for owners hardly justified the investment of time and effort by both owners and the Native Land Court however well-intentioned it may have been.

Efforts to reform land titles and land ownership did not cease upon Acheson’s retirement or upon the decision of the Crown in the early 1950s practically to withdraw from the large-scale consolidation programme devised by Ngata. Reform efforts would continue along three tracks. With respect to the first, the Crown encouraged, perhaps pressured, its ‘development units’ to purchase the interests of co- owners and thus secure singly-owned holdings, and indeed made finance available accordingly. With respect to the second, the Crown employed its standing as practically – certainly for Maori – the sole source of development funds to persuade, again possibly pressure, owners into accepting the amalgamation and subsequent reconfigured subdivision of titles as a precondition for investment by the State in land development. Finally, the third track involved the enactment and deployment of

88 measures that were coercive, notably conversion. These alternative tracks to Maori land title reform and the restructuring of Maori land ownership are matters to which the following chapters turn.

Chapter 3: From land reform to land development: the

Whangaruru development ‘units’

A major theme of this investigation is that of assistance in respect of development, management and utilisation rendered by the Crown to the owners of the four blocks, and in particular the relationships established between the Crown and owners, any obstacles owners encountered in securing assistance, the manner in which the Crown responded to any difficulties that arose, whether such assistance was accompanied by the transfer of technical knowledge and management skills, and more generally the outcomes for owners. These are all matters that, similar to land consolidation and land title reform, run through the entire period from 1930 to the 1990s, commencing with the ‘unit’ farmers of the 1930s and proceeding to the development schemes of the 1950s, the vesting of blocks in the Maori Trustee for development and subdivision, to the trust formed to take over the Ngaiotonga development scheme upon its return. Chapter 3 will focus on the development ‘units’ who endeavoured to turn parts of the Otara blocks (in particular) to productive account. The small number involved and the somewhat patchy nature of the archival record present difficulties, but an effort is made to evaluate the experience of the owners involved and to assess the relationship between ‘units’ and the Crown.

3.1 Introduction

It was soon apparent, not least to Native Minister Ngata, that consolidation proceedings (as originally conceived) would prove difficult, protracted, and, of themselves, unlikely to encourage the investment of labour and capital in land development and land-based enterprises. Land reform, it was soon realised, constituted just one, albeit essential, element of any effort to encourage landowners to move into commercial farming. Access to capital, for both operational and development purposes, was also essential, but so long as Native freehold land remained unacceptable to both state and private lending agencies as security, and as the capacity of the Maori land boards and the Native Trustee to assist contracted

towards the end of the 1920s, such access was limited.175 The common assertion that, through the sale of ‘surplus’ land and flax, mineral, and timber-cutting royalties, Maori could raise sufficient capital to finance the conversion of their lands into commercially productive assets proved to be largely illusory if not chimerical. The high per acre costs of land development combined with low returns from land sales and land rents once survey charges, rates, Court costs, and (in the case of vested lands) subdivisional and roading costs had all been deducted, meant that few Maori landowners could accumulate the capital required.176 Moreover, the continuing shift from capital-extensive to capital-intensive farming practices inaugurated by the advent of marine refrigeration, and encouraged by the practical closure of the small farm frontier during the 1920s, entailed significant investment in higher yielding pastures, more productive stock, plant and machinery, and external non-factor (that is, energy and fertilisers, especially) inputs.

With the benefits of the State’s advances to settlers scheme inaugurated in 1894 before him, Ngata thus turned to the alternative of direct State investment: section 23 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1929 was the result.177 The initial emphasis was upon rendering land owned by Maori ‘fit for settlement,’ and upon assisting Maori farmers ‘to farm lands owned by or leased to them ...’ The Maori land development programme would subsequently encompass title reform and technical and budgeting assistance. For the Native Department, that programme, with its promise of speedier resolution of the difficulties confronting Maori and local authorities, quickly assumed priority. Staff and financial resources were re-directed to land development despite official recognition of the social and economic difficulties that incomplete consolidation proceedings would generate, not least on the land development schemes themselves. The evidence tendered to the Native Affairs Commission of 1934 made it clear, nevertheless, that the Crown’s initial enthusiasm for large-scale consolidation programmes had waned significantly

175 Some of the Maori land boards, for example, had advanced funds to Pakeha borrrowers, often to finance the purchase of land from Maori: by the end of the 1920s many of those loans were not performing. 176 These issues were explored in Hearn, ‘Maori economic development,’ especially Chapter 7. 177 On the importance of the advances to settlers scheme, see, for example, T.W.H. Brooking, Lands for the people? The Highland Clearances and the colonisation of New Zealand. A biography of John McKenzie. Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 1996, p.121. 91

as doubts emerged that alone it would produce the desired results. Chapter 3 explores the first phase of the Maori land development programme as it involved the four blocks under investigation.

3.2 Investing in development: Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Otara blocks

Investment by Maori in land development is very difficult to measure. Practically the only source of data (and then one that needs to be employed with care) is the valuation rolls prepared by the Valuation Department for local authorities. Those rolls included the value of improvements and they are employed here as a proxy for investment in productive capacity. Graph 3.1 sets out for Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Otara capital and unimproved values and the value of improvements on the eve of the inauguration of the Maori Land development programme. In both cases, the value of improvements approximated the unimproved values, suggesting a low rate of investment per acre.

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500 Pounds 2000 Otara Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1500

1000

500

0 Capital value Unimproved Value of value improvements

Source: ANZ Auckland BAAW 14675 A149/1/275 1/21

Graph 3.1: Capital and unimproved values and value of improvements, Otara and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks, 1930

Graph 3.2 sets out the composition of improvements. Of interest is the fact that the value of ‘clearings’ exceeded, in both cases, the value of pastures. While allowance must be made for topography, that is, that some land would not allow the development of sown pastures, the data indicate limited development, low stock numbers, low stock carrying capacity, and low productivity. A comparison with the valuation rolls for 1921 suggests that little improvement took place during the following decade and that in fact the value of both clearings and pastures declined. That decline suggests, in turn, that efforts to turn the lands involved to productive account encountered difficulties, a matter that will be raised again below.

1000

900

800

700

600

500 Otara Pounds 400 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 300

200

100

0 Buildings Fences Clearings Pasture

Source: ANZ Auckland BAAW 14675 A149/2/280 1/21

Graph 3.2: The composition of improvements, Otara and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks, 1930

3.3 Assisting Maori farmers

The conversion of land into a source of commercial output was a protracted and expensive process and hence the importance generally attached to the Government Advances to Settlers Act 1894. 178 That Act, by providing access to ‘cheap’ credit allowed farmers in established farming districts to restructure debts and gain entry into the meat and dairy export industries, and allowed settlers occupying recently

178 See, for example, Hearn, ‘Maori economic development,’ especially Chapter 7. 93

opened lands to finance the development of their holdings. Those among Maori who aspired to develop their lands secured minimal assistance under that Act: section 25 excluded Native freehold land from the categories of land deemed acceptable as collateral for mortgage advances. Sections 3 to 5 of the Native Land Settlement Act 1897 did allow Maori to convey a defined portion of land by way of trust to some ‘fit person’ appointed by the Crown. The trustee might then borrow against the land. In 1907 the Native Land Commission described those provisions as ‘practically a dead letter.’179 Section 6 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1897 provided that any Maori owning land in severalty could borrow money from a state lending agency on mortgage of his lands provided that he possessed, in addition to the land he proposed to mortgage, ‘other land sufficient for his maintenance.’ That was a requirement not imposed on Pakeha borrowing from such agencies. Few applications for loans under section 6 appear to have been lodged.180

The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895 (section 84) allowed Maori incorporations to borrow money from the Public Trustee, while section 29(c) of the Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1903 allowed them to mortgage stock and chattels. The Maori Land Settlement Act 1905 made some provisions for lending to Maori: section 18 empowered the Minister of Lands, out of any monies allocated for the purposes of the Lands for Settlements Consolidation Act 1900, to advance by way of mortgage to Maori owners of land any sum not exceeding one third of its unimproved value for the purposes of stocking, improving or farming the land in question. Under the regulations governing such loans, applicants were required to indicate whether the land was registered under the Land Transfer Act or the Deeds Registration Act. Native freehold land clearly did not qualify, but in any case the Department’s practice of under-valuing lands owned by Maori would probably have made it difficult for Maori landowners to secure meaningful assistance.181

179 AJHR 1907, G1C, p.14. 180 By 1909, when the Act was repealed, just six applications had been lodged. See AJHR 1909, G5. 181 For a discussion of the matter of valuation, see T.J. Hearn, ‘Maori, land, and the Crown in Te Rohe Potae c1900 to c1935,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2011, pp.543-551. See also John L. Hutton, ‘”A quick and ready method:” the alienation of Maori land by sales to the Crown and private individuals, 1905-1930,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1996, p.17. 94

One other measure, the Native Land Settlement Act 1907, merits consideration since it appeared to promise Maori access to state lending departments. The Act, it will be recalled, was passed to implement the recommendations of the Native Land Commission of 1907. Of particular importance were two sections of the Act, both forming part of ‘Part II: Land for occupation by Maoris.’ Section 60 provided that any Maori who leased land set apart under Part II could, with the consent of a Maori land board, borrow money from any state lending department or any person approved by the Native Minister, by way of mortgage on the security of his interest in such lease or of any monies receivable by him from lands vested in a board, for the purpose of farming, stocking and improving the land the subject of the lease. Although the Native Land Commission recommended that both Otara and Oteaka should be reserved for Maori occupation, the Government took no action, thus closing a potential avenue for funding.

The second important provision of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907 was section 61: it empowered the Native Minister to apply to the Native Land Court for an order of incorporation where he thought it desirable that any land subject to Part II should administered, managed, farmed, and improved by a committee of owners. Section 61(2) provided that ‘Such application shall be deemed to be an application duly made with the consent of a majority of the owners, and may be dealt with by the Court accordingly.’ Section 23 of the Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act 1906 had empowered incorporated bodies, with the consent of a Maori land board, to raise monies by way of mortgage on the land involved or the stock and chattels of the owners. It was noted above that although the Native Land Commission recommended that Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2 should be incorporated, in accordance with the desire of the owners, no action was taken: that potential avenue of financing was thus also closed.

With state lending agencies practically closed to them and private lenders unwilling to lend against a system of land titles deemed fragile and unable to offer the necessary security, Maori wishing to borrow in order to turn their lands to productive account had few alternatives. That most often cited was their ‘surplus’ lands: sale to the Crown or to private parties would, the argument ran, release capital for re-investment

in lands retained. The Native Land Commission of 1907 concluded that in fact Maori in Tai Tokerau did not possess large areas of ‘surplus’ lands, and indeed found itself, in the case of some of the larger blocks in both the Hokianga and Bay of Islands Counties having ‘to override the wishes of owners, in the interests of settlement ...’182

The total area retained by Maori in the Bay of Islands in 1908 stood at 228,737 acres, an average of almost 89 acres per capita based on the 1906 census of the Maori population of 2,571. The Commission recommended that 68,574 acres should be set aside for Maori occupation or an average per capita of 26.6 acres, land that generally was ‘of uneven quality.’183 By 1928, that is, on the eve of the inauguration of the Maori land development programme, the area of land in Maori ownership in Bay of Islands County appears to have declined to 155,904 acres, that is, by 72,834 acres on the area given 20 years earlier by the Native Land Commission. The Maori population of the county stood at 3,420 in 1926: the average area per capita thus stood at 46.6 acres.184 In such circumstances, it seems hardly likely that the sale of land in order to generate development capital was a realistic or sensible course. In any case, studies elsewhere have demonstrated quite clearly that the under-valuation of lands owned by Maori, and deductions for survey liens, rates and court charges, combined with per acre farm development costs that greatly exceeded both the per acre gross and net returns from land sales, rendered such sales unavailing.185 In the case of the 45,115 acres of the best Maori-owned lands in the County vested in the Tokerau Maori Land Board under the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905, deductions to meet Treasury loan charges, and modest and uncertain rents meant that per capita returns from rents were generally insufficient to allow the accumulation of capital.

It should also be noted that those Maori who chose to sell land to raise capital for development could not assume that they would have immediate or unqualified access to those monies: section 226(1) of the Native Land Act 1909 and section 92 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1913 empowered a Maori land board, in effect, to retain

182 AJHR 1908, G1J, p.1. 183 AJHR 1908, G1J, p.3. 184 ANZ Wellington BBDL 1030/3279h 10/1/0 and Census of New Zealand 1926. 185 See, for example, Hearn, ‘Maori economic development in Te Rohe Potae,’ Chapter 7. 96

and invest those monies on behalf of the seller(s): neither consultation with nor the agreement of the latter was required.

During the debate on the Government Advances to Settlers Amendment Bill in 1908, Ngata succinctly summarised the frustration that almost certainly many Maori landowners felt. Insisting that Maori members of the House wanted the Government to recognise the difficulties involved, he observed that:

It is a serious charge to make against the Parliament of any country, but I lay it upon the Parliament of New Zealand, that in dealing with the Native lands its paramount consideration is not so much what shall be done with the portion reserved for the use, occupation, and maintenance of the Maoris as what shall be done with the portion which is made available for general settlement. That is our chief grievance. You are not concerned so much with what the Maoris shall do with the balance they hold as to what you shall do with the portion available for European settlement.186

Under the Native Land Act 1909 (section 230) Maori could borrow from other than a state lending department, but subject to the approval of the Crown and confirmation by a Maori land board. Such data as are available indicate that, by the end of March 1928, the Tokerau Maori Land Board had confirmed for the whole of its district just 87 mortgages involving 8,954 acres: of that number 45 (involving 129 acres) had been approved in the year ending 31 March 1927.187 No evidence was located that would indicate that any of that borrowing involved any of the four blocks under consideration.

3.3.1 The Native Trustee

Practically without access to State lending departments and generally unable to accumulate capital for re-investment, Maori turned to the Native Trustee (established in 1920) and the Maori land boards. Section 21(c) of the Native Trustee 1920 empowered the Trustee to make advances secured by mortgage of any freehold or leasehold interest in Native freehold land for which a partition order had been made, or in any Native land vested in or administered by any Maori land board, or any

186 NZPD 1908, Vol 145, p.717. 187 AJHR 1928, G9, p.3. 97

Native land vested in the incorporated owners thereof. The Native Trustee was during the 1920s an important source of finance for Maori: towards the end of that decade, the importance fell as the Trustee’s sources of revenue contracted. By the end of March 1934, the Native Trustee had advanced over £678,000 to 476 mortgagors: of those mortgagors just 21 were in the Tokerau Maori Land District and the sum advanced a mere £12,002. No evidence was located to indicate that any owners within any of the four blocks secured financial assistance from the Native Trustee.

3.3.2 Tokerau Maori Land Board advances

There was one other potential funding source, namely, the Tokerau Maori Land Board. Section 19 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1922 allowed Maori land boards (with the consent of the Native Minister) to ‘advance moneys upon mortgage either for itself or on behalf of Natives ...’ Section 8 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1926 was more explicit, section 8(d) allowing boards (again with the approval of the Native Minister) to make advances out of their own resources ‘For the farming, improvement, or settlement of any Native freehold land.’ As at 31 March 1929, the Tokerau Maori Land Board had made 34 advances to Maori farmers: the area involved was 4,146 acres and the total amount £8,037, or an average advance of £236. None of those attempting to farm any of the four blocks featured in the relevant return. In addition, the Board had made advances totalling £15,198 to 45 farmers in the Te Kao Dairy Scheme. By the end of March 1932, the Board had advanced almost £7,327 to 21 ‘units’ in the Bay of Islands district.188 No evidence was located that would indicate that owners of the four blocks were among them.

3.4 State funding of Maori land development

It was Ngata who clearly recognised that neither the Maori land boards nor the Native Trustee could meet more than a modest proportion of the Maori agricultural sector’s capital needs. The solution was to employ directly the resources of the State. Provision for the state-funded development of lands owned by Maori was contained in section 23 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment

188 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/708 49/18 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.321- 338. 98

Act 1929, that initial provision being amended and extended by the Native Land Act 1931. In essence, the Maori land development programme envisaged Maori owners supplying land at its unimproved value and supplying labour at what Native Minister Ngata termed ‘a bare sustenance rate.’189 At the same time owners were obliged to accept that all their rights of ownership would be suspended for an undefined period; that the Crown would make all decisions regarding investment and expenditure; that the Crown would impose a charge to cover all expenditure and interest thereon; an obligation to repay all expenditure; the risk of losing their land; and the possibility that their lands might pass into the hands of nominated occupiers not of their whanau or hapu. The Crown undertook to supply the capital required and planning, budgeting, management, supervision, and technical advice.

It is important to recognise that Ngata devised and implemented his Maori land development policy at an important juncture. In 1931 he set out the immediate background in terms of renewed Maori population growth, the end of New Zealand’s pioneering period, and the difficulties confronting those extractive industries (timber, gum, and flax) upon which northern Maori in particular had relied so heavily for employment and income.190 By the late 1920s many Maori communities in Northland were displaying clear signs of severe impoverishment, and indeed many found themselves increasingly isolated and marginalised between, on the one hand, a regional economy in which employment opportunities in land-based industries were contracting, and, on the other, a national economy that was evidently unable to offer sufficient employment alternatives. Those difficulties were both exposed and exacerbated by the economic difficulties of the 1920s and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Ngata’s land development programme thus had objectives that were as much social as they were economic, intended as it was to preserve land in Maori ownership, raise Maori standards of living, and revivify Maori community and cultural life.

3.4.1 Four development schemes in Te Tai Tokerau

During March and April 1930 Ngata toured the Tokerau district and decided that, with the exception of a small number of blocks (notably Waima, Whakarapa, and

189 AJHR 1931, G10, p.xx. 190 See AJHR 1931, G10. 99

Motatau), there were no compact blocks of large size to which the provisions of section 23 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1929 could be applied. He also concluded that while the Tokerau District Maori Land Board had ‘done good work with the funds at its disposal ... it had reached the limits of its available finance.’ 191 Land development would thus take place primarily through the provision of assistance to individual farmers, notably those holding partially improved properties, rather than through the incorporations that Maori, including the owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia, had proposed both to the Tokerau Maori Land Council and to the Native Land Commission. Accordingly, Northland was divided into four development scheme districts, that is, Mangonui, Hokianga, Kaipara, and Bay of Island Development Scheme Districts, together with the Motatau Base Farm.

3.4.2 The Bay of Islands Development Scheme

In June 1930, by a series of notices published in the New Zealand Gazette, all lands owned by Maori in Northland (other than those subject to lease) were included in the four development schemes.192 The notices announced that the section 23(3) of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1929 would apply to the lands listed. They also made it clear that section 23(3)(f) would apply, to the effect that ‘no owner shall, except with the consent of the Native Minister, be entitled to exercise any rights of ownership in connection with the land affected so as to interfere with or obstruct the carrying-out of any works undertaken or to be undertaken under ... subsection (3).’ An amended notice was issued in September 1930: it listed 213 blocks in the Bay of Islands Development District.193 In 1931, the total area was given as 177,296 acres, mostly in the form of scattered blocks about

191 Native Minister to Under Secretary, Native Department 28 May 1930, ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1332b 61/1 Part 1, cited in Heather Bassett and Richard Kay, ‘Te Tokerau land development schemes 1930-1990,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2006, p.32. 192 For the Bay of Islands Development Scheme District, see ‘Native land to be settled and developed,’ New Zealand Gazette 48, 26 June 1930, p.2054. 193 ‘Native land to be developed and settled – Bay of Islands Development Scheme,’ New Zealand Gazette 66, 22 September 1930, p.2851. 100

village sites and natural food sources.194 Among the blocks were Oteaka, Otara, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia.

It is worthwhile noting here that section 23(3)(f), by providing that the owners of any land declared subject to section 23(3) could not, except with the consent of the Native Minister, exercise any of the rights of ownership ‘so as to interfere with or obstruct the carrying out of any works ...’ in effect vested Maori private property rights in the Crown. Further, by section 23(3)(g) the Crown could declare any land subject to section 23 to be subject also to the provisions of Part XVI: Native land for Native settlement of the Native Land Act 1909: among other provisions, section 298 imposed restrictions on alienation by owners, while, with respect to leasing, section 301 nominated the relevant Maori land board as the agent of the owners. The ‘blanket’ proclamations issued in 1930 were not revoked until 1963 following the enactment of section 18 of the Maori Purposes Act 1963.

The number of ‘units’ assisted in the Bay of Islands development scheme was given as 61 in 1931 and as 103 in 1932, while the area involved was given, respectively, as 7,245 and 19,929 acres. 195 Some published data are available for the period from 1935 to 1941 (Table 3.1). Although inconsistent, collectively they offer some useful insights into the scheme and its results. First, an appreciable increase in the number of ‘units’ is apparent, although it is likely that the data conceal a degree of ‘churn.’ Second, the ratio between ‘units’ and ‘dependents’ appears to be very high: it seems likely that ‘dependents’ included spouses, children, and others with an interest in the land being farmed. Third, the scheme also employed a large number of ‘additional labourers.’ Fourth, the production of butterfat per unit was exceedingly modest and the gross revenue (that is, prior to the Department of Native Affairs excising its share) similarly so. An examination of the data assembled by the 1934 Dairy Industry Commission for 26 farms in the ‘eastern North Auckland’ district indicated an average production of 12,773 lbs of butterfat, and an average labour force per farm of 2.65 persons. Some allowance must be made for the quality of the data, but it is reasonably clear that the Bay of Islands land development scheme was characterised

194 AJHR 1931, G10, p.3. See also AJHR 1931, G10, p.xvi. The total area was subsequently adjusted to 178,900 acres. See AJHR 1932, G10, p.54. 195 AJHR 1932, G10, p.8. 101 by ‘units’ farming small holdings, producing small volumes of butterfat, securing small gross incomes rendered smaller by the Department’s deduction, while supporting high numbers of ‘dependents.’

Table 3.1: The Bay of Islands Development Scheme, 1935 to 1941

Year Units Additional Dependents Butterfat Butterfat Departmental labourers produced: value: £ share: £ lbs 1935 210 1,032 1936 212 1,261 1937 243 341 2,549 325,700 1938 228 280 2,349 393,300 1939 240 420,480 26,294 8,708 1940 257 428,924 27,573 8,725 1941 258 201 578,721 32,740 12,413

(Sources: AJHR 1935, G10, p.4; 1936, G10, p.4; 1937, G10, p.13; 1938, G10, p.21; 1939, G10, p.17; 1940, G10, p.12; 1941, G10, p.12.)

3.4.3 Land development, Series D, Bay of Islands Development Scheme

The Bay of Islands Development District was divided into the same series as had been devised for the Tokerau Consolidation Scheme: Series D was labelled Whangaruru- Whakaturia/Otara. Table 3.2 indicates that some modest assistance was extended to land owners in Series D. Among them were Haehae Taniora who farmed Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1C2, Opai Matenga who farmed Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 and Otara 1, and Rihi Tamihana who farmed Otara 2.196

196 Native Land Court, Bay of Islands Minute Book 12/195-198. 102

Table 3.2: Bay of Islands Development Scheme: amount expended to 31 December 1930

Series Holdings1 Amount advanced: £ A 13 1,264 B 2 122 D 10 674 F 2 25 H 3 81 J 1 83 L 2 228 M 4 498 N 9 785 T 6 523 Totals 52 4,283

1 Most holdings had one nominated occupier

(Source: Native Land Court, Bay of Islands Minute Book 12/195-198)

Table 3.3: Advances made to 'units,' Bay of Islands Development Scheme, by 1933

Series Nominated Amount advanced to 31 Average amount of occupiers December 1933: nearest £ advance: £s A 13 1,264 97.2 B 2 172 86.0 D 10 674 67.4 F 2 25 12.5 H 3 81 27.0 J 1 83 83.0 L 2 228 114.0 M 5 498 99.6 N 9 785 87.2 T 6 522 87.0 Totals 53 4,332 81.7

(Source: ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W30974/1332/b 61/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents Volume 4, pp. 288-295)

103

Table 3.3 sets out the advances made, by 1933, to ‘units’ in the Bay of Islands Development Scheme. The nominated occupiers in Series D again included Haehae Taniora, Opai Matenga, and Rihi Tamihana. By 1934/1935 Series D included Hoani Tautahi Pita (Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2A and 3). By 1940 the capital value of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1C2 had increased appreciably over the preceding decade to reach £770, with the value of improvements (notably buildings and permanent land drainage) standing at £660. The aggregate value of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 and Otara 1 also increased appreciably to reach £915 (with the value of improvements standing at £530). Finally, the capital value of Otara 2 doubled to reach £1,025 of which improvements constituted £830. By 1940 Whangaruru-Whakaturia had a capital value of £640 of which improvements constituted £425. Those data suggest that where Maori land owners had reasonable land and access to development capital, they made effective use of both.

3.5 The Whangaruru development ‘units’

Map 3.1 depicts the blocks whose occupiers were assisted as ‘development units’ during the 1930s and, in some cases, for some considerable time thereafter. Crown files could not be located for some and it is almost certain that some others were assisted for short periods. The following accounts are drawn chiefly from public sources: Crown files do contain some additional information, often not of relevance to the general purpose of this investigation and hence not employed.

3.5.1 Opai Matenga

In 1930 Opai Matenga (who served with the New Zealand Maori Pioneer Battalion) secured assistance to develop and farm Otara 1 (163 acres) and Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D8 (13 acres). 197 Opai Matenga and his brother Himi had retained the two blocks under consolidation, all the owners of Otara 1 vacating in their favour. Opai Matenga, as the nominated occupier, ran a small dairy herd of some 30 milking cows, supplied the Hikurangi Dairy Company, and surrendered a third of his monthly

197 Opai (or Waata) Matenga had served in the New Zealand Maori Pioneer Battalion, securing his discharge in May 1919. See Waata Matenga to H. Rushworth, MP 26 September 1933, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030 3163/a 18/D/3 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.301-342. Matenga noted that Waata was his ‘assumed’ name while Opai was his ‘proper’ name. Rushworth was MP (Country Party) for the Bay of Islands from 1929 to 1938. 104

cream cheque to the Department of Native Affairs.198 By April 1938, the farm had a government capital valuation of £1,032.

Map 3.1: Blocks farmed by 'development units' during the 1930s

On Opai Matenga’s death in May 1935, his four children succeeded to their father’s interests in six blocks that included Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 and Otara 1, while his widow, contrary it appears to the wishes of at least some of the Matenga whanau, carried on the farm. In October 1940 the matter came before the Native Land Court. Himi Matenga agreed to Hipora (or Zipporah) Stirling being designated as the nominated occupier: he was also willing to vacate his interests in the two blocks in favour of the four children. He was supported by Hoana Morore an owner in

198 His butterfat was conveyed by launch across Whangaruru Harbour. The Hikurangi Dairy Company opened in 1904. A good deal of its milk was collected from around the Bay of Islands by the launch Dairymaid. See Florence Keene, Milestone: Whangarei County’s first 100 years 1876-1976. Whangarei, 1976, pp.194-195. 105

Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1DA and a trustee for Opai Matenga’s children. Both requested that money be set aside out of the farm revenue for the education of the four children. After discussions, Himi Matenga advised the Court that the farm would pay a rental of £18 per annum to the Tokerau Maori Land Board on behalf of the four children, and that Hipora would remain as nominated occupier for a period of four years. The Court sanctioned the agreement reached, and, acting under section 16 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1936, recommended that Hipora Taka should be the nominated occupier. 199

The Court’s decision was subject to the Department of Native Affairs lodging a formal application (which it did on 20 December 1940), but it was not until October 1942 that the nomination was finalised: an epidemic of cerebrospinal meningitis that gripped first Northland and subsequently Auckland in April and August of 1941 respectively saw the 1941 sittings of the Native Land Court in Whangarei abandoned. The nomination had a term of four years from 2 November 1940 or such longer period as the Court might decide.200 By the end of 1939 the development account was in credit, while butterfat production reached 4,666lbs in 1940-1941. 201 By contemporary standards, it was a small but evidently efficient dairy unit.

By April 1945 Zipporah Taka had decided to relinquish the farm and move to Helena Bay. At that time the unit account was substantially in credit. The Department of Native Affairs endeavoured to arrange a lease of the property. 202 By that time a consolidated list of owners named 28 persons holding three shares in Otara 1, and eight holding four shares in Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8. In 1946 the Department of Native Affairs, unable to interest anyone else in the isolated block, arranged for Thompson Moses Davis [Rewiti], the ‘unit’ farming the adjacent Otara 4 and 5, to lease Otara 1 for five years at £40 per annum.203 At that stage, the children’s trustee proposed that the monies held by the Tokerau District Maori Land Board should be used to purchase shares held by other owners, although some had indicated a

199 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/191-196. 200 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/191-196 and 21/264. See also ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/3163/a 18/D/3 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.301-342. 201 ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W307/444/d 15/1/557. 202 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 22/172. 203 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 23/160-162. 106

willingness to gift their shares. In April 1947 the Court approved a proposal under which Himi Matenga’s shares were purchased by the children’s trustee for £64 17 3. 204 Concurrently, the Board of Maori Affairs approved a grant of £100 to enable the purchase of additional shares. In January 1948, the Court issued an order under section 163(9) of the Native Land Act 1931 under which the shares held by 12 owners holding a total of 0.49 of a shares were vested in the four children subject to the payment of a total of £72.205 Plainly, such transactions were intended to concentrate ownership in Opai Matenga’s four children.

In 1951 Opai Matenga’s son James took over the property as the nominated occupier. Several years later, in 1955, in an effort to enhance his security of tenure, the Department of Maori Affairs suggested to him that the Board of Maori Affairs purchase the interests of his co-owners in Otara 1, while also proposing that a meeting of assembled owners (mostly members of the Matenga family) in respect of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 should be called to consider selling the land block to him.206

At a meeting held on 28 June 1956, the owners agreed to sell Otara 1 to him (he owned .6875 of the three shares) for £2,330, the amount of a special government valuation dated 31 March 1956. But the owners also agreed that the house and cowshed on the property belonged to the four children: that meant that James Matenga [or Martin] would have to find £1,771 to finance the transaction. The Board of Maori Affairs was asked to advance £6,365 to finance the purchase and to allow further development. Clearly some within the Department, although prepared to support an advance to allow Matenga to purchase the property, entertained serious doubts over the wisdom of further investment in a farm half of which comprised steep and broken land and in a farm to which access was difficult. Further, when considering an application for confirmation of the resolution to sell, the Court

204 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 23/235-236, and 23/381. Section 163(9) allowed the Native Land Court to vest any interest in land in another person where it decided that it was not against the interest of the original owner so to do. 205 Maori Land Court,Whangarei Minute Book 23/381 and 24/4-6. 206 District Officer, Whangarei to J.S. O. Matenga, Whangaruru 13 July 1955, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/3164/a 18/D/3 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.343-382. 107

decided, that while it would issue the order sought it had no jurisdiction in respect of the house and cowshed and so disallowed that portion of the resolution.207

Citing a lack of finance, the Board of Maori Affairs declared itself unable to assist.208 Confirmation was annulled on 14 October 1958. In August 1958 the Department proposed arranging a lease to Matenga, although it was apparent that some owners, anxious to forward their own housing plans, were less than keen on that option. Nevertheless, it contacted owners with a proposal that Otara 1 should be leased for 42 years, the rent to be at the rate of five percent per annum on the unimproved value, and six percent per annum on the improvements, with compensation for approved improvements existing at termination at 75 percent of their value.209

Another meeting of owners was held on 20 May 1960 when it was again decided, unanimously by the seven owners (and five proxies) present, to sell Otara 1 for £2,175: since Matenga owned 6.875 of the 30 shares, the net cost was £1,657. At the same time, application was made to the Board of Maori Affairs for an advance of £2,362 to finance the purchase and to fund further development and the purchase of equipment.210 At that stage, just 50 acres of the 163-acre Otara 1 were in pasture. The Maori Land Court recommended that the advance sought should be made and the Board of Maori Affairs approved that recommendation on 12 July 1960.211 Otara 1 (together with Otara 2, 4A, 4B, and 5) was gazetted under Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 in November 1961.212

James Matenga increased his butterfat production steadily during the early 1960s to reach 6,429lbs in 1962-1963, in part by using adjacent unoccupied land. The farm was badly affected by drought in 1967-1968 and 1969-1970 and, although still in

207 Maori Land Court, Tokerau Alienations Minute Book 19/354-355. 208 District Officer, Whangarei to J.S.O Matenga, Whangaruru 9 July 1958, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/3164/a 18/D/3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.343-382. 209 District Officer, Whangarei to owners 24 September 1958, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/3164/a 18/D/3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.343-382. 210 Paper presented to the Board of Maori Affairs, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/3164/a 18/D/3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.343-382. 211 See Maori Land Court, Tokerau Alienations Minute Book 23/33-35. 212 ‘Declaring land to be subject to the Provisions of Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 (Bay of Islands Development Scheme),’ New Zealand Gazette 70, 1 November 1961, p.1709. 108 operation by 1978, ran dry stock. 213 In December 1986 the debt on the property was repaid and Otara 1 was released from the provisions of Part XXIV in October 1987.214

3.5.2 Erueti Reihana Pene

Erueti Reihana Pene was, from 1931, the nominated occupier of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D4 (30.25 acres) and Raumaroa C Pt (7.25 acres). At the time of his death, he held 3⅕ out of 32½ shares in Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4 and ⅖ of 11 shares in Ramaroa C, while his loan account was credit. Following his death, his brother, Pita Reihana Pene took over: in October 1940 the Native Land Court heard an application (lodged under section 16 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1936) in which the Department recommended that Pita Reihana Pene remain as occupier until such time as Erueti’s son, Pita, came of age. At that juncture, Consolidation Officer Waetford recommended that ‘the right to fill the two areas in question be finalised by the Court before any nomination of new occupier is approved.’ Consolidation records for Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4 indicated that Hohepa Pita, Waitai Pita, Reihana Pita, and two others were to vacate the block for lands elsewhere, leaving in the block only the family of Reihana Pene. The position in respect of Ramaroa C had changed since the trial locations had been prepared in 1931-1933. At that time the Erueti Reihana group was to take Ramaroa C and the block was duly included in the development loan as security. By 1940 the Reihana Pene family proposed to vacate the block in favour of an owner who in turn would give up to the Reihana Pene family her interest in Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2B1 and Otara 3A. Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2B1 adjoined Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4. There were no objections to the Reihana Pene group securing the whole of 1D4 under consolidation or exchange. The Court thus approved of the Reihana Pene group filling the whole of 1D4, but held over the matter of Ramaroa C pending the outcome of what proved to be a lengthy conference involving the various parties.215

The matter was back before the Court on 1 November 1940 when the results of the family conference were presented, essentially recommendations dealing with the division of the credit balance in the development loan account and the disposal of the

213 ANZ Wellington AAMK 968 W3074/444/d 15/1/557. 214 ‘Maori Land Development Notice,’ New Zealand Gazette 178, 15 October 1987, p.472. 215 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/168-171. 109

stock on the farm. Several difficulties were apparent, chief among them being that when he took over the farm Pita Reihana Pene found that the development account was £90 in arrears whereas it was now in credit to the extent of £45. A family conference could come to no agreement over the house on 1D4, while difficulties emerged over a house on Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2C, then occupied by Hone Tautahi Pita and his wife Ngaroma (Erueti Reihana Pene’s widow): according to Pita Reihana Pene, the house on 2C formed part of his late brother’s estate.

The Court found that all parties had agreed that all matters affecting the Reihana Pene family in respect of the lands of the family should be settled exclusively by the Reihana Pene family, that is, without any participation by Ngaroma given that she had re-married. It found that the house on Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2C was a separate matter. It also decided that Pita Reihana Pene was ‘entitled to special consideration because he not only paid off the existing Development Loan debt but built up a cash credit of £45 4 9. He has managed the place well and effected improvements.’ The Court found that Erueti Reihana Pene was also entitled to ‘compensation for his service,’ but in personalty and not out of the land that was 1D4: thus each of the five members of the family filling 1D4 ‘equally as to consolidation’ was entitled to ⅕ of the capital value. The Court went on to indicate that that ‘the family should follow this up and arrange for an allocation of all family interests so that each of the five members shall get a farm holding.’216

The matter was back before the Court on 2 November 1940: a further family conference had agreed that whole of the £45 credit should go to Erueti Reihana Pita’s son (Pita Erueti Reihana Pene), that all of the stock should go to Pita Reihana Pene solely, and that the latter should occupy Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4 until consolidation finalised the locations for the members of the Reihana Pene family. Those awards were ‘to be the full compensation to Erueti and Pita for their services in respect of this farm.’ 217 The immediate outcome was that the land and its

216 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/190-191. 217 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/203. 110

improvements would be held by all five members of the family in equal shares. The Court approved of the settlement thus reached as both sensible and equitable.’218

The Court thus decided, first, that Pita Reihana Pene should be the nominated occupier of 1D4 temporarily, until such time as consolidation proceedings settled all the locations for the Reihana Pene family. The Court stated that:

This question will be finalised by January 1941, or by February at latest. The probability is that Pita will locate wholly into 1D4, thus settling the question of nomination. However, the different members of the family vacating will be entitled to require Pita to fill the capital value of 1D4 with his own share values, or take 1D4 subject to charges for their shares of 1D4 values.219

Second, the Court decided that Pita Reihana Pene should receive all the stock free of charge in recognition of his having cleared the development loan debt and having built a cash credit; third, that Pita Erueti Reihana, the sole successor to his father, should have that cash credit in recognition of his father’s services less a charge of £15 (see footnote 211); fourth, that Ramaroa C should be released from the development loan as the Reihana family was vacating its shares under consolidation; and, finally, that the rights of parties to the house on Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2C were a separate matter. The Court directed that all matters should be finalised as soon as possible so as to leave Pita Reihana Pene in undisturbed use of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4 and the home on it. It noted that it would re-open the matter of the trusteeship involving Erueti’s son and would make a final recommendation over the nominated occupier for 1D4 should Pita Reihana Pene not become the sole owner.220

In October 1942, the Court agreed with the Native Department’s nomination of Pita Reihana Pene as the nominated occupier of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4. It noted that there had been no change since its decisions of 2 November 1940, while

218 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/204. Out of the sum of £45 4 9, the sum of £15 was deducted to meet the cost of a boat borrowed but lost by Erueti Reihana Pita. See Minute Book 20/ 205-206. 219 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/206. 220 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/206-207. 111

‘consolidation will be further advanced by sitting to be held this summer.’221 Pita Reihana Pene’s appointment was to be reviewed after the completion of the consolidation arrangements involving the Reihana Pene family. 222 In 1954, the Department of Maori Affairs encouraged Pita Pene to buy out his co-owners, indicating that it would assist him to finance such purchases. 223 The subsequent history of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4 is not clear, although in 1992 it was partitioned into 1D4A of 3.1155 hectares (and presently has six owners) and 1D4B of 9.073 hectares (with seven owners): they remain Maori freehold land.

3.5.3 Mohi Hare and Tamihana Mohi Rewiti (Thompson Davis)

Mohi Hare was the nominated occupier of Otara 4 and 5. On his death, the Native Land Court, during 1946, considered the nomination of another occupier. Tamihana Mohi Rewiti, a returned soldier doing ‘certain work’ pending his appointment as a unit, had consolidated into the blocks. There were no stock on the property and the development account was in deficit to the extent of £20. The property, when developed, was evidently capable of carrying 30 cows. Tamihana was willing to take over once the account had been ‘straightened.’224 In 1953 the Board of Maori Affairs approved the purchase of Naiti Opai Matenga’s interest in Otara 5 for £119, while it also approved a grant of £350 for the purchase of Katerina Horima Rewha’s one-half shares in Otara 4B. The alienations were approved by the Maori Land Court.225 The Department of Maori Affairs continued its efforts to buy out the remaining owners and to consolidate ownership in Davis.

In 1960, Whangarei’s District Officer recorded that two of his field supervisors were of the view that James Matenga should acquire Otara 5 from Davis, and that the latter should acquire George Thompson’s land which, together with Otara 4A and 4B, would allow him to replace his dilapidated house (an old mill house that had apparently been shifted seven times and was beyond repair) and to continue farming.

221 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 21/289-290. 222 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 21/289-290. 223 District Officer, Whangarei to Pita Reihana Pene 22 October 1954, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/551/f 18/D/2 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.29-43. 224 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 22/310. 225 District Officer, Whangarei to T.M. Rewiti, Whangaruru North 28 October 1953, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/551/f 18/D/2 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.29-43. 112

Thompson, it was recorded, objected to leasing his land and, given the debt of £300 on his property, appeared disinclined to advance its case. Further, Assistant District Officer noted that he was keen ‘to cash in on the beach sections’ for which six acres were evidently suitable.226

In 1968 Otara 4 was partitioned into 4A1 of 3.25 roods and awarded to the Crown; 4A2 of 3ac 3r 15 and awarded to Riwai Hukaatai solely; and 4A3 of 21 acres and awarded to Rewiti solely. By 1962 Rewiti had cleared the development debt. Otara 4A, 4B, and 5 were released from Part XXVI of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 in 1971.227

3.5.4 George Tamihana

Rihi Tamihana (formerly Ngere) took Otara 2 (54 acres) under consolidation, the block being farmed by her husband Saul. By 1943, at which stage Rihi Tamihana had still to take over the block formally, the Department of Native Affairs levelled some criticism at the management of the property. Unwilling to let such criticism go unchallenged, she attributed the difficulties being experienced to, among other things, wandering stock and an inadequate water supply.228 The farm was, in fact, a small and uneconomic dairy unit, something the Department of Maori Affairs acknowledged.229 It was arranged that Rihi and Saul Tamihana’s son, George, should take over the loan account as from 30 December 1946: at that time it was almost £308 in deficit. It was agreed that his parents would retain the house on the holding.230 To meet the deficit in the loan account, the Department of Native Affairs retained 40 percent of the cream cheque. Early in 1947 the Native Land Court recommended the appointment of George Tamihana as the nominated occupier.231

226 See Assistant District Officer, Whangarei, Note for file, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/551/f 18/D/2 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.29-43. 227 ‘Maori Land Development Notice,’ New Zealand Gazette 34, 11 June 1971, p.1037. 228 Rihi Tamihana, Whangaruru North to Registrar, Auckland 29 April 1943, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/552/a 18/D/4 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.44-56. 229 See, for example, ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/552/b 18/D/4 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.57-73. 230 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 23/159. 231 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 23/159-160. 113

At first George Tamihana made some progress, securing 2,671lbs of butterfat in 1947-1948, a very substantial increase on the 1,265lbs secured during the previous season. 232 He then appears to have struggled: butterfat production declined, and Tamihana, having sold the stock, left the property to work at Portland. Despite having decided that the property was too small to constitute an economic dairy unit, the Board of Maori Affairs, in 1956, approved a further grant of £220 to allow him to re- stock: that took the loan account to £655, with the clear danger that interest charges could easily absorb all the ‘surplus’ revenue. In 1957-1958 the farm produced 3,299lbs of butterfat, 1,575lbs in the following season and a mere 1,135lbs in 1959- 1960. In 1960, Tamihana again sold all the stock: since they had been purchased illegally, the Department of Maori Affairs was able to secure their return and Tamihana was permitted to retain them for his children to milk while he obtained a permanent position at the Moerewa Freezing Works.233 He again sold the stock and in 1961 was found to have breached section 58 of the Chattels Transfer Act 1924. He was ordered to pay restitution of £124 to the stock dealer to whom he had sold his stock, while the latter was to reimburse the Department of Maori Affairs.

In 1960, Whangarei’s District Officer recorded that the debt on the property stood at £300, but he also noted that it included an area of some six acres, ‘the most desirable privately owned land on the Peninsula for beach sections. It has a very high potential for this purpose.’234 Tamihana was fully aware of that potential, but sought to sell his shares in the Ngaiotonga Development Scheme, worth an estimated £70, in order to discharge the development debt on the property. Subsequently he filed for bankruptcy, but the Department advised him against taking that course of action.235 To discharge the debt, Tamihana was advised, in 1965, to accept a £1 per week assignment from his wages.236 The Department of Maori Affairs called upon his two co-owners (his sisters) to meet what it considered to be their share of the debt: they

232 ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/552/a 18/D/4 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.44-56. 233 District Officer, Whangarei, paper for Board of Maori Affairs, 19 August 1960, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/552/b 18/D/4 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.44-56. 234 ‘Note for file,’ in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/552/b 18/D/4 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.44-56. 235 Secretary, Maori Affairs to George Thompson, Whangaruru 6 November 1962, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/552/c 18/D/4 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.74-98. 236 District Officer, Whangarei to George Thomspon, Whangarei 25 February 1965, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/552/c 18/D/4 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.74-98. 114

declined, on the grounds that neither had received a penny of benefit from the farm. Otara 2 was partitioned in 1966, while in November of that year George Tamihana sold Otara 2D to J.W. and M. Hughes for £1,500. He discharged his debt to the Department in that same month and the block was released from the provisions of Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 in December 1966.237

3.6 Land development and consolidation

It is clear from those brief accounts that the Native Land Court and the Department of Native Affairs exercised very considerable control over the efforts and affairs of its ‘units.’ The accounts presented above also indicate that while the large-scale consolidation schemes may have been abandoned, efforts to ‘reform’ Maori land ownership continued in close association with development. In particular, when dealing with nominations for occupiers, the Court and the Department employed the opportunity to encourage exchanges with the objective of consolidating families or individuals into particular blocks, and then encouraging or at least certainly facilitating the purchase of co-owners’ shares. Indeed, in the case of land under development, section 17(d) of the Native Land Amendment Act 1936 empowered the Board of Native Affairs to advance monies to any occupier or lessee of land under development for any purpose that the Board might approve. Section 17(d) was subsequently described by the Under Secretary of Maori Affairs ‘the best method of consolidation of title and certainly a cheap method compared to our expensive other ways.’ He went on to suggest that it was also better than the Crown acquiring interests, noting that owners ‘will sell to a relative but not to the Crown even though the ultimate intention may be to transfer from the Crown to the occupier when he has been proved worthy.’238 The accounts presented above suggest that his assessment was well founded.

237 ‘Bay of Islands Development Scheme Amending Notice 1966, No.12,’ New Zealand Gazette 82, 21 December 1966, p.2251. 238 Secretary, Maori Affairs to Assistant Secretary, Maori Affairs 15 May 1954, ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074 1315a 60/1 Part 5, in Hearn, ‘Land titles,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.3- 100. 115

3.7 The roading saga

The lack of roads traversing the Whangaruru district proved to be a major handicap for those ‘units’ endeavouring to establish and sustain their farming operations.239 The provisional topographical series map Whangaruru, published in 1942 shows the district bypassed by Oakura Road and otherwise devoid of formed roads. Map 3.2. shows land tenure about 1954.240 This section outlines the background to and the first stages of what would prove to be a vexed and protracted saga involving the construction of roads to meet the needs of the unit farmers on the Otara block, and, subsequently, to open the district to those seeking beach-side sections and recreation areas.

By 1940, practically the entire Whangaruru Peninsula, with the exception of some 653 acres at the southern end, remained in Maori ownership. An area of about 3,000 acres of ‘second class land’ carried a population of 76 souls, together with 170 milking cows producing about 25,000lbs of butterfat per season. According to a report prepared by the Public Works and Native Departments in April of that year, if the full benefit of the land consolidation and development scheme then underway were to be realised road access was essential. The report noted that that scheme (presumably the Bay of Islands Development Scheme: Series D) envisaged an increase in the number of ‘self-supporting’ farms to 25, and herd increases of up to 600 dairy cows: an expected increase in butterfat yield per cow from the existing 150 to 250lbs would see total butterfat production rise to 150,000lbs per annum.

