Wairarapa Maori ki Pouakani Research Report

Warren Wairau

Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal December 2002 Contents

Section I: Introduction to this Commission ______1 1.1. The Author ______1 1.2. The Commission ______1 1.3. Report Structure ______2 1.4. Research Methodology and Sources ______2 Section II: The ‘Wairarapa Exchange’ ______4 2.1. Introduction______4 2.2. The Crown’s acquisition of the Wairarapa lakes ______4 2.3. Providing a reserve ______12 2.4. Conclusion ______26 Section III: The Mangakino Township______30 3.1. Introduction ______30 3.2. The Pouakani owners and the creation of Mangakino______30 3.3. The transfer of Mangakino to the owners ______46 3.4. The Owners’ town ______62 3.5. The move to freehold ______74 3.6. Conclusion ______87 Section IV: Land Administration, 1970-2000______95 4.1. Introduction ______95 4.2. The Pouakani Development Scheme, 1947-1969______95 4.3. The difficulties of the 1970s______100 4.4. The move towards owner control, 1977-1980s ______113 4.5. Pouakani 2 Trust and the Crown, 1990s ______129 4.6.Conclusion ______137 Section V: Returns to Owners ______143 5.1. Introduction ______143 5.2. Early benefits and timber royalties ______143 5.3. The Incorporation’s Forestry Assets ______150 5.4. The Pouakani 2 Trust returns ______160 5.5. Other benefits______163 5.6. Conclusion ______166 Section VI: Conclusions ______169 Bibliography______175 1

Section I: Introduction to this Commission

1.1. The Author My name is Warren Wairau and I am a Research Officer at the Waitangi Tribunal. I was born in Napier and raised in Mahia and my main iwi affiliations are Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Porou. I have a Masters degree in History from Massey University, Palmerston North. I commenced employment at the Waitangi Tribunal in April 2002 and I now live in Wellington.

1.2. The Commission In July 2002 I was commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal to research and write a report that ‘assesses the overall benefit of the Pouakani lands to Wairarapa Maori’.1 The purpose of the commission was to determine and assess the advantages that Wairarapa Maori have received from the 30,486 acre part of the land known as the Pouakani Block after it was vested in certain Wairarapa Maori by Native Land Court order of 22 January 1915.2 This portion of land, situated along the western banks of the Waikato River 20 miles north-east of Taupo, was granted to Wairarapa Maori by the Crown as part of the exchange for their rights to the Wairarapa lakes. This exchange thus resulted in Wairarapa Maori receiving lands far outside their traditional tribal area. This report will specifically cover the following topics as stipulated in the report’s commission:

(a) Further explanation of the decision by the Crown to offer, and some claimants to accept, the Pouakani lands as a satisfactory substitute for Wairarapa lakes reserves (b) The ultimate outcomes and benefits for owners of the Mangakino township and hydroelectric scheme, including overall profits and employment opportunities (c) The ways in which, and the degree to which, the Pouakani lands benefited Wairarapa Maori overall

1 Direction Commissioning Research, 22 July 2002, Wai 863, doc 3.9 2 New Zealand Gazette, 14 April 1916, p. 1105 2

(d) The history of the development scheme and land administration from 1970 to the present day.3

1.3. Report Structure This report consists of five main sections that essentially follows the terms of reference outlined above. The first of these examines how Wairarapa Maori initially became involved with Pouakani due to the Crown’s offer of it as an alternative reserve to land adjacent to the Wairarapa lakes. This section will attempt to further clarify the reasoning of the Crown’s decision, and also why some Wairarapa Maori accepted this proposal. The following section appraises the benefits that the Pouakani owners have gained from the Mangakino township which was established on the block by the Ministry of Works during the 1940s. Created to accommodate construction workers for the development of hydroelectric schemes on the Waikato River, this section will determine how profitable and useful the township has been to Wairarapa Maori. The next section covers the history of the Pouakani development scheme and the block’s land administration from 1970 to the present. This will specifically investigate those issues that have arisen between the owners and the Crown regarding the latter’s management of the Pouakani farming lands. The section after that examines other forms of benefits that the owners have gained from possessing this block, particularly the owners’ forestry operations. The final section offers an overall assessment on the value that Pouakani has provided for Wairarapa Maori.

1.4. Research Methodology and Sources This report is based mainly on primary material located in the Wellington and Auckland Regional Offices of Archives New Zealand, The Alexander Turnbull and National libraries, Wellington and Te Puni Kokiri Head Office, Wellington. Relevant sources held at the Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua, were also examined although limited time precluded a more thorough search of the material there. Much of the primary records consulted had previously been compiled into a document bank by Helen McCracken, with the assistance of Jennifer Halder, for a report undertaken by the former and

3 Direction Commissioning Research, 22 July 2002, Wai 863, doc 3.9 3 commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. McCracken’s draft report, ‘The Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation, Pouakani No. 2 Trust and the Crown, 1896- 1990s’, covers many of the same issues also examined in this report. It is necessary that this report is read in conjunction with McCracken’s if the reader wishes to obtain a more complete understanding of the issues discussed. This study has been commissioned to supplement McCracken’s report and hers provides a detailed analysis of the origins of the issues raised in this research paper.

I would like to acknowledge the contributions of Helen McCracken, Dawn Coburn, Kahu McClutchie, Molly Kino, Peter Little, Michael Johnston and Noelene Reti to this report, and thank both Dr. Grant Phillipson and Dougal Ellis for the valuable comments they made to my drafts. 4

Section II: The ‘Wairarapa Exchange’

2.1. Introduction The association between Wairarapa Maori and the block of land known as part Pouakani has its origins in the dispute over the Wairarapa lakes during the second half of the nineteenth century. This contest involved local Maori and the growing number of Pakeha pastoralists in the south Wairarapa over the lakes’ fluctuating water levels. As the demand for farming land increased, European settlers eventually established pastures on the lakes’ margins. These would be inundated with water, however, during the summer months due to the natural closure of the lakes’ only outlet to the sea. Mounting settler pressure to have this passage artificially opened was opposed by local Maori who traditionally made their most productive catches of fish during the flooding, especially of eels. The disagreement eventually led to Crown intervention. The resident Maori ultimately decided to gift the lakes to the Crown after much discord, on the condition that they would receive reserves along the lakes’ foreshores to continue their customary fishing practices. The reserve eventually granted was Pouakani in the south Waikato. This section will attempt to provide further explanation as to why the Crown offered, and why some Wairarapa Maori accepted, this block of land as a substitute for reserves along the Wairarapa lakes. The actual alienation of the lakes has already been covered in a number of other reports4 while McCracken has also examined the beginnings of what has subsequently become known as the ‘Wairarapa Exchange’.5

2.2. The Crown’s acquisition of the Wairarapa lakes European pastoralists had entered south Wairarapa soon after Grey and McLean had made their land purchases during the early 1850s. The regular flooding of the lakes’ margins did not prove to be an impediment to the majority of farmers as much grazing

4 See for example T. Crocker, ‘The History of Alienation of Wairarapa Moana’ (Draft report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001) and B. White, ‘Inland Waterways: Lakes’, (Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1998), pp. 29-61 5 H. McCracken, ‘The Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation, Pouakani No. 2 Trust and the Crown, 1896-1990s’ (An Interim Report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001), pp. 12-50. The term ‘Wairarapa Exchange’ has been endorsed by the Waitangi Tribunal in its Pouakani Report, Wai 33 (Wellington: Brooker and Friend, 1993), p. 299 5 land remained available throughout the district. Yet by the 1870s, settlers had gradually moved on to lands abutting the lakes. Although they found this land highly fertile, the floods meant that the margins were rendered unusable for several months each year.6 Settlers quickly began to vent their frustration at this inconvenience and insisted that the blocked outlet to the sea causing the backlog of water should be regularly opened. This request was met with strong disapproval by local Maori.

The Wairarapa lakes, consisting of the northern and larger Lake Wairarapa and Lake Onoke, covered an area of over 24,000 acres for most of the year but would double in size to 52,500 acres when at their highest level.7 This would occur during the mainly summer months from December to March when rainfall was at its lowest and the volume of water flowing from Onoke into Palliser Bay near Okourewa was not able to prevent the sandspit from closing. The water would thus build up behind this, raising the levels of the lakes over those margins that were usually exposed during the other months of the year. Only once enough water had been accumulated above sea level would the spit finally be naturally reopened. Local Maori considered this the normal cycle of the lakes and had for centuries been accustomed to it, obtaining from it valuable supplies of food.8

The lakes offered Maori various types of foods throughout the year. The highest yields, however, were made when the sandspit was closed and eels, the most important commodity, were trapped allowing local Maori to easily catch them in vast quantities. One prominent resident Maori, Hoani Paraone Tunuiarangi, claimed that they were able to catch up to twenty tonnes in some years.9 Much of the eel harvest was dried and even exchanged with other northern Maori. So while Pakeha felt that the doubling of size in the lakes during the summer months merely constituted flooding, local Maori considered this as only being the lakes’ highest level. Despite Pakeha requests to have the lakes opened during the summer, those hapu and iwi dependent on the fishing would not agree. This was, as another prominent local Maori, Hoani Te Whatahoro commented,

6 B. White, ‘Inland Waterways: Lakes’, (Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1998), p. 31 7 T. Crocker, ‘The History of Alienation of Wairarapa Moana’ (Draft report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001), p. 11 8 A. Bagnall, Wairarapa: An Historical Excursion (Masterton: Hedley’s Bookshop, 1976), p. 377 9 ‘Claims of Natives to Wairarapa Lakes and Adjacent Lands: Report by Commissioner Mackay’, AJHR, 1891, II: G-4, p. 28 6

because they obtain several kinds of eels at that time; also flounders and other fish. The importance of the lake to the Natives was the fish that was obtainable, such as eels, flounders, white-bait and kokopu. They also procured ducks and paradise ducks. These are the description of food we used to procure from December to May. The hao, te heko and kokoputuna description of eels could not be caught until the lake was closed, and then these were obtainable only at the mouth; the other kind could be got at any time.10

Regardless of the importance of a closed lake mouth to local Maori, the increasingly concerned European pastoralists viewed the expanded lake levels as an economic threat to their farms. Amicable relations generally existed between Maori and settlers concerning the levels of the lake and payments were made by the farmers if they wanted some of the water released to protect their lowest lying lands.11 Yet by the late 1860s, some Maori began complaining that the lakes should never be artificially opened, as McLean had apparently promised. The settlers also were by now becoming more progressively frustrated with what they considered was nothing more than a nuisance. The growing complaints by settlers that the inundated waters were destroying their pasture land led the Government to appoint representatives to obtain consent to open the lakes. The continual refusal by local Maori then led to the Crown attempting to acquire all of their rights to the lakes during the mid-1870s. The Government’s purchasing officer only found limited interest in his proposals to obtain the lakes as Crown land but in February 1876 managed to gain the consent of chief Hiko Piata and sixteen others to sign a deed of sale for £800.12

Many Wairarapa Maori who had not signed the deed contested the sale and petitioned parliament, arguing that their rights to the lakes had not been considered and definitely not sold. A Native Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives approved a petition signed by 139 Maori that they had not been involved in the sale and

10 ‘Claims of Natives to Wairarapa Lakes and Adjacent Lands: Report by Commissioner Mackay’, AJHR, 1891, II: G- 4, p. 19 11 ‘Claims of Natives to Wairarapa Lakes and Adjacent Lands: Report by Commissioner Mackay’, AJHR, 1891, II: G- 4, p. 7 12 ‘Claims of Natives to Wairarapa Lakes and Adjacent Lands: Report by Commissioner Mackay’, AJHR, 1891, II: G- 4, pp.7-8 7 had not consented to it. Indeed, it seems that the Government purchasing officer deliberately avoided consulting many local Maori because of their opposition to the sale.13 A Maori opponent to any sale or opening of the lake, Piripi Te Maari, who emerged as the leading figure of this group, confirmed this at a commission of inquiry in 1891 established to investigate the claims of Wairarapa Maori to the lakes.14 The Crown’s purchasing officer decided that it was convenient to try and execute a deed of sale of all Maori over the lakes by avoiding those who he knew did not want to give away their rights. Understandably, the sole member of the 1891 commission of inquiry, Judge Alexander MacKay, thus subsequently found that all the ‘Crown could have acquired was exactly what each of the signatories to the deed of 1876 possessed in his own right, and that the acquisition of such rights by the Crown did not confer on it any privileges beyond those the vendors had previously enjoyed themselves.’15

In the meantime, the dispute concerning the opening of the lakes and the inundated waters affecting farmers’ levels of profitability had still not been resolved. The situation, in fact, deteriorated with settlers attempting to open the lakes by themselves and local Maori likewise responding by trying to thwart them. Although open conflict never broke out between the parties, the dispute eventually became known as the ‘battle of the lakes’. The issues of ownership and rights to the lakes continually went before the Native Land Court. The Crown’s purchasing officer reported to the Native Department that opposition to the 1876 sale was only by a ‘faction who seem to have doubtful claims’, these being based on ‘frivolous grounds’.16 Such a statement did not reflect the reality of the situation. Rather, Government officials persisted to ignore those Maori who expressed no interest in wanting to sell or at least open the lakes.17

13 T. Crocker, ‘The History of Alienation of Wairarapa Moana’ (Draft report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001), p. 44 14 ‘Claims of Natives to Wairarapa Lakes and Adjacent Lands: Report by Commissioner Mackay’, AJHR, 1891, II: G- 4, pp. 18, 31 15 ‘Claims of Natives to Wairarapa Lakes and Adjacent Lands: Report by Commissioner Mackay’, AJHR, 1891, II: G- 4, p. 10 16 E. S. Maunsell to The Under-Secretary, Native Department, 4 June 1883, ‘Reports from Officers in Native Districts’, AJHR, 1883, II: G-1A, p. 12 17 T. Crocker, ‘The History of Alienation of Wairarapa Moana’ (Draft report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001), p. 58 8

The settlers attempted to take matters into their own hands by forming the South Wairarapa River Board during the late 1880s in order to consider the lake as a public drain and open the mouth on this basis when deemed necessary. This led to a further petition by Piripi Te Maari and 49 others in 1890 regarding ownership of the lake and control of its outlet, resulting in the establishment of a royal commission which sat in Greytown the following year. Judge Mackay considered the points raised in the petition as well as the historical grievances that Maori had endured up to that time. Mackay recognised the major importance of the productive fishing that Maori attained from the closed outlet, stating:

It is while the lakes are at their highest flood-level that the eels abound at the mouth of the lower lake, and are caught in large quantities by the Natives. A much larger variety of eels are obtainable during this period, and some of the choicest kinds can only be procured when the lake is flooded. The sudden opening of the lake by the River Board at such times allows large quantities of eels and other fish to escape to the sea before the Natives have time to secure them, and this is the cause of their complaint. The outlet to the lower lake usually becomes closed about the end of December, and remains closed till April, excepting artificial means are resorted to open it. It was during these four months that the best fishing-season existed for the Natives, in consequence of the eels and other fish congregating near the outlet, waiting for the water to burst out, to escape to the sea.18

It seems that the judge continued his attempt to stress the importance of the eel fishery with a European readership in mind, this probably being designed for the settlers who no doubt would have been most interested in his findings. The judge further stated:

In the primitive state of life formerly led by the Natives the eel-preserves were the most important property they possessed. Eels were a favourite food with the Maoris, and a good eel-fishery like the Wairarapa Lakes is of as much value to them as the banks of Newfoundland are to those who deal in cod-fish. To European minds cultivation may seem a more important exercise of ownership 9

than catching eels; but you may raise crops or depasture stock anywhere, but eels can only be obtained where Nature causes them to be. Eels in olden times not only formed a large article of diet for the Natives, but they used to dry them in quantities and send them as presents to neighbouring hapus, receiving in return other kinds of food not generally procurable by the donors. It is only of late years that the possession of sheep and cattle has afforded them animal food of another description, and distracted their attention to a certain extent from their old pursuits of hunting and fishing, but, notwithstanding this, their eel-preserves will always remain a valuable property, more especially when the progress of settlement limits the exercise of their former pursuits to the remnant of the land retained by them.19

The commissioner’s statement leaves no doubt regarding how important the eel fishery was to local Wairarapa Maori. The lakes provided them with their material sustenance and having being in their possession for so long, a spiritual attachment would have certainly developed for those generations of people that owed their lives to it.

Although Mackay concluded that the Crown had only obtained the fishing rights of 17 individuals under the deed of 1876, and that neither the Government nor any other local body could artificially open the lake mouth, he also declared that the Maori owners of the lakes could not let these flood the land that they had sold to the Government.20 The judge recommended a number of solutions to these somewhat contradictory conclusions, including an arrangement whereby consent to open the mouth was sought and compensation paid to the owners. The settlers decided not to wait for the Government to act upon the judge’s recommendations and once again opened the lake mouth. Their efforts were further rewarded when the Court of Appeal found in favour of their rights to open the mouth as a public drain. Piripi Te Maari again petitioned parliament hoping to try and gain some form of redress but, despite his claims being approved by another Native Affairs Select Committee, could make no progress. The Committee found that the

18 ‘Claims of Natives to Wairarapa Lakes and Adjacent Lands: Report by Commissioner Mackay’, AJHR, 1891, II: G- 4, p. 5 19 ‘Claims of Natives to Wairarapa Lakes and Adjacent Lands: Report by Commissioner Mackay’, AJHR, 1891, II: G- 4, pp. 5-6 10 owners ‘have been wronged’ and recommended that the Government should either purchase the Wairarapa lakes or provide them with suitable recompense.21 Piripi Te Maari did not live to see either of these, dying in August 1895.

A new leadership then emerged within local Wairarapa Maori which appears to have been more accommodating in effecting some form of resolution with the settlers and the Crown. This is hardly surprising. Despite the best efforts of Te Maari and others to maintain their traditional means of living, it is clear that lack of action by the Crown to remedy the encroachments made by the local settler community demonstrated that this was not one of its priorities. Whilst maintaining customary ownership of the lakes, the Maori owners had effectively been denied the ability to utilise it in the methods which had been customary due to the River Board’s opening of the mouth. Further petitions by Te Maari had not provided the owners with appropriate compensation, despite the approvals of their claims by various committees, and in real terms the owners had become increasingly marginalised. Their claim to ownership of the lakes was now, in effect, a nominal one. This must have been recognised by those new leaders of the Wairarapa lakes. The dispute over the lakes had persisted for over twenty years yet just five months after Te Maari passed away, a settlement was finally obtained between the owners and the Crown regarding their ownership.

On 13 January 1896 an agreement was signed between representatives of those Wairarapa Maori associated with the lakes and the Government, conveying legal title of the lakes to the Crown. The agreement read:

We the members of the various committees appointed by and on behalf of all the owners of the Wairarapa lakes to deal with all questions afflicting the ownership and conveyance thereof to Her Majesty do hereby agree as follows: Ist The whole of the Wairarapa lakes are hereby conveyed surrendered and assured to Her Majesty the Queen as an estate of inheritance in fee simple freed released and discharged from all Native claims and rights whatsoever.

20 Claims of Natives to Wairarapa Lakes and Adjacent Lands: Report by Commissioner Mackay’, AJHR, 1891, II: G-4, p. 11 21 ‘Reports of the Native Affairs Committee, 1893’, AJHR, 1893, III: I-3, p. 21 11

IInd In consideration of the conveyance and surrender aforesaid the Government of New Zealand shall pay to the Native owners under a scheme to be hereafter arranged the sum of £2000 (two thousand pounds) and shall out of any lands which shall come into the possession of the Government through which conveyance or out of any other lands acquired from Natives and still in possession of the Government make ample reserves for the benefit of the Native Owners. The term ‘ample reserves’ in this paragraph shall be interpreted by the Honourable the Native Minister together with the Honourable the Minister of Lands.22

The offer of the lakes to the Crown was thus contingent on two conditions: the payment of £2,000 and the provision of ‘ample reserves’. Premier Seddon commented on the reserve due to the former owners of the lakes at a celebration picnic held at Pigeon Bush a week after the signing of the deed. Seddon stated:

Every liberty given to the European in respect of that lake is given also to every member of the Native race in the Wairarapa, or elsewhere; I care not what part of New Zealand he comes from, and I say this now in case the approaches to the lake might be denied to you. Governments come and Governments go, but there is one thing I think must be done, and that is to ensure to the Natives and to all Her Majesty’s subjects the right-of-way to that lake. (Hear, hear.) It will be necessary also that there shall be a piece of land set apart, so that when the Natives go to fish they will be able to camp upon that land without running the risk of having that right denied, as might be the case if it passed into the hands of private individuals. Now in connection with that lake, and I hope that my words will convey my meaning, I desire it to be said here that the Acclimatisation Society shall not come and put their fish into the lake, and from the fact of doing that take away the rights which to-day you possess. (Hear, hear.) I say that such a course as that would be against the spirit of our agreement to-day. I want my words to be recorded, because I shall pass away and you shall pass away, but for all time I wish it recorded that the Natives shall not be impeded in fishing and

22 Wairarapa Lake Agreement, 13 January 1896, MA 2459 225/33, 5/13/57 pt. 1 [Wairarapa lakes] Petition, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 12

obtaining from the lake food they are entitled to under the Treaty of Waitangi, and which they are entitled to by special treaty rights through the dispute which has occurred.23

The Crown’s acquisition of the lakes, which according to one researcher was ‘a constant and sustained attempt to undermine the rights of [the] Maori owners,’24 concluded with these being declared Crown land in July 1896.25 Although the former owners quickly received their £2,000 payment, the allocation of a reserve proved to be a much more prolonged and, from their perspective, completely unsatisfactory affair.

2.3. Providing a reserve Despite Seddon’s hope that there should be ‘a piece of land set apart’ for the former owners to continue using as a base for their customary fishing practices, this was never realised. The settlement of the lakes’ dispute would not be finally concluded until the second condition of the agreement signed in January 1896 had been fulfilled. Yet from the Crown’s point of view, it had already obtained the most important aims of the settlement, that being it now had legal ownership of the lakes. The provision of reserves for the former owners was merely of secondary importance. This explains the lengthy delay they had to face in finally being granted land by the Crown. It seems that the Premier hoped there would be a speedy allocation of reserves for the former owners. When this had still not yet been undertaken by November 1898, Seddon wrote to the Lands and Survey Head Office:

Please ascertain what is the cause of the delay in making over the reserves we promised at the time of throwing open the Wairarapa Lake. Bring me the plan showing the reserves we agreed upon, and also the roads required to be made. I wish faith to be kept in respect to this matter, and want the thing done at once.26

23 The New Zealand Mail, 23 January 1896 24 T. Crocker, ‘The History of Alienation of Wairarapa Moana’ (Draft report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001), p. 85 25 New Zealand Gazette, 1896, II: No. 52, p. 1076 26 Premier Seddon to P. Sheridan, Native Land Purchase Officer, 28 November 1898, LS 1/54893, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 13

Regardless of Seddon’s best intentions and rhetoric, however, it appears that the Government on the whole never initiated a clear and consistent policy of defining and providing a reserve for the former owners. As early as one week after the agreement had been signed, confusion had arisen concerning the allocation of reserves on the foreshore.27 Although surveyors encountered difficulties conducting preliminary work in the extensive wetlands, the urgency possessed by the Government when trying to alleviate the concerns of the settlers was evidently lacking when it came to appeasing the anxieties of the now former lake owners. Confirmation of this is that as early as January 1900, when the lakes were firmly under Government control, proposals were being put forward to divert the major river from Lake Wairarapa, the Ruamahanga, into Lake Onoke.28 This would facilitate the outflow of any excess water maintained in the catchment area whilst a permanent opening at Okourewa would prevent the substantial accumulation of water that traditionally occurred during the summer months. A result of this ‘simple system of drainage’, the Chief Surveyor of the Lands Department wrote, if it ‘could be carried out [was] to convert the greater portion of the lake-area into pasture- land’.29 Surveyors believed that such measures would permanently reclaim 21,750 acres from the lakes, raising the value of this land from practically nothing to a ‘moderate overall value of £12 per acre’, thus providing a total amount of £261,000 for the whole area.30

Such proposals, although beyond the resources of the Crown at the time,31 would effect major changes to the lakes’ margins if implemented. Establishing the suitability of reserves on the lakes’ foreshores would also obviously be affected, yet it is clear that the situation of the former owners was not taken into account when these recommendations were made. Indeed, it is obvious that the principal factor in these proposals was to realise

27 Wairarapa Daily Times, 21 January 1896 28 ‘Appendices to the Annual Report of the Department for Lands, 1900: Appendix XIV: Wairarapa Lakes’, AJHR, 1900, I: C-1, p. 154 29 ‘Appendices to the Annual Report of the Department for Lands, 1900: Appendix XIV: Wairarapa Lakes’, AJHR, 1900, I: C-1, p. 154 30 ‘Appendices to the Annual Report of the Department for Lands, 1900: Appendix XIV: Wairarapa Lakes’, AJHR, 1900, I: C-1, pp. 154-6 31 A. Bagnall, Wairarapa: An Historical Excursion (Masterton: Hedley’s Bookshop, 1976), p. 384 14 the ‘possibilities of fine pasturage’ from drainage.32 Much productive farming land stood to be gained if the lakes’ water levels were brought under some degree of control. The desires of the former owners to continue fishing according to the customary cycle of the lakes was incompatible with the surveyors’ plans to obtain complete utilisation of the lakes’ margins for farming. Not only was it suggested to the Lands Department that the lakes’ mouth be kept permanently open, but that applications only of proprietors holding contiguous land should be considered for obtaining the foreshore lands.33 This was deemed necessary as there would be insufficient retreating-ground for stock during any flooding if the land was leased or sold to a new settler. Based on such proposals, then, the granting of foreshore reserves to Wairarapa Maori seemed highly unlikely.

Seddon’s requests for the plans of reserves had still not brought about any moves closer towards the allocation of these three years later. Several Wairarapa Maori, Hoani Te Rangitakaiwaho, Charles Jury and Hoani Te Whatahoro, wrote to the Native Minister in March 1903 appealing for reserves on the Wairarapa lakes to be provided for themselves and their hapu. Their frustration was all to obvious as they faced the familiar situation of Crown delays in settling their concerns. The three men considered ‘these matters of the greatest importance and we desire to see them finally settled in our life time patiently as it was your Government who settled the troubles concerning Wairarapa Lake and promised to make the reserves in question.’34 By 1905, nearly ten years after the agreement securing the lakes for the Crown, the promise of ‘ample reserves’ still had not been delivered. The Minister of Native Affairs requested from Lands and Survey officials why this was still the case after such a long period. The only objections to this the Surveyor General could think of was the ‘rights of adjacent freeholders.’35 Such a statement would have done little to quell the concerns of the former owners. Although Cabinet finally approved that ‘Reserves for the Natives are to be made in accordance with promise’ in August 1905, Government officials were no nearer to defining these almost a

32 ‘Appendices to the Annual Report of the Department for Lands, 1900: Appendix XIV: Wairarapa Lakes’, AJHR, 1900, I: C-1, p. 155 33 ‘Appendices to the Annual Report of the Department for Lands, 1900: Appendix XIV: Wairarapa Lakes’, AJHR, 1900, I: C-1, p. 155 34 Hoani Te Rangitakaiwaho, Charles Jury and Hoani Te Whatahoro to the Native Minister, 13 March 1903, LS 1/54893, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 35 Surveyor General to The Chief Surveyor, 19 August 1905, LS 1/54893, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 15 year later.36 The Under Secretary for Lands wished to proceed with this matter in consultation with the Commissioner for Crown Lands in April 1906 as ‘the Premier is very anxious this matter should be brought to a conclusion at an early date.’37

The champion of the effort to provide the former owners of the Wairarapa lakes with ‘ample reserves’ did not get to see this completed. Seddon passed away in June 1906 and with him, it seems, any chance of the former owners ever gaining a reserve along the Wairarapa foreshore. Seddon’s hope that they might be able to obtain ‘a piece of land’ adjacent to the lakes so that they ‘shall not be impeded in fishing and obtaining from the lake the food they are entitled to under the Treaty of Waitangi’ unfortunately died with him. Ten years had lapsed since the Crown and the owners of the lakes had signed an agreement conferring ownership on the Government. Yet the Crown had failed to honour its obligation of providing the local Maori with a reserve. Progress in this matter gathered momentum after Seddon’s death, in comparison to what had already occurred, but from the majority of the former owners’ point of view, this was for all the wrong reasons.