239 For a helpful account of the Te Rawhiti-Tutaematai road, see Peter McBurney, ‘Northland: public works & other takings: c.1871-1993,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2007, especially pp.131-147. 240 ANZ Wellington AAFV 7397 W3884/2 N16. 116

Map 3.2: Land tenure, Whangaruru Survey District, c.1954

(Source: ANZ Auckland BAAZ 4119/F5 68)

117

Much of the initial pressure for the road appears to have originated with Acheson. Having engaged in complex negotiations to effect a consolidation of Maori land ownership, Acheson was keen to ensure that Maori farmers secured development assistance: the road would ensure that the latter reaped the full benefits of consolidation and financing. What was proposed was the construction of the first 4.5 miles of a road traversing the Peninsula: the cost of formation and metalling was estimated at £8,086.241 On 16 April 1940 at Whangaruru, Judge Acheson discussed the ‘Ngaiotonga-Tuparehuia road line’ to connect the Whangaruru Peninsula to the recently formed Ngaiotonga-Parekura Bay road: those present included Ngahuia Waitai Pita, Waitai Rata, Morehu Kaupeka, Hone Pita, Waipu Pita, Pita Reihana, Hone Piripi and a representative of the Naiti Noa family. All approved the proposed route.242 Two days, later, on 18 April 1940 at Whangaruru South, William Cooper reported on the inspection conducted by the Department of Public Works and a subsequent inspection by Whangarei County Council’s engineer together with ‘representatives of the blocks concerned.’ Cooper informed the Court that ‘a good deal of settlement’ had taken place at Tuparehuia (or Whangaruru North), that the proposed road would ‘open a lot of country,’ that ‘a number of new Maori settlers desire to go into occupation and establish homes,’ and that the road would allow the merger of the Ngaiotonga and Tuparehuia Schools. The merged school, he noted, would have a higher grading. Acheson announced that the ‘Court knows of no more helpful road in the North than this one will be when completed.’ The application for a road-line order was granted, that is, over Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4A3, 4G, and 4F, the new road to connect the Tutaematai-Parekura Bay road with the surveyed road- line that ran along the ‘Tuparehuia Peninsula.’243

The Department of Public Works made it clear that it expected the Native Department to meet 50 percent of the projected cost. 244 The Department of Native Affairs declined, acknowledging that it was assisting several ‘units’ but that neither the extent of its interest nor the stage of development reached was sufficient to justify any

241 Assistant Roading Engineer, Okaihau to District Engineer, Whangarei 17 April 1940, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 242 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 19/52. 243 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/109-112. 244 District Engineer, Whangarei to Registrar, Auckland 20 April 1940, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 118 contribution. Interestingly, it did not note that proposals for a large-scale development scheme for the district had been under consideration for some time – evidently in connection with the settlement of returned service personnel – but that action in the immediate future was unlikely.245 During November 1940 the Court again inspected the proposed Ngaiotonga-Tuparehuia road, and considered an application by Ngahuia Waitai Pita for a road-line over Otara 2. That latter application was dismissed pending action on Waetford’s proposal for a road to traverse the Peninsula as far as Cooper’s property.246 In February 1941, the Department of Public Works proposed that Native Affairs meet half the cost, that is, £1,442, of a 1.5 mile stretch from the Tutaematai- Rawhiti Road. In support, it noted that development was proceeding only slowly between that road and Bland Bay, Maori farmers being hampered by lack of road access.247 In May 1941, the Minister of Public Works made it clear to the Minister of Native Affairs that no funds were available for any road works, nor even staff to carry out the necessary survey work.248

Efforts were made to keep the proposed roading project alive: construction would allow the easier transport of butterfat out of and the importation of badly needed fertiliser into the district, encourage the seven families which had moved to ‘the mainland’ to return, allow the merger of the Ngaiotonga and Whangaruru North Schools, and allow the settlement of returned Maori servicemen on land reportedly described by the chairman of the Rehabilitation Committee’s Land Purchase Board as ‘very suitable’ for the purpose. Towards the end of June 1941, Alfred Cooper, the owner of the holding at the southern end of Whangaruru Peninsula took the matter of up with Charles Boswell (MP Bay of Islands). 249 He recorded that Acheson was anxious to see the road formed and metalled so as to open up a large area of Native land ‘eminently suited for closer settlement,’ while he was anxious to further develop

245 Registrar, Auckland to District Engineer, Whangarei 2 May 1940, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 246 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20/217, 262-264, and 237-238. 247 District Engineer, Whangarei to Registrar, Auckland 21 May 1940; Assistant Under Secretary, Public Works to Under Secretary, Native Department 20 February 1941; Registrar, Auckland to Under Secretary, Native Department 28 March 1941, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 248 Minister, Public Works to Minister, Native Affairs 20 May 1941, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 249 C.W. Boswell was the MP (Labour) from 1938 to 1943. See Neil Atkinson, ‘Boswell, Charles Wallace,’ Dictionary of New Zealand biography. Te Ara – the encyclopaedia of New Zealand, updated 5 June 2013. 119

the land he had farmed for some 20 years. 250 Maori pressed Paraire Paikea (MP Northern Maori), while in December 1943 the Native Land Court approved a proposal for the grant of two sums of £150 and £250 respectively out of the ‘Punaruku 2 Timber Royalties’ to the Department of Public Works in the hope of expediting construction.251

In June 1946, Auckland’s Registrar raised with the Native Department’s Under Secretary the construction of the proposed Ngaiotonga-Tuparehuia (otherwise the Ngaiotonga-Whangaruru road). He noted that in 1945 the Department of Public Works completed an engineering survey of the proposed road-line (the cost being met by the Tokerau Maori Land Board), indicated that a land survey in preparation for legislation would be conducted over the summer months of 1946-1947 (using T.T. Ropiha’s survey conducted in 1937 at the direction of the Native Land Court), and pressed to have provision for construction in the estimates prepared by the Department of Public Works.252 He noted that:

In this locality, in addition to providing access to a number of already occupied Native properties (both Unit and Non-Unit) and to one European property of considerable size, this projected road is now becoming the more urgent as holdings being put forward for Rehabilitation assistance are also situated there and need the provision of the road access. There are two under consideration at present, holdings already defined by the Court for the purpose.253 In October 1946 the Native Land Court made a final order covering the entire length of the Ngaiotonga-Tuparehuia road.254 That order involved a total of 45.5 acres and affected eight subdivisions of Whangaroa Ngaiotonga, and ten of Whangaruru- Whakaturia (Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D1, 1D3, 1D4, 1D5, 1D6, 2A, 2B1, 2B2, 2B3,

250 Cooper, Auckland to Charles Boswell, Kawakawa 27 June 1941, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 251 Registrar, Auckland to Under Secretary, Native Department 13 December 1943, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. For Paikea, see Angela Ballara, ‘Paikea, Paraire Karaka,’ Dictionary of New Zealand biography – Te Ara, the encyclopaedia of New Zealand, updated 17 December 2013. 252 T.T. Ropiha was Secretary, Maori Affairs from 1948 to1957. See Graham Butterworth, ‘Ropiha, Tipi Tainui,’ Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara – the encyclopaedia of New Zealand, updated 28 January 2014. 253 Registrar, Auckland to Under Secretary, Native Department 28 June 1946, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. 254 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 19/52, and 20/109, 262, and 286. 120

and 2B4), while branch roads affected a number of the subdivisions of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D and 2.255 The owners affected agreed not to seek compensation since they would benefit from the road. In November 1946 discussions were held with the owners of Otara 3A, 3B, 4 and 5 (Thompson Davis) and 1 (Opai Matenga Estate): the route previously approved by Judge Acheson was discarded on the grounds of cost and an alternative proposed. 256 Certain difficulties also arose over fencing and compensation.257 It was May 1952 before the Otara-Kirikiri road (a total of just over 14 acres) road-line was approved.258 The Ngaitonga-Tuparehuia road thus ran from Rawhiti Road near the Ngaiotonga School to the eastern boundary of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D10 (described as the ‘meeting house reserve’), while the Otara-Kirikiri road was an extension to provide access to Cooper’s property with a branch to service the Otara block subdivisions.259

The two roads, according to Auckland’s Registrar, would service some 50 Maori- owned blocks with an aggregate area 3,996 acres and a total government capital valuation (1940) of £16,120. Three units on Whangaruru-Whakaturia – namely, Haehae Taniora (1C2), Pita Reihana Pene (1D4), and Hoani Tatauhi Pita (Parts 2A and 3) – and three on Otara – namely, Zipporah Taka (1), Rihi Tamihana (2), and Tamihana Mohi Reweti (Thompson Moses Davis) (4 and 5) – would benefit in particular – as would three other units on Whangaroa Ngaiotonga and one on Kirikiri Pawhaoa. Noting that Tamihana Mohi Reweti was a returned soldier being assisted under the development scheme, the Registrar went on to add that ‘In regard to Rehabilitation generally, this roading scheme to be provided on the peninsula as a whole should present opportunities for establishing Maori servicemen on lands which

255 See Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 23/62-63 and 83-85. 256 Consolidation Officer to Deputy Registrar, Auckland 13 November 1946, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 257 In 1952, Watson Pita lodged a claim for £300 for land it appeared would be taken from Kirikiri Pawhaoa B2. See Assistant District Officer, Auckland to Watson Pita, Whangaruru 26 March 1953, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 258 For the Otara-Kirikiri road-line, see Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 24/197 and 26/218. Simpson paid £80 as compensation to the Maori Land Court for distribution to those affected. 259 See Registrar, Auckland to District Engineer, Whangarei 19 February 1947, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. For a useful summary, see Consolidation Officer to Deputy Registrar, Auckland 10 February 1947, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 121

would previously have been considered impracticable for this purpose.’260 Of some concern to him were the variable estimates of cost: in April 1940 the Department of Public Works had given a figure of £8,086 (for 4.5 miles), but in November 1946 it gave two estimates, one of £19,600 (for 5 miles and 67 chains) and £21,800 (for 6 miles and 72 chains). The unit cost thus ranged from £22.5 per chain to £42 per chain to £39.5 per chain.261 The Department of Works’ Resident Engineer in Whangarei noted that ‘As the land traversed by the road is purely Native, no contribution toward the cost can be expected from the Whangarei County Council,’ and added that as the road ‘was allied to a Native rehabilitation scheme’ and served several established dairy holdings, the Native Department should finance construction.262

There the matter appears to have rested until 1952 when the Department of Native Affairs sought an estimate of the costs of constructing the Ngaiotonga-Tuparehuia road, in the first instance as far as the boundary of the Whangaroa Ngaiotonga 4D. The Whangarei County Council indicated that it was prepared to maintain the road but only to the extent of the rates received from the lands serviced. The cost of construction was estimated at £14,138 and that of maintenance at £45 per mile per annum, or about £100 per year for the two miles and two chains of road. The cost of extending the road from the far boundary of Whangaroa Ngaiotonga to Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D9A was £15,000. By 1955 no work had been undertaken on that proposed extension, partly at least, it appears, because the Maori Trustee had sections in the district available for leasing and was averse to seeing too many sections placed in the market at once. More cost estimates were prepared, this time of extending the road to give access to Simpson’s property located at the southern or lower end of the Whangaruru Peninsula: a total cost of £21,631 included £10,904 to service the Ngaiotonga development scheme, £4,175 to reach the Tuparehuia settlement, and £6,550 to reach Simpson’s property. That last figure was described as a ‘walk-over estimate only.’263

260 Registrar, Auckland to Under Secretary, Native Department 21 February 1947, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 261 Registrar, Auckland to Under Secretary, Native Department 21 February 1947, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 262 Resident Engineer, Whangarei to District Engineer, Auckland 18 February 1947, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. 263 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. 122

3.8 Conclusions

Chapter 3 thus dealt in part with the matter of the assistance made available to Maori land owners during what may be termed the ‘development unit’ phase of the Maori land development programme to turn their lands into productive farms. Clearly a number of owners in the Whangaruru district responded positively to the opportunity presented by Ngata’s Maori land development programme, setting out to turn their lands to productive account despite the challenges offered by periodic drought, indifferent, limited, or unsuitable land, isolation, and tenuous transport links with the outside world. What the record also suggests is that the relationship between units and officials of the Department of Native Affairs charged with implementing and overseeing the land development programme was not one calculated to encourage on the part of the former initiative, confidence, and self-reliance. The manner in which assistance granted was secured over the lands and assets involved allowed those officials to make all key investment and management decisions, almost to the point of transforming units into rural labourers. One or two of the units involved did secure a measure of success, although the record suggests that they did so through strength of purpose and character as much as through the tutelage of the Department of Native Affairs. The firm controls exercised almost certainly did little to foster the transfer the knowledge and skills that all units required in order to become fully independent farmers.

Importantly, the unit holdings were small and the area in pasture modest, while small herds and low butterfat yields per milking cow meant low production levels. The butterfat produced by the Otara block units was at best a modest fraction of the average of almost 13,000 of butterfat secured annually secured by dairy farms of ‘the medium and better class’ in that part of Northland. 264 The ability of the units to accumulate, to expand their operations, and, especially, to enhance the productivity of their land, labour, and stock, appears to have been seriously constrained. It seems unlikely that the ‘billy can’ farms involved were able to do little more than offer a bare subsistence. Only one of the unit farms appears to have survived for a lengthy

264 AJHR 1934, H30, p.61. The report of the Dairy Industry Commission of 1934 offers a wealth of statistical data dealing with the North Island dairy industry as it had developed by the mid 1930s. For a summary of some of the data relating to Northland, see Table 10.9 in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ p.747. 123

period until it, along with other subdivisions of Otara, was acquired by the Crown as public open space (see Chapter 7).

Difficulties of that character were not confined to the Whangaruru district but rather characterised Maori dairy farming in Northland as a whole as some of the district- level studies have demonstrated.265 In 1958, the geographer R.M. Frazer concluded, from his survey of Maori land and Maori population in the Mangonui, Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, and Hokianga Counties, that large numbers of Maori farmers were producing insufficient butterfat to provide a living. The many small farms and uneconomic farms, he concluded, were partly the result of inheritance practices and partly a legacy of the 1930s ‘when the aim of the Department of Maori Affairs was to provide work and at least a bare living for isolated communities.’266

In short, the self-perpetuating cycle of low productivity, low returns, under- capitalisation, and low net incomes that characterised a large proportion of Northland’s Maori dairy farms was apparent in the case of Whangaruru’s development ‘units.’ In an ironic twist, it seems at least possible that the very scheme intended to meet the economic impoverishment plainly evident among many Maori communities, including those of the Ngaiotonga and Whangaruru districts, by 1930, served rather to embed it.

It is important not to overlook the fact that the ‘blanket’ proclamation issued in 1930 over a large number of blocks that included Otara, Oteaka, and Whangaruru- Whakaturia, remained in force for 33 years. It seems reasonable to infer from the Crown’s decision to include blocks in their entirety rather than specified subdivisions that it intended to finance the development of the land remaining in Maori ownership

265 Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ pp.749-751, especially Table 10.10 on p.751 and Table 10.11 on p.752. 266 R.M. Frazer, ‘Maori land and Maori population in the Far North,’ New Zealand geographer 24, 1, April 1958, p.27. Two investigations conducted in 1960 essentially confimed Frazer’s findings, namely, that into the drift of Maori farmers from Northland (ANZ Wellington ADRK 17391 T1/W2591/14 40/116/1 Part 3); and that into single unit dairy farm production levels. For the latter, see Assistant Chief Field Supervisor to Acting Secretary, Maori Affairs 16 December 1960, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/415b 15/1 Part 3, cited in Heather Bassett and Richard Kay, ‘Tai Tokerau Maori land development schemes 1930-1990,’ commissioned research project, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2006, pp.151-152. See also Town and County Planning Branch, Ministry of Works and Development, National Resources Survey Part III: Northland Region, Wellington: Government Printer, 1964, pp.70 and 74. 124

on a large scale. That would seem (certainly in retrospect) to have been neither financially possible, prudent, nor practicable. The suspension, in this instance for a protracted period, of the rights of ownership in an economy based on the recognition, stability, and protection of private property rights, carried with it an obligation on the part of the Crown to secure the outcomes for which the proclamation had been issued. At least until 1952, the owners of just a small number of Otara and Whangaruru- Whakaturia subdivisions secured some benefit in the form of development assistance.

For the owners of the remaining subdivisions, in particular those of Whangaruru- Whakaturia, the imposition and maintenance of a blanket proclamation meant that they were unable to exercise the rights that ownership bestowed, that is, beyond that of partitioning. The opportunity costs involved are not known and would likely in any case prove difficult to establish. The evidence does not disclose whether the Crown exercised the coercive powers that proclamation conferred upon it, but the absence of such evidence cannot be taken as confirmation that it did not. Nor was any evidence located that would suggest that owners were impeded, with respect to either development or alienation, by that long-running proclamation, but, again, its absence cannot be held as evidence that they were not. On the other hand, that the owners of the Whangaruru-Whakaturia subdivisions did agree, in 1952, to the establishment of the Ngaiotonga development scheme despite the far-reaching pre-conditions relating to amalgamation, reconfigured subdivision, and allocation of land once developed, suggests a clear desire to turn their resources to productive account. The establishment of the scheme at least offered the possibility that the proclamation issued in 1930 might finally be productive of some material benefit. Whether the Ngaiotonga development scheme would fulfil the promises held out by the Crown or meet owners’ expectations are the central questions to which the next two chapters turn.

125

Chapter 4: The Ngaiotonga development scheme: origins and ownership, 1914 to 1980

Upon the resumption of the Maori land development programme during the 1950s, attention turned to the establishment in Northland of larger-scale development schemes in which development assistance and land title reform would proceed contemporaneously and indeed were constituents of a single process. Development no longer meant the physical conversion of unused or under-utilised land into productive farmland, but reconfiguration of the structure of both Maori land ownership and Maori land holdings. Chapter 4 thus explores the origins of the Ngaiotonga development scheme, in particular the promises held out to owners, and in particular the matter of ownership. Amalgamation of titles of the blocks involved (set down as one of the preconditions for State assistance), the compulsory conversion of interests deemed to be ‘uneconomic,’ and live buying of shares were the major policy instruments that the Crown employed. The immediate outcome of their application was a profound change in the structure of the ownership of the lands involved. But that change had wider ramifications that included out-migration, a sizeable measure of welfare dependency, and housing difficulties. One particular outcome remains to this day, namely, the possession by the Maori Trustee of a majority (56 percent) shareholding in the Whangaroa Ngaiotonga Trust.

4.1 Introduction

The close association between land ownership reform and land development continued after 1945. As noted above, the large-scale consolidation schemes were largely abandoned in favour of ‘family’ consolidation, a process that various provisions of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, notably those relating to exchanges of interests, the transfer of interests through vesting orders, conversion, and live buying, were intended to expedite and facilitate. But while the pre-war comprehensive consolidation schemes were closed, several new schemes were implemented, primarily by employing the provisions of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 relating to the amalgamation of titles. Among the first of these was the amalgamation of a number of subdivisions of Whangaroa Ngaiotonga, Whangaruru-Whakaturia, and Kairaurau. That merger of titles was undertaken as a precondition for the establishment of the

126

Ngaiotonga development scheme, but proved also to constitute a step towards and indeed the basis for a more far-reaching change, namely, the excision of owners and a profound change in the structure of ownership of the lands involved. Chapters 4 and 5 thus deal with the Ngaiotonga development scheme: Chapter 4 will outline the origins of the scheme and examine the major changes that took place in the structure of ownership, while Chapter 5 will describe and assess the scheme’s performance and its return to full Maori ownership.

4.2 Otara and Whangaruru-Whakaturia: investment and development, 1914 to 1951

Establishing and measuring the course of economic development within small communities is difficult. One of the few descriptions offered of Whangaruru was in Erik Schwimmer’s 1965 paper in which he noted that by 1960 the main source of income was from pensions, wage labour outside the district and social security. The Department of Maori Affairs, he recorded, had lent individual settlers money for dairying, but most of them ‘did poorly.’ 267 That is generally consistent with the evidence presented in Chapter 3. The valuation rolls remain one of the few sources that may offer a more comprehensive view.

It is possible, using the valuation rolls prepared for the Otanga riding of Whangarei County, to construct valuation profiles based on the value of improvements, and that has been done for Otara and Whangaruru-Whakaturia. While the values are in current rather than deflated pounds, they offer, nevertheless, a view of the scale, timing, and character of investment that owners were able or disposed to make in their lands. In the case of Otara, Graph 4.1 suggests that owners were endeavouring throughout the period to clear, fence, and establish pastures, although that effort appears to have faltered during the economically difficult 1920s. Nevertheless, the value of improvements per acre rose from £0.5 in 1914 to £2.39 by 1930. Between 1930 and 1951, the total value of improvements rose appreciably, while the value of improvements per acre increased from £2.39 in 1930 to £4.56 in 1940 and to £5.94 in 1951. Graph 4.1 also makes it clear that a significant proportion of that increase in the

267 Erik Schwimmer, ‘The cognitive aspect of culture change,’ Journal of the Polynesian Society 74, 2, 1965, pp.149-181. 127 total value of improvements was represented by buildings. By 1951 almost 77 percent of the improvements by value were located on Otara 1, 2, and 4B. Although care needs to be taken over the data, the graph suggests that, the difficulties of access notwithstanding, Maori land owners and nominated occupiers were responsive to the opportunities presented by the Maori land development programme initiated in 1929.

2500

2000

1500

1921 1930 Pounds 1000 1940 1951

500

0 Buildings Fencing Clearings Grass/Pastures Total Source: ANZ Auckland BAAW 14675 A149 1/21

Graph 4.2: Value of improvements, Otara block, 1921 to 1951

Graph 4.2 summarises, again for the Otara block, movements in capital value, unimproved value, and value of improvements. The value of improvements as a proportion of the capital value rose steadily throughout the period from 1914 to 1951, from 25.2 percent in 1914, to 51.7 percent in 1930 and to 80.7 percent in 1951.

128

3000

2500

2000

1500 Capital value

Pounds Unimproved value

1000 Value of improvements

500

0 1921 1930 1940 1951 Source: ANZ Auckland BAAW 14675 A149 1/21

Graph 4.2: Capital and unimproved values, and the value of improvements, Otara, 1921 to 1951

With respect to Whangaruru-Whakaturia, Graph 4.3 presents a contrast to Otara. It suggests a very low rate of investment in improvements throughout the period from 1921 to 1951, and indeed suggests stagnation until about 1930 followed by a modest lift during the 1930s but followed by a decline during the 1940s. Given that the key to increasing production lay in investment in pastures, fences, land drainage, and buildings, Graph 4.3 suggests that the owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia were struggling to turn their lands to productive account. Thus the value of improvements per acre declined slightly from £1.75 in 1921 to £1.68 in 1930, rose appreciably to £2.57 in 1940, only to contract again to £2.18 in 1951. The value of improvements per acre was significantly lower than in the case of Otara. Graph 4.4 summarises movements in capital and unimproved values, and in the value of improvements from 1921 to 1951 and confirms an impression of stagnation in the rate and level of investment per acre. It was within that general context that the decision was taken to establish the Ngaiotonga development scheme.

129

3500

3000

2500

2000 1921 1930 Pounds 1500 1940 1951 1000

500

0 Buildings Fences Clearings Grass/pasture Drainage Total Source: ANZ Auckland BAAW 14675 A149

Graph 4.3: Value of improvements, Whangaruru-Whakaturia block, 1921 to 1951

6000

5000

4000

3000 Capital value

Pounds Unimproved value Value of improvements 2000

1000

0 1921 1930 1940 1951 Source: ANZ Auckland BAAW 14675 A149

Graph 4.4: Capital and unimproved values, and values of improvements, Whangaruru- Whakaturia, 1921 to 1951

130

4.3 New approaches to land reform and land development

The pace of Maori land development slowed abruptly during World War II, but thereafter quickened as part of a wider effort to promote the country’s economic development, and to answer the familiar charges that potentially productive Maori land lay idle. It also reflected a growing realisation that without active efforts to promote the development and commercial utilisation of such lands as Maori retained, the movement of young Maori in particular to the nation’s urban centres, already apparent during the war years, would rapidly gather pace. In July 1949 Cabinet thus approved a plan to develop 200,000 acres of Maori land, including 30,000 acres in the Tokerau Maori Land District, and to create some 1,000 ‘economic and complete units’ over a period of ten years.268

While seeking to revive the Maori land development programme, the Government was also keen to recast the basis on which schemes would proceed. Practically from the outset, the Maori land development scheme attracted considerable criticism, from (among others) the Audit Department, the National Expenditure Commission of 1932, and, especially, the Commission on Native Affairs of 1934. Charges of excessive and misdirected expenditure, mismanagement, and inadequate ministerial control, resulted in the passage of two important Acts.269 The Board of Native Affairs Act 1934-1935 established a board charged with control of the land development programme; while the Native Land Amendment Act 1936 recast the development provisions of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1929 and the Native Land Act 1931. In particular, it made explicit the terms and conditions upon which the State was prepared to accept Maori land for development and the basis upon which settlement would take place.

In October 1949, the Board of Maori Affairs decided that, before any scheme was initiated, ‘there should be a clear understanding as to the conditions upon which the land shall be accepted for development.’ 270 The Board was keen to avoid the

268 Under Secretary, Maori Affairs to Minister, Maori Affairs 28 July 1949, ANZ Wellington MA 63/18, Part 1. Cited in Hearn, ‘Land titles,’ p.346. 269 See Hearn, ‘Land titles,’ Chapter 4. 270 Under the Board of Native Affairs Act 1934, the members of the Board included the Native Minister, the Under-Secretary of the Native Department, Financial Adviser to the Government, Under- 131

difficulties that had arisen in respect of a good many of the schemes established during the 1930s, in particular those related to the subdivision of the lands concerned into economic holdings and security of tenure for nominated occupiers. ‘Stepping’ over the potential difficulties posed by the inclusion of multiple and multiply-owned parcels of land was no longer deemed prudent. Those conditions formulated by the Board thus included:

• Before any land was brought into a development scheme, ‘legally convened meetings of owners’ had to be called ‘at which all the basic principles ... are to be explained and the owners’ agreement by proper resolution to be obtained;’ • The owners’ equity in the land was to be reserved to them; • No rent would be paid to owners of unimproved and unoccupied land during the period of development where those lands had no rental value and could not have been developed without state assistance; • Rent would be paid to owners during development where the lands had a rental value and the land could be developed without loss; • Rents at not less than five percent of the owners’ equity was to be paid to owners from the date on which a lessee was appointed; • Occupiers were to be granted leases of not less than 42 years and paid compensation for improvements at the termination of the lease; • The costs of development and settlement would be charged against the land after expenditure in excess of the productive value of the land had been written off; and • Where existing partition boundaries did not conform to standard requirements for economic farming, owners would be asked to agree to the cancellation of such boundaries by the Maori Land Court or other arrangements to be made so as to preserve to the owners their values in the original subdivision. 271

Secretary of Lands, Valuer-General, Director-General of Agriculture, and three others appointed by the Governor-General in Council. 271 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA W249/302 60/1 Part 4, in Hearn ‘Land titles,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 15, pp.126-163. 132

One matter of considerable concern to Treasury was the recovery of development costs and the scale of debt write-offs.272 In 1953 the Government decided that costs would be recovered by operating development schemes as stations (that is, entire or un-subdivided properties) and that such recovery would be secured before subdivision and settlement. One implication at least was clear, namely, that the prospect of the control remaining with the Crown for an indefinite period would deter owners from agreeing to new development proposals. As a result the Board of Maori Affairs decided that any new development proposal must include details of the cost of development to the stage at which the property concerned could be run as a station; the period for which it would be necessary to run such property as a station in order to recover development costs, and the cost of subdivision and settlement. 273

4.4 The origins of the Ngaiotonga development scheme

In November 1940, at Ngaiotonga, Acheson dealt with a number of matters that included a new road to ‘Tuparehuia Peninsula or Whangaruru North’ together with the ‘Inclusion of all blocks in a big development scheme so as to facilitate provision of roads, fencing, tractor work, wharf, unemployment contracts, housing. All the representatives of blocks agreed to consent to development ...’ Other matters covered included the provision of base farms (all present apparently agreeing to their establishment, and a marae site and meeting house at Ngaiotonga).274

4.4.1 Two reports

In fact it was June 1950 before a proposal for a development scheme at Ngaiotonga re-surfaced. At least two reports were prepared, the first in June 1950 and the second a year later, in June 1951. The first considered only nine subdivisions of Whangaroa Ngaiotonga 4 (a total of 1,255 acres) although they were believed to constitute only about one fifth of the area in the locality ‘suitable and available for large scale development ...’ The blocks nominated would form, it was predicted, ‘the first part of a complete programme of developing the whole of the Whangaruru Peninsula.’ It was

272 Secretary, Treasury to Under Secretary, Maori Affairs 29 October 1951, in ANZ, Wellington ADRK 17591 T1/257 40/116/1 Part 1, in Hearn ‘Land titles,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 15, pp.171-200. 273 Secretary, Maori Affairs to Acting Prime Minister 4 June 1953, in ANZ Wellington ADRK 17591 T1/257 40/116/1 Part 1, in Hearn ‘Land titles,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 15, pp.171-200. 274 Native Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 20A/70. 133

suggested that some ten ‘units’ could be settled on ‘economic holdings.’ It was also recorded that the block had been ‘favourably reported on’ by the chairman of the Land Purchasing Board for the Rehabilitation Committee and that he had pronounced it as ‘most suitable for the settling of Maori Exservicemen.’ The people of Whangaruru had evidently agreed to gift the land for that purpose. Finally, the report noted that in the area selected ‘there should be very little difficulty with the title as the area chosen is subdivided into solely owned or family blocks.’275 Acheson’s exchange orders had evidently served to consolidate ownership.

The second report nominated 20 blocks, being Kairaurau and subdivisions of both Whangaroa Ngaiotonga and Whangaruru-Whakaturia, a total of just over 3,116 acres. The report suggested that some 75 percent of that area was cultivable by machinery, and that the soil was of good quality. The climate did not rate a mention. On the other hand, it was recognised that the cost of development would be high and that ‘it would be necessary to farm this land as a Scheme for a few years to enable the Department to recover some of the high development costs.’276

4.4.2 The owners meet, February 1952

A meeting of owners of 18 blocks with an aggregate area of just over 1,860 acres was held on 6 February 1952: among the blocks were Whangaruru-Whakaturia 3, nine subdivisions of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2, with a total area of 1,049 acres (56.4 percent of the proposed development scheme’s total area). The meeting was duly held in the Mokau Hall, some 60 to 70 owners attending. The notes of the meeting (signed by Whangarei’s Assistant District Officer) recorded that, after considerable discussion, it was moved by Pita Reihana Pene, seconded by Horace Waitai Pita and agreed (the sole dissenting voice being that of Waipu Pita) that the lands should be made subject to the provisions of Part 1 of the Maori Land Amendment Act 1936; that the lands should be farmed by the Department of Maori Affairs for ‘some years’ prior to settlement; nominated occupiers should be granted long leases with 75 percent compensation for improvements existing at the termination of a lease; that the

275 Copy of the report in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/a 18/14 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.93-111. 276 Report prepared by District Field Supervisor, June 1951, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/a 18/14 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.93-111. 134

owners’ equity of the lands involved must be preserved to them; and that rents would be payable once settlers had secured leases. The owners also agreed that five firewood reserves and a spring reserve should be established, and a site set aside for a church and hall on Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4G4. Interestingly, of the 60 to 70 owners recorded as present, only 24 signed the resolution after it had been carried.277 Why only about a third signed is not clear, nor did the record of the meeting record anything of the lengthy discussions among owners. It is not known, therefore, how they regarded the preconditions laid down by the Crown, in particular, whether they sought and were offered a detailed exposition of the terms set by the Crown, or whether they regarded them as coercive in intent or facilitative in nature. Nor is it known whether the reserves agreed to constituted the only requests that owners made. The fact that they sought such reserves, on the other hand, might suggest that they were less than fully confident that resources of key value to them would be preserved. All that can be said is that no evidence was located of any serious opposition to the proposal was recorded.

The meeting notes did not refer explicitly to the cancellation of existing partitions and the amalgamation of titles. Part 1 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1936 did not refer to cancellation or amalgamation, and indeed, sections 18(2) and 34 (for example) suggest that the Act did not contemplate such action. The paper presented to the Board of Maori Affairs and dated 9 June 1952 did not refer to the matter of amalgamation of titles. It noted that over past years some owners had, individually, endeavoured to farm portions of the land it was intended to include in the scheme but that all but one had failed. Such failures were attributed to the lack of access rather than to the quality of the land. ‘It is thought,’ the Board was advised, ‘that by developing this area as a scheme and by providing all weather access, successful settlement can be assured.’ Indeed, it was further advised that the soil was a ‘fertile clay resting on clay, papa, and sandstone ...’278

277 ‘Notes of a meeting held in the Mokau Hall on February 6th, 1952,’ in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/a 18/14 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.93-111. 278 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/a 18/14 Part 1. See also ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/c 61/19/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.346-364. 135

Importantly, the Board was advised that:

A full scale development programme is proposed but the subdivision scheme will not fit in with the present section boundaries and the proposed sections will in many cases include parts of adjoining sections. There should be no difficulties here as the owners were told that the whole area would be treated as one block and the land re- subdivided into economic farms. The proposed subdivision provides for 11 dairy farms and 2 sheep units.279

It seems reasonably clear that owners had not, at that stage at least, been asked to agree formally to the amalgamation of their various titles and the re-subdivision of the land.

4.4.3 A detailed proposal

Several months later, the Board of Maori Affairs considered a detailed proposal for the Ngaiotonga development scheme. Changes had taken place in the blocks proposed for inclusion: they were now set at a total of 25 with an aggregate area of just over 2,757 acres. Included were seven subdivisions of Whangaruru-Whakaturia totalling 767 acres (or 27.8 percent of the total area). The file did not disclose reasons for the changing constitution of the scheme. The 25 blocks had an aggregate government capital valuation of £5,085 as at 31 March 1951. The seven Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks had a total area of 767 acres and a government capital valuation of £1,085 of which improvements constituted just £300, largely on 2B1, 2B2, 2C, and 2D (£275). The Board was informed that that valuation had not been based on an inspection of the land. On the other hand, the Department’s District Field Supervisor estimated the current value at £5,325, including improvements of £2,330. In his estimation, none of the Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks carried any improvements at all. Rather, all of the improvements were confined to five Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga blocks (4C, 4D, 4F3, 4F7, and 4G4): 4C and 4F7 were ‘unit properties.’ They were taken into the scheme and the original owners ‘dislodged.’280

279 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Proposed Ngaiotonga Development Scheme,’ in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/a 18/14 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.93-111. 280 The improvements on 4C and 4F7 were taken over by the Ngaiotonga development scheme, and the value thereof charged to the scheme. After the sale of livestock, the balance of the debt outstanding on 136

Table 4.1 sets out some details: columns 3-5 offer the valuations prepared by the District Field Supervisor and carried the date of 31 March 1952, while the columns 6 to 8 offer the government valuations carrying the date of 31 March 1951. Some sharp contrasts are apparent, most notably that none of the seven blocks carried any improvements: perhaps it might be more accurate to say that the blocks appeared to carry no improvements deemed to be of any value to the proposed development scheme. The results of the government valuation do suggest that the owners had been able to effect only very modest improvements to their lands.

Table 4.1: The Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks proposed for inclusion in the Ngaitotonga development scheme (value in £s)

Blocks Area: UV Imprvmnts CV Govt UV Govt Govt acres Imprvmnts CV 2A 152 114 - 114 165 15 180 2B1 151 112 - 112 165 75 240 2B2 87 64 - 64 85 40 125 2B3 71 52 - 52 70 5 75 2B4 84 63 - 63 85 5 90 2C 120 90 - 90 140 100 240 2B 103 77 - 77 75 60 135 Totals 768 572 - 572 785 300 1085 Scheme 2,757 2,995 2,330 5,325 3,165 1,920 5,085 totals

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/a 18/14 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.93- 111)

The paper presented to the Board contained eight recommendations, among them, that the land should be subdivided and settled as soon as land development had been completed, and that ‘a small scheme of consolidation be initiated before settlement to bring the ownership into conformity with the new farming subdivisions.’ That gave way to a proposal to amalgamate all of the blocks involved into one parcel with one list of owners: the Maori Land Court, the Under Secretary of the Department was assured, was prepared to assist ‘but would like some assurance before meeting the the properties would remain in the units’ accounts and stand as a charge on the land. See ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/c 61/19/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.346-364. 137

people, that development will proceed thereafter, as a great deal of past title work and [survey] expenses to the people will be set aside ... ’281 That proposal was approved and in August 1953 was submitted to the Minister for approval. It is important to note that no evidence was located that would indicate that the scheme in its revised form was re-submitted to owners for their consideration and approval or otherwise. From the very outset, it seems, the Crown, through the Department and Board of Maori Affairs was intent upon exercising full control.

4.5 A ‘pocket consolidation:’ the Ngaiotonga consolidation scheme

It was noted above in Chapter 2 that one outcome of the 1949 conference on consolidation was a decision to focus on what had come to be termed ‘pocket consolidations.’ The Ngaiotonga development scheme was one such scheme.

Amalgamating the titles of the blocks that constituted the Ngaiotonga development scheme would prove to be the first step in a process that would alter profoundly the structure of ownership of the blocks involved. The second would involve the application conversion and live buying. Action was promptly taken under section 435 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953: section 435 empowered the Maori Land Court, where it was ‘satisfied that any continuous area of Maori freehold land comprising two or more areas could be more conveniently or economically worked or dealt with if it were held in common ownership under one title,’ to cancel the several titles and replace them with a single title. The order issue was required to set out ‘the relative interests of the several owners of the land, calculated by reference to the relative values of the interests to which they were entitled under the cancelled titles.’ At a stroke owners would be transformed into shareholders. Amalgamation of titles was intended to facilitate the subsequent subdivision of land, and to allow holdings to be squared with titles. It did not deal with ‘title congestion.’

It was in a letter dated 25 February 1953 that Whangarei’s Assistant District Officer recorded that at a meeting held on 23 February owners of the blocks involved agreed

281 Assistant District Officer to Under Secretary, Maori Affairs 31 October 1952, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1020/2487/a 18/14 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.93-111. 138 to the cancellation partitions. 282 That meeting appears to have taken place immediately in advance of the Maori Land Court hearing of the same day. When introducing the ‘Ngaiotonga consolidation scheme’ to the Court, Consolidation Officer Waetford described it as ‘somewhat of a new method to [sic] consolidation as the main objective is to combine quite a number of existing titled parcels into one large holding or title with one list of owners.’ The Court indicated that ‘it will be well to get the [perimeter?] of the scheme area up against a surveyed boundary all the way round it as far as reasonably possible. Hence certain small parcels at present unsurveyed which lie inside ... (although excluded from the general development scheme) should be included in the scheme of consolidation so that consolidation titles can also issue for those parcels.’ Amalgamation was intended to allow the Department of Maori Affairs, at the point of settlement of the development scheme, to partition the land ‘de novo on a new valuation as in a somewhat different way more suitable as holdings for farm settlement.’283

Table 4.2 sets out the proposed new titles and their constituent blocks. Ngaiotonga A of 2,719 acres was awarded in favour of all of the owners of constituent blocks, with relative shares based on the consolidation values to which they had previously agreed. Other blocks were re-named, among them, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2E and 2F: the former, as Ngaiotonga B, was awarded to seven owners holding 160 shares, while the occupier was named as Hori Hooro Tamihana of Whangaruru South. The block was subject to Crown charges comprising rates of £2 10s, and survey costs of £2 10s and had a consolidation value of £165.284 Ngaiotonga C had a consolidation value of £170 and was awarded to the occupier solely, Henare Hetaraka Piripi.285 It is worthwhile noting here also that Whangaroa Ngaiotonga 4F7 and 4C were unit properties: the improvements on both were purchased by the Ngaiotonga development scheme.286

282 Assistant District Officer, Whangarei to Field Supervisor 25 February 1953, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/a 18/14 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.93-111. 283 See Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 27/36. 284 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 27/188. 285 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 27/188. 286 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/b 18/14 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.112-124. 139

Waetford advised the Court that:

The outline above is sufficient in this compact scheme without group book entry as it largely adopts existing ownership in the smaller parcels, and in the larger block it is a combination of existing ownership on the lines of a large amalgamated partition. It is more a consolidation as to parcels rather than ownership. Shares in the larger amalgamated block to be based on consolidation values.287

Judge Ivor Prichard approved the consolidation scheme on 26 June 1953. In turn, it was approved by the Minister of Maori Affairs on 8 February 1954.288 Hence at the end of March 1954, Waetford informed the Court that all was ready for the issue of final orders for the new titles as set out in Table 4.2 above. A consolidated title order for Ngaiotonga A of just over 2,719 acres was issued in favour of all of the owners of the constituent blocks, with shares allocated on the basis of the consolidated net value in each case. The total consolidated value was £3,168 7 0, and thus the number of shares was set at 3,168.350. The seven Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks included in Ngaiotonga A aggregated just over 750 acres or almost 27.6 percent of the amalgamated block. The combined consolidation value of those seven blocks amounted to £1,094 and thus almost 34.5 percent of the total shares. Those arrangements were approved by Judge Prichard on 5 April 1954.289 It is worthwhile noting here that among the Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks included in the amalgamated title were a number in respect of which owners, working with Acheson and Waetford, had arranged exchanges. Through amalgamation the Crown stepped over arrangements in which a great deal of time, tact, and patient negotiation had been invested. Amalgamation thus represented a distinctly more radical and ultimately far- reaching approach to the reform of Maori land ownership than that represented by exchanges and vesting orders.

287 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 27/38. Section 161(1) of the Native Land Act 1931 empowered the Native Minister to apply to the Native Land Court for the preparation of a scheme of consolidation, while section 161(6) empowered the Native Minister to approve of a scheme in part or in whole. 288 ‘Portion of Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme Confirmed (Part Series D – Ngaiotonga Subseries),’ New Zealand Gazette 12, 18 February 1954, p.262. 289 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 27/188. 140

Table 4.2: The proposed new titles and their constituent blocks, Ngaitonga consolidation scheme

Proposed new Constituent blocks Net area: Net consolidation titles acres values: £ Ngaiotonga A Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4A1B 58 0 33.6 55 18 4 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4A2B 253 3 35.8 274 14 5 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4C 105 3 10.8 97 8 6 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4D 108 1 19.9 96 7 1 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4E 60 0 00 53 4 10 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4F3 119 3 20 174 19 2 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4F4 138 0 30 193 14 0 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4F5B 55 3 06 83 19 6 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4F6 28 2 23 40 11 4 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4F7 71 0 5 106 13 0 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4G1 31 1 16 34 9 0 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4G2 98 2 06 92 9 0 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4G3 110 10 13 105 8 0 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4G4C 137 2 04 126 19 7 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4H1 54 0 30 52 18 6 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4H2 83 1 0 71 16 0 Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4J 207 1 34.7 179 13 0 Kairaurau 1B 119 2 0 115 17 11 Kairaurau 2 122 0 0 117 6 3 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2A 151 1 09.4 169 10 0 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2B1 144 0 12.2 238 0 0 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2B2 84 2 19.7 121 10 0 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2B3 67 3 35.2 90 10 0 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2B4 80 3 32.4 113 10 0 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2C 118 2 28.6 220 0 0 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2D 102 3 11.7 141 0 0 Subtotal 2719 0 27 3168 7 0

Ngaiotonga B Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2E 65 2 17.4 Ngaiotonga C Whangaruru-Whakaturia 2F 81 3 35 Ngaiotonga D Kairaurau 1A 2 2 00 Ngaiotonga E Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4B 98 0 26.5

141

Proposed new Constituent blocks Net area: Net consolidation titles acres values: £ Ngaiotonga F Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4F5A 1 2 00 Ngaiotonga G Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4G4A 2 0 00 Ngaiotonga H Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4G4B 1 3 00 Ngaiotonga J Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4F1 1 2 00 Ngaiotonga K Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4A1A 1 3 00 Ngaiotonga L Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga 4A2A 4 3 32

(Source: Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 27/35-38)

A week later, on 12 April 1954, the Ngaiotonga consolidation scheme was back before the Maori Land Court, the main task being the apportionment of the Crown’s charges. Table 4.3 sets out the details of the original charges on the constituent blocks and the new charges. A good number of the Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga blocks carried a private (survey) lien that the Crown appears, about 1913, to have taken over from one Patrick. That did not apply to any of the Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks.

Map 4.1 is a reproduction of ML 13653. Labelled Scheme Plan of Pt Series D Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme, Ngaiotonga Sub-series, it was the basis upon which, in June 1954, the Ngaiotonga development scheme was gazetted.290 Small amendments followed so that the total area of Ngaiotonga A was increased to 2720.25 acres although still with 3,168.350 shares. In November 1956, following a successful application made by the owners to the Maori Land Court, the Board of Maori Affairs approved the partitioning of just over eight acres (Ngaiotonga A1) for the Ngatiwai Tribal Marae and Recreation Ground. 291 Ngaiotonga A1 was set apart as a Maori reservation and later vested in the Ngatiwai ki Whangaruru Whenua Topu Trust.292 The balance of the block, with 2,712 acres and an adjusted total of 3,152.154 shares, was designated Ngaiotonga A2 (Map 4.2). In 1961 the Board of Maori Affairs

290 ‘Declaring land to be subject to the Provisions of Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 – Ngaiotonga Development Scheme,’ New Zealand Gazette 36, 10 June 1954, p.990. 291 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 28/401-401. The block included the Soldiers’ Memorial Hall. As the land was under development, the partition was subject to the approval of the Board of Maori Affairs. See ‘Releasing Land from the Provisions of Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 (Ngaiotonga Development Scheme),’New Zealand Gazette 1, 10 January 1957, p.25. 292 ‘Setting apart Maori Freehold Land as a Maori Reservation,’ New Zealand Gazette 10, 7 February 1957, p.178. The Ngatiwai ki Whangaruru Whenua Topu Trust was the predecessor of the Ngatiwai Trust Board. 142

resolved to purchase the 98-acre Ngaiotonga A3 from the Maori Trustee and to incorporate the block into the scheme: in September 1963 the Maori Land Court cancelled the two existing titles and replaced them with Ngaiotonga A3. The latter had a gross area of just over 2,810 acres: once an area had been deducted for roads, the new block had an area of 2778.5 acres (Map 4.3). A series of Gazette notices published in January 1964 confirmed these new arrangements.293

Table 4.3: Crown's original and amended charges Ngaitonga consolidation scheme, 1954

Old blocks1 Rates Survey New blocks Rates Survey charges charges charges charges W-N 4A1B Nil - paid Nil - paid W-N 4A2B 7 10 0 Nil W-N 4C 3 0 0 5 10 0 W-N 4D 3 0 0 6 10 0 W-N 4E 1 10 0 3 0 0 W-N 4F3 4 2 0 Nil W-N 4F4 4 11 0 Nil W-N 4F5B Nil Nil W-N 4F6 1 0 0 Nil W-N 4F7 2 9 0 Nil W-N 4G1 1 0 0 0 16 0 W-N 4G2 2 15 0 2 6 0 W-N 4G3 3 5 0 2 13 0 W-N 4G4C 4 0 0 3 5 0 W-N 4H1 1 15 0 2 16 0 W-N 4H2 2 5 0 3 4 0 W-N 4J 5 10 0 7 0 0

K 1B 2 3 9 Nil K2 2 3 9 Nil

W-W 2A 5 0 0 5 10 0

293 ‘Releasing land from the provisions of Part XXIV of The Maori Affairs Act 1953 (Ngaiotonga Development Scheme);’ ‘Declaring land to be subject to the Provisions of Part XXIV of The Maori Affairs Act 1953 (Ngaiotonga Development Scheme);’ and ‘Releasing Land from the Provisions of The Maori Affairs Act 1953 (Bay of Islands Development Scheme),’ New Zealand Gazette 4, 30 January 1964, p.105. 143

Old blocks1 Rates Survey New blocks Rates Survey charges charges charges charges W-W 2B1 5 10 0 6 10 0 W-W 2B2 3 10 0 5 0 0 W-W 2B3 3 0 0 6 10 0 W-W 2B4 3 0 0 3 10 0 W-W 2C 5 0 0 5 0 0 W-W 2D 4 0 0 5 0 0 W-W 2E 2 10 0 2 10 0 Ngaio. B 2 10 0 2 10 0 W-W 2F Nil - paid Nil - paid Ngaio. C Nil Nil Subtotal 80 19 6 74 0 0 Ngaio. A 80 19 6 74 0 0

K 1A Nil Nil Ngaio. D Nil Nil

W-N 4B Nil - paid Nil - paid Ngaio. E Nil Nil W-N 4F5A Nil Nil Ngaio. F Nil W-N 4G4A Nil Nil Ngaio. G Nil W-N 4G4B Nil Nil Ngaio. H Nil W-N 4F1 Nil Nil Ngaio. J Nil W-N 4A1A Nil – paid Nil - paid Ngaio. K Nil W-N 4A2A 0 10 0 Nil Ngaio. L 0 10 0 Nil W-N 4F2A 2 9 0 Nil Ngaio. M 2 9 0 Nil

1 W-N is Whangaroa-Ngaiotonga; K is Kairaurau; and W-W is Whangaruru-Whakaturia (Source: Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 27/192)

144

Map 4.1: Scheme of Pt Series D Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme, Ngaiotonga Sub- series 1954

(Source: ML 13653 - cropped)

145

Map 4.2: Sketch plan of Ngaiotonga A2 and E, c1964

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2492/b 18/14/23 Part 1)

146

Map 4.3: Ngaiotonga A3, 1991

(Source: ML 15922 - cropped)

4.6 Restructuring land ownership: conversion and live buying

As the Maori Affairs Act 1953 provided for the amalgamation of titles, so it also provided for conversion and live buying. The concept of conversion first appeared in the Native Land Act 1931: section 162 provided that, with the consent of an owner, the Native Land Court could order ‘that any land or interest in land shall be allotted, awarded, or appropriated to the Crown subject to payment,’ while the Court could, subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands, ‘vest any portion thereof in such person as in the opinion of the Court should receive the same ...’ Further, section 163 provided for voluntary conversion at the point of consolidation: with the consent of the owner, interests could be vested in a person or persons subject to payment of ‘fair value’ or in the Crown at a price to be determined by the Maori Land Court. In 1945 the Native Department proposed to render conversion compulsory at the point of consolidation, while consideration was also given to empowering the Native Land Court, without the consent of owners, to issue orders of exchanges of interests where

147

those interests had a value of less than £25.294 Strong opposition on the part of the Maori Members of Parliament ensured that the proposals did not proceed. 295 But following the 1952 Bremner and Winkel investigation and report, the Maori Affairs Act 1953 introduced two new ‘consolidation tools’ in the form of compulsory ‘conversion’ and voluntary ‘live-buying.’

The Crown’s desire to reduce the number of owners in Maori-owned blocks was grounded in a belief that the fragmentation of ownership (otherwise known as ‘title congestion’) was inconsistent with effective utilisation. The stated aims of conversion and live buying were, first, to reduce the number of owners in blocks to single owners or small groups of co-owners and, second, to consolidate each owner’s interests into ‘economic farms or substantial parts of economic farms.’ 296 In fact, other considerations appear to have played their part in the decision to reduce the number of owners and redistribute share ownership. A key objective, certainly in the case of the Ngaiotonga development scheme) was to secure sufficient shares so that the Crown could establish its own holdings, and to ensure the settlement of capable settlers, as well as to create holdings that were free of what were termed ‘the complications of Maori title.’297 With respect to Ngaiotonga, the Department entertained doubts that owners could nominate the required number of capable occupiers and thus it wished to be in a position where it could offer holdings to other Maori from throughout the Tokerau Maori Land District. In effect, the Crown was intent upon reforming the structure of Maori land ownership, controlling to the maximum extent possible the selection of settlers, and implementing a land settlement scheme that, as necessary, could embrace the entire Tokerau district.

The Maori Affairs Act 1953 thus empowered the Maori Trustee to acquire compulsorily interests deemed to be ‘uneconomic,’ that is, interests worth less than

294 See Under Secretary, Native Department to Native Minister 22 June 1945; Registrar, Auckland to Under Secretary, Native Department 24 August 1945; and Under Secretary, Native Department to Native Minister 3 September 1945, ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 29/2/4 Part 3, in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 8, pp.153-159. 295 Under Secretary, Native Department to Native Minister 17 January 1946, ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074 29/1 Part 2, cited in Hearn, ‘Social and economic change,’ p.683. 296 AJHR 1953, G9, p.1. 297 See for example, Board of Maori Affairs paper in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W30974/1315/s 60/1 Part 5, in Hearn ‘Land titles,’ Supporting documents, Volume 2, p.12. 148

£25: such interests would be sold on to other owners in same blocks holding economic interests or who, upon acquisition, would acquire an economic interest. The Maori Trustee was also empowered to sell converted shares to the Crown: section 152(3)(c) provided for sale to the Crown for the purposes of the Maori Housing Act 1935 or for the purposes of any scheme of development of Maori lands under Part XXIV of the Act. In effect, conversion aimed to restructure compulsorily Maori land ownership through the excision of owners. Acquisition of ‘uneconomic interests’ could take place at various points, that is, succession, partition, consolidation, title amalgamation, and the issue of consolidated orders. To claims that conversion constituted confiscation, the temporary head of the Department of Maori Affairs, J.K. Hunn responded, not very helpfully, by insisting that Maori could ‘convert and hold,’ or ‘fragment and lose.’ 298 Under section 151 the Maori Trustee could acquire by agreement with living owners ‘any Maori freehold land or any freehold interest therein,’ that section thus constituting the legal basis for ‘live buying.’

In 1960, Hunn proposed a strengthening of those provisions by increasing to £50 the value of an interest deemed to be uneconomic, and by engaging in large-scale live buying. 299 Rather than acting on those recommendations, the government commissioned another investigation, conducted in 1964 by Judge Ivor Prichard and H.T. Waetford. They recommended an increase in the conversion limit from £25 to £100 in the expectation that the increase would encourage many more Maori to sell and to use the proceeds to acquire houses in the country’s urban centres.300 One of the major objectives of Ngata’s Maori land development scheme, to encourage Maori to remain in their rohe and to strengthen Maori communal life and Maori identity, had been abandoned in favour of economic efficiency and augmenting the country’s urban labour markets. The Maori Affairs Act 1967 did strengthen conversion, primarily by increasing the value of economic shares from £25 to £50. But the Crown’s

298 J.K. Hunn, Report on the Department of Maori Affairs: with statistical supplement. Wellington: Government Printer, 1961, p.52. 299 The £10 rule was introduced in the Maori Purposes Act 1957: section 2(d) empowered the Maori Land Court to vest the whole of a deceased person’s interests in any one or more beneficiaries to the exclusion of any other, without payment, but provided that the excluded beneficiary’s shares did not exceed £10. 300 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 28 1/16/1, in Hearn, ‘Land titles.’ Supporting Documents, Volume 7, pp.330-367. A copy of the Prichard-Waetford Report can be found in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1 25 1/16/1. 149

commitment waned in the face of criticism from many Maori, the complexities attaching to implementation, the scale of the resources required, the slow progress of purchase and re-sale, and the preference on the part of Maori for the return of land development schemes intact rather than as subdivided holdings. Under the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974, the power of the Maori Trustee to acquire compulsorily uneconomic shares was terminated, while the conversion scheme was finally abolished in 1987.

While in place, both conversion and live buying had a major bearing on the ownership of the Ngaiotonga development scheme. 301 Indeed, both statutory tools were employed with some vigour in the Tokerau Maori Land District. With respect to conversion, by the end of March 1958 the district accounted for 24.8 percent of all blocks affected throughout the six Maori land districts, 61.1 percent of all the interests purchased, and 64.4 percent of all the interests sold. 302 Over the period from 1 October 1956 to 31 March 1961, the Crown also acquired through live buying, in the Tokerau Maori Land District, 781 interests in 199 blocks at a cost of £44,633.303 An analysis of live buying in several Northland development schemes, unfortunately not including Ngaiotonga, made it clear that most of the shares sold were valued between £25 and £50 and that most had left the districts in which the schemes were located. 304

On 29 June 1956 the Maori Land Court fixed the value of ‘uneconomic’ shares in the Ngaiotonga development scheme at £2 4s per share, a figure based on the 1956 unimproved valuation of £6,780 and 3152.154 shares. On 20 March 1957 the Court issued an order vesting 788.217 shares in the Maori Trustee. As result of what was described as a ‘Mass conversion,’ the sum of £1,734 2 4 was paid out to 425 owners

301 The establishment of the scheme pre-dated the 1956 decision by the Board of Maori Affairs that, in order for land to be brought under Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, uneconomic interests had first to be purchased by the Maori Trustee for eventual sale to the Crown. Board of Maori Affairs paper, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1315a 60/I Part 5, in Hearn, ‘Land titles,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 2, p.12. 302 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/808 68/2/1. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.339-373. It is of interest to record here that, in 1960, Auckland’s District Officer reported that he had no statistics covering the area of land owned by Maori and no idea of how many of the remaining interests were valued at less than £25, £50, and £100. He did estimate the number of interests involved at 124,200, a measure of the enormity and likely cost of the conversion programme. District Officer to Secretary, Maori Affairs 16 February 1960, ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/3279/h 10/1/0. 303 ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/808 68/2/1. Supporting Documents Volume 5, pp.339-373. 304 See ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/29 1/16/19. 150

whose shares had been expropriated.305 The views of the latter appear not to have been canvassed: if expressed, they were not recorded. A full list of the owners whose shares were converted was included in the Court’s Minute Book: it provided names, gender, shares, and prices paid, but did not group the owners according to the blocks that were merged to form Ngaiotonga A2. Graph 4.5 classifies owners in terms of the monies (decimal shillings) paid: it will be seen that a large proportion of those shares had a value each of less than 50s.

Proportion of total parcels

Percentage 30 Proportion of total value

0 0-50 51-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401 +

Value of share parcels: shllings

Graph 4.5: Ngaiotonga development scheme: distribution of converted shares by value

By early 1957, therefore, the original 484 owners involved in the Ngaiotonga development scheme had been reduced to just 59. Those 59 remaining owners held 809 shares or an average of 13.7. Those shares were valued at £1,780 or an average of just under £30.2. In February 1957, the Board of Maori Affairs was asked to approve the allocation of £3,000 to purchase, in the name of the Crown, the shares held by the Maori Trustee, together with additional shares under offer and those it was expected

305 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 29/152. 151

would be offered. In short, at that stage, the Crown expected to acquire 1363.636 shares or 43.3 percent of the total.

The recommendation was approved, the Board noting that the Crown would acquire the right to nominate about half of the occupiers for the proposed 11 dairy and two sheep farms. It also recorded that should owners fail to nominate a sufficient number of occupiers, then there was ‘a large number of very suitable Maoris in the Tokerau District who are seeking settlement.’306 By June 1959, the sum of £2,506 had been spent, leaving £494 available. At that stage 193.25 shares in the Ngaiotonga Development Scheme were available for purchase by the Crown and they were acquired for £425 3s. Thus as at 15 January 1960, the Crown owned 1331.392 of the 3152.154 shares, that is, 42.2 percent.307 Many of the scheme’s owners left the district for Whangarei and Auckland and used the proceeds from the sale of their shares to assist with housing.308 By March 1961, the Crown held 1344.705 of the 3152.154 shares in Ngaiotonga A2. The Maori Trustee held an additional 13.313 shares that it was prepared to sell them to the Crown for £29 5s 9d (each at £2 4s). The Department sought an allocation of £500 to allow the purchase of those shares and such additional shares as the Maori Trustee acquired.’ The request was approved.309

In 1966 the Department of Maori Affairs sought the approval of the Board of Maori Affairs to purchase shares in eight land development schemes in the Tokerau district, schemes that were in course of preparation for settlement. Approval was sought for the expenditure of up to £10,000 per annum. The submission prepared for the Board of Maori Affairs noted that early settlement was not planned in respect of three schemes – including Ngaiotonga – but that approval was nevertheless sought for what were described as ‘special cases.’ At that stage, Ngaiotonga had 40 owners while the shares had an estimated value each of £2 8s 8d. Three major justifications were advanced for what was clearly a sizeable purchase programme. First, it was recorded that there were ‘numerous absentees’ in the schemes as well as other owners who

306 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2090/g 18/14/1 Part 1, in Bassett and Kay, ‘Tai Tokerau Maori land development schemes,’ Supporting Papers, Volume 1, pp.398-399. 307 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/c 18/14 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.125-153. 308 On this matter, see ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/808 68/2/1 Part 1. 309 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/c 18/14/12 Part 3, in Bassett and Kay, ‘Tai Tokerau Maori land development schemes,’ Supporting Papers, Volume 1, p.451. 152

wished to sell their shares to finance re-location and housing costs; second, it cited the Prichard report with respect to the ‘desirability’ of the Crown buying out uneconomic interests and engaging in live buying as steps towards ‘title improvement;’ and third, ownership by the Crown would strengthen its ability to select nominees for settlement. The proposal was approved by the Board.310

By October 1970 the number of owners in the Ngaiotonga development scheme stood at just 21 (including some deceased): they held 674.909 shares or 21.41 percent of the total. The largest shareholder was Rameka Waitai Pita (Mac Peters) with 162.288 shares. The Maori Trustee and the Crown held the balance of 2477.245 shares or 78.59 percent.311 Table 4.4 summarises, to the end of January 1979, the purchases made by the Maori Trustee.

Table 4.4: Maori Trustee acquisitions in the Ngaiotonga development scheme to 29 January 1979

Number Original owners Price Under Sold to of shares Crown 62.192 Not known 79.575 H.H. Moore £188 13 2 ) s.151/1953 32.063 Te M W Taniora £70 10 10 ) 12.763 N H Taniora £30 5 3 ) 29.593 P R Tamihana £70 3 4 ) 29.593 H R H Tamihana £70 3 4 ) - 62.192 62.192 183.587 40.567 R McGee £96 3 8 s.151/1953 224.154 224.154 NIL 70.196 W T Henare $341.85 ) S151/1953 16.288 R Maumau 79.32 ) 11.825 H P Kino Vested in MT s.137(2)/1953 20.092 N R Wiapo 97.85 s.151/1953

310 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/c 18/14/12 Part 3, in Bassett and Kay, ‘Tai Tokerau Maori land development schemes,’ Supporting Papers, Volume 1, pp.458-459. 311 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/a 18/14/12 Part 1, in Bassett and Kay, ‘Tai Tokerau Maori land development schemes,’ Supporting Papers, Volume 1, pp.400-401. 153

Number Original owners Price Under Sold to of shares Crown - 98.309 98.309 20 092 2.450 H Reihana 11.92 ) 21.963 W Mackie 106.88 ) 14.548 P Te M Wellington 70.80 ) s.151/1953 33.425 N Karena 162.66 ) 31.000 H H Tamihana 150.86 s.151(2)/1953 3.382 Te M H Mohi 16.47 ) 3.382 R H Mohi 16.46 ) s.151(2)/1953 3.382 W Rewha 16.46 ) 15.550 M H Mohi and others 75.66 s.445/1953 58.929 MT administrator estate of N H Taka 162.288 MT administrator estate of R W Pita 28.469 MT administrator estate of R P Whareumu 398.887

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents)

4.7 Ngaiotonga: the structure of ownership at two dates

Graphs 4.6 and 4.7 make plain the marked change that took place in the ownership of the Ngaiotonga scheme by 1959 and by 1980.312

312 Details of those from whom the Crown and the Maori Trustee acquired shares can be found in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2489/c 18/14 Part 9. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.180-187. 154

Owners Crown Maori Trustee

Graph 4.6: Ngaiotonga development scheme: structure of ownership, 1959

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/a 18/14/12 Part 1)

Owners Crown Maori Trustee

Graph 4.7: Ngaiotonga development scheme: structure of ownership 1980

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBCZ 5020 A1211/44/e)

155

4.8 Land ownership: the course of reform

Figure 4.1 offers a schematic summary of the course of Maori land ownership title reform as it involved the four blocks the subject of this investigation. Reform efforts began with the trial locations prepared for Series D of the Bay of Islands Consolidation Scheme. Ten years later, those oral arrangements were succeeded by the Native Land Court’s efforts to consolidate ownership through the issue of exchange and vesting orders. In both of those phases, the existing structure of partitions was allowed to remain intact: the objective was to rearrange ownership within that structure rather than to effect a re-distribution of the land itself or indeed of both land and owners. The amalgamation of titles, in 1954, to create the Ngaiotonga development scheme, constituted a third phase in which a different approach was employed. In effect, the existing structure of partitions was abolished, and in its stead a single amalgamated block and title were created, all owners of the blocks involved becoming shareholders in the amalgamated block. Ownership was, temporarily, left intact. The fourth phase, which covered the period from 1956 to about 1980, involved the excision of interests or shares deemed to be ‘uneconomic’ and the purchase by the Crown of all ‘economic’ shares from those willing to sell: in other words, the emphasis shifted to the matter of ownership and its restructuring. The final phase involved the return of the lands involved to collective ownership whose numbers might include those whose shares had been converted or voluntarily sold. Anyone who recalled the Native Land Commission’s 1908 recommendations that the 1,404-acres of Whangaroa Ngaiotonga (with 150 owners) and Whangaruru- Whakaturia 2 (with 248 owners) should be incorporated, that is, maintained in collective ownership, may have wondered why they had never been acted upon when first made.313

313 AJHR 1908, G1J, p.35. 156

1956 1989 1940 1954 1930 Restructuring of Exchange orders: Amalgamation: ownership: Trial locations : Return to reduced Existing partitions Cancellation of Existing partitions Conversion collective Formal exchange partitions Oral arrangements Live buying ownership and vesting orders Single title created

Figure 4.2: The course of land title and land ownership reform, 1930 to 1989

4.9 Conclusions

In 1949 the Government decided to embark upon an accelerated programme of Maori land development, adopting a plan to develop 200,000 acres of land and to create some 1,000 ‘economic and complete units’ over a period of ten years and at an estimated capital cost of £7.1m. It also decided, in an effort to deal with the difficulties that had emerged in respect of the pre-war schemes, to reconstitute the basis on which individual schemes would be established. Not least among those difficulties were the complications arising out of the inclusion of separately owned blocks and their eventual subdivision into individual holdings, the creation of uneconomic units, and security of tenure for occupiers: thus the development schemes would constitute, in part, vehicles through which land reform could be implemented. Further, in each case costs were to be carefully calculated and the expected outcomes

157

in terms of both division into holdings, the costs of settlement, and any write-off were to be all defined.314

Those new requirements appear all to be have been observed in the case of the Ngaiotonga development scheme. On the other hand, it is not at all clear that those owners who agreed to the cancellation of existing partitions were advised of the far- reaching changes in the structure of ownership that could – and did – follow. The likelihood of the Government implementing a scheme not to consolidate interests but to redistribute shares in land was at the time a live topic, but no evidence was located that would suggest that owners were advised of the possible implications for their continued ownership of the lands involved. The cancellation of the original partitions and the introduction of an expanded and compulsory conversion scheme in the Maori Affairs Act 1953 set into place the basis for major changes in ownership. While it is likely that the congested state of land titles and the lack of alternative employment opportunities would have encouraged some people to leave the Whangaruru district, there is also little doubt that conversion and live buying within the Ngaiotonga development scheme gave added impetus to the outflow to the country’s urban centres.

In short, in 1952, owners of the blocks included in the Ngaiotonga development scheme, entered into a contract, or at the very least into a very clear understanding, with the Crown in which, in return for amalgamation of their titles, the likely protracted suspension of their rights as owners, and the repayment of the State’s investment, they could expect the return of those lands developed, productive, and subdivided into economic holdings. Development, they were encouraged to believe, would establish the communities involved on a sounder economic footing, one that carried the prospect of improved living standards. Instead, the establishment of the scheme facilitated the conversion of ‘uneconomic interests’ and allowed the Crown to engage in purposeful ‘live buying’ with the objective of restructuring ownership in a manner that owners had not contemplated and certainly had not been advised might follow the scheme’s gazetting. In an ironic twist, the very scheme intended originally

314 Details can be found in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MAW2490/302 60/1 Part 4. See also Hearn, ‘Land titles,’ pp.358-359. 158

to provide employment and so discourage the drift to the cities, had a contrary outcome. That the scheme would fail to produce any of the Crown’s 13 separate farms reinforced the outflow to which the far-reaching changes in ownership had already contributed. Chapter 5 thus turns to an examination of the scheme and seeks to offer an explanation for what was one of the most egregious failures of the Maori land development programme.

159

Chapter 5: The Ngaiotonga development scheme: promise and performance, 1954 to 1989

The Ngaiotonga development scheme was one of three major avenues through which State assistance was channelled into the Whangaruru district, the others involving the development ‘units’ of the 1930s and 1940s and the Bland Bay subdivision of the 1970s and 1980s. The development scheme allows an exploration of a number of key issues, among them, the basis on which State assistance was offered, how that assistance was delivered, monitored, and controlled, the character of the relationships established between the owners concerned and the Crown, the involvement of owners in decision-making. A key question is whether and, if so, what promises were held out to owners and whether those promises were met.

5.1 Introduction

Whereas high hopes were entertained of the Ngaiotonga development scheme upon its establishment in 1954, in fact it proved, as already noted, to be one of the least successful of all the schemes established in the post-1945 period. A wealth of archival material relating to the scheme offers some useful insights into the many reasons for the sharp disjuncture between expectations and outcomes.315 That same material also prompts some questions about how a scheme, the establishment of which raised such high hopes among owners whose lands were included, should fail so spectacularly and at very considerable cost both to the owners in terms of opportunity costs and to the State in the form of sunk costs. Chapter 5 thus sets out the estimates of costs on the basis of which Cabinet gave its approval and traces the scheme’s performance, especially financial, over the following 35 years and almost two generations of until its return to the descendants of the original owners in 1989.

5.2 Plans, estimates, and projections

The paper presented to the Board of Maori Affairs in 1952 in support of the proposed Ngaiotonga development scheme set out the estimated costs of development up to but not including settlement, that is, subdivision into the planned two sheep and 11 dairy

315 For a useful survey of the Ngaiotonga development scheme, see Bassett and Kay, ‘Tai Tokerau Maori land development schemes,’ pp.403-420. 160

farms. The estimated total cost of development was put at £110,850, a sum that made no allowance for any land purchase that might prove necessary or desirable. The ‘recovery value’ of the units was estimated at £78,800, leaving, if ‘settled immediately,’ a deficiency of £32,850 or a write-off of some £2,500 per farm. It was intended to farm the scheme as a station ‘for some years before settlement in order that the land may be properly developed ...’ Such farming would also reduce the estimated deficiency of £32,850. The cost of extending the Ngaiotonga-Tuparehuia road to service the scheme was estimated at £24,530: the hope was that it would be classified as a ‘through road,’ and that the cost of construction therefore would not fall on the scheme.316

The proposal had the full support of the District Maori Lands Committee: in its view, the land was ‘suitable for development ...’ The Department of Maori Affairs concurred, recommending that the Board of Maori Affairs approve the expenditure of £74,850 from development funds to the stage at which the property could be run as a station. The Board of Maori Affairs recorded its approval of the proposal on 24 June 1952, and the matter was referred to Cabinet through the Minister of Maori Affairs. In turn, he advised Cabinet that the development cost per acre would be £29.18 over 2,500 acres, while total costs would amount to £44 per acre. If the scheme were farmed as a station for eight years, then the estimated net write-off per acre would be £2.19. ‘The area,’ he noted, ‘is eminently suitable for a sheep and cattle run during the development stage, and suitable for dairying and sheep farm on settlement.’317 The Ngaitotonga development scheme was approved by Cabinet on 21 January 1953, among other things, raising hopes among some over the prospects for settlement on the land.318

Table 5.1 sets out the expected result of farming the block as a station: development expenses would cease at the end of the fifth year, receipts from sales of wool and stock would rise steadily, the cost of interest would reach a peak at the end of the fifth year before starting to decline, and debt would reach a maximum also at the end of the

316 The history of the road is explored below. 317 Minister of Maori Affairs, Memorandum for Members of Cabinet, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/c 61/19/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.346-364. 318 See, for example, ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/511/a 18/14/10. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.16-17. 161

fifth year before beginning to decline. Settlement would follow the completion of development, that is, at the end of the eighth year, or about 1961. Those forecasts offer a useful set of criteria by which to assess the performance of the scheme.

Table 5.1: Results (£s) expected from farming Ngaiotonga development scheme as a station

Development Stock Receipts Interest Balance expenses purchased year’s end1 First year 23,150 - 9,0002 494 -14,644

Second year 15,900 3,320 841 1,169 -34,509

Third year 13,675 2,450 2,883 1,691 -50,052 Fourth year 19,575 1,900 3,532 2,412 -71,357 Fifth year 2,550 200 5,186 2,490 -73,665 Sixth year - 420 6,441 2,483 -73,557 Seventh year - 500 7,334 2,463 -72,822 Eighth year - 500 9,971 2,346 -69,385

1 Includes other minor expenses 2 From sale of firewood as land cleared (Source: ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/c 61/19/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.346-364)

5.3 ‘Unforeseen misfortunes:’ Ngaiotonga in the 1950s

A prompt start was made on transforming the largely manuka covered lands included in the scheme into productive farmland. Workers from Ngaiotonga erected the fencing and buildings, and installed the water supply, including two reservoirs. According to the New Zealand Herald, Ngaiotonga was previously ‘an isolated Maori settlement where the men milked a few cows and worked in the bush.’ Development had generated considerable optimism among residents. 319 An early report on the scheme prepared by Field Supervisor Sorenson noted the rapid pace of development, the lush pasture growth, the stocking with both sheep and cattle, the formation of the road, and described a picture of good progress.320 A special government valuation of the scheme dated 26 September 1956 gave an unimproved value of £6,290, the value

319 ‘New farms for Maoris at Ngaiotonga,’ New Zealand Herald 22 October 1954, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/c 61/19/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.346-364. 320 Field Supervisor, n.d. in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/c 61/19/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.346-365. 162

of improvements of £22,490, and a capital value of £28,750.321 In February 1957, the Board of Maori Affairs was advised that by the end of March of that year 2,000 acres of the scheme would be in grass and stocked with 3,000 ewes and 120 cows. Only ‘a comparatively small area’ of the scheme would remain ‘to be cleared up ...’ At that stage it was planned to run the scheme as a station from 1 April 1957 until the debt had been reduced and so allow ‘progressive settlement’ to take place ‘in five or six years.’ The development debt as at the end of January 1957 stood at £102,900.322 By the time the owners convened for the annual meeting, in August 1957, development costs had reached £119,000 but, in the judgement of Whangarei’s District Officer, Ngaiotonga was ‘as good a development scheme as may be found throughout the Dominion.’ He predicted a net profit of £1,500 for 1958, rising thereafter to £4,000 per annum. The scheme would be farmed as a station until the debt had been reduced to £100,000 when settlement without a write-off would take place. Settlement, he confirmed, was at least six years in the future. Owners who attended the annual meeting in August 1957 appeared satisfied with progress.323

The general optimism was short-lived. Indeed, by 1958 concerns were being raised by the Department of Maori Affairs over the scheme’s total debt, then standing at £136,586: deduction of the value of stock left improvements valued at £110,686 or some £60 per acre over what was believed to be a grassed area of 1,850 acres.324 In January 1959, owners were advised that as the result of ‘unforeseen misfortunes,’ settlement would be ‘somewhat delayed.’325 They were also advised that unless the proposed units could each produce 12,000lbs of butterfat per annum, settlement could not be considered ‘as the settlers would be unable to meet their commitments.’326

The reference to that production level is of some interest. A general revision of departmental policy conducted in 1947/1948 included a directive that subdivisions of development schemes should not be less than an ‘economic unit.’ An economic dairy

321 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/c 18/14 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.125-153. 322 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2090/g 18/14/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.188-195. 323 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/b 18/14 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.112-124. 324 Secretary, Maori Affairs to District Officer, Whangarei 4 July 1958, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/c 61/19/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.346-364. 325 ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3974/1334/a 61/1 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.322-341. 326 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/a 18/14/12 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.196-203. 163

farm was defined as one capable of carrying 40-45 cows producing from 10,000 to 12,000lbs of butterfat per annum and carrying replacement stock. In 1953, the Board of Maori Affairs formally adopted 12,000lbs of butterfat and herd replacements as constituting an economic dairy farm, 800 ewes as constituting an economic fat lamb farm, and 1,000 ewes as constituting an economic store sheep farm. The Board also decided ‘That the standard as set out shall not be taken as an absolute directive, but that such a standard shall be a guide ...’327 With that standard before it, it is surprising that the Department of Maori Affairs appears not to have conducted a thorough appraisal of the Ngaiotonga lands before the scheme was gazetted and before the level of debt had begun its apparently inexorable rise.

In 1959, the Board of Maori Affairs was asked to confirm the scheme’s existing level of debt of £134,138 (including uncollected interest), and to provide further capital of £980 to complete the scheme to station stage and cover expected operational losses of £7,000.328 In 1952 it had been estimated that by 1960 the debt would have reached £84,120: the difference of some £50,000 was attributed to extra fencing, livestock, and operating losses (then totalling £23,131). The last were attributed to the severe and prolonged drought in 1957-1958 and the consequential drastic reduction in the ewe flock, and the sale of surplus stock at a loss. One result was that it was expected to take at least 12 years to bridge the gap between development costs and settlement values. It was also noted that to bring the station to settlement stage would require another £50,000 for water supply, dwellings, other buildings, equipment and stock.329 The Board approved, but indicated that the matter of settlement should be reviewed in 1962 rather than 1960. A review of the scheme in 1959 predicted that development costs would reach £201,360 or £109 per acre, while estimated realisation value when fully developed was £151,670 or £82 per acre. The loss would thus amount to £49,690, a sum that it would take 12 years to recover while the scheme was farmed as a station.

327 Board of Maori Affairs paper in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1315/a 60/1 Part 5, in Hearn, ‘Land titles,’ Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.65-66. 328 Net debt, that is after deducting the value of stock and the book value of plant, stood at £111,172. 329 ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/d 61/19/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.365ff. 164

At the annual meeting held in September 1960, owners expressed some satisfaction over progress. The operating loss for 1959-1960 amounted to £1,090, continuing a declining trend. A detailed work programme was prepared with a view to increasing the breeding ewe flock to 3800-4000 and to sustain it at that level. Only at that level, it was believed, would the scheme, assuming current commodity prices held, generate sufficient profit to allow the debt, standing at £141,780 at the end of March 1960, to be reduced. On the other hand, the topdressing, pasture improvement, reversion control, cropping and haymaking would require substantial additional finance.330 A year later, Ngaiotonga’s debt stood at £151,216, some 4.5 times the station’s valuation of £33,350. Any operating profits were being absorbed to meet interest charges rather than being re-invested into the enterprise.331

To add to the emerging difficulties, an inspection of the scheme conducted in February 1961 revealed that the grassed area was 1,500 acres significantly less than had been assumed: that, concluded the Department of Maori Affairs’ Chief Field Supervisor, ‘will have a distinct bearing on the earning power of this property. I do not think,’ he concluded ‘that the Scheme, on its reduced area, will ever show a profit using present debt.’332 Further, during the period from November 1960 to April 1961, the scheme lost over 30 percent of its lambs and 16.5 percent of its total flock, the result in large measure of a very destructive and incurable viral pneumonia. 333 In September 1961, the Department of Maori Affairs’ Assistant Secretary described the scheme’s financial position as ‘the worst ... we have ever presented to the Board,’ given especially that only 425 acres were apparently in ‘good’ pasture, 400 acres were in ‘fair’ pasture, and 650 acres were in ‘poor’ pasture, a result that had cost £54,922 or almost £38 per acre.334

330 Report on the Ngaiotonga development scheme dated 19 September 1960, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/d 61/19/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.365ff. 331 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2090/g 18/14/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.188-195. 332 Chief Field Supervisor to District Officer, Whangarei n.d. ca February 1961, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1334/b 61/1 Part 5. 333 District Field Supervisor to District Officer 22 June 1961, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/d 61/19/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.365ff. 334 Assistant Secretary, Maori Affairs to District Officer, Whangarei 28 September 1961, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/c 18/14 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.125-153. 165

Table 5.2 sets out for the period from 1952 to 1961 some details relating to the actual financial performance of the Ngaiotonga development scheme. It is clear that in the period described, the scheme only once returned a trading profit and that in its first year; second, that capital expenditure significantly exceeded ‘development expenses;’ third, that interest payments from the outset significantly exceeded estimates; and, fourth, that the scheme’s total liability, far from declining as development proceeded, had reached a level twice that originally predicted.

Table 5.2: Ngaiotonga development scheme: key financial indicators (£s),

1953 to 1961

Year to 31 Profit/Loss Capital expenditure Interest Total liability March 1953 - 1,191 - 1,094 1954 + 765 15,891 - 18,807 1955 - 5,323 34,969 1,366 61,964 1956 - 5,932 25,545 2,533 94,655 1957 - 2,833 17,236 3,925 119,101 1958 - 3,931 14,192 4,701 136,586 1959 - 2,136 1,477 4,762 140,566 1960 - 1,090 Not located Not located 141,781 1961 - 6,777 Not located Not located 151,216

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2492/a 18/14/17 Parts 1 to 4)

5.4 ‘ ... could never be subdivided:’ Ngaiotonga during the 1960s

In 1961, Ngaiotonga was subjected to an intensive review. It was clear that the originally established pastures would not recover from the effects of drought and cricket infestation without heavy fertiliser dressings, over-sowing, and indeed without heavy culling to bring stock numbers down to a level consistent with the supply of feed. Re-sowing pastures added significantly to the scheme’s debt. A survey, too, had revealed that the grassed area stood at 1,475 acres (of which 1,050 acres were described as ‘fair’ or ‘poor’). The balance of the scheme’s 2,711 acres was a mixture of swamp, second growth manuka, tidal mudflats, and ‘waste.’ The Department thus acquired the largely developed Ngaiotonga E (formerly Whangaroa Ngaiotonga 4B), a 98-acre block owned by proprietor and ‘unit’ Kuratau Hau and located in the centre

166

of the scheme. The property had a government capital valuation of £3,270 (including improvements of £2,970): Kuratau Hau was prepared to sell the property for £3,300. Acquisition would evidently ‘round off’ the Ngaiotonga Development Scheme and provide, at reasonable cost, an extra area of pasture.

The review included the matter of settlement: the original proposal for 11 dairy and two sheep farms was revised to one mixed, four sheep, and four dairy units. But another four years would be required to bring the property up to a ‘fully productive station.’ By that stage the debt was expected to have reached £151,000, while settlement would require an additional £35,000. The total realisation value on settlement was estimated at £132,000, thus leaving £61,000 to be recovered by station operations. The Board was asked to approve, first, the purchase of Ngaiotonga E; second, to remit annually the interest payable on that part of the expenditure in excess of the capital value of the land, plant, and livestock as from the year ending 31 March 1961; and, third, to approve the operation of the scheme as a station for three years in order to ‘reduce’ the estimated deficiency between estimated total development costs and estimated realisation.335

On the basis of that review, Whangarei’s District Officer prepared a detailed submission for the Board of Maori Affairs. He gave area in grass as 1,475 acres in grass (with a final 85 acres – presumably Ngaiotonga -– to be added), and a gross debt of £150,603, while proposing additional capital expenditure of £19,040 (including the cost of Ngaiotonga E) to complete the development programme. On the assumption that the scheme could be subdivided not into the originally proposed 13 but into eight farms, he estimated the deficiency between the scheme’s debt and the realisation value of those farms at £61,013. Recovery of that deficiency would take 13 years. Finally, he proposed that interest should be suspended on the difference between the estimated final debt and the amount of the special government valuation,

335 Paper prepared for Board of Maori Affairs 1961, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/d 61/19/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.365ff. 167

the value of Ngaiotonga E, and the value of livestock and chattels: that would generate a saving of £9,000 per annum and bring settlement to within eight years.336

The Department’s Assistant Secretary expressed some dismay at the analysis proffered. Estimating the net debt at £128,841 (taking into account the value of plant and stock), and the value of improvements at £33,350 (including £3,650 for the Crown’s share of the land), he observed that for the balance of £94,491 the Crown had, as the Department’s Assistant Secretary observed, ‘nothing to show ...’ The report was, he concluded, ‘the worst case we have ever presented to the Board,’ especially when it appeared that the scheme possessed no more than 425 acres in good pasture.337 Indeed, the area in grass was, in November 1961, revised to 1,594 acres: where the figure of 1,850 acres in pasture had originated appeared to be something of a mystery. What was clear was that estimates of costs and returns had been prepared on the basis that the scheme possessed a larger area in pasture and thus a greater productive capacity.338

These various estimates underwent some revision at the hands of the Department’s Head Office. In the paper that was finally presented to the Board it was estimated that the period to be farmed between station and settlement stage to recover the estimated deficiency of £68,683 would be 17 years provided that the interest concessions that had been recommended were approved. In other words, whereas settlement had first been envisaged as taking place from 1960 onwards, settlement – on a more modest scheme than originally envisaged - would now not take place until about 1978. The report did not specify what assumptions had been made with respect to input costs, production, or commodity prices.

336 District Officer, Whangarei, submission prepared for the Board of Maori Affairs 18 September 1961, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/c 18/14 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.125- 153. 337 Assistant Secretary, Maori Affairs to District Officer, Whangarei 28 September 1961, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/d 61/19/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.365ff. 338 District Officer, Whangarei to Head Office, Maori Affairs 6 November 1961, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/d 61/19/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.365ff. 168

The paper presented to the Board also noted that interest charges on the development debt accounted for a large proportion of the scheme’s annual losses. Indeed, in March 1960 the Department’s Acting Secretary had observed that:

The Department could go on indefinitely with the position being that the profits earned by the station will never be sufficient to meet normal revenue expenses plus interest. If this position is allowed to arise there will be no reduction of debt and any intending settlers will be very old indeed before they can be settled. 339

He went on to suggest that special government valuation be sought and the debt in excess of that valuation be made non-interest bearing until such time as the debt had been adjusted to a level at which it could be reduced out of annual profits. Graph 5.1 makes clear, for selected years, the extent to which debt exceeded valuation. In December 1961, the Board, accepting the Department’s judgment that ‘It is hopeless on the present grassed acreage, with present budget, to expect the scheme to reduce the existing debt,’ thus decided to remit annually payment of interest on that part of the money expended on development and operations in excess of the current valuation of the land, plant, and stock. 340 That remission took effect from 1 April 1961. At that stage the scheme’s debt stood at £123,713 and the current market valuation at £68,748: that portion of the debt on which interest was remitted was thus £54,965, subsequently adjusted to £61,785. 341 The plan was to invest the savings from the interest remission into further improvements and, it was hoped, productivity. In fact, continuing sizeable annual operating losses rather defeated the object of interest remission.

339 Acting Secretary, Maori Affairs to District Officer, Whangarei 22 March 1960, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2487/c 18/14 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.125-153. 340 Paper for Board of Maori Affairs, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3974/1360/d 61/19/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.365ff. 341 District Accountant to District Officer 7 October 1963, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/b 61/19/1 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.13-28. 169

450000

400000

350000

300000

250000 Total value ($)

Dollars 200000 Total debt ($) Excess debt ($) 150000

100000

50000

0 March 1958 March 1961 March 1962 March 1966 March 1969

Source: ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/c 61/19/1 Part 5. Supporting Documents

Graph 5.1: Ngaiotonga development scheme: total value, total debt, and excess of debt over valuation, selected years, 1958 to 1969

The ratio between scheme debt and scheme valuation improved from 4.5 in 1961 to 2.10 in 1969. At the latter date, scheme debt stood at $412,707 against a station value (land, plant, and stock) of $196,536. Although the level of debt remained relatively steady for much of the following decade, over the period from 1968 to 1972 it rose appreciably. Behind that rising level of debt stood the familiar array of difficulties: the scheme’s difficult topography and soils of low natural fertility, its liability to drought and cricket infestations, limited pasture life, high maintenance (especially fertilizer) costs, occasional high stock losses, exposure to salt-laden winds, erratic seasons, a high incidence of eczema, fluctuating wool yields and prices, a tendency to reversion, and a lack of water on some parts of the scheme.342 Further, the standard of management during the scheme’s early years was evidently less than adequate.343 Efforts to increase production appear to have led to over-grazing and significant pasture deterioration. Fluctuating commodity prices merely added to the difficulties.In

342 In 1966/67 wool prices fell sharply and eventually reached levels approaching those endured during the 1930s. 343 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204- 213. One manager was dismissed on the grounds of incompetence. See Fields Director to Acting Secretary, Maori Affairs 25 September 1963, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/b 61/19/1 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.13-28. 170

February 1962, the Department’s District Field Supervisor was moved to describe Ngaiotonga as ‘undoubtedly the toughest area in the North and no doubt the hardest or one of the hardest under the Department’s jurisdiction.’ As a dairying proposition, he added, Ngaiotonga was ‘impossible ...’344 Moreover, before the annual meeting of owners in September 1963, the Department claimed that when the original settlement plan had been prepared, ‘the problems of farming in the Ngaiotonga area had not been known.’ 345 In other words, whatever appraisal had been conducted of the lands and their productive capability had been seriously deficient. In October 1963, the Department of Maori Affairs’s District Field Supervisor insisted that such were the manifold difficulties that the scheme confronted that it could not be compared with other schemes in the Tokerau district. Indeed, he went so far as to claim that ‘Ngaiotonga is ... the worst [scheme] that I have experienced under the Department’s jurisdiction.’ He did, though, hold out some prospect of improvement despite ‘the dangers of climate and pests.’346 That same year, Matiu Rata MP raised questions about Ngaiotonga’s debt levels and the delay in settlement. While he was assured that the former had nothing to do with the delay, since the Board could write off excess debt to permit settlement at valuation, he was informed that the location of the scheme within a very dry coastal belt combined with soil types ‘would preclude any settlement being recommended.’ Indeed, he was advised that the Department’s Whangarei Office was of the view that Ngaiotonga could never be subdivided.347

By 1964, therefore, the Department of Maori Affairs appears to have given up on its original plans to settle young Maori farmers on the block.348 Already it was having to confront the fact that the Maori land development programme, certainly as implemented in Northland, had resulted in the creation of many small holdings struggling with low stock, land, and labour productivity. An evaluation of the Tokerau land development schemes, covering 469 farms, had been conducted towards the end

344 District Field Supervisor to District Officer, Whangarei ? February 1962, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/d 61/19/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.365ff. 345 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2491/b 18/14/17 Part 2. Supporting Document, Volume 3, pp.248-270. 346 District Field Supervisor, Ngaiotonga accounts, 1 October 1963, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2491/b 18/14/17 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.248-270. 347 District Office, Whangarei to Head Office 8 July 1963; and Minister of Maori Affairs to Rata 16 July 1963, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/a 61/19/1 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.1-12. 348 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2090/g 18/14/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.188-195. 171

of 1960 and revealed that 287, with an average area of 116 acres producing an average of 3,15lbs of butterfat or an average of 45lbs per acre of grass, and run by older settlers who supplemented their farm income with off-farm employment, were ‘uneconomic.’ A further 124 had been described as ‘potentially economic units,’ and just 58 as ‘economic.’ With respect to Ngaiotonga, the Department had evidently decided not to add to the number of ‘uneconomic’ holdings. 349 By 1967, the Ngatiotonga development scheme was still being run as a station with a staff of just three: quite how the Board of Maori Affairs thought that it could support even eight farms, including four dairy units, is something of a mystery. Indeed, owners, meeting in December 1967, were advised by Departmental staff to consider running Ngaiotonga as an incorporation, not least since dairying was ‘a very “iffy” proposition.’350

With a change in management, a growing emphasis on dry-stock farming, and increased fertiliser application, Ngaiotonga’s fortunes did show some improvement during the latter half of the 1960s. While little rain fell in the district between mid- August 1961 and February 1962 (0.06 inches) and between November 1963 and the end of April 1964 (0.00) from May 1964 the seasons had been ‘reasonable.’ The effect on the scheme’s performance was marked, assisted by the application of lime (from 1963) and subsequently by fertilisers based on recommendations furnished by the Department of Agriculture. 351 The numbers of stock carried, both sheep but especially cattle, increased significantly, with the increase in the latter expected both to offset marked fluctuations in wool and sheep-meat prices and, it was hoped, to lay the basis for future profitability.352 Revenue flows were expected to improve to the point at which they would cover operating costs, including the interest charges on the interest-bearing portion of the debt, and provide a modest surplus during the final years of the 1960s. A tight rein on capital expenditure was also expected to contribute to an improving result: by way of interest, Graph 5.2 depicts the distribution of capital expenditure as at 31 March 1966.

349 See ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/415/b 15/1 Part 3. 350 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2090/g 18/14/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.188-195. 351 Report by District Field Inspector 21 March 1966 in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2488/a 18/14 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.154-165. 352 Assistant Officer (Development) to District Officer, Whangarei 11 November 1968, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2491/b 18/14/17 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.248-270. 172

60000

50000

40000

30000 Pounds

20000 Pounds

10000

Source: ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/b 61/19/1 Part 4

Graph 5.2: Ngaiotonga development scheme: distribution of capital expenditure by 31 March 1966

A note of cautious optimism began to appear in the reports, together with assertions that owners would derive greater benefit from the scheme if it were returned as ‘an incorporated block.’ 353 Certainly, the Department of Maori Affairs made careful efforts to understand, assess, and deal with the challenges that the scheme posed. It set out in determined and considered fashion to improve Ngaiotonga’s physical and financial performance through the restoration and improvement of its pastures and thus increased carrying capacity. Relying upon the recommendations of the Department of Agriculture, it embarked upon a programme of under-sowing with white clover and paspalum, and heavy fertiliser and lime applications.354

353 Assistant Officer, Development to District Officer, Whangarei 11 November 1968; and report by T. Spring 17 July 1968, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/c 61/19/1 Part 5. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.29-58. 354 District Field Supervisor to District Officer, Whangarei 9 September 1964, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/b 61/19/1 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.13-28. Extensive soil testing was undertaken in 1965 and again in 1970. See, for example, ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/551/b 18/D/Gen Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.18-20. 173

By the end of March 1968, Ngaiotonga’s debt had reached $398,885 (£199,443), that sum including $101,019 (£50,510) in uncollected interest. The remission of interest instituted from 1 April 1961 had done little more than reduce annual operating losses. Hence in 1967 the District Accountant proposed that the interest bearing proportion of the debt should be reduced significantly. 355 At the same time, the Ngaiotonga Development Scheme’s supervisor suggested that the scheme should never be settled. Interestingly, it was noted that for an estimated $4,700 the Crown could in fact buy out the remaining shareholders.356 That course of action does not appear to have been considered seriously.

The year 1968-1969 proved to be difficult as drought and eczema again took a toll on pastures and stock, and as doubts surfaced over whether increasing cattle numbers would generate the once-hoped for benefits. Pessimism returned. Thus, in August 1969, Whangarei’s Assistant Officer/Development suggested that settlement of the scheme was ‘impractical,’ while it was now ‘unlikely that any incorporation would be successful. The only thing we can do in the meantime,’ he concluded, ‘is to hold the improvements we have and exercise economy in expenditure consistent with sound farming practice.’357 In fact, a further remission of interest seemed necessary: by 1969 the assessed current market value of the scheme, including livestock, was $194,067 (£97,034), less than half of the total debt.358 A review of the scheme conducted in 1970 recommended a continuation of interest remission, but on this occasion all interest for the three years ending 31 March 1973.359 In April 1971, the Board of Maori Affairs approved that recommendation.

In addition to the remission of interest, Ngaiotonga benefited from other forms of state assistance. In 1970, the Government awarded an interest-free grant of $1,000 to

355 District Accountant, Whangarei to District Officer, Whangarei, ‘Accountant’s report 1966/1967,’ in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2491/b 18/14/17 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.248-270. 356 See ‘Ngaiotonga 1966/67,’ in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2491/b 18/14/17 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.248-270. 357 Assistant Officer, Development to Assistant District Officer, Whangarei 28 August 1969, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2491/b 18/14/17 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.248-270. See also Assistant Officer (Development), Whangarei to District Officer, Whangarei 6 August 1970, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2491/c 18/14/17 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.271-276. 358 District Accountant to District Officer, Whangarei 10 July 1968 and 29 July 1969, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/c 61/19/1 Part 5. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.29-58. 359 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2489/a 18/14 Part 7. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.169-179. 174

the scheme to deal with an area of ti-tree and swamp, such grant to be written off after ten years. The range and scale of state assistance expanded significantly during the 1970s. The entry, on 1 January 1973, of the United Kingdom into the EEC and the loss of commonwealth preference, the oil price shock of 1973, and rising inflation encouraged the government to assist a struggling primary sector by introducing a range of production grants and subsidies. Farm inputs, including finance, fertiliser, and transport were all subsidised, partly in an effort to stimulate production and thus the export income required to sustain the protected secondary sector of the economy and partly to compensate farmers for the higher costs imposed by that same protection regime. The Livestock Incentive Scheme (1976) and the Supplementary Minimum Price Scheme (1978) were intended to offer price support to farmers, while the Land Development Encouragement Loans Scheme (1978) encouraged both the intensification of existing land uses and the development of marginal land. For Ngaiotonga, the LDEL, intended to develop an area of 180 acres, was envisaged as a means of offsetting the reduction in stock numbers as land was converted to farm forestry, although the prospect of more debt did not appeal to some owners.360

360 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204- 213. 175

25000

20000

15000

10000

Profit/loss before interest 5000 Full interest charge Actual loss for year Dollars 0 61-62 62-63 63-64 64-65 65-66 66-67 67-68 68-69 70-71 Interest remitted Book loss for year -5000

-10000

-15000

-20000 Source: ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/c 61/19/1

Graph 5.3: Ngaiotonga development scheme: trading results, 1961 to 1971

450000

400000

350000

300000

250000

Debt 200000 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Debt) 150000

100000

50000

0 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2090g 18/14/1 Part 1

Graph 5.4: Ngaiotonga development scheme: debt ($), including interest, 1 April 1960 to 30 June 1971

176

5.5 ‘A poor return for 24 years’ work:’ Ngaiotonga during the 1970s and 1980s

The Ngaiotonga development’s scheme’s prospects hardly improved during the 1970s and 1980s. Efforts to establish other revenue streams were made, advantage was taken of the various forms (while they existed) of State subsidy, and a tight reign remained on capital expenditure.

5.5.1 Exploring options for utilisation

During the 1970s the Department explored alternative forms of utilisation to try to meet the scheme’s indebtedness, namely, subdivision and sale or lease of selected portions, and afforestation. With respect to the former, in 1967, in an apparent effort to reduce the mounting debt, several beach sections were for offered for sale by tender: although valued at between £700 and £1,000, the tenders received had been around £200.361 In 1974, the Department proposed having a private valuer and the Whangarei County Council investigate the sub-divisional possibilities. The initial responses of the scheme’s development committee were not recorded. 362 Just one owner attended the subsequent annual meeting: the minutes simply recorded that the County Council ‘could be invited to visit the scheme and advise on eventual subdivision of certain parts.’363 That particular matter was not recorded as having been discussed during the 1975 meeting of owners: sales of beach sections appear to have been abandoned as means of reducing debt.

On the other hand, owners did discuss, in 1976 and again in 1977, the possibility of planting portions of the scheme in Pinus radiata, that is, as farm rather than straight forestry.364 In March 1978 owners were advised that the gross income from the trees over a period of 24 years would exceed $1.5m, while costs were estimated at $250,000. The resulting surplus would clear the debt and leave a large cash surplus for the owners, while allowing the return of the land.365 Despite concerns on the part

361 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2090/g 18/14/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.188-195. 362 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204- 213. 363 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204- 213. 364 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204- 213. 365 District Officer, Whangarei to owners in Ngaiotonga development scheme 9 March 1978, in ANZ Wellington BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204-213. 177

of some owners over the long lead-time before any return could be expected, on the basis of advice secured from the New Zealand Forest Service, planting commenced in 1979. For most owners, it seemed, afforestation constituted a hedge against scheme debt, at the same time promising a reduction in land maintenance costs.

In 1980, the Department of Maori Affairs conducted a series of hui to which it presented a forestry development plan for some 3,000 acres of coastal lands between Russell and Ngaiotonga: the scheme, it was predicted, would offer ‘permanent employment’ to 35 Maori families. The first hui was held at Ngaiotonga on 13 June 1980: while that meeting endorsed the proposal in principle, some of those attending expressed some scepticism given their experience of the Ngaiotonga Development Scheme (which was not included in the 3,000 acres and which was still under full departmental control), and given what they perceived to be the obstructive stance adopted towards Maori by local authorities.366

By 1985, on the other hand, 495 hectares of Ngaiotonga were in pasture, 320 hectares were in pines, and 360 hectares (almost a third) were deemed ‘unsuitable.’ Planting of the pines, at the Bland Bay end of the development block, took place under a Project Employment Programme [PEP] scheme (although that appears not to have produced the results desired and in fact the PEP workers ceased in April 1985) and with a Forestry Encouragement Grant [FEG]. 367 The ground afforested was also used for both sheep and cattle grazing purposes depending on the progress of growth, pruning, and thinning, and on the decomposition of waste material. By 1985 the forestry operation was in serious difficulties, the outcome of poor work on the part of the PEP workers: remedial work, the Board was advised, was required urgently lest the value of the eventual harvest were severely reduced and indeed extraction made uneconomical. The cost of the work required was put at $64,409. 368 Following approval by the annual meeting of owners in November 1986, and reflecting the termination of both the PEP and the FEG schemes, management of the scheme’s

367 Forestry encouragement grants were introduced in 1983 under the Forests Act 1949. 368 Secretary, Maori Affairs, paper prepared for Board of Maori Affairs 3 May 1985, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2832/a 18/14 Part 11. 178

forestry component was transferred to the newly established Taitokerau Forest Company Limited.369 Under that arrangement, the company developed, managed, and harvested the plantations, taking a commission of five percent plus other ‘miscellaneous fees.’370

Taitokerau Forests Limited, a private company, was established as a Maori owned and managed commercial forestry operation intended to overcome what were regarded as the unsatisfactory lease terms and conditions offered to Maori land owners by existing commercial forest companies. The company was also intended to assist Maori land owners to develop to the full the economic potential of their lands through the return to owners of profits and the creation of employment opportunities. The initial shareholder was the Maori Trustee and remained so until ‘forestry rights’ had been entered into with Maori trusts: at that stage shares were to be allocated to those trusts (on the basis of five shares for every hectare of plantable area covered by the forestry right). By taking over the Ngaiotonga forestry operation, as it did in November 1986, Taitokerau Forests Limited relieved the remainder of the scheme of financial responsibility for the forested block, with the additional prospect of facilitating the scheme’s return to full Maori ownership and owner control.

5.5.2 Remitting interest

While the scheme’s financial position showed some signs of improvement at the very end of the 1960s, the capacity of the scheme ever to generate sufficient revenue to meet operating costs that included the full cost of interest remained in serious doubt. In August 1970, it was suggested that the uncollected interest, then standing at $118,109, should be remitted to reduce the level of debt to $303,362. 371 The Whangarei Office of the Department of Maori Affairs in fact recommended a continuation of the arrangement under which interest was remitted on that part of the debt that exceeded valuation. In turn, the Department’s Head Office recommended the remission of all interest for a period of three years, with a review at the end of March

369 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/c 18/14/12 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.214-232. 370 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/c 18/14/12 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.214-232. 371 Assistant Officer, Development to District Officer, Whangarei 6 August 1970; and District Accountant to District Officer, Whangarei 26 June 1970, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/c 61/19/1 Part 5. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.29-58. 179

1973.372 The Board adopted that last recommendation. It was clearly concerned that the remission, over a period of nine years, on that part of the debt that exceeded the scheme’s capital valuation had allowed a (very small) profit to be made only in one year, 1964-1965. The Department’s Secretary noted that ‘Interest concessions are of little value if the debt is allowed to increase.’ He went on to record that if for any reason revenue did not come up to expectations, then expenditure would have to be cut accordingly and that ‘A gross profit before interest must be achieved otherwise we cannot afford to continue with the Scheme.’ 373 The Ngaiotonga development scheme’s future was at best uncertain, the Board, in 1971, expressing concern over the ‘past inability of this Scheme to cover costs ....’374

The remission of all interest allowed Ngaiotonga to achieve a small trading profit for 1970-1971, but it was clear that it would take a considerable period before the debt of almost $419,000 (including uncollected interest of $126,470) had been reduced to the level of the assessed current market value of $198,650. Moreover, it was also clear that some additional capital expenditure (especially stock yards, buildings, and vehicles) was necessary. A short-lived lift in commodity prices in the early 1970s certainly assisted, as did continuing improvements in stock performance, but the reduction in debt to $370,388 by the end of March 1973 was chiefly due to the remission of interest. The Board of Maori Affairs conducted a review of the scheme in December 1974 and agreed to maintain for a further three-year period the remission of all interest. Continuing interest remissions and improved commodity prices combined with a tight rein on both capital expenditure and operating costs to see the level of debt decline through the remainder of the decade.375 Graph 5.5 which shows the amount of interest remitted and the profit and loss, suggests that it was only from 1971 that remission of interest appears to have contributed to an improved operating performance.