The Crown immediately embarked on a policy inconsistent with what the late premier had so staunchly believed in. The Crown officially decided in 1907 that it would be ‘inexpedient’ to provide the former owners of the Wairarapa lakes with reserves on those foreshores and that it was ‘desired to purchase lands elsewhere for the use and occupation of the said Maoris in full satisfaction of all claims by them to any portion of the said foreshore’.38 The authority permitting this was provided for in the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act passed in November 1907. This enabled the Crown to

purchase land, at a total price not exceeding five thousand pounds, to be vested in trustees to be appointed by him in trust for the aforesaid Maori owners or their successors, in shares proportionate to the interests of such owners in the land so acquired from them by the Crown, as determined by the Native Land Court, the

36 The Under Secretary, Lands and Survey Department to The Commissioner of Crown Lands, 14 May 1906, LS 1/54893, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 37 The Under Secretary, Lands and Survey Department to The Commissioner of Crown Lands, 14 May 1906, LS 1/54893, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 38 Section 53, Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act, New Zealand Statutes, 1907, No. 72, p. 377 16

land so vested in the said trustees to be inalienable by way of sale, lease or mortgage; and the Land Board of the Wellington Land District is also authorised and empowered to deal with the said foreshore, and to dispose of portions thereof to the adjoining owners of land in such areas, at such prices, and in such manner as the Board, with the approval of the Minister of Lands, thinks fit. The provisions of Part IV of the Land Laws Amendment Act, 1907, shall not apply to the land transferred under the authority of this section.39

The present author was unable to locate any specific information as to who exactly was a party to the recommendation that it was now ‘inexpedient’ to purchase reserves along the Wairarapa lakes foreshore, let alone the precise reasons for doing so. It appears that a meeting was held in Parliamentary Buildings on 24 September 1906 involving the Native Minister, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Charles Jury, Hoani Te Whatahoro and a solicitor representing the former owners. It was agreed at the meeting that the foreshore was to be inspected and that sites for reserves finally decided upon and surveyed.40 A surveyor was instructed to carry out the work in January 1907 and this was apparently completed the following year. It would seem, then, that between this meeting and the time of the passing of the above Act, Government officials decided that reserves would have to be found ‘elsewhere’.

The Crown’s belief that it could provide reserves elsewhere to the ‘full satisfaction’ of the former owners was completely misguided. Prominent Wairarapa Maori such as Hoani Te Whatahoro had undertaken correspondence with Government officials on several different occasions pleading their case to be finally offered what the Crown had originally promised. His and other appeals continually went unanswered in terms of this actually occurring. For the Crown to now renege on its promise made a decade earlier was an injustice to the former owners. It is not clear what degree of consultation had been entered into between the former owners and those Crown representatives deeming the provision of a Wairarapa foreshore reserve as ‘inexpedient’.

39 Section 53, Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act, New Zealand Statutes, 1907, No. 72, p. 377 40 Chief Surveyor to the Under Secretary for Lands, 25 November 1919, LS 22/2474, vol. II, Department of Conservation, Wellington 17

Given the opposition expressed by prominent Wairarapa Maori later, as outlined below, there appears to have been very little, if indeed any. As it had done during its first attempt to acquire the lakes, the Crown once again had resumed its policy of avoiding entering into negotiations with certain former owners. Indeed, the Under Secretary of Lands had earlier commented to the Commissioner of Crown Lands of the former owners concerning the selection of a reserve that ‘it is apparently no use waiting to ascertain their view which appear to mean that they wish the whole of the lands reserved for their use.’41

The former owners obviously did not feel impressed by this situation. Hoani Paraone Tunuiarangi, who had appeared before the 1891 commission of inquiry, later reflected on the Government’s decision to set aside funds for a reserve in a different place than Seddon had promised. Tunuiarangi claimed that the hapu of the former owners were most happy that a sum of £5,000 had seemingly been set aside for the provision of a reserve, but that they remained intent on staying in their own traditional tribal area in the south Wairarapa.42 A group of former owners then attempted to purchase a portion of the Whangaimoana estate abutting Lake Onoke in 1908. The reason why the Crown thought reserves ‘inexpedient’ may be all to clear when this attempt failed because of rising land values. According to Tunuiarangi, a Government valuer assessed the proposed reserve at £7 per acre yet when the land came under auction, this had increased to £30. This effectively ‘put it beyond’ the former owners.43 The Crown had decided to pursue maximum profits in disposing of the foreshores at the expense of the former owners. It had been the Crown’s duty to have obtained a site for reserves for 12 years and it was obvious that with each moment of delay, this was going to prove increasingly difficult given the rising land values now that the Crown had acquired control of the lakes’ outlet. Those responsible for proposing legislation that reserves for the former owners be set aside ‘elsewhere’ no doubt would have been aware of this.

The former owners continued to press their claims for reserves on the Wairarapa lakes’ foreshore despite the failure of the Whangaimoana purchase and the Crown’s

41 The Under Secretary, Lands and Survey Department to The Commissioner of Crown Lands, 14 May 1906, LS 1/54893, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 42 Hoani Paraone Tunuiarangi to Maui Pomare, 11 August 1920, MA 1 1920/460, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 43 Hoani Paraone Tunuiarangi to Maui Pomare, 11 August 1920, MA 1 1920/460, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 18 stated intention to provide land ‘elsewhere’. In August 1909, Tunuiarangi, Iraia Te Whaiti, Retini Tamahana and Eruha Piripi wrote to the then Acting Premier James Carroll, outlining their now desperate case for a reserve adjacent to their treasured lakes:

We the tribes of the mouth of Lake Wairarapa have assembled for the purpose of selecting a place suitable to us as a Reserve. We have decided upon one, namely Okourewa, and we want you to have it situated there, at the spot which rumbled beneath the tread of our ancestors. This is where they landed from their canoes which resulted in Rangitane (the then owners) ceding Wairarapa to them. The next consideration is that we can raise potatoes upon it, while, near by, we can cast the line into the sea and secure the Shark, Hapuku, Schnapper, and other sea-foods as relish: with the further advantage of obtaining eels and other fresh- water foods from the adjoining lake. Thirdly, this is the place which you sent a man to secure for us, during the Whangaimoana sale in your kind consideration for the people. However, the price was so high that it could not be secured. Fourthly, when it was secured by Iraia Te Whaiti, you again suggested that Okourewa should be a reserve. Finally, we all urge that the place be now reserved for us, and Iraia Te Whaiti agrees thereto. The only thing remaining is for you-two to agree about it. O parent of the orphans and of the poor. Let some of the £5,000 be expended on this…44

Despite this plea to have this long outstanding matter resolved, the Crown did not follow up the proposal. Its policy of granting a reserve ‘elsewhere’ had already been set and disappointed Wairarapa Maori were soon to discover this.

Seven months after this letter, Carroll received another one concerning the proposed reserves for the former owners, this time written by a Whare E. Turei Rangitakaiwaho. The letter’s author expressed his utmost dissatisfaction at claims that Carroll had entrusted money for the reserves to several former owners to purchase land,

44 Meiha Tunuiarangi, Iraia Te Whaiti, Retini Tamahana and Eruha Piripi to The Hon. James Carroll, 26 August 1909, MA 1 1910/4860, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 19

‘perhaps 30,000 acres near Taupo.’45 The men who apparently had been authorised to inspect this proposed reserve were Hoani Te Whatahoro and his brother. After Te Whatahoro had asked Rangitakaiwaho what he thought of this proposal to purchase land near Taupo, the latter replied that ‘application has been forwarded to Mr. Carroll through Mr Ngata, asking that a piece of land be set aside for us at Wairarapa here, or about this district. Our eel-basket is therefore set and if Mr Carroll and [Government] do not allow any eels to enter it, it cannot be helped.’46 Rangitakaiwaho eagerly anticipated ‘the final word of [Government] in this Wairarapa Lake matter’. He was, as all former owners no doubt were by this stage, ‘sick of talking and hearing about it.’47 The letter from Rangitakaiwaho was dated 8 March 1910.

Te Whatahoro now emerges as the principal figure in accepting a reserve for the former owners outside of Wairarapa, particularly this 30,000 acre piece of land near Taupo. Although he had appealed to the then Seddon Government in the early 1900s that reserves be set aside along the Wairarapa lakefront, 14 years of Crown delay in this matter began to have an obvious effect. Some former owners with interests in the provision of a reserve were now more willing to accept the Crown’s policy that this would be ‘elsewhere’ rather than on the lakes’ foreshore. Te Whatahoro later claimed in August 1911 that this was indeed the case, as the

Government of Sir James Carroll strenuously urged upon us to accept Crown Lands as payment, and we choose those of Taupo to which Government agreed. We were provided with 4 plans, namely for Kuratau, Pohokura, Hirinaki and the Pouakani, which my brother, Charles Jury and myself were asked to make our choice of land. Of these 4 blocks, we choosed the Pouakani part…48

45 Whare E. Turei Rangitakaiwaho to The Hon. James Carroll, 8 March 1910, MA 1 1910/4860, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 46 Whare E. Turei Rangitakaiwaho to The Hon. James Carroll, 8 March 1910, MA 1 1910/4860, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 47 Whare E. Turei Rangitakaiwaho to The Hon. James Carroll, 8 March 1910, MA 1 1910/4860, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 48 Hoani Te Whatahoro to The Hon. Maui Pomare, 19 August 1911, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 20

Te Whatahoro and his brother had, in fact, requested that both Pouakani and Kuratau be set aside as reserves in November 1910.49 With the approximately 30,000 acre Pouakani block just north of Taupo and the 7,328 Kuratau block at the south end of Lake Taupo, Te Whatahoro believed that he would be receiving a total area reserve of 37,238 acres which he considered would be more than sufficient to accommodate the former owners of the lakes. He explained his reasons for accepting Pouakani and Kuratau, and why this should be done as soon as possible, in a letter to Carroll:

Friend, we hear that it is considered proper to have this matter placed before all concerned, before a decision is arrived at. Friend, do not do that, if that be done this matter will not be settled in a way most beneficial to those who held just rights in the Wairarapa lake. Because, some are anxious to for individual distribution of the (available) money. Others suggest that land be purchased at Wairarapa. There is no land at Wairarapa which can be purchased for less than £10 an acre and upwards. That being so of what use is some 500 acres amongst the 150 persons interested, they could not make a living from that.50

According to Te Whatahoro, then, divisions had become evident within the former owners as to how they should proceed in regards to the long anticipated reserve. This is hardly surprising given the Crown’s delay in the matter. Although Te Whatahoro did not wish to see the money distributed individually, he was ready to accept a reserve that was, as one researcher has stated, ‘approximately 300 kilometres from the lakes’ owners’ turangawaewae.’51 The fact that Te Whatahoro was now living in Wanganui may have made this decision easier. The economic factors influencing his decision are also significant. This, possibly more than any other, was the key reason in accepting the Pouakani lands as a substitute for reserves in Wairarapa. Te Whatahoro believed that a viable economic base was no longer available in the district because of the insufficiency of land that could be acquired from the moneys set aside by Government. This was due to the higher value of foreshore lands which was, of course, mostly attributable to the

49 Hoani Te Whatahoro and Charles Jury to The Hon. James Carroll, 19 November 1910, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 50 Hoani Te Whatahoro and Charles Jury to The Hon. James Carroll, 19 November 1910, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 51 B. White, ‘Inland Waterways: Lakes’, (Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1998), p. 32 21

Crown’s ownership of the lakes. So while the Crown stood by to profit from this ownership, this would, and did, come at the expense of the former Maori owners.

The lack of unity among the former owners regarding the provision of reserves became quite clear when it became known that Te Whatahoro had accepted the Pouakani lands. Tunuiarangi again wrote to Carroll on 21 February 1911, stating that he wished to purchase ‘400 acres which comprise the Okourewa homestead and fishing station at the mouth of the lake.’52 He further commented:

As to Te Whatahoro’[s] proposal to put the money into the Pouakani lands. We are all opposed to that, because those lands – for one thing – are too distant. Furthermore, those lands would not properly support us. I have seen the lands and have concluded that we would be unable to work them up to a profitable point. It would require a moneyed Pakeha to do that. Finally, we want to purchase lands in our home neighbourhood with this money. We have therefore come to the unalterable conclusion to have the money put into this 400 acres for reasons like these following: 1. There we may grow potatoes, pumpkins and numerous other foods. 2. From there we may place our nets in fresh water and capture eels and at the same time cast our fishing lines into the sea and secure sea-fish, such as sharks, Hapuku, schnapper, etc.; all these would form a relish for the foods grown in our adjoining cultivations, and support our wives and children.53

Tunuiarangi was pleading a case that had already been decided. Less than two months later, Carroll replied to a memorandum previously sent to him by the Under Secretary of Lands concerning the provision of the Pouakani block with the instructions: ‘Take action to have set aside the 30,486 acres for the transfer to the Maori owners of the Wairarapa lakes'.54 On 27 April 1911 the Under Secretary of Lands informed the Commissioner of Crown Lands that the Acting Prime Minister had given a direction that the 30,486 acre

52 Meiha Tunuiarangi to The Hon. James Carroll, 31 February 1911, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 53 Meiha Tunuiarangi to The Hon. James Carroll, 31 February 1911, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 22

Pouakani land be ‘set apart for certain Maoris in lieu of the foreshore lands formerly occupied by them at Lake Wairarapa.’55

Tunuiarangi and other former owners felt astounded by the decision to accept Pouakani as the reserve, once again expressing their dissatisfaction to Carroll.56 It was made quite clear to the Acting Prime Minister that some Wairarapa Maori still wished to obtain land in their own district and wanted no part in the approval of Te Whatahoro to settle on Pouakani. Tunuiarangi informed Carroll that 100 acres was available at the Wairarapa lakes’ mouth and that ‘the Pakeha owner is willing to sell it.’57 As per usual, however, nothing was done by the Crown in regards to this proposal. Tunuiarangi followed this letter with another on 10 July to the Under Secretary of Lands, stating that he intended to petition parliament and to provide ‘reasons for not approving of the Pouakani choice.’58 All his efforts, however, would prove to no avail. With the Crown selecting a reserve convenient for its own purposes, and some former owners accepting this, there would be no reversal to implement a policy that the Crown had barely followed in the first place. The Pouakani block, for all intents and purposes, had become the reserve that had been promised to the former owners of the lakes.

Te Whatahoro had already informed Carroll that he and many people of the hapus with former interests in the lakes were ready to move to the Pouakani block.59 He had requested that a nearby railway station be established so as to provide the people with easier access. Te Whatahoro had envisioned the block as ‘a stock raising area’60 and believed it had sufficient living space for the former owners to reside on. Yet later events

54 The Hon. James Carroll to The Under Secretary, Lands and Survey Department, 27 March 1911, Note on file, The Under Secretary, Lands and Survey Department to The Hon. James Carroll, 1 December 1910, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 55 The Under Secretary, Lands and Survey Department to The Commissioner of Crown Lands, 27 April 1911, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 56 Whare E. T. Rangitakaiwaho and Ropata E. T. Rangitakaiwaho to The Hon. James Carroll, 22 April 1911, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 57 Meiha Tunuiarangi, Pane Tunuiarangi and Paratene Matenga to The Hon. James Carroll, 3 May 1911, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 58 Meiha Tunuiarangi to The Under Secretary, Lands and Survey Department, 10 July 1911, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 59 Hoani Te Whatahoro to The Hon. James Carroll, 2 May 1911, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 60 Hoani Te Whatahoro and Charles Jury to The Hon. James Carroll, 19 November 1910, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 23 makes the motives of Te Whatahoro in accepting Pouakani more difficult to establish. In 1912 he wrote to the Native Minister requesting that Pouakani be either leased or sold to him and that it was only ‘third class land’.61 This perhaps may have resulted from frustration in what seemed to be little progress on the issue of being granted the land. In any case, the point Te Whatahoro had touched on was an important one.

The Pouakani lands, as Tunuiarangi had pointed out, left much to be desired. The Waitangi Tribunal has already reported that the proposed reserve was ‘undeveloped Crown land, covered in scrub, with a little bush on the southern margins and in the river valleys.’62 The block was part of the vast central volcanic plateau which offered little value in terms of farming because of soil deficiencies that were not remedied until the mid-1930s.63 The Crown had acquired the proposed Pouakani reserve in the late nineteenth century, apparently because of the possibility that a rail route to Taupo might traverse it.64 Once it was decided that the North Island main trunk line would be constructed west of Pouakani, it no longer provided the Government with any meaningful purpose. It was, then, an unused and relatively inexpensive piece of Crown land, its loss to the Government representing a minor one. In comparison to the potential of the highly valuable Wairarapa lakes’ margins, therefore, Pouakani offered very little possibilities for development during the early twentieth century. So, the Government was able to cost- effectively safeguard the foreshore lands for pasturage through selling these ‘to the adjoining owners’ and by granting to Wairarapa Maori the Pouakani block as their long promised reserve. In doing so, the Government would also ensure that the incidents involving local Maori and pastoralists over the opening of the lakes’ mouth during the 1880s and early 1890s would not be repeated. It thus appears that the recommendations of 1900 eventually became the basis of the Crown’s policy that it would be ‘inexpedient’ to provide Wairarapa Maori with foreshore reserves. This clearly showed that the interests of local Maori were secondary to that of the south Wairarapa farming community.

61 Hoani Te Whatahoro to The Native Minister, 21 August 1912, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 62 The Waitangi Tribunal, The Pouakani Report, Wai 33 (Wellington: Brooker and Friend, 1993), p. 301 24

Given the distance of the proposed reserve from the Wairarapa, Crown officials must have expected to encounter some refusal to such a proposition. Yet it was only a matter of time of course, something definitely against the former owners, that some acquiescence could be obtained. Conversely, time was on the Crown’s side, and it used this to maximum advantage until Wairarapa Maori had no alternative but to accept these ‘distant’ lands. Further delays resulted in the actual provision of the block during 1912 and 1913, with the former owners of the lakes ‘anxious to get on to the land and farm it.’65 It appears at this stage that with the Crown providing no indication that other lands would be set aside for them, some Wairarapa Maori were resigned to the fact that Pouakani would be their promised reserve. The Under Secretary of the Native Department informed the Minister that by September 1913, ‘[a] considerable number of the Native owners were in favour of Taupo lands being arranged for, while others objected to the proposal, and presumably from them no further steps have been taken.’66 There would have been no effective steps for these objectors to take in any case, as they no doubt would have learnt by now. The Under Secretary of Lands had written to Iraia Te Whaiti in April of that year that the ‘Department is awaiting the consent of the Natives interested before proceeding any further in the matter’.67 The nature of the Crown’s policy meant that it was only a matter of time before it gained the necessary consent. Indeed, Te Whaiti, who had earlier voiced his opposition to any proposed reserve not on the Wairarapa foreshore, was now, along with many other former owners to the lakes, seeking to have their interests defined in the Pouakani block. The focus of the former owners now turned to this instead of opposing the Pouakani proposition, thus facilitating the Crown’s moves to have this officially executed.

The final steps in the allocation of the Pouakani block to the former owners of the lakes arrived in 1914 when legislation was passed permitting Wairarapa Maori to receive

63 B. D. Coburn, ‘Pouakani: People, Power and Place’ (A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography at Massey University, 1993), p. 66 64 The Waitangi Tribunal, The Pouakani Report, Wai 33 (Wellington: Brooker and Friend, 1993), pp. 91-3 65 The Hon. Maui Pomare to The Native Minister, 30 August 1913, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 66 The Under Secretary, Native Department to The Native Minister, 3 September 1913, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 67 The Under Secretary, Department for Lands and Survey to Iraia Te Whaiti, 20 April 1913, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 25 their long anticipated reserve. This was enabled by the provisions of the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1914, which stipulated:

Whereas by section fifty-three of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act, 1907, the Governor was authorised to purchase certain land to be vested in trustees in trust for certain Maori owners or their successors, in exchange for land formerly acquired by the Crown from the said Maori owners: And whereas in lieu of purchasing such land it is now desired to grant certain Crown land to the said Maori owners or their successors (hereinafter referred to as the said Maori owners): Be it therefore enacted as follows:

(1) The Native Land Court is hereby directed and empowered, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, to compile a list of the said Maori owners, and thereupon to make an order determining their relative interests in the land to be vested in them as hereinafter provided. (2) Upon the issue of the said order of the Governor may, by Proclamation, vest in the said Maori owners an area not exceeding thirty thousand four hundred and eighty-six acres, being part of the land known as the Pouakani Block, in the Auckland district, and thereupon the said land shall for all purposes be deemed to be Native freehold land within the meaning of the Native Land Act, 1909, and the said Maori owners shall be beneficially entitled to the said land in proportion to their several interests determined as hereinbefore provided.68

Although Te Whatahoro had first requested that both the Pouakani and Kuratau blocks be set aside as reserves, it appears that only one option was permitted. Te Whatahoro then selected Pouakani, most probably on the basis that it was by far the larger of the two. The Native Land Court sat at Greytown in January 1915 to define the relative interests to the Pouakani block. Judge Michael Gilfedder made an order on 22 January, vesting the block in Arete Tamahau and 229 others.69 A proclamation was finally issued on 14 April 1916

68 Section 57, Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act, New Zealand Statutes, 1914, No. 70, p. 360 69 Clerk, Native Land Court to Chief Judge, 2 February 1914, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington. See H. McCracken, ‘The Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation, Pouakani No. 2 Trust and the 26 vesting the 30,486 acre block known as part Pouakani in those Maori according to the interests defined in the above order.70 Thus came into being the ownership of a block of land on the Waikato River by Wairarapa Maori. The land was referred to as the Pouakani (Wairarapa Maoris) Block and, on 19 December 1969, the Maori Land Court made an order naming the block Pouakani No. 2.71

2.4. Conclusion The motives of the former owners of the lakes to accept Pouakani as a reserve are more difficult to define than those of the Crown to offer it in the first place. This is because the views of the former owners during the period between the signing of the 1896 agreement and the eventual provision of Pouakani did not stay fixed. Indeed, the leading figure to accept Pouakani had entered into correspondence with the Crown during the early 1900s requesting that it honour its promise of providing a reserve along the lakes’ foreshore so that local Wairarapa Maori could continue their traditional fishing practices. Other former owners, determined to secure local reserves, also eventually had to accept that Pouakani would be the reserve that they had long waited for. Besides Seddon’s readiness to provide foreshore reserves, there appears to be more consistency in the Crown’s actions. There is much similarity, in fact, between the Crown’s acquisition of the lakes and the provision of reserves afterwards. Crown officials, even those at high levels, seemed to have ignored the concerns and complaints of those Maori who did not conform to their immediate aims. Crown representatives were only interested in dealing with those Maori wanting to part with their interests to the lakes prior to 1896 whilst there seems to have been very little consideration given to those Maori continually requesting lakefront reserves. Once Te Whatahoro and his brother had accepted the Crown’s offer in 1910, there was no chance of the former owners ever gaining a reserve adjacent to their valued lakes.

Yet the Crown had already decided before then that it would not provide a reserve on the lakes’ foreshore, claiming this to be now ‘inexpedient’. The present author was

Crown, 1896-1990s’ (An Interim Report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001), pp. 34-42 for details on the Court’s sitting and the response of Wairarapa Maori to the allocation of shares. 70 New Zealand Gazette, 14 April 1916, p. 1105 71 Rotorua Minute Book 150-60, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 27 unable to find further documentation that provides specific details as to why this was deemed so. From the evidence and facts at hand, however, it can be surmised that economic prudence played a key role. The Crown had undertaken an exhaustive campaign to obtain ownership of the lakes and once the foreshores had been obtained, it stood to gain valuable profits from selling them to the local freeholders. This proved to be the case, as illustrated by the former owners’ abortive Whangaimoana purchase. The Crown, however, had an obligation to provide the local Maori a reserve and this factor should not have precluded it from honouring that. The Crown also had received proposals by 1900 to significantly alter the Wairarapa lakes and the traditional cycle that local Maori were accustomed to. By not allocating any reserves, the Crown ensured that there would be no more difficulties involving them and the local pastoralists.

Whether or not the Crown deliberately set about not providing a lakefront reserve at this early stage is not clear. Seddon’s hope that this would occur makes it look unlikely. Yet the inability of the Crown to have the matter quickly resolved ultimately worked against Wairarapa Maori. Surveys were not completed until after Seddon had died with the result that the former owners had lost their most influential supporter. With Seddon gone and prime real estate made available because the Government now controlled the lake mouth, the late Premier’s hope that there be ‘a piece of land set apart’ faded away. Legislation passed in 1907 all but sealed the fate of that hope, no matter how detrimental this might have been to the former owners. The failure of the Crown to act quicker merely reflected the fact that the concerns of the former owners did not receive as high a priority as that of the settlers who complained about the lakes’ flood levels in the first place. Although it took another twenty years for the Crown to obtain ownership of the lakes after its abortive purchase in 1876, Wairarapa Maori never received their promised reserves.

The question then confronting the Crown was which land would it offer to the former owners. It appears that four blocks were put forward, Te Whatahoro eventually accepting Pouakani after it had been, he claims, ‘strenuously urged’ upon him to do so. Although it is not certain who actually proposed Pouakani as a possible reserve, the fact that it had been presented as an option makes sense. This was, as Te Whatahoro himself 28 later stated after he accepted it, ‘third class land’. The block known as part Pouakani was still in its virgin state and sitting idle on the banks of the Waikato River. Being of absolutely no economic value to the Crown and not featuring prominently in any of its plans at this stage, it was thus deemed appropriate for substitution for lakefront reserves. The documentary evidence shows that the decision by Te Whatahoro and other former owners to accept Pouakani was only made because of pressure exerted by the Crown and the force of circumstance. Wairarapa Maori had been denied their promised and much- needed reserve for a lengthy period and at last had been offered one. Claimants may be able to provide oral evidence and submissions that offers further insight of how the initial decision by Te Whatahoro to agree to Pouakani was representative of Wairarapa Maori, as well as the overall role he played in the ‘exchange’.

Despite the remarks made by Te Whatahoro concerning the block’s quality, he and other former owners also felt at various stages that the land would be suitable for living and farming. That many Wairarapa Maori felt determined to move on to the block and begin farming illustrates a lack of consultation concerning the difficulties involved. Te Whatahoro believed that the 30,000 acre block offered an adequate area for all the former owners to live on whereas high prices in the Wairarapa prevented this. Those who opposed the Pouakani proposal did not wish to have reserves allocated so far away from their traditional tribal area whilst Tunuiarangi, who inspected the block, realised that it would take much money, time and effort to develop the land to a standard that would provide sustenance. Although he would be proved right, his legitimate concerns were ignored by Crown officials. They were all to well aware of the future difficulties facing the former owners, however. It was probably because of the very concerns that Tunuiarangi expressed about this land that it was being offered in the first place. Pouakani was undeveloped, of low value and of little importance to the Crown. Although it may have been sufficient in terms of land mass, its quality at this time was very poor and would remain so for some time to come.

Nearly fifteen years had passed since the agreement of 1896 and the recommendation of Pouakani as a reserve. Wairarapa Maori, having to endure being increasingly marginalised in their own area by the settler community in the late 1800s, 29 and now having to wait so long for promised reserves, must have become incredibly frustrated. It appears also that many former owners had grown tired of the Crown’s delays and after Te Whatahoro initially accepted the block, they must have realised that this would have to be agreed to regardless of what they really wanted. There is no doubt that a majority of owners would have preferred reserves in their own tribal area, specifically ones abutting the lake as originally agreed to. Yet they could only make the most of the options that had been proposed by the Crown, and this was decided as being Pouakani, a block of land hundreds of miles away. This result, and the process leading to it, appears to the present author to raise significant issues about whether the former owners of the lakes had been treated justly. The foreshore lands had evaporated before their very eyes and in 1916, the alienation of Wairarapa Maori from their cherished lakes was finally made complete by the grant of Pouakani. It is certain that none of the former owners who agreed to offer the lakes to the Crown on the condition that they receive foreshore reserves would have done so if they had known that the reserve eventually granted would be closer to Lake Taupo than to Lake Wairarapa. 30

Section III: The Mangakino Township

3.1. Introduction The land provided by the Crown to Wairarapa Maori as a reserve for their rights to the lakes remained virtually unoccupied and idle until the mid-1940s when the Department of Public Works (later Ministry of Works) entered Pouakani for the purposes of hydroelectric development on the Waikato River. The Ministry of Works eventually acquired portions of the block considered requisite for the scheme, including a leasehold estate to accommodate the construction workers and necessary facilities to support them. From this area of approximately 683 acres developed the township of Mangakino. It was later decided that the area comprising the township would be returned to an incorporated body of the owners for their benefit. This section will examine and assess the ultimate outcomes and benefits deriving from the township to the owners, including overall profits and employment opportunities.72 In particular it will endeavour to determine whether the owners’ benefits from the township area have been hampered by Governmental legislation and departmental practices and policies.

3.2. The Pouakani owners and the creation of Mangakino The increasing national demand for electricity as the main source of power after the First World War eventually led to the State Hydro-Electric Department’s descent on Pouakani. As domestic consumer demand turned to water rather than coal power, the Government found it necessary to build more hydroelectric stations and to upgrade existing transmission and distribution services.73 A programme of geological and engineering surveys was initiated along the Waikato River during the 1930s to ensure the optimal utilisation of power generation from the river’s 1,100 foot drop between Lake Taupo and Cambridge. One site deemed suitable as a station because others could be built both above and below it without any of the river’s fall being lost was that of Maraetai situated

72 For a detailed account of the Crown’s acquisition of the land for the hydroelectric scheme, the formation of the township, and assessment for compensation and transfer of the township to the owners, see H. McCracken, ‘The Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation, Pouakani No. 2 Trust and the Crown, 1896-1990s’ (An Interim Report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001), pp. 51-116 73 C. Hasman, Mangakino In Perspective, 1945-1965: The Story of A Hydro-Town (Turangi: Tongariro Welfare Association, 1976), p. 4 31 along the shoreline of the Pouakani block. Preliminary work on the scheme commenced in 1945, and an accommodation camp was established nearby for construction workers.74 Men and material that had been employed on the Karapiro station eight miles south of Cambridge started to transfer to the Maraetai scheme.

With the post-war labour shortage and lifting of war-time regulations requiring men to seek employment on public schemes, Works officials recognised that there could be some difficulty in maintaining a steady and reliable workforce for the construction of the Maraetai station in such a remote vicinity. To avoid this problem, the Minister in Charge of the State Hydro-Electric Department proposed in 1946 to:

erect a semi-permanent town at Mangakino, from which workmen can be conveniently transported to work at Maraetai, and at least two further developments. By providing better accommodation and some of the amenities of town life we shall be able to secure and retain a better and more contented class of workman than we would be able to obtain in what would otherwise be an isolated and unattractive area.75

The two other sites eventually selected for development as stations were Whakamaru, six miles up-river from Maraetai, and Waipapa five miles down-stream.76 Mangakino was to serve as the administrative centre for the construction of these three hydroelectric power projects. The township was to be ‘unlike any other construction village’.77 As work on Maraetai progressed, the township expanded rapidly as huts for single men and quarters for married workers were shifted to the township.78 The best possible living conditions were planned for the workers that would be employed on these three schemes and their families. Quarters were arranged tidily in streets to be sealed while those cottages transferred from Karapiro were upgraded. Running water, electricity and sewerage

74 ‘Appendices to the Public Works Statement, 1945: Appendix B: Annual Report on Public Works by the Engineer-In- Chief’, AJHR, 1945, I: D-1, p.4 75 ‘Statement By the Hon. R. Semple, Minister in Charge of the State Hydro-Electric Department, 1946’, AJHR, 1946, II: D-4, p. 3 76 ‘Appendices to the Ministry of Works Statement, 1948: Appendix C: Annual Report on Public Works by the Engineer-in-Chief’, AJHR, 1948, III: D-1, p. 37 77 ‘Statement By the Hon. R. Semple, Minister in Charge of the State Hydro-Electric Department, 1947’, AJHR, 1947, III: D-4, p. 3 78 The New Zealand Herald, 24 January 1947 32 facilities were all planned to be provided for the cottages whilst a commercial and civic centre was also to be built.79 The settlement was to be a ‘model town’, as the Minister of Works reported in his annual statement of 1947, and:

is now rising from [a] bare plain to house over two thousand workers and their families. Mangakino Village is necessary because further power projects on the Waikato River are isolated from existing settlements, and, therefore, the village will be equipped with all the amenities of a small town, such as shops, bus terminal, public garage, recreation-halls, churches [and] sports-grounds.80

Access to the township was to be effected by a road running between Tokoroa and Maraetai. The only previous approach to Mangakino had been by ‘difficult track’ through the forest from Tokoroa.81 Surveys for the new access road had been completed by 1945 and construction commenced from the Tokoroa end.82 The 16-mile road had been top- course metalled within three years whilst direct communications to Mangakino from the south had also been developed with a road constructed linking the township to Whakamaru and Atiamuri.83 Practicable access to this land had finally been realised as the Ministry of Works continued to improve and expand these roads throughout the area so that quality communications essential for the schemes was provided. The township, meanwhile, was growing so fast that services and amenities could not be installed quickly enough.84 By 1950 the village and adjacent single men’s camp on this previously ‘bare plain’ only several years earlier now comprised a population of 3,700 people.85 However, this would have included very few, if any, of the owners of the block of land where this ‘bare plain’

79 ‘Appendices to the Ministry of Works Statement, 1948: Appendix C: Annual Report on Public Works by the Engineer-in-Chief’, AJHR, 1948, III: D-1, p. 36 80 ‘Ministry of Works Statement By the Hon. R. Semple, Minister of Works, 1947’, AJHR, 1947, III: D-1, p. 9 81 C. Hasman, Mangakino In Perspective, 1945-1965: The Story of A Hydro-Town (Turangi: Tongariro Welfare Association, 1976), p. 7 82 ‘Appendices to the Public Works Statement, 1945: Appendix B: Annual Report on Public Works by the Engineer-In- Chief’, AJHR, 1945, I: D-1, p.4 83 ‘Appendices to the Ministry of Works Statement, 1948: Appendix C: Annual Report on Public Works by the Engineer-in-Chief’, AJHR, 1948, III: D-1, pp. 36-7 84 J. Martin (ed.), People, Politics and Power Stations: Electric Power Generation in New Zealand, 1880-1990 (Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 1991), p. 152 85 ‘Appendices to the Minister of Works Statement, 1950: Appendix C: Annual Report on Public Works by the Engineer-in-Chief, 1950’, AJHR, 1950, D-1, p. 21 33 was situated. Located two miles up-river from Maraetai, the township of Mangakino lay completely within the block of land known as part Pouakani owed by Wairarapa Maori.

A clear majority of owners of Pouakani would not have known that the Public Works Department had commenced a programme of hydroelectric development based on their block. The Department’s first engineers entered Pouakani from August 1945 under the right of an Order of Council of 5 November 1940 authorising the ‘Minister of Public Works to erect, construct, provide, and use such works, appliances and conveniences as may be necessary in connection with the utilisation of water-power from the Waikato River’.86 The owners, however, did not even receive prior notice of this entry let alone any degree of consultation as to what was occurring on their land in relation to the scheme. The Land Purchase Officer of Auckland District, who had been assigned the task of attaining the land for the scheme, informed the Waiariki District Native Land Court on 3 January 1945 that ‘it will be necessary to acquire fairly large areas from part Pouakani block’ and requested the ‘names of the principal owners so that they may be approached for their consent to enter and carry out certain preliminary work.’87 This still had not been done over two years later when work on Maraetai and construction of Mangakino was well under way.

The Registrar of the Rotorua Native Land Court replied to the purchase officer that there was a ‘large number of very scattered owners in this block and it is suggested that the most satisfactory way of carrying out your purpose would be to put the matter to a meeting.’88 The Registrar inquired whether this would be acceptable to the Works Department and requested an estimate as to how much area would be actually required for hydroelectric development. The purchase officer, however, believed that such a meeting with the owners and Court officials could lead to potential difficulties. He felt that:

a meeting with the Native Land Court officers should be deferred until the Department has fully made up its mind as to what exactly is to be taken and

86 New Zealand Gazette, 14 November 1940, III: p. 3407 87 Land Purchase Officer, Public Works Department to the Registrar, Waiariki District Native Land Court, Rotorua, 3 January 1945, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 88 Registrar, Waiariki District Native Land Court, Rotorua to Land Purchase Officer, Public Works Department, 10 January 1945, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 34

approval obtained from both Head Office and the Minister. What I fear is, that if we conferred with the Native Land Court officials and explained what we proposed, it might result in protests to the Ministers before the matter has been fully considered in Wellington and promises may be made without the full consideration that is necessary.89

Works authorities generally had real concerns about the process involving meetings of owners. This was a complicated procedure and was usually subjected to delays, especially if successions had to be first determined as well.90 The purchase officer thus attempted to employ delaying tactics with the Court until the Department had determined what it would acquire. He informed the Under Secretary of Works that ‘[t]he Department must decide what land is to be taken and nothing would be gained by first putting the matter to the Natives.’91

Native Land Court officials continued to push the Works Department for its plans of acquisition so that they could inform the owners of how this would affect the balance of the block. The Waiariki District Maori Land Board was to meet representatives of the owners to discuss with them how Pouakani would feature in the rehabilitation of returning Wairarapa Maori servicemen yet this could not be adequately considered without gaining some idea of what the Works Department’s plans were. Judge John Harvey directed the Deputy Registrar of the Native Land Court at Rotorua to obtain the relevant details of its plans from the Department.92 The Land Purchase Officer realised that he could no longer avoid informing the Court of the Department’s intentions but still felt determined to prevent providing Court representatives and owners of any details. As the Department had not yet decided which and how much land would be necessary for the

89 Land Purchase Officer, Public Works Department to The District Electrical Engineer, Public Works Department, 25 January 1945, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 90 C. Marr, ‘Public Works Takings of Maori Land, 1840-1981’, (Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1997), p. 200 91 Land Purchase Officer, Public Works Department to The Under secretary, Public Works Department, 12 February 1945, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 92 Deputy Registrar, Waiariki District Native Land Court, Rotorua to Land Purchase Officer, Public Works Department, 13 June 1945, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 35

Maraetai scheme let alone acquired it, the official felt afraid that opposition could be raised to the Department’s proposals or it would be stifled by owners’ attempts to benefit from the betterment that the schemes would effect to the land. The officer firmly believed that all land likely to receive substantial benefit from the scheme should be taken from the outset.93 He felt determined that the Department should continue to try and conceal its intentions from the Court and the owners so as to minimise any possible interference whilst maintaining all major benefits that would accrue from the scheme for itself. The officer explained his reasons to the Under Secretary of the Public Works Department in a memorandum dated 9 July 1945:

It must be remembered that this land is at present completely uninhabited and miles from anywhere. The roading and development at Maraetai must increase its value enormously and I do not see any reason why this increase should be made as a gift to Native owners who have never lived there. Instead of supplying the plan to the Native Land Court it might be wiser for you to issue instructions for the land to be surveyed and taken so that it will be a “Fait Accompli” when the owners are notified, unless you feel that the taking can be satisfied despite possible objections. If we were to refer the matter to the Native owners for consideration we would be completely lost because in order to preserve to themselves the betterment they will find numerous reasons for retaining the land in the vicinity of the proposed town.94

It appears that the Public Works Department’s tactics of delay succeeded. Nearly a year later, as construction of Maraetai and Mangakino gathered momentum, the Under Secretary of Native Affairs wrote to his counterpart at Public Works expressing his concern at that Department’s activities at Pouakani as ‘neither the owners, nor the Waiariki District Maori Land Board have been consulted about the use of this land.’95 As the owners of Pouakani had not been given notice of the Works’ Department’s entry and

93 Land Purchase Officer, Public Works Department to The Under Secretary, Public Works Department, 23 January 1946, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 94 Land Purchase Officer, Public Works Department to The Under Secretary, Public Works Department, 9 July 1945, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 95 The Under Secretary, Native Department to The Under Secretary, Public Works Department, 30 May 1946, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 36 certainly not consented to this, the Under Secretary for the Native Department wished to be advised of how the owners would be compensated for this apparent trespass and if it was to continue. His opposite at Public Works replied several months later, apologising for the

delay in advising [him] of the position but the position in respect of entry upon this land is not clear as it should be. The land entered upon is to be taken for hydroelectric purposes as soon as the survey is complete, and compensation will of course be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act, 1928.96

This vague response frustrated the Under Secretary of the Native Department who thought it ‘somewhat unusual for a Government Department to enter upon private lands without notifying the owners’.97 Even though the Minister of Works had identified Maraetai as a site for a station by 1944,98 and that engineers had been there almost a year, the owners still had not yet received notice of the Works Department’s entry. The Under Secretary was ‘at a loss to understand why the usual procedure was not followed in this case’.99 The two departments had seemingly agreed upon a policy that notification would be given of all proposed takings of Maori land yet the Native Department regularly complained that this was not being followed.100 Native Departmental officials remained concerned as to the apparent trespass by the Public Works Department at Pouakani but were still no nearer towards obtaining any clearer signals as to what would be taken for the hydroelectric scheme. Unbeknownst to them and most of the block’s owners, a sizeable tract of Pouakani had been provisionally earmarked for acquisition, including land for the Minister of Works’ ‘semi-permanent town’. Judge Harvey increasingly felt concerned by the unwarranted and desperate situation confronting the owners of the block. He did not feel that the Crown, ‘having made belated amendment in the way of

96 The Under Secretary, Public Works Department to The Under Secretary, Native Department, 17 July 1946, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 97 The Under Secretary, Native Department to The Under Secretary, Public Works Department, 23 July 1946, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 98 ‘Public Works Statement By the Hon. R. Semple, Minister of Works, 1944’, AJHR, 1944, D-1, p. vii 99 The Under Secretary, Native Department to The Under Secretary, Public Works Department, 23 July 1946, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 37 providing access, should again dispossess these Wairarapa people of their land. It is realised that the Public Works Department must have the area it requires, but it is contended that it should take no more than is actually required.’101

By early 1947 the construction of Maraetai and the development of the Mangakino township began attracting national coverage. The New Zealand Herald reported of the significant progress made on the power station and the rapid expansion of the township site that had taken place during the past year.102 It also cast what appeared to reflect the Works Department’s concerns: ‘Much of the open land near Maraetai is owned by Maoris. Difficulties in developing it may be encountered’. At this stage the areas required for the scheme had also been roughly decided. The General Manager of the State Hydro-Electric Department informed the Under Secretary of Public Works in February 1947 that a total of 2,300 acres of the Wairarapa Maori-owned Pouakani block would be needed.103 Of this area, 365 acres would be covered by the Maraetai lake leaving the balance of 1935 acres for hydroelectric construction and operation purposes, including the land on which Mangakino was being built. The State Hydro-Electric Department requested that arrangements be made for the acquisition of the land in co-operation with the Native Department. No attempt at collaboration had been made until 8 May when the Under Secretary of Public Works finally notified his equivalent at the Native Department of the amount and approximate area of land required, providing him with a sketch plan.104 According to the Works official, the surveys had been completed and the proclamation acquiring the land would be issued once the land plans had been approved. After nearly two and a half years since the Registrar of the Waiariki Native Land Court requested information as to how much land would be needed, the Public Works Department had at last provided an estimated response.

100 C. Marr, ‘Public Works Takings of Maori Land, 1840-1981’, (Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1997), p. 201 101 Judge Harvey to the Under Secretary, Native Department, 12 August 1946, AAMK 869/917a, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 102 New Zealand Herald, 24 January 1947 103 The General Manager, State Hydro-Electric Department to The Under Secretary, Public Works Department, 4 February 1947, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 104 Under Secretary, Public Works Department to The Under Secretary, Native Department, 8 May 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 38

Yet this was only achieved because of some powerful pressure exerted upon Public Works. It was, coincidentally, around this time that the Prime Minister himself became personally involved in matters concerning Pouakani. On 2 May Fraser and Judge Harvey had inspected the block to ascertain its suitability for development for grassland farming.105 The Prime Minister, already no doubt aware of the hydroelectric development at Maraetai, discovered that the Public Works Department had entered the block without giving due notice to the owners. He proceeded to ask the Commissioner of Works to make enquiries as to why this had occurred, prompting an immediate response from the Under Secretary of the Public Works Department. The Under Secretary reported to the Commissioner:

I have to advise that the land at Maraetai was entered upon under the authority of an Order in Council issued under the provisions of the Public Works Act, 1928, which gives the Crown the right to enter upon any land for the purpose of carrying out the necessary works. It is not legally necessary to give any notice to the owners, but of course it is the Department’s practice to give a courtesy notice to the occupiers of any land upon which it is necessary to enter and standing instructions to this effect have been given to the departmental officers. In the case of the Maori land at Maraetai the owners were absentees and the land was in its virgin condition, not being occupied or used in any way. Under the circumstances there was no person in occupation to whom notice could be given and no one was physically disturbed or inconvenienced by the Department’s operations.106

The Under Secretary stated that he would forward to the Native Department a sketch plan and general description of the area required (as alluded to) and recorded that ‘[t]he Prime Minister’s directions that the Maori owners should now be communicated with is noted and action accordingly will be taken.’ The Commissioner of Works dispatched this report to the Prime Minister.

105 Judge Harvey to The Under Secretary, Native Department, 12 May 1947, AAMK 869/917a, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 106 Commissioner of Works to the Prime Minister, 15 May 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 39

The Under Secretary’s report conceals the Works Department’s deliberate efforts to avoid providing the Native Department and Native Land Court with any of its designs regarding the acquisition of land for the Maraetai scheme. Although Works officials had legitimate concerns of informing the owners of its intentions before it had arrived at any approximate idea as to what it would need, it still withheld any information that could easily have been forwarded once the State Hydro-Electric Department had roughly identified those areas required. Only through the intervention of the Prime Minister were these details finally passed on to the Native Department. By this stage, however, at least some of the owners would have already learnt that their land had been entered and portions of it would be permanently required due to the media coverage that had been given to Maraetai and Mangakino. Whilst none of the owners may have been ‘physically disturbed or inconvenienced’ by the mass swoop of men, machinery and material upon Pouakani, they certainly suffered in terms that some of the land granted to them by the Crown in the first place was now facing reacquisition without even being given the consideration of a notice. Although the Works Department had made an offer to the Native Land Court in January 1945 to meet the owners ‘so that they may be approached for their consent to enter and carry out certain preliminary work’, not only had this not taken place over two years later but the Department intentionally pursued a policy of averting this. By the time that Fraser directed the Department to provide notice the ‘bare plain’ that used to be the eastern strip of land of Pouakani along the banks of the Waikato River had already been rapidly transformed. The Department had not attempted to initiate any degree of consultation with the owners based on the faulty and insufficient assumption, according to the Under Secretary’s report to the Commissioner in May 1947, that there would be no issues with the owners as the land was unoccupied. It was no surprise that the Native Department complained in 1948 that the policy of due notification to the owners of proposed public takings of Maori land was not being adhered to.107

It soon became obvious that the owners of Pouakani were indeed ‘disturbed’ and ‘inconvenienced’ by the events occurring on their land. The Under Secretary of Public

107 C. Marr, ‘Public Works Takings of Maori Land, 1840-1981’, (Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1997), p. 201 40

Works provided the Registrar of the Waiariki District Native Land Court with plans of the Department’s proposed acquisition of land for the Maraetai scheme, asking him to distribute this to the principal owners of the block.108 Upon receiving this the owners unsurprisingly felt a sense of grievance. The owners questioned why 2,000 acres of potential farming land had not been acquired at Karapiro and claimed that they would need as much of Pouakani land as possible to settle their people. The Registrar recognised the unfair conditions imposed on the owners and recorded that ‘if the better parts are taken it will not assist or encourage them.’ A meeting was eventually arranged between representatives of the relevant departments associated with Pouakani and the Maraetai scheme in August 1947 to finally ascertain what the State Hydro-Electric Department actually needed. Judge Harvey felt that the Department’s attempts to ‘define the area required was a haphazard one in which a necessity for economy (real or imagined) was allowed to transcend Maori rights’.109 The discussions revealed that considerably less land would be permanently needed by the Department than it had previously proposed. According to Harvey’s report of this meeting, a Native Department representative suggested the ‘large area required only for construction work accommodation (workshops and temporary dwellings) should be leased to the Hydro-Electric Department for say 15 to 20 years with a right to that Department to remove any buildings or erections at any time up to twelve months after the expiry of the term’.110 Works officials argued that some of the buildings could become permanent, even though an inspection by Native Department officials had concluded otherwise. The proposal of lease tenure for the township subsequently ‘was not received with the respect it deserved’ by the Works representatives.

Yet the gathering did provide Native Department officers the opportunity to emphasise the unique case of Pouakani and how ‘the Maori owners of this land were not in the same position as the owners of ordinary Native land.’ Judge Harvey highlighted that Pouakani had been granted to Wairarapa Maori in ‘good spirit’ but:

108 Registrar, Waiariki Native Land Court, Rotorua to Head Office, 5 June 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 109 Judge Harvey to The Under Secretary, Native Department, 12 September 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 41

[t]he Maori people did not apparently realise that they were getting a block of land that would be worthless to them for fifty years on account of lack of access and it is I think a matter for the conscience of the Crown that upon the land becoming usable by the owners some of its servants should be endeavouring to take the maximum area that can be taken without payment of compensation, i.e. by offsetting betterment against the area taken under a law that was not in force when the block was exchanged between the Maoris and the Crown.111

The judge continued to argue that as much of Pouakani was needed as possible due to ‘the shortage of land in the Wairarapa for settling the young people.’ Harvey envisioned the block as absorbing the ‘general exodus from this district.’112

The meeting with the Hydro officials confirmed that at least 700 of the 2,500 acres initially required by that Department would not be needed. After enduring a frustrating period of being denied any useful collaboration from Works, the Native Department was now moving to ensure that the owners’ interests were taken into account. Harvey felt suspicious about Pouakani, believing that ‘it was looked upon by certain Government Departments as derelict and a plum to be plucked by any one of them that could show the ability to put it to good use.’113 The Native Department enjoyed, of course, the strong support of the Prime Minister who continued to show a keen interest in the situation of the Wairarapa owners. A group of owners’ representatives met Fraser and other key Governmental officials in Wellington in October 1947 to discuss the farmland development of Pouakani and the effects of the hydro operations. George Te Whaiti, an owner who had inspected the block, expressed the concerns of all owners and the minutes record that:

They fully realised that the hydroelectric scheme at Maraetai was the factor which had brought Pouakani into the limelight. However the Maori people had

110 Judge Harvey to The Under Secretary, Native Department, 12 September 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 111 Judge Harvey to The Under Secretary, Native Department, 12 September 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 112 Notes of Meeting at Greytown, 19 September 1947, AAMK 869/917a, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 42

not been consulted before the Public Works people went on to the land. At the time of his inspection the Public Works Department had only utilised a few acres of land but later on it rose from 500 acres till now it was over 2000 acres. Mr. Te Whaiti contended that the Public Works had picked out the “fat of Pouakani”. All the land that has been taken is as flat as a table. The land left for the Maoris to develop is 200 to 300 feet above the plateau. It is all pumice and water will have to be pumped up several hundred feet to supply the area.114

Mr Te Whaiti requested that a section of land be set aside adjacent to the township as a reserve for the Maori owners. The Prime Minister recognised the disadvantages that the owners had suffered at the hands of the Works Department, realising that ‘the easiest worked and most accessible portions of the block’ were to be taken. Yet, most significantly, Fraser ‘did not think that any more land than was absolutely necessary should be taken and if it were found that the land taken was more than was required for the permanent population the area should be returned to the Maori people.’ The Prime Minister reassured the owners’ representatives that they would be consulted in all matters pertaining to Pouakani and that none of it would be taken away from them than was ‘absolutely essential’.

The outcome of this meeting held significant implications for the future development of the Mangakino township. The Prime Minister’s remarks disturbed the Works Department. Following the meeting, a revised plan was drawn which now only required 1427 acres in addition to the land that would be submerged by Lake Maraetai.115 This included 636 acres for the Mangakino village. Yet the Under Secretary of Public Works, who was present at the meeting, realised that the township would not be ‘absolutely essential’ to the operations of the Maraetai, Whakamaru and Waipapa power stations once these had been completed and was thus in jeopardy of being returned to the owners in compliance with the Prime Minister’s wishes. The Works official felt that such

113 Judge Harvey to Registrar, The Native Department, 15 November 1955, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 114 Notes of representations made to the Rt. Hon. Native Minister (Mr. P. Fraser) at Parliament Buildings, Wellington, Friday 17 October 1947, AAMK 869/917a, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 115 Under Secretary, Public Works Department to The Minister of Works, 28 October 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 43 a move would prove completely unsatisfactory from the Crown’s perspective. The Department had spent massive sums of money running into hundreds of thousands of pounds116 on buildings, and services such as sewerage, water supply, roading, telephone lines and electric power. The official believed that these ‘may be a valuable asset “in situ” but will probably be a liability if they have to be removed and the land handed back. Generally speaking it is unsound to incur such heavy expenditure on land which is not owned by the Crown.’117 It would have, then, proved uneconomical for the Works Department not to acquire the land of the township considering the investment it had made and it was in the Crown’s best interests that the township be maintained in some capacity after the schemes had been completed. The Under Secretary of Works also believed that there was now no point in removing the township and returning the land to the owners as it would ‘be badly damaged and partially destroyed from a farming point of view. The cost of restoration would be heavy, probably far more than the value of the land.’118 The priority of Works officials in minimising costs is again evident.

The Works Department thus found itself in a predicament. Whilst it had invested large sums of money in establishing Mangakino, the village was only required for construction purposes and not necessarily needed permanently by the State Hydro-Electric Department. It faced the possibility of substantial costs if it could not obtain the freehold of the township and had to remove the improvements it had effected. Such a scenario seemed possible as the Department could no longer acquire the land simply on the basis of protecting its capital outlay. This was realised when the Prime Minister requested a plan from the Minister of Works on 7 December that set out the areas specifically required both for permanent and temporary purposes. A plan was provided by the Under Secretary of Works requesting a total of 967 acres to be taken permanently and 850 acres temporarily, the latter primarily consisting of the township (814 acres).119

116 Over £700,000 by September 1948, Under Secretary, Public Works Department to The Minister of Works, September 1948, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 117 Under Secretary, Public Works Department to The Minister of Works, 28 October 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 118 Under Secretary, Public Works Department to The Minister of Works, 28 October 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 119 Under Secretary, Public Works Department to The Minister of Works, 16 December 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 44

Negotiations continued into 1948 to finalise the areas required for the Maraetai station.120 As the township would still be required by the Works Department for the construction of the three local schemes, at least for another fifteen years according to an estimate by the Under Secretary,121 proposals of leasehold now dominated the discussions of terms of tenure. The Works Department was now seeking a leasehold estate of 42 years for the township of 643 acres 3 roods 25 perches.122 Whilst it considered this ‘reasonable’, the Department for Maori Affairs requested that this be re-submitted on the ‘basis of a 21- year term with provisions in the leases for termination at an earlier date if and as soon as the state of construction of the hydroelectric development schemes in the vicinity permits the closing of the township as a hydroelectric construction town.’123 As the Ministry of Works expected to have completed the schemes in the early 1960s, Maori Affairs officials saw no grounds in its proposal of leasehold to expire in 1990. It was obvious that the Works Department wished to retain a lease over the township for as long as it considered it possible that it might receive benefit from its capital assets invested. Maori Affairs officials, alternatively, wanted the township area returned to the owners as soon as work on the schemes had been completed. They were in agreement with the Works Department, however, that it have the right to remove improvements for five years after the town ceased to be used for construction purposes, or after a term of 21 years, whichever was the earlier. It was recognised that the disposal and removal of the various buildings would be a considerable task and possibly take many years.

These arrangements provided the basis for the eventual terms of temporary acquisition of lands approved by Cabinet in relation to the development of water power on the Waikato River. A leasehold estate and certain easements totalling an area of 683 acres 1 rood 15 perches was taken by proclamation dated 19 October 1949 for the purposes of

120 Under Secretary, Public Works Department to Land Purchase Officer, Public Works Department, Auckland, 3 February 1948, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 121 Under Secretary, Public Works Department to The Minister of Works, 28 October 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 122 Acting Commissioner of Works to The Under Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 9 September 1948, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 123 Acting Commissioner of Works to The Minister of Works, 24 September 1948, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 45 the Mangakino township.124 At the same time an area of 787 acres 1 rood 4 perches was permanently taken as Crown land. The terms of the lease stipulated that it would expire on 1 October 1969 or six months after the day on which the last of the Maraetai, Whakamaru or Waipapa stations was completed, whatever was the earlier. The term was to commence as of the date that the proclamation took effect. The terms of the lease further stipulated that upon expiry, the Ministry of Works as lessee ‘shall as quickly as possible clear the land of all buildings and structures which [it] proposes to remove and complete such restoration work upon the land as [it] may think fit’.125 The lessor was ‘every person from whom any right is taken by this proclamation’.126 Although Works and Maori Affairs’ officials negotiated the terms of the lease, the degree of consultation between the latter and owners’ representatives is unclear.