372 Paper for Board of Maori Affairs, ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/c 61/19/1 Part 5. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.29-58. 373 Secretary, Maori Affairs to District Officer, Whangarei 14 May 1971, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/c 61/19/1 Part 5. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.29-58. 374 Board of Maori Affairs, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2489/a 18/14 Part 7. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.169-179. 375 With respect to capital expenditure, see, for example, Fields Director, Wellington to Whangarei 13 July 1978, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2489/c 18/14 Part 9. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.180-187. 180

40000

30000

20000

10000 Interest remitted

Dollars 0 Profit/loss 1960 1965 1970 1976

-10000

-20000

-30000 Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2090g 18/14/1 Part 1

Graph 5.5: Ngaiotonga development scheme: interest remitted and profit or loss, 1960 to 1976

As at 1 April 1978, Ngaiotonga had a total valuation of $407,900 but a debt of $350,793, so that owners’ equity amounted to $57,107. It was, commented one official, in October 1978, ‘a poor return for 24 years’ work. Even this meagre return would not have been possible without interest concessions.’ He went on to observe that ‘As well as repaying this debt, the Maori owners have also to buy the Crown and Maori Trustee shares back ... They want their land back. We cannot give it to them until debt is level with the value of improvements. This will not be possible within the foreseeable future unless the interest concessions are continued.’376 That became clear once remission ceased and the debt, from about 1980, resumed its apparently inexorable rise. Graph 5.6 shows the scheme’s debt from 1971 to 1988: it includes a two-year moving average to make clearer the trend in debt level.

On the basis that the farming and forestry operations should, for financial purposes, be split, an analysis indicated that at an interest rate of 15 percent per annum, the scheme debt needed to be less than $302,000 if cash surpluses were to cover interest

376 Report by Executive Officer (Development), Maori Affairs, 24 October 1978, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2492/a 18/14/17 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.277-290. 181

charges and reduce overall debt. The Department of Maori Affairs thus recommended to the Board that interest charges for the three years 1980-1983 should be granted to reduce debt to some $252,000 by the end of June 1985. 377 The Board deferred a decision pending receipt of a report ‘as to the viability of continuing the farming enterprise on this property.’378 No report was located and it is possible that in the light of the new government’s decision to return all land development schemes as promptly as possible, none was prepared.

450000

400000

350000

300000

250000 Total debt

Dollars 200000 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Total debt)

150000

100000

50000

0 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Graph 5.6: Ngaiotonga development scheme: debt ($), 1971 to 1988

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030 18/14/17 Parts 1 to 4)

5.5.3 The end of state support

In 1980-1981 interest charges were again levied on Ngaiotonga, although owners were advised that as part of the three-year review due, the Department would in all likelihood recommend that interest again be remitted for the period from 1 July 1980 to 30 June 1983.379 The scheme’s annual operating performance improved, such that, according to the Department of Maori Affairs in 1985, the scheme was ‘now self-

377 Secretary, Maori Affairs, paper prepared for Board of Maori Affairs 3 May 1985, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2832/a 18/14 Part 11. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.254-292. 378 Note on Board of Maori Affairs paper, ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030 1030/2382/a 18/14 Part 11. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.254-291. 379 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204- 213. 182

sufficient, albeit marginally so.’380 But that improvement was based, in part at least, on the state-funded agricultural support structure established during the 1970s and 1980s. That system of subsidies eventually rendered the industry unresponsive to external price signals, increasingly uncompetitive internationally, and seriously burdened by inflated land values and debt. In 1984/1985 that structure was suddenly dismantled, the currency was devalued by 20 percent and subsequently allowed to float, major changes in taxation policy were introduced, and the government began to withdraw from the Maori land development programme.

5.6 Measuring some outcomes

It will be instructive at this stage to try to measure some of the outcomes for owners of the dismal performance of the Ngaiotonga development scheme. There are very few data readily available or suitable for that task. The standard of housing, though, is a useful proxy measure of the economic well-being of individuals, families, and communities. That standard has a direct bearing on a wide range of matters, from health to education to the capacity of the persons concerned to participate in and contribute constructively to the economic performance of their communities. An investigation conducted into Maori housing in the Whangaruru area and the Ngaiotonga district in 1957 revealed a good number of substandard dwellings, while the officer responsible reported that the future housing of the families concerned depended upon the settlement of the Ngaiotonga development scheme. Some older residents, in particular, saw in the promised subdivision and settlement an opportunity for grandchildren to return and thus the prospect of securing better accommodation.381 The ramifications of the failure of the scheme to yield 13 farms thus appear to have reached deeply into the Whangaruru and Ngaiotonga communities.

Trends in population can also offer some insight into the welfare of a community. Graph 5.7 shows the Maori population of Whangaruru and Ngaiotonga as recorded by the censuses from 1945 to 1971. 382 Temporal coincidence does not always imply some sort of causal connection, but it is interesting to observe that the Maori

380 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2832/a 18/14 Part 11. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.254-292. 381 H.W. Pihema to District Welfare Officer 7 October 1957, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2445/g 11/4/6. 382 The censuses recorded numbers for Whangaruru North, Whangaruru South, and Whangaruru Beach. 183

population of Whangaruru and Ngaiotonga increased quite markedly as the Nagitotonga development scheme was established and during the first few years of its operation, only to fall sharply once it became known that subdivision and settlement would be delayed for a protracted period and to continue to contract once subdivision and settlement had been finally abandoned. Perhaps Graph 5.7 depicts not only the rise and fall of population numbers but also the course of hope and expectation on the part of owners.

250

200

150

Numbers Maori population 100

0 1945 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 Sources: Censuses of New Zealand

Graph 5.7: The Maori population of Whangaruru and Ngaiotonga, 1945 to 1971

The little evidence that is available thus suggests that by 1961 the Whangaruru and Ngaiotonga communities were contracting in size and ageing, their younger members having departed for the country’s urban centres or moved elsewhere in the region in search of employment. Pensions, other social welfare entitlements, and other forms of family assistance appear to have constituted the main sources of income for those who remained. The less than adequate state of a good deal of the districts’ housing stock was a measure of their lack of economic progress and the loss of heart and confidence

184

that followed the realisation that the Ngaitonga development scheme was most unlikely to deliver the outcomes once promised.383

5.7 The return of the Ngaiotonga development scheme

Once it became clear that Ngaiotonga would not be subdivided and settled, the remaining Maori owners turned their attention to the return of the scheme. Accordingly, the reports of annual meetings, from the mid 1970s certainly, indicate a readiness on the part of the Department of Maori Affairs to canvass owner opinion. It is important to acknowledge that throughout the life of the scheme, annual meetings of owners were held but, reflecting the movement of people, both former and existing owners, to the country’s urban centres, they were often poorly attended. In any case their purpose was less to engage owners in decision-making than it was to inform them of decisions and progress made and difficulties encountered. A ‘scheme committee’ was appointed and, for a short time at least, took an active role, notably in 1963, when it assisted in the resolution of grievances involving the scheme’s manager. Nevertheless, by 1965 the Department of Maori Affairs was expressing serious concern over the ever-diminishing number of owners who attended. It experimented with various ways of engaging owners, among them, sending out simplified versions of the station’s accounts and inviting comment, and establishing a ‘consultation committee’ to meet at its convenience, with the Department making an officer available accordingly. 384 In March 1970, the Board of Maori Affairs directed the appointment of scheme development committees on which owners were represented. In the case of Ngaiotonga, two of the remaining 21 owners agreed to serve on a committee intended to give owners a better voice in the running of the scheme, including the preparation of annual estimates.385

The ‘Owners’ Committee,’ in 1974, thus included the Field Director of Maori, the District Officer, and District Field Supervisor, all of the Department, and, initially,

383 For a general survey of health, economic, and social indicators in Northland up to 1945, see Hearn, ‘Social and economic change in Northland,’ especially Chapters 11 and 12. No evidence was located that would suggest that conditions in the Whangaruru and Ngaiotonga districts differed in any substantial way from the accounts offered. 384 District Officer, Whangarei to Pita Pene and others 2 December 1965, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/a 18/14/12 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.196-203. 385 District Officer, Whangarei to Head Office 28 October 1970, in ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1361/c 61/19/1 Part 5. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.29-58. 185

Walter Pita and Wi Heta. The committee was established to (1) approve annual farming programmes; (2) approve provisionally any variations to such programmes; (3) receive annual accounts; and (4) approve provisionally initial development programmes when a scheme was being initiated.386 The last scarcely applied, while the first three made it clear that the locus of decision-making rested elsewhere. The Department also commenced, in 1978, writing to all owners to seek their views on specific proposals: how long that continued and with what outcomes is unknown. Owners’ representatives continued to meet: thus in September 1985 the committee discussed the estimates and silviculture proposals.387

5.7.1 Re-purchasing shares

The return of Ngaiotonga to full Maori ownership and control involved the settlement of several difficult issues, among them, the re-purchase of shares acquired by the Crown through conversion and live buying, and the appropriate land management structure. In February 1980, owners were informed that the Maori Land Board’s policy was to sell shares acquired by the Maori Trustee and by the Crown to existing owners as a collectivity. It is difficult to imagine that the irony was lost on owners. The price would be based on current market value.388 For the year ended 30 June 1980 Ngaiotonga generated an operational profit of $17,465. The scheme had a net value (after allowing $38,448 for creditors and tax and $239,619 owned to the Department of Maori Affairs) of $669,756. On that basis the 3,153.154 shares were worth each $212.41.389 As at 30 June 1980 the Crown (as separate from the Maori Trustee) owned a total of 2,268.142 shares: their value was thus almost $482,000.

The formation of a trust or an incorporation to take over the Ngaiotonga development scheme was a matter regularly discussed at owners’ meetings but as regularly deferred on account of sparse attendance. The matter was discussed at some length during the annual meeting held in November 1981: at that time a decision was taken

386 See District Officer, Whangarei to Wi Heta 8 April 1974, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204-213. 387 See Note for file, Ngaiotonga estimates 16 September 1985, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/c 18/14/12 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.214232. 388 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204- 213. 389 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204- 213. 186

to call a special meeting to examine the options and to consider purchasing the shares acquired by the Maori Trustee and the Crown. The likely high cost of the shares was noted, such that the District Officer suggested that the scheme would probably remain with the Department for many years. District Officer T. Parore indicated that while it was Maori Land Board policy not to sell shares to individual owners but to owners collectively, the Board might consider returning shares acquired compulsorily to their owners or their successors at cost plus ten percent interest. By way of contrast, shares acquired through live buying would be priced at the current market value. The possibility of the Whangaruru-Ngatiwai Trust Board (which had shares in the scheme) taking over Ngaiotonga was discussed, although some owners expressed doubt over its ability to administer the scheme. 390 In fact, owners entertained some serious misgivings over the return of Ngaiotonga, not least in respect of the continuing inability of the farming operation to ‘pay its way,’ over the period of some 15 to 20 years that had to elapse before the forestry operation might yield revenue, and over the capital expenditure required in the form of new buildings, fencing, and farm machinery.

In February 1984, owners were advised that the Maori Land Board had decided, in accord with government policy, that all schemes had to be returned to their owners as soon as possible. They were also advised that they would have to repay the existing debt and purchase the shares acquired by the Crown and the Maori Trustee. Quite how owners were to meet the cost involved, given that their shares qualified them to receive approximately 15 percent of the net revenues, was not explained. Repurchase was again to the fore during the annual meeting of owners held in December 1984, in particular matters of price, how the cost would be met, and to whom the shares would go. The owners present deferred making any decisions.391

5.7.2 A trust or an incorporation?

A year later, in November 1985 - almost three decades after Ngaiotonga had been established and 25 years after the first occupiers were supposed to have taken up their holdings - the Department made it clear that it wished to return Ngaiotonga to full

390 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.204- 213. 391 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/c 18/14/12 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.214-232. 187

owner control in the form of a trust or an incorporation, and to do so within two to four years. Four issues would have to be resolved, namely, to whom would the scheme be returned; whether the debts could be serviced; who would benefit from the return of shares, that is, existing shareholders, those who had lost shares through conversion, those who sold their shares, or all three groups; and the payment of forestry costs (estimated at $500,000 over 20 years). The Department, which assisted in the establishment of Taitokerau Forests Limited, clearly favoured the latter assuming responsibility as a way of facilitating the return of the scheme.392 It was clear that owners still confronted a major difficulty, namely, that the sheep and cattle operations were unlikely ever to generate sufficient revenue to discharge the debt and to buy out the Crown.

The formation of a trust was discussed at length during the annual meeting of owners held in November 1986. The Department suggested that ‘all should have opportunity to regain ownership’ rather than that existing shareholders should gain, thus neatly inverting the thrust of policy since 1953. The irony presumably was not lost on those present. A decision was taken to set up a trust separate from the Ngatiwai Trust, the new body to be known as the Whangaroa Ngaiotonga Trust. Seven trustees were nominated.393 At the annual meeting in November 1987 owners were advised that the Maori Trustee had been empowered to return, at no cost, all shares that had been acquired compulsorily, while those that had been ‘sold freely’ would be offered to existing owners at valuation. To facilitate the purchase of the latter, the Maori Trustee would offer an interest-free loan, to be re-paid out of future profits. Those who had sold their shares ‘freely’ would not be able to re-purchase them. The Government’s wish was to return the scheme to existing owners. A proposal for the establishment of the Whangaroa Ngaiotonga Trust was then before the Maori Land Court for approval.394

392 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/c 18/14/12 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.214-232. Taitokerau Forests Limited was established in 1986 and presently has rights over 5,809 hectares of Maori-owned land in the form of 16 blocks located throughout central Northland and on the Potou Peninsula. Ngaiotonga AThirtyThree is one of 18 shareholders and holds 1,408 shares or 4.75 percent of the total shareholding. 393 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/c 18/14/12 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.214-232. 394 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2490/c 18/14/12 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.214-232. 188

In 1988, the Government announced that all development schemes would be returned to their owners by 1 July 1990. The expectation was that most schemes would be returned to section 438 trusts. Trusts and incorporations were also regarded as forms of title improvement: such structures, it was believed, would enable Maori to deal with the complexities otherwise presented by multiple and absentee ownership. Provisions for trusts were enacted in 1943, modified in 1953, and in 1967 more closely aligned with incorporations. For the owners of most schemes, a major if not overriding concern was that the schemes should have some prospect of future economic success. Informing that demand was a belief that the development of the schemes had taken much longer than originally intended with the result that debts had accumulated considerably beyond original estimates. Much of the land involved had, moreover, been of a marginal character. At the same time, interest rates had, during the 1980s in particular, increased sharply, adding significantly to overall debts levels.

Graph 5.7 depicts the ownership structure of the Ngaiotonga development scheme as it had developed by 1988: the Crown held 84.6 percent of the shares, 58.7 percent having been acquired through live buying. That meant that owners would be required to purchase 1,759.595 shares for which current valuations indicated a purchase price of $488,000. It is worthwhile noting here that the price paid for those shares had been based upon the government capital valuation. In effect, the policies aimed at eliminating ‘uneconomic’ interests and reducing the number of owners so that the Crown might create titles in severalty and better control the selection of occupiers had resulted in the compulsory excision of many owners and the creation of a $488,000 purchase price for the Whangaroa Ngaiotonga Trust. In short, the implementation of those policies had left the Crown as the major shareholder, while the scheme was to be returned to collective ownership.

189

15%

Owners's shares

Crown: shares acquired through conversion 26% 59% Crown: shares acquired through live buying

Graph 5.8: Ngaiotonga development scheme: structure of ownership, 1988

5.7.3 The terms of the return

In August 1988, the Board of Maori Affairs consented to the formation of a section 438 trust. In December 1988, the trustees of the Whangaruru Whangaroa Development Trust, well aware of the difficulties the Department had experienced in trying to develop and extract a satisfactory return from the scheme and reluctant to accept back a block that might prove to be a financial liability, sought the return of Ngaiotonga free of debt, the return of the shares held by the Crown at no charge, and the setting apart of an area for papakainga housing. They noted that while they had been assured at the outset that the scheme would be returned within 11 years of inception, in fact 36 years had elapsed without any compensation. With respect to debt, standing at over $500,000, the trustees expressed concern over the financial performance and sustainability of the farming operations, noted that the forestry block was 15 to 20 years from generating an income stream, and indicated that plant and buildings required substantial upgrading. 395 By 1989, 259 hectares of the 1,125

395 Chairperson, Whangaruru Whangaroa Development Trust to Minister, Maori Affairs 23 December 1988, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2832/a 18/14 Part 11. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.254- 292. 190

hectare (2,780 acres) Ngaiotonga A3 were in pinus radiata, 445 hectares were in pasture, and 421 hectares were still being described as ‘unsuitable.’ The trustees were advised that the Crown proposed to return all schemes by June 1990, with any debts being set at a level at which trustees would have a ‘reasonable’ opportunity of sustaining their farming operations. The actual level of debt would be negotiated scheme by scheme and would take into account a range of considerations, among them, length of time under development, extent of Crown ownership, financial performance, and future prospects.396

As at 1 April 1987, the Ngaiotonga development scheme had a net asset value of $1,553,225. 397 Its liquidation value was assessed at $1,165,000. The value of the Crown’s shares was calculated at $369.59 (per share) less 25 percent ‘saleability’ or $277.19 per share, thus giving the Crown’s 1,759.95 shares a total value of $488,000. That reflected what was termed ‘the saleability of a majority shareholding’ and took into account the proportion of Crown shares, the farm profit, the level of stock performance and potential income from timber, the remote locality and coastal frontage, and the presence of historic sites on the property.398 The converted shares were re-vested without charge, while the purchase of the shares acquired through live buying would be financed by the Maori Trustee.

As at 30 June 1988, owners’ funds in the scheme were valued at $1,089,145, total assets at $1,302,966, and liabilities at $213,821 of which the (already discounted) debt to the Department was $211,150. The Board in fact was advised that, under its existing land use, the scheme had never shown a substantial profit and was unlikely to do so in the future.399 In short, the scheme’s debt servicing ability was rated as being negligible. The Board thus decided, on 14 June 1989, to return the scheme to the Whangaroa Ngaiotonga Trust with a residual debt of $7,300, to cancel the debt of $211,150 and to release Ngaiotonga A3 from Part XXIV/1953 (now Part II, 1989).

396 Minister, Maori Affairs to Chairperson, Whangaruru Whangaroa Development Trust 20 January 1989, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2832/a 18/14 Part 11. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.254- 292. 397 That comprised land, stock, and plant valued at $1,768,550 less liabilities of $215,325. 398 District Valuer, Valuation New Zealand to Maori Trustee, Whangarei 9 October 1989, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2832/a 18/14 Part 11. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.254-292. 399 Paper prepared by District Field Officer for Board of Maori Affairs 5 May 1989, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2832/a 18/14 Part 11. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.254-292. 191

Ngaiotonga was returned, 35 years after its gazetting in 1954, to owner control on 30 June 1989 with a formal handing over ceremony held on 18 November 1989 at Ngaiotonga.

Dissatisfaction on the part of the trust over the scheme’s residual debt delayed the final release of the block, as did that of the Maori Land Court over the area of Ngaiotonga A3 as calculated by DOSLI. In the interim, the Crown, through the Ministry of Maori Development, agreed to allow the owners to lease the land, apart, that is, from the afforested area already under lease to Taitokerau Forests Limited. In February 1992. the Crown agreed to write off the residual debt but for $75.00. In the following November, Ngaiotonga A3 of 1098.4020 hectares was released from Part II of the Maori Affairs Restructuring Act 1989.400 In 1993 part of the block was leased to S.G.A. Semenoff for a period of six years. The lease was renewed for another term of six years from 1 April 2004.

Presently, Ngaiotonga A3 has an area of 1,137.23 hectares and 1,153 owners. Of the 3152.154 shares, the Maori Trustee retains 1759.595 or 55.8 percent.

5.8 Conclusions

Within just a few years of its establishment in 1954, it was plainly apparent that the Ngaiotonga development scheme would not deliver the results, financial or settlement, once confidently predicted and expected. Development costs rose apparently inexorably, and the scheme regularly failed to deliver an operating profit, certainly one that would have allowed debt to be significantly reduced. By the early 1960s, the plan to subdivide the scheme into 11 dairy and two sheep units had largely been abandoned. Subsequently the Department of Maori Affairs invested a great deal of effort into trying to increase commodity production, minimise capital expenditure, secure interest remissions, and assess alternative uses for the land. Given that the Department was well aware that small farmers on both the Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Otara blocks had struggled through the 1930s and 1940s to sustain their farming endeavours, its apparent failure to conduct a thorough appraisal of local weather patterns, soil fertility, and the capacity of the land to sustain high-yielding pastures is

400 ‘Maori Land Development Notice,’ New Zealand Gazette 192, 26 November 1992, p.4323. 192

difficult to explain. Such assessment as was conducted appears to have been cursory and indeed to have relied on rainfall data recorded for other districts, while soil testing was only conducted several years after the scheme had been established.

What the estimates of costs and returns do not disclose are the assumptions made regarding likely movements in commodity and input prices, but it is worthwhile noting that the Ngaiotonga development scheme was planned and established during one of the greatest booms in New Zealand’s economic history.401 It is at least possible that the optimism generated by that boom and the propitious economic conditions that followed also underlay and informed both the plans for and the decision to establish the scheme. Ngaiotonga was enmeshed in a familiar primary sector commodity cycle in which high prices, rising investment and greatly increased supply were followed by contracting prices, rising indebtedness, and an inability to service that debt. Unfortunately for the Ngaiotonga development scheme, the prospects for either raising or diversifying production, the traditional primary sector responses to adverse economic conditions, were few. The options that remained, namely, abandoning the plans for subdivision, minimising capital expenditure, maintaining a tight control of running – including labour – costs, and encouraging owners to resume control, were those adopted.

Those very options, in particular, minimising capital expenditure and labour costs, while both were financially defensible, had serious implications. Thus minimising capital expenditure meant an erosion of the scheme’s potential productive capacity: areas that could have been developed were not and fertilisers were applied at maintenance levels. Minimising labour costs meant that the opportunities for the transfer of technical and budgeting knowledge and skills to Maori were correspondingly limited. As noted above, the apparent lack of interest on the part of owners in the fate of the scheme was the subject of frequent comment on the part of the Department of Maori Affairs. The possibility that owners had simply lost faith in its promises was not a matter on which it chose to comment. None of this is to say

401 The Korean War saw export prices for New Zealand wool rise sharply during 1950-1951: although within a year they had declined, wool export prices remained at elevated levels compared with the prices that had prevailed since 1925. As a result the national sheep flock increased markedly in size during the 1950s, while by the end of that decade a record number of sheep farms was in operation. 193 that the departmental officers did not invest effort, expertise, and substantial financial resources into the scheme: it is to say that as those officers lost confidence so, too, did owners.

One other matter merits comment. As the post-war development schemes were established it became increasingly clear that Ngata’s original vision and programme had been transformed into essentially a bureaucratic enterprise in which primary objectives were less to revivify and sustain Maori communities than they were, in the national economic interest, to bring land into production and to restructure Maori land ownership. To do so required a large measure of control and the opportunity to exercise that control without having to consult owners and to secure their agreement. The terms on which the Ngaiotonga development scheme was established afforded a large measure of the desired control, but the Crown deemed it necessary to consolidate and extend its ability to make all the key decisions by radically altering the structure of the ownership of the lands involved. By becoming a majority shareholder, in part through compulsory dispossession, it secured the freedom of action it sought. But it also markedly reduced the number of owners, with consequences that were perhaps unforeseen. The excision of many owners meant that many left the district, that many who remained were elderly and less able to participate in the scheme’s management when once the Department decided that owners should be more actively involved, and that the opportunities to transfer technical knowledge and management skills to those who might have been expected to assume a leadership role were seriously circumscribed. It was only when the Crown decided, during the 1980s, as part of a much wider reform of the public service and state enterprises, to all schemes as quickly as possible, that some assistance was provided: that was as well, given that the Crown’s management had generated a high level of indebtedness and created a scheme that had failed to fulfil both the promises made and the expectations raised upon its founding 35 years previously.

194

Chapter 6: Beaches, subdivisions, and allotment sales, 1951

to 2016

The themes of title reform, state assistance, alienation, consultation, and partnership were again to the fore in the third major scheme through which the Crown, in the form of the Maori Land Court and the Maori Trustee, engaged with the owners of the four blocks under investigation. Chapter 6 will explore the various proposals, both private and Crown, for the subdivision of parts of the blocks under investigation into beach-side residential sections, the nature and extent of the schemes finally established or implemented, the character of the relationship between owners and the Maori Trustee in particular, the extent of state assistance, and the manner in which the Maori Trustee discharged his trust in respect of the lands vested in him. It will also offer some assessment of the outcomes for owners although, as noted in the Introduction, it is possible that any relevant files retained by the Maori Trustee might have offered insights not otherwise offered by the public record.

6.1 Introduction

By the early 1950s Maori landowners and residents, the Department of Maori Affairs, and external interests were alive to the holiday and recreational potential of Bland Bay and, indeed, to that of inlets, bays, and harbours along Northland’s east coast. Such were the growing pressures for beach-side sections, camping grounds, other recreational open spaces, and access to bush-walks, that the Department of Maori Affairs gave early consideration to using the section 438 provisions of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 as the basis for large-scale subdivision schemes involving land owned by Maori. The intensive subdivision and sales of the period from about 1950 to 1985 generally followed one of three routes. The first involved Maori owners themselves taking the initiative and subdividing their land for their own use and for sale; the second involved the sale of blocks to external interests who then subdivided and sold the resulting allotments; and the third involved the Maori Trustee acting for owners. Subdivision of Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Otara blocks into beach and other residential sections also served to arouse the interest of a fourth player, namely, the Crown and its desire to reserve public access to the beaches, to provide other

195

recreational areas, to preserve as much of the area’s scenic beauty as possible, and to protect important archaeological sites.

Chapter 6 deals with the subdivision of Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Otara into beach-side allotments, while Chapter 7 examines the efforts of the Crown to reserve areas as public open space. It will be helpful, first, to complete a sketch of the history of Ngaiotonga-Tuparehuia road. Once deemed essential for those ‘units’ and others who farmed the Otara blocks and further down the Peninsula, its construction ultimately had a great deal more to do with the transformation of the district into a holiday and recreation destination.

6.2 Roading the Whangaruru Peninsula

The efforts up to about 1952 to have roads constructed to service the Whangaruru Peninsula were discussed in Chapter 3. This section carries the discussion forward from the establishment of the Ngaiotonga development scheme. In 1952, the Department of Maori Affairs approached the Whangarei County over the maintenance of the proposed road: the County agreed to bear the cost on the condition that the Department make it an annual grant of £100 in lieu of rates. The first grant was made to cover 1957-1958, after which date, the Board of Maori Affairs was informed, full payment of rates would be made from the expected profits generated by the scheme. 402 The Department of Maori Affairs was unhappy over that decision, but acquiesced on the assumption that 13 ‘economic farms’ would be established along the road within a short period.403 With the approval of Treasury (always anxious to ensure that the grant did not exceed the actual expenditure on maintenance), grants were made. For its part, the Department of Public Works, noting the likely future extension down the Peninsula, classified the proposed road as a ‘through road.’ 404

402 ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/1360/c 61/19/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.346-364. 403 Assistant District Officer, Maori Affairs, Auckland to District Commissioner of Works, Auckland 19 May 1953 and 21 August 1953, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 404 District Commissioner of Works, Auckland to District Officer, Whangarei 24 April 1952, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. Classification as a through road meant that the cost of construction would be allocated to ‘Maori Roading’ in the Vote: Works. 196

Plate 6.1: Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour, c.1966

(Source: Whites Aviation)

In July 1953, the Department of Maori Affairs’s Resident Officer in Whangarei pressed to have the road extended beyond the proposed 2.5 miles to the end of the Ngaiotonga development scheme, that is, the south-east boundary of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 4D.405 Beyond the Ngaiotonga development scheme the six unit and one non-unit farmers were producing an average of 2,667lbs of butterfat annually, and R. Graham (who had purchased Cooper’s property) was producing 6,000lbs annually while also running sheep.406 The road would serve those farms while also providing

405 Resident Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei to District Officer, Auckland 29 July 1953, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.159-212. 406 The units included Pita Pene, S.W. Davis, J.S. Martin, Watson Pita, and Saul Thompson, and the non-unit was Charlie Walters. 197

access to ‘attractive’ beach sections and encourage the opening of further land for similar sections. Whangarei’s Assistant District Officer suggested that it would allow the consolidation of two schools, give access to the isolated settlement of Whangaruru, and discourage other small farmers from leaving the district.407 Of the total length of 4.3 miles, it was intended to construct, in the first place, 2.25 miles: the estimated cost of construction and metalling that 2.25 miles was £14,138. In part, the decision to proceed was based on the assumption that the Ngaiotonga development scheme would be subdivided into 11 dairy and two sheep farms, that is, in addition to the five unit and two non-unit properties beyond the scheme. The Minister of Maori Affairs approved, while in November 1953 the Minister of Works approved the expenditure of £14,138 as a charge against the Public Works account Vote: Roads.408

In September 1954, Pita Pene and 65 residents of Whangaruru approached the Minister of Works with a view to having the proposed road extended 2 miles and 20 chains to the eastern boundary of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9 and thus the settlement of Whangaruru: such extension would eliminate reliance on cross-harbour transport while encouraging the development of further land around the settlement. The road, it was suggested, would also link two of the principal community centres of Ngatiwai. 409 The matter was referred to the Minister of Maori Affairs for whom Whangarei’s District Officer drafted a reply. The cost was estimated at £15,000, an expenditure that was not recommended given the ‘negligible’ production from the small number of farms involved. He went on to note that the extension would serve ‘a large number of very desirable beach sections ...’ and, indeed, construction would probably see their value quadruple. Opposed to construction that would cost the Crown but benefit private owners, the District Officer went on:

I have always had at the back of my mind the idea that when an opportunity occurred I should arrange for the land on which the beach sections are situated to be vested in the Maori Trustee under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 for the purpose of

407 Assistant District Officer, Whangarei to Secretary, Maori Affairs 12 August 1953, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 408 Note dated 17 February 1954 on Commissioner of Works, Wellington to Minister of Works 11 February 1954, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. 409 Pita Pene and 65 others to Minister of Works ? September 1954, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 198

subdivision and sale. The owners of the sections through the Maori Trustee would be required to make a substantial contribution towards the cost of the road. This is, however, not a matter that should receive immediate consideration.410

Essentially section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 empowered the Maori Land Court, acting on an application or independently, to vest any land owned by Maori in a trustee or trustees, including the Maori Trustee provided that none of the beneficial owners or any of them lodged ‘a meritorious objection ...’ The Secretary of Maori Affairs advised his Minister, while also noting that ‘There appears to be no reason why the State should meet the cost of constructing a road which would result in private land owners immediately reaping a large unearned financial windfall.’ On the other hand, the Department was prepared to consider negotiations with the owners of those lands suitable for subdivision into beach sections to have their lands vested in the Maori Trustee under 438/1953 for subdivision and lease or sale. Through the Maori Trustee, the owners would then be required to contribute towards the cost of the proposed extension. 411 The petitioners were advised by the Commissioner of Works that the cost of any extension would have to be met by the Department of Maori Affairs: with its funds fully committed, the prospect of progress was remote.412

Subsequently, G.W.G. Simpson, the co-owner of the 660-acre ‘The Point,’ pressed to have the road extended down the Whangaruru Peninsula to his property.413 While the Department was prepared to extend the road to the boundary of the Ngaiotonga development scheme, responsibility for any extension beyond that rested elsewhere. The Minister was advised that the estimated cost of extending the road from the scheme’s woolshed to its eastern boundary was £10,905, while a further extension to Tuparehuia would cost £4,175, and from Tuparehuia to Simpson’s property an

410 District Officer, Whangarei to Secretary, Maori Affairs 26 November 1954, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 411 Secretary, Maori Affairs to Minister, Maori Affairs 1 December 1954, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 412 Commissioner of Works, Wellington to Pita Pene, Whangaruru 4 February 1955, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp163-223. 413 G.W.G. Simpson, The Point to D.N. McKay MP n.d. in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. Simpson (1901-1972) was a retired Rear Admiral who had purchased the property in 1949 when Chief of Naval Staff in Wellington. He later served as Flag Officer in Germany in 1951 and as Flag Officer Submarines in 1952, before retiring in 1954. He farmed it in partnership with Commander R.H. Dewhurst (1905-1909): Dewhurst served in submarines from 1927 to 1953. 199

additional £6,550. The construction of the first was considered a priority; the second section would not give access to any settlers under Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953; while the third section would assist two unit settlers, though side roads would assist others and provide access to Maori-owned beach sections. As the whole of the allocation in connection with development schemes had been committed, the Minister of Maori Affairs was advised against approving the construction of the road beyond the scheme boundary. Perhaps, the Secretary suggested, the owners of the lands involved could approach the Maori Trustee for assistance to construct the road.414

The first 2.5 miles of the Ngaiotonga-Tuparehuia Road was completed in 1957. Those living beyond the Ngaiotonga development scheme’s eastern boundary pressed to have the road extended. In January 1958, Simpson’s co-owner, R.H. Dewhurst, sought the completion of the road from the woolshed to the scheme boundary, an extension that would be necessary once the scheme had been subdivided and one that might encourage the Whangarei County Council to complete it through to ‘The Point.’415 Given that settlement of the scheme was unlikely for several years, according to the Acting Minister of Maori Affairs, so, too, was the construction of the road through the scheme. 416 Simpson appealed to Minister of Maori Affairs Nash for assistance to break the ‘impasse,’ that is, to have the road from the scheme woolshed to the eastern boundary completed. 417 Nash maintained the Department’s position, and that encouraged Simpson to observe that settlement, that is the subdivision into holdings, of Ngaiotonga was ‘extremely indefinite.’418

In fact at that stage settlement was not envisaged before 1971, rendering any extension quite unnecessary, at least from the point of view of the development scheme. Early in January 1959, Whangarei’s District Officer noted that no economic

414 Secretary, Maori Affairs to Minister, Maori Affairs 20 December 1955, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 415 R.H. Dewhurst, Whangaruru South to D.N. McKay, MP 30 January 1958, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 416 Acting Minister of Maori Affairs to D.N. McKay MP 9 March 1958, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 417 G.W.G. Simpson to Minister, Maori Affairs 1 September 1958, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 418 G.W.G. Simpson to Minister, Maori Affairs 28 September 1958, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 200

analysis had been conducted: a brief report dated one week later did no more than note that construction would mean fencing costs of £1,500 for the development scheme, and that just seven families lived beyond the boundary, that there were now five active, including three unit, Maori farmers (compelled to convey their butterfat along the beach by sledge and then by row-boat across Whangaruru Harbour). It also noted that ‘suitable areas’ had been subdivided into beach sections and that further ‘suitable areas’ were available for that purpose: a road, it suggested, would see their unimproved values increase by 20 percent.419 That appeared to be the extent of the investigation conducted, the Assistant District Officer, 12 months later, relying on that report although without making any reference to the potential for subdivision into beach sections.420 Given that Ngaiotonga’s debt stood at £140,566 compared with its current market valuation of £94,940, Maori Affairs was averse to sanctioning any further expenditure.421 Rather efforts were made to encourage the Whangarei County Council to assume responsibility.

Following a petition from 87 residents of Whangaruru, discussions continued during 1960, but it was clear that the Department remained averse to loading further costs on to the already seriously indebted Ngaiotonga development scheme. 422 Rather, the Crown’s position was that those who would benefit from the proposed extension should assist ‘to the limit of their resources ...’423 On the other hand, the Whangarei County Council agreed to apply for a grant of £1,200 from the Backblocks Road Vote to improve a portion of the track that approached Simpson’s property. The Department of Maori Affairs thus undertook to extend the road from the Ngaiotonga scheme woolshed to the scheme’s boundary provided the Whangarei County Council and residents undertook to provide a metalled road to those Maori dairy farmers located further down the Tuparehuia Peninsula. The 147-chain metalled extension of

419 C. Sorensen to District Officer, Whangarei 14 January 1959, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1032/d 6/65 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.128-158. 420 Assistant District Officer, Whangarei 3 March 1960, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1032/d 6/65 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.128-158. 421 Assistant Secretary, Maori Affairs to Assistant District Officer, Whangarei 10 March 1960, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1032/d 6/65 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.128-158. 422 See, for example, Assistant Secretary, Maori Affairs to District Officer, Whangarei 10 March 1960, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. A copy of the petition can be found in ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/1032/d 6/65 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.128-158. 423 Minister of Maori Affairs to T.P. Paikea MP 1 June 1960, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Papers, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 201

the road from the woolshed would cost an estimated £5,055.424 As the Ngaiotonga scheme struggled financially and the prospect of subdivision and settlement receded, and as the number of Maori farmers further down the peninsula in whom it was interested dwindled to just one (J.S. Martin, on Otara, and producing about 6,000lbs of butterfat annually), the Department hesitated.

Towards the end of 1960 the Whangarei County Council applied, per section 421(3) of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, to have the two roadways laid out in October 1946 and May 1952 declared public roads: such declaration was necessary before the Council could expend monies on construction and maintenance. The Maori Land Court, on 24 November 1960, without prior notification, and through Commissioner J.A. Fraser, recommended that the roadways be declared public roads. 425 The Crown issued a proclamation in May 1961. Objections followed in respect of the Otara-Kirikiri roadway, specifically that no arrangements had been made for the fencing of the road, in particular who should bear the cost. It emerged that the owners (notably Watihana Waitai Pita) of the land through which the road-line passed had not been consulted over the decision to convert it into a legal road, and that fences that had been erected prior to 1946 and which crossed the road-line had been left in position. The Whangarei County Council had initiated proceedings against Pita under section 206(1)(a) of the Counties Act 1956 for encroaching on the road: at the same time, he faced a cost of between £500 and £1,000 to have the road fenced.426 The Minister of Maori Affairs, noting that Pita would derive little benefit from the road, in September 1961, halted the gazetting.427

Pita then applied to the Maori Land Court for withdrawal of the Court’s recommendation in respect of the declaration: he claimed that no satisfactory arrangements had been made in respect of fencing, that the Maori landowners had not been consulted prior to the issue of the recommendation, that such owners faced

424 Assistant District Officer, Whangarei to County Clerk, Whangarei County Council 29 July 1960, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 M1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 425 The recommendation was made ex parte in chambers by the Commisisoner rather than by a Judge in open court. 426 Webb, Ross & Ross, Whangarei to Minister of Works 24 May 1961, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. 427 Minister of Maori Affairs to Minister of Public Works 18 September 1961, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. 202

serious injustices should legalisation proceed, and that the application for legalisation had not emanated from Maori. 428 Pita’s lawyers claimed that the legalisation had proceeded ‘solely to benefit a European owner.’429 The Court in fact dismissed Pita’s application and a proclamation was issued in February 1962.430 It contained several errors, notably that it failed to refer to the relevant orders of the Court and included lands that should never had been nominated. It was revoked in August 1962.431

In July 1962, 28 ratepayers – including land owners in ‘permanent residence’ and section or bach owners – again pressed the Whangarei County Council to complete the formation and metalling of the road through to James Matenga’s and Simpson’s properties. 432 The County Council appears again to have resolved to apply for assistance under the Backblocks Roading Vote. There seemed little doubt that the road once formed and metalled would see Bland Bay develop into ‘a very desirable area for beach subdivision ....’433 The Department toughened its stance: should the Whangarei County Council secure a grant of £5,055 to complete the 147-chain section from the Ngaiotonga scheme boundary to link up with the recently formed section approaching Simpson’s property, it was, it suggested, ‘their affair.’ At the same time, the Department hesitated over expending £3,000 to supply access to Matenga’s farm, at least without some ‘cash contribution,’ presumably from Matenga himself, while the owners of the beach sections should also be required to ‘make a substantial contribution ....’434 For his part, Simpson continued to press his case.435 The position in 1963 was that the road had been completed to the Ngaiotonga

428 Minister of Maori Affairs to Minister of Public Works 20 November 1961, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. 429 Webb, Ross & Ross, Whangarei to Minister of Maori Affairs 27 October 1961, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. 430 ‘Declaring land in a roadway laid out in Block VIII, Russell Survey District and Blocks I and II Whangaruru Survey District, Bay of Islands and Whangarei Counties, to be road,’ New Zealand Gazette 10, 8 February 1962, p.249. 431 ‘Revoking a Proclamation,’ New Zealand Gazette 50, 9 August 1962, p.1286. 432 According to the Department of Maori Affairs, of the 28 signatories, ‘many’ were those of Pakeha, and of the Maori names only four actually resided on the Peninsula, the remainder having interests but residing elsewhere. See Assistant District Officer, Whangarei to Head Office 17 September 1962, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 433 Assistant District Officer, Whangarei to Head Office 17 September 1962, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 434 Deputy Secretary, Maori Affairs to District Office, Whangarei 17 September 1962, in ANZ Wellington ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.270-313. 435 See, for example, Simpson, The Point to Minister of Works 9 May 1963, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. 203

woolshed; the section from the woolshed through the undeveloped part of the Ngaiotonga development scheme was a bulldozed track, Maori Affairs having declined completing its construction once a decision had been made to discard the undeveloped section of the scheme; while the Whangarei County Council in 1960- 1961 had constructed a section of the road to Simpson’s property. The Council applied for a Backblock Roading grant to help meet the estimated cost of £7,275 to complete the road, but even then listed it as last of four roads for which it sought grants. Unless the County Council were prepared to re-order its priorities, it was likely that the grant sought for the Ngaiotonga-Whangaruru Road would be declined.436 In fact, a subsidy of £2,165 was granted (in the Road Votes Estimates for 1963-1964) and formation of the road was expected to proceed. The transformation of parts of Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Otara, and of North Head as a whole, would now proceed apace.

6.3 Whangaruru-Whakaturia: amalgamations, beach sections, and alienations

From about 1950 onwards most of the partitioning and dealings involved four subdivisions of Whangaruru-Whakaturia, namely, 1D7A, 1D8, 1D9B, and 1D10B, and Otara. Some dealings did take place in respect of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1C. In 1910, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1C of 44.25 acres was divided into 1C1 and 1C2. Three years later, in 1913, six acres of 1C were taken for a school site, while in 1962 Part 1C, no longer required for the purpose specified was declared to be Crown land. 437 The balance of 1C1 (4.66 hectares) remains in Maori ownership, with 11 owners, though subject to two licences (expiring in 2021 and 2022) and three occupation orders. In January 1962, the 16 owners of the balance of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1C2 agreed to sell the block to Te Kauwhata Pita for £1,150, plus rates, compromised charges, and the Maori Trustee’s commission. Of a total of 32 shares, those in favour numbered 21.9091 and those against 2.1000. The sale was confirmed in April 1962, the total price being £1,247 15s.438 In July 1962 the block was released

436 Resident Engineer, Whangarei to Commissioner of Works 23 May 1963, in ANZ Wellington ABKK 889 W4357/61 33/2209. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.163-223. 437 See ‘Land taken for the Purposes of a Native School in Block II, Whangaruru S.D.,’ New Zealand Gazette 31, 10 April 1913, p.1255; and ‘Declaring Land Taken for a Government Work and Not Required for That Purpose to be Crown Land,’ New Zealand Gazette 57, 13 September 1962, p.1507. 438 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 23/246-248. 204

from Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.439 In 1970 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1C2 was declared to be European land.440 In 1986 Te Kauwahta Pita’s executrix sold the block to M.R. and J.C. Hinton.441 It is worthwhile noting here that Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D1, 1D3, 1D5, 1D7A4, 1D9B1, 1D9B4, and 1D9B5, were also ‘europeanised’ between 1969 and 1971. 442 Otherwise, post-war partitioning and alienations were largely confined to Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A, 1D8, 1D9B, and 1D10B.

6.4 Owner-initiated and controlled subdivision and alienation

6.4.1 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B

In August 1949, Tara Rewiti lodged an application for the partitioning of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B. On being advised that ‘This will make good beach sites but required inspection and a plan showing where road runs through,’ the Maori Land Court requested the preparation of a sketch.443 In January 1950, the Court noted that all owners would require a beach frontage on the Whangaruru Harbour side. The Bland Bay frontage was near a large urupa and affected by sand drift. The Court decided that it would partition the block on the ground but required the presence of owners.444 That inspection was conducted on 25 January 1951 when it was decided that the northern severance would ‘not for the present’ be subdivided. The Court’s wish was that it should be fenced and leased ‘for a long term as too much stocking is encouraging sand drift.’445 Not all sections would have a beach frontage.

It was recorded that ‘All present decided that the block be sectionised [sic] – a road run from the road line to the beach giving 4 sections on the beach & a number of others on each side. These would be allotted by [the] Court but [the] Court pointed out that seaside sections would take more shares than ones away.’ On the matter of

439 ‘Releasing Land from the Provisions of Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 (Bay of Islands Development Scheme),’ New Zealand Gazette 46, 19 July 1962, p.1158. See also ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466/311/a 7289. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.74-98. 440 ANZ Auckland BAA1 11466 A353/342/a 7339. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.99-107. 441 ANZ Auckland ABWN 25479/148 6900/0772 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0038796. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp233ff. 442 Paula Berghan, ‘Northland block research narratives,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2006, Volume IX, pp.308-309. 443 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 25/22. 444 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 25/107. 445 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 25/372. 205 survey costs, it was agreed that two sections should be vested in trustees for sale. On that basis, the Court undertook to work out the scheme in detail and to establish the survey costs and to advise owners accordingly, while proposing that the beach sections should be valued at £100 each and rear sections at £50 each. The proprietor of the local launch service (one Graham) intimated his interest in purchasing: sale to a Pakeha was an option to which the people apparently ‘were not antagonistic ...’446

Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B was back before the Maori Land Court in March 1951 when the sub-divisional scheme set out in Table 6.1 was proposed. Partition orders were issued accordingly, while the Court indicated that it would recommend that an Order in Council should issue setting aide 1D9B17 as a landing reserve. Lot 18 was described as ‘severance part of road.’ It was noted that it would be necessary to sell two sections in order to meet court fees and survey costs: those sections would be vested in two persons charged with the responsibility for managing the sale. Owners were asked to consider whether to sell to a Maori (in which case title could be conferred by a vesting order under section 7/1941) or a Pakeha (in which case a transfer would be necessary). In the Court’s view, owners and their relatives should have the first opportunity to purchase, but the matter was one for owners. That would leave two sections on the sea-front in the name of all of the owners or of the two trustees as the owners decided: the court suggested that if the latter were sold the proceeds could be employed to metal the road down to the sea or for joining up with the marae water supply. A further order would be required to lay off a road line.447

Table 6.1: The proposed allocation of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B

446 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 25/372-373. 447 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 26/46-48. 206

Blocks Number of owners to Blocks Number of owners to whom allocated whom allocated 1D9B1 1 1D9B10 1 1D9B2 6 1D9B11 11 1D9B3 4 1D9B12) 1D9B4 1 1D9B13) 1 1D9B5 1 1D9B14) 1D9B6 3 1D9B15 All owners 1D9B7 1 1D9B16 All owners 1D9B8 All owners 1D9B17 All owners 1D9B9 All owners 1D9B18 All owners

(Source: Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 26/46-48)

Map 6.1 is a reproduction of ML 13573: it shows not 18 but 16 sections comprising 4 acres 1 rood and 36.4 perches, and the road-line absorbing a further 1 acre and 1.5 perches. Rather than two sections being vested for sale, in fact 1D9B8, 1D9B9, 1D9B15, and 1D9B16, all beach-front sections, were vested in two of the owners, namely, Wi Taiawa Henare Tamihana and Watihana Waitai Pita, as trustees to sell and devote the proceeds to survey, roads, and related costs. 448 By 1955 the four sections had been sold – apparently to Pakeha – for a total of £550, while £139 had been expended on plans, survey costs, court fees, old survey charges, and title fees, leaving a credit balance in the account of £411: that sum belonged to the original owners of 1D9B. 449 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B8 was sold in 1953 to N.O. Matthews of Whangarei for £150; 1D9B9 was sold in 1952 to G.A. Bravery of Whangarei for £100; Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B15 was sold in 1953 to H.E. Nicholson of Portland for £150; and Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B16 was sold in 1953 to W.G. Main of Whangarei for £150.

That remained the position when, five years later, in July 1960, Wiremu Taiawa Tamihana lodged an application for the distribution of those monies.450 The matter came before the Maori Land Court in November 1961. The trustees proposed

448 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 26/108. 449 See, respectively, ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/250/d 6443; BAAI 11466 A139/157/g 6342; BAAI 11466 A139/243/m 6420; and BAAI 11466 A139/243/p 6423. 450 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A139/243/p 6423. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.37-43. 207 purchasing trees in an effort to halt sand encroachment on the northern severance and to distribute the balance of the monies among the owners according to their respective shares. The Court decided, after inspecting the blocks, that the trees would not assist, suggesting rather that the subdivision of the northern severance and the construction of buildings was a more effective option. Judge Porter thus recorded that:

As to the funds available, the Court feels that a time may come in the not distant future when a public road is formed dissecting the narrow neck of land on which this block is situated and running out on the peninsula. If this should happen the present unsold sections and any future sections would be very considerably appreciated in value and it may be wise at present to do nothing in regard to the funds in hand until the position regarding the public road is clearer as the funds of the owners may possibly be applied to much greater advantage than by merely distributing the amount now in relatively small amounts to the owners entitled.451

451 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 32/227. 208

Map 6.1: Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B, 1952

(Source: ML 13573 - cropped)

209

The Court thus found ‘that the sum of £410 [£1 having been deducted a filing fee] held by the M.T. is held by him on behalf of all those persons who were the owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B as at 30 August 1951 before the making of the Partition Orders of that date in direct proportion to their several relative interests in the land itself.’ The Court also ruled that the Maori Trustee could use the monies for the construction of a 60-link roadway within the subdivision and related roading purposes.452 The fate of those funds has not been established, least of all whether they were utilised in accordance with the original sub-divisional plan.453

Other sales of subdivisions of 1D9B followed.454 Most were made to Pakeha seeking to build holiday homes, and for prices that ranged from about £300 and upwards. Two lots, namely, 1D9B7 and 1D9B18 were subject to conversion proceedings while 1D9B18 was subsequently merged with other blocks to form Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 (see below). It is worthwhile noting here that the Whangaruru-Whakaturia block was subject to Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 as a result of the blanket proclamation gazetted in 1930.455 As blocks were sold and applications were made for confirmation, applications were also made for release from Part XXIV: release was usually secured without difficulty since no development monies had been spent on them. On the other hand, the requirement to seek release in order to alienate illustrated the extent to which owners’ ownership rights had been limited by the proclamation. In 2016, just three of the subdivisions of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B remained in Maori ownership, namely, 1D9B2, 1D9B3, and 1D9B7. Three lots, namely, 1D9B1, 1D9B4, and 1D9B5, were ‘europeanised’ in 1970 and 1971.