The Ministry of Works had acquired substantially less land than its officials had hoped for since they had entered Pouakani. Furthermore, it could only gain a leasehold estate of the Mangakino township, the area to be eventually returned to the owners. Whereas the owners had been originally informed that over 2,000 acres might be taken by the Works Department, in only permanently losing less than half this amount, the owners would have felt some sense of relief. They had suffered unfairly at the hands of Works officials who had not provided notice of entry, nor sought their consent for the scheme, or even offered any degree of consultation until the Prime Minister’s intervention. Yet by the time that Fraser and the Native Department began moving to curb the acquisition designs of the Works Department, a sprawling settlement had already been established at Pouakani and was continuing to grow. The concessions obtained by the Department of Maori Affairs in preventing the Works’ acquisition of the freehold of the township, although made in the best interests of the owners, merely added to the town’s uncertain prospects. It was difficult to foresee how, and to what extent if so, ‘the fat of Pouakani’ would now benefit the owners with this urban structure imposed on it.

124 New Zealand Gazette, 27 October 1949, p. 2492 125 New Zealand Gazette, 27 October 1949, p. 2491 126 New Zealand Gazette, 27 October 1949, p. 2491 46

3.3. The transfer of Mangakino to the owners A journalist reported in 1951 that Mangakino was the ‘Boom Town of the Waikato’.127 The township had rapidly expanded from 175 completed houses in May 1947 compared to over 950 a mere four years later. The town’s population as of this year stood at 4,300.128 The prospect of continuous employment and reasonable living conditions attracted a higher proportion of married men than had worked on previous schemes, lowering annual labour turnover drastically from the customary three-quarters of the scheme work force to only one-quarter.129 The town thus had a young population and a high birth rate causing the opening of a maternity hospital and establishment of a district high school in 1948. The town had also acquired recreational and civic facilities that were second to none of any other community its own size. It was endowed with a cinema, concert hall, library, gymnasium and sports grounds, making it ‘the largest Public Works town in New Zealand.’130

Despite this impressive picture, many residents rightly felt concerned about the community’s long-term viability. As early as 1951, representatives of various bodies affiliated with the growing village formed the Mangakino Development Association in order ‘to maintain the very modern and well equipped township of Mangakino as a permanent settlement.’131 It was obvious that some sections of the community wished to remain at the then vibrant township once construction of the three power stations had been completed. The Association sought resolution of the two main impediments to this goal: land tenure for permanent residency and the retention of present buildings and services. Both issues were interrelated and could only be settled together. The terms of the lease granted to the Ministry of Works specified that it could ‘assign, transfer, underlet,

127 C. Herbert, ‘Mangakino: Boom Town of the Waikato’, New Zealand Geographical Society Record, No. 12 (July- December 1951), p. 1 128 ‘Appendices to the Ministry of Works Statement, 1951: Appendix C: Annual Report on Public Works By the Engineer-in-Chief’, AJHR, 1951, II: D-1, p. 18 129 J. Martin (ed.), People, Politics and Power Stations: Electric Power Generation in New Zealand, 1880-1990 (Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 1991), p. 152 130 Town and Country Planning Branch, Ministry of Works, ‘Mangakino and District: A Report supplementing and bringing up to date a previous survey of Mangakino and district compiled by the Town and Country Planning Branch in 1955’, February 1961, p. 11, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 131 Chairman, Mangakino Development Association to The Registrar, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 29 November 1951, BBFZ 4942/785b 2601 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 47 mortgage or otherwise part with the possession of any part of the said land but only that the whole of the lands shall be available’ to the owners upon expiry.132 Thus the Ministry of Works was able to sublet shop sites, business premises and other areas to business people but only up until the expiry of its lease. This was not an ideal situation for those people now seeking to reside permanently in Mangakino. Nor could they afford to speculate as to what might occur once the Works’ lease expired and the area was returned to the owners. It was hardly worth trying to arrange terms of tenure with the owners if the Works Department was going to take its buildings and other improvements at the end of its lease, effectively closing down the township. So, the Chairman of the Development Association wrote to the Waiariki Native Land Court in November 1951, hoping that the owners would agree to:

1. Provide a long term renewable lease or other suitable tenure for a small area outside the township to establish immediate factory sites for light industry. 2. Revise the present lease arrangements with the Ministry of Works to enable suitable tenure to be secured by householders, businessmen, trades men and others desiring permanent occupation of premises in the township, as and when the Department no longer requires such premises and land, and assuming that the Department will be empowered to dispose of such premises instead of removing them as provided for in the present lease.133

This request was met with utter disbelief by the Under Secretary of Maori Affairs. The taking of a leasehold estate for the township, he felt, was only done after much consideration as the area ‘occupies the best part of the Pouakani block.’134 Wairarapa Maori needed all the land they could get due to the fact that they essentially owed no other farming land other than Pouakani ‘and they feel,’ the official continued, ‘with some reason I think, that having been previously pushed around the country to fit the Crown’s

132 New Zealand Gazette, 27 October 1949, p. 2491 133 Chairman, Mangakino Development Association to The Registrar, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 29 November 1951, BBFZ 4942/785b 2601 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 134 Under Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 3 January 1952, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 48 convenience, it would be rather hard now if the Crown takes from them anything more than what is absolutely necessary.’ The Under Secretary did not believe that a permanent town on similar scale could be sustained after the schemes were completed and that talks would have to take place with the owners concerning tenure but he was ‘convinced that they would not be prepared to enter into negotiations on the matter.’135

The Department of Maori Affairs felt more concerned at this stage about the delays in assessment of compensation for the freehold and leasehold estate acquired by Works for the schemes. The Minister of Works was required to apply to the Maori Land Court for assessment of compensation yet unlike local authorities, which had to apply for local works within six months of proclamation, the Minister could apply at any time. ‘This is most unfair’, the Under Secretary wrote to the Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘to the former owners of any land taken. Having lost their land they must wait indefinitely for payment of compensation.’136 Although the Commissioner of Works had made an application for assessment in December 1949,137 the application was not finally settled until six years later as the Ministry of Works barely took further action on the matter in that time. The Under Secretary of Maori Affairs felt frustrated by Works’ ‘unconscionable delay in prosecuting the application’.138 Whilst Works gained revenue from its subleases, the owners were forced to wait for several years before they received any compensation. On 23 December 1955 the Native Land Court finally delivered a decision, Judge Harvey agreeing with Works’ application that 50 percent ‘of the amount found to be payable as gross compensation should be offset as betterment in favour of the Crown.’139 He

135 Under Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 3 January 1952, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 136 Under Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 9 April 1953, MA W2490 38/1/1, pt. 1, Assessment of Compensation for Maori Land, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 137 Commissioner of Works to The Registrar, Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 22 December 1949, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 138 Under Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs to The Commissioner of Works, 12 August 1952, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 139 Rotorua Minute Book 102-189, Waiariki Maori Land Court Rotorua. See H. McCracken, ‘The Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation, Pouakani No. 2 Trust and the Crown, 1896-1990s’, pp. 74-84 for details of the application for compensation and Court’s hearings. 49 approved £510 payable for the freehold taken and a rental of £34 per annum payable half yearly in advance for the leasehold estate and easement over land.140

The Under Secretary of Maori Affairs’ earlier response to the Development Association’s proposals that it would be difficult to permanently sustain Mangakino is pertinent. The recognition that some form of industry would be needed in Mangakino to provide employment to those wanting to remain in the township after Works had completed the schemes was evident even as the township was still experiencing spectacular growth. Since Mangakino was established, Works had employed a decisive majority of its available labour. For 1951, 1956 and 1960, the Ministry of Works employed respectively for those years 93, 84.4 and 90.4 percents of the township’s total working populations.141 It was clear that once Works had withdrawn from the area an employment vacuum would need to be filled. It was expected that once construction of the schemes had been completed ‘only a handful of people will be required to operate and maintain the hydro works.’142 The considerable amount of labour that had descended on Mangakino simply would not be needed after this and workers would either have to leave or seek alternative means of employment in or near the township if they wished to remain. Yet employment was beginning to be a problem for certain groupings of the township long before the schemes had neared completion. There was limited opportunities for female labour and young people just leaving school and having to compete with older males for jobs. Mangakino businessmen felt that something needed to be done quickly before the problem of employment for younger people became a ‘major one’.143 This was to be a mere warning of difficulties to come.

140 Rotorua Minute Book 102-189, Waiariki Maori Land Court Rotorua. 141 Town and Country Planning Branch, Ministry of Works, ‘Mangakino and District: A Report supplementing and bringing up to date a previous survey of Mangakino and district compiled by the Town and Country Planning Branch in 1955’, February 1961, p. 11, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 142 Town and Country Planning Branch, Ministry of Works, ‘Mangakino and District: A Report supplementing and bringing up to date a previous survey of Mangakino and district compiled by the Town and Country Planning Branch in 1955’, February 1961, p. 1, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 143 Convenor, Progress Committee, Mangakino Businessmen’s Association to The Registrar, Waiariki District Native Land Court, Rotorua, 30 October 1951, BBFZ 4942/785b 2601 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 50

Those parties interested in seeing Mangakino become a permanent township felt that this would be of great benefit to the local Maori. The Mangakino Development Association calculated that 25 percent of the township was made up of Maori and believed that ‘no doubt others would settle here if the establishment could be achieved.’144 Later estimates agreed that approximately 25 percent of the Ministry of Works employees at Mangakino were Maori.145 A survey undertaken in 1959 by Colonel Arapeta Awatere concluded that the Maori employees at Mangakino were more likely to remain in the township than were European employees after the schemes had been completed.146 It was anticipated that quite a considerable number of people would remain in the township as they did not wish to give up their relatively inexpensive accommodation and send their children to other schools. A pool of local labour would thus be readily available.147 Many of the Works houses were rent free so that employees not only had a job to go to but also a house with no liability, hence the rapid rise in population growth.148

Although an exact figure cannot be arrived at, it appears that extremely few of the Maori Works employees at Mangakino would have been owners or descendants of owners. Rather, these were more likely to have been those Maori transferred from Karapiro or that were already living in the Waikato.149 Most of the Pouakani owners remained resident in the Wairarapa Valley over two hundred miles to the south. If Awatere had found the Maori Works employees already at Mangakino less willing to move from the township, the owners of the block had even further reason not to move there. To permanently shift as far north as Mangakino would have been both daunting and challenging. ‘The settlement of Pouakani’, Judge Harvey wrote in 1947, involves a

144 Chairman, Mangakino Development Association to The Registrar, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 29 November 1951, BBFZ 4942/785b 2601 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 145 Beere and Riddiford, Barristers and Solicitors to The Department of Maori Affairs, 31 May 1960, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 146 Town and Country Planning Branch, Ministry of Works, ‘Mangakino and District: A Report supplementing and bringing up to date a previous survey of Mangakino and district compiled by the Town and Country Planning Branch in 1955’, February 1961, p. 20, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 147 Wairarapa Times-Age, 24 January 1961 148 Town and Country Planning Branch, Ministry of Works, ‘Mangakino and District: A Report supplementing and bringing up to date a previous survey of Mangakino and district compiled by the Town and Country Planning Branch in 1955’, February 1961, p. 11, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 51

“Heke” or migration by the section which decides to move. They must pull up their Wairarapa roots and plant them afresh in the new land.’150 Having to travel so far away from friends, family and home was certainly an unattractive option. By 1959 only some 26 owners had moved on to Pouakani but this had been to work the farms of the new development scheme administered by the Department of Maori Affairs.151 Whilst it seems that several of the farmers left their leased properties, preferring the higher wages of the Works Department, ‘the part played by the Maori settlers in developing the locality was’, according to one researcher, ‘relatively low key.’152 Only a very few Wairarapa families made the move to the actual township of Mangakino during the peak of the construction schemes yet some of their descendants, born and raised at the township, remain there today.153 A ‘general exodus’ of Wairarapa Maori to Pouakani clearly did not eventuate. It is certain that, discounting the settlers’ families, only a limited number of owners would have benefited from the employment opportunities offered by Mangakino during the construction of the hydroelectric schemes.

Mangakino’s ‘semi-permanent’ status was never shown more clearly than when each of these neared completion. Maraetai was completed in 1953 and Whakamaru three years later. In addition to Waipapa, though, other station projects were planned or commenced in the vicinity and workers based at Mangakino were transported to these. Yet many residents still hoped to secure some clarification from the owners and the Ministry of Works as to the future of the township. During the Court’s hearings for assessment of compensation, Judge Harvey became increasingly concerned about what would happen to the town once the Works’ lease had expired. Works’ representatives informed him that whilst the taking of a leasehold served the interests of the owners and proved sound in theory, the impracticalities of this were now becoming obvious. Many permanent buildings had been erected such as schools, a hospital, shops and residences and Works

149 C. Hasman, Mangakino In Perspective, 1945-1965: The Story of A Hydro-Town (Turangi: Tongariro Welfare Association, 1976), p. 21 150 Judge Harvey to The Under Secretary, Native Department, 12 September 1947, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 151 Beere and Riddiford, Barristers and Solicitors to The Assistant Surveyor-General, Lands and Survey Department, 22 July 1959, ABWN 6095/5021 25/1589, Whakamaru, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 152 B. D. Coburn, ‘Pouakani: People, Power and Place’ (A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography at Massey University, 1993), p. 76 153 Personal communication with Pouakani Marae Committee Chairperson, 5 October 2002, Mangakino 52 faced a time-consuming and expensive process in having to move these and other amenities. As Public Works officials had argued when trying to obtain the freehold of the township during the late 1940s, it was put to Judge Harvey that it would not prove economical for the Government to have to move these structures. Realising this, Harvey felt that:

if the Maori owners of Pouakani could so organise the area comprising the township that they could offer security of tenure to both the tradesmen and the Government, there would be a possibility amounting to almost a certainty that Mangakino could become a permanent town and that the owners could be assured for all time of revenue from the land upon the basis of rentals paid for commercial and industrial sites, together with residential sites needed to go with them.154

Whilst the judge thought that the owners may receive financial benefits from a permanent township, he felt concerned as to what the Ministry of Works would do once the lease had expired and no arrangements had been reached concerning the settlement. He expressed his concerns to a body of owners’ representatives, the Pouakani Advisory Committee, established to consult with the Department of Maori Affairs on behalf of the owners regarding matters relating to the farming development scheme. Harvey informed the Committee in September 1955 that there was no guarantee that Works would remove its buildings and amenities or sell them to the owners at demolition values upon expiry of its lease. As Works had made a substantial investment in Mangakino, Harvey warned the owners that ‘if pushed too hard it would be forced to take the land and pay full compensation for it.’155 This compensation, he stated, would be the amount of unimproved value, assessed as being £1,370.156 The ‘fat of Pouakani’ would thus be lost to the owners forever. On the other hand, as Harvey pointed out to the owners, if they could make arrangements confirming Mangakino as a permanent township, they would ‘ensure for

154 Judge Harvey to The Registrar, Waiariki District Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 15 November 1955, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 155 Judge Harvey to The Registrar, Waiariki District Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 15 November 1955, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 156 Commissioner of Works to Beere and Riddiford, Barristers and Solicitors, 27 September 1957, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 3, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 53 themselves a considerable permanent ground rent for their land.’157 The judge felt that the best way for the owners to ensure suitable terms of tenure for those business people wanting to remain was to incorporate the area and offer ‘Glasgow leases’ of perpetual right of renewal where the owners would retain the land and the lessees own the buildings and improvements.

A meeting of the owners in February 1956 discussed the possibility of establishing Mangakino on a permanent basis. It was put to the owners that the town would begin shrinking over the next several years as construction drew towards an end. If a population of 2,000 remained, it was considered that the present shopping centre and 500 house sites would be required whilst the owners would receive ‘an annual income of £7,000 or £8,000, an income that was never contemplated.’158 The owners were told that they should not ‘lose the prospect of getting a fairly good annual income from the township’ as businesses would move to Crown sections at Whakamaru if proper terms could not be arranged. A Works representative informed the owners that people were inquiring as to whether they could settle at Whakamaru as they could not gain permanent tenure at Mangakino. He argued that ‘it would not be in the interests of the owners or the Crown to remove all the improvements’ from the township. George Te Whaiti believed that it was the owners who had been asked to make a sacrifice yet the Works official responded that the value of the land increased considerably due to Works’ improvements. He felt that 90 percent of the value of the land was caused by the Crown’s expenditure while the remaining ten percent was the unimproved value of the land provided by the owners. The Works representative thought ‘it would be wasteful to take away the improvements’ and as these had been effected by the Crown, it should receive 50 percent of the rentals of these for the first 21 years of any arrangement made with the owners.159 Following that, the owners would receive all rentals. The meeting closed with a resolution that owners’ representatives consider the advantages and disadvantages of incorporation to manage the township, to be reported upon at the next meeting in April.

157 Judge Harvey to The Registrar, Waiariki District Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 15 November 1955, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 158 ‘Pouakani Meeting, 29 February 1956’, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 54

The owners of the area of land comprising Mangakino were thus confronted with options essentially imposed upon them by circumstances created by the Crown. The Pouakani block was now being developed for farming and the township area not only denied the owners potentially valuable grazing land but, as the Under Secretary of Maori Affairs claimed in 1952, ‘the best part’. The owners were receiving no real benefits from the township at all, their involvement with Pouakani mainly limited to the dairy farms of which there was no more than thirty. The owners understandably did not wish to sell the township and lose any more land than they already had, so the fact that the value of the township site had increased considerably did not amount to much to them at this stage. Yet the Crown was receiving revenue from its subleases whilst the benefits from the Maraetai station based on the Pouakani block would obviously provide it with long term substantial returns once it was in operation. The compensation awarded to the owners by the Maori Land Court in 1955 was meagre in comparison.

Pressure, either directly or indirectly applied, would have been felt by the owners in ensuring that Mangakino become permanent. Although the possible benefits of a permanent township were made clear to the owners, it was also apparent that it was in Works’ interests that this occurred, even more so than in the case of the owners. The Commissioner of Works wrote to the owners’ legal representatives in September 1957 claiming that ‘it is at least as much in the interests of the Maoris as of the Crown to have Mangakino Township placed on a permanent basis’.160 Such a statement is not compatible with the facts and the potential losses faced by each party if this did not happen. The Ministry of Works had buildings at Mangakino valued in 1956 at £1,500,000 which it somehow had to dispose of. It was, as the Secretary of Maori Affairs reported to the Minister,

anticipated that a much better return for such disposition could be obtained if the purchasers could acquire suitable tenure of the sites upon which the buildings

159 ‘Pouakani Meeting, 29 February 1956’, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 160 Commissioner of Works to Beere and Riddiford, Barristers and Solicitors, 27 September 1957, T 1/62/55, pt. 3, Expenditure: Public Works, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 55

stand, so as to avoid the necessity of shifting those buildings which are of a substantial nature.161

The Works officials involved knew only too well what was at risk. The task of removing its buildings would prove extremely costly. The Commissioner of Works did not feel that further acquisition of the township under the Public Works Act was a viable option considering the history of the takings at Pouakani. Yet Works had to make sure that the Crown’s capital expenditure was protected as much as possible so to ‘enable it to get the greatest return for the buildings and other improvements when the hydroelectric schemes are completed’.162 This could only be obtained if the town was put on a permanent basis with security of land tenure so that there would be a market for the Crown to dispose of its buildings cost-effectively. As Wairarapa Maori had not provided the capital expenditure in developing the land, Works felt the owners had relatively little to lose if the township did not continue.163 The corollary of this, of course, was that Works did stand to lose, and quite significantly.

On 11 April 1956 another general meeting of owners was held to discuss the possibility of managing the township as an incorporated body. The Pouakani Advisory Committee concluded that the township should be maintained and that this be managed by an incorporation for the benefit of all owners. The Advisory Committee had decided that it would attempt to derive some form of advantage from the township which had so far proved of no gain to the great majority of owners. In making its recommendation, the Advisory Committee considered that this was the best way for the owners to exploit the situation. This situation was not of their doing but, rather, one that had evolved from the contradictory practices and policies of the Works Department. An opportunity had arisen whereby the owners of the land comprising Mangakino might finally receive some benefit from the township and the Advisory Committee proposed to seize that chance. Yet there still existed much difficulties to such a proposal, not least of all arranging terms of tenure

161 Secretary of Maori Affairs to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 19 April 1956, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 162 Commissioner of Works to Minister of Works, 3 May 1956, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 163 Commissioner of Works to Berre and Riddiford, Barristers and Solicitors, 11 October 1957, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 56 that would retain those businessmen and other workers wishing to remain in the township. The owners’ legal advisor recommended:

a lease where the rent is revised at short terms as money values change. The type of lease envisaged is that the lessee would own the buildings he erects, but the ground soil would belong and continue to belong to the Maoris. That does not restrict the owner of the ground soil to the amount of rent at the present valuation, but as the value of the town increases the value of the land will increase and result in a greater amount of rent.164

Such leases could be arranged once an agreement was reached with the Ministry of Works which could then dispose of its buildings by selling them to residents remaining in the township.

The owners approved of the Committee’s recommendations and an unanimous resolution was passed incorporating the owners under Part XXII of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 to manage the Mangakino township area comprising 683 acres 1 rood 15 perches.165 This resolution was confirmed by the Maori Land Court on 14 May 1956.166 The body corporate was to be called ‘The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporated’ and its principal objects included the preservation, development and extension of the township and its management for the financial benefit of the owners.167 A meeting of the incorporated owners in June elected the Incorporation’s first nine-member Committee of Management which was approved by the Court on 26 July, clearing the way for negotiations between the owners and the Ministry of Works over the return of the leasehold estate.168 The Ministry of Works had, of course, already begun discussions with owners’ representatives concerning the future of Mangakino but was now able to negotiate with a legally recognised entity for the official handover of the township. Before any

164 ‘Statement of Proceedings of Meeting of Assembled Owners, 11 April 1956’, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 165 ‘Resolution of Assembled Owners, Greytown, 11 April 1956’, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 166 ‘Extract from Tauranga Minute Book, 19-202, 14 May 1956’, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 3, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 167 ‘Incorporation of Proprietors of Pouakani (Wairarapa) Block with respect to Mangakino Township: Objects, 10 May 1956’, BBFZ 4942/805a 2614 (1), Township, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 168 New Zealand Herald, 27 July 1956 57 progress could be made, however, the Incorporation required special legislation to be able to:

grant perpetually renewable leases for appropriate terms with provision for revision of rentals at the end of suitable periods not greater than seven years either by public tender or private contract of residential, business or other sections in the said township.169

Under Section 235 (1) of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, Maori land could not be leased for a period exceeding fifty years.170 In order to provide permanent tenure for tenants, the Incorporation requested that it be exempted from these provisions and that the Committee of Management be empowered to permit perpetually renewable leases. The Secretary and Minister of Maori Affairs both agreed that the necessary legislation should be approved.171 This was included in the Maori Purposes Act 1956, releasing any leases granted by the Mangakino Township Incorporated from the limitations of Section 235.172

Negotiations between Works and the Incorporation continued throughout 1956 and 1957 as both parties attempted to arrive at a settlement that would prove mutually beneficial whist establishing Mangakino on a permanent and satisfactory basis. A set of general terms reached with owners’ representatives was approved by Cabinet in November 1957.173 These terms were essentially those that that were finally agreed to by the Crown and the Proprietors of the Mangakino Township on 2 June 1959. The main elements of the agreement included the Crown’s entitlement to land for public buildings and purposes without having to pay compensation; the Crown to leave all improvements in place; the Crown not being liable for any maintenance after the surrender of the lease; buildings to remain the property of the Crown unless sold; the Incorporation to grant a perpetually renewable lease to any purchaser of a Crown building; and the Incorporation

169 ‘Incorporation of Proprietors of Pouakani (Wairarapa) Block with respect to Mangakino Township: Objects, 10 May 1956’, BBFZ 4942/805a 2614 (1), Township, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 170 New Zealand Statutes, 1953, II: No. 94, p. 1177 171 Secretary, Department for Maori Affairs to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 30 April 1956, MA 1/1/81 5/5/125, pt. 2, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 172 New Zealand Statutes, 1956, I: No. 43, p. 238 173 Secretary of the Cabinet to The Minister of Works, 18 November 1957, T 1/62/55, pt. 3, Expenditure: Public Works, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 58 to pay the Crown £55,000 compensation for the value of improvements.174 The Crown would be paid by sharing a percentage of annual receipts from the rentals. This was to be 25 percent of the gross annual rent until the original Works lease expired, 35 percent for a term of five years after the termination of the lease and then 50 percent until the outstanding balance had been paid.175 The owners had the right to pay off the balance at any time.

The Ministry of Works perceived many benefits accruing for the owners from such a settlement. Secure tenure could be provided to those persons occupying sections whilst the lease to Works was still in being. The owners could now receive a proportion of the rentals and the township could be planned on a sound basis as the confusion of uncertain tenure would be avoided. With residents able to gain permanent tenure, there was also little chance that a township would develop at Whakamaru or anywhere else in the immediate vicinity that would compete with Mangakino for business. The benefits to be obtained by the owners, therefore, would come in the future and depend on the returns that the Incorporation could obtain from rentals. The benefits to the Crown from this agreement, on the other hand, were immediate and much more favourable. It had obtained freehold title to the land occupied by public buildings; it would continue to receive rental for some time for the amenities it constructed; it had three years after the termination of its lease to remove or sell its other buildings to remaining lessees, thus enabling it to realise a greater sum from the disposal of its assets; the security of permanent tenure meant that demand for its buildings in situ would be increased whilst it was resolved of liability to restore any damage to the land or pay compensation. Although the value of the compensation for its improvements of £55,000 represented a fraction of its capital outlay, Works had avoided the costs that it would have had to incur from having to remove its permanent buildings which were only considered an asset in their present position.

174 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Newsletter’, October 1990, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 175 ‘Mangakino Township Land Settlement with Maori Owners, 2 June 1959’, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 59

In 1959 construction was still continuing on Waipapa and other projects up-river and the Government decided to commence building a second station at Maraetai, further boosting the population of Mangakino to 6,400.176 The abrupt decision to halt this, though, due to costs in 1961, as well as the completion of the Waipapa and Ohakuri stations in that year, signalled the beginning of Works’ withdrawal from Mangakino. The township’s population of 5,300 in 1960 had dropped to 2,000 within three years as the hydroelectric schemes on the Waikato River wound down.177 The Crown had identified sites within the township to retain but those empty workers’ houses that could not be purchased were removed by Works and the township contracted, soon occupying only a part of its former area. The heyday of Mangakino had passed and on 31 March 1966 the Crown surrendered its lease.178

3.4. The Owners’ town As construction on the schemes drew towards an end, the Ministry of Works undertook a survey of Mangakino in February 1961 to ‘try and provide a basis on which reasonable assumptions can be put forward as to the future of the township.’179 The survey recognised that the township suffered from certain disadvantages ‘which do not indicate a favourable future for the town.’ It reported Mangakino’s relative isolation as a decisive factor. Unlike other nearby centres such as Taupo or Tokoroa, Mangakino was not on any of the major routes and nor was it close to a railhead, the nearest being at Tokoroa. Although the township had an available pool of labour and infrastructure to accommodate light or heavy manufacturing, the costs of transportation of production materials and its distance from consumer markets weighed heavily against it ever establishing a viable long term industry. The industry that had most chance of being based in the township was that of timber due to the extensive area of indigenous forest and scrub throughout the

176 J. Martin (ed.), People, Politics and Power Stations: Electric Power Generation in New Zealand, 1880-1990 (Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 1991), p. 153 177 J. Martin (ed.), People, Politics and Power Stations: Electric Power Generation in New Zealand, 1880-1990 (Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 1991), p. 153 178 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Newsletter’, October 1990, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 179 Town and Country Planning Branch, Ministry of Works, ‘Mangakino and District: A Report supplementing and bringing up to date a previous survey of Mangakino and district compiled by the Town and Country Planning Branch in 60 district. Again, however, the issue of isolation and the fact that timber industries had already been established close by at Kinleith which had access to major communication networks made this possibility remote.180 Although the necessity of quality roads for the hydroelectric schemes had made the Pouakani block easily accessible, Mangakino remained relatively isolated from the major routes in the central North Island.

The Works’ report stated that ‘no-one seems eager to invest money in the future of Mangakino’ and that it would only probably remain as a servicing centre for the local agricultural community. Even then it could only probably expect to service those farms in or immediately adjacent to Pouakani. Those farmers south of Whakamaru were more likely to go to Taupo which, Works’ planners thought, would develop a higher quality consumer market. Based on the assumption that Mangakino would only become a servicing centre with no industry, Works calculated that its population would settle to around 1,000. The report concluded that:

Once all hydro-construction is completed, unless there is alternative work, most of the working population will be forced to move away to other centres. Mangakino would then become the servicing centre for the surrounding agricultural community. The population would fall back to a fraction of the present figure, the town’s function changing accordingly.181

The report cast a bleak outlook for Mangakino. Yet, it claimed that the ‘settlement with the Maoris may, however, have come too late to enable private enterprise to reap the full benefits from the existing assets. Also, as yet, the Maori owners have shown little enthusiasm to “sell” the town.’182 This seemed to be an attempt by Works to direct some

1955’, February 1961, p. 1, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 180 Town and Country Planning Branch, Ministry of Works, ‘Mangakino and District: A Report supplementing and bringing up to date a previous survey of Mangakino and district compiled by the Town and Country Planning Branch in 1955’, February 1961, p. 8, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 181 Town and Country Planning Branch, Ministry of Works, ‘Mangakino and District: A Report supplementing and bringing up to date a previous survey of Mangakino and district compiled by the Town and Country Planning Branch in 1955’, February 1961, p. 21, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 182 Town and Country Planning Branch, Ministry of Works, ‘Mangakino and District: A Report supplementing and bringing up to date a previous survey of Mangakino and district compiled by the Town and Country Planning Branch in 61 of the responsibility for such a discouraging forecast on to the owners. The report provided no evidence as to how the timing of the settlement negatively affected Mangakino’s development. It is further difficult to see the merits of this statement when the Government commenced work on Maraetai II in the same year as the settlement, increasing the population and activity at Mangakino to its peak. Rather, the critical factors that would prove to be an impediment to Mangakino’s growth after work on the hydro stations had finished were, as the report pointed out, its isolation and that centres based on the only industry likely to be established there had already been set up nearby. These factors would have been realised by Works officials in the mid-1950s when discussions were taking place over maintaining the township. However, as the report recognised: ‘The Government has invested considerable capital in Mangakino and it naturally does not wish to see such an investment wasted.’183 A meeting of the Maori Employment Committee, including the Secretary of Maori Affairs, held in November 1961 considered the report. The minutes of the meeting record that ‘[t]he general feeling was that Mangakino was a “ghost” town and little could be done.’184

Actual developments at Mangakino provided support for the report’s forlorn prognosis. The Incorporation’s Committee of Management had been seeking businesses that might be interested in establishing industry in the township but had found none.185 Furthermore, those problems that had been identified in the early 1950s concerning the employment of females and young male labour had by the end of the decade become significant. Unemployment of young people at Mangakino, both Maori and Pakeha, had become especially rife. As Works did not accept anyone under the age of 18 for training on earthwork machines and preferred older males for the often heavy and dangerous

1955’, February 1961, p. 14, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 183 Town and Country Planning Branch, Ministry of Works, ‘Mangakino and District: A Report supplementing and bringing up to date a previous survey of Mangakino and district compiled by the Town and Country Planning Branch in 1955’, February 1961, p. 1, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 184 ‘Maori Employment Committee: Minutes of Meeting held on Thursday, 16 November 1961, in the Office of the Secretary of Maori Affairs’, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 185 ‘Minutes of A Meeting of the Committee of Management of Mangakino Township (Inc.) held in The Secretary’s Office, Monday 8 October 1962’, MS-Papers-6571-188, Pouakani: Administrative Papers, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 62 construction work, those teenagers leaving school from the age of 15 found it difficult to obtain employment in the township.186 Maori social workers in Mangakino felt concerned by the numbers of young in the township that could not find jobs and the fact that there was little alternative to work on the hydro schemes. Colonel Awatere, a welfare officer who inspected the looming crisis at Mangakino, believed that the higher academic achievers leaving school generally were able to find work as most of them moved to larger centres where there were more opportunities.187 Awatere believed that the lower academic group, however, was more likely to stay in Mangakino and it was with this section that problems developed. He stated the difficulties confronting the township thus:

It is clear to say that there are two problems in Mangakino; that is to say an immediate problem, to find work for those unemployed now, and the other is the long term problem of introducing some industry into the place.188

Although only a fraction of the Mangakino residents may have been owners, the township’s difficulties were obviously of much concern to the Committee of Management. Following the agreement reached with the Crown in June 1959, the Incorporation quickly began receiving offers to take up perpetually renewable leases from commercial firms looking to secure their investments.189 By the time the Crown had surrendered its lease, the town had been fully developed and a process of subdivision of individual titles for residential and commercial sections was being undertaken. The values of the sections were assessed for the purpose of setting the ground rentals for the first terms of the lease. This was to be fixed at five percent of the current unimproved valuation.190 Following the expiry of the first term and at each subsequent renewal, the rental was to be reassessed on the then five percent unimproved value. The Ministry of Works began selling off its houses in the early 1960s, the buyers then receiving perpetual leases and owning the

186 C. Hasman, Mangakino In Perspective, 1945-1965: The Story of A Hydro-Town (Turangi: Tongariro Welfare Association, 1976), p. 52 187 Colonel Arapeta Awatere to The Hon. R. Boord, Minister of Customs and Broadcasting, 1 July 1959, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 188 Colonel Arapeta Awatere to The Hon. R. Boord, Minister of Customs and Broadcasting, 1 July 1959, MA 1/1/309 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris: Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 189 Waikato Times, 13 September 1959 190 ‘Mangakino Township Land Settlement with Maori Owners, 2 June 1959’, BAPP 5113 855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power Schemes/Project Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 63 buildings and any improvements effected. Houses offering prime locations in the township with views overlooking the artificially created Lake Maraetai began to be auctioned by Works in December 1962, the buyers’ rentals being set at £20.0.0 per annum.191 These were to be the highest rentals set at this time, however.

One of the original objectives of the Incorporation decided by the Committee of Management when established in 1956 was that it would grant perpetually renewable leases with rental reviews ‘not greater than seven years’.192 The Committee believed that this would offer lessees sufficient security of tenure whilst providing the owners of the land with adequate terms of revaluation of their properties so that rentals could be adjusted accordingly. However, one of the conditions of the agreement with the Crown in 1959 was that the Committee offer leases with initial terms of 14 years of five percent of the unimproved value.193 This was recorded in the Incorporation’s amended objects outlined in March 1960:

To grant perpetually renewable leases for appropriate terms with provision for revision of rentals at the end of suitable periods not greater than fourteen years either by public tender or private contract of residential business or other sections in the said township.194

The change in length of term was double that which the Committee of Management had originally envisioned. Whereas the owners thought that a maximum term of seven years of rental review would be reasonable when they decided to incorporate, negotiations with the Crown over the handover of the township had resulted in this being lifted and the setting of 14 years as the highest limit before a review of rental could take place. The original leases granted by the Committee thus contained the provision of 14 year terms of rent review. The Incorporation’s legal representative later claimed that this change in terms was arranged as part of the agreement with the Ministry of Works ‘so that there would be

191 ‘Minutes of A Meeting of the Committee of Management of Mangakino Township (Inc.) held in The Secretary’s Office, Friday 21 December 1962’, MS-Papers-6571-188, Pouakani: Administrative Papers, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 192 ‘Incorporation of Proprietors of Pouakani (Wairarapa) Block with respect to Mangakino Township: Objects, 10 May 1956’, BBFZ 4942/805a 2614 (1), Township, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 193 Wairarapa Times-Age, 13 August 1959 194 Rotorua Minute Book, 112/119, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 64 a market for the houses which the Crown had at its disposal.’195 Prospective lessees would obviously be more interested in entering leases the longer the term that rent was fixed before review. It is clear, then, that Works required a change to the Incorporation’s initial proposed terms of lease so that the greater security of longer terms increased the demand for its houses. It is impossible to calculate accurately how many more people decided to purchase houses at Mangakino in the early 1960s, motivated by leases rent-reviewable every 14 years rather than seven, so as to determine how the owners may have benefited from such a decision. Yet what is certain is that the longer term of lease before rent review, insisted on by the Crown, further contributed to the financial difficulties that the owners would experience in managing the township.

The Incorporation had arranged 680 leases within the Mangakino township by 1975.196 The first of those commercial and residential leases granted during the early 1960s came up for rental review in the mid-1970s. The revaluation of these properties 14 years after their original assessment generally resulted in a considerable increase of rent due to rising land values. Of the fifty leases that had their rental reviewed between the 1976 and 1977 annual owners’ meetings, the rental average had increased by 311 percent.197 The owners understandably felt frustrated by the delay in obtaining a higher and, from their perspective, more equitable return from their land caused by the 14 year terms of review. The Committee of Management felt concerned by the fact any rise in the value of properties could not be taken into account when calculating rental until it was time for review. Whilst a considerable increase in rent would occur upon review, this again would depreciate over the next 14 year term.198 Although obviously some reasonable term had to be set that provided security for both the lessor’s and lessees’ investments, the fixing of a 14 year term further increased that length of time from which

195 Legal Advisor, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Newsletter’, October 1990, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 196 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township, ‘Annual Report to be presented by the Annual General Meeting of Owners by the Committee of Management on Saturday 27 September 1975’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 197 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Annual Report to be presented to the Annual General Meeting of the Owners by the Committee of Management on Saturday 24 September 1977’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 198 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Newsletter’, October 1990, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 65 the owners would have to wait until they could obtain a higher return according to more current valuations.

The rising costs of the 1970s further exacerbated the problems confronting the owners and, indeed, of all those lessors holding ‘Glasgow’ leases throughout the country.199 As the rental collected remained flat for 14 years based on the most recent valuation of five percent of the unimproved value, the inflationary economy diminished the Incorporation’s profit margins. The amount of rental that the Committee of Management collected for the year ending 31 March 1981 was a 214 percent increase on that collected in the year ending 31 March 1970.200 Yet whereas the Committee recorded a surplus of $21,798.15 in 1970, a deficit of over $6,000 had resulted eleven years later as costs incurred by the Incorporation began exceeding income. Of the financial statements for the 1970s that the author was able to locate in the Waiariki District Maori Land Court, the Incorporation was not able to record a surplus greater than $26,732.69, this being for the year ending 31 March 1972.201 Whilst gross returns of the leasehold sections generally increased as leases came under rental review, rising costs prevented the Committee from making any significant improvement in its net income as rent was ‘annihilated by inflation’.202 To rectify this, the Committee of Management attempted to undertake a policy of partial freeholding of the township’s residential sections in 1977 and 1978. The Committee explained its reasons for freehold in a circular posted to shareholders in March 1978:

A capital fund would be established from the sale of the sections, this would be increased each year by saving a certain percentage of income to combat inflation. The fund could then be used:

199 R. Jefferies, ‘Current Problems in the Valuation of Commercial Ground Lessors’ Interests in New Zealand’, New Zealand Valuers’ Journal (March 1991), p. 11 200 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township, ‘Income and Expenditure Account for Year Ended 31 March 1970’; ‘Financial Statements for Year Ended 31 March, 1981’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua. The amounts collected from leasehold rentals for the years ending 31 March 1970 and 31 March 1981 were respectively $19,252.13 and 60557.67 201 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Balance Sheet as at 31 March 1972’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua. The author was not able to locate statements for financial years ending 1971, 1978 and 1979. 202 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Circular to Shareholders, 2 March 1978’, cited in Judge Sheehan’s Investigation of Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation Report, commissioned by Waiariki Maori Land Court on 6 June 1978, Rotorua Minute Book 189/40-82 66

(a) to buy further land in any part of New Zealand that would prove to be a good investment; (b) to buy commercial buildings; (c) loans to shareholders to purchase businesses if it can be shown that they are viable enterprises.203

The Committee recognised that freeholding offered the Incorporation an opportunity to gain extra funds to be used as capital for higher yielding investments. The owners had in fact considered this as an option as early as 1968 but the proposal received no support, one reason given that it would affect the future income derived from the township.204 On 27 March 1978 the Committee proposed at a special meeting ‘to sell on such terms as it thinks fit, the freehold title to any land in Mangakino zoned residential’.205 A poll was undertaken according to shares held and a majority in favour of the motion was recorded.

The Incorporation’s first major attempt to freehold residential sections was quickly opposed.206 A group of shareholders applied for an injunction against any freeholding, instigating an investigation by the Maori Land Court as to procedural irregularities and the conduct of the Incorporation’s Secretary Donald Spiers, whom it was alleged had actively canvassed for proxies for the special meeting. Whilst the inquiry essentially cleared Spiers, the investigating officer concluded that ‘it is not investment that is paramount in many minds.’207 Although the Court did not uphold the injunction, the Incorporation did not make any further moves towards partial freeholding of residential sections until the mid-1980s. Spiers felt that this policy was the best way in which the Incorporation could fulfil one of the primary requirements of its governing

203 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Circular to Shareholders, 2 March 1978’, cited in Judge Sheehan’s Investigation of Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation Report, commissioned by Waiariki Maori Land Court on 6 June 1978, Rotorua Minute Book 189/40-82 204 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Minutes of the Annual Meeting of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township (Incorporated) held at the Oddfellow’s Hall, Greytown on 24 September 1968’, Pouakani Court Correspondence, vol. III, pt. 3, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 205 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Circular to Shareholders, 2 March 1978’, cited in Judge Sheehan’s Investigation of Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation Report, commissioned by Waiariki Maori Land Court on 6 June 1978, Rotorua Minute Book 189/40-82 206 B. D. Coburn, ‘Pouakani: People, Power and Place’ (A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography at Massey University, 1993), p. 136 207 Judge Sheehan’s Investigation of Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation Report, commissioned by Waiariki Maori Land Court on 6 June 1978, Rotorua Minute Book 189/40-82 67 legislation, now the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967. The main purpose of Part II of this Act was ‘to promote the effective and profitable use and the efficient administration of Maori land in the use of the owners.’208 The Incorporation’s secretary believed that the perpetual leases prevented this by denying the owners usage of the land and any profitable return on investment. Spiers felt that for all intents and purposes the owners had ‘already parted with the freehold’ as they had effectively no rights over the leased sections in the township as long as the small rentals and County rates were paid during the terms of the lease, essentially precluding the owners from ever regaining possession of the land.209 As will be shown below, though, the Incorporation did recover possession of many sections because leases had been breached yet these continued to be of financial detriment to the owners as rates still had to be paid for vacant sections.

A policy of freeholding had been identified as a possible means of alleviating Mangakino’s difficulties in a report prepared for the Taupo Regional Development Committee in 1976. Written by Peter Crawford, the main aim of the study was ‘to examine the social and economic structure of the community of Mangakino in order to report on the future of the town.’210 The report shared many of the findings of the Works’ survey undertaken 15 years earlier, stating that the ‘problems facing this community are considerable and require sensitive, social and economic consideration.’ It emphasised the fact that in being built specifically to accommodate the construction and engineering workers of the Waikato hydroelectric schemes, Mangakino ‘could never be said to have been a normal town.’211 Many of the buildings and amenities implemented by Works had deteriorated and needed repair. The economic status of the township was unstable as there was little incentive for further commercial development while geographical isolation and poor land tenure undermined potentially new investments. The township offered little in the way of employment outside of those small businesses established to

208 New Zealand Statutes, 1967, II: No. 124, p. 823 209 ‘Statement by D.A. Spiers, Secretary of the [Proprietors of Mangakino Township] Incorporation, 1 October 1980’, MLC 8-1, vol. 3, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 210 P. Crawford, Mangakino: Hydrotown and Community. An Examination of the Social and Economic Problems of the Community of Mangakino and a Discussion of the Future Development of the Settlement (Taupo: Taupo Regional Development Committee, 1976), p. 1 211 P. Crawford, Mangakino: Hydrotown and Community. An Examination of the Social and Economic Problems of the Community of Mangakino and a Discussion of the Future Development of the Settlement (Taupo: Taupo Regional Development Committee, 1976), p. 37 68 serve the local community. Most residents willing to work thus had to take jobs outside the township, most notably at Tokoroa or Kinleith.212 The report claimed that Mangakino had a high proportion of aged and young, the latter being especially vulnerable in such circumstances. Many of the youths that had left school felt disillusioned by the lack of work and were ‘reluctant to leave the family home and therefore reluctant to leave Mangakino.’213 With much of the township on fixed income and facing diminishing work opportunities, the report concluded of Mangakino’s economic base that:

The basic evidence indicates that the community has not only a social problem created by an imbalance of population but also an economic crisis founded upon a dependent population and a deteriorating township facility.214

Crawford believed that if the township was left to face current social and economic forces as it was, the township would not survive another 20 years, becoming ‘a derelict settlement of the character of Mokai or Tihoi.’ As he felt land tenure precluded ‘the necessary attraction of finance to assist rebuilding and investment into the community’, Crawford felt that freeholding of land for residential, industrial and commercial development would encourage investors to reconsider Mangakino’s property prospects.215 Although he was not certain if the owners of Mangakino deemed such an option feasible, the Committee of Management showed over the next several years that it would consider freeholding, even if this was primarily to improve its own financial position in addition to promoting further development of the township.

The ‘economic crisis’ that the report claimed Mangakino was experiencing had a direct impact on the potential financial benefit that the Incorporation could derive from

212 P. Crawford, Mangakino: Hydrotown and Community. An Examination of the Social and Economic Problems of the Community of Mangakino and a Discussion of the Future Development of the Settlement (Taupo: Taupo Regional Development Committee, 1976), p. 30 213 P. Crawford, Mangakino: Hydrotown and Community. An Examination of the Social and Economic Problems of the Community of Mangakino and a Discussion of the Future Development of the Settlement (Taupo: Taupo Regional Development Committee, 1976), p. 29 214 P. Crawford, Mangakino: Hydrotown and Community. An Examination of the Social and Economic Problems of the Community of Mangakino and a Discussion of the Future Development of the Settlement (Taupo: Taupo Regional Development Committee, 1976), p. 39 215 P. Crawford, Mangakino: Hydrotown and Community. An Examination of the Social and Economic Problems of the Community of Mangakino and a Discussion of the Future Development of the Settlement (Taupo: Taupo Regional Development Committee, 1976), pp. 35, 38 69 the township for its shareholders. With no prominent industry, little opportunities for employment and a population largely reliant on some type of income support, the Committee endured significant problems in trying to collect its rentals. As of 31 March 1981, lessees owed outstanding rates and rentals of approximately $35,000.216 This amount represented more than 50 percent of the actual rental that the Incorporation collected in that year.217 So, in terms of the profit that the owners were able to make from the township, this figure represented quite a significant sum. As one would expect, then, the Incorporation was forced to take legal action against those lessees who had rates and rents in arrears at unacceptable levels. Yet whilst this may have been the only means of being able to regain the outstanding money, the legal expenses and administration costs incurred by the Incorporation in this process further undermined its ability to make a profit.218 As the Committee Chairman noted in his report of 1983:

We have found as have the previous Committees of Management, that trying to make the Township a paying proposition is exceedingly difficult. The nature of administering a town, collecting rentals for leased sections and then having to chase up arrears of rates and rents, take time and money.219

The Incorporation not only experienced problems in collecting its rentals from residential lessees but also had to face some opposition from business owners as well. Given that the commercial market in the township largely served a dependent population on fixed income, business owners also expressed concern at the sudden rise in their rentals after review.220 Their own profit margins were relatively small and by the mid-1970s many of them were now based in former Works’ buildings and premises that needed substantial repairs.

216 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Shareholders Newsletter, 31 March 1981’, MLC 8-1, vol. III, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 217 ‘Financial Statements for Year Ended 31 March, 1981’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 218 Chairman, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual Report to the Shareholders of Mangakino Township for the Annual Meeting, Pouakani Marae, 7 November 1987’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 219 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Chairman’s Report, 1983’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 70

Although the increase in rentals, whilst obviously of much importance to the Incorporation and the potential dividends it could provide to its shareholders, may have created some dislike towards the township’s landlord, the overall cost of renting in Mangakino hardly proved excessive by any standards. Because of the township’s deprived economic circumstances, as outlined so far in this report, the value of land was predictably quite low. Even by the late 1980s, the average value of a residential section was $5,000.00 meaning that the average rental per annum was $250.00, thus leading to the Incorporation’s Chairman claiming that Mangakino was ‘the cheapest place in the country in which to live.’221 Such low value of properties was inevitable if no substantial commercial and industrial investment could be introduced into the township after the hydro schemes had been completed, as proved to be the case. Despite the relatively low values of rentals, though, the Incorporation experienced significant difficulties in collecting these due to the stark economic conditions faced by many of the township’s inhabitants. Most that lived in the township could not escape the financial climate that had descended upon it since the Ministry of Works had withdrawn. Thirty years after Works had undertaken its survey of Mangakino in 1961 stating that it did not have a ‘favourable future’, the township’s rate of unemployment for those between 19 and 60 years of age stood at 60 percent.222 Such a significant proportion of the township’s population being reliant on fixed benefits had obvious implications for the owners, as the Chairman stated in 1991:

The high rate of unemployment has a direct effect on the amount of rent that we are able to collect in the township… Legal expenses will be up again this year due to the number of evictions the Incorporation has to process in the township and on the farms. Many lessees are unwilling to pay arrears in rent.223

220 P. Crawford, Mangakino: Hydrotown and Community. An Examination of the Social and Economic Problems of the Community of Mangakino and a Discussion of the Future Development of the Settlement (Taupo: Taupo Regional Development Committee, 1976), pp. 25-6 221 Chairman, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation’, ‘Annual Report of the Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation, October 1989’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 222 New Zealand Government, 1991 Census, Waikato/Bay of Plenty, p. 142 223 Chairman, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust’, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 71

Given that the values of the township’s sections were low and combined with the fact that most rentals were fixed at 14 years, the returns that the Incorporation received were inevitably low. Between 1985 and 1990 the Committee recorded an average income of $123,426 from leasehold rentals that represented a mere 2.9 percent gross return from the township’s capital value.224 In only one of these years did the Incorporation make a surplus as ‘the cost of collecting this rent’, the Committee Chairman noted in 1990, ‘is sometimes more than the rent is worth.’225 Claiming that this state of affairs was caused by the perpetual leasing system which was proving detrimental to all Maori landowners, he hoped to ‘achieve a situation by July 1993 in respect of township residential properties where income exceeds cost.’226

This, unfortunately, did not occur. Although the Committee’s average income from township rentals between 1991 and 1996 increased to $184,294 and average gross return on asset value to 4.4 percent, this had not kept in line with costs, with the Incorporation recording deficits every year.227 While the Committee noted in 1993 that outstanding ground rental and rate payments had been reduced markedly due to the implementation of a more severe debt collection policy,228 it could not extract any further profit from rentals because of the terms of the perpetual leases. Additionally, although it seems that the township’s sections did increase in value at least over the first term of the leases due to the rises in rental mentioned, it appears that the values levelled out after the mid-1980s. According to the Incorporation’s audited accounts, the township lands at 2000 had only increased by 4.3 percent from their 1986 value.229

224Excluding the year ending 31 March 1988. The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Financial Statements’ for years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990. MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 225 Chairman, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual Report of the Mangakino Township Incorporation for the Year ended 30 June 1990’, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 226 Chairman, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual Report of the Mangakino Township Incorporation for the Year ended 30 June 1990’, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 227 The actual costs of administration of the township are uncertain due to the Incorporation’s other expenses, yet this was its major activity. 228 Secretary, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust, October 1993’, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 229 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Financial Statements for the Year ended 30 June 1986’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua; The Proprietors of Mangakino 72

The frustration of the Committee of Management in not being able to produce greater financial benefit from the township for its shareholders intensified from the mid- 1980s. The incorporated body of owners had an asset which did not in itself offer any profitable return. This was due to the rather rigid method from which income could be derived but also that the source of potential income was meagre in the first place. Mangakino did not possess favourable conditions that might attract industrial and commercial development after the power stations had been completed. Another report on the township prepared for the Taupo County Council in 1986 by Christine La Varis stated that unless substantial maintenance work was required on the schemes, these would not provide ‘any further employment opportunities than what already exists today. The stations are operated and maintained by a skeletal staff’.230 Despite the cancellation of Maraetai II in 1961, Mangakino did receive a short reprieve when the Government decided to finish it, completing the station in 1970.231 This, however, would be the last occasion that any major hydroelectric construction activity occurred near Mangakino.

It was around this time that the Committee Secretary also proposed a change to the repayment of the $110,000 compensation owed to the Ministry of Works for improvements. Spiers had calculated that the Incorporation would only make a net income of $3,000 once costs, including the 50 percent of its rentals payable to the Crown as arranged by the June 1959 agreement, had been accounted for.232 The outstanding balance as of 25 November 1970 stood at $93,480 and the secretary requested that new refinancing arrangements be made that would allow the debt to be paid but also so that the owners could enjoy the greater part of their rentals in the meantime and have further funds to invest in the town’s development. Spiers asked that:

i) [The owners] make an immediate payment of $8,933 to reduce the compensation debt to $85,000

Township Incorporation, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, MLC 8- 1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua. These values for 1986 and 2000 were respectively, $4,381,100 and $4,568,601 230 C. La Varis, The Future of Mangakino and the North Taupo District (Taupo: The Mangakino Community Council and the Taupo County Council, 1986), p.6 231 J. Martin (ed.), People, Politics and Power Stations: Electric Power Generation in New Zealand, 1880-1990 (Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 1991), p. 159 73

ii) That the $85,000 be repaid on a table mortgage basis with interest at 4.5 percent over a period of 35 years.233

An eventual agreement was reached as arranged in 1971 whereby the outstanding debt be reduced by cash payment to $80,000 and the debt be secured by a table mortgage over the Incorporation’s lands and to be repaid over a thirty year term at an interest rate of 5.5 percent.234 The last payment was due 30 September 2001 yet the debt had been cleared by 30 June 2000.235 Although this rearrangement may have provided the Incorporation with a little more flexibility, the rather ungenerous attitude of officials appeared yet again when the Commissioner of Works noted:

On the figures supplied $3,000 p.a. does appear a low return on the value of the township, but it should not be overlooked that the owners investment is relatively small. It is most unlikely that a similar return could have been obtained without the massive Crown investment in the township.236

Spiers’ prediction in any case proved short as the Incorporation’s costs inflated during the 1970s. The rentals provided neither any reasonable return to the shareholders in way of dividends nor any money that could be reinvested in the community. Faced with this somewhat unpromising situation, the Committee decided to reassume its policy of partial freeholding that had been delayed in 1978, by recommending to the owners during the mid-1980s that a number of sections be sold. This would provide a capital sum from which a greater return of income could be obtained from other investments. The Committee was keen to make more profitable investments elsewhere, the preference

232 Secretary, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township to The Commissioner of Works, 25 November 1970, BAPP 5113/857a W92/12/22/6 pt. 5, Power Schemes/Projects/Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 233 Secretary, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township to The Commissioner of Works, 25 November 1970, BAPP 5113/857a W92/12/22/6 pt. 5, Power Schemes/Projects/Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 234 Commissioner of Works to The Minister of Works, 26 August 1971, BAPP 5113/857a W92/12/22/6 pt. 5, Power Schemes/Projects/Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 235 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of the Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 236 Commissioner of Works to The Project Engineer, Tongariro Power Development, 20 January 1971, BAPP 5113/857a W92/12/22/6 pt. 5, Power Schemes/Projects/Stations/Maraetai, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 74 being, of course, in the Wairarapa.237 So, in 1985 and 1986, the Committee sold 94 residential sections, 87 for cash and seven by surrender of shares.238 The additional funds not only provided the Committee with much needed capital, but also the possibility that Mangakino might attract potential outside investors. La Varis ‘applauded’ the Committee’s move to freehold in her 1986 report but remarked that:

if Mangakino wants to compete successfully for investment on the national urban property market, it will continue to be disadvantaged until a more substantial percentage of the town is freeholded. Regardless of whether or not that philosophy is acceptable to the land owners, commercial reality cannot be ignored.239

The Committees of Management knew of this ‘commercial reality’ only too well.