452 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 33/244-246. 453 On this point, this account supports the conclusion reached by Huhana Seve. See Brief of Evidence of Huhana Seve dated 9 February 2016, p.14.Wai 1040 U3b. 454 See, respectively ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/694 15/9/107 and BAAI 11466 A353 382/c 8201; BAA1 11466 A139 157/g 6342; BAAI 11466 A353 347/c 7731; BAAI 11466 A353 320/d 7405; BAAI 11466 A353 309/b 7259; BAAI 11466 A353 300/i 7150; BAAI 11466 A353 288/n 7002; BAAI 11466 A139 243/m 6420; BAAI 11466 A139 243/p 6423; and BAAI 11466 A353 342/j 7668. Supporting Documents, Volume 2. 455 ‘Native Land to be Developed and Settled,’ New Zealand Gazette 48, 26 June 1930, p.2054. That notice brought the blocks specified under the land development provisions of section 23 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1929, later Part XXIV: Maori Land Development of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. 210

6.4.2 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8, 1954

On partition in 1910, the 13-acre Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 had ten owners, holding a total of four shares. In May 1951 the owners sought to partition the block: the Maori Land Court’s Minute Book recorded that ‘Court will not act blindly. If there is sufficient need Court will work out scheme of sections ....’ The application was struck out, only to be reinstated when the owners asked the Court to ‘sectionise’ the block.’ 456 In August 1952 the application for partition was again recorded as having been struck out.457

An application for the partition of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 (13 acres) was back before the Maori Land Court in May 1954 when a scheme plan that included Oteaka, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A, 1D7B, and 1D6 as well as 1D8 was proposed and when the Court suggested that the ‘whole of the 1D8 scheme’ could be vested in the Maori Trustee. The application was adjourned to allow the Consolidation Officer to prepare a summary of interests and a valuation of the sections involved. 458 Considerable discussion followed, and in August 1954 a plan of the proposed subdivision was presented to the Maori Land Court.459 The outcome was a proposal that the 1D8 should be vested in trustees.460

A year later, on 18 May 1955, the Court, under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, approved of the vesting of 1D8 in Morore Piripi (a farmer of Mokau) and Hemi (or James) Matenga (a farmer of Whangaruru South), a decision confirmed by the Minister of Maori Affairs. The trustees were to administer the block for the benefit of all the owners by (a) subdividing the land into sections for settlement with such roading and other amenities as might be required; (b) selling sections for cash with the object of financing the project and distributing ‘profits to the beneficiaries in relative proportions;’ and (c) moving ‘At a convenient time ... to have the trust dissolved and the remaining unsold sections vested in the beneficiaries by just and fair

456 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 26/35. 457 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 26/266. 458 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 27/210-211. 459 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 27/327-328. 460 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 27/337. 211

arrangement.’461 Indeed, the Court described the approach as a new experiment but worth a trial provided the position was re-examined after five years. 462 By ‘experiment,’ the Court appears to have decided that Maori land owners might be afforded an opportunity, albeit still qualified, to manage their own affairs.

None of the trusts having been executed by 1965, on 15 March of that year, and acting at the request of Hemi Matenga, the Maori Land Court, noting that ‘a complete redefinition of the several trusts’ was indicated, appointed the Maori Trustee in their stead. The latter, in September 1964, had agreed to accept the trust.463 During the hearing Riripeti Te Kohuroa Piripi indicated that a Whangarei surveyor in 1958 had been asked to prepare plans for the subdivision into building sections of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D6, 1D7A, 1D7B, 1D8, and Oteaka. It is not entirely clear how the 1D6, 1D7A, 1D7B, and Oteaka came to form part of the plan for subdivision, although their inclusion appears to been related to the refusal of the Maori Land Court to partition 1D8, favouring instead an ‘overall partition.’ Discussions were held among the owners of the four blocks and while those of Oteaka agreed, the owners of the remaining three blocks offered no firm decision.464 The order of 15 March was not in fact acted on, the Maori Land Court deciding that it should investigate the sub- divisional potential of the isthmus as a whole. Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7B and 1D8 were subsequently amalgamated with Whangaruru Whakaturia 1D9B18 and Oteaka A to form Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 (see below).

6.5 External purchase, subdivision and alienation

External ‘investors’ were not slow to recognise the potential of Bland Bay as a holiday and recreation destination. Several blocks were thus acquired from their Maori owners by such ‘investors’ and subdivided for sale during the period under review.

461 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 28/76-77. 462 ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/70/n 5/9/110. 463 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 38/234. 464 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 37/188-189. 212

6.5.1 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B

Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B of 7.25 acres and seven owners on partition in 1944 was partitioned in 1966 as set out in Table 6.2. The block fronted both Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour and was bisected by the Ngaiotonga-Tuparehuia road-line. The Court in fact dealt with Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B and Otara 2 as a combined partition, the owners of the latter owning 7/8ths of the former. A plan of the proposed subdivision had been prepared at the request of the Tamihana family. Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D10B5 and 1D10B6 fronted, respectively, Whangaruru Harbour and Bland Bay and their allocation to the Crown was intended to preserve public access to the beaches. Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B3 and 1D10B4, owned by Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana (George Thomson), were sold to J.L.R. and M.J.M. Hicks and P. Gilbert, all of Takapuna, for £5,200, in 1966. 465 Presently, only Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D10B2 remains in Maori ownership with 24 owners holding 50 shares. The fate of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B1 was not established. That of Otara 2 will be discussed in Chapter 7.

Table 6.2: The partitioning of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B, and Otara 2, 1966

Blocks Area (a. r. p.) Owners 1D10B1 0 1 13 M.H. Rewiti (solely) O. H. Mohima; Te M.H. Mohi; M.H. Mohima; R.H. Mohi; 1D10B2 0 1 18 W. Rewha 1D10B3 2 1 37 Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana (solely) 1 1D10B4 2 1 12 Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana (solely) 1 1D10B5 0 2 32 Crown 1D10B6 0 2 36 Crown

Otara 2 Otara 2A 5 3 00 Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana (solely) Otara 2B 28 3 30 Pari Rangimarama Hooro Tamihana (solely) Otara 2C 13 0 00 Harata Raiha Hooro Tamihana (solely) Otara 2D 3 0 00 Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana (solely)

(Source: Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 41/199-203)

465 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353 346/n 7728; and BAAI 11466 A358/347/c 7731. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.144-153. 213

6.5.2 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A and 1D7B

These two blocks, of 7.25 and 5.75 acres, were the result of the partitioning of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7 in 1916. The latter fronted, on the Bland Bay side, a wahi tapu, namely, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D2 of 6.5 acres: this block was known as Te Paihere Wahitapu and in 1976 was set apart as a Maori reservation. It might be noted here that Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1B of two roods, the result of the 1910 partitioning, was also set apart in 1976 as a Maori reservation: it is known as Punipuni Wahitapu.466

Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A was bisected by the Ngaiotonga-Tuparehuia road- line, the northern severance having an area of three acres and 23 perches, and the southern severance four acres and 15 perches. A valuation report, dated 2 November 1966, noted that ‘The beach is becoming very popular and section values are high when considering the services available at present [;] however the County is making provision that this will improve with future subdivisions.’ The severances were valued on a sub-divisional basis: the north, capable of being subdivided into 12 sections, had a gross valuation of £10,800, but a net £2,594 after roading, survey, legal and associated costs; while the comparable figures for the south severance, capable of being subdivided into 16 sections, were £10,400 and £2,869.467 On those figures it appeared that owners could expect a return that amounted to 24 percent and 27.6 percent respectively of the expected gross proceeds.

In 1953, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A was partitioned.468 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A1 (3 acres and 14p): owned by Roera Piriniha Arapata Pita, it was sold to A.M. Wallis of Auckland for £2,600, a sale confirmed on 14 June 1967.469 The block was subsequently subdivided into 15 lots, including provision for roads and a recreation reserve, and the sections sold (Map 6.2). The Whangarei County Council secured Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A2 of 23 perches for the purposes of a road: it is now owned by the Whangarei District Council. Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A2 of 0.0589

466 ‘Setting Apart Maori Freehold Land as a Maori Reservation,’ New Zealand Gazette 73, 24 June 1976, p.1469. See also ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/727/j 21/1/334. 467 Valuation report in ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/354/l 7844. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.154-160. 468 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 42/213-214. 469 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 42/294. 214 hectares, though listed on Maori Land On-line as Maori freehold land, is presently owned by the Whangarei District Council.

Map 6.2: The subdivision of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A1

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/a 29/188 Part 3)

The fate of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A3 of 32 perches has not been established, but Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A4 of 3.75 acres was ‘europeanised’ in November 1970.

A partition of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7B was proposed in 1956, but the Maori Land Court declined to approve the application, suggesting rather that the block

215 should be joined in the partition of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8. 470 Both blocks would eventually form part of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 (see below).

6.6 The Maori Trustee, subdivision, and alienation: the Bland Bay subdivision

The third approach to subdivision and alienation involved the Maori Trustee. What became known as Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 or the Bland Bay Subdivision appears to have been originally the initiative of the Maori Land Court. No evidence was located that would indicate that, at the stage of initial formulation, owners of the blocks were consulted or engaged. In July 1963, Auckland’s Registrar, acting under sections 27(2), 435, and 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 applied to the Court for the amalgamation of the ten blocks set out in Table 6.3. In support of that application, he noted that the lands involved were ‘suitable for subdivision into beach sections and a subdivision could be better planned if all the blocks were in one title.’ The application for amalgamation and vesting thus constituted the first step in a plan for the subdivision of the blocks and the provision of roads, kerbing, channels, and, later, sewerage. It is not entirely clear why the Registrar chose to act when he did, although the difficulties which enveloped Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 played their part. Further, by the early 1960s pressures from increasingly urban-based New Zealanders were emerging for holiday homes and coastal recreational spaces.471 Reasons apart, quite clearly what was envisaged was a very large project, as Map 6.3 indicates.

470 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 28/308. 471 See Chapter 7. 216

Map 6.3: The proposed Bland Bay subdivision, 1965

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/a 29/188 Part 3)

217

Table 6.3: Bland Bay Subdivision: blocks proposed for amalgamation and vesting, 1963

Blocks Owners Area Capital Unimproved Improvements: £ value: £ value: £ Oteaka A 5 2 2 12 325 325 - Oteaka C 19 5 0 23 835 650 180 Otara 2 3 54 1 10 2,575 1,200 1,275 WhWh 1D10B 9 7 1 00 1,470 1,450 20 WhWh 1D9B18 23 6 1 04 925 925 - WhWh 1D8 17 13 0 32 450 350 100 WhWh 1D7B 13 5 3 12 250 200 50 WhWh 1D7A 3 7 1 25 250 200 50 WhWh 1D6 15 21 2 35 450 275 175 WhWh 1D5 3 3 3 15 150 100 50 Totals 127 2 08 7,680 5,675 1,900

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030 1855/d 29/188 Part 1)

The matter came before the Maori Land Court on 9 September 1965, as did an application by the owners of 1D10B for a meeting of owners to consider a separate sale. That latter application was heard first. In the course of a long address to the Court, Judge Kenneth Gillanders-Scott suggested that ‘There is something like half a million pounds of assets here ... and it is essential, that in the interests of the public and of the owners themselves, that there must be, and should be, some orderly scheme of partition or subdivision.’ In his view, ‘it is not in the interests of the Maori owners that one should have piecemeal partitions or subdivisions, and it is essential likewise that there should be adequate reserves and the like and they should be on an over-all pattern.’472 Further, he suggested that ‘because of multiplicity of ownership’ it was often difficult to secure agreement and ‘very hard, if not impossible, to finance schemes of partition or sub-division.’ 473 He went on to note that even with Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A and 1D10A excised from the proposed scheme and allowing ample provision for roads and esplanade reserves, some 422 sections could be made available. He made it clear that in his view the blocks could more conveniently and economically be developed as a group, claiming that past

472 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 40/282. 473 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 40/283. 218

approaches to partitioning and multiple ownership limited the ability of Maori to make the best and most effective use of their lands. In any case, while owners could subdivide the blocks themselves, they would still have ‘to fit in with the scheme of things acceptable to the Court and which is with the general blessing of the County Council.’474 Finally, he made it clear that vesting the land in the Maori Trustee, under section 447A/1953, would make finance available for development purposes (and at a ‘ridiculously low’ rate of interest).475 Alternatively, owners could decide to form one or several incorporations: in such case, they would have to raise the monies required privately and thus run the risk of failure and of losing their land. He closed by noting that ‘There is the biggest land explosion in Northland than there has been for many years in any other part of New Zealand. You are either going to swim with the tide or drown with it.’476

The Court thus rejected the application made in respect of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B and directed the Registrar to call meetings of the owners of all ten blocks, separately and finally collectively, such meetings to be presided over by Whangarei’s District Officer. A few weeks later, the Court approved the resolutions that owners were to be asked to consider.477

6.6.1 First estimates of costs and returns

As preparations were being made for the meetings of owners, a report (dated 20 October 1965, that is, three days in advance of the owners’ meetings) was presented by the ‘Office surveyor,’ N.T. Kerr. He noted that a start had been made on the preparation of a scheme plan of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 alone following its vesting in Morore Piripi and Hemi Matenga in 1955. That plan had been abandoned in favour of one embracing the subdivision of the whole locality: a tentative scheme was presented to the Maori Land Court on 9 September 1965 in the wake of which the Court directed that meetings of assembled owners should be held. Kerr noted that the

474 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 40/284. 475 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 40/285. 476 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 40/286. For the entire proceedings, see Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 40/279-287. See also ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/342/e 7663. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.108-116. In 1975 Judge Gillanders-Scott was appointed Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and Chair of the Waitangi Tribunal. 477 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 40/338-339. 219

proposal was ‘of some magnitude for an isolated area such as Bland Bay and suggested that that isolation and difficulty of access weighed against the proposal. On the other hand, he advanced several factors in support of the proposal for amalgamation and subdivision: first, the isolation of the locality, away from ‘crowded beach resorts ... with [their] continuous entertainment ... [and] an undesirable element;’ second, improved access with further improvement likely; third, the limited alternative sub-divisional prospects in the wider district, with Rawhiti and Parekura Bay able provide at most 100 sections, Helena Bay having limited potential, while no new subdivisions were planned for Oakura-Ohawini, and Mimiwhangata was ‘a long range proposal ...’ He noted that the services and amenities supplied would have to be of a standard sufficient to attract buyers. Preliminary estimates indicated that improving the main through road and constructing new roads would cost £102,750; the supply of water to 423 lots £19,035; sewerage to 423 lots £33,955; electricity and telephone to 423 lots £10,575; and professional fees of £12,905, taking the total to £181, 220 or £428 per lot.478

On the matter of realisation, Kerr noted that the only sections sold in the area between 1953 and 1963 were those of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B for which prices ranged from £100 to £450. Preliminary indications were that in their present state the proposed lots would realise from £5,000 to £6,000 each, while with all proposed services prices would range from £7,000 to £8,000. He suggested a total realisable value of £317,250: once development costs of £181,220 had been met, a surplus of £136,030 would remain for distribution. The Whangarei County Council had indicated that reserves would have to be made and accordingly Kerr recommended that an esplanade reserve with a depth of at least one chain fronting both beaches should be made. He also proposed other reservations, including, Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D2 and Oteaka B (both being urupa); Tuparehuia and Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1C2 (school reserve); part of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A and 1D10A (marae); the pa site adjoining Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D4; and the catchment area for water supply.479 Further, two acres should be reserved for public buildings. Finally

478 A copy of Kerr’s report can be found in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.278-285. 479 It might be noted that Kerr described Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D2 as an ‘old burial ground’ with no marked graves, and that it had not been fenced. ‘Perhaps,’ he suggested, ‘the Maori people would 220

Kerr noted that if sewerage were developed, then the size of sections could be reduced: if Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A and 1D10B were included in the subdivision scheme, then the total number of sections would rise to 500.

No evidence was located to indicate that Kerr consulted the owners before preparing his report nor that copies were distributed to owners prior to the meetings scheduled for 23 October 1965. With respect to distribution, the date of the report, 20 October, strongly suggests that it was not. Owners, it seems, were to be called upon to make a decision with far-reaching consequences in the absence of both preliminary consultation and essential information.

6.6.2 Owners meet: 23 October 1965

Owners were advised by letter of the meetings and of the resolutions that they would be asked to consider. The relevant file contains a list of the blocks and details of ownership, together with the number of owners to whom letters had been sent. Table 6.4 sets out the details: it is apparent that of the 110 owners, letters were sent to 62 or 56.4 percent.480 In two instances, namely Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A and Oteaka A, those owners notified held only small proportions of the total shares, 2.78 and 16.67 percent respectively.481

permit re-interment of any bones, in a proper [sic] cemetery, say Oteaka B, and the use of 1D2 as a reserve for the general public.’ In 1960, in accordance with the wishes of Hohepa Pita and 11 others, the Maori Land Court recommended that Oteaka B should be released from Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 and set apart as a Maori reservation. An Order in Council to that effect was issued in December 1960. 480 Some owners held interests in two or more blocks. 481 Difficulties in securing up-to-date addresses were the usual explanation for such low mail-outs. The files examined did not disclose what efforts were made to locate outstanding addresses. 221

Table 6.4: Blocks proposed for amalgamation: owners and shares, 1965

Blocks Number Shares Owners Shares of owners advised Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D5 3 100 3 100 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6 15 22.5 7 13.9324 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A 3 2.1333 1 0.0593 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7B 13 1.8666 5 1.5500 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 17 40 10 33.580 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B18 23 11.833 9 6.116 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B 9 8.000 7 7.800 Oteaka A 5 10.000 1 1.667 Oteaka C 19 2.0000 16 1.41115 Otara 2 3 100 3 100

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1)

Owners of each block were asked to consider a series of resolutions. It is worthwhile setting these out in full:

(a) that this meeting of owners of [name of block] supports the application of the Registrar dated 22.7.1965 for an order under section 435 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 cancelling the several titles under which the following lands are held and substituting one title to the whole of the land ... (b) that this meeting of owners of [name of block]supports the application of the Registrar dated 22.7.1965 for an order under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 vesting the said lands (as amalgamated) in the Maori Trustee to carry into effect a scheme of partition along the lines of the plan to the Court on 9.9.1965 and for the alienation of the resultant lots

and failing (b) to consider resolutions as follows:

(c) that subject to due amalgamation of the ten lands in resolution (a) supra, that the owners thereof be incorporated under the provisions of Part XXII of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 under the style of the Proprietors of Whangaruru-Bland Bay with such objects as are deemed meet for the partition and alienation of the same

222

and in any event

(d) That this meeting of owners of (a) Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A and (b) Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10A requests the Maori Land Court to make a recommendation under section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 that the Order-in- Council setting the same aside as a Maori Reservation be revoked

AND

subject to such revocation that the titles constituting Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A and 1D10A be cancelled and one title substituted for the whole of the said lands

AND

that the said land be vested in the Maori Trustee under section 438 to partition out a Marae site of not more than two acres on the Whangaruru Harbour Frontage and to partition the balance land into housing lots and to alienate the same by way of leases under the section 235A to provide revenue and to apply the same for the upkeep of the said Marae.

(e) such resolutions under section 315 or resolution of [sic] recommendations and the like which the owners consider meet.

Whilst yet it may be convenient to have a general overall discussion of all the owners of the several lands, the respective owners of the individual lands must later deliberate, consider the resolutions and vote separately.

Detailed notes of the meeting should be kept ...482

The meetings, as noted, were scheduled for 23 October. It is clear that the owners of some of the blocks met separately. Among them were the owners of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D6: three owners were present and there were two proxies. Those for the resolution held 12.0934 shares, those opposed 0.4375. The record of the meeting

482 A copy of the order can be found in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.278-285. 223

noted that it was agreed that an advisory committee should be appointed by the owners to work with the Maori Trustee and that rents of leases be reviewed from periods of not more than five to 10 years.483 In other words, the owners involved did not envisage any land being sold. Of the 23 owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B18, just four, representing 5.691 shares (48.1 percent of the total) resolved unanimously to approve resolutions (a), (b), and (d), to support the appointment of an advisory committee to work with the Maori Trustee, and require a review of lease rents at periods of not more than five or ten years.484

The owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7B also met on 23 October: a quorum does not appear to have been present and so another meeting was held on 24 January 1966 when the four owners present (representing 1.1917 shares) supported amalgamation and vesting.485 Three of the owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B opposed amalgamation and vesting and proposed to have their interests partitioned out of the block. 486 On the other hand, for reasons not readily apparent, the applications to call meetings of assembled owners were dismissed by the Court in respect of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7A, Oteaka A, Oteaka C, and Otara 2.487

A copy of what appears to be an abbreviated transcript of the meeting of all owners, also held on 23 October 1965, was located. The meeting decided that:

• The marae site would have frontage to both Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour and would include the pohutukawa trees, while the trustees of 1D9A, while wishing to retain four acres, were prepared to allow the block to go into the amalgamated block. • A committee of owners should be appointed to work with Maori Trustee. • Owners were to have the right to select their own sections. The District Officer informed the meeting that that could be done by means of an application to the Maori Land Court for the excision of shares from the

483 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/342/f 7664. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.117-124. 484 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/342/j 7668. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.136-143. 485 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/342/h 7666. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.125-129. 486 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/342/k 7669. 487 See ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/342/g 7665; BAAI 1466 A353/342/h 7666; BAAI 11466 A353/342/m 7671; BAAI 11466 A353/342/n 7172; and BAAI 11466 A353/342/l 7670. 224

amalgamated block, and, further, that not all lots would be placed on the open market, and that ‘a reasonable number of sections’ would be made available for owners.

Whangarei County Council’s engineer indicated that the preliminary plan for the subdivision was ‘generally along lines of what Council desired, namely, ‘Sealed roads, footpaths, kerbs and channel, water supply [and] sewerage.’ He appears to have made no reference to the supply of electricity. The District Officer indicated that the matter of ‘standards’ would be negotiated with the County. Finally, the latter indicated that some sections would be sold, and that the rest would be leased, with revaluations taking place at short intervals.488

Whangarei’s District Officer, in a ‘Note for the file,’ recorded that those present at the meeting of all owners made it very clear that while they wished to retain Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D10A, they were prepared to allow the inclusion of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D9A in the partition scheme. Owners generally were prepared to support amalgamation, but opinion was divided over whether the proposed scheme should be implemented by the Maori Trustee or by an incorporation. The District Officer advised owners that if the Maori Trustee were to handle the subdivision, then the latter would endeavour to meet the wishes of owners while an advisory committee of five local people would be appointed to keep owners in touch with his sub-divisional plans. For their part, owners made it clear that they favoured leasing over sale, and that they wished to secure lots for their own use and for that of their families.489 Given doubts over whether a committee of management would have the requisite expertise and over the possibility of friction among the several families involved, vesting in the Maori Trustee was the option favoured: an ‘overwhelming number’ of the owners present voted in favour of the latter course. He also recorded that the Whangarei County Council had indicated that it would require ‘a fairly high standard of sub-divisional road with kerbing, sealing, and a concrete footpath ...’ The ‘Note’ did not record any reference having been made to water supply, sewage disposal, or the provision of electricity. He did record having assured owners that the Maori

488 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/342/f 7664. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.117-124. 489 District Officer, ‘Note for file,’ 26 October 1965, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.278-285. 225

Trustee ‘would try as far as possible to meet the wishes of the owners but the Maori Trustee would have to take the final responsibility for all decisions made,’ and that the owners who required beach sections for their own or family’s use ‘would not be overlooked.’ Finally, he noted that the meeting appeared to favour leasing rather than sale of the sections and indeed had passed a resolution to the effect that any leases should carry a provision for five-yearly rent reviews.490

6.6.3 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4: amalgamation and vesting

Before the Maori Land Court on 22 March 1966 and at the request of the Registrar, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D5, 1D6, 1D7A, and 1D10B, Otara 2, and Oteaka C were excised from the originally proposed amalgamation to leave just four blocks, namely, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7B, 1D8, and 1D9B10, and Oteaka A. The minutes recorded that no objections were raised. 491 Map 6.4 shows the blocks originally proposed for amalgamation and those that were amalgamated as Whangaruru- Whakaturia 4.

490 District Officer, ‘Note for file,’ 26 October 1965, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.278-285. 491 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 41/197. In 2016 Oteaka C of 2.14 hectares remains in Maori ownership with 73 owners. 226

Map 6.4: The blocks proposed for amalgamation and those amalgamated as Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4

Kerr’s report of 20 October 1965 and a plan of the proposed subdivision were presented, Kerr himself asserting that the area could not be ‘subdivided economically unless treated as one title.’492 The excision of six subdivisions would still leave an ‘economic proposition,’ while the cost of subdividing and preparing the smaller amalgamated block would amount to an estimated £450 per allotment. The estimated value in the absence of roads and service was put at £500 to £600 per allotment, rising once services had been provided to £700 to £800. Under section 435 of the Maori Affairs Act, the Maori Land Court amalgamated Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D7B, 1D8, and 1D9B18, and Oteaka A as Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4. The new block, with 4,736.5 shares, on that same day, 22 March 1966, was vested in the Maori Trustee ‘to

492 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 41/197. 227

subdivide and develop for lease & sale to best advantage.’ The precise terms of the trust were to be submitted to the Court in Chambers.493 There is no record of any owner involvement during those proceedings. The amalgamated block occupied a narrow neck of the land that separated Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour. The area had long been favoured as a camping site and its potential as a seaside settlement had been well recognised. Much of the isthmus and the peninsula had passed out of Maori ownership and the value of that remaining in Maori ownership had risen steeply since about 1970.

6.6.4 An amended plan for subdivision

The excision of five blocks rendered necessary the preparation of an amended plan and revised estimates. In a paper dated 17 May 1966, Kerr – again without, so as far as the evidences discloses, consulting owners – proposed that development should take place in two stages. The first stage comprised that portion of the subdivision fronting the existing road: the costs were estimated at £9,110, including £5,000 as a 50 percent contribution towards improving that road, a contribution of £1,500 towards a community supply, and a contribution of £2,250 towards the cost of a sewerage disposal scheme. No allowance was made for the provision of electricity, the cost of so providing being then unknown. The cost per lot, given that 30 lots were involved, was put at £304. Sale of those 30 lots at £750 each would generate a gross return of £22,500 – from which would have to be deducted development costs, the Maori Trustee’s commission (at five percent), and loan charges. The profit in respect of Stage 1 was thus estimated at £10,965. Stage 2 involved 60 lots fronting new roads: costs were estimated at £29,733 or £494 per lot, and the profit, again after taking into account the Maori Trustee’s commission, loan charges, and development costs, at £9,117.494 It thus seemed that the owners could expect an average return each of just over £191: in fact, it would soon become apparent that the estimates of profits were based on an overly optimistic assessment of demand and thus of market values. Whether this amended plan was submitted to owners for their approval is unclear.

493 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 41/198. 494 See paper prepared by N.T. Kerr and dated 17 May 1966, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Papers, Volume 2, pp.278-285. 228

6.7 The Crown intervenes

At that juncture, the Department of Lands and Survey informed Auckland’s Registrar that it was concerned over the ‘extensive subdivision’ of lands fronting the better beaches and had therefore been endeavouring to acquire land for reserve purposes. The reservation of a chain wide strip along beach frontages was considered no longer adequate and hence had turned to purchasing land: among the areas in which it was interested was the ‘large area of flat land ... lying between Whangaruru Harbour and Bland Bay. What the Department wished to know was whether the Maori owners would be willing to sell the land to the Crown.’495 Whangarei’s District Officer did little more than indicate that two portions of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B had recently sold for £5,200; that Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A and 1D10A constituted a Maori reservation; and that the other blocks nominated had been vested in the Maori Trustee for subdivision into beach sections. Nevertheless, in the event that the Crown made an offer for the land, the Maori Trustee would be guided by the beneficiaries.496

Interestingly, at a meeting with officers of the Whangarei County and the Northland Regional Planning Councils, the Department of Lands and Survey indicated that it was investigating the acquisition of Simpson’s land but, it was made clear to the County Council at a meeting held at the end of August 1966, would not commit itself over reserves in Bland Bay ‘as the flat land areas were either Maori freehold lands or Maori reservations.’ Further, it recorded, some recently partitioned Maori-owned land had been acquired by Pakeha.497

In fact, the Department of Lands and Survey did approach the Maori Trustee over the possibility of acquiring Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 and 1D9B (or parts thereof), and the balance of 1D9A and 1D10A, that is, after provision had been made for a marae. Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands noted that a scheme of subdivision had been prepared for Otara 2A, but that the owners of Otara 2C were prepared to

495 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Registrar, Auckland 28 June 1966, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.278-285. 496 District Officer, Whangarei to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 30 June 1966, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.278-285. 497 ‘Report of meeting held at the Whangarei County Council Office, Kamo, on 31.8.66,’ in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.278-284. 229

consider sale to the Crown.498 A suggestion by the Department of Maori Affairs’s District Officer in Whangarei that the Crown seek to acquire Otara 2C and perhaps eight or nine acres of the ‘Maori Reservation’ elicited the response that in fact it preferred acquiring ‘a compact area of say the balance of the Maori Reservation and part of projected sub-divisional area alongside.’499 The area sought was some 20 acres stretching across the isthmus from bay to bay. On that basis the Department of Lands and Survey continued to press its desire to acquire Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 and 1D9B, at the same time suggesting that an estimated price of £1,000 per acre ‘seems to be excessive in comparison with other purchases in other areas ...’ Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands went so far as to suggest that owners should bear in mind that sale to the Crown would mean their continuing ‘to have the use of it as a reserve.’ He added that a reserve would enhance the value of the lands they retained, and that in any case the Whangarei County Council could well require reserves additional to the minimum one chain foreshore reserve.500 He was advised to secure a special valuation so that a proposal could be put to owners.501

6.7.1 The owners meet, 15 April 1967

A plan for the subdivision of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 was prepared in 1966: it included provisions for reserves while setting apart a small area sufficient for four small retail outlets. It was approved by the Whangarei County Council in March of the following year but subject to the proposed reserves being vested in the Council, an increase in the area of the reserves, a contribution of £5,786 towards the upgrading of the road fronting the sections, and a contribution of £641 towards future water supply.

In April 1967, 21 of the 56 owners (representing 2289.485 of the 4736.5 shares or 48.3 percent) met to consider the Crown’s desire to acquire 3a 1r 10p for the purposes of a public reserve: Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands indicated that if the

498 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Maori Trustee 5 September 1966; and Commissioner of Crown Lands to District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei 5 September 1966. In ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.278-284. 499 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to District Officer, Maori Affairs, Auckland 14 September 1966, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. 500 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei 27 October 1966, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.278-284. 501 District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 2 November 1966, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. 230

land sought by the Crown were not sold, then ‘the County intended taking part of it as their contribution reserve and the owners would not receive any payment ...’ The minutes record that it was ‘subsequently’ realised that the area sought was ‘exclusive’ of that which the County would require: the area sought by the Crown and required by the County together aggregated 6.25 acres. The Crown offered £3,200 (the amount of the government valuation) for the 3a 1r 10p it sought, although it indicated a willingness to consider £3,700. Just two of the owners present were prepared to sell at £3,200, while one proposed a price of £5,000 at which four other owners indicated a willingness to sell. Four owners expressed a desire to partition their interests out, suggesting some frustration over progress, doubts that they would be able to retain sections for their own use, and possibly pressure from external sources. Partitioning carried with it serious implications for the overall economics of the scheme. The minutes then recorded that a majority of owners was prepared to sell, the point at issue being the matter of price. They also recorded that owners were ‘told’ to appoint a three-person team to negotiate with the Crown and the Maori Trustee. A final decision by the Crown to acquire the land also rested upon its securing eight acres of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A. Negotiations appear to have been entered into but to have failed.502

The minutes of that meeting of owners do not record whether matters other than the Crown’s desire to acquire land for the purposes of a public reserve were raised. It is assumed, therefore, that the progress of the scheme, including estimates of costs and returns, and general progress were matters not discussed nor owners’ views sought.

An apparent willingness on the part of owners to consider sale cleared the way for the Maori Trustee to offer on the open market Lots 1 to 10 and 24 to 33 for purchase. It will be recalled that the owners originally envisaged leasing, so that the decision to offer lots for purchase represented a major departure: exactly how that decision was reached is not clear from the record examined. Lots 1 to 10 and 24 to 33 constituted Stage 1 of the scheme with the only costs involved being those of survey, roading,

502 See ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/a 29/188 Part 2. 231

and water supply (a total of £2,561).503 At £700 each, the 20 sections would generate a return of £14,000. Should just ten sections be sold, the gross return would be £7,000, and the net return £4,439, the latter sum being available for distribution to owners. 504 In May 1967, the Valuation Department was asked to provide current market values of 23 sections to be offered: the values suggested ranged from $1,200 to $1,500, with most of the sections being valued at $1,300, while the total value of 23 sections was $31,250.505 With costs of $5,122 to meet, the decision was taken to place the sections on the market. In September 1967, in what was described as a test of the market, 23 lots were offered for lease or sale by public tender, upset prices ranging from $1,200 to $1,500 and rentals from $72 to $90 per annum. The highest tender received was $800 and the lowest $400, while there was just one offer to lease, at $20 per annum. All tenders, being well below the reserve set by the Maori Trustee, were declined, and disposal was deferred until economic conditions should improve. In fact, since no survey or development work had been undertaken, the Maori Trustee was, in any case, in no position to grant titles to any of the lots. The project was shelved, but the lands remained vested in the Maori Trustee.

The matter was revived in 1970 when a slightly revised scheme was submitted to the Whangarei County Council. Doubts over the economics of the scheme appear to have persisted, especially after the Whangarei County Council, in 1971, expressed concern over the apparent danger posed by aeolian erosion on the area lying to the north of the road. Lots 11 to 23, in the Council’s view, were not suitable for residential purposes.506 The scheme lapsed again until owners, encouraged possibly by the high prices being secured for surrounding lands, pressed the Maori Trustee to act. The latter asked Simpson & Partners (surveyors and engineers) to examine the scheme unofficially, the understanding being that should it prove feasible, the firm would be contracted to carry out the work. In May 1972, a preliminary report, prepared by the firm and covering over half of the block (leaving an un-subdivided residue of 4.65 hectares) was approved in principle by the Maori Trustee, only for the Whangarei

503 Minutes of a meeting of owners, in ANZ Auckland BBDl 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.278-285. 504 Senior Estates Clerk to District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei n.d. in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.278-284. 505 A list of the sections and values can be found in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/a 29/188 Part 2. 506 See ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/a 29/188 Part 2. 232

County Council to request additional reserves. The Council also explored with Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands the possibility of the Crown assisting it to purchase lots fronting the road. He demurred, noting that the Crown had already purchased Otara 2B and 2C at the other end of Bland Bay (discussed below).507

The Whangarei County Council, on 25 May 1973, finally approved the development plan but subject to certain conditions that promised to add significantly to the cost of the project, namely:

• The exclusion of Lots 29 to 32 from the subdivision or alternatively that measures were taken to control aeolian erosion; • The setting apart of Lots 33 to 36 as recreation reserve; • The vesting of Lots 51 and 52 in the Whangarei County Council as recreation reserve (together with Lots 33 to 36); • The construction of roads to plans and specifications approved by the County Engineer (and to include a piped storm-water disposal system); • The provision of underground electricity supply to each allotment; and • The fencing of the burial reserve and measures to halt erosion or (with apparently little regard for the sacred nature of the site) the tapu lifted and the area declared a recreation reserve.508

6.7.2 The Maori Trustee appeals

The Maori Trustee, on 18 June 1973, lodged a Notice of Appeal before the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board in which it claimed that the conditions, restrictions, and provisions were ‘unreasonable and unduly harsh ...’ citing in particular the inclusion of Lots 33 to 36 as recreation reserve and the fencing of the burial reserve. 509 In the event the conditions imposed by the Council were, with the exception of that relating to the burial reserve, upheld on appeal. Simpson and Partners thus amended the plan to provide for 46 sections of slightly larger area and

507 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland, ‘Note for file,’ 13 April 1973, in ANZ Auckland BBEE A1632/469/b NP/29 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.213-225. 508 County Clerk, Whangarei County Council to Simpson & Partners 28 May 1973, in ANZ Wellington ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655. See also ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.313-342. 509 A copy of the Notice of Appeal can be found in ANZ Wellington ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655. 233

thus, it was hoped, higher value: a substantial area of vested block remained un- subdivided.510

The firm also prepared an estimate of costs involved in the subdivision of those 43 allotments: that was put at $39,500 while the realisation value was estimated at $231,000.00. The profit was thus estimated at some $180,000: on that basis the 4,736.5 shares had a value of $38.00. The Whangarei County Council considered the matter on 19 December 1972 but deferred making a decision on the grounds that Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 was required for reserve purposes. That, claimed Whangarei’s Senior Estates Clerk, was the third occasion on which the Council had thwarted the Maori Trustee’s efforts to get the subdivision under way. He went on to report that the Department of Lands and Survey was taking ‘an inordinate interest in this area ...’ In his assessment, the Crown owned ‘ample’ land in the area, while the beneficial owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia, seven years after the block had been vested, continued to press for completion of the project.511 It is also of interest to note that private parties were expressing interest in the whole of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 and evidently prepared to offer $100,000 for what was becoming a highly sought after beach-side settlement.512

The Maori Trustee decided to press the Whangarei County Council clearly and precisely to specify its requirements. 513 As he did so, an article appeared in the Northern Advocate in which the Council claimed to have approved subdivision into 46 beach sections, while the Crown had acquired 30 acres for a reserve fronting Bland Bay. Further, additional reserves with an aggregate area of five acres were to be vested in the Council. The latter also announced that it had decided to acquire four of the proposed allotments (33 to 36) as additional reserve and parking land. 514 The Maori Trustee’s response was to lodge a pro forma appeal against the requirements

510 See Senior Estates Clerk, Note for file, 28 November 1972, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/b 29/188 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.286-312. 511 Senior Estates Clerk to Assistant District Officer, Whangarei 4 April 1973, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/b 29/188 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.286-312. 512 See ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.313- 342. 513 District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei to County Clerk, Whangarei County Council 1 May 1973, in ANZ Wellington BBDL 1030/1856/b 29/188 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.286-312. 514 Northern Advocate 26 May 1973. 234

imposed by the Whangarei County Council. He also consulted the Department of Lands and Survey: it confirmed that the scheme plan provided more than the statutory area required for reserves, suggested that he proceed with the appeal with a view to retaining Lots 33 to 36 for sale purposes, and rejected the Council’s claim that it could secure those four lots without having to pay compensation.515 For its part, the Whangarei County Council denied every ground of appeal, claiming that the roading standards were considerably lower than those originally imposed, that erosion had rendered Lots 29 to 33 unsuitable for building without some stabilisation, and that Lots 33 to 36 and part of 51 (recreation reserve) were also badly eroded, that the inclusion of Lots 33 to 36 as part of the reserve requirement was to provide improved public access to the reserve and to the beach and to compensate for the eroded state of Lot 51, and that the burial reserve required stabilisation.516

The Whangarei County Council’s refusal to negotiate left Maori Affairs’s Assistant District Officer in Whangarei contemplating whether the Maori Trustee should comply with the Council’s requirements, proceed with the appeal, or again shelve the entire project. While clearly irked by the Council’s wish to take four ‘choice’ sections (with an estimated market value of $20,000 to $25,000) and turn them into a car park, he also had to acknowledge some uncertainty over whether sufficient provision in fact had been made for reserves without Lots 33 to 36. On the requirement that the Maori Trustee should fence the burial reserve, the Maori Trustee was not prepared to yield, although deferment, it was recognised, would hardly appeal to owners who had already waited many years for some returns from the scheme.517

The stance taken by the Whangarei County Council occasioned some disquiet on the part of the Maori Trustee and indeed it was suggested that the Whangarei County Council should be advised that the appeal would be dropped provided that it was prepared to modify its requirements over the fencing of the burial reserve. 518 The

515 Maori Trustee, Wellington to District Officer, Whangarei 15 August 1973, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/b 29/188 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.286-312. 516 See ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.313- 342. 517 Assistant District Officer, Maori Affairs, Auckland to Head Office 15 August 1973, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.313-342. 518 Administration Officer Trust and Titles, Maori Trustee 22 August 1973, in ANZ Wellington ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655. 235

Maori Trustee proceeded to take the matter up with the Department of Lands and Survey, in particular the question of Lots 33 to 36. It indicated that the sub-divisional plan provided more than the statutory area required for reserves when related to the frontages on the existing and proposed roads. Whangarei’s District Officer was thus advised to leave the appeal in, to consult Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands over the acquisition by the Crown of Lots 33 to 36, consult owners, form an advisory committee, secure an initial advance of $40,000 from the Maori Trustee, and to plan for the commencement of construction and development work during the winter of 1974.519

Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands made it clear that the matter of the four lots was one for the Maori Trustee and the Whangarei County Council to resolve and, interestingly, went on to remark that, having acquired a substantial area as a ‘regional reserve’ in the Otara blocks, the Crown had probably made a sufficient contribution to the establishment of reserves in Bland Bay.520 In short, the Crown was not interested in Lots 33 to 36. For his part, the Maori Trustee in an effort to settle matters by negotiation, indicated that it was prepared to sell the four allotments to the Council for $10,000. 521 Having persuaded the Whangarei County Council to reduce its requirements relating to roading and sewerage, the Maori Trustee withdrew his appeal.522 In turn the County Council insisted that it was under no obligation to pay compensation for the four allotments, although it did yield over the matter of the burial reserve. 523 The Town and Country Planning Appeal Board, on 3 December 1973, did delete the conditions relating to the burial reserve but confirmed all

519 See Paper entitled ‘Proposed Subdivision: Bland Bay,’ in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.7-64. See also Administrative Officer Trusts and Titles, Maori Trustee to District Office, Maori Affairs, Whangarei 15 August 1973, in ANZ Wellington ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655. 520 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei 5 November 1973, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/b 29/188 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.286-312. 521 Assistant District Officer, Whangarei to County Clerk, Whangarei County Council 4 July 1973, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.313-342. 522 Assistant District Officer, Maori Affairs, Wellington to Head Office 14 December 1973, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/b 29/188 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.286-312. 523 County Clerk, Whangarei County Council to Assistant District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei 25 July 1973, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.313-342. 236

others.524 On that basis, counsel engaged by the Whangarei Office of the Department of Maori Affairs advised that the appeal should be settled and not to continue to a full hearing. That recommendation was based on expert advice that had indicated that the Council’s requirement in respect of Lots 33 to 36 was not unreasonable; on counsel’s own assessment that the requirements with respect to roading were also not unreasonable and that any alteration by the Appeal Board could result in very considerable additional costs.525

6.7.3 The owners meet, 29 March 1974

Following the decision of the Town and Country Appeal Board, in February 1974, Simpson & Partners suggested a division of the scheme into two stages: the first would involve 7.5 chains of road and 26 lots, and sand consolidation over foredune (that part of the dunes facing the sea) and Lots 29 to 32; while the second would involve four chains of roading and 16 lots, together with any work necessary to complete the consolidation of the sand. The cost of Stage 1 was put at $26,250 and that of Stage 2 at $13,250. Section sales would yield an estimated $135,000 in the case of Stage 1, and $96,000 in the case of Stage 2. On that basis, each share had a value of $38, while a section with a value of $6,000 would require 158 shares.526

Some 26 owners (holding just on 50 percent the shares) of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 met on 29 March 1974. Four owners, namely, J.C. Phillips, P.R. Pita, P. Calkin, and K. Hau among them held 1574.965 shares or 33.26 percent of the total. The District Officer noted the delays that had taken place in subdividing the block, but claimed that rising land values had negated any losses that might otherwise have arisen. Simpson & Partners outlined the economics of the scheme, the matter of reserves contributions, esplanade reserves, the installation of electric power, water supply and sewage disposal. Owners were not required to supply the last two: rather, buyers were to assume responsibility. The major questions before the meeting were whether (some

524 A copy can be found in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/b 29/188 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.286-312. 525 Thomson, Wilson, Fiddler, and Heenan, Whangarei to District Officer, Whangarei 4 December 1973, in ANZ Wellington ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.224-269. 526 Simpson & Partners, Whangarei to Maori Trustee, Whangarei 13 February 1974, in ANZ Wellington ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.224-269 237

ten years after amalgamation and vesting) subdivision should proceed, noting that the Maori Trustee would sell several sections in order to recover costs, and whether owners wanted all sections sold and the proceeds distributed. Some owners clearly wanted the proceeds of their shares to go to the rehabilitation of Punaruku Marae, while others indicated a wish to have their shares excised so that they might sell the resulting sections. Several options were canvassed, among them, that the Maori Trustee should subdivide the entire block and sell sections to recover his costs, with the balance of the sections vested in all owners who could then partition as desired. Alternatively, the owners could form an incorporation to deal with the balance, or the Maori Trustee could subdivide and assume responsibility for the disposal of all sections. The last was the option that most owners favoured. 527 Finally, an advisory committee of four owners was chosen to assist the Maori Trustee to select the sections to be sold and reserve prices. Once those sections had been sold and the Maori Trustee had recovered his costs, the disposal of the balance of the land would be entirely a matter for owners.528

6.7.4 The Maori Trustee applies for a loan, 1974

In May 1974 – now eight years after the original vesting – the Maori Trustee applied to the Board of Maori Affairs for an advance of $40,000 (at 6.5 percent per annum) secured against the land involved in the subdivision. That sum was required to meet the survey, engineering, and development costs as estimated by Simpson & Partners. It was noted that, as a result of the Whangarei County Council’s requirement and the decision of the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board, the number of lots had been reduced from the planned 46 to 42. It also recorded the estimated income from lot sales at $226,000, thus leaving an estimated $180,000 available for distribution. The return from the sale of eight to ten lots would cover the Maori Trustee’s costs. The timetable envisaged the completion of survey and development work during June to October 1974, the placement of ten lots on the market during December 1974 to

527 Notes of meeting of owners 29 March 1974, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/b 29/188 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.286-312. 528 District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei to T. Johnstone, Hikurangi 5 June 1984, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.313-342. 238

March 1975, and consultation with the owners over the disposal of the remaining lots during April and May 1975.529 The application was approved.

In August 1974, an inspection of the site was conducted by the Maori Trustee and the Whangarei County Council. It was clear that aeolian erosion, the product of persistent easterly winds, was of some magnitude, with sand covering up to one half of the block on the Bland Bay side of the road. The County Council insisted that remedial and stabilisation works were required before the affected sections could be placed on the market. Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8, which adjoined the subdivision on the Bland Bay side, was particularly badly affected. Ring-fencing of the subdivision to exclude stock and vehicles and fencing of 1D8 were proposed as the initial steps: one result of this was the postponement of development work on the subdivision scheme to mid-1975.530 Further complications followed, in the form of the Whangarei County Council’s requirement that electricity, reticulated underground, should be supplied to the scheme. The matter of cost and how it should be met and recovered were the questions that immediately followed.

The outcome was that while by July 1975 the area scheduled for subdivision had been ring-fenced (at a cost to date of some $3,600), road works would not be completed until the spring of 1976.531 It was only in late June 1975 that the North Auckland Power Board provided some firm proposals for the provision and reticulation of power. Essentially, the Maori Trustee would be required to provide a guarantee in respect of supply, such guarantee to decline as sections were sold, and to subsidise the cost of reticulation up to $500 per section. The latter cost would be added to section prices. The North Auckland Power Board proposed seeking a loan to finance its works, a process it was not expected to complete before January 1976. Since underground reticulation within the subdivision had to be carried out at the same time as roading work, the Maori Trustee was obliged to seek the consent of the Whangarei County Council for an extension of the period within which the subdivision was to

529 A copy of the application can be found in ANZ Wellington ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655. 530 See Executive Officer, Trust, ‘Bland Bay subdivision,’ in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.313-342. 531 See J.H. Taipana, ‘Subdivision at Bland Bay, Part Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 Block: Position as at 1. 7. 75,’ in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.313-342. 239

have been completed, that is, by 3 December 1975.532 Site work was expected to be completed by September 1976 and the sections placed on the market in the following summer months.

In October 1975, owners were thus advised by the District Officer of Maori Affairs that the revised cost subdivision stood at about $70,000, including supplying electricity to the site, but that they would secure a profit of between $250,000 and $300,000, assuming, that is, that all sections were sold at market prices. That would still leave an un-subdivided residue of 11.5 acres on the Whangaruru Harbour side of the block. The estimated value of each share, based on the sub-divisional and residual value, was estimated at $72.00. The value of one share as an un-subdivided proposition, he added, would be about $32.00.533 The comparison appears to have been made in an effort to sustain owner interest in and commitment to the project.

In May 1976, Whangarei’s District Officer reported that the cost of subdivision had risen to an estimated $67,600: that figure included $20,120 for the provision of electricity. Delays in the subdivision notwithstanding, the District Officer noted that demand for sections had increased markedly, and that once sufficient sections had been sold to recover costs, the Maori Trustee would consult owners over the disposal of the balance. It remained possible, he noted, that the trusts could be cancelled and the scheme handed over to a trust or an incorporation. 534 The Maori Trustee applied accordingly to the Board of Maori Affairs for an increase in its original grant of $40,000 to $67,000. The supporting paper set the estimated income from the sale of 42 sections at $367,000 and the estimated profit (that is, after deductions of $44,500 for development costs, $8,000 for arrears of rates and interest, $21,000 for power reticulation, and $3,500 for the first annual power guarantee) at $290,000. Although other costs had arisen, most of the increase in the grant sought reflected the cost of

532 The application was made to the Whangarei County Council in October 1975. See District Officer, Whangarei to County Clerk, Whangarei County Council 23 October 1975, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2 pp.313-342. 533 District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei to all owners, October 1975, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.313-342. 534 District Officer, Whangarei 5 May 1976, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.7-64. 240 supplying power.535 The application was granted. In August 1976 tenders were called for site preparation.