3.5. The move to freehold The static nature of the Incorporation’s investment at Mangakino and inability of the Committee to obtain sufficient profits prompted a course in the 1990s that eventually led to the complete sale of the township’s residential, industrial and commercial sections in 2002. The Incorporation’s legal advisor informed the shareholders in October 1990 that the form of perpetual leasing at Mangakino was ‘an unsatisfactory system for the owners.’240 Not only was he concerned at the low net return provided by the leases, but also the fact that the Incorporation was having to expend significant costs on vacant sections. Approximately 25 of these were vacant in the township by October 1991 which was costing the Incorporation about $10,000 per annum in rates and maintenance.241 As the average value of a section was $5,000, this meant that the Incorporation was

237 Legal Advisor, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Newsletter’, October 1990, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 238 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Notes to Accounts and Balance Sheet for the Year Ended 30 June 1985’; ‘Notes to Accounts and Balance Sheet for the Year Ended 30 June 1986’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 239 C. La Varis, The Future of Mangakino and the North Taupo District (Taupo: The Mangakino Community Council and the Taupo County Council, 1986), p. 14 240 Legal Advisor, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Newsletter’, October 1990, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 241 Legal Advisor, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust’, October 1991, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 75 effectively losing the value of two sections per year due to the costs of retaining them. For every section that was vacant or leased and the lessee could not be located, the Incorporation was legally liable to pay rates to the Taupo District Council.242 The number of vacant sections and costs to the Incorporation of maintaining these steadily rose throughout the decade as the Committee implemented a tougher policy in the collection of rentals. It was not uncommon for those lessees who had substantial rates and rentals in arrears to move their improvements or even their buildings from the sections. The Committee were usually not able to find people willing to lease the vacant sections. Nevertheless, the Incorporation still had to pay rates on these, which by 1995 was costing $29,120.243 By 1999 the rates paid by the Incorporation for vacant sections and for unpaid tenant rate arrears had increased to $45,622 and doubled a year later to $99,228.244 As the average value of sections had fallen to approximately $3,000, this meant that for these two years alone (1999/2000) the value of nearly fifty sections had been lost.

The Committee’s frustration with the system of leasing was further exacerbated by this increasingly costly problem. As early as October 1992, a Committee member stated bluntly: ‘Unfortunately the township remains a liability.’245 To lessen the effects of depreciation in rental value during the terms of the lease, the Committee began granting leases with seven year terms of rental review. Leases with 14 year terms of review had fallen out favour during the inflationary economy of the 1970s and new ground leases being granted around the country had generally been leased on a terminating basis with rental review of five or seven years.246 Yet those lessees that held original 14 year terms, as many did at Mangakino, were under no obligation to surrender these. The Committee felt aggrieved by the Crown’s apparent dismissal of the situation, the Chairman complaining in his 1994 annual report that the ‘Government has taken the choice of

242 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust, October 1992’, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 243 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Reports, 1995’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 244 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of the Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 245 Junior Member, The Committee of Management, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust, October 1992’, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 246 R. Jefferies, ‘Current Problems in the Valuation of Commercial Ground Lessors’ Interests in New Zealand’, New Zealand Valuers’ Journal (March 1991), p. 11 76 ignoring any suggestion of restructuring the perpetual lease.’247 The Incorporation’s legal advisor recommended that one option for the owners was to again resume additional freeholding of sections and diversify their investments, the results from the freeholding from the mid-1980s proving very successful. Part of the proceeds obtained had been used to purchase Pouakani House in Masterton which was then leased to the New Zealand Police. The gross return that the Incorporation received from this in 1994 was 27.1 percent of capital value whereas the rentals from the township accounted for 4.5 percent.248 This also did not take into account the massive costs that the Incorporation faced in administering the township. Although any extra funds from freeholding could once again be used as capital for further investment, the Incorporation’s legal advisor warned shareholders that partial freeholding would merely leave the owners still retaining the worst properties and most difficult tenants from which to collect rent. Any vacant sections that could not be sold would also continue to prove to be a liability.

The Incorporation’s investment at Mangakino came under review during the mid- 1990s. At the Annual General Meeting of owners in November 1995, a resolution was passed by shareholders directing the Committee to consider further freeholding of sections in the township as the ‘unfortunate truth is that there is a high cost in keeping these sections and that cost outweighs the benefits and lost opportunities.’249 The Committee presented shareholders with four options for its 553 residential sections:

(i) Option (a): that all residential sections be sold; (ii) Option (b): that 75 percent of residential sections be sold; (iii) Option (c): that 50 percent of residential sections be sold; (iv) Option (d): that no sections be sold.250

247 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual Reports, 1994’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 248 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual Reports, 1994’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 249 ‘Minutes of Special General Meeting of Shareholders of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation held at Papawai Marae, Greytown, Saturday 15 June 1996’, MLC 8-1-2, vol. II, Pouakani 2 Trust Files (438 Ahu Whenua Trust), Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 250 ‘Minutes of Special General Meeting of Shareholders of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation held at Papawai Marae, Greytown, Saturday 15 June 1996’, MLC 8-1-2, vol. II, Pouakani 2 Trust Files (438 Ahu Whenua Trust), Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 77

The Committee claimed that its sections had a capital value at that time of $3,393,000, and received an annual revenue of $168,370 if all tenants paid their rent. Costs, however, totalled $129,360 meaning that the net profit of the rental was only $39,010, representing a net return of 1.2 percent of the capital value. Based on these figures, the Committee calculated the returns it could expect to gain from each option. If all sections were sold for their capital value and this was invested at 7 percent interest, the Committee expected to gain annually $237,510. If no freeholding took place then the Committee would continue to receive a poor net return of around 1 percent from its leased properties. This would probably even deteriorate as the costs of maintaining the township and vacant sections increased. Given the difficulties of attempting to make the township a profitable entity as it was, the Committee concluded that reasonable returns on investments could be made for all options except that representing the status quo and so recommended that the owners do not accept this, but consider the other options.

The options were considered by shareholders at a special general meeting held in Papawai on 15 June 1996. The four options were put to the meeting and a poll with share voting was called for. The results were:

Votes for 100 percent freeholding: 46,797 Votes for 75 percent freeholding: 5,661 Votes for 50 percent freeholding: 20,636 Votes against freeholding: 24,909 Votes against not freeholding not counted: 3,021251

Of the 98,003 clear votes cast, therefore, 74.6 percent of the votes approved of at least 50 percent freeholding of the Incorporation’s sections. The Chairman felt that this result was sufficient to assume that a mandate had been given up to this level of freeholding. An immediate advantage to this also was that the Committee could sell its 37 currently vacant sections which was costing it approximately $25,000 a year to maintain. The

251 Chairman, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘News for Shareholders and Owners, July 1996’, MLC 8-1-2, vol. II, Pouakani 2 Trust Files (438 Ahu Whenua Trust), Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 78

Chairman believed that the result of the vote and the debate that had taken place at the special meeting showed:

that there was a growing acceptance that the township sections were an unnecessary burden and that the Incorporation would be better having other land assets over which it had full control and could manage to the best economic advantage. Several speakers supported the view that the cost of maintaining the town was a cost which could not be justified as it was largely for the benefit of the townspeople, few of whom are from shareholder families.252

The Committee of Management was also authorised to develop and submit to the Maori Land Court a Land Acquisition Plan and a Land Improvement Plan that set out the necessary procedures for freeholding and how the proceeds from which sales of any land would be used.

The Incorporation’s legal advisor explained to the owners that if any of the above options requiring complete or partial freeholding be adopted, the Committee of Management would have to make an application to the Maori Land Court pursuant to Section 137 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. This would enable the Committee to change the status of any sections from Maori freehold land to General land for the purposes of ‘alienation’.253 As a ‘very considerable majority of shareholders’ agreed that the Committee should arrange for 50 percent of the township’s sections to be sold, it immediately began preparing papers for an application to the Maori Land Court requesting a change in status of land.254 The Committee Chairman thought that there would not be a market for more than 50 percent of the sections in any case.255 The Committee had to clarify its procedure for selection of which properties would be made

252 Chairman, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘News for Shareholders and Owners, July 1996’, MLC 8-1-2, vol. II, Pouakani 2 Trust Files (438 Ahu Whenua Trust), Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 253 New Zealand Statutes, I: No. 4, p. 126 254 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Pouakani II Trust, ‘Annual Reports, 1996’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 255 Chairman, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘News for Shareholders and Owners, July 1996’, MLC 8-1-2, vol. II, Pouakani 2 Trust Files (438 Ahu Whenua Trust), Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 79 available for freehold so that satisfactory plans were submitted to the Court. The Chairman stated in 1996 that the:

sections will be offered to the existing tenants. A contract will then be negotiated between the Incorporation and the tenant, which will be conditional upon shareholder approval at an annual or special general meeting. The final sale of a section will not take place until there has been a resolution of the shareholders relating to that specific section.256

Despite the approval of the shareholders to freehold up to 50 percent of Mangakino’s leased sections, the Committee proved unable to follow up the matter in the immediate years after the special general meeting of June 1996. The Maori Land Court began a review of the Committee’s activities in other operations that consumed much of the Committee members’ time and energy.257 So, progress on this matter was postponed.

In the meantime, however, values in the township continued to decline whilst further sections became vacant. A valuation of the sections in September 1995 decreased their average value by $2,000. Despite objections by the Committee, the original values were not reinstated.258 Mangakino’s commercial environment also continued to deteriorate as more and more businesses closed down or reduced their hours. Of the resident population over the age of 15 in 1996, 67 percent received some form of income support while in terms of total personal income, 69 percent received less than $15,000 per annum.259 Mangakino had all the social and economic problems characteristic of small, isolated rural communities.260 The Incorporation’s General Manager believed that

256 Chairman, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘News for Shareholders and Owners, July 1996’, MLC 8-1-2, vol. II, Pouakani 2 Trust Files (438 Ahu Whenua Trust), Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 257 This was the Pouakani 2 Trust dairy farm operations. [See Section IV] The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation and Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Reports, 1997’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 258 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Pouakani II Trust, ‘Annual Reports, 1996’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 259 J. Lewis, Lewis Consultancy Limited, ‘Mangakino Leasehold Residential Land: A Socio-Economic Deterrent?’, Appendix D, Affidavit of Robyn Simpson-Bone in Support of Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 14 September 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 260 M. Revington, ‘Lonesome Town’, Listener (15 April 2000), p. 32 80

[i]f there was no social welfare it is unlikely that Mangakino would service anywhere near the present population. People living on the breadline have found a safe haven in Mangakino because this is what was deliberately created in the first instance by the old Ministry of Works and continued on with by the Incorporation.261

The Committee continually struggled to make any profit from this problematic investment, the Chairman reporting in 1999 that it cost $280,000 to administer the township, a significant proportion of this deriving from the necessary infrastructure to administer the leases, while only making $191,401 from rental proceeds.262 The township was proving of absolutely no financial benefit to the owners and the Committee soon resumed its course of obtaining Maori Land Court approval for freeholding of residential sections in Mangakino.263

On 5 July 2000 counsel applied on behalf of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation for a change of status from Maori freehold land to general land and for approval of land acquisition and land improvement plans.264 The reasons for the Incorporation wanting to freehold were thus put before the Court. An affidavit of the Chairman in support of the application read:

It may be asked why the Incorporation is not prepared to hold the perpetually leased residential land until perpetual leases can be changed into a more reasonable type of lease, which represents a better investment. The reason is that there is currently no legislation or proposed legislation which would assist the Incorporation in achieving this, as is the case for Maori Reserved Land, and no

261 General Manager, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘The Value of Residential Leases in Mangakino’, Exhibit C, Affidavit of Robyn Simpson-Bone in Support of Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 14 September 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 262 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual Report, 1999’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 263 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of the Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 264 J. Stevens, Johnston and Lawrence Barristers and Solicitors to The Deputy Registrar, Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 21 September 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 81

business can stand still and see the value of a relatively small part of its land asset depreciate in value, to the overall detriment of its asset base.265

It seems that the Court did not decide upon a fixture for a sitting due to the misplacement of evidence.266 Yet this gave the Incorporation further opportunity to inform shareholders and confirm the support which the Committee had originally received in regards towards a programme of freeholding in June 1996. The Incorporation had already begun dispatching a series of letters to shareholders explaining the reasons why the Committee no longer felt willing to maintain its perpetual leases at Mangakino. The shareholders were told that Mangakino was ‘an increasing millstone around [their] future.’267 The matter was once again put to the shareholders at the annual general meeting of 2 December 2000. Yet rather than merely seeking to confirm the support it received in 1996, the Committee proposed that freeholding now be extended to cover all the Incorporation’s sections other than those leased to New Zealand Forest Products Limited.268 The Committee now wished to have all residential, industrial, commercial and rural properties in and around the township included in the application for change of status so that these could be made available for sale. Instead of a plan of 50 percent selective freehold of its residential sections with first offer to lessees as originally proposed four years earlier, the Committee was now recommending that the whole of its township properties be made accessible as general land so that it would be possible to sell the freehold interest.

The increasingly difficult circumstances endured by the Committee during the late 1990s prompted this request of extension to the mandate provided in June 1996. The

265 Affidavit of Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 27 April 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 266 J. Stevens, Johnston and Lawrence Barristers and Solicitors to The Deputy Registrar, Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 21 September 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 267 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Mangakino Mailer: Newsletter, April 2000’, Exhibit H2, Bundle of Documents Supporting Briefs of Evidence of Murray Hemi and Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of an Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 268 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Notice of Annual General Meeting, 2000’, Exhibit C, Second Affidavit of Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 22 December 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 82

Committee felt that complete change in status of the township lands must be obtained as soon as possible because:

• the condition of most buildings in the town is deteriorating rapidly; • the number of vacant sections is increasing; • an increasing number of properties are being abandoned; • the Incorporation is being required by the Taupo District Council to pay the rates on many properties where the lessees have not themselves paid the rates within time, leaving the Incorporation to try and recover the arrears of rates from lessees. In the last financial year [of 2000] the amount of rates paid by the Incorporation, largely on behalf of defaulting lessees, or where sections are vacant, was over $90,000. These concerns are reported on in the Chairman’s annual report and it can be noted from the financial reports that this property portfolio is giving no return to the shareholders after direct and indirect costs are taken into account. If a proportion of general administration costs are taken into account a substantial loss is probably being made; • when properties are abandoned, with or without houses on them, the Incorporation must either demolish or maintain the houses, insure any buildings being kept, maintain the sections and pay the rates until the sections can be re-let. There are currently about 40 vacant residential sections.269

The Committee’s proposals for change in status and freehold were put together and a poll based on shareholding was once again conducted. The results were 163,452 votes in favour as opposed to 25,295 against. The breakdown of the vote was 99 in favour and 13 against.270 The Committee believed it now had a firm mandate from which to pursue its policy of freeholding of Mangakino.

269 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Notes to Agenda Items: Notice of Annual General Meeting, 2000’, Exhibit C, Second Affidavit of Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 22 December 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 270 Second Affidavit of Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 22 December 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 83

The Chairman did not feel surprised at the outcome of the poll. In his first affidavit in support of application in change of status, he commented that ‘[i]t is difficult for shareholders to have any sense of turangawaewae in respect of such lands.’271 As the costs of management exceeded rental proceeds, thus being an opportunity cost in terms of other potential investments, the Chairman felt that the majority of shareholders would be willing to agree to sell the township. This was substantiated by the Committee’s findings in October 2000 that only 4 percent of shareholders lived in the Mangakino/Tokoroa district.272 An even higher proportion (5 percent), the Incorporation’s newsletter claimed, lived overseas. The Wairarapa continued to be home for the single principal grouping of the Incorporation’s approximately 1600 shareholders,273 accounting for 23 percent of the owners, the next largest being Hastings and Wellington/Porirua (both 14 percent). It is obvious, then, that a ‘general exodus’ of Wairarapa owners to Pouakani never took place. Such a case is logical, however. If very few owners’ families had moved there during the heady days of the hydroelectric construction schemes, there was even less incentive to move there afterwards. As far as the overall group of shareholders is concerned, therefore, the direct benefits that Mangakino provided in terms of employment since its inception have been negligible.

This point was raised by the Incorporation’s counsel during the sitting for change of status of land held in the Waiariki Maori Land Court in April 2001. He emphasised the fact that the conditions of the perpetual leasing system was only benefiting those owners who actually lived in Mangakino, ‘a very small proportion of the shareholders’, at the expense of the vast majority.274 Only those owners who were tenants received the luxury of a trade-off for low rentals in exchange for higher dividends. For the greater part of the owners, who did not live in Mangakino, however, the Incorporation’s legal representative felt adamant that there ‘was an activity taking place which is absolutely no benefit to

271 Affidavit of Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 27 April 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 272 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Mangakino Mailer: Newsletter, April 2000’, Exhibit H2, Bundle of Documents Supporting Briefs of Evidence of Murray Hemi and Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of an Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 273 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual Report, 1999’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 274 Rotorua Minute Book 39-59, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 84 them whatsoever’.275 The Chairman provided further evidence and believed that ‘the viability of the Incorporation’s investment in Mangakino Township has continued to deteriorate since [his] earlier affidavits.’276 The township had a growing number of vacant properties which the Incorporation still had to pay rates on. With approximately 100 vacant sections and average rates per section at $550, the Incorporation was spending $55,000 per annum upholding sections which it could not lease. On top of this came maintenance costs which added another $20,000.277

This proved to be such a problem, however, because of the conditions of the perpetual leasing system. The rentals that it could expect to receive based on a section’s five percent unimproved value for seven or 14 years before review proved insignificant. This was made even worse by the fact that Mangakino’s property values were declining. Such an archaic leasing system never allowed the Incorporation to make any substantial profits once costs were taken into account. By 2001, for example, the Taupo District Council was collecting rates at a considerably higher level than the rent. The Incorporation would have to pay these if lessees defaulted and continue to do so until the section was re-leased. The Chairman concluded his case:

The Incorporation and its shareholders are currently faced with the ownership and management of an asset which is draining the resources of the Incorporation so reducing the benefits to the shareholders of its major investment in forestry. I, and my Committee of Management, can see no way in which this position could be reversed through better utilisation of the investment at Mangakino. We certainly could not justify investing any further investment in the Township.278

The Incorporation Secretary also provided her support to the application, claiming that the ‘ownership of residential sections on perpetually renewable lease terms has not

275 Rotorua Minute Book 39-55, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 276 Brief of Evidence of Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of an Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 9 April 2001, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 277 Brief of Evidence of Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of an Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 9 April 2001, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 278 Brief of Evidence of Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of an Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 9 April 2001, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 85 been a profitable investment for the Incorporation.’279 Outlining the difficulties of attempting to gain a profit from such a system, the Secretary also felt that the problems confronted in Peter Crawford’s 1976 report have not yet ‘been satisfactorily resolved and the socio-economic profile of the town has probably deteriorated.’280 The Secretary thought that it would be in the best interests of both Mangakino and the Incorporation that the change of status be approved and the township’s sections freeholded, allowing the Incorporation to reinvest in the improvement of its other assets or acquire new lands to improve the financial return to shareholders. Given the weight of evidence in support of the application, the order for the change in status was eventually approved by Judge Patrick Savage on 9 April 2001 and the industrial, rural, commercial and residential land in and around Mangakino Township vested in the Incorporation ceased being Maori freehold land and became General land.281 The net proceeds resulting from the sales of any lands were to be subject to the terms of the Land Acquisition Plan and Land Improvement Plan approved by the Court. One of the terms was that the Incorporation would ‘only sell land if it is in the commercial interests of the Incorporation by way of rationalising its investment and improving the financial position for shareholders.’282 Any land selected for sale was to be decided by the Committee of Management.

The Incorporation’s troublesome investment at Mangakino came to a conclusion when, one year after the change in status of land was approved, the Committee announced in April 2002 its intention to sell all its 538 leased sections by public tender. The Committee decided that it could no longer afford to maintain an asset that had failed to generate sufficient profits for its shareholders for nearly forty years and was now operating at a loss. The Committee believed that it should offer the whole township for sale rather than progressively freehold sections. Lessees were furious that they had not been given first offer for the properties which their houses were situated on.283 Residents banded together to put in their own bid with much resentment being vented at the

279 Affidavit of Robyn Simpson-Bone in Support of Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 14 September 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 280 Affidavit of Robyn Simpson-Bone in Support of Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 14 September 2000, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 281 259 Rotorua Minute Book 39-59, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 282 259 Rotorua Minute Book 39-59, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 283 H. Carnachan, ‘A Town Like Mangakino’, Investigate, 3: 22 (July 2002), p. 39 86

Committee. They felt distraught by the probability that if their properties were to be offered back by a new purchaser, these would be at higher valuations. Yet the Incorporation understandably wanted to determine what the township’s sections would fetch on an open market. After being curtailed by the restrictions of a perpetual leasing system for the entirety of its administration, the Committee felt determined to maximise the potential return from any sale. Nor did it believe that progressive sales would provide a return as high as a one-off sale. The sale by tender opened on 1 May and by the middle of the month twenty potential buyers had registered.284 The tender closed at the end of June and unfortunately for the many irritated residents, their bid did not prove successful.285

In early July the Committee sold the township to Pukekohe property developer Stuart Searle of MV Properties for an undisclosed sum of money.286 The value of the township lands in the Incorporation’s audited accounts of 2000 had been set at just over four and a half million dollars.287 An approximate estimate made by Waikato’s Bayley’s Real Estate managing director at the time of sale ranged between two and a half and four million.288 Mangakino’s residents were to be informed in November 2002 of the new proprietor’s plans for the township. The Incorporation’s Chairman stated that a component of the tender was that the perpetually leased sections would be offered as freehold to the lessees. Despite this claim, the Incorporation’s ownership of Mangakino came to a somewhat bitter end, with lessees expressing much frustration at the outgoing landlord for not offering it to them in the first place. This dissatisfaction should be compared, however, to that accumulated over the decades by the majority of owners of the township, who had received almost no financial gain from it for generations, and little other benefit.

284 Waikato Times, 18 May 2002 285 The Dominion Post, 15 July 2002 286 Wairarapa Times-Age, 12 July 2002 287 The exact figure was $4,568,601. The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of the Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 288 Wairarapa Times-Age, 12 July 2002 87

3.6. Conclusion The history of Mangakino and its relationship with its former Wairarapa Maori owners is unique. The township had been established by the Public Works Department during the 1940s to serve as the administrative centre for the construction of the Maraetai, Waipapa and Whakamaru hydroelectric schemes on the Waikato River. Its location was thus determined in relation to accessibility to these three power stations. As the area at this time was remote and desolate, the Department decided to build a settlement ‘unlike any other construction village’ to accommodate the workers and engineers necessary to complete the schemes. To retain a stable and reliable labour force in such an isolated region, the Department intended to build a ‘semi-permanent’ township equipped with all the amenities that could be found in any small community. Thus developed the township of Mangakino. Within five years of the first engineers beginning work at Maraetai in August 1945, the flourishing community had a population of more than four thousand and was still growing.

Despite the prosperity of the township and the opportunities it had to offer of living and working there, unfortunate developments had taken place concerning the establishment of the township which most of its inhabitants would probably have been unaware of. The land from which the township had developed was a portion of the block known as part Pouakani granted to Wairarapa Maori by the Crown. None of the owners of the block had been informed of the Works’ Department entry onto Pouakani, nor had they been asked to give their consent. Due to the particular circumstances regarding the ownership of this block, none of the owners were actually living on it and most were still resident in the Wairarapa. Only after the direct intervention of Prime Minister Fraser in 1947 did the Works Department notify the owners of Pouakani that it had entered their lands for the purpose of hydroelectric development. By then, however, Mangakino had already become a sprawling settlement.

It is at this juncture that the critical decisions concerning subsequent developments of Mangakino were made, and almost none of them by the owners who could only merely observe and hope for the best. Although Mangakino had been intended as a ‘semi-permanent’ township, Works made a massive investment in developing the 88 settlement by establishing substantial structures such as schools, halls and a hospital along with water, electricity and sewerage facilities that were of a permanent nature. It is clear that this was done, though, on the assumption that the township’s freehold would be acquired under the Public Works Act and that the owners would be compensated for the unimproved value of the land taken, so protecting Works’ considerable expenditure. However, having suffered unfairly in terms of Works’ discourteous entry on to the block in the first place, Fraser wished to protect the owners from any further Crown encroachments by insisting that all land taken for the schemes be ‘absolutely necessary’. This obviously did not include the township and, despite the concerns of Works officials, a leasehold estate was established in 1949. The Ministry of Works was to remove its buildings and improvements, restore the land and return it to the owners in accordance with Fraser’s wishes but also the Minister of Works’ own original ‘semi-permanent’ statement.

This was going to prove very difficult, however, when Works’ actual investment at Mangakino was taken into account. With over a million pounds spent on establishing the township, Works officials realised that they faced significant costs in having to move their buildings and amenities which were only assets ‘in situ’. Works’ deliberate policy of avoiding any consultation with the owners concerning its entry on to Pouakani had rebounded. Yet it was able to manoeuvre itself out of this dilemma during the 1950s, taking advantage of the fact that some residents wanted to maintain the township after the schemes had been completed. If such an eventuality was to occur, Works would thus have a market to sell its assets on site and avoid the costs of having to move them even though it would not own the town. This depended, of course, on obtaining the agreement of the owners.

It is difficult to state with accuracy how much pressure was put on the owners in regards to making the township permanent. Yet those owners’ representatives who were well aware of the history of Mangakino and what Works had done and was capable of doing, realised that they were in a precarious situation. It would have been obvious to them that Works simply would not let its massive investment at Mangakino go to waste, despite this being on their land. With the passing away of Fraser and a new government 89 in power, there was no guarantee that Works would surrender the land back to them after its lease had expired, as Judge Harvey warned them. Whether or not such a course of action was possible is not important. What is, is that the manner in which Works had thus far conducted itself as regards to the taking of land for the Maraetai scheme would have proved a factor in any decision made by owners’ representatives. The shadow of Works’ practices, unsurprisingly, would have loomed over the owners constantly as they considered the future of the land that the township was situated on.

With Works always in the background and the positives accentuated to the owners of ensuring ‘for themselves a considerable permanent ground rent for their land’, owners’ representatives recommended that the best possible option of ensuring that the land remained in their possession was to agree to maintain the township. The owners agreed to administer the town as an incorporated body. Those people seeking to remain in Mangakino would be granted perpetual leases and own the buildings and improvements whilst the land would still be owed by Wairarapa Maori. Works benefited immensely and immediately from this decision. With secure tenure made available, it would be able to dispose of its assets in a far more cost-effective manner than having to remove them. This was confirmed in its agreement with the Incorporation in June 1959. Any benefits for the owners would only come once they began receiving the proceeds from rentals. Based on a percentage of the unimproved value, these would increase as land values rose.

Yet this proved to be more difficult than what was anticipated, or at least what was advised to the owners. Although a decision had been made to make Mangakino permanent, the function for which it was established remained ‘semi-permanent’. As one journalist noted recently, ‘there was no real reason for Mangakino to survive once the power stations were completed. But it did.’289 No specific purpose had been established for maintaining the township other than the fact of maintaining it for the sake of itself. There was the hope that the township would serve the growing local rural community yet this would never have effected the creation of a town on such a scale. No doubt that many residents had become emotionally attached to the township and enjoyed living there whilst, as this section has shown, it was in the best interests of Works, more so than any

289 M. Revington, ‘Lonesome Town’, Listener, 15 April 2000 90 other party, that it was maintained so that it had a market for disposal of its assets. The factors that operated in the creation of the township, however, quickly began to move against it once construction on the hydroelectric schemes wound down. Its relative isolation hindered further commercial development while the employment vacuum caused by the completion of the schemes meant that unless people managed to find work nearby, Mangakino would merely become an economic burden. This was recognised by Government officials as early as 1961, who saw it becoming a ‘ghost town’.

Such a scenario would obviously have a financially injurious affect on the Incorporation, which it eventually did. From the 1960s onwards Mangakino deteriorated from the ‘boom town of the Waikato’ to a deprived backwater. With no real purpose established for its continuance, it suffered accordingly and so did its owners who desperately tried to make a return on their investment. This proved increasingly difficult, not only because of the limited revenue that could be extracted from the township as it was in the first place, but also because of the system established for doing so. The conditions of the perpetual leases failed to generate any sufficient returns for the owners. Once the costs of administration had been accounted for, the Incorporation was, it claimed, barely making a net return of 1 percent on the capital value. The owners were further handicapped by the fact that the terms of rental review were 14 years long, double the time they had originally hoped to implement. Works had required that 14 year terms be granted to provide even more security to the market for sales of its buildings, even though it was already benefiting from the fact that the owners had agreed to maintain the township. The proceeds from the rentals depreciated over each term, especially from the 1970s as costs rose steadily while rentals remained fixed. The Incorporation was never able to make any reasonable profits from the township and by the 1990s was operating at a loss.

The Incorporation was continually criticised that Mangakino’s development was being impeded by its desire to maintain such a poor land tenure system and that freeholding should occur. Although the Committee of Management did agree several times to pursue this option on a partial basis, the very reason that it continued with the system of perpetual leasing was so that the land would be retained for the benefit of all 91 future generations of owners. The owners had already lost other portions of Pouakani for the schemes and had essentially been denied any other means of using the land that the township was situated on. This land had been given to Wairarapa Maori by the Crown for their benefit yet once Works began erecting a township on its soil complete with permanent features, it was now determining for the owners how and what type of benefits those would be. The Committee felt a sense of duty to all its present and future shareholders to persist with the system and preserve as much of its land as possible, even though the profit gained from doing so was marginal. Once it became obvious that the costs of continuing with this system were beginning to significantly outweigh the benefits, the Incorporation pursued the only option left available to it and decided on freehold. This was to be complete and final, the township now being a liability and further reinvestment in it not warranted.

Such a seemingly momentous decision was made easier in the end by the fact that very few owners actually lived in the township. So, very few owners ever directly received the benefits that might have accrued from living there. For those shareholders that have or still live there, however, an important relationship no doubt exists between them and the township. This would not be the case, though, for the great majority of shareholders who do not reside in the area and for which the Committee of Management aims to provide the maximum possible dividends for. With very few of the permanent townspeople being shareholders or members of shareholders’ families, the Committee no longer saw justification in retaining the township and in 2000 began seeking shareholder support to sell off this problematic investment. From a purely financial point of view, this was the correct decision and probably a long overdue one. The cost of Mangakino to the owners now exceeded the benefits which had always been minimal. The decision by the Incorporation to freehold the town by public tender in 2002 incurred the wrath of many residents who felt angered and frustrated that they were not being offered the sections on which their houses stood. Yet, as the Chairman responded, it was the owners who had suffered the greatest injustice as they had no decision in the fact that the houses were put there in the first place, forever denying them the right to use the land how they thought fit. The Chairman believed that the ‘people who have lost out most in all of this are the shareholders themselves. The people who bought houses and live in the town have done 92 that by choice.’290 As this section has shown, the owners were given no choice in the establishment of the town and no opportunity to decide on its prolongation without undue pressure, thus having on their land ‘an urban structure which has been to [their] detriment’.291

290 Chairman, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, quoted in H. Carnachan, ‘A Town Like Mangakino’, Investigate, 3: 22 (July 2002), p. 44 291 Wai 85 Statement of Claim, Waitangi Tribunal 93 94 95

Section IV: Land Administration, 1970-2000

4.1. Introduction The General Manager of the Proprietors of Mangakino Township wrote to the Minister of Maori Affairs in 1991 ‘seeking redress from the Crown on a number of issues relating to both the development of Mangakino Township and the farm development.’292 Those unresolved matters concerning the Pouakani development scheme, it was claimed, included perceived deficiencies in Crown management, unsatisfactory leasing terms, and the substandard state of the scheme when returned to owner control from the mid-1980s. The purpose of this section is to explain the history of the Pouakani development scheme and land administration since 1970. McCracken has thoroughly covered the scheme’s establishment in 1947 and its first two decades in her draft report.293 This section specifically aims to investigate the major outstanding issues raised between the owners and the Department of Maori Affairs and its successor organisations concerning the administration of Pouakani from the 1970s.

4.2. The Pouakani Development Scheme, 1947-1969 The development of Pouakani commenced in 1948 under the administration of the Department of Maori Affairs. Judge John Harvey identified part of the block as a potential site of development for grassland farming for the benefit of the owners which, he stated, were ‘badly in need of lands for the settlement of their rising generations.’294 The owners were likewise eager to see Pouakani developed for farming operations and unanimously decided to make the block available for development under the Board of Native (later Maori) Affairs subject to Part I of the Native Land Amendment Act 1936.295 The placing of the block under this Act ensured that it would receive State finance to meet the costs of development which the owners probably could not have met on their

292 General Manager, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 6 March 1991, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 293 See H. McCracken, ‘The Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation, Pouakani No. 2 Trust and the Crown, 1896- 1990s’ (An Interim Report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001), pp. 128-81 294 Judge Harvey to Under Secretary, Native Department, 12 August 1946, AAMK 869/917a, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 295 Registrar, Native Land Court, Rotorua, 19 August 1946, AAMK 869/917a, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 96

own. Yet it also meant that the owners had to agree to the ‘complete control by the Department of the operations of land development.’296 In order to obtain the necessary finances from the Department of Maori Affairs, the development and settlement of Pouakani would occur in accordance with the Department’s land development policies.

Being gazetted subject to Part I of the Native Land Amendment Act,297 Pouakani later automatically came under the provisions of Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. The main objective of Part XXIV was to ‘promote the occupation of Maori freehold land by Maoris and the use of such land by Maoris for farming purposes.’298 The owners of any lands placed under Part XXIV had their rights ‘subject to the special provisions of this Part and to the right of the Board to exclusive occupation of the land’.299 The preparation of this Maori Affairs Act coincided with the beginning of settlement on the Pouakani development farms, these being ready to take in their first six trainees in 1952.

A total area of approximately 12,050 acres of Pouakani was developed for grassland farming from 1948. Between 1952 and 1958, 28 individual dairy farms and 2 sheep farms comprising some 4,450 acres were settled by owners or members of owners’ families. The terms of original settlement considered by the Board of Maori Affairs reflected the Department’s policy of obtaining secure tenure for prospective settlers. In July 1952 the Board of Maori Affairs approved the settlement of the first settlers, following their completion of satisfactory probation periods, on the basis of leases for 21 years at 5 percent of the unimproved value of the land with the right of renewal for a further 21 years at 5 percent of the then unimproved value.300 Mr George Te Whaiti, Chairman of the Owners’ Advisory Committee, was recorded as being in ‘general agreement with these proposals’. At a meeting of the owners in Greytown on 23 June 1954, the terms of tenure were confirmed after these had been discussed at a meeting the

296 Memorandum for Cabinet, 20 February 1952, MA1/60/1, vol. IV, box 86, Archives New Zealand, Wellington, cited in A. Gould, G. Owen and D. Tuuta, ‘Maori Land Development, 1929-1954: An Introductory Overview with Representative Case Studies’ (Report commissioned by Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1996), p. 63 297 New Zealand Gazette, 1947, I: No. 9, 18 February 1947, p. 238 298 Maori Affairs Act, New Zealand Statutes, 1953, II: No. 94, p. 1225 299 Maori Affairs Act, New Zealand Statutes, 1953, II: No. 94, p. 1225 300 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Pouakani Development Scheme. Tenure, etc for First Settlers’, July 1952, AAMK 869/917b, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 97

previous October. The owners who were present unanimously agreed to the Board’s terms for the first 24 settlers, and that ‘the lessees were to pay for the value of the improvements as at the date of commencement of the lease and were to receive compensation limited to 75 percent at the termination of their lease.’301 The owners reserved the right to review these terms before further men were settled.

Several weeks later, Department officials noted that Te Whaiti had commented ‘that the owners had never understood that in leasing on the unimproved value, compensation [of] 75 percent of the value of the improvements would have to be paid if the leases were resumed in 42 years time.’302 The Department’s Assistant Secretary claimed that he had attended a meeting in Greytown as early as 1950 and ‘was sure that the people who were there clearly understood what was involved.’ The official firmly believed that the owners should have realised that lessees would have to be given proper compensation for improvements effected or paid for by them, given the notices he had handed out. He felt that if the owners ‘did not know that payment of compensation was involved it is unfortunate,’ but had no doubts in his mind that the owners should have understood. From the very beginning of settlement, therefore, it was not entirely certain whether the owners actually understood the terms they were agreeing to, even though there was no doubt that Department officials thought that they (the owners) did. In reviewing the leases of land in the Pouakani development scheme in 1970, an officer of the Department of Maori Affairs, noted that ‘[i]t could hardly be said that a precise agreement has been reached with the Wairarapa owners’.303 This ‘unfortunate’ situation would provide the setting for a number of issues arising between the Department and the owners concerning the leasing system during the course of the Department’s administration of Pouakani.

The balance of the developed area, some 7,600 acres, was run as a cattle and sheep station by the Department of Maori Affairs to reduce the debt from the scheme. It

301‘Meeting of Pouakani Owners, 23 June 1954’, AAMK 869/917b, 63/66, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 302 ‘Memorandum for the Secretary by the Assistant Secretary: Farm on Tenure, 15 July 1954’, AAMK 869/917b, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 98

was the policy of the Department to ‘operate developed areas as stations for a number of years until profits from farm operations have reduced the costs of development to a sum comparable to the valuation of improvements.’304 As the cost of developing marginal land, the category for which most undeveloped Maori land such as Pouakani fell into, usually surpassed the value of improvements by the time settlement could ideally be effected, the initial costs to the Department of developing a complete unit were often higher than its value.305 The Department was to finance any incoming occupier to purchase the value of improvements on the farms. Yet as the costs of development incurred by the Department exceeded the values which would be repaid through the settler’s own mortgages, the Department intended to run the developed areas as stations for such a time until profits had reduced the outstanding amount above the valuation of improvements.

Even before the Pouakani development scheme was functioning, owners and Governmental officers had expressed their concern at the costs involved. It was obvious that due to shortages of resources and excessive costs of materials during the immediate post-war era, any development would be quite ‘expensive’.306 The Pouakani owners were also quite wary of this and most ‘apprehensive regarding the high costs.’307 It seems that there may also have been differences in costs across Government departments as well. A representative of the Lands and Survey Department felt that the likely costs of settlement would be far too high in comparison to his own department’s schemes which tried to effect settlement after two years at between £35 to £48 per acre. At Pouakani, however, ‘[o]n figures given it would appear that settlement here would be at nearer £65 per acre

303 Senior Administration Officer (Development) R.A. Cheesman to Deputy Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, ‘Leases Under Part XXIV/53: Especially Leases of Land in Pouakani Development Scheme’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 304‘Annual Report of the Board of Maori Affairs and of the Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs for the Year Ended 31 March 1954’, AJHR, 1954, G-9, p. 20 305 ‘Report of the Board of Maori Affairs and of the Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs and the Maori Trustee for the Year Ended 31 March 1958’, AJHR, 1958, G-9, p. 20 306 ‘Board of Native Affairs: Proposed Pouakani Development Scheme’, AAMK 869/917a, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 307 ‘Minutes of Pouakani Meeting, 13 January 1950, Masterton’, AAMK 869/917b, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 99

unless a substantial write-off is made.’308 At a meeting in July 1951, the Waiariki District Maori Land Committee considered the costs ‘fairly high’ and that ‘the big write-off may be necessary.’309 The greater the costs of development, the longer the Department would have to operate the scheme in order to reduce the debt. This in turn meant the longer Pouakani would remain outside the control of the owners and directly subject to the Department’s policies and practices. With the Department in indefinite control of the scheme, there was likely to be more opportunity for differences to arise between the owners and officials regarding the administration of Pouakani. Indeed, as early as May 1960, the owners were expressing grave concerns relating to the running of the scheme. The owners were unhappy that they were receiving no money from the leases of the farms, nor did they feel that the scheme was being operated in the way that they had agreed to.310 These concerns would continue during the next several decades.

The Pouakani development scheme was also exposed, as all farming schemes were, to external factors beyond the control of the owners and the Department of Maori Affairs. The decrease in the prices of primary produce from the early 1960s had a significant affect on the Department’s land development policies.311 The fluctuation of prices and costs meant that there was no definite time when the Department could return the scheme back to the owners. Furthermore, the Pouakani settlers also experienced other major problems during that decade with the appearance of grass grub and ragwort which seriously affected production.312 The total production of butterfat for the settled dairying area at Pouakani had dropped by nearly 42 percent between the 1965-66 and 1969-70 seasons.313 Many settlers found themselves in financial difficulties and the owners became increasingly concerned about their situation and the situation of the scheme

308 ‘Wairiki District Maori Land Committee Meeting, 4-5 July 1951’, MA W2490, Box 230 51/3/4, pt. 1, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 309 ‘Waiariki District Maori Land Committee Meeting, 4-5 July 1951’, MA W2490, Box 230 51/3/4, pt. 1, Archives New Zealand, Wellington. See McCracken for composition of the district committees, pp. 140-1 310 ‘Waiariki District Maori Land Committee Meeting, 24 May 1960’, MA W2490, Box 230 51/3/4, pt. 2, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 311 ‘Report of the Board of Maori Affairs and of the Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs and the Maori Trustee for the Year Ended 31 March 1962’, AJHR, 1962, G-9, pp. 9-10 312 B. D. Coburn, ‘Pouakani: People, Power and Place’ (A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography at Massey University, 1993), p. 80 100

overall. Unfortunately for the owners, the settlers and the Department, conditions were not about to improve as the 1960s came to a close.

4.3. The difficulties of the 1970s The Pouakani region suffered from an acute drought during the 1969-1970 season and was declared a ‘disaster area’.314 A lack of rainfall combined with high temperatures and strong winds had evaporated any remaining moisture that was loosely held by the pumice soil, leaving pastures arid. Farmers throughout the area quickly lost confidence in the region’s ability to support economically viable units. Some lessees of the Pouakani farms indicated their desire to surrender their leases in light of these circumstances. This merely exacerbated the problems associated with the surrendering of leases that had already caused considerable concern to the owners and Department officials.

Between 1957 and 1969, 18 settlers relinquished their leases due to either poor health, old age, financial difficulties or low production levels.315 Those lessees surrendering their leases were entitled to compensation for their improvements which was ‘equal to the value of their “lessee’s interest” as assessed under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act based on a special Government valuation made for the purpose.’316 The compensation clause of the lease that the Department intended would be an incentive for secure tenure had the unfortunate effect of increasing the debt of the scheme in the particular case of Pouakani. Since development of the block began, it was the policy of the owners that only they and their relatives and descendants should farm the land. They were firmly opposed to the settlement of Pouakani by any people other than those who were owners or had family connections to owners. To accommodate the owners’ wishes, the Department required any lessee wanting to surrender their lease to

313 ‘Notes of Interview about the Pouakani Dairy Farm Settlement at the Office of the New Zealand Dairy Company Limited, Hamilton, 27 April 1970’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1, pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 314 The Mangakino Chronicle, 12 February 1970. See BBFZ 4942/809b 2624 (1), Lease to Mangakino Township, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 315 Senior Administration Officer (Development) R.A. Cheesman to Deputy Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, ‘Leases Under Part XXIV/53: Especially Leases of Land in Pouakani Development Scheme’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 316 ‘Mangakino Development Scheme, 22 May 1970’, BBFZ 4942/782b 2600 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 101

first offer it to the Board so that it could then re-lease the land to another owner or relative of an owner, thus keeping the land for Wairarapa Maori.

This practice meant that the Department, rather than the incoming lessee, had to pay the equity of the outgoing lessee which was then added to the overall debt owed by the owners. In most cases payments to departing lessees were in excess of the value that the lessee had to pay for the value of improvements at the commencement of their lease. This situation became further complicated at the end of the 1968-1969 season when the owners were not able to put forward any suitable candidates to take over vacant leases. With the owners refusing to allow farmers other than themselves to settle and with no replacements for some lessees moving off, vacated units had to be reverted back into Mangakino Station. (For ease of management and better stock control, the Pouakani scheme was divided into two stations in 1967, the southern portion being Mangatahae and the northern portion being Mangakino, the latter incorporating the settled areas.317) In those cases where farms reverted back to the scheme, not only did the owners have to pay the equity of the outgoing lessee but they were sometimes left with farms including substantial improvements such as milking sheds and houses that were of no value to the main station that did not require these. ‘Transactions of this sort’, the Secretary of Maori Affairs Jock McEwen wrote to the Minister in July 1970, ‘have had the effect of adding substantial amounts to the overall debt.’318 This total amount at 31 March 1970 stood at $1,170,059,319 or approximately $97 per grassed acre.

A number of meetings were held over the course of the year between Departmental officers and owners’ representatives to discuss the problematic farming situation of the region and of the block in particular. At a meeting in McEwen’s office in early April, the Incorporation’s Secretary Donald Spiers pointed out the negative impact that the surrender of leases was having both in relation to the added debt and to the confidence of the remaining lessees. Five farms were then vacant whilst it appeared that

317 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Pouakani Development Scheme’, AAMK 869/920b 63/66/1, pt. 12, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 318 J. M. McEwen, Secretary of the Maori and Island Affairs Department to Minister of Maori Affairs, 13 July 1970, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 102

other lessees were also keen to leave before the situation deteriorated. With scheme profits being applied to the reduction of the development debt, this ‘caused a further problem in that in the absence of dividends, many owners would wish to sell, and the scheme could gradually pass from the ownership of the Wairarapa Maoris.’320 The only payments owners had received from the block up till that time was from the annual distribution of their timber royalties.321 This appeared to be the only type of payment they would receive from the Pouakani lands for the foreseeable future given the high level of debt still owed by the scheme. The Incorporation Secretary felt that the owners might decide to freehold the farms if the profitability of the scheme was being affected by the surrender of the farm leases.

The owners’ representatives, however, felt that the majority of owners were not interested in freeholding but might consider the option of selling the leases on the open market. The Department could refuse to exercise its prior right to obtain the lease leaving the lessee free to sell his or her lease to any interested party. This would determine the real value of the lease but would open the settlement of the leased farms to non-owners, against the owners’ present policy. Yet McEwen felt ‘that the owners would have to face facts. No Wairarapa Maoris were available as settlers and the money which was being paid to outgoing lessees came out of the owners own pockets.’322 The ambiguity surrounding the nature of the leases that had prevailed since the beginning of settlement resurfaced when the minutes of the meeting recorded Spiers as claiming that he:

thought it probable that about 80 [percent] of the owners at most meetings would not realise that it was themselves who were providing the cash for payment to the

319 J. H. W. Barber, District Officer, Rotorua, to D. A. Spiers, Secretary Mangakino Township Incorporation, 28 August 1970, BBFZ 4942/782b 2600 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 320 ‘Minutes of Meeting held in the Secretary’s Office on Friday 3 April 1970 between Representatives of Owners of Pouakani Development Scheme and Departmental Officers’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 321 D.H. Winiata (for Registrar, Waiariki Maori Land Court) to Messrs Pocock, Dix and Koretz, Barristers and Solicitors, 13 March 1968, Pouakani Court Correspondence Files, vol. I, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua. The distribution of the timber royalties are covered in Section V. 322 ‘Minutes of Meeting held in the Secretary’s Office on Friday 3 April 1970 between Representatives of Owners of Pouakani Development Scheme and Departmental Officers’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 103

lessees. They would think rather that the money was coming out of the funds of the Maori Trustee.323

The Incorporation’s Secretary requested that the Department inform the owners’ committee in writing of how it intended to deal with any outgoing lessees. McEwen thought this necessary and agreed. It was clear that uncertainty still existed amongst many of the owners concerning the leases administered by the Board of Maori Affairs.

Although a majority of owners may have been uncertain of the terms of the leases, Departmental officials had considered the matter most carefully during the early 1950s. The Department had, in fact, been warned by officers in the Waiariki District that unimproved leases with provision for compensation could ultimately prove of great detriment to the owners. District officers pointed out that to ‘give compensation for unknown improvements in 42 years’ time is to commit ourselves to the incalculable. It is impossible to adequately foresee economic and financial conditions 42 years from now.’324 Officers assumed that land values would continue to increase even though there might not be a corresponding increase of demand directly in the Pouakani lands and, combined with inflation, the costs

of a compensation claim at the end of 42 years can safely be assumed to be based on values higher than those existing today. The higher the amount required for compensation the greater the mortgage the owners will need to raise. It is quite possible for values to double or treble or halve in 42 years and it is this type of uncertainty that it is desired to avoid. Neither the lessors nor lessees can really predict their position too far in the future. It is contended that a lease based on the capital value removes this element of uncertainty, and is thus of benefit to both parties in this respect.325

323 ‘Minutes of Meeting held in the Secretary’s Office on Friday 3 April 1970 between Representatives of Owners of Pouakani Development Scheme and Departmental Officers’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 324 District Officer, Rotorua to The Under Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 4 March 1954, BBFZ 4942/802a, 2609b (1), Title Tenure and Correspondence with Owners, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 325 District Officer, Rotorua to The Under Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 4 March 1954, BBFZ 4942/802a, 2609b (1), Title Tenure and Correspondence with Owners, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 104

The officers did not want to place the owners in a ‘position where the land and its income is permanently alienated because of a type of lease which forces them to shoulder successive mortgages to meet compensation claims.’326 They concluded that a capital value lease, based on a percentage of the land’s unimproved value and improvements, ‘is the usual lease in this district.’ To the ultimate disadvantage of the owners, the Department did not heed the advice of its own district officers.

As early as February 1970, the Pouakani Advisory Committee realised that the payment to lessees of their equity upon the surrender of leases was having a detrimental effect on the scheme’s overall profitability. The Committee members were of ‘unanimous opinion that any settlement of outsiders would be on the basis of capital value leases with no compensation payable.’327 It was apparent that the issue concerning the surrendering of leases and the increased debt incurred by the owners caused as a result, had to be rectified. Various meetings occurred between Department officials, the owners and settlers, involving discussions concerning the problem of surrendering of leases. Debate on leasing arrangements inevitably led to discussion of whether land tenure for the dairy farms should become freehold. This issue was put to the owners at their annual meeting held in September.

The administration of the Pouakani development scheme was the responsibility of the Department’s District Officer in Rotorua but so as to meet the convenience of the single largest geographical grouping of owners, annual general meetings were usually held in one of the Wairarapa towns. At the 1970 annual meeting in Greytown, the owners revealed a considerable degree of dissatisfaction regarding the Department’s administration of Pouakani. They were frustrated with what they felt was a significant amount of debt despite the block being under development for twenty years.328 Some owners called for a commission of inquiry into the Department’s administration. The general consensus of the owners was summed up by one member of the Advisory

326 District Officer, Rotorua to The Under Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 4 March 1954, BBFZ 4942/802a, 2609b (1), Title Tenure and Correspondence with Owners, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 327 ‘Memorandum: Pouakani Settlers, 18 February 1970’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 105

Committee who claimed: ‘Make no mistake about it, Maori Affairs is responsible for the debt being what it is[.] [M]ismanagement, call it what you like, has contributed.’329 The owners felt unhappy in that it appeared the scheme would remain under the administration of the Board for some time to come until the debt had been reduced considerably.

Departmental officials attempted to explain to the owners that the policy of buying back surrendered leases had added significantly to the debt and that the Department felt it was time to change this policy. Officials felt that the Board should now refuse to accept surrendering leases, leaving outgoing lessees the right to dispose of their lease to any interested farmer that could make a useful deposit to establish himself. Whilst such a policy could have opened up the settled dairying area to non-owners, including Europeans, the Department’s Rotorua District Officer privately thought this ‘desirable’ so as to ‘give a lead to the others’.330 Much debate occurred as to what tenure should be made available to existing lessees and to what should be done with the farms being vacated. Many of the Pouakani settlers had begun demanding additional land in keeping with the trend towards larger herds to maintain profitability.331 Although the owners decided against a resolution ‘that the present system of land tenure be varied and that suitable economic dairy units be offered for sale’, it was clear to at least some of the owners that the question of land tenure had to be resolved if any proposed re-scheming of the dairy units was going to prove successful.332

It appears that the Board of Maori Affairs took the lead from the Pouakani Advisory Committee and changed the policy of leasing terms when it agreed to re-scheme

328 ‘Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Owners of the Pouakani Development Scheme held at the Oddfellows Hall, Greytown, Saturday 26 September 1970 at 10.15am’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 329 ‘Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Owners of the Pouakani Development Scheme held at the Oddfellows Hall, Greytown, Saturday 26 September 1970 at 10.15am’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 330 ‘Report of Meeting Held on 18 May in Secretary’s Office: A Preliminary Discussion Between Departmental Officers’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 331 B. D. Coburn, ‘Pouakani: People, Power and Place’ (A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography at Massey University, 1993), p. 66 106

the dairying units. Since the surrender of leases began to have a noticeable effect on the scheme’s debt and the Department found it increasingly difficult to fill vacated farms from the late 1960s, re-scheming of the settled area was considered essential. Of the original 28 dairy farms that had been settled, by May 1970 18 were still being farmed, seven were not going to be in production for the 1970-1971 season and three had already reverted permanently back to Mangakino station.333 The two sheep farms had also been subsequently reabsorbed into the station as well. In February 1971 the Board approved the re-scheming of the whole settled area in accordance with a plan prepared by the District Officer. The purpose of the re-scheming was to turn the settled areas, as the Department stated in its 1972 Annual Report, into ‘fully economic units’, the rearrangement constituting 18 dairy farms ‘varying in area between 162 and 282 acres.’334

The re-scheming of the farms was accompanied by a change in policy regarding leases. The Board had become all to wary of accepting the surrender of leases and felt that these needed to be disposed of on the open market. Yet it was realised that for re- scheming to be successful, some lessees wishing to surrender their leases had to be accepted to ensure that, what the Departmental officers considered the ‘duds’, could be removed.335 The Board delegated to a sub-committee the terms of lease for the six farms available to be publicly offered for leasing. The sub-committee agreed to the following:

(1) Vacant farms to be offered for lease by tender “as is” (2) Term of lease: 21 years (3) Rent payable half-yearly in advance (4) No compensation for improvements (5) No right of renewal (6) Rent review at the end of the 11th year. Rent for the remaining period of 10 years to be computed on the basis of 5 [percent] of the unimproved

332 ‘Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Owners of the Pouakani Development Scheme held at the Oddfellows Hall, Greytown, Saturday 26 September 1970 at 10.15am’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 333 ‘Pouakani Resettlement, 20 May 1970’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 334 ‘Report of the Maori and Island Affairs Department for the Year Ended 31 March 1972, AJHR, 1972, G-9, p. 14 107

value, plus 6 [percent] of the value of improvements but to be not less than the rent for the preceding period.336

The new terms of the leases offered was an attempt by the Department to curb the increasing amount of debt incurred by the owners to pay the equity of outgoing lessees. The Board delegated to the ‘District Maori Land Committee the power to grant any necessary new leases including leases to Europeans if qualified Maori farmers were unavailable.’337 Although Wairarapa Maori would retain priority for settlement, the Board was now prepared to allow other farmers on the land if these were suitable and vacant farms could not be settled. Most significantly, the policy had now been set that ‘[n]o further compensation leases will be granted.’338 Any new leases granted were to be on the basis of capital value, where the lessee paid rental on improvements with no provision for compensation. Yet those existing settlers with compensation leases were by law entitled to compensation if they decided to surrender their leases.