Plate 6.2: Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour, 1976

(Source: Alexander Turnbull Library)

535 A copy of the paper can be found in ANZ Wellington ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655. 241

6.7.5 Owners meet, 16 September 1976

Owners met again in September 1976: by that time the Maori Trustee had had the block subdivided into 46 sections at a cost of some $70,000 (Maps 6.5 and 6.6). The sections were expected to fetch a net total in excess of $300,000. The Maori Trustee planned to offer the sections in stages, with the first 12 to be offered for sale by the end of 1976. One of the major concerns to emerge during the meeting was the preservation of a burial reserve from encroachment by the subdivision and that in turn generated some debate over the external boundaries of the amalgamated block and whether they had been moved: it appears that a minor amendment was made to the subdivision’s boundary in an effort to allay concerns.536 Most attention focused on the disposal of the land, the District Officer making it plain that if the meeting failed to arrive at a ‘constructive’ decision, the Maori Trustee would sell sections (that could be located in any part of the subdivision) sufficient to recover his costs and return the balance to owners to deal with as they wished. The notes of the meeting recorded that it was moved that the sections touching the cemetery reserve should not be sold, that up to 14 sections could be sold to clear costs, and a trust or incorporation established to deal with the balance. The motion was seconded but the record failed to note whether it was passed.537

By 1976, the block had been provided with roads, underground power, and storm water disposal. During December 1976 and January 1977, 14 sections were offered for sale by public tender: only six tenders were received. Being well below the reserve prices, all were declined. The sections were placed in the hands of Northland land agents and four (Lots 4, 10, 13, and 15) were sold.538

536 ‘Cemetery encroachment fears to be discussed,’ Northern Advocate 7 October 1976; and ‘Ngatiwai elder still unhappy,’ Northern Advocate 9 October 1976. 537 Notes of meeting of 16 September 1976, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.7-64. 538 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1857/a 29/188 Part 7. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.343-353; and BBDL 1030/3284/c 29/188/10; BBDL 1030/1857/b 29/188/15. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.1-6. 242

Map 6.5: Lots 1-19, 31 & 33, and 47 & 48, Pt Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4, 1977

( Source: Insert DP 82225)

The difficulties posed by lack of interest in purchasing sections were compounded by rates and penalties that had been accumulating since 1966. By January 1978, the sum claimed by the Whangarei County Council stood at $5,662.68.539 Having allocated receipts from section sales to its overdraft, the Maori Trustee sought more time in which to pay. At the same time it decided to try to establish its liability for payment of arrears, that is, whether such arrears were ‘out of time’ in terms of section 79 of the Rating Act 1967, and to determine whether the Council had acted properly in allocating a payment made in respect of the 1977-1978 rates to those owing for 1971/1972. In its view, the rates legally recoverable covered the period from 1972/73 to 1976/77 and stood at $5,108.23 (including penalties). While the Council might

539 County Clerk, Whangarei County Council to Maori Trustee, Whangarei 12 January 1978, in ANZ Wellington ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.224-269. 243

secure a judgment summons for that amount, its ability to enforce payment of rates prior to 1976/77 was in serious doubt. A payment of $927.46 was proposed to cover the rates for 1976/77.540

Map 6.6: Lots 20-29 and 34-36, Pt Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4, 1977

(Source: DP 82226)

540 G.W. Gunn, Maori Trustee to District Officer, Whangarei 7 March 1978, in ANZ Wellington ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.224-269. 244

6.7.6 Excising Whangaruru-Whakaturia 5

In 1978, Turangi Johnstone successfully applied to have her 93.962 shares partitioned out of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 as Whangaruru-Whakaturia 5. Partition was subject to payment of $1,370, being the deficiency in value as stated on the valuation report: that sum was to be paid to the Maori Trustee and held in trust for the owners of the parent block.541 Subsequently, Watene Martin (who had 539.436 shares out the total of 4642.508, or an interest equivalent to $29,014) sought to partition Lots 45 and 46 from Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 and to add a portion of the residue land so as to create two lots, a residue area of 3.0139 hectares and an esplanade reserve of 3000m2. The Maori Trustee, it was noted, had completed his subdivision and hence consented to the proposed partition. Further, the Court decided that the creation of Lot 4 as an esplanade reserve should fall equally on all shareholders. The partition was approved on the grounds that it was ‘not inexpedient’ in either the public or owners’ interests, and that Martin’s shares were sufficient to cover the two lots claimed. The outcome was the creation of four new allotments, with 1 and 2 being vested solely in Watene Martin; Lot 3 was vested in the present owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4, save a reduction in the total shares from 4642.508 to 4103.072, Martin to have no shares in the residue; while Lot 4 was vested in the Whangarei County Council as an esplanade reserve.542

6.7.7 Tenders, shares, and sales, 1983543

At the request of owners, further sales were deferred until 1983. In April 1983, 20 owners (representing 1227.026 of 4642.508 shares) met to discuss the future administration of the block, the sale of the remaining sections, and the future use of the un-subdivided residue. With respect to the zoning of that residue, further subdivision of some two-thirds was, with consent from the Whangarei County Council, evidently possible: the remainder, that closest to Whangaruru Harbour, was

541 See Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 55/67. The new block was released from the trust on 19 July 1978. See ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/711 15/9/364. 542 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 62/330-331. 543 This account deals with post-1980 developments in more detail than offered by Huhana Seve. 245

zoned either Proposed Public Reserve or Rural AC.544 If any further subdivision were to take place, owners were advised, much would be required by the County Council as reserve contribution.545 The meeting thus considered five main issues: first, the replacement of the Maori Trustee with owner/trustees; second, the formation of an incorporation to deal with the remaining land; third, the further sale or leasing of the unsold sections; fourth, the subdivision of Lot 29 and/or the un-subdivided residue; and, fifth, the use of the land as security to raise finance for the other revenue- producing enterprises.546 Owners agreed unanimously that the Maori Trustee should continue as principal trustee but with the assistance of five advisory trustees and that the remaining sections should be sold, with shareholders to have first option. At the request of shareholders, Lots 1 and 33 would not be made available for sale. It was noted that Lots 45 and 46 were the subject of applications for partition.

A new valuation was completed in June 1983. Table 6.5 sets out the results.547 Six tenders were received from owners within the period allowed, all being successful, and all seeking to have the value of their shareholdings credited towards the cost. In July 1983, the unsold sections were thus offered to shareholders by way of tender but for not less than a Special Government Valuation dated 1 June 1983. Those not taken up within the specified period of four months were to be offered on the open market. Shares held by owners were to be credited towards repayment. Repayment was by way of cash or a 25 percent deposit and the balance by way of instalments over five years at 15 percent. Those owners who had more than sufficient shares to meet the cost of purchase retained an appropriately reduced number of undivided shares in the residual land. The Pita family, for example, secured four lots, namely, 13, 17, 20, and 28 with an aggregate value of $56,550. Polly Pita (died in 1978) had had 561.988

544 Under the Whangarei County Council’s district scheme there were five rural zones, namely A, B, AC, Rural Settlement, and Rural Residential. Rural AC applied to those lands deemed per section 2B of the Town and Country Planning Amendment Act 1973 to be of ‘national importance.’ Section 2B(a) specified that the matters of national importance included ‘The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment and of the margins of lakes and rivers and the protection of them from unnecessary subdivision and development ... .’ Such zoning did not, therefore, prohibit subdivision and development. 545 Maori Trustee to owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4, March 1983, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1874/c 29/188 Part 11. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.354-366. 546 In the original subdivision Lot 29, of about one acre was not further subdivided on account of concern over erosion. Those concerns appear to have been met. 547 All of the relevant files in the BBDL 1030 29/188 series were examined, but the information presented in Table 6.5 may be still complete. Thus that no files were located, for example, for Lots 16, 33, and 44-46. 246 shares in Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4: those shares had a total value of $67,586, leaving the family with a balance of 92.283 shares valued at $10,978. The four lots were allocated among members of the family, a process that involved exchanges of interests. The Maori Land Court was advised that ‘This is basically a family arrangement to rationalise ownership of lands that the family members received as beneficiaries in the estate of the late Polly Pita who was their mother.’548

Table 6.5: Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4: lots, capital valuations, and prices paid ($), c.1984

Lots Capital values Prices paid Lots Capital values Prices paid 5 13,100 24 16,100 6 13,050 25 13,000 7 13,100 13,500 26 13,000 8 13,500 27 13,500 9 13,500 28 13,500 13,500 13 15,050 15,050 37 12,500 14 16,050 38 13,000 13,000 16 13,000 39 13,000 13,000 17 15,000 15,000 40 13,000 18 15,550 15,800 41 13,000 14,000 19 15,050 18,105 42 13,000 13,000 20 13,000 13,000 43 13,000 21 17,150 25,176 44 13,000 22 16,050 20,000 45 13,000 23 14,000 14,000 46 13,500

(Sources: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1874/c 29/188 Part 11. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.354-366; and BBDL 1030/2394/b 29/188/7; BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18; BBDL 1030/1857/f 29/188/19; BBDL 1030/1858/a 29/188/20 BBDL 1030/2394/c 29/188/21; BBDL 1030/2395/a 29/188/22; BBDL 1030/1858/b 29/188/23; BBDL 1030/1858/c 29/188/24; BBDL 1030/1858/d 29/188/25; BBDL 1030/3284/d 29/188/38; BBDL 1030/3284/e 29/188/39; BBDL 1030/3285/b 29/188/41; BBDL 1030/2395/b 29/188/42.)

Towards the end of 1983 the Ngatiwai Trust Board asked the Maori Trustee not to sell any of the sections on the open market until it could formulate proposals intended to

548 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1858/a 29/188/20 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.65-68. 247

ensure that they remained in Maori ownership. For reasons not disclosed, the Maori Trustee chose to follow the decisions of owners made at the April 1983 meeting and the unsold lots were offered for sale on the open market early in 1984, tenders closing on 9 March 1984. Those received from owners (three) and from relatives of owners (two) were approved. Tenders from outsiders generated some discussion. The latter included a tender of $25,176 for Lot 21, a price 46.8 percent above valuation: the advisory trustees preferred owners to have preference but, as in the case of Lot 21, felt ‘that they must be tempered given the sums tendered.’549 Within the Maori Trustee’s Office, some uncertainty was expressed over whether the remaining tenders from non-owners should be accepted. Such uncertainty reflected a concern that not all owners, their addresses being unknown, had been contacted, and that not all development costs had been recovered. Moreover, once the existing tenders had been settled, the trust would be flush with funds. In such circumstances the Divisional Officer (Trust) was not prepared to recommend the acceptance of tenders from non- owners unless those tenders were ‘a decent percentage above valuation ...’ and suggested a margin of at least 15 percent. That recommendation was accepted. On that basis, two tenders from non-owners, for Lots 19 and 21, were accepted, and the remainder declined. At the conclusion of that round of tenders, the Maori Trustee looked to deal with the possible subdivision of Lot 29, to consider what it termed ‘an owners development on the property (motels etc),’ and to initiate Court action to allow the value of owners’ shares to be credited towards purchase prices.550

In May 1984, the Maori Land Court granted an application lodged by Watene Martin to partition certain lots out of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4. There being no objections, orders were issued, first, terminating the trust in respect of Lots 1 and 2; and, second, creating therefrom Lots 1 to 4. Lots 1 and 2 were vested in the applicant solely; Lot 3 was vested in the existing owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 Residue save a reduction in total shares from 4642.508 to 4103.072 and in which Martin would not

549 M. Stevens to Director 3 April 1984, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.7-64. 550 Divisional Officer (Trust) to Director 11 May 1984, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.7-64. 248

have any shares; while Lot 4 was vested in the Whangarei County Council as an esplanade reserves (subject to the County’s consent).551

By August 1984, 12 lots remained available for sale and purchase.552 In December 1984, the Maori Land Court made a number of orders in respect of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 4. The block was vested in the Maori Trustee, the trust to be known as the Bland Bay Trust, ‘to subdivide the land or parts thereof into beach side residential allotments and to sell such allotments to the best advantage of the beneficial owners, to make provision for any special needs of the owners as a family group or groups, and to represent the beneficial owners on all matters relating to the land and to the use and enjoyment of the facilities associated therewith.’ The general effect was to enable the Maori Trustee to conclude sales of sections to individual owners whereby their shares in the assets of the trust (including their undivided shares in Whangaruru- Whakaturia 4) could be offset against the purchase price.

The trust was terminated in respect of parts of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 and re- vested in those beneficially entitled thereto.553 For the purpose of re-vesting, owners were grouped into three categories: those categories were not defined, but appear to have been based upon the extent of ownership. Table 6.6 summarises the details. Category III comprised the allotments in Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 Residue remaining after the re-vestings in Categories I and II, together with the shares not vested in the beneficiaries under Category II.

551 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1679/b 29/188 Part 12. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.367ff. 552 Numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 23, 26, 27, 28, 37, and 40. See ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1679/b 29/188 Part 12. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.367ff. 553 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 63/148. For a full schedule of the re-vestings, see ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/2395/b 29/188/42. Supporting Documents,Volume 3, pp.81-92. 249

Table 6.6: Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4: re-vestings, 1984

Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 Persons: No Shares re-vested Category I Lot 13 2 Whole in half shares Lot 16 1 Whole Lot 17 2 Whole in half shares Lot 20 2 Whole in half shares Lot 24 1 Whole Lot 28 7 One as to 4/7, six as to 1/7 each Lot 38 1 Whole Lot 43 1 Whole Lot 44 1 Whole

Category II Lot 18 1 1673.78 ex 15818.08 shares Lot 23 1 8844.64 ex 14011.87 shares Lot 25 1 11267.27 ex 13010.96 shares Lot 41 1 8999.93 ex 14014.64 shares Lot 42 1 8848.97 ex 13014.64 shares

Category III 67 3203.754 ex 3234.154 shares

(Source: Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 63/148; and ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1679/b 29/188 Part 12)

250

Plate 6.3: Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour, 1985

(Source: Alexander Turnbull Library)

6.7.8 Tenders, shares, and sales, 1988

In December 1988, owners were again informed that all were being given the opportunity to tender, the upset price being the amount of a special valuation. The Advisory Trustees met on 6 April 1989: they agreed that the valuation obtained by the Maori Trustee as at 6 September 1988 should be employed in the 31 March 1989 assessment of share values. In his report, the Managing District Valuer recorded that Bland Bay included some 80 house sites many of which had been developed on both 251

sides of the sealed access road that ran to the Landcorp property at the end of the Peninsula. Sites were serviced with electricity and telephone but neither water nor sewage. Fourteen sites were assessed (Table 6.7). Lots 1 and 33 were in fact placed into the burial reserve adjoining the subdivision. In addition, Lot 3, of 3.1291 hectares was valued at $122,000: the Whangarei County Council was proposing to re-zone some two hectares of this block to Rural AC with the effect of eliminating any prospect that the block’s full divisional potential would be realised.554

Table 6.7: Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4: lots and valuations, 1988

Lots Values: $ Lots Values: $ 8 3,8000.00 33 4,0000.00 9 3,6000.00 35 4,1000.00 26 3,7000.00 14 5,0000.00 27 3,8000.00 37 1,2000.00 30 4,0000.00 40 3,7000.00 31 4,0000.00 1 5,6000.00 32 4,0000.00 33 5,2000.00

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18)

Six tenders were received, including two for Lot 37: the advisory trustees resolved that the Maori Trustee ‘be authorized and directed’ to allocate sections to those shareholders currently listed, to allow tenderers to offset the value of their shares against the purchase price, while acknowledging that the Maori Trustee might have to purchase shares from some of the purchasing owners.555

In September 1989, owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 met and discussed a range of issues. The meeting approved, first, the distribution of $150,000 to the remaining owners as shareholders; second, that five sections should be nominated and advertised for sale at 50 percent above valuation; third, that the residue area be leased for grazing; fourth (and unanimously) that a fee of $10,000 should be paid to the Maori

554 Managing District Valuer, Whangarei to Maori Trustee, Whangarei 27 September 1988, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.7-64. 555 Minutes of a meeting of Advisory Trustees of Whangaruru Whakauria 4 6 April 1989, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18. 252

Trustee; and fifth, agreed that any owner still wishing to purchase must do so on the open market.556 In December 1989, Lots 8, 9, 14, 26, and 27 were offered for sale on the open market: once sold the Maori Trustee’s involvement would terminate.

6.7.9 The position in 2016

In 2016, 15 sections of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 remain as Maori freehold land. Five (8, 9, 26, 27, and 37) are held by the Bland Bay Trust, the sections being leased from 2000 or 2001 for terms of 30 years. Of the others, Lot 1 was set apart in 1988 as a burial ground and, in 1990, together with Lot 33, was included with the existing Maori reservation on Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D2 known as Te Paihere Waahi Tapu.557 Several other lots are owned by whanau trusts, among them, 1 Pt, 38, and 44. Lot 3 of 3.1921 hectares and presently owned by 263 individuals is known as Oteaka and was set apart in 2001 as a Maori reservation.

6.7.10 Bland Bay: a summary

Although many files were consulted in the preparation of this account of Bland Bay, a summary of costs of the subdivision, allotments sold and allocated, and distributions to owners was not located. One map, located in a file carrying the date of 1985, offered a summary of alienations.558 It recorded that five sections had been reserved from sale, nine had been sold to non-owners, 15 had been sold to owners, three had been sold to relatives of owners, while nine remained unsold. Those unsold included Lots 8, 9, 26, 27, and 37, that is, those now vested in the Bland Bay Trust.

6.8 Conclusions

The second half of the 20th century witnessed the transformation of parts of Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Otara, and indeed the entire Whangaruru North Head, into beachside housing sections and recreation reserves. If the pace of partition and alienation had been sedate up to about 1950, thereafter it accelerated as owners, encouraged, perhaps pressured, by the Maori Land Court and the Department of

556 Minutes of meeting of the Whangaruru-Whakaturia 4 Block 20 September 1989, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 3, pp.7-64. 557 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D2, together with 1B (Puni Puni Wahi Tapu), and 1D9A and 1D10A remain the property of the Ngatitwai Trust Board. 558 ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1679/b 29/188 Part 12. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.367ff. 253

Maori Affairs, and assisted by the Maori Trustee, sought to unlock the rising value of lands on which development ‘units’ had long laboured or which had not been included in the Ngaiotonga development scheme. Some owners elected simply to sell and leave subdivision to outside (Pakeha) interests; others sought to maintain control by vesting lands in trustees to fill trusts that envisaged the allocation of some sections to owners and the sale of others; while still others decided to vest their lands in the Maori Trustee to subdivide, develop, and sell.

The Bland Bay Subdivision is of particular interest, bringing together, as it did, several of the main issues that the report examines, namely, title reform, subdivision and alienation, and Crown assistance. From conception to completion, the subdivision spanned a very long period. That gestation of some 30 years the Maori Trustee was inclined, with some justification, to attribute to the changing requirements set by the Whangarei County Council. On the other hand, there is some evidence to suggest that the Maori Trustee took less than rigorous care to establish exactly what those requirements were. There is a suggestion, too, in the many files examined, of a certain lack of urgency on the Trustee’s part, and that action in some instances only followed pressure from owners. On the other hand, those same files indicate that the Maori Trustee, certainly during the 1970s and 1980s, did consult owners and was guided by their preferences.

The account offered above carries the analysis of the Bland Bay Subdivision through to 1989, that is, beyond the period considered by Huhana Seve, and thus accounting with respect to the conclusions reached some differences of emphasis.559 On several key issues the two accounts are largely in accord, namely, that the scheme appears to have been conceived and driven by the Maori Land Court and the Department of Maori Affairs; that during the preliminary planning phases, at least, no serious effort appears to have been made to engage, consult, and secure the agreement of owners; and third, that some key decisions, notably that to sell rather than lease sections, also appear to have been taken with very little if any consultation. The underlying issue is the nature of the engagement between owners and the Maori Trustee and the Maori Land Court during the preliminary phases of the scheme’s formulation and design.

559 See Brief of Evidence of Huhana Seve dated 9 February 2016, p.14.Wai 1040 U3b. 254

Once work began on the scheme, the Maori Trustee did make an effort to consult and abide by the wishes of owners. Whether finally the Trustee’s management of the scheme met owners’ expectations is less clear. The available files do not disclose any dissatisfaction, and those who wished to secure sections were evidently able to do so. On the other hand, as observed elsewhere in this report, the absence of evidence indicating dissatisfaction or criticism cannot be taken as a positive affirmation of the Maori Trustee’s performance.

The key question that remains is whether the owners of the blocks involved in the Bland Bay subdivision in particular secured the benefits originally held out to them by the Crown. It was certainly the case that through the Maori Trustee, the Crown provided access to development finance, technical expertise, and a measure of effective management. The subdivision that was eventually adopted appears to have made effective use of the lands involved, while efforts were made to protect sacred sites and to mitigate the effects of aeolian erosion. Further, the Crown’s efforts to set aside lands as public open spaces – leaving aside for the moment the some of the methods that it employed – enhanced the overall attractiveness of Whangaruru as a holiday and recreation destination and thus bestowed some economic benefits on the wider community, especially in the form of enhanced land values. In short, the Maori Trustee advanced the vision that first encouraged the owners of Whangaruru- Whakaturia 1D8 to embark upon the subdivision of that block into residential sections. But it remains a matter for some regret that efforts to establish whether the Maori Trustee retains files dealing with the Bland Bay subdivision proved unsuccessful. Should such files exist, it is possible, as suggested above, that they might support a differently weighted assessment from that presented.560

560 The Maori Trustee did grant access to a restricted file held by Archives New Zealand: most of the information it contained was also located in open files. 255

Chapter 7: Reserving the land: the Crown, designation, and

acquisitions

If the Bland Bay subdivision constituted or expressed a reasonably constructive, productive, and tolerably well-managed relationship between the Crown and the owners of the four blocks involved, the same cannot be said of the contemporaneous efforts of the Crown to establish public open spaces that would eventually include the entire Whangaruru Peninsula. Those efforts would revive concerns that the Crown, in order to secure its ends, was prepared to employ methods that were widely and bitterly criticised as coercive. Among the matters of fundamental concern to Ngatiwai were the preservation of land in their ownership, the preservation of their rights as owners of private property, their desire to generate a return from their land, and their desire to exercise their responsibilities as guardians and stewards not only of the blocks under review but of the wider Whangaruru environment. In short, the controversy that erupted over the Crown’s efforts to acquire and set aside substantial areas as public open spaces exposed a fundamental clash of values, rights, and expectations. Chapter 7 thus focuses on the themes of alienation and the changing relationship between the Crown and tangata whenua, and sets out the outcomes that owners were able to secure.

7.1 Introduction

During the 1960s, as population growth, increasing urbanisation, growing mobility, and greater affluence generated an increasing demand for access to the country’s coast lines, lakes, and rivers for recreational purposes, Government, while not relaxing its efforts to encourage the maximum utilisation of land for productive purposes, turned its attention to the conservation and preservation of land for aesthetic, scientific, historic, and recreational purposes.561 A growing interest on the part of foreign interests in acquiring coastal land also informed that new interest. In 1972 the Town and Country Planning Division of the Ministry of Works and Development issued a report that set out what were regarded as disturbing trends in

561 AJHR 1967, C1, pp.3-4; and 1968, C1, pp.3-4. 256

coastal subdivision and development, the conflict between public and private interests, and the roles of central and local government.562

Within a few months of taking office in 1974, the Government announced a national policy on the use of coastal land. Among its several basic elements were, first, a recognition that coastal land was a resource of national importance but of fixed quantity justifying both central and local government intervention over its use; second, the provision of as wide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities and experiences as the coast could offer; and, third, the retention ‘in sufficient quantity’ of the native coastal fauna and flora in their natural state. Implementation of that policy would raise a fundamental issue, namely, the tension between, on the one hand, the desire of Maori to partition, alienate, and utilise their lands as they desired, and, on the other, the desire of the Crown to act in what it perceived to be wider national interests. Three distinct shifts in the Crown’s approach to Maori can be discerned in the proceedings that unfolded. It moved from negotiating openly and freely with Maori land owners, to placing restrictions on their ability to deal with their lands as they saw fit, and finally to respecting the rights of owners.

7.2 The nature and scale of the problem

The major issues relating to coastal land were defined, in 1972, by the Town and Country Planning Division of the Ministry of Works and Development as obtaining a ‘desirable’ pattern of rural and urban land use; preserving or creating an ‘appropriate ‘ character of urban development at each settlement, and safeguarding the land that would be needed as public reserve in the future.563 With respect to the last, the key task was the definition and safeguarding of coastal land that should be set apart for recreational use or to preserve scenic features lest it ‘disappear irretrievably beneath urban development ....’ 564 The report went on to describe the widespread and uncontrolled appearance of coastal subdivisions, the rise in coastal land values, and the pressure being exerted on both local authorities and central government to set aside more land as recreational reserves. ‘The section-buying public,’ it observed,

562 Ministry of Works and Development, Coastal development: policy issues and planning techniques. Wellington: Ministry of Works and Development, 1972. 563 Town and Country Planning Division, Coastal development, p.vii. 564 Town and Country Planning Division, Coastal development, p.viii. 257

‘has expanded in the post-war years as a result of increased population, increasing disposable income ... increased personal mobility ... and better access roads to coastal areas.’565 The report concluded that local authorities, through operative district plans, were the main bulwark against widespread and excessive coastal subdivision, inflated land values, and ‘professional speculators.’566

7.3 The implementation of coastal policy

Rather than banning all coastal development or declaring a moratorium on all coastal subdivision, the Government adopted a range of approaches to implementation. Among them were the designation (discussed below) and acquisition of reserves, liaison with local authorities, and legislative changes. The first involved the Department of Lands and Survey (working in cooperation with the Ministry of Works and Development). Some years earlier, in July 1966, Lands and Survey had initiated a review of coastal reserves throughout New Zealand, focusing on those areas subject to population pressures and growing recreational needs, where the prospect of subdivision was greatest, and where difficulties had arisen over public access to the coastal areas.567 In September 1966, the survey was extended to embrace in addition lake shore lines and river margins. The objectives were complete a stock-take of existing reserves, to identify those areas of both Maori and general land that it was considered should be held in Crown ownership, and to create the basis on which policies, guidelines, and courses of action could be founded. 568 Northland was included among the priority areas. One of the key advocates was Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands: in 1969 he made clear his view that little time was left before land in the more attractive coastal areas was lost to subdivision or commercial use.569 By 1972 reports, prepared on a county-by-county basis, had been completed on some 1,130 miles of the North Island coastline. Those reports identified

565 Town and Country Planning Division, Coastal development, p.8. 566 Town and Country Planning Division, Coastal development, p.13. 567 AJHR 1970, C1, p.24 and 1972, C1, p.21. For further details, see ANZ Auckland BAAZ 1109 A557/109/b 3/413/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.201-218. 568 For an outline of the investigation of coastal reserves, including the criteria devised to guide the selection of ‘open space areas,’ see the paper of that title in ANZ Auckland BAAZ 1109 A557/109/b 3/413/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.201-218. 569 ‘Control of coastal use,’ Auckland Star 6 April 1970, extract in ANZ Auckland BAAZ 1109 A557/109/b 3/413/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.201-218. 258

the areas that, it was considered, should be reserved for public use.570 The report for Whangarei County was completed in 1968 and identified for the purchase a number of coastal areas that included Bland Bay. The report was not made public.571

Once completed, reports were referred to the local authorities concerned and a course of action adopted that involved those authorities designating such areas in district planning schemes as proposed reserves and accepting financial responsibility for the acquisition of areas deemed to be of local significance. 572 The Whangarei County Council’s scheme came into force on 27 February 1967, that is, before the Department of Lands and Survey had completed its report on coastal reserves. Where a proposed reserve was deemed to have national significance the Government would take steps with respect to designation through a ‘Ministerial requirement.’ Acting under section 21 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1953, the Ministry of Works and Development would notify the local authority concerned that the Minister ‘required’ it in its district scheme to make provision for the reserve as a proposed public work for which the Government accepted financial responsibility.

Designation did not imply immediate purchase and indeed purchase might not be sought for many years. In the interim, owners could utilise the land according to its underlying zoning (usually ‘rural’) but could not subdivide the land, carry out any excavation, or build any structure upon it without the consent of the Minister of Works and Development. Owners could lodge objections to designation to the designating local authority and had a right of appeal to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board. The latter could give the designating local authority the options of uplifting the designation or taking the land under the Public Works Act 1928.

Other methods were also employed. Thus private land of scenic, historic or scientific interest could be given the protection of reserves legislation under the Reserves and Domains Act 1953, ownership remaining undisturbed. Land owned by Maori, at the

570 AJHR 1972, C1, pp.21-22. 571 David Alexander, ‘Land-based resources, waterways, and environmental impacts,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2006, pp.969-970. 572 This and the following two paragraphs are based on Department of Lands and Survey, Coastal resources survey, Wellington, 1975. 259

wish of the owners, could be set aside as a Maori reserve for the benefit of the general public, the Government assisting with management. Zoning and conservation covenants constituted other approaches. Designation, the establishment of Maori reserves, revised zoning, and conservation covenants would all be employed in respect of the blocks that are the subject of this investigation.

7.4 The Whangaruru North Head Reserve

In 1966, the owners of ‘The Point’ offered the land to the Crown for £31,000. The property would make, in the view of Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands, ‘a worthwhile contribution to the Crown’s overall plan for the development of coastal reserves.’ 573 The price was accepted and the Crown took possession on 1 August 1967 with the intention of farming the block (240 of the 668 acres were in grass) and developing further and managing its recreational potential. Map 7.1 is a plan of the area acquired. Although it was apparently ‘certified correct,’ by the Chief Surveyor, it will be noted that the Tasman Sea has displaced the Pacific Ocean. Having acquired the Papakura, Whakaparaka, and Kirikiri-Pawhaoa A3 blocks and, in 1968 incorporated them into Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park, the Crown set out to acquire Pukahu Wahitapu Reserve (3.25 acres), Te Wharawhara (six acres), and of Kirikiri- Pawahoa B2A (one acre). Their acquisition of the latter was based on the claim that their inclusion in the Park was ‘logical’ in that it would ‘square off boundaries.’574 They, too, were added to the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park in 1968.575

The Whangaruru Scenic Reserve (or Whangaruru North Head Scenic Reserve or Whangaruru Farm Park as it seems to have been variously termed) proved during the 1960s and 1970s to be one of Whangarei County’s most popular summer holiday

573 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to G.W.G. Simpson, Whangarei 26 May 1967,’ in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/468/c NP/29. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.185-200. 574 Director-General, Lands and Survey to Minister of Lands 4 November 1970, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/469/a NP 29 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.201-212. 575 ‘Addition of Land to the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park,’ New Zealand Gazette 69, 31 October 1968, p.2007. The Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park was established in 1967, initially to protect island reserves in the Hauraki Gulf but subsequently expanded through the addition of Crown lands, land purchases, and gifts. Under the Conservation Law Reform Act 1990, the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Board was abolished and responsibility for the management of the Park passed to the Department of Conservation. See Waitangi Tribunal, The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Report. Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2001, Chapter 2. 260

resort areas. 576 With pressure likely to increase, the Crown sought to expand the reserve. In July 1974, Kirikiri-Pawhaoa A1, lying along its northern boundary, had been designated by ministerial requirement as a proposed public reserve in the Whangarei County Council’s District Scheme. The owner, Polly Pita, offered the 68.56-hectare block to the Crown in 1975 but lack of finance prevented purchase being completed. The block was offered again. Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands suggested, in the light of ‘adverse reaction’ to the designation of other Maori- owned lands in the locality, ‘that it would be politic to purchase a property that had been offered to the Crown.’577 The Crown, increasingly sensitive to adverse criticism of its policy of designation and now keen to link the headland with the reserves in Bland Bay, accepted.578 Purchase was approved in December 1976, the price being $60,000, and the land was added to the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park.579

Much of that criticism emanated from Ngatiwai, Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands noting, in November 1976, that the iwi was:

making considerable political capital out of the fact that Ngatiwai owned lands are included in the designations under the Whangarei County District Scheme. Much is being made by certain Ngatiwai spokesmen of the fact that none of the owners wish [sic] in any way to relinquish ownership or any degree of control of their lands ... I believe that it would be tactical and extremely valuable to complete purchase of Mrs Pita’s land and not only would this bring into the Maritime Park a very worthwhile

576 For a description of the reserve, see ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/468/b NP/29. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.182-184. It quoted A.E. Esler, Whangaruru North Head: vegetation report to Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Board, unpublished report, Botany Division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, February 1972. 577 See Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Webb Ross and Ross, Whangarei 6 April 1976, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/57 20/282 Part 3 Alt No XRP_0005054. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.167-198. 578 The response of Ngatiwai to the policy of designation is set out below. 579 ‘Addition of land to the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park,’ New Zealand Gazette 94, 1 September 1977, p.2394. See ANZ Wellington AANS 25421 W5951/17 BOI-0318. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.145-157. In 1980 the Pita family offered Lots 2 and 3 DP78455, otherwise, respectively, Kirikiri- Pawhaoa 2 of 8.08ha, and Kirikiri-Pawhaoa 3 of 1680m2 to the Crown. Purchase, it was noted, would be ‘consistent with the policy of consolidating reserves in this locality . . .’ See Land Utilisation Officer, Lands and Survey, Auckland to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 29 August 1980, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/471/a NP/29 Part 5. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.233- 237. 261

Map 7.1: Whangaruru - North Head Scenic Reserve, 1968

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/469/a NP/29 Part 2)

262

addition to its reserve at Whangaruru but would also show good faith on the part of the Crown toward a Maori owner who when she wants to sell is able to do just that.580Purchase, it seems, had a distinctly political purpose. Indeed, the Secretary to the Treasury advised the Minister of Finance of the ill-feeling to which designation had given rise and suggested that it ‘may have been a factor in the Maori Land March.’ He went on to suggest that if the Crown reneged on the purchase, a rush of applications would follow for orders for the Crown to purchase designated lands or remove the designations.581

Map 7.2 depicts the Whangaruru North Head Scenic Reserve in 1980, together with the recreation reserve that included Otara 2B, 2C, 3A1, and 4A1: the location of the Otara block along the northern boundary of the reserve had a great deal to do with the Crown’s desire to acquire further subdivisions.

580 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 16 November 1976, in ANZ Wellington AANS 25421 W5951/17 BOI-0318. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.145-157. 581 Secretary to the Treasury to Minister of Finance 20 December 1976, in ANZ Wellington AANS 25421 W5951/17 BOI-0318. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.145-157. 263

Map 7.2: Whangaruru - North Head Scenic Reserve, 1980

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/468/b NP/29)

264

7.5 Creating new public open spaces

In July 1966 the Whangarei County Council proposed that the Crown join with it to acquire land at Bland Bay ‘as public reserves for the future use of the public and to protect them from partition by the Maori Land Court.’ The cost of purchase, it intimated, ‘would be an undue burden on the Council.’ 582 As noted above, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B had been sold to private purchasers by Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana (George Thompson) during 1966 for £5,200. The Department of Lands and Survey and the Council agreed that the former would concentrate on the Whangaruru area while the latter would deal with Ngunguru. Even, then, as the coastal reserves survey was under way, the Department of Lands and Survey initiated efforts to acquire additional public open spaces in the Whangaruru district. 583 In August 1966 it approached Watson Pita to ascertain whether owners would be prepared to sell Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9B and 1D8. Although the latter had been vested in the Maori Trustee for subdivision, Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands suggested that owners ‘may prefer to see the land disposed of to the Crown thus retained in public ownership, where it is available for general use.’584 The Department was also interested in acquiring Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A and 1D10A, that is, after provision had been made for a marae.

The Department also approached the Maori Trustee making clear its wish to acquire for reserve purposes a ‘reasonable’ area on the isthmus, that is, a compact area that

582 County Clerk, Whangarei County Council to Commissioner of Crown Lands Auckland 13 July 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1108 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 583 During the latter half of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, the Department of Lands and Survey undertook a nation-wide study of the coastline with three major objectives in view, namely, to establish an inventory of existing coastal reserves, to identify future demand for such reserves, and to identify the amount and location of the land required to meet that demand. To identify sites with reserve potential, four sets of criteria were applied: first, natural features having a bearing on the suitability of an area for recreation such as contour, vegetation cover, coastline configuration, and the quality of beaches; second, scientific values, including geology, geomorphology, flora, fauna, marine life, and archaeological significance; third, utilisation factors such as accessibility, diversity of possible uses and the general suitability of the area for activities ranging from walking for pleasure, swimming, fishing, and diving to camping and boat launching; and, fourth, external factors such as proximity to urban areas, the amount of development in the area, the number of existing reserves, and the relationship of the area under consideration to the open space system and the compatibility of recreation to other land uses. 584 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to W. Pita, Whangaruru 24 August 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 265

fronted both Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour. Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands noted that such a reserve would enhance the value of the sections retained by Maori.585 To facilitate an acquisition, the Crown was willing to exchange the 6-acre Oteaka 1C.586 It was made clear to the Department that the utilisation of 1D9A and 1D10A had advanced to a stage at which the owners were unlikely to sell for less than the current market value.587 At that juncture the Department of Lands and Survey paused and considered the acquisition of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D2, 1D4, and 1D6 to create a reserve of some 44 acres.588 That alternative appears not to have appealed, attention remaining focused on Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D8 and 1D9A. It was particularly keen on securing the former since the Whangarei County Council would require some of the latter to be set apart as reserve: Whangaruru- Whakaturia 4 included 19 lots of the Maori Trustee’s plan for subdivision. Map 7.3 is rough sketch plan of the area, a total of 11.25 acres, of prime interest to the Crown.

585 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Maori Trustee 5 September 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1- 30. 586 Assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Maori Trustee 6 September 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 587 District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 8 September 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 588 Maori Investigation Officer, Lands and Survey to Chief Surveyor, Auckland 22 September 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 266

Map 7.3: Area of interest to the Crown for reserve purposes, c1966

(Source: ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1, Alt No. – XRP_0005055)

267

In November 1966, the Department of Maori Affairs advised the Department of Lands and Survey to place ‘a concrete proposition’ before owners.589 The Valuation Department was asked to supply revised valuations for each of the two areas sought and of Oteaka Part 1C in the event that it was employed for exchange purposes. The combined government capital valuation of the two blocks as at 3 November 1966 was £7,400. The District Valuer noted that the valuation for Part 1C was approximately £1,000 per acre, ‘but this block of land has a comparatively long beach frontage and road frontage for its area. It would be incorrect to assume that all blocks in this locality are worth £1,000 per acre – as some owners apparently have done.’ The Whangarei County Council, he added, had recently increased its subdivisional requirements and demanded substantial contributions for upgrading the access road and in respect of water supply and sewage disposal.590 For its part, the Council was keen to support and encourage the Crown to secure land for reserve purposes.591 Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands was quick to propose that the Council could assist ‘by ensuring that the maximum reserve areas are taken in any subdivisions which are submitted to it for approval.’592

By 1967 the Department of Education had declared Tuparehuia to be surplus to its requirements and the Minister of Education directed its return to the descendants of the donors. What were termed ‘satisfactory arrangements’ had first to be made over buildings on the land, at that time used by Maori for community purposes. The Department of Lands and Survey thus asked the Department of Maori Affairs to call meetings of owners of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A and Tuparehuia to ‘resolve the owners[‘] and the Crown’s interests in these blocks.’ The issues nominated for discussion were compensation for Crown improvements on Tuparehuia, the siting of

589 District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 2 November 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1108 A1810 /58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 590 Valuation Department, Rural Valuation and Short Report 28 November 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1- 30. 591 County Clerk, Whangarei County Council to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 22 November 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 592 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to County Clerk, Whangarei County Council 5 December 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 268

the Tuparehuia Marae, and the location of a recreation reserve. On 5 August 1967, the Department sought to enlist the assistance of the trustees of the Whangaruru Maori School to ‘influence the trustees of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A into a sale with the Crown ...’ Should they do so, the Crown would vest Whangaruru-Whakaturia Pt 1C in those trustees, continue its negotiations for Pt 4 (previously 1D9B), and consider the purchase of 1D8 (wahi tapu).593 An officer of the Department met the trustees of 1D9A and while a majority were disposed to sell to the Crown would not do so without the approval of Ngatiwai as a whole: indeed, they had an application before the Maori Land Court asking to have the lands under their control vested in the Ngatiwai Trust Board and it, he suggested, ‘would be difficult to deal with.’594

On 17 February 1968, 28 owners and trustees decided, with respect to Tuaparehuia that the owners should have until September 1968 to pay the Crown $1,500 as compensation for the improvements or otherwise sell the site to the Crown.595 The meeting in respect of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A was held in the Porowini Maori Community Centre Hall on 15 April 1967. The number attending eventually reached some 80 persons. After considerable debate, those present agreed to nominate three of their number to negotiate in conjunction with the Maori Trustee, to negotiate with the Crown.596 That offer had been made despite private parties expressing an interest in the block. Negotiations with the Maori owners having proved ‘protracted and unsatisfactory,’ the Department decided to look to the southern end of Bland Bay, to Otara 2A, 2B, and 2C.597

593 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei 26 January 1967, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.278- 285. 594 Maori Investigation Officer, Lands and Survey, Auckland to Commissioner of Crown Lands 1 September 1967, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1108 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 595 Minutes of meeting of 17 February 1968, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1801/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 596 Minutes of meeting 15 April 1967, in ANZ Auckland ABWN1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 597 See Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland , ‘Note for file,’ 12 February 1973, in ABWN 1109 A1810/57 20/282 Part 3 Alt No XRP_0005054. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.167-198. See also Director-General, Lands and Survey to County Clerk, Whangarei County Council 5 March 1970, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75- 144. 269

The owners of Otara 2 were the Tamihana whanau. It will be recalled that in 1966 Otara 2 was partitioned into four blocks, 2A, awarded solely to Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana; 2B, awarded solely to Pare Rangimarama Hooro Tamihana; 2C, awarded solely to Harata Raihi Hooro Tamihana; and 2D, awarded solely to Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana. Otara 2D was a 2.5-acre block located on an easy hill overlooking both Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour: Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana (who secured a certificate of title dated 4 May 1967 under the Land Transfer Act) sold the block to J.W. and M. Hughes for £1500, considerably above the special valuation of £1,220 of 22 November 1966.598 That left Otara 2A, 2B, and 2C. According to the Department of Maori Affairs, two members of the Tamihana whanau might be prepared to sell their land to the Crown. Whangarei’s District Officer suggested that an early approach should be made to the owners lest the land were offered to private buyers.599

7.6 The Crown’s Otara purchases

Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana offered Otara 2A block to the Crown for $10,000 (or some $1,740 acre per acre) and raised the question of the Whangaruru school site. Tamihana suggested that the Crown was unlikely to secure Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D9A. ‘The Maori people,’ he advised Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands, ‘were not happy about the County’s requirements for land subdivision and in addition owners wanted to lease what sites were available from the reserve to provide finance for developing the Marae.’ He suggested that the Crown stood the best chance of securing a coast to coast strip of land by purchasing Otara 2A and Polly Pita’s 13-acre Otara 2C. 600 Mrs Sutherland (Harata Raiha Hooro Tamihana) was evidently ‘desperate’ for money to support her husband’s business and hence offered Otara 2C for $20,000 (or some $1,540 per acre). George Thompson indicated that he was prepared to sell Otara 2A although it appears, in fact, that a scheme of subdivision had

598 The land was subsequently transferred to J.W. Hughes, clerk of Auckland, and M. Hughes and remains in their ownership. See CT 10B/1264. 599 District Officer, Whangarei to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 30 June 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 600 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland, ‘Note for file,’ 14 July 1967, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 270

already been prepared for the block.601 Otara 2A was sold to W.G. Main. The Crown undertook to consider the offers while making it clear that it was negotiating to acquire other areas ‘on the flat ...’602

In September 1967, Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands thus recommended the purchase of both Otara 2A and Otara 2C, a total of almost 19 acres, for an estimated price of $38,000. He noted that some of the land, if not in fact required for reserve purposes, would make ‘an excellent beach subdivision.’603 Table 7.1 sets out some details of the three Otara subdivisions in which the Crown was by October 1967 interested in acquiring. In February 1968, Main was recorded as having offered the Crown 2.5 acres of Otara 2A for $3,500, an offer that he subsequently withdrew.604

Table 7.1: Details of the Otara blocks the subject of the Crown's interest, October 1967

Otara 2A Otara 2B Otara 2C Status European Owner W.G. Main P.R.H. Tamihana H.R.H. Tamihana Partition order 23 May 1966 23 May 1966 23 May 1966 Acres 5 1 19 29 3 00 13 0 00 Part XXIV/1953 Released 1966 Released 1966 Released 1966 Status order 15 March 1967 Valuation entire block 27 9,000.00 29,200.00 20,800.00 October 1967 Area offered (acres) 2 5 00 9 2 00 13 0 00 Proposed price: $ 3,500.00 8,500.00 20,000.00

(Source: ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055)

601 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to District Officer, Whangarei 5 September 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Papers, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 602 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to O’Neill Mahood and Armstrong, Whangarei 5 September 1966, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 603 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 1 September 1967, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 604 Maori Investigation Officer, Lands and Survey, Auckland to Commissioner of Crown Lands 5 February 1968, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 271

The difficulty confronting the Department was that of financing the purchases, sufficiently so that it briefly considered leasing the land. Subdivision of part of the area held more appeal for Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands.605 The owner of Otara 2A was certainly not interested in leasing. Mrs Sutherland was also not interested in leasing but did indicate that she would accept 50 percent as an immediate cash payment and the balance over three years at six percent per annum. Mrs Pita was also disposed to assist and suggested an arrangement involving the Whangaruru Maori School site and grounds.606 Concurrently, the Crown endeavoured to persuade the Whangarei County Council to ‘tighten up’ on its zoning. The blocks concerned were zoned ‘rural’ but subdivision was permitted at the discretion of the Council: it remained concerned that if it zoned the blocks reserve or open space it would be called upon by the owners to purchase.607

7.6.1 Otara 2C

Otara 2C, of just over 13 acres, was located at the southern end of Bland Bay. The owner was Harata Raiha Hooro Tamihana or Charlotte Sutherland: it was noted above that she sold the land to raise capital for reinvestment into a transport business. The Department of Lands and Survey was of the view that the block would make ‘a desirable addition’ to the Park and in fact it had been offered to the Crown for $20,000. A special government valuation (9 November 1967) accorded the property a capital value of $20,800. Entirely unimproved, it was described by the Valuation Department as ‘a desirable beach property and ... suitable for subdivision. This, locality,’ it added, ‘becoming more popular and demand is growing.’608 In July 1968 the Sutherlands sought an urgent decision: the block had been mortgaged (at 13 percent), the mortgage expiring in October 1968. In September 1968, the Minister of Lands approved the purchase of Otara 2C as the nucleus of a reserve for $20,800,

605 Director-General, Lands and Survey to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 8 March 1968; and Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 14 March 1968, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1801/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 606 Maori Investigation Officer, Lands and Survey, Auckland to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 29 April 1968, in ANZ Auckland 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 607 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 13 May 1968, in ANZ Auckland 1109 A1810/58 20/292 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 608 ANZ Wellington AAMK 869 W3074/49/i 5/5/238. 272

paying $7,000 immediately and the balance in the 1969-1970 financial year.609 The Board of Maori Affairs, in October 1968, approved the purchase. In the paper submitted to the Board it was noted that owing to a backlog of status declarations, the block had not been declared European land. It went on to record that:

Since, by reason of section 258 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, the transfer would not require confirmation by the Maori Land Court, the provisions of section 227A of the Act, as inserted by section 100 of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967, that the consideration be 15 percent above the amount of a Special Government Valuation, do not apply. The owner and her husband successfully conduct a transport business, and since they are obviously capable of managing their own affairs, no reason is seen why the Board should attempt to increase the proposed purchase price above that already agreed upon.610

Settlement was effected on 3 May 1969 and, in the following October, Otara 2C was declared to be Crown land.611

7.6.2 Otara 2B and Tuparehuia

Otara 2C remained ordinary Crown land rather than being included in the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park. The Department of Lands and Survey decided to hold the block pending the outcome of negotiations aimed at securing Otara 2B: once successful, it intended to negotiate an exchange of boundaries with the owners of Otara 2A so as to create a composite block with frontages to both Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour.612

In 1968, the Director-General of the Department of Lands and Survey prepared for the Government a proposal – submitted initially by Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands – involving the purchase of Otara 2B for recreation purposes, the acquisition of part of the Whangaruru school site for exchange purposes, and the

609 A copy of the agreement for sale and purchase is in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/59 20/282 Part 2 Alt No XRP_0005056. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.31-166. 610 Paper submitted to the Board of Maori Affairs, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 611 ‘Declaring land to be Crown land,’ New Zealand Gazette 61, 9 October 1969, p.1938. 612 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to K.G. Pearson, Hikurangi 4 February 1972, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/469/a NP/29 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.201-212. 273

disposal of Crown land by way of exchange. Otara 2B (29.75 acres), described as the homestead portion of what had once been a small dairy farm, was owned Mrs P.R. Pita (Charlotte Sutherland’s sister): she was prepared to sell to the Crown for $30,000. The proposal also included Tuparehuia of two acres and described as a surplus Maori school site that the owners preferred to sell to the Crown at a proposed price of $4,600 rather than purchase the improvements, and Whangaruru Whakaturia 1C of six acres, purchased by the Crown for inclusion in the school site. The old school house remained, apparently, in good order and was used by residents for meetings and church services and was occupied under a temporary tenancy by T.K. Pita. Mrs Pita’s offer of Otara 2B was contingent upon the Crown’s fulfilling seven conditions that included a written undertaking by the Crown that Otara 2B would be utilised as public open space or as a recreation reserve, and that the burial ground near Otara 2A would be excluded from any transaction intended to improve boundaries. 613 The total price of $32,000, suggested Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands, was not as excessive when related to comparable sales, notably those of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D10B3 and 1D10B4 to Mrs Hicks for $8,000 per acre.614

The proposed arrangement, especially the acquisition of Otara 2B, was regarded as a ‘necessary extension’ of the efforts to establish a recreation reserve that had begun with the purchase of Otara 2C from Mrs Sutherland. The purchase of Otara 2B was rendered even more attractive given that Mrs Pita’s husband (Watson Pita) was prepared to offer, should the arrangements involving his wife proceed well, Kirikiri- Pawhaoa B1A to the Crown for $40,400. Watson Pita was the sole owner of that block and its acquisition would provide a continuous coastal link between the existing Whangaruru Farm Park and Otara 2B. 615 In a very real sense, purchases were begetting purchases.

613 See P.R. Pita, Whangarei to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 25 January 1968, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 614 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 16 February 1968, in AN Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 615 P.Phillips, Lands and Survey, Auckland to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 8 October 1968, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/469/a NP/29 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.201-212. 274

It was clear that concluding an arrangement with Mrs Pita would take considerable time: Tuparehuia would have to be re-vested or purchased from a committee representing the descendants of the original owner, new valuations would have to be sought, and Cabinet approval would be necessary in respect of the purchase of Otara 2B. Tuparehuia was subsequently re-vested in Mohi Kaingaroa and then vested in four trustees to sell to the Crown at the price of a special government valuation plus 15 percent (as provided by section 100 of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967).616 The death of Watson Pita on 9 October 1968 (and the death duties payable) created some complications (especially the death duties payable by February 1969), but Polly Pita affirmed her intention to proceed. By October 1968 an agreement had been reached in which Mrs Pita offered to sell Otara 2B for $30,000 in part satisfaction of which she would receive the former Whangaruru school site and buildings. The trustees (representing each of the four families descending from Mohi Kaingaroa) of the school site were evidently prepared to sell it back to the Crown (rather than compensate the Crown for the buildings thereon), the price of $4,600 being proposed: that price excluded the buildings (owned by the Crown). The price of $30,000 for Otara 2B would be met by an exchange involving the Whangaruru school site and buildings, with a total value of $8,620, and a cash payment of $21,380.617 Given the proposed expenditure of some $30,000 (being above the Minister’s delegation), a final decision on the purchase and exchange would thus be a matter for Cabinet. It was with some anxiety that Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands advised the Director-General of Lands and Survey that if Mrs Pita’s deadlines for settlement were not observed that the whole transaction could fail. ‘Outside purchasers,’ he intimated, ‘are known to be interested in this locality.’618

616 The trust was cancelled in 1974, the sale having been effected, but a dispute arose over the distribution of the proceeds. It was claimed that the land had belonged originally to Hukaatai Heta Tamihana who had married Mohi Kaingaroa and who had vested the land in him for transfer to the Crown. It was left to the Maori Land Court to decide the rightful owners and beneficiaries. 617 See Draft Memorandum prepared for Cabinet in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/59 20/282 Part 2 Alt No XRP_0005056. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.31-166. 618 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands 19 December 1968, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 275

A proposal for the purchase of Otara 2B for submission to the Minister of Lands was prepared in November 1968.619 Among other things, it noted that Otara 2B had been the homestead block of a small dairy farm, that the old school house (occupied by T.R. Pita under a temporary tenancy) was in good order and used by local residents for meetings and church services, and that the block was required for general recreation purposes.620 In April 1969 the proposal, in amended form, was submitted to the Minister in the form of a draft Cabinet submission. It recorded that:

The centre of activity in the sale of islands and other foreshore areas is Northland and it is here that the Crown is most interested in acquiring land for reserves, particularly around the Bay of Islands which is becoming an increasing popular tourist area where the Crown owns limited land for public use ... Over the last few years there has been much public criticism of the sale of off-shore islands and other coastal area potentially suitable for reserves, especially so in the Far North where the Crown has been losing out to overseas and private interests ...

The Lands & Survey Department has been endeavouring for some time to interest the owners of the flat between Bland Bay and the Whangaruru Harbour in selling. Acquisition would ensure a safe anchorage in all weathers – something which has become a necessity with the rapid increase in small boats – as well as providing an ideal situation for day picnickers.621

The submission recorded that a survey was then being conducted of all coastal and lakeshore areas to establish whether the Crown owned sufficient land to provide for recreation needs and whether attempts should be made to secure further suitable area in advance of what were termed subdivision needs. It went on:

In the present case the land is located in an area which is increasing in popularity and which there is already a demand for holiday subdivisions. As with the adjoining 2C Block, Otara 2B is ideal for this purpose and it is most desirable that it be acquired

619 A Certificate of Title (19C/454) was issued to Pare Rangimarama Hooro Tamihana on 14 September 1970. The block was ‘europeanised’ in September 1970. 620 A copy of the proposal can be found in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.1-30. 621 Memorandum for Cabinet, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 276

for reserve purposes before it is swallowed up by subdivision and lost for public use. The addition of Otara 2B block to the existing reserve would ensure that the reservation of a flat area straddling the isthmus with frontage to both Bland Bay and the inner harbour ...

Purchase is also highly desirable to complement the 671 acre area of Maritime Park land formerly owned by Admiral Simpson at North Head beyond Bland Bay ... Purchase would also enable a possible exchange of land at a later date between the adjoining Otara 2A and 2B Blocks to square off boundaries and improve the road frontage of Otara 2B. Area has further advantage in that the only remaining land between Otara 2B and 2C Blocks and Admiral Simpson’s former property is Kirikiri- Pawhaoa B1A Block which is owned by Mrs Pita’s husband. Present indications are that this further area could become available for purchase. It would make a logical addition to the proposed recreational area with part providing additional scope for farming.

While the valuation for Otara 2B Block is slightly below asking price, the price is considered reasonable, especially keeping in mind the subdivisional potential of the area.622

Rather than submit the proposal to Cabinet, Minister of Lands McIntyre presented his department with several questions, among them, whether the area was suitable for subdivision as housing. The Director-General of Lands and Survey took the matter up with Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands. He noted that while it was departmental policy that adequate reserve areas should be provided for public use, he wondered whether the 13 acres already held would meet future demands ‘and if so is it fair to say that acquisition of Otara 2B is only recommended because it straddles the isthmus with frontage to both Bland Bay and the inner harbour?’ The Commissioner was also asked whether he ‘would prefer this block or to keep our powder dry’ in the hope of securing ‘Zane Grey’s Island,’ that is, Urupukapuka.623 The Commissioner’s reply was interesting:

622 Memorandum for Cabinet, in ANZ Wellington AANZ 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents 623 Director-General, Lands and Survey to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 9 April 1969, in ANZ Wellington AANZ 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 277

In the main the primary purpose in purchasing the additional 29 acres is to provide the double frontage to Bland Bay and to the inner harbour. We do not require for reservation purposes the full 29 acres and at some later date we could even contemplate developing a portion of the higher land included in the 29 acres. If we did so, however, we would be able to ensure that such development took place on proper lines which was compatable [sic] with the reserve development on the flat land and would not conflict as is the case in so many locations in the north today.

The hill land occupies a commanding position at the southern end of the isthmus and while it is not essential to acquire it, it is highly desirable that it should be acquired and in relation to the overall value, I do not think it would make a great deal of difference to the purchase price.

I think the key point in this purchase is frontage to both Bland Bay and the inner harbour. This has some bearing from the anchorage point of view but it is more important from the point of view of day visitors. The situation which I envisage will develop in years to come, is the same as that now existing on Motuihe Island.624

Finally, the Commissioner noted, first, that the Whangarei County Council was prepared to change the zoning of the land in question to reserve provided that, if the owners requested the Council to purchase, the Crown would find the money required; and second, that while the acquisition of Urupukapuka was the more important of the two potential purchases, its purchase price could well exceed $200,000.625

With those representations before him, the Director-General of the Department of Lands and Survey advised his Minister accordingly. 626 In the event, McIntyre declined to approve the proposed purchase, citing the monies required for Mansion House on Kawau Island.627 While he suggested that the Whangarei County Council be asked to make a reservation over the land, he also mooted the possibility of

624 Motuihe Island offered safe anchorages on both sides of its northern isthmus. 625 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 29 April 1969, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/242 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 626 Director-General, Lands and Survey to Minister of Lands 30 May 1969, in ANZ Wellington AANZ 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 627 Mansion House was acquired by the Crown in 1967 and run by the Hauraki Maritime Park Board. 278

securing a smaller area. 628 That was not an option that appealed to Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands, nor was it one that, he suggested, would appeal to the owners. 629 In an effort to keep the possibility of purchase open, the Department allowed Mrs Pita to rent the house on the Whangaruru school site, but the prospect of having to effect repairs to the roof induced Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Land to press again, in January 1970, for the purchase of Otara 2B. 630 Although he suggested that, if the Crown were unable to conclude the purchase, it would be ‘unfair and inconsistent’ to press for the zoning of the land as open space, nevertheless, the Department in turn raised that possibility with the Whangarei County Council.631

The Whangarei County Council in fact zoned Whangaruru Whakaturia 1D9A, 1D10A, and 1D10B as proposed open public space. The Crown was happy to accept the like zoning of Otara 2C, but less inclined to accept that of Otara 2A and Otara 2B. Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands continued through 1970 to press for the purchase of Otara 2B. In January 1970, he noted that it had only been after what he termed ‘considerable difficulty and negotiation’ that the Crown had managed to acquire Otara 2C and to secure an option over 2B to allow the Department of achieving its aim of establishing a link between Bland Bay and Whangaruru Harbour. To sustain the agreement reached with Mrs Pita, he noted, the Department had allowed her to rent the house (in need of repairs) on the school site.632 Early in 1971 Mrs Pita requested a definite proposal, her solicitors intimating that otherwise the land would be placed on the open market, at the same time noting that interest was being

628 Minister of Lands to Director-General, Lands and Survey 24 July 1969; and Director-General, Lands and Survey to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 29 July 1969, in ANZ Wellington ANZ 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 629 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 7 August 1969, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 630 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 23 January 1970, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 631 Director-General, Lands and Survey to County Clerk, Whangarei County Council 5 March 1970; and note thereon by Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 632 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 23 January 1970; Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to County Clerk, Whangarei County Council 5 March 1970 and note thereon to Director-General, Lands and Survey; Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to County Engineer, Whangarei County Council 25 March 1970 and note thereon to Director-General, Lands and Survey; Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 2 November 1970; and Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 19 November 1970, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/59 20/282 Part 2. Alt No XRP_0005056. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.31-166. 279

shown in Kirikiri-Pawhaoa B1A.633 In an effort to keep the whole proposition alive, the Department offered to meet the rates payable.634

In May 1971, the Department of Lands and Survey prepared a new proposal for submission to Cabinet. Fresh (June 1971) valuations indicated that the total value of Otara 2B, Whangaruru-Whangaruru 1C Pt, and Tuparehuia had increased from $35,600 in 1969 to $39,660 (excluding the buildings on Tuparehuaia).635 Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands indicated that he was reluctant to open the matter of price with the owners ‘in case they should revise their attitude.’ His hope was that they would settle on the basis previously agreed. On the other hand, he did suggest that the Crown should be prepared to pay $7,130 (excluding improvements) for Tuaparehuia.636

In the event, the Department sought to complete the arrangement using the old valuations, although it contemplated the possibility of having to pay $7,130 for Tuparehuia ($6,200 plus 15 percent). 637 A revised proposal was submitted to the Minister of Lands in October 1971: purchase, he was advised, was ‘now a top priority for the North Auckland District.’ He was also reminded that he and the Minister of Finance could now approve reserve acquisitions up to $30,000 without having to secure the approval of Cabinet. Treasury supported the proposal.638 On this occasion, both Ministers concurred, purchase finally being approved on 30 June 1972. Mrs Pita would receive $21,380 in cash and lands by way of exchange. Concurrently, solicitors acting for the late Watson Pita proposed to place Kirikiri-Pawhaoa B1A on the

633 Webb, Ross & Ross , Whangarei to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 11 March 1971, in ANZ Auckland AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 634 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Webb, Ross & Ross, Whangarei 16 March 1971, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 635 District Valuer Rural), Whangarei to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 23 June 1971, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/59 20/282 Part 2 Alt No XRP_0005056. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.31-166. 636 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 23 July 1971, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/59 20/282 Part 2 Alt No XRP_0005056. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.31-166. 637 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 23 July 1971, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 638 For Treasury’s report, see Secretary to the Treasury to Minister of Finance 24 December 1971, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 280

American market.639 Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands was opposed to any approval being given despite, as he conceded, having no immediate plans to negotiate the purchase of the block. 640 The revised proposal in respect of Otara 2B was supported by Treasury: in its view, the area in which it was proposed to acquire the land was ‘one of high priority for public recreation.’641

The increases in valuations in fact generated complications. The original offer at $30,000 had been based on 1967 valuations and involved payment of $8,620 by way of exchange and $21,380 in cash. The Crown’s 1971 offer stood at $30,000 but now consisted of $12,720 by way of exchange and $17,200 in cash. Mrs Pita would thus receive less in cash than originally agreed: she insisted on a cash pay-out of $21,380.642 In essence the issue was one of who should carry the cost of the Crown’s delay in completing the agreement negotiated several years earlier. It is apparent that as the executrix of her husband’s will, Mrs Pita was also prepared to consider selling Kirikiri-Pawhaoa B1A to the Crown, an addition that could render the Whangaruru Farm Park ‘an economic proposition.’ 643 Cabinet was thus asked to approve the purchase of Tuparehuia (land only) for $4,600, and of Otara 2B for $30,000, that sum to comprise a cash payment of $21,380 and the transfer of land to the value of $8,620. Otara 2B was transferred to the Crown in September 1972 and subsequently set apart as a reserve for recreation purposes.644 In 1982 it was designated as part of the Bland Bay Recreation Reserve.645

639 Webb, Webb & Ross, Whangarei to Minister of Lands 9 November 1971, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 640 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 15 November 1971, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75- 144. The consent of the Minister of Lands was required in respect of the sale of land to foreign buyers. 641 Secretary to the Treasury to Minister of Finance 24 December 1971, in ANZ Wellington AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.75-144. 642 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 23 February 1972, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/59 20/282 Part 2 Alt No XRP_0005056. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.31-166. 643 Maori Investigation Officer, Lands and Survey, Auckland to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 11 February 1972, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/59 20/282 Part 2 Alt No XRP_0005056. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.31-166. 644 ‘Classification of reserves,’ New Zealand Gazette 4 February 1981, p.225. 645 ‘Naming of a reserve,’ New Zealand Gazette 100, 26 August 1982, p.2782. 281

Map 7.4: Plan of Otara 2B and 2C Blocks and Lots 1 and 4 DP 78455, 1976

(Source: ANZ Wellington 25421 W5951/17 BOI-0318)

7.7 Private purchasers, private sales: Otara subdivisions

While the Crown was seeking to acquire subdivisions of Otara, private interests were also looking to purchase parts of the block. In 1969 the three owners, Pare 282

Rangimarama Hooro Tamihana, (Mrs Watson Pita), Harata Raiha Hooro Tamihana (Charlotte Sutherland), and Hori Ngere Hooro Tamihana, sold Otara 3A1 to Colleen Mary Needham of California for $7,000, considerably in advance of the unimproved value of $6,000. Otara 3A1 was bisected by the Otara Kirikiri roadway, the northern severance having an area of 7.75 acres and the southern 2.75 acres. The valuer noted that the section ‘has frontage to a very attractive beach at Bland Bay .... Sales of land in the vicinity have been at comparatively high figures and as this block would provide several good sites it would sell well.’ 646 The sale was confirmed on 18 November 1969.647 The certificate of title for the block (24B/29) was in fact issued on 27 July 1972 to P.R.H. Tamihana, H.R.H. Tamihana, and Official Assignee in bankruptcy of the property of H.N.H. Tamihana as tenants in common. It recorded the sale as having taken place on 24 August 1972.

In 1974, Otara 3A1 was included among the blocks designated ‘proposed public reserve.’ In January 1978, Needham transferred the block to the Crown, under the section 15 of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953. In 1981 the block was declared a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and the Bay of Islands Maritime and Historic Park Board was appointed to control and manage the land. In 1982 it was declared, together with section 7, Block II, Whangaruru and Otara 2C, with an aggregate area of 20.74 hectares to be the Bland Bay Recreation Reserve. 648 It is convenient to note here that three other blocks, namely, Whangaruru Whakaturia 1D10B5 and 1D10B6 and Otara 2E with a total area of 7,207m.2 , were declared to be Crown land and subsequently reserved for recreation purposes under the control and management of the Bay of Island Maritime and Historic Park. 649

In August 1971, seven owners attended a meeting to consider the sale of Otara 3A2. In addition, two owners were represented by proxies. In his report on the block, the

646 ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/380/f 8179. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.173-179. 647 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 45/199. See also ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/380/f 8179. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.173-179. 648 ‘Classification of reserves,’ New Zealand Gazette 4 February 1981, p.225; ‘Appointment of Bay of Islands Maritime and Historic Park to Control and Manage a Reserve,’ New Zealand Gazette 58, 14 May 1981, p.1334; and 26 August 1982, p.2872. 649 ‘Declaring land to be Crown land,’ New Zealand Gazette 90, 5 August 1982, p.2566; and ‘Reservation of land,’ New Zealand Gazette 133, 11 November 1982, p.3715; and ‘Appointment of Bay of Islands Maritime and Historic Park Board to Control and Manage a Reserve,’ New Zealand Gazette 10, 3 February 1983, p.273. 283

valuer noted that ‘This property has frontage to a very attractive beach at Bland Bay, then rising to a fairly steep hill, giving excellent views of the Coast and Whangaruru Harbour. Sales of land in the vicinity have been at comparatively high figures, and this block if offered for sale should sell well.’ 650 Owners were divided: those in favour of the sale represented 0.895 of 2.322 shares, and those opposed 0.277 shares. A majority thus resolved to sell the land to G.J. Bacon and N.T. Furniss at the special government valuation ($6,100 as at 3 August 1971), plus 15 percent, plus a proportion of the survey costs ($175.38), plus recoverable rates ($349.83 covering the period from 1966 to 1975), a total $7805.21. Two owners objected and filed memorials of dissent, but the transaction was confirmed by the Maori Land Court in June 1972.651

7.8 Facilitating Crown purchase

The protracted effort required to secure the purchase of Otara 2B highlighted the critical issue of funding. To facilitate future purchases, the Government, in 1972 established an accumulative trust fund of $1m for an initial period of five years. The fund would be administered by the Minister of Lands.652 First priority was accorded to areas that might otherwise be lost to subdivision, and second priority to the purchase of areas in advance of development pressures. That fund also enabled the Department of Lands and Survey ‘to accept financial responsibility in reserve designations under the Town and Country Planning Act.’ 653 While central government accepted financial responsibility for areas classified as being of national significance, the purchase of reserves deemed to be of local significance was deemed to be the responsibility of local government.654 Nevertheless, by the end of March 1974 the Department had exhausted its initial allocation, while commitments of $466,000 were still to come to charge. In 1974 Cabinet declined a request for the allocation of an additional $2m per annum. Given that the allocation for 1974-1975 was limited to $1m, the Director-General of the Department of Lands and Survey had to advise his Commissioners of Crown Lands that ‘The availability of funds for

650 Valuation Department, Rural Valuation and Short Report, in ANZ Auckland BAAI 11466 A353/392/i 8338. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.188-200. 651 See ANZ Auckland BAAI 1030/700/o 15/9/203. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.108-112. 652 AJHR 1973, C1, p.21. 653 AJHR 1974, C1, p.20. 654 AJHR 1975, C1, p.16. 284

reserve purchases is very serious ...’655 That was a matter of considerable concern to Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands: while, in his view, the public approved of the Government’s policy for the preservation of coastal land, it would react adversely should offers of land have to be declined on account of a lack of finance. He also noted that a sharp rise in the value of coastal properties was rendering the position even more difficult.656

In 1973, it was recorded that in the 12 months from June 1972 ten applications were lodged for Specified Departures from the District Scheme: three of those were for substantial multi-lot subdivisions. Prominent among them was the proposed 700 residential section subdivision proposed for Langs Beach (south of Whangarei), the other two involving land at Bland Bay and Whangaruru South. Evidence presented by the Whangarei County Council to an appeal hearing involving the Langs Beach proposal indicated that in 1965 there were 1,838 subdivided sites containing less than one acre near the coastal beaches: between 1965 and 1973 the number of such sites had increased by 50 percent.657

It was during 1973 that the pressure on the Government to take more concerted action over coastal policy, planning, and reservation mounted. One of its own members, M.K. Moore (Eden) introduced a private members’ Bill, the ‘Coastal Moratorium and Management Bill.’ It proposed the creation of a coastal planning commission with sole jurisdiction over the planning and development of the coastal zone (including lakes with a surface area in excess of eight hectares). It elicited very strong objections, the Government’s political opponents denouncing it as a step towards the nationalisation of land. Though the Government declined to adopt the Bill and Moore subsequently withdrew it, it had at least served to focus attention on an increasingly important and politically sensitive issue. In April 1973, the Acting Minister of Works and Development made it plain that the Government would use the full powers of the

655 Director-General, Lands and Survey to Commissioners of Crown Lands 9 July 1974, in ANZ Auckland BAAZ 1109 A557/110/a 3/413/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.219-238. 656 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 5 July 1974, in ANZ Auckland BAAZ 1109 A557/110/a 3/413/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.219- 238. 657 See District Surveyor, Whangarei to Director-General, Lands and Survey 27 July 1973, in ANZ Auckland BAJZ A1259/143/c 5/398 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.272-275. 285

Town and Country Planning Act 1953 to protect coastal and lakeshore areas from what were deemed to be ‘unwarranted subdivision and inappropriate forms of development.’658 Subsequently, the Town and Country Planning Act Amendment Act 1973 (section 2) declared three matters to be of ‘national importance and shall be recognised and provided for in the preparation, implementation, and administration of regional and district schemes.’ They included the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment and of the margins of lakes and rivers and their protection from unnecessary subdivision and development; the avoidance of urban encroachment, and the prevention of sporadic subdivision and development in rural areas. Local authorities were accordingly advised and were asked to control the location and extent of coastal subdivision and to develop policies that accorded with the guidelines specified by the Government.659

7.9 Designating land as proposed public open space

As noted above, one of the key implementation tools was the power to designate areas deemed to require preservation and to seek their purchase. Essentially, designation meant that subdivision or any form of development of the land concerned could not proceed without the consent of the Minister of Works and Development. It was employed to confer immediate protection on lands considered to be of key value, with purchase to follow. Among the lands of most interest to the Department of Lands and Survey were several more subdivisions of Otara, an interest it made clear to the Whangarei County Council during the 1972 review of the Council’s District Scheme.660 Table 7.2 sets out those in respect of which Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands was keen, as he put it, ‘to test the reaction of the owners to the proposition that their land be purchased for inclusion in the [Whangaruru] park area.’661 In the addition, the Crown was keen an acquiring Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6.

658 See Statement dated 17 April 1973, in ANZ Auckland BAAZ 1109 A557/109/b 3/413/1 Part 1. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.201-218. 659 ‘Coastal planning and development,’ in ANZ Auckland BAAZ 1109 A557/110/a 3/413/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.219-238. 660 Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ pp.972-973. 661 Commissioner of Crown Lands to Branch Manager, Valuation Department, Auckland 16 March 1973, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/57 20/282 Part 3 Alt No XRP_0005054. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.167-198. 286

Table 7.2: Otara blocks of interest to the Crown, 1973

Blocks Area: acres Ownership and status of land Otara 1 162 3 29 Maori owner, European land Otara 2D 2 1 32 European owners, European land Otara 3A1 6 3 10 European owner, European land Otara 3A2 8 0 35 European owners, European land Otara 3B 33 2 37 Maori owners, Maori freehold land Otara 4A1 0 3 20 Whangarei County Council – Maori freehold land Otara 4A2 3 3 13.5 European owners, European land Otara 4A3 21 1 00.9 Maori owner, European land Otara 4B 25 3 10.8 Maori owners, European land Otara 5 53 0 25 Maori owners, Maori freehold land

(Source: ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109/A1810/57 20/282 Part 3 Alt No XRP_0005054)

On 2 July 1974, acting under section 21(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1953, the Crown nominated a number of blocks in the Whangaruru district, aggregating 209.5 hectares, as ‘Proposed public reserve.’ They included Whangaruru- Whakaturia Pt 1D6 Pt, Kirikiri-Pawhaoa B1, and 11 subdivisions of Otara. The blocks had, collectively, a capital value of $250,000. Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6 Pt was described as a prominent and well-preserved Maori pa site that designation would preserve: its subdivision is discussed below. A few weeks later, in August 1974, in one of the first signs that the Crown had begun to recognise the implications of its coastal policy for Maori land owners, the Minister of Works and Development indicated that:

It is recognised that where the proposed reserve is Maori owned land certain special difficulties arise. Often the Maori owners are willing to allow their land to be used for public purposes, or in the case of scenic reserves are prepared to enter into agreements to preserve those natural features of the landscape or the vegetation that make the area attractive. They are however often very reluctant, for well known

287

reasons, to surrender their interest in the land ... this concern of the Maori people must be met and I am in favour of making more use of leasing arrangements ...662

7.9.1 Appealing designation

As a result of the 1974 decision over reserves, the government directed the Whangarei County Council to designate in its district scheme some 1,727 hectares of coastal land. Seventeen separate reserve proposals were involved. The Council’s proposed reviewed district scheme, published in September 1974, set out the recreational and development pressures being exerted on the coastline and the need, in its view, for planning controls. The Department of Lands and Survey at least was delighted with what it regarded as ‘a very firm policy of coastal subdivision ... The scheme statement contains very strong policy and objectives with respect to the coastline ...’663

The designations were strongly opposed, on the other hand, by the Ngatiwai Land Retention Committee, discerning in them the threat of confiscation. 664 Alexander recorded that in March 1975 the committee met the Whangarei County Council and the Department of Lands and Survey: his account suggests that the designations, held to apply largely to lands owned by Maori, served to bring together long-established concerns over what a range of barriers to development that included zoning, rising values and thus rates, and lack of finance. Underlying those concerns was a pervasive sense that Maori land owners were being treated in a manner that was unfair and discriminatory. Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands recorded ‘the sense of frustration experienced by Maori owners at their inability to make practical use of their tribal lands and the almost inevitable steps which they were being to take, to sell their land.’665 Designation also served to underscore the divergent importance that Maori and the Crown respectively attached to land.

662 ‘Coastal planning and development,’ in ANZ Auckland BAAZ 1109 A557/110/a 3/413/1 Part 2. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.219-238. 663 Commissioner of Crown Lnads, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 25 September 1974, in Lands and Survey Auckland file 3/413/6, cited in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ p.981. 664 The following notes are taken largely from David Alexander, ‘Land-based resources, waterways, and environmental impacts,’ commissioned research report, Wellington: Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2006, p.983. He noted that great cost that opposition to the Crown’s proposals imposed on Ngatiwai. 665 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland, File Note, 19 March 1975, Lands and Survey Auckland file 1/9/6, cited in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ p.987. 288

The Ngatiwai Land Retention Committee lodged objections in respect of 32 blocks designated by the Crown and in respect of 23 by the Whangarei County Council.666 It also objected to the Northland Regional Planning Authority’s alternative proposal for a greatly expanded ‘rural scenic protection zone.’ A great deal of criticism was directed at Minister of Maori Affairs Matiu Rata: his efforts to reassure Ngatiwai that no land would be compulsorily taken failed to assuage the iwi’s concerns and objections. The hearings involving the designations took place in 1976 during which counsel for Maori insisted that the Maori reservations section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 offered an effective alternative to designation, whilst leaving underlying ownership intact. In June 1976, the Whangarei County Council recommended to the Minister of Public Works that all designations should be uplifted, noting that of the 1,677 hectares designated, 1,242 hectares were owned by Maori. The Council replaced most of its own objections with a ‘rural scenic protection’ zoning. Such zoning, it noted, would ensure the preservation of scenic or other features of the land and allow the owners to continue to identify with their tribal lands. 667

The Government conducted a review of the areas designated: completed by October 1986, it confirmed ‘the general desirability of maintaining the majority of the original designations ...’ With respect to the ‘Bland Bay pa site,’ designation should be revoked given that the owners had offered to have it declared a Maori Reservation. On the other hand, designation should remain in effect over Bland Bay. 668 The decision was taken to accept the recommendation in respect of the pa site, that is Whangagruru-Whakaturia 1D6, contingent on the owners confirming in writing their intention to reserve the land under section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 as a place of historical interest. 669 The Ngatiwai Land Retention Committee remained dissatisfied and determined to press for the uplifting of all designations and for

666 Northern Advocate 21 March 1975, cited in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ p.990. 667 Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ p.1002. 668 Land Utilisation Officer, Auckland to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 1 October 1976, Lands and Survey Auckland file 1/9/6, cited in Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ p.1006-1008. 669 See ANZ Wellington AANS 25421 W5951/18 BOI-0332. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.158-162. 289

minimal planning controls so that owners might make their own decisions regarding the use of the lands involved, including the scenic protection. 670

Objections to the designations were lodged before the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board. In October 1977, that Board decided that the Whangarei County Council’s Rural A zone offered insufficient protection for the coastal environment and hence defined a new Rural AC zoning with a more limited number of conditional uses. The appeals against designation were heard in October 1977. 671 They included seven subdivisions of Otara: three of those blocks had passed into Pakeha ownership. The Board dealt with some preliminary matters, one of immediate relevance, namely, that the consent of the Minister of Maori Affairs had not been obtained in respect of those blocks in Maori ownership. It decided that since designation did not affect the legal title to the lands in question, such consent was not required. The Board also decided that the appeals were not directed against the policy implicit in the Crown’s proposals. The purpose of the designations of the various blocks was, in its view, to give public notice that in due course the land affected should become public reserve, and to prevent certain works that in the interim would alter the character of the land and render acquisition more expensive. The Board thus set out to determine, in each case, whether designation was justified, having in particular regard for the consequence for the owners of the lands concerned. It noted that some of the lands designated were in Maori ownership and that counsel for the appellants had urged that it should direct that the designations be uplifted in order to allow a period of consultation and negotiations between the owners and Crown after which the lands, or some of them, could again be designated.

670 For the preparations for these hearings, see Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ pp.1011-1019. 671 These notes are taken from the decision of the Number One Town and Country Planning Appeal Board 22 February 1978, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/15/c 1/9/6/9. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.107-127. 290

7.9.2 The case for designation

For the Department of Lands and Survey, Land Utilisation Officer D.D. Millar put the case for designation. He noted that the 209.5 hectares of land designated were to be added to the ‘Whangaruru North farm-park,’ the park being administered as a public reserve by the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Board. In October 1976 it was notified of this additional 124-hectare block. The whole of the land in the proposed reserve was zoned Rural A in both the operative and the proposed reviewed district scheme: they allowed for the construction of dwellings on the 16 parcels or severances of land being the subject of the designation. Since that designation the Crown had acquired 68 hectares adjoining the northern boundary of the ‘farm-park’ – thus reducing the designated area to 142 hectares and the increasing the area of the reserve from 270 to 338 hectares. The existing reserve and the designated lands represent what was described as ‘an outstanding recreational resource of national and regional importance,’ and moreover, ‘a sharp and welcome contrast to the urban type coastal and holiday development that is taking place on the Bland Bay isthmus.’ In the absence of designation ‘development of the subdivided portions of the [Whangaruru North] headland would ... lead to a semi-urban type situation and the possibility of more intense development together with further subdivision in spite of the Rural A zoning.’ Designation would protect an area – Bland Bay-Whangaruru – ‘possessed of outstanding scenic beauty ... [with] significant potential for recreation.’672

Millar reviewed the various scientific, historical, recreational, and scenic values of each block. Three had passed into Pakeha ownership: Otara 2D had been acquired by J.W. and M. Hughes in 1967, designation being intended to prevent building on what was described as a very prominent site; Otara 3A1 was acquired by C.M. Needham in 1972; and Otara 4A2 was owned by R.T. and D.E. Everard. 673 The other four subdivisions of Otara included Otara 3A2 owned by A.K. Lewis; Otara 4A3 and parts

672 Evidence of D.D. Millar, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/15/b 1/9/6/8. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.97-106. 673 In March 1968, Otara 4A2 of just under four acres, was awarded to Riwai Hukaatai. Following a status declaration in May 1971, the block was transferred to R.T. Everard, bank manager of Christchurch, and D.E. Everard in November 1971. In 1995 it was transferred to W.M. Cooch, R. Turner, and G. Giltrap and Jacona Holdings of Auckland, and in 1999 to B.G. Paterson, S.N. Paterson, R.H. Taylor, D.N. Wiles, D.J. Wiles, and G.J. Baxter. That latter group also acquired Lot 1 of Otara 4A3 in 2001. 291

4B and 5, a total of 40.10 hectares owned by T.M. Davis in six separate parcels and being farmed but ‘ideally suited for development as part of a larger reserve complex;’ Otara 1 of 65.94 hectares owned by Hemi Matenga, the block providing ‘a sharp visual contrast to the wide expansive sand beach of Bland Bay’ while adjoining the 68 hectares of Kirikiri-Pawhaoa recently purchased by the Crown for addition to the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park; and Part Otara 3 of 13.8597 hectares.674

7.9.3 The case for the appellants

Among those appearing on behalf of the appellants was Ranginui Walker: he stressed what he discerned to be the irony of the situation, namely, that Maori had been left with lands, including coastal lands not previously sought by Pakeha, only to find that it was now sought for the very reasons it had been avoided in the past. ‘The unproductive land left in Maori ownership,’ he observed, ‘is wanted for open space and recreational reserves.’ He added that the objective sought through designation did not conflict with traditional Maori attitudes towards the land and that Ngatiwai ‘should be recognised as custodians of a tribal domain with mana to grant access to other New Zealanders for recreational purposes.’ The Appeal Board simply, on the other hand, concluded that ‘Up to now it has been found that the only satisfactory method of ensuring that land is permanently open for public use is by bringing it into public ownership.’ Further, it decided that it should not take into account the ‘particular cultural and traditional relationship between Maori people and their ancestral land.’ How Maori viewed that pronouncement is not known, but it served to lay bare the enduring debate over tino rangatiratanga and how that might be exercised.

7.9.4 The appeal decision

Towards the end of February 1978, the Board issued a ruling that covered all the blocks subject to appeals. It noted that the Crown had already acquired 338 hectares, the major portion of the Whangaruru headland together with 17 hectares on the isthmus. The Minister required a further 142 hectares for inclusion in the existing

674 Evidence of D.D. Millar, in ANZ Auckland BBEE A1506/15/b 1/9/6/8. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.97-106. 292

farm-park: that requirement affected land in eight separate ownerships and embraced some 16 parcels or severances. The Board found:

• Mrs P.R.H. Pita’s appeal in respect Kirikiri-Pawhaoa 2 and 3 was dismissed; • Mrs and Mrs J.W. Hughes’s appeal in respect of Otara 2D was allowed, the designation to be removed; • Mr K.A. Lewis’s appeal in respect of Otara 3A2 was allowed in part, the designation to be removed from a specified area of the block; • Mrs C.M. Needham’s appeal in respect of Otara 3A1 was allowed in part, the designation to be removed from a specified area of the block; • Mr R.T. Everard’s appeal in respect of Otara 4A2 was allowed in part, the designation to be removed from a specified part of the block; • Mr T.M. Davis’s [Rewiti] appeal in respect of Otara 4A3, Pts 4B and 5 was allowed in respect of land more than 100m inland of mean high water mark, but was otherwise dismissed; • Mr J.S. Martin’s [Matenga] appeal in respect of Otara 1 was also in respect of land more than 100m inland of mean high water mark, but was otherwise dismissed.

All of the lands involved would be zoned Rural AC in the proposed review of Whangarei County’s district scheme. That meant that subdivision for residential purposes would not be permitted, but that houses on ‘pre-existing sites’ would be a conditional use. 675 In November 1978 the Whangarei County Council declared its District Scheme Review, incorporating all the decisions made on objections and appeals, to be operative.676 Thus Maori land owners who wished to partition and/or build would face a series of regulatory hurdles.

7.10 Post-designation transactions

In 1978, the Government decided to continue the accumulative trust fund for reserve acquisitions for a further five years to expire on 31 March 1982.677 But it also decided

675 A full copy of the ruling can be found in ANZ Auckland BBEE 16336 A1506/15/c 1/9/6/9. 676 Alexander, ‘Land-based resources,’ p.1028. 677 AJHR 1978, C1, p,11. 293

to focus less on coastal reserve acquisition and rather more on representative areas, including rare and endangered indigenous species of fauna and flora. Moreover, responsibility for reserve acquisition was to be devolved to local authorities where no clear ‘national’ interest was involved. The Government was responding, in part, to recent litigation involving the Ministry of Works and Development: as a result the Department of Lands and Survey was directed to weigh the effect of a designation on land owners involved against the importance of the designation to the public interest. It was also obliged to ensure that any desired or proposed acquisition could be financed lest the Crown and local authorities confront claims for compensation for what could be deemed to be ‘negligent input into the planning process ...’ Otherwise, designations were to be uplifted to allow the owner to deal freely with her/his land and to utilise it in accordance with its zoning. 678

7.10.1 Otara 4A1

Towards the end of March 1969, the Maori Land Court considered an application for the partitioning of Otara 4A1: it decided, under section 181(c) of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, that a portion, 3r 10p, should be vested in the Whangarei County Council as a ‘foreshore reserve.’679 It transpired that Otara 4A1 was not in fact the property of the Crown prior to vesting and hence the cancellation of the vesting in the Whangarei County Council was not legally correct. Action was taken in 1983 to resolve the matter.680 That elicited objections from 13 persons on the grounds that Otara 4A1 was a burial ground. They made it clear to Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands that ‘The locals and indeed the owners of adjacent block of land have always believed this block to be under Maori ownership, and therefore cannot understand how the change of ownership occurred.’ They sought the return of the land and its registration as a Maori burial ground.681 The Commissioner of Crown Lands claimed that in 1977 the owners had agreed, in the course of a partition hearing concerning the surrounding

678 Director-General, Lands and Survey to Commissioners of Crown Lands 9 March 1983, in ANZ Auckland BADY 1109 A1645/238/c 3/413/1 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.246-263. 679 The Whangarei County Council resolved on 5 November 1979 that, under the Reserves Act 1979, Otara 4A1 was a reserve for recreation purposes. See ‘Declaration that Land is a Reserve,’ New Zealand Gazette 62, 12 July 1979, p.2095. 680 ‘Revocation of Notice for Control and Management of a Reserve,’ New Zealand Gazette 66, 19 May 1983, p.1560. 681 J.S. Martin and others, Bland Bay to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 11 July 1983, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/620/a NP/260. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.258-273. 294

land, that Otara 4A1 should become a reserve. 682 The Department of Lands and Survey undertook to arrange a meeting with those objecting, but by May 1984 no meeting had taken place. The Department did make some inquiries and claimed that it could not locate any reference to any form of tapu or burial ground either on or close to Otara 4A1. In the event, a decision was taken to transfer the block from the Whangarei County Council to the Bay of Islands Maritime and Historic Park as a foreshore rather than a recreation reserve.683

7.10.2 Otara 4A3 and 4B

On 28 March 1968, Otara 4A3 of 21.25 acres was awarded to Tamihana Mohi Rewiti [Davis] solely. In 1976, he objected to the designation of the block as ‘proposed public reserve.684 Rewiti had, with the assistance of the Department of Maori Affairs, farmed the land since 1940, initially as a dairy unit, latterly for cattle grazing. In his evidence he made it clear that he had no intention of selling the land to anyone and that in due course it would pass to his foster daughters. He also noted that ‘There have been no discussions with me by the Crown on its proposal for the use of my land either before or since the “designation” was placed upon it.’685 The 8.6018-hectare block was ‘europeanised’ in April 1971 and in January 1984 transmitted to L.G. Anderson as executrix and transferred to her. In June 1987, it was transferred to Gary and Lionel Reti as tenants in common with equal shares. In 1999 Lot 1 of Otara 4A3 was transferred to S.M. Harrison and D.P. Thompson and in 2001 to two groups of three, each group holding a half share.686 In 1999 a Certificate of Title (124A/921) was issued to Gary Reti for Lots 2 and 3 DP 195105: with a total of 7.13 hectares or 17.61 acres, the land remains in his ownership.

In November 1970 Certificate of Title 19D/876 was issued for Otara 4B of just under 26 acres to Katerina Horima Rewha and Tamihana Mohi Rewiti as tenants in common

682 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to L. Anderson, Bland Bay 8 June 1984, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/620/a NP/260. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.258-273. 683 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to L. Anderson, Bland Bay 8 June 1984, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/620/a NP/260. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.258-273. 684 A Certificate of Title (17A/979) under the Land Transfer Act had been issued to Rewiti 16 July 1969. 685 See ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/16/a 1/9/6/14. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.128- 142. 686 The first group included D.N. Wiles, D.J. Wiles, and G.J.G. Baxter, and the second B.G. Paterson, S.M. Paterson, and R.H. Taylor. 295

in equal shares. That same month the block was ‘europeanised.’ In 1984 Tamihana’s share passed to Linda G. Anderson as executrix and was then transferred to Anderson. In 1987 Anderson transmitted her share to Gary Reti and Lionel Reti and in 1988 they transferred it to Adrian Reti.

7.10.3 Otara Pt 3A2

In July 1984, A.K. Lewis offered Otara Pt 3A2 adjoining the Bland Bay Recreation Reserve to the Crown. He claimed that he ‘had never really gotten over the legal expenses &c of getting the designation uplifted and was now forced to subdivide his land and sell a portion.’ If the Crown were not interested, he indicated that the land would be sold on the open market.687 The land under offer was assessed as not having any particular qualities that would make its acquisition desirable. Lewis was informed, in November 1985, that the funds for such purchases were ‘extremely limited’ and the offer was declined.688

7.10.4 Otara 1

It was noted above that Otara 1 was included in the designation issued in 1974, that James Matenga appealed, and that in 1978 the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board allowed the appeal in respect of land located 100 metres inland of the mean high water mark. It also introduced the Rural AC zone over the property to protect the amenity of the coastal environment. In 1980, given the zoning as AC and given the Minister of Lands’ wish to reduce his department’s financial liabilities, a decision was taken to lift the designation over the 18-hectare Otara Pt 1. The Minister of Lands gave his formal approval on 17 December 1980.689 In 1991 the block (‘europeanised’ in August 1969) was released from the provisions of Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. In 1996 the original certificate of title (CT1995/76, issued to Matenga on 18 December 1961 over almost 163 acres) was replaced with two new certificates. Certificate of title 104/B181, being Lot 1 DP 170602 (41.81 hectares or 103.31 acres) was issued on 16 May 1996 to Matenga: that same day, the land was transferred to the Crown for the purposes of a scenic reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

687 ‘Note for file,’ J.K. Youngman, Reserves, Lands and Survey, Auckland 23 July 1984, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/472/a NP/29 Part 6. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.238-243. 688 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to A.K. Lewis, Remuera, 4 November 1985, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/472/a NP/29 Part 6. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.238-243. 689 ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/16/b 1/9/6/15. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.238-243. 296

Certificate of title 105/B316, being Lot 1 DP 175446 (24.13 hectares or 59.61 acres) was also issued on the same day to Matenga and remains in his ownership.

7.10.5 Otara 3B

By 1978, arrears of rates posed a major difficulty for the eight owners of Otara 3B, such that the Whangarei County Council advised the Department of Lands and Survey that three owners were prepared to sell their shares to any willing purchaser, including the Crown. 690 Map 7.5, carrying the date of 19 March 1979, shows the blocks already acquired for the purposes of the recreation reserve, namely, Otara 2C, Pt 2B, 3A1, and 4A1, and Kirikiri Pawhaoa A1A (along the northern flank of the balance of Whangaruru North Head acquired from Simpson). The area now sought was the 14-hectare Otara 3B: the block had 28 owners and a government capital valuation of $36,000 as at 1 October 1975. Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands was in no doubt that ‘This would be a most desirable purchase as the Bland Bay-Whangaruru area has excellent beaches and the potential to become a significant recreation area. The purchase of Otara 3B provided both a visual backdrop to the isthmus and a link between the former Hauraki Gulf Maritime Part lands to the south and the recreation reserves facing Bland Bay.’691 A decision to acquire the block was thwarted by lack of funds.

In 1981, Marie Hepi, acting on behalf of 12 members of the Lewis family, sought to partition Otara 3B but the Maori Land Court declined. In June 1983 she submitted a modified application involving 3.25 hectares out of the block: the proposed new partition contained several good building sites, although there were evidently no plans to build on the partitioned area. Rather, the intention was to use the partitioned lot as a camping site. Some opposition was voiced during the Maori Land Court hearing in July 1983, the concern being that partition could lead to sale. The Court reserved its decision but indicated that subject to all formal consents being secured it was prepared to approve of the partition. 692 Her application was consented to by the Whangarei County Council: it cited its policy ‘to allow the Maori people to return and

690 Treasurer, Whangarei County Council to Lands and Survey, Auckland 17 January 1978, in BBEE 15336 A1506/15/c 1/9/6/9. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.107-127. 691 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director General, Lands and Survey 6 April 1979, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/15/c 1/9/6/9. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.107-127. 692 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 60/349-352. 297

settle on their land,’ while noting that the proposed subdivision would have little effect on the environment. Marie Hepi was now required to secure the consent of the Maori Land Court and that of the Minister of Lands as the notifier of the designation requirement (per section 120 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977). A report prepared by the Ministry of Works and Development (August 1983) noted that the designation:

covers a large area much of which is steep hillside, well back from the beach area. It is difficult to understand the reason for designating such a vast area most of which is of questionable scenic and recreational value ... With the drift of the Maori people back to their lands, such a large area of designated land could well lead to unnecessary hardship for the Maori owners in the future.693

The Ministry’s Land Purchase Officer suggested to Auckland’s District Commissioner of Works that ‘In the absence of the purchase of the designated land, the Crown will inevitably be facing [sic] continual applications from the Maori owners for consent to partition out their shares that will increase values and compensation.’ There was, he concluded, no valid reason to withhold consent.694 In November 1983, the Maori Land Court decided that the way was clear for the issue of both of the partition orders sought.695 In March 1984, the Court issued partition orders that divided the block into Otara 3B1 of 3.25 hectares and awarded in equal shares to the 12 children of Wiki Mohi Rewiti (deceased). It awarded Otara 3B2 of 3.6531 hectares to H.W.G. Reti solely, and Otara 3B3 to the existing owners of Otara 3B other than the children of W.M. Rewiti and H.W.G Reti.696 An area 406m2 was vested in the Whangarei County Council as esplanade reserve (Otara 3B4). It is now vested in the Whangarei District Council. 697

693 Planning Assistant to Land Purchase Officer, Ministry of Works and Development, Auckland August 1983, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/26/a 1/9/6/82. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.154-181. 694 Land Purchase Officer to District Commissioner of Works, Auckland ? August 1983, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/26/a 1/9/6/82. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.154-181. 695 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 67/56-58. 696 See Certificates of Title 67B/724 and 61A/228. 697 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 62/246. 298

Marie Hepi’s next step was to challenge the designation of Otara 3B as proposed public open space. In 1984, on behalf of her siblings, she lodged an objection. ‘The land,’ she wrote, ‘is ancestral land and is the only link we have left with our deceased mother ...’ Having secured the approval of the Maori Land Court to partition the block, the family intended building a holiday home or homes on Otara 3B1. Noting that the designation as proposed public reserve had been lifted from Otara 3B2, she sought its lifting from Otara 3B1 and the zoning of the block as Rural AC. The objection was disallowed by the Whangarei County Council on the grounds that insufficient evidence had been adduced to satisfy the Council that it should recommend the removal of a Crown designation, and on the grounds that the Crown wished to retain the designation. Marie Hepi appealed to the Planning Tribunal, citing a series of objections that included the following:

• It is unjust and inequitible [sic] that the designation should continue to remain upon ... [Otara 3B] as the Crown has no present intention to purchase the same not having made financial appropriation to enable it to do so.

• That the said Minister [of Works and Development] has also stated that there has been a change of policy and that the acquisition of Coastal Reserves is no longer a matter for central Government and by reason of changes of Crown policy other lands similarly designated have had the like designation removed or uplifted.

299

Map 7.5: Plan of Otara 3B, 1979

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/15/c 1/9/6/9)

• The proposed designation is confiscatory on effect and is unreasonable and discriminatory. That the said land has already been made the protection of a designation for some five years and it is unreasonable for such designation to be continued when there is no present intention to acquire the land it being

300

contrary to the intention of the said Act [Town and Country Planning Act 1977] that a designation of land duration should be continued to be imposed upon review.

• That the ‘protection’ of the land by the designation procedure is a misuse of that procedure and an unjust restriction of use of the land by the owners for their own purposes preserving the same for proposed community value uses without provision for compensation to the owners and is an unfair and unjustified infringement upon ownership rights.

• That the Minister of Works had declared that compulsory acquisition of the land will not be resorted to and therefore the purpose of the designation is unlikely to be achieved.

• That there is sufficient public open space land already in the area.698

The burden of the objection was perfectly clear, namely, that Maori had been arbitrarily deprived of or limited in their right to manage their property incurring, as a result, significant opportunity costs.

In December 1984, officers from the Department of Lands and Survey inspected the blocks owned by both Hemi Reti and Marie Hepi. Noting that the Hughes had already erected a house on Otara 2D, they nevertheless suggested that ‘Desirably there should be no further development undertaken in a visually significant situation but it may be difficult for the Crown to successfully oppose appeals to the Planning Tribunal in view of the action taken by the Tribunal in the past in relation to adjoining properties.’ Although the designation had been lifted over a portion of Mr Reti’s property, he had indicated a wish to pursue further subdivision.

The Department decided to open discussions with Mrs Hepi.699 On 5 February 1985, representatives from both the Department of Lands and Survey and the Ministry of

698 ‘Notice of appeal under section 49 Whangarei County Council District Scheme review,’ 10 October 1984, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/26/a 1/9/6/82. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.154-181. 301

Works Development met with a representative for both Mr Reti and Mrs Hepi. The Ministry of Works and Development was adamant that the existing landscape values of the Otara blocks could only be preserved if development were confined to the flat land of the isthmus. On the other hand, it had to acknowledge the Crown’s ‘passivity’ in relation to previous partitioning and to the designation appeals, and the expectations raised by the Hughes having constructed a dwelling. Further, under the Whangarei County Council’s district scheme, it was not necessary for a house to be an accessory to an economic farming or forestry unit, while there appeared to be no minimum subdivision limit for Rural AC land. The Ministry thus suggested that a dwelling and accessory buildings could be accommodated on Mrs Hepi’s land provided certain specifications were met with respect to site, height of the structures, colour, access roading, and minimal removal of vegetation.

With respect to Mr Heti’s land, the Ministry proposed the same requirements although the land in question was ‘visually less sensitive ....’ For the Ministry a major concern was that limits should be placed on the subdivision of Otara 3B and thus on ‘the proliferation of development.’700 It was perhaps ironic that after more than a century of encouraging Maori to partition their lands in an effort to facilitate alienation and development, the Crown now sought to limit partitioning in an effort to preserve Maori freehold lands held to be of visual and recreational value but otherwise regarded as unproductive.

A settlement was in fact reached with Mrs Hepi. The proposed dwelling did not conform with the Crown’s preferences but, as Auckland’s Assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands conceded, its position – or at least that of the Department of Lands and Survey – had been compromised by the Planning Tribunal’s decision to lift the designations over adjoining blocks. The precedent established by the dwelling constructed for the Hughes rendered it difficult for the Crown to oppose further building in the same location. While he acknowledged that the Hepi family was sympathetic to the Department’s aims, he also suggested that other members of the

699 Assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland, ‘Note for file,’ 5 December 1984, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/26/a 1/9/6/82. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.154-181. 700 District Commissioner of Works, Auckland to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 11 February 1985, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/26/a 1/9/6/82. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.154-181. 302

family might well wish to build on the block and ‘I do not believe it is reasonable for the Crown to stand in their way.’701

An agreement was reached in which the Department of Lands and Survey would arrange for the lifting of the designation provided the family entered into a conservation covenant in respect of the balance of the block, such covenant to do no more than specify that the vegetation on that balance should remain unaltered. The family would be asked to grant to the Crown a strip along the southern boundary to provide foot access to part of the Bay of Islands Maritime and Historic Park, while the Crown would grant the family an easement over what was deemed to be a more desirable access route to the proposed building site.702 Consent to site a home and accessory buildings on Otara 3B1 was granted by the Minister of Lands, the Department of Lands and Survey undertook to peg and define by survey the house site (see ML 15526), and the family entered into a conservation covenant over the balance of the block. The names of all 12 members of the Lewis family were entered on to the title, ten with 0.138 shares and two with 0.139 shares: 11 of those owners plus one other continue to hold the land.703

H. Reti was also keen to build on Otara 3B2. The inland portion comprised a bush- covered ridge of sufficient visual and ecological importance that, in the view of Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands, it merited preservation. Buildings on the block would ‘detract from the existing character and appeal of the Bland Bay- Whangaruru areas as a whole.’ As designated land, under section 124 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, any excavation, removal of vegetation, construction, or division required ‘the consent of the body or person having financial responsibility for the proposed public work.’ Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands thus

701 Assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland, ‘Note for file,’ 29 April 1986; and Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Webb Ross & Co, Whangarei 20 May 1986, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/26/a 1/9/6/82. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.154-181. 702 Assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland, ‘Note for file,’ 29 April 1986; and Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Webb Ross & Co, Whangarei 20 May 1986. in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/26/a 1/9/6/82. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.154-181. 703 It is worthwhile noting that in 1984 a minor adjustment was made to the boundary of Otara 3B2. See Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 63/73. 303

proposed, in October 1983, that the Crown lodge an objection.704 Similar advice was tendered to Auckland’s Commissioner of Works. It was noted that Mrs Hepi had just secured the consent of the Minister of Lands to partition 3.25 hectares out of Otara 3B, but on the understanding, it was claimed, that no dwelling would be erected in the land. That led the District Commissioner to suggest that:

There seems to be some need for Lands and Survey to review their reserve requirements at Whangaruru. Since 1976, government policies on reserves have changed, and the department may now find it expedient to reduce the size of this reserve. Alternatively, some arrangement could be made to allow dwellings, so long as the site and the associated development do not detract from the environment.705

While the Department of Lands and Survey favoured initiating discussions over the future of Otara 3B with both Mrs Hepi and Mr Reti, Auckland’s Commissioner of Works recommended that an objection be lodged, partly to allow time for the proposed discussions to proceed. 706 The objection was duly prepared by the Department of Lands and Survey: four grounds were cited, namely, the sensitive nature of the coastal environment; that subdivision and building would compromise the environmental and ecological qualities of the area; approval would have ‘town and country planning significance beyond the immediate vicinity of the site concerned; and that the proposed use was contrary to section 3(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977. Alternatively, it was suggested, that Mr Reti erect a dwelling for his own use and enter into a conservation covenant under the Reserves Act 1977 in respect of the balance of the proposed Lots 1 and 2.707 According to advice tendered to the Commissioner of Works, the suggested conservation covenant

704 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to District Commissioner of Works, Auckland 31 October 1983, in ANZ Auckland AATE 10880 A946/22/c 20/7/2/17. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.1-15. 705 District Commissioner of Works, Auckland to Commissioner of Works, Wellington 1 November 1983, in ANZ Auckland AATE A946/22/c 20/7/2/17. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.1-15. 706 District Commissioner of Works, Auckland to Commissioner of Works 1 November 1983, in ANZ Auckland AATE 10880 A946/22/c 20/7/2/17. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.1-15. 707 A copy of the objection can be found in ANZ Auckland AATE 10880 A946/22/c 20/7/2/17. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.1-15. 304

was ultra vires, while the other suggested conditions were described as premature and unenforceable.708

In October 1984, H. Reti and L.R. H. Reti applied for consent to subdivide out from Otara 3B2 Lot 1 of 1.40 hectares and Lot 2 of 2.27 hectares and to erect one dwelling house. The Reti family planned to move back into the area and to utilise the land. The Whangarei County Council consented, noting that the application, as a specified departure per section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, ‘will not be contrary to the public interest and will have little town and country planning significance beyond the immediate vicinity of the land concerned ...’709 Clearly, it had decided that construction would have little effect on the coastal environment. It also recorded that since the property was to be transferred to several of Reti’s family, the proposal was in accord with section 3(1)(g) of the Act. The latter provided that in the preparation, implementation, and administration of regional, district, and maritime schemes, recognition and provision for ‘The relationship of the Maori people and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land’ were matters of national importance.

The Department of Lands and Survey and the Ministry of Works and Development decided that a dwelling could be accommodated on Lot 1: once Mr Reti had secured a building permit from the Whangarei County Council, the Department of Lands and Survey would enter into a Memorandum of Consent to allow construction on an agreed site on Lot 1. Uplifting of the designation would then follow. 710 On the Ministry of Works and Development noting that Council’s decision was ultra vires, the application to build on Lot 1 was withdrawn. In July 1986, Mr Reti sought to subdivide Lot 1 to secure a separate title, and erect a dwelling thereon. Lot 1, it should be noted, adjoined Otara 3A1, that block having been acquired by the Crown. While the Department of Lands and Survey agreed to the application, consent was declined by the Whangarei County Council on the grounds that it would be contrary to the public interest and would have ‘town and country planning significance’ beyond the

708 District Commissioner of Works, Auckland to Commissioner of Works 22 November 1983, in ANZ Auckland AATE 10880 A946/22/c 20/7/2/17. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.1-15. 709 ANZ Auckland AATE 10880 A946/22/c 20/7/2/17. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.1-15. 710 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to H. Reti, Hikurangi 11 March 1985, in ANZ Auckland AATE 10880 A946/22/c 20/7/2/17. Supporting Documents, Volume 1, pp.1-15. 305

block itself.711 Mr Reti, who had not appealed against the designation, thus proposed that the Crown purchase Lot 1 or uplift the designation. In fact, it was suggested that the Crown was morally obliged to respond to his request for a decision.

Lot 1 did not have a separate title and was considered not to have any significant reserve value. The land had a current market valuation of $5,000. Should the Crown decide to acquire Lot 1 (assuming subdivision were approved), it would also have to consider acquiring Lot 4 and amalgamating it with the Bland Bay Recreation Reserve: Lots 4 of 686m2 had a current market value of $250.00.712 Mr Reti sought $40,000 although indicating that he would accept about $25,000. A second opinion confirmed the initial suggestion of $5,000, the land having, in the estimation of the Department of Lands and Survey’s District Field Officer ‘no special features that would add anything to the existing reserve, except area.’713 The matter was allowed to lie.

7.10.6 Otara 5

In 1984, the Crown expressed interest in acquiring Otara 5 owned by the late Tamihana Mohi Rewiti’s estate, and Kirikiri-Pawahoa A2 and B2A. 714 Otara 5 subsequently passed to Mrs Anne Haenga and her brother H. Takimoana. The former proposed to return to Whangaruru and to build on the block and hence sought the lifting of the designation. A report prepared by the Department of Conservation raised no objection, indicating that the block did not merit purchase but expressing a desire to secure a conservation covenant over the bushed part of the block. The owners were willing to enter into such an arrangement. 715 On that basis, the Department of Conservation moved to uplift the designation. It noted that it did not wish ‘to use the opportunity to take the land, and as retention of the designation would unreasonably frustrate the intentions of the owners, it is preferred that the designation be uplifted

711 Minutes of Judicial Committee, Whangarei County Council 2 July 1986. A copy can be found in ANZ Auckland ZACC 1109 A1258/1787/b 20/282. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.274-281. 712 Field Officer, Department of Lands and Survey, Whangarei to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 23 July 1986, in ANZ Auckland ZACC 1109 A1258/1787/b 20/282. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.274-281. 713 District Field Officer, Department of Lands and Survey, Whangarei to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland 3 October 1986, in ANZ Auckland ZACC 1109 A1258/1787/b 20/282. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.274-281. See also ANZ Wellington AANS 25421 W5951/17 BOI-0318. Supporting Documents, Volume 5, pp.145-157. 714 ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/472/a NP/29 Part 6. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.238-243. 715 ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/18/c ACQ019. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.20-32. 306

over the entire area and covenanting be pursued on a willing covenantor/willing covenantee basis.’716

7.10.7 Otara in 2016

Three Otara subdivisions remain classified as Maori freehold land. Otara 3B3B (5.876 hectares) with 48 owners; Otara 3B1 (3.297 hectares) and 12 owners; and the 0.0406- hectare Otara 3B4 (Esplanade Reserve), owned by the Whangarei District Council.

7.11 Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6B

Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D also attracted the interest of the Crown, the subdivision of the block proving to be a protracted affair but one in which significant changes on the part of the Crown towards Maori and their lands emerged.

The title to Whangaruru-Whakaturia was awarded, as noted in Chapter 1, in October 1909, in four blocks, among them, 1D of 152 acres with 46 owners. The next year, 1910, Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D was divided into ten blocks, among them 1D6. In April 1974 the Department of Lands and Survey asked the Whangarei County Council to designate some four hectares of 1D6, being that portion lying to the east of the Whangaruru North Road, as ‘proposed public open space.’ That designation was employed to thwart private (Pakeha) interests attempting to acquire that portion of the block.717 Designation clearly alarmed some Maori land owners.718

In 1975, the owners offered 20.75 acres of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6 to the Crown for $80,000. Should the Crown not wish to purchase the land, the owners proposed to dispose of it by public auction. A reminder that the land had been designated proposed public reserve was expected to ‘curb their enthusiasm for an

716 Deputy Director General, Conservation to Minister, Conservation 24 April 1990, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1506/16/a 1/9/6/14. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.128-142. 717 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to A.J. Hume, Glenfield 29 May 1974, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/469/b NP/29 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.213-225. 718 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Superintendent of Land Development, Whangarei 18 March 1975, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15336 A1632/469/b NP/29 Part 3. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.213-225. 307

auction ...’719 Some of the owners were distinctly less than happy over what they discerned to be attempts to sell the land for exploitation and indeed conceded that designation (which they had earlier vociferously criticised) had proven to be a wise course. Auckland’s Commissioner of Crown Lands noted the tension between that criticism and the expressed desire to retain their lands, on the one hand, and, on the other, the evident desire of some to sell Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6, a block, moreover, of prime historical significance as the prominent site of a pa. 720 The difficulty for the Crown was the familiar one of finance, one rendered more acute by the possibility that if it failed to sell the land privately on account of the designation, the owners could seek a purchase order against the Crown. In such case, the Crown would have to purchase or uplift the designation.721

Minister of Maori Affairs Matiu Rata met the people of Ngatiwai, and specifically the Ngatiwai Land Retention Committee, at the Whakapaumahara Marae on 19 July 1975. The Crown, he assured them, would take for reserves not one acre of their lands without their concurrence. Opposition remained, and hence the Crown allowed the offer to lapse, at the same time suggesting that the owners might seek to have the land declared a Maori reservation. The Minister subsequently made it clear that in his view, with respect to the creation of open public spaces, there were alternatives to acquisition, among them easements, payment for use of land, exchanges of land, and specified departures from the relevant district plan.722

In 1988 Douglas Tamihana had his shares in Whangaruru Whakaturia 1D6 partitioned out as Whangaruru Whakaturia 1D6A (0.972 hectares), the residue being Whangaruru Whakaturia 1D6B. 723 In that same year, Harata Davis lodged an application to

719 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to District Field Officer Childs, Whangarei 12 June 1975, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/57 20/282 Part 3 Alt No XRP_0005054. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.167-198. 720 Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland to Director-General, Lands and Survey 12 June 1975, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/57 20/282 Part 3 Alt No XRP_0005054. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.167-198. 721 Director-General, Lands and Survey to Minister of Lands 16 July 1975, in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109/A1810/57 20/282 Part 3 Alt No XRP_0005054. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.167-198. 722 ‘Mr Rata points to new ‘open spaces’ policy,’ New Zealand Herald 12 August 1975, clipping in ANZ Auckland ABWN 1109 A1810/57 20/282 Part 3 Alt No XRP_0005054. Supporting Documents, Volume 6, pp.167-198. 723 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 67/84-85. 308

partition the latter block with a view to creating (in essence) a papakainga, on the one hand, and, on the other, to preserve in perpetuity an historic pa site on the land.

In February 1989, the Maori Land Court accorded the application its preliminary approval. The owners promptly sought to have the reserve designation uplifted: Lot 1 would be created as a Maori reservation relieving the Crown of any need to purchase the land.724

The designation of the block as proposed public reserve allowed the Department of Conservation to register its concerns. It prepared a report in which it recorded that Lot 1 embraced the bulk of the pa site, although what it described as significant surface features lay beyond its boundaries. Further, it suggested that partitioning would isolate the pa site from nearly all waahi tapu and middens, while building on the proposed Lots 2, 3, and 5 would also ‘hem in’ the pa. The Department was not opposed to the creation of Lots 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8, but did object to Lots 2, 3 and 5. It thus suggested as a possible means of resolution that Lots 2, 3, and 5 could be added to Lot 1 in exchange for an equivalent area (on a value basis) from the Bland Bay Recreation Reserve. 725 In a detailed 1989 report, Joan Maingay described 1D6 as embracing ‘an extremely important archaeological site and a visually impressive land mark.’ Partition could see the site of the pa ‘half-encircled by houses’ and thus its visual splendour impaired.726 Map 7.6 sets out the proposed partition.

The suggested exchange met with some interest on the part of some of the 19 owners of Whangaruru Whakaturia 1D6: the two major shareholders, Harata Davis and Wero Karena, agreed to explore the possibility. Exchange often proved to be a protracted and involved process and was likely to prove so in this instance given that the land held by the Department in the immediate vicinity was unsuitable for exchange purposes. In August 1989, the matter was before the Maori Land Court in the form of two competing applications for partition, the one lodged by Harata Davis and the

724 Thorne, Dallas and Partners, Whangarei to Secretary, Department of Conservation, Auckland, 2 March 1989, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ 020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 725 ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 726 A copy can be found in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/18/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 309

other by Wero Karena: they proposed setting aside Lot 1 as a Maori reservation, that Wero Karena take Lot 2, that Harata Davis take Lot 3, and that five small shareholders would take Lot 5 as a papakainga and on which they proposed to build two or three homes. Wero Karena, it appears, had acquired the interests of some shareholders and evidently intended to subdivide Lot 2 into five sections and sell them.727

It was Lots 2, 3, and 5, forming the ‘apron’ to the pa site, over which the Department of Conservation was most concerned. During discussions that preceded the Maori Land Court hearing in August 1989, the Department indicated that it would, in accord with principles of Crown action on the Treaty of Waitangi, lift the designation despite, it seems, concerns that setting apart as a Maori reservation would constitute a benefit for Maori but not for all New Zealanders, and that any reservation could be revoked. In short, the Department indicated that if Maori considered that a reservation involving Lot 1 was sufficient to provide protection for the pa site, it would uplift the designation. That latter action required the consent of owners. Eight shareholders were present at the hearing on 8 August 1989: they offered no objection and their views were held to represent the wishes of all. 728 The matter was adjourned to 17 December 1989 to allow for the uplifting of the designation and for the Whangarei District Council to consent to the proposed partition.729

In September 1989, Wero Karena lodged an application to have his shares partitioned out of Whangaruru Whakaturia 1D6B, and then in October suggested to the Department of Conservation that it formulate a proposal for exchange. 730 Early in December 1989, the Whangarei District Council approved Karena’s application to subdivide his 8.3508-hectare property into five even allotments provided that he secured consent to a scheme plan (per section 279 of the Local Government Act 1974) and provided that ‘the designated area becomes a Maori reservation’ (per

727 See L. Blomfield, Solicitor, Department of Conservation, ‘Report on hearing of the proposed partition of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6B block,’ n.d. in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 728 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 68/196-198. 729 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 68/382. 730 Wero Karena, Oakura Bay to B.Tubb, Principal Conservation Officer (Planning) Department of Conservation, Auckland 11 October 1989, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 310

section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953). 731 That consent would expire on 4 December 1991. In the Maori Land Court, on 12 December, Mrs Davis secured preliminary approval upon the owners of Lots 2, 3, and 5 agreeing that they would enter into negotiations over exchanging those lots for other land. At that time, the value of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6B was given as $170,000: Lot 2 (Karena) was valued at $33,493; Lots 3 and 4 (Davis) at $75,471; Lot 7 (Pita) at $31,035; and Lots 5 and 6 (remaining owners) $30,047.732 The Department of Conservation, for its part, approached the Whangarei District Council with a view to enlisting its assistance over arranging an exchange.733

In February 1990, Karena applied to the Whangarei District Council for consent to divide Lot 2 into four dwelling sites. A few weeks later, the Department of Conservation acknowledged that it had still not identified any land in the Bland Bay area suitable for exchange: Otara 3A1 offered some promise until it was withdrawn, clearly to Karena’s annoyance.734 The matter of an exchange was still outstanding by March 1992, stymied over the matter of valuations. For their part, the owners remained willing to place Lot 1 (encompassing a large part of the pa site) under section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. The difficulty lay in the desire of the owners to exchange Lots 2, 3, and 5 on a size for size basis, while the Department of Conservation favoured a value for value exchange. An exchange on the former basis could see the Department of Conservation giving $100,000 (revised to $95,000) more than the value of Lots 2, 3, and 5 that it would receive in return.735

731 Whangarei District Council to Wero Karena, Oakura 4 December 1989, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 732 Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 69/1-2. 733 Principal Conservation Officer (Planning), Department of Conservation, Auckland to Manager, Whangarei District Council ? December 1989, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 734 Wero Karena to Regional Conservator, Whangarei ? October 1990, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 735 Regional Solicitor, Department of Conservation, Whangarei to Manager (Operations) 18 March 1992, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33- 96. 311

Map 7.6: The proposed partitition of Whangaruru-Whakaturia 1D6B

(Source: ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020)

In the view of the Department’s Regional Solicitor, the Department had several options: first, it could accept the tino rangatiratanga of the applicants, accept a section 439 reservation in respect of Lot 1 and the development of Lots 2, 3, and 5; second, it could agree to an exchange involving Lots 2, 3, and 5 on an area basis, accept a section 439 reservation over Lot 1 and have a reserve later placed against Lots 2, 3, and 5 under the Reserves Act 1977; third, it could ask the Maori Land Court not to grant the application for partition; fourth, it could ask the Maori Land Court to make 312

an order for the exchange of Maori freehold land for Crown land as provided for by section 189(3) and Part XXI of the Maori Affairs Act 1953; or, finally, it could leave the matter to the discretion of the Court.

Some concern was expressed over consequences that might follow should the Department pursue and succeed in securing the third and fourth options. When, on 28 April 1992, the applications for partition lodged by Messrs Davis (Lot 3) and Karena (Lot 2) were before the Maori Land Court, the Department of Conservation indicated that it still preferred an exchange of Lots 2, 3, and 5 – ‘the skirt of the pa ‘ – on a value for value basis for Crown land in Bland Bay. Its plan was to join Lots 2, 3, and 5 with Lot 1 as an historic reserve under sections 15, 18, and 24 of the Reserves Act 1977. On the other hand, it also indicated that in the absence of any agreement over an exchange, in recognition of the right of tangata whenua to use their land as they chose, it would not object to the partitioning of Lots 2, 3, and 5. It noted that the owners proposed placing Lot 1 under a section 439 trust, indicated its expectation that the trust would not later be revoked, expressed its concern that such trust be for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and indicated a wish to have a departmental representative on the trust.736

As a result of questioning by Judge Spencer, it turned out that the Department of Conservation had not taken into account the value of Lot 1 when arriving at its estimate of a loss of $95,000 involved in an area for area exchange. The Court found the exclusion of Lot 1 to be unacceptable, amounting to a taking of private land, and suggested that if the value of Lot 1 were taken into account, then the Department might well recover the $95,000 shortfall. The Department of Conservation’s Regional Solicitor later described Judge Spencer’s response to the exclusion as ‘extremely unfavourable.’737 The Department refused to budge on the inclusion of Lot 1 on the grounds that the Crown would have to offer further public land from the Bland Bay recreation reserve: the likely public objection would in all likelihood discourage the Minister from approving an exchange. The Court thus suggested an area for area

736 Regional Solicitor, Whangarei, ‘Submissions to the Presiding Judge,’ in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 737 See Regional Solicitor, Department of Conservation, Northland to Regional Conservator, Northland 7 December 1993, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 313

exchange involving Lots 1, 2, and 3: it excluded Lot 5 on the grounds that it was necessary to protect the integrity of the pa site. Should the value of the land acquired by Maori exceed that acquired by the Crown, then the Crown should accept the loss in recognition of the gift Maori were making of the pa site to the public of New Zealand. The matter was then adjourned to the Court’s next sitting in Whangarei on 25-27 May.738

The Department clearly felt that it had just two options, that is, either to accept the Court’s proposal, or to reject it and allow owners to proceed as they wished.739 The Regional Conservator for Northland favoured withdrawing from the case. 740 In an effort to resolve the matters in contention, the Court proposed, first, that Lots 1, 2, and 3 should be vested in the Crown; second, that an area of public reserve adjacent to the Bland Bay boat ramp should be vested in the Maori owners; third, that Lots 1, 2, and 3 should be made subject to a section 439 reserve for the common use and benefit of all New Zealanders; and, finally, that the trust should be administered by trustees the majority of whom should be Maori, the Department of Conservation to have representation.741 The Department of Conservation remained uncertain over the exact meaning of the Court’s proposals, that is, whether it had proposed an exchange not on an area for area basis, but rather that the land at Bland Bay should simply be exchanged for the pa site and for the parties to accept any financial losses as they fell.742 The outcome was a decision by the Department to stand firm on its proposal for an exchange on a value for value basis that did not include Lot 1, that it would only exchange Crown land of an equal value for Lots 2, 3, and 5 (which had a value, it suggested) of $185,000.

738 For the proceedings, see Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 72/285-287. A copy can be found in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ 020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 739 Regional Solicitor, Department of Conservation, Whangarei to Regional Conservator, Northland 4 May 1992, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 740 Note on Regional Solicitor, Department of Conservation, Whangarei to Regional Conservator, Northland 4 May 1992, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 741 See Thorne, Dallas, & Partners to Director, Department of Conservation, Whangarei 29 April 1992, in ANZ Auckland BBDL 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. See also Maori Land Court, Whangarei Minute Book 72/293-294. 742 Regional Solicitor, Department of Conservation, Whangarei to Regional Conservator, Northland 11 May 1992, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1585/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Documents, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 314

The Department thus withdrew, disappointed that what it considered to have been an effort on its part to assist Maori, and leaving tangata whenua, as Northland’s Regional Conservator noted, to ‘exercise their rangatiratanga over the pa site as they see fit.’743

In 2016, seven subdivisions of Whangaruru Whakaturia 1D6B remain as Maori freehold land: 1D6B1 (2.761 hectares) has 33 owners, among them several whanau trusts; 1D6B3 and 1D6B4 are owned by the Harata Pita-Davis Whanau Trust; 1D6B5 is owned by the Te Whenua o Te Whanau Rundlett Trust; 1D6B7 is owned by the Florence Pita Whanau Trust; 1D6B Residue (1.7726 hectares) has 29 owners; and 1D6B9D has two owners.

7.12 Conclusions

For the first half at least of the twentieth century, the four blocks at the heart of this report and the district generally remained largely isolated and inaccessible and, indeed, by 1950 the bulk of land remained in Maori ownership. In the wake of World War II circumstances changed markedly: growing affluence, improved transport links, and greater personal mobility underpinned the transformation of the district into an area highly sought after for beachside residential sections and recreational purposes. Land in which neither private interests nor the Crown had previously evinced interest in purchasing acquired a new value. The Department of Lands and Survey, having defined its responsibilities (under the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 and subsequently under the Reserves Act 1977) to include the protection of the coastal environment from ‘undesirable’ subdivision and development, the provision of adequate reserves for public use, and the provision of adequate access, initiated efforts to establish an extensive reserve or reserves that would eventually encompass practically the whole of Whangaruru North Head.744 Once it understood that Ngatiwai would not relinquish the marae site, the Department turned its attention to the Otara subdivisions. The first acquisitions were the result of negotiations freely entered into by vendor and purchaser, but the growing constraints on government revenues that

743 Regional Conservator, Northland to Judge Spencer 10 June 1992, in ANZ Auckland BBEE 15333 A1538/19/d ACQ020. Supporting Papers, Volume 4, pp.33-96. 744 See, for example, Assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands to Resident Engineer, Whangarei 10 February 1983, in ANZ Auckland BADY 1109 A1645/238/c 3/413/1 Part 4. Supporting Documents, Volume 2, pp.246-263. 315 followed the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Economic Community in 1973 and the so-called first oil shock of the same year encouraged the Government to resort to a familiar tactic, that of limiting the right of land owners, in this case both Maori and Pakeha, to manage and alienate their lands as they desired. It was only in the face of determined resistance on the part of landowners that the Crown did devise alternative approaches to designation, approaches that eschewed compulsion in favour of trust, cooperation, and shared responsibility.

316

Chapter 8: Conclusions

Five broad questions were defined as the foci for this investigation: first, how were title and the initial subdivision of the blocks determined; second, how did the protection mechanisms provided by the Crown operate in respect of titling, alienation, and administration; third, what was the extent and what were the major forms of alienation of land from Maori ownership; fourth, to what extent were the blocks subject to Crown policies intended to overcome title fragmentation and other difficulties in the form of Maori title provided; and, fifth, what kinds of Crown assistance were made available to owners to utilise their lands as they wished. Each raised a key question over the nature of the Crown’s involvement, in short, whether the Crown engaged with Maori in a manner calculated to enable and allow them to retain, control, manage, use, and dispose of their lands as they deemed fit, or whether it devised and implemented its own agenda to produce outcomes other than those that Maori desired or sought.

With respect to the matter of titling and initial partitioning, the record indicates that both were the outcome of owner initiatives, although titling involved some discord that was eventually settled through the Native Appellate Court. No evidence was located in the record that would suggest that owners, individually or collectively, regarded the outcome as unacceptable. On the other hand, it is also clear that the Tokerau Maori Land Council/Board failed to respond to the wishes of owners regarding incorporation, a failure of some significance given the part that incorporation appeared to play in the owners’ plans for retaining ownership, securing development finance, and turning the land to productive account. Whether incorporation would have yielded the outcomes sought cannot be known, but at the very least it would have offered the possibility of external finance. It is also clear that the Crown failed to act on the recommendations of the Native Land Commission of 1907 with respect to the setting apart of land in the blocks for Maori and for incorporation, one important outcome being that owners were again denied the access to State lending departments provided under the Part II of the Native Land Settlement Act 1907. Those latter conclusions are consistent with the response of the Crown generally to the recommendations of the Commission as they related to the setting 317 apart of land for Maori and for the provision of access to developmental finance. While very substantial areas were set apart in the Tokerau Maori Land District under what became Part XIV: Native Land for European Settlement and under Part XV: Other Lands Vested in Maori Land Boards, practically none was set aside under Part XVI: Native Land for Native Settlement.

Until 1950 owners do not appear to have come under pressure, from either the Crown or private interests, to sell or lease their lands. The principal external interest in the blocks arose out of the desire for Auckland building and roading contractors to secure cheap and accessible supplies of shingle and sand from marine frontages and contiguous seabed. The evidence indicates that, at least until F.O.V. Acheson took over as president, the Tokerau Maori Land Board failed to monitor the activities of those whose applications to remove sand and shingle it had approved. It also suggests that some damage was done to the sea-frontages of the blocks involved but that extraction had largely ceased by the time the Board investigated the complaints that had been made. On the other hand, owners were able to reserve certain marae and urupa sites, although it is also clear that not all of the latter were recognised, reserved, and protected. In the post-war period the major alienations (by way of sale) involved the Bland Bay subdivision in which the titles of several subdivisions of Whangaruru- Whakaturia and Oteaka were amalgamated and the resulting block subdivided into beach-side sections for sale. In this process the Maori Trustee played a key role while consulting owners and being guided by their wishes. No evidence was located that would indicate that owners generally were dissatisfied with the outcome of the Maori Trustee’s efforts. Further, the larger proportion of the sections created were retained by the original owners and their relatives. Concurrently, the Crown endeavoured to acquire subdivisions of Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Otara as part of its efforts to create open public spaces: until 1974 it endeavoured, with some success, to negotiate directly with the owners concerned and indeed to have done so fairly and with at least some sensitivity towards the expressed wishes and needs of those involved. The action of the Government in 1974 in designating certain lands as proposed open public spaces marked a departure from that policy of open negotiation and evoked strong opposition from Ngatiwai. That action owned more to its fiscal difficulties than it did to any concern for the interests of owners. The same policies, initially of open

318 negotiation and subsequently of coercive pressure, were applied to other Maori- owned land around what were considered to be the areas of tourist and recreational potential around the coasts of Northland and especially in the former Whangarei County.

The third question dealt with the extent to which the blocks were alienated from Maori ownership and the major forms that such alienation took and in what periods. As noted, neither the Crown nor private interests exhibited any marked interest prior to 1950 in securing land either by way of purchase or by way of lease. In the post-war period interest in purchasing land for holiday homes accompanied the general growth in levels of affluence and personal mobility. The evidence indicates that some owners of subdivisions in the Whangaruru-Whakaturia and Otara blocks recognised the potential value that their land began to acquire. Some sold their land to external interests for private subdivision; others acted collectively to subdivide, retain some sections, and sell others; while the Maori Land Court encouraged other owners to amalgamate titles and to subdivide, develop, and sell with the assistance of the Maori Trustee. Not all of those whom the Maori Land Court encouraged to participate in what became known as the Bland Bay Subdivision agreed to amalgamation, preferring to retain control and to dispose of their lands as they considered fit. The evidence sighted indicates that owners were satisfied generally with the outcome of the Maori Trustee’s efforts if not always with the celerity with which he acted. Whether the Maori Land Court and the Maori Trustee were similarly engaged in other subdivisions in Northland were matters that were not examined.

The fourth major question related to the matter of land title reform. The evidence indicates that efforts to reform Maori land titles and to restructure Maori land ownership in respect of the four blocks passed through the same sequence of phases that unfolded generally in Northland. Several points are indicated. First, it is clear that the Crown, while extending financial assistance to ‘units’ to develop their land, employed the opportunity to encourage those concerned to purchase the interests of co-owners. Second, initial efforts to consolidate land ownership, that is, to group individual or whanau interests into particular blocks, was a particular initiative of the Native Land Court under Judge Acheson. The evidence indicates that Acheson

319

succeeded in engaging the support and assistance of owners themselves and that exchange orders, the principal mechanism he employed, were made only after careful investigation and consultation. Indeed, Acheson’s efforts appear to have succeeded where more ambitious attempts at land consolidation were eventually abandoned. Third, the establishment of the Ngaiotonga development scheme required owners to agree to the amalgamation of the titles of the blocks selected for inclusion: what owners do not appear to have been advised was that amalgamation might then render the owners open to efforts by the Crown to restructure ownership by compulsorily excising interests deemed to be uneconomic and by engaging in live buying.

In common with other development schemes in Northland, conversion was applied with considerable rigour, while live buying served to reduce further the number of owners in the scheme. It is a noteworthy fact that in 2016 the Maori Trustee retains a majority shareholding in the former Ngaiotonga development scheme. Whether and in what ways he exercises any power over the use and disposition of the lands involved are matters that were not investigated: it is though difficult to imagine that the presence of that shareholding does not influence or limit the ability of owners to manage those lands. To that extent the owners of the blocks involved have not, 62 years after the gazetting of the scheme, regained full control over their ancestral lands. That the Maori Trustee retains possession of a majority shareholding almost certainly serves as a reminder of the fact that a good many owners were dispossessed and required, if not forced, to seek homes and livelihoods elsewhere, and as a reminder of a scheme that had promised much but delivered little.

Finally, the Bland Bay Subdivision also constituted a form of title reform, the owners of the blocks concerned having to agree to amalgamation and fresh subdivision. Indeed, from about 1930 to about 1990 the Crown, in various ways and at varying times sought to reform Maori land ownership, either by re-locating the interests of individuals and whanau, or by compulsorily excising owners of small interests, or by amalgamating and re-subdividing blocks and issuing titles under the Land Transfer Act, or by compulsorily ‘europeanising’ lands with four or fewer owners. Land title reform emerges as a constant theme in the history of the blocks at the centre of this inquiry, the Crown clearly intent upon re-fashioning Maori land ownership in accord

320 with its preferences. Its protracted efforts served to accelerate the outflow of tangata whenua from the district, that outflow in turn serving to sever the links of many with their ancestral lands, undermine community structure, weaken community leadership, and imperil community renewal.

The last major question related to the question of assistance. The evidence discloses that the Crown, through the Department of Maori Affairs rather than the Tokerau District Maori Land Board, did make some assistance available and that some owners were quick to take advantage of the opportunity offered. The difficult question is whether the assistance provided served to advance the interests of those involved or to perpetuate a system of farming characterised by low productivity, low investment, low production, and poor returns. It was almost certainly the case that the assistance provided did help the families involved to navigate the troubled economic waters of the 1930s but not otherwise to establish fully functioning commercial farm units. A similar question can be posed with respect to the Ngaiotonga development scheme in which the Crown, through the Department of Maori Affairs, invested directly in land development and endeavoured to bring to bear its technical and managerial expertise to manage what would quickly prove to be a difficult property But the evidence also suggests that the decision to establish the scheme was based upon a limited and defective appraisal of local climatic and soil conditions, and made at a time when ruling commodity prices encouraged an overly optimistic estimation of the scheme’s economic and settlement potential.

As the level of debt rose, the prospects for subdivision and the promises of employment, training, and settlement once held out were abandoned. The Department also discovered that such had been the success of its conversion and live buying programme that few owners remained to take an active interest or to participate directly in the scheme’s management. On the other hand, the Crown, through the Maori Trustee, did make available to the owners of the blocks in the Bland Bay subdivision, his technical and managerial expertise and its financial resources to the eventual benefit, the evidence indicates, of those owners. In short, the Crown did provide some assistance: whether it served the long-term interests of the ‘units’ and

321

the owners of the blocks included in the Ngaiotonga development scheme is less certain.

8.1 Some reflections

In 1945 most of the land in the four blocks remained in Maori ownership. By 2016 a significant proportion had passed into other hands. Map 8.1 depicts the area that in 2016 remains as Maori freehold land: it does not therefore include all the land that remains in Maori ownership. That only four small blocks were involved in this study renders it difficult (and a little hazardous) to offer more general conclusions. Their shared post-annexation history nevertheless does suggest that the comparative isolation of the district and the broken character of the terrain may have, on the one hand, largely discouraged both the Crown and settlers and, on the other, encouraged and allowed the people of Ngatiwai to assert and retain ownership and control of their lands. Indeed, until about 1930, the presence of the Crown in the district was largely limited to the proprietary titles with which the lands had been clothed, and to a school that had been established on a site granted by Maori. Otherwise, its links with the developing national polity and economy appear to have been somewhat tenuous. It was only after 1930 that some strengthening of those links occurred, in the form of the modest assistance afforded a small number of Maori farmers as part of the Maori land development programme initiated in 1929, and the consolidation efforts conducted primarily through the Native Land Court under F.O.V. Acheson.

Further, so far as can be established, the change from customary to proprietary titles, and the subsequent partitioning through to about 1950, were changes initiated by the iwi itself. Those who claimed Whangaruru-Whakaturia, in particular, were prompt in their response to the opportunities presented by the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 to have their ownership defined and formally recorded. Moreover, the subsequent course of partitioning suggested that efforts were made to implement a strategy that had as its chief objective the separation of small family blocks from those areas considered suitable for commercial utilisation. The desire, made clear to both the Tokerau Maori Land Council and the Native Land Commission, to have certain lands incorporated was a further indication of a determination to retain control

322 and to institute a management structure that would facilitate access to development finance.

From about 1950 the Whangaruru district was subject increasingly to powerful forces of change: the establishment of the Ngaiotonga development scheme was part of a renewed effort by the State to draw lands owned by Maori into the country’s productive estate while concurrently affording it an opportunity to reshape Maori land ownership. While the Ngaiotonga development scheme failed to produce the desired results, ownership was transformed such that in 2016 the Maori Trustee retains a majority (55.8 percent) shareholding in the Whangaroa Ngaiotonga Trust. The evidently patient efforts on the part of the Native Land Court to encourage and assist Maori to reorganise the distribution of interests in land were supplanted by the determination of the Crown, in part compulsorily, to restructure ownership. The objective was perfectly clear, namely to bring the structure of both land holdings and land ownership into line with what were deemed to be the essential requirements of a flexible and productive commercial economy. While its failure to fulfil the promises it made to owners in 1952 was not entirely of its own making, the evidence nevertheless suggests that its reach had significantly exceeded its grasp.

323

Map 8.1: Maori freehold land, Otara, Oteaka, and Whangaruru-Whakaturia blocks, 2016

324

As it became clear that the Ngaiotonga development scheme would not yield the 13 (including 11 dairy) farms once held out, owners were increasingly confronted with another set of pressures that offered both challenge and opportunity. For New Zealand the period from about 1954 to 1976 was one of high economic growth and low economic volatility, such that living standards rose to exceed (for some years) those attained in many other developed economies. Rising real incomes, increased leisure, and increased personal mobility helped to generate a demand for holiday homes and recreational opportunities. Favoured stretches of the coastline, particularly in North Auckland attracted the attention of speculators and section-seekers. Lands otherwise generally eschewed or on which development units had struggled to wrest a livelihood acquired a new value that some Maori owners at least were quick to recognise. Some sold their lands, others decided to try to implement schemes of subdivision, still others, encouraged by the Maori Land Court, elected to vest their lands in the Maori Trustee for subdivision, development, and sale. Ironically, perhaps, those efforts led to the intervention of the Crown (through the Department of Lands and Survey) in an effort to secure land for recreation purposes. Initially, it chose to negotiate with owners, but the serious fiscal constraints that followed the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community and the first oil ‘shock,’ encouraged it to adopt policies that had a great deal in common with the once widely employed orders prohibiting private alienation. Resistance on the part of owners, both Maori and Pakeha, helped to encourage the Crown to adopt policies that relied on consultation and cooperation rather than on compulsion.

It is worthwhile noting that the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 clearly encouraged Ngatiwai to reach out to the Crown for assistance to turn their lands to productive account. Again, during the three decades after 1930, they responded affirmatively to the opportunities presented by Ngata’s land development programme and to Acheson’s efforts with respect to the reorganisation of land ownership. That willingness to engage with the Crown allowed the latter, in respect of the Ngaiotonga development scheme, to insist on the owners’ acceptance of pre-conditions with major implications, including the indefinite suspension of their rights as owners, and to apply policies intended to effect a restructuring of Maori land ownership. When the Crown sought to acquire land for public open spaces, it abandoned its previous policy

325

of open negotiation with the owners of the lands it desired with one that was essentially coercive and intended again to limit the full exercise of the rights associated with private property. Only under pressure did the Crown eventually find it both necessary and politic to engage and cooperate with Maori. In short, when Ngatiwai sought to engage with the Crown, the Crown initially evinced little interest; when it did elect to engage, it did so largely on its terms until circumstances induced it to propose, consult, negotiate, and cooperate. It is perhaps not too much to say that the history of the four blocks encapsulates the changing relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown.

The history of the four blocks suggests one final set of observations. Informing the policies that were applied was a desire on the part of the Crown to encourage and expedite a re-fashioning of Maori society and economy. Implementation of those policies had far-reaching social and economic consequences that struck at the heart of the Ngaiotonga and Whangaruru communities. In another of those ironic twists that seem to characterise the Crown’s involvement in the district, land consolidation, land ownership restructuring, and land development once advanced by Ngata as means of reinvigorating and sustaining Maori communities served rather to weaken and demoralise them. So much was clearly evident in the contraction in and ageing of the resident population, in what appears, by 1960, to have been a growing level of welfare dependency, and in signs of material deprivation, notably housing. The subsequent efforts by the Crown, in response to the growing affluence of urban New Zealanders, to encourage and shape the development of the district as a holiday and recreation destination did bestow some tangible benefits upon the owners of the lands involved. But those efforts, too, carried a cost, in the form of lands acquired by the Crown and in a deep distrust of the Crown’s intentions and conduct. The desire of the owners of the four blocks, in particular Whangaruru-Whakaturia, plainly evident during the first decade of the twentieth century, to engage with the Crown in ways that would have allowed them to fashion their own destinies, had been largely eclipsed by the Crown’s desire to chart a course of its own devising.

326

Index to supporting documents

Volume 1

AATE A946/22/c 20/7/2/17 1 BAAI 1030/511/a 18/14/10 Part 1 16 BAAI 1030/551/b 18/D/Gen Part 1 18 BAAI 1030/551/c 18/D/Gen Part 2 21 BAAI 1030/551/f 18/D/2 Part 2 29 BAAI 1030/552/a 18/D/4 Part 1 44 BAAI 1030/552/b 18/D/4 Part 2 57 BAAI 1030/552/c 18/D/4 Part 3 74 BAAI 1030/554/c 18/D/20 Part 1 99 BAAI 1030/557/d 18/DZ/22 Part 1 102 BAAI 1030/700/o 15/9/203 Part 1 108 BAAI 1030/704/a 15/9/248 Part 1 113 BAAI 1030/1032/d 6/65 Part 2 128 BAAI 1030/1033/a 6/65 Part 1 159 BAAI 1030/1102/p 28/7/49 Part 1 213 BAAI 1030/1122/z 28/7/607 Part 1 223 BAAI 1030/1179/n 28/7/748 Part 1 227 BAAI 1030/1223/a 28/7/606 Part 1 230 BAAI 1030/1856/a 29/188 Part 2 234 BAAI 1030/1856/d 29/188 Part 5 244 BAAI 1030/2832/a 18/14 Part 11 254 BAAI 11466 A39/72/m 2760 293 BAAI 11466 A39/77/k 2912 299 BAAI 11466 A39/138/r 4652 309 BAAI 11466 A39/147/b 4756 335 BAAI 11466 A39/147/b 4801 373

327

Volume 2

BAAI 11466 A139/180/j 1904/115 1 BAAI 11466 A139/208/a 5770 9 BAAI 11466 A139/157/g 6342 15 BAAI 11466 A139/243/m 6420 30 BAAI 11466 A139/243/p 6423 37 BAAI 11466 A353/301/a 6882 44 BAAI 11466 A353/288/n 7002 51 BAAI 11466 A353/300/i 7150 60 BAAI 11466 A353/311/a 7289 74 BAAI 11466 A353/342/a 7339 99 BAAI 11466 A353/342/e 7663 108 BAAI 11466 A353/342/f 7664 117 BAAI 11466 A353/342/h 7666 125 BAAI 11466 A353/342/i 7667 130 BAAI 11466 A353/342/j 7668 136 BAAI 11466 A353/347/c 7731 144 BAAI 11466 A353/354/l 7844 154 BAAI 11466 A353/367/k 8014 161 BAAI 11466 A353/380/f 8179 173 BAAI 11466 A353/382/c 8201 180 BAAI 11466 A353/392/i 8338 188 BAAZ 1109 A557/109/b 3/413/1 Part 1 201 BAAZ 1109 A557/110/a 3/413/1 Part 2 219 BAAZ 1109 A557/208/a 3/1075 Part 1 239 BAAZ 1109 A557/208/b 3/1075 Part 2 241 BAAZ 1109 A557/209/b 3/1075 Part 4 244 BADY 1109 A1645/238/c 3/413/1 Part 4 246 BAIE 4725/1/a 264 BAJZ 5155 A1258/143/c 5/398 Part 2 272 BBCZ 5020 A1211/44/e 276 BBDL 1030/1855/d 29/188 Part 1 278

328

BBDL 1030/1856/b 29/188 Part 3 286 BBDL 1030/1856/c 29/188 Part 4 313 BBDL 1030/1857/a 29/188 Part 7 343 BBDL 1030/1847/c 29/188 Part 11 354 BBDL 1030/1679/b 29/188 Part 12 367

Volume 3

BBDL 1030/1857/b 29/188/15 Part 1 1 BBDL 1030/1857/c 29/188/18 Part 1 7 BBDL 1030/1858/a 29/188/20 Part 1 65 BBDL 1030/3285/a 29/188/40 Part 1 69 BBDL 1030/3285/b 29/188/41 Part 1 76 BBDL 1030/2395/b 29/188/42 Part 1 81 BBDL 1030/2487/a 18/14 Part 1 93 BBDL 1030/2487/b 18/14 Part 2 112 BBDL 1030/2487/c 18/14 Part 3 125 BBDL 1030/2488/a 18/14 Part 4 154 BBDL 1030/2488/c 18/14 Part 6 166 BBDL 1030/2489/a 18/14 Part 7 169 BBDL 1030/2489/c 18/14 Part 9 180 BBDL 1030/2090/g 18/14/1 Part 1 188 BBDL 1030/2490/a 18/14/12 Part 1 196 BBDL 1030/2490/b 18/14/12 Part 2 204 BBDL 1030/2490/c 18/14/12 Part 3 214 BBDL 1030/2091/a 18/14/12 Part 4 233 BBDL 1030/2491/a 18/14/17 Part 1 239 BBDL 1030/2491/b 18/14/17 Part 2 248 BBDL 1030/2491/c 18/14/17 Part 3 271 BBDL 1030/2492/a 18/14/17 Part 4 277 BBDL 1030/2492/b 18/14/23 Part 1 291 BBDL 1030/1913/b 18/14/26 Part 1 296 BBDL 1030/3163/a 18/D/3 Part 1 301

329

BBDL 1030/3164/a 18/D/3 Part 2 343 BBDL 1030/3164/c 18/D/3 Part 3 383 BBDL 1030/3164/b 18/D/3 Part 4 392

Volume 4

BBDL 1030/3279/h 10/1/0 1 BBDL 1030/3281/b 10/4 8 BBDL 1030/3283/b 10/11 11 BBEE 15333 A1585/18/c ACQ019 20 BBEE 15333 A1585/18/d ACQ020 33 BBEE 15336 A1506/15/b 1/9/6/8 97 BBEE 15336 A1506/15/c 1/9/6/9 107 BBEE 15336 A1506/16/a 1/9/6/14 128 BBEE 15336 A1506/16/b 1/9/6/15 143 BBEE 15336 A1506/26/a 1/9/6/82 154 BBEE 15336 A1632/468/b NP/29 182 BBEE 15336 A1632/468/c NP/29 185 BBEE 15336 A1632/469/a NP/29 Part 2 201 BBEE 15336 A1632/469/b NP/29 Part 3 213 BBEE 15336 A1632/470/a NP/29 Part 4 226 BBEE 15336 A1632/471/a NP/29 Part 5 233 BBEE 15336 A1632/472/a NP/29 Part 6 238 BBEE 15336 A1632/472/b NP/29 Part 7 244 BBEE 15336 A1632/606/d NP/244 Part 2 248 BBEE 15336 A1632/620/a NP/260 258 ZACC 1109 A1258/1787/b 20/282 274 AAMK 869 W3074/49/i 5/5/238 282 AAMK 869 W3074/1332/b 61/1 Part 1 288 AAMK 869 W3074/1333/a 61/1 Part 2 296 AAMK 969 W3074/1334/a 61/1 Part 4 322 AAMK 869 W3074/1343/a 61/7 Part 8 341 AAMK 869 W3074/1343/b 61/7 Part 9 344

330

AAMK 869 W3074/1360/c 61/19/1 Part 1 346 AAMK 869 W3074/1360/d 61/19/1 Part 2 365

Volume 5

AAMK 869 W3074/1361/a 61/19/1 Part 3 1 AAMK 869 W3074/1361/b 61/19/1 Part 4 13 AAMK 869 W3074/1361/c 61/19/1 Part 5 29 AAMK 869 W3074/1361/d 61/19/1 Part 6 59 AANS 6095 W5491/243 1/1616 75 AANS 25421 W5951/17 BOI-0318 Part 1 145 AANS 25421 W5951/18 BOI-0332 Part 1 158 ABKK W4357/61 33/2209 163 ABOG 869 W5004/63 54/27/655 224 ACIH 16036 MA1/497 22/1/272 270 ACIH 16036 MA1/552 29/2 Part 4 314 ACIH 16036 MA1/708 49/18 Part 1 321 ACIH 16036 MA1/808 68/2/1 339 ACIH 16036 MA1/1073 1912/1281 374 ACIH 16036 MA1/1076 1912/1806 376 AECZ 1871 MA-MLP 1/230/e 1920/43 378

Volume 6

ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0005055 1 ABWN 1109 A1810/58 20/282 Part 2 Alt No XRP_0005056 31 ABWN 1109 A1810/57 20/282 Part 3 Alt No XRP_0005054 167 ABWN 1109 A1810/148 20/772 Alt No XRP_0005295 199 ABWN 25479 A1810/57 6900/0202 Part 3 Alt No XRP_0038744 230 ABWN 25479 A1810/148 6900/0772 Part 1 Alt No XRP_0038796 233

331

Bibliography

Statements of claim

Wai 244, 1.1, Lucy Palmer and others, representing Ngatiwai, concerning Ngatiwai lands and fisheries.

Wai 1384, 1.1.1 and 1.1.1(a), Elvis Reti, Henry Murphy, and Merepeka Henley, representing the Tangata Whenua of Whangaruru, concerning the failure of the Crown to recognise the tino rangatiratanga of the Whangaruru Hapu in their lands and rohe.

Wai 1512, 1.1.1, Michael Leuluai, representing the descendants of Wiki Te Pirihi Hetaraka and Raiha Heta Te Kauwhata, concerning Crown actions in relation to the Native Land Court.

Wai 1528, 1.1.1 and 1.1.1(a), Carmen Hetaraka, representing the descendants of Te Kauwhata, concerning the establishment of the Native Land Court that resulted in the individualisation, fragmentation, and alienation of various land blocks.

Wai 1529, 1.1.1, Toru Hetaraka, representing the descendants of Hurikino Hetaraka and Mihi Terina Herewini, concerning the establishment of the Native Land Court that resulted in individualisation, fragmentation, and alienation of various land blocks.

Wai 1530, 1.1.1, Te Rina Hetaraka, representing the descendants of Hurikino Hetaraka and Mihi Herewini, concerning the Native Land Court and the Government actions that the claimants allege caused individualisation, fragmentation, and alienation of Maori land blocks.

Wai 1544, 1.1.1 and 1.1.1(a), George Davies, representing the descendants of Hairama Pito Kino, concerning Ngaiotonga, Orokawa, Kawa, Motairehe, Parangarahu, Rangiahua and other land blocks.

332

Wai 1722, 1.1.1 and 1.1.1(a), Iris Niha and Alwyn Niha, representing Ngapuhi and Ngai Te Rangi, concerning alienation of land, failure to guarantee right of ownership, failure to allow the practice of Maori lore in respect of taonga, and failure to allow undisturbed possession.

Wai 1723, 1.1.1, John Paki, representing himself, his father Hone Toi Ututaonga Paki, his grandfather Hone Wiremu Ututaonga Paki, and Ngati Hine, concerning the Crown’s environmental policy and practice, failure to actively protect Taonga, the foreshore, and seabed and the failure to ensure that Ngati Hine received or receive the same economic development and sustainability opportunities as British settlers.

Wai 1837, 1.1.1: Deidre Nehua, representing the whanau and hapu of Te Tai Tokerau, concerning the Crown’s failure to actively protect the Treaty rights of Te Tai Tokerau to a just, fair, and equitable treaty settlement process.

Wai 1954, 1.1.1 and 1.1.1(a), Eta Haika, representing the descendants of Rongopai Haika and Atareria Heta Te Kauwhata, concerning the legislation responsible for the establishment of the Native Land Court and other attendant legislation that has resulted in the individualisation, fragmentation, and alienation of land blocks.

Wai 1961, 1.1.1, David Carpenter, representing the descendants of Pita Tunua, Isebella Tunua, William Carpenter, John Carpenter, Aileen Flemming, Tas Carpenter, and Lucy Carpenter, concerning the legislation responsible for the establishment of the Native Land Court that resulted in the alienation, fragmentation, and individualisation of land.

Wai 1973, 1.1.1, Robert Carpenter, representing the descendants of Hone Tautahi Pita and Marara Henare Kaupeka Piripi, concerning local government and rating legislation.

333

Tokerau Maori Land Council and Board

Minute books

Native/Maori Land Court

Northern, Bay of Islands, and Whangarei minute books

Native Appellate Court

Minute books

Official publications

• Appendices, Journals of the House of Representatives • New Zealand Gazette