Although the Board had moved to resolve this issue which had caused considerable concern to Department officials and owners’ representatives, the case of the compensation leases would continue to prove a point of dissatisfaction with the latter. Departmental officials repeatedly had to point out to owners that they possessed a contingent liability due to the fact that they owed compensation to those lessees holding these leases. For the ten lessees who still had these in September 1973, these were assessed as approximately $200,000 on then values.339 Owners queried whether these leases could be replaced with capital value leases once they had expired and the lessee wished to seek a further term. This could only prove possible, however, if the lessee surrendered his or her lease. Lessees were entitled for a right of renewal of their existing

335 ‘Report of Meeting Held on 18 May in Secretary’s Office: A Preliminary Discussion Between Departmental Officers’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 336 ‘Pouakani Development Scheme’, AAMK 869/921b 63/66/1 pt. 14, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 337 ‘Pouakani Development Scheme’, AAMK 869/921b 63/66/1 pt. 14, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 338 ‘Pouakani Development Scheme’, AAMK 869/921b 63/66/1 pt. 14, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 339 ‘Meeting with Advisory Committee, Masterton, 28 September 1973’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 108 compensation leases so that these could be continued if the lessee desired so. Within a year, two more compensation leases had been surrendered and the lessees’ equities calculated by the Valuation Department had been charged to the scheme’s account.340 Some of the rental from the leases had been held by the Maori Trustee in a number of sinking funds to provide compensation to lessees affected by them. Yet rent paid to the Maori Trustee to be held in a sinking fund earned interest at only 5 percent per annum whereas rent paid towards the scheme debt saved interest charges of 5.5 percent per annum. The Board thus felt it was in the owners’ best interests to transfer any money held by the Maori Trustee into the Scheme Account and that all rentals be paid to the Department in reduction of the development debt rather than be held in a sinking fund.341

The re-scheming of the dairying area was quickly hailed as a success by the Department. Its 1973 annual report claimed that production for the 1972-1973 season at Pouakani ‘should reach 450,000 lb milkfat from 18 farms, compared with 369,645 lb the previous season. Further increases are expected to vindicate the decision of the owners and the Board of Maori Affairs to keep the land in dairy production.’342 At their general meeting of 1974, the owners were informed that the debt to the Department stood at approximately $845,000, coupled with a contingent liability of about $250,000 for lessees’ compensation. Yet the owners now had a net asset worth near $2,500,000.343

Despite the increased value of Pouakani 2 and the Department’s optimistic appraisal of the block’s performance, the owners continued to have concern for particular aspects of the Department’s administration, not least of all its management of the leases and perceived breaches of covenant. Departmental officials and owners’ representatives alike repeatedly expressed their disappointment at the state of some of the farms. Although primary responsibility for individual farms clearly lay in the hands of the lessee, the owners felt that the Department had a duty in regards to overall administration and

340 ‘Pouakani Advisory Committee Meeting, 27 September 1974’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 341 ‘Pouakani: Reasons for Proposed Additional Capital Expenditure’, AAMK 869/921b 63/66/1 pt. 14, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 342 ‘Report of the Maori and Island Affairs Department for the Year Ended 31 March 1973, AJHR, 1973, G-9, pp. 11-2 109

supervision of individual leases. Farm maintenance apparently became increasingly difficult as drought conditions plagued the region from early 1970. This would have proved especially challenging for those settlers who were undertaking part-time employment elsewhere to supplement their already marginal incomes.344 Yet the owners’ representatives believed that there was no excuse for the deterioration that had occurred on some farms, some of which were now vacant. This was a ‘sore point’ for one representative who ‘had seen the condition of many of the farms which had been abandoned, and thought that the lessees ought to have been made to put them in order.’345 Secretary McEwen explained to the owners that it did not make good business sense for lessees to allow their farms to deteriorate as it reduced their value if offered back to the Board. Departmental officials tried to reassure owners that the Valuation Department would take into account the state of improvements and need for delayed maintenance when assessing the lessee’s interest.

Yet the owners were not merely interested in making sure that the poor state of the farms was considered by Government valuators when calculating the equity of any outgoing lessee. Their priority was to see that the farms were not only maintained but also improved over time so that production levels were gradually increased. Despite Secretary McEwen’s statement that it was not rational for settlers to let their farms become run down, this had occurred. Indeed, McEwen felt that Departmental ‘supervision must have been rather lax for such deterioration as had been experienced on the farms surrendered to have taken place.’346 The Department’s Rotorua District Field Officer agreed that this had been the case. The Board had to approve extra expenditure upon re-scheming of the dairy farms in order to effect minimal improvements on the vacated units and maintaining the

343 ‘Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Owners of the Pouakani Development Scheme Held at the Oddfellows Hall, Greytown, 28 September 1974’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 344 Mangakino Township and Pouakani, MS-Papers-2219, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 345 ‘Minutes of Meeting held in the Secretary’s Office on Friday 3 April 1970 between Representatives of Owners of Pouakani Development Scheme and Departmental Officers’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 346 ‘Report of Meeting Held on 18 May in Secretary’s Office: A Preliminary Discussion Between Departmental Officers’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 110

existing improvements.347 Such expenditure was further added to the owners’ already substantial debt. It was little wonder that as early as May 1970 Secretary McEwen claimed ‘that from a purely financial point of view Pouakani would have been better off if there had never been any settlement.’348

The management of several problematic leases by the Department created a sense of frustration among the owners. The uncertain, and unsatisfactory, situation of the owners in regards to the leasing system was demonstrated by the case of the Parker lease. Alf Parker had removed certain improvements from his farm, including a roller door and electric fencing and gates for the farm, upon the surrender of his lease.349 Parker had taken over a farm that was in a very poor condition and had effected significant improvements to the land at his own cost. He considered the improvements belonging to him and decided to take them with him once he surrendered his lease. The obvious response to this was that ‘it was unfair from the owners point of view.’350 The owners’ representatives felt that the Department should have taken action to prevent Parker from removing the improvements. Yet Departmental officers pointed out that the provisions of Parker’s lease merely required him to maintain the improvements of the farm upon commencement of the lease. Parker was not required to make improvements as he had done and if these were to be retained on the farm, the Department would have to make an offer for the improvements which would again be charged to the owners. As the owners’ main priority was the continual maintenance of at least the minimal improvements, they had practically no choice but to pay for these improvements to the outgoing lessee. Whilst Departmental officers believed that the additional rental gained from the higher lease tender would offset the expenditure to retain the improvements, the issue of the level of maintenance required by the lessees would remain a contentious one between the Department and the owners. The seemingly continual poor state of the farms and lack of

347 ‘Pouakani: Reasons for Proposed Additional Capital Expenditure’, AAMK 869/921b 63/66/1 pt. 14, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 348 ‘Meeting with Representatives of Owners and Settlers, 18 May 1970’, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 349 ‘Pouakani Advisory Committee Meeting, 27 September 1974’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 350 ‘Meeting with Pouakani Advisory Committee at Masterton, 27 September 1974’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 111

improvements caused one owner to claim at the 1977 annual meeting that the Department of ‘Maori Affairs [is] only interested in making a profit, not improving the condition of the schemes.’351

Owners’ representatives also felt some concern at the rental arrears owed by some of the lessees. The owners in particular believed that the Department was not acting swiftly enough in obtaining unpaid rent or in re-entering leases where there had been significant breaches of covenant. The issue of rental arrears involved several lessees yet the case of one in particular created the most unease for the owners as well as the most adverse publicity for the Pouakani 2 farms. This particular lessee had been granted a lease from 1 June 1975 with right of renewal for 21 years, no compensation for improvements, and rent and commission of $2,600 per annum. Yet from the beginning of his lease, he refused to pay rent for the farm or the house he was occupying on the Mangakino station. The lessee declined to pay money to the Department believing this should go directly to the owners instead, although he did not pay them either. In September 1977 the Crown Solicitor’s Office had been asked to take possession of the land and terminate the lease yet this was postponed pending the lessee’s application for financial assistance to pay his arrears. After this did not occur, the Crown Solicitor advised the owners that bankruptcy proceedings would be commenced against the lessee but again this was delayed. By June 1978, the lessee owed $11,188 for rent in arrears.352 Matters deteriorated when the lessee refused to move his cows off scheme land which he had been using for grazing. His non- compliance with scheme staff and Departmental officials eventually led to an incident on 10 April 1978 whereby the Armed Offenders Squad was called in. The trouble did not stop there, however, as the lessee was later caught stealing hay from the Mangatahae Station. Police initially refused to prosecute him due to the lessee being an owner himself based on his 0.25 shareholding.

351 ‘Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Owners of the Pouakani Development Scheme held at the Oddfellows Hall, Greytown, 23 September 1977, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 352 ‘Pouakani Advisory Committee Meeting, 28 September 1978’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 112

This situation infuriated owners’ representatives who ‘complained that the Department [had] been too lenient with [him] and too slow in taking re-entry action.’353 Overall, three lessees, including the above, owed outstanding rentals as of 30 June 1979, this amount being $27,521. Each lessee had indicated their desire to relinquish their lease and negotiations had been made that rent would be paid upon the reassignment of the leases. Yet Departmental officers informed the owners over a year later that legal action against the aforementioned lessee was still being held up by the Crown Solicitor.354 The situation, and the Department’s apparent inability to quickly resolve it, would prove to be a source of much dissatisfaction to the owners. The Incorporation’s farming sub- committee released a report in September 1981 stating that it ‘advocated a “get tough” policy with lessees but unfortunately, [its] views are not shared by the Department of Maori Affairs. The Committee feels that the situation must change if the Incorporation is going to reduce the debt owing.’355

It was obvious that by this time the owners considered the Department as failing in its duty to remedy any breaches and recover rental owed by the lessees. Departmental officials, however, were equally annoyed by the situation and took exception to the farming sub-committee’s remarks. The Department’s Assistant District Officer in Rotorua believed that the Department shared the owners’ views that action was sometimes needed in cases involving difficult lessees. Yet the officer commented that:

it needs to be remembered that when a lessee is not performing properly, it is no simple matter to either have him remedy any breaches of covenant or indeed remove him. There are several existing glaring examples of the difficulties and frustrations encountered when endeavouring to deal through the Courts with defaulting lessees.356

353 ‘Minutes of Meeting with Pouakani Advisory Committee at Masterton, 25 September 1979’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 354 ‘Minutes of Meeting with Pouakani Advisory Committee at Masterton, 25 September 1980’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 355 ‘The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Farming Sub Committee Report’, 1 September 1981, BBFZ 4942/787a 2601 (7), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 356 Assistant District Officer, Rotorua, to the Secretary, Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 8 October 1981, BBFZ 4942/787a 2601 (7), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 113

Whilst this admission attempted to deflect some of the responsibility from the Department, it demonstrated that the overall administration regarding defaulting lessees was at that time incapable of effecting timely and appropriate resolutions. The inevitable result of this, of course, was that the owners suffered in one form or another. The delays in pursuing their case against lessees who had breached their covenants meant that the costs to the owners of remedying these gradually increased, the longer they were forced to wait. Recovering unpaid rentals or remedying other breaches of covenant usually proved time-consuming, complicated and further added to the owners’ dissatisfaction.

4.4. The move towards owner control, 1977-1980s During the early 1970s the Department of Maori Affairs began urging a greater participation by owners in the management of development schemes.357 This formed part of the Department’s ‘tu tangata policy’ which advocated the formation of trusts or incorporations to represent the owners to work along-side the Department in the decision- making process.358 It was planned that these bodies would eventually take control of the schemes once it was considered convenient for the land to be returned to the owners. Some Pouakani owners called for the Department to hand back the scheme at various annual meetings during the 1970s. Yet it appears that these were based merely on frustration caused by the Department’s administration without seriously taking into account the additional responsibility that such a proposal entailed. By 1977, however, the Incorporation’s Committee of Management decided that the timing was now suitable for a transfer of the scheme and dairy farms to the owners. The Committee recommended to the owners that a special general meeting be held in January 1978 to consider including the Pouakani scheme and dairying farms in the Incorporation.359

357 ‘Report of the Maori and Island Affairs Department for the Year Ended 31 March 1971, AJHR, 1971, G-9, p. 12; ‘Report of the Maori and Island Affairs Department for the Year Ended 31 March 1972, AJHR, 1972, G-9, p. 13 358 ‘Report of the Department of Maori Affairs, Maori Land Board and Maori Trust Office for the Year Ended 31 March 1980’, AJHR, 1980, E-13, p. 6 359 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Annual Report to be Presented to the Annual General Meeting of the Owners by the Committee of Management, 24 September 1977’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 114

The Committee proved incapable of formalising this decision, though, due to a lack of a quorum of 40 percent of the shareholders.360 The Department was finding that a lack of quorums was hindering the handover of several development schemes to owner trusts or incorporations.361 Various meetings called continually failed to obtain the necessary quorum. Prior to its annual general meeting of 1982 to be held at Papawai Marae, the Committee of Management informed the owners that it was now sufficiently organised to take over the administration of the scheme and dairy farms over the next year if the shareholders approved.362 Again the Incorporation could not obtain a quorum but the Maori Land Court intervened in March 1983 when it made an ‘Order pursuant to Section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 vesting the Maori freehold land known as Pouakani No. 2 in the body corporate known as The Proprietors of Mangakino Township’.363 The order applied to the land known as the balance of Pouakani 2 Block and was called the Pouakani 2 Trust. The objects of the Trust were:

to provide for the use, management and alienation of the land to best advantage of the beneficial owners or the better habitation or use by beneficial owners, to ensure the retention of the land for the present Maori beneficial owners and their successors, 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.364

The terms of the order outlined the powers of the Trustee which could only act lawfully by way of resolution of the Committee of Management of the Trustee. On 8 February 1984 the Board of Maori Affairs finally approved the transfer ‘of the Mangakino, Mangatahae Stations and other lands to the Pouakani No. 2 Trust’.365 Much of the land that had been administered by the Department of Maori Affairs since 1947 then returned

360 Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Shareholders Newsletter’, 1 September 1981, MLC 8-1, vol. III, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 361 ‘Report of the Maori and Island Affairs Department for the Year Ended 31 March 1977’, AJHR, 1977, E-13, p. 7 362 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Notice of Annual General Meeting/Report of Committee of Management/Financial Statements for Year Ended 31 March 1982’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 363 206 Rotorua Minute Book 58-66, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 364 206 Rotorua Minute Book 58-66, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 365 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Pouakani 2 Trust’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 115

to the control of the owners, the Department retaining control of the remaining compensation leases. Although the owners had assumed responsibility for the sustained development of most of the area of the Pouakani 2 title, the legacy of the Department’s administration continued.

At the time of the Court’s order, the Pouakani scheme and dairying units comprised a total 4883.7 hectares. This was made up of the Mangakino (1420 ha) and Mangatahae (1842 ha) stations as well as the 18 leased dairy farms (1621.7 ha). Of these, eight farms (totalling an area of 729.6 ha) were still leased to Wairarapa Maori.366 The remaining ten farms had been leased to mainly Europeans as the owners could not put forward suitable nominees. The administration of the original Pouakani area vested in Wairarapa Maori as of January 1983 was:

Area vested in the The Township (CT1297/100): Proprietors of 683a. 1r. 15p. 6769.6826 ha Mangakino Township NZ Forest Products Lease (CT19C/593): [16728a. 1r. 00p] Incorporation 16044a. 3r. 25p Area subject to Part Mangakino Scheme: 1420 ha 3262 ha XXIV/1953 Mangatahae Scheme: 1842 ha Leased to Wairarapa Maori (8): 729.6 ha Dairy Farms 1621.7 ha Leased to others (10): 892.1 ha Township Incorporation: 216.1 ha Other areas occupied Kelly Motors: 0.1 ha 216.4 ha Supervisor’s Residence: 0.2 ha Other surrendered lease Taupo PD Board: 1.6 ha Roads: 95.6 ha 97.2 ha Balance area 5197.3 ha Total land area 11966.98 ha

The profits derived from the operations of the stations continued to be applied to the reduction of the scheme’s development debt. In 1983 and 1984 the stations recorded operating surpluses of $220,378 and $548,286 respectively.367 The total assets of the stations as of 30 June 1983 was valued at $11,937,603. The Board of Maori Affairs

366 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Pouakani 2 Trust’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 367 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Pouakani 2 Trust: Stations Income and Expenditure Statement for the Year Ended 30 June 1984’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 116

considered at the time of handover that the scheme was generating good profits and ‘in sufficiently good heart to allow repayment of the residue scheme debt over a 25 year term with a generous surplus remaining for use by the Trust.’368 This debt, as of 30 June 1983, amounted to $282,190. At the end of the following financial year after the scheme’s transfer to the Trust had been completed, the development debt owed to the Department of Maori Affairs stood at $312,213.369

Despite the slight increase over these financial years, the amount of debt had been reduced considerably from its 1970 level when it was in excess of one million dollars. Although the owners still faced a $312,213 debt, the Incorporation’s Chairman pointed out that they now had an asset worth more than 11 million dollars.370 This was obviously a significant improvement to the block’s 1949 unimproved value of £49,250.371 Although the value of Pouakani had appreciated and the scheme debt had been markedly reduced, the owners felt unsatisfied at the condition of the scheme itself and of some of the leased farms upon handover. Owners’ representatives felt that these were suffering from severe deterioration, provoking the Incorporation Chairman to write to the Minister of Maori Affairs in 1991 that:

The total assets, when handed back in 1983, were run down and hopelessly in danger of degenerating into a non-viable state. The Part XXIV Development Scheme undertaken by the Crown simply did not work.372

It is clear that even before the owners assumed administration of the stations and some of the leased dairy units they felt displeased with the Department’s management. This dissatisfaction deepened, however, when moves were made to begin returning the

368 ‘Board of Maori Affairs Rural Lending Submission’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 369 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Pouakani 2 Trust: Stations Income and Expenditure Statement for the Year Ended 30 June 1984’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 370 ‘Pouakani Development Scheme: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Owners held at the Mangakino Marae, Mangakino, 5 November 1983’, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 371 Registrar, Rotorua to Under Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, ‘Pouakani Block’, 4 November 1949, AAMK 869/917b, 63/66, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 372 Chairman, Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 21 November 1991, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 117

scheme to the owners. The Incorporation’s farming sub-committee claimed in September 1981 that more money would have to be spent to maintain the minimal improvements on the Mangatahae and Mangakino Stations. It was ‘disappointed to find that [the Department of] Maori Affairs had delayed spending money on maintenance and this must now be spent at a time when costs are high, and the incorporation of the Pouakani Development Scheme is imminent.’373 The Incorporation’s Committee became increasingly concerned at the state of the sheep stations, reporting a few months later in May 1982 that they ‘continue to be in need of a lot of maintenance’.374 In particular, the committee claimed that the fences at Mangakino and pastures at Mangatahae were in need of serious upkeep and repairs. The committee also felt that whilst cattle were generally in a good condition, ewes and lambs were in a poor state. Following the transfer to the Incorporation, the Committee Chairman informed the Department in December 1984 that it:

did not have the affairs of the scheme so organised that it could hand over a properly administered scheme. I think it is fair to say that overall the impression we had gained is that the majority of the farms were being poorly managed and producing at well below acceptable production levels.375

The essence of the Trustee’s argument was that the farms were unnecessarily substandard and that it was ‘not convinced that the [D]epartment has made adequate attempts over the years to ensure that maintenance work was kept at an adequate level.’376 From the time of handover, therefore, the Trustee attempted to seek financial concessions from the Department for what it considered was the inadequate condition of the Pouakani stations and leasehold dairy units.

373 ‘The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Farming Sub Committee Report’, 1 September 1981, BBFZ 4942/787a 2601 (7), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 374 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Newsletter’, May 1982, MLC 8-1, vol. III, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 375 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Rural Lending Submission’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 376 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Rural Lending Submission’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 118

A valuation report of the development of the Pouakani 2 Trust farms completed in 1991 confirmed the concerns of the owners. Undertaken by Wynne Dymock of Dymock Valuers & Co. Ltd, Registered Public Valuers, Hamilton, the report stated that the Pouakani farms, whilst under the administration of the Department of Maori Affairs, ‘deteriorated to such an extent that the production levels were almost one half of the district average.’377 Dymock, who had been employed to provide valuations for review of rentals, mortgage valuations and property reports at Pouakani from 1983, believed that the farm’s pastures were poor, buildings badly kept, weed control inadequate and other farm improvements generally substandard. He felt that there were two major factors for such deterioration:

Firstly, the leases offered little or no compensation for improvements to the lessees. This being a disincentive to spend funds on property maintenance or development. Secondly, the supervision offered by the [Department of] Maori Affairs appears to have been ineffective. Most lessees had breached the lease covenants in the terms of:

a) Maintenance of improvements b) Fertilizer applications c) Weed control.378

The report stated that since the owners had resumed administration of the dairy farms, the Pouakani 2 Trust had effected a number of costly measures to solve these problems and improve their conditions. These methods included better fertilizer applications following specific soil and pasture analysis; necessary regrassing and spraying programmes to manage the spread of ragwort and thistle; improvements to water supply and fencing; construction of new buildings such as cowsheds, implement sheds and haybarns; employment of proven and energetic sharemilkers along with improved farm consultancy, accounting and legal advice; and the installation of a better quality

377 Dymock Valuers & Co. Ltd., Registered Public Valuers, ‘Development of Pouakani No. 2 Trust Farms between 1 July 1983 and 1 July 1990’, p. 1, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 119

accountancy/management programme to monitor farm operations. All of these methods, Dymock believed, had contributed to the substantial improvements that the dairy units were enjoying by 1990. Yet none of these measures, he concluded, was possible under the Department’s administration and stated that it ‘should be accountable for the very poor state of the farms in 1983 when the management control reverted to the Pouakani 2 Trust.’379

Dymock’s assessment of the Department’s administration of the stations was also critical. The registered valuer claimed that the change in management had resulted in a substantial increase in the scheme’s production capacities. Prior to 1983 the stations had been ‘farmed in a very traditional manner’, according to Dymock, ‘with a large breeding flock and herd of breeding cows.’380 The Trust initiated a different farming policy with a greater emphasis on bull farming for the export market. A dairy farm was later converted to a calf enterprise to rear bulls especially for the station. Within seven years of the owners resuming control of the stations, the Trust had increased stock units from 16,450 to 30, 940, a rise of 88 percent. The report also claimed that cash surpluses from the beef farming rose from $217,000 in 1983 to $711,000 in 1990, whilst over the same period the surplus from the sheep farming operation increased from $210,000 to $417,000. Dymock’s overall assessment was that the Trust’s policy of diversification and more intensive utilisation had caused these ‘substantial gains in the terms of increased production and levels of profitability.’381 This report provided considerable support to the owners’ case that after 1983 they were left with, as the Incorporation Chairman stated in 1991, ‘a legacy of neglect.’382 The Committee of Management initiated a programme of capital expenditure to upgrade the existing improvements as well as provide for completely new capital assets which were considered necessary if the scheme was to

378 Dymock Valuers & Co. Ltd., Registered Public Valuers, ‘Development of Pouakani No. 2 Trust Farms between 1 July 1983 and 1 July 1990’, p. 2, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 379 Dymock Valuers & Co. Ltd., Registered Public Valuers, ‘Development of Pouakani No. 2 Trust Farms between 1 July 1983 and 1 July 1990’, p. 2, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 380 Dymock Valuers & Co. Ltd., Registered Public Valuers, ‘Development of Pouakani No. 2 Trust Farms between 1 July 1983 and 1 July 1990’, p. 4, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 381 Dymock Valuers & Co. Ltd., Registered Public Valuers, ‘Development of Pouakani No. 2 Trust Farms between 1 July 1983 and 1 July 1990’, pp. 4-5, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 382 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust’, May 1991, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 120

maintain its viability. It was obvious that there existed a profound divergence of views between the owners’ representatives and the Board of Maori Affairs concerning the latter’s opinion that the Pouakani scheme was in ‘sufficiently good heart’ when returned to the owners. This disagreement would dominate the relationship between the Trustee and the Department and its successor organisations for the rest of the 1980s and 1990s.

Upon approval of the transfer, the Board offered an advance of $312,213 to the Trustee to meet the residual scheme debt. The Board felt that the initial advance could be repaid over a 25 year term by annual instalments of $29,000. Interest at the time of the advance was 7.5 percent and the Mangakino and Mangatahae stations were to be used as security.383 The Trustee, however, refused to accept the loan offer, raising questions about several of its conditions and indicating that it was not happy with it at all. As part of the handover of the scheme and dairy farms the Department expected the Trustee to execute a Deed of Indemnity and Release. This deed would release the Department of the duties and responsibilities imposed under the lease and pursuant to Part XXIV Maori Affairs Act 1953 whilst provide it with security over the Pouakani lands for the outstanding debt. Yet the Trustee was not prepared to sign such a Deed until it was satisfied that the Department had administered the scheme adequately or that sufficient compensation had been provided if it had not. The Trustee, therefore, rejected the Board’s loan offer as part of this process of return. This refusal caused ‘some embarrassment’ to the Department’s District Office as a debt was shown in its rural lending ledger but no formal debt had been established. The District Officer informed Head Office that ‘[t]he trustees frankly seem content to string us along, but we in District see no good reason why they should be allowed to do so.’384

It is clear that the positions of the Department and the Trustee were firmly entrenched from the time the Pouakani 2 Trust commenced its administration. The Trustee believed that the residual scheme debt was not justified given the state of the scheme and farms yet the Department did not feel that a write-off was necessary and that

383 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Rural Lending Submission’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 384 District Officer to Head Office, Pouakani Trust (Formerly Pouakani Development Scheme): Loan Offer, 19 December 1984, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 121

‘any blanket compensation’, as one officer stated, ‘would be totally unwarranted.’385 The Deputy Secretary for Maori Affairs explained the Department’s stance concerning the Trustee’s request for concessions and adequate compensation when he wrote to the Trustee in March 1985, essentially setting down the position that would for the most part be adopted by the Department and its successor organisations. The Deputy Secretary was eager to point out to the Trustee that ‘there was a very strong desire on the part of the Board to meet the wishes of the owners during the development and settlement of the property.’386 He explained that it was the Board’s priority to see that the settlers nominated by the owners were established on their farms and obtaining a living, ‘even if it was at the expense of fertiliser and maintenance.’ The Deputy Secretary believed that if the leases had been properly enforced then many lessees would have been forced from their farms before being given a good chance of proving themselves, completely undermining the overall objective of providing farming employment for Wairarapa Maori.

The Deputy Secretary also confirmed that many improvements effected by the lessees had been undertaken with inferior materials and often by unskilled labour. Yet he then explained the Department’s perspective of this situation, stating that:

The lessees who were entitled to compensation for their improvements carried out additions and improvements as they were able but there is no power under the lease for the Board to require that “new” improvements had to be carried out to a certain quality standard. It is also clear that the covenants of the lease call for maintenance of improvements and not for renewal of those improvements which may well have been substandard from the beginning.387

This statement revealed the cause of dissenting views between the Department and the Trustee concerning the condition of the farms at the time of transfer and the possibility of a write-off of debt. Although Departmental officials were well aware that

385 District Field Officer, ‘Administration of Leases at Pouakani’, 25 January 1985, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 386 Deputy Secretary for Maori Affairs to Chairman, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, 7 March 1985, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 122

the maintenance of farms may not have been of a satisfactory standard which was possibly detrimental to their long term productivity and sustainability, the Department was not legally obliged to ensure that the farms were actually improved. It was merely required to ensure that minimal improvements were maintained, even though those improvements may not have been of a quality standard to begin with, as the Deputy Secretary pointed out, and as was often the case with many leases. With changing dairy practices and regulations, many old cowsheds which were once adequate soon became obsolete. Yet lessees were not required to update or change them to keep up with modern trends as the covenants of the lease necessitated maintenance of improvements. The Committee of Management, on the other hand, seemed to have expected continual renewal of improvements.

The Department, therefore, had acted accordingly as far as the covenants of the leases were concerned. It is quite obvious, however, that the owners suffered unfairly in terms of the eventual outcome of such a leasing system. The inevitable result was that the farms would, and did, deteriorate over an extended period of time. Although the Department was not compelled to remedy this whilst in control, it meant that the owners were left with the unfortunate situation of rectifying this regrettable state of affairs once it assumed administration of the farms. Until that time, though, the owners were basically powerless to do anything apart from their representatives voicing their concerns to Departmental officers. It is uncertain whether the owners were completely aware of the exact covenants of the leases that eventually caused this situation. Given the fact that they perceived the Department as neglecting the farms and that there was confusion regarding the leasing terms from the beginning of settlement, this may very well have been the case. Despite this, it could hardly be considered reasonable for the owners not to take into account the condition and long term capabilities of the farms once they were returned.

A certain degree of frustration thus developed between the Trustee and the Department following the latter’s refusal to accept the case of the former for an application of dismissal of the residue scheme debt on the basis of the Department’s

387 Deputy Secretary, Department for Maori Affairs to the Chairman, Proprietors of Mangakino Township, 7 March 1985, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 123

alleged mismanagement. This made joint administration of the Pouakani lands between the Department and the Trustee increasingly difficult. The Department’s direct involvement in administering certain parts of Pouakani did not end with the transfer of February 1984. The Board retained administration of eight of the leasehold dairy units. Six lessees had provisions for payment of compensation upon expiry of their leases while two other lessees were personally indebted to the Department.388 The Board was legally required to pay compensation to those lessees still holding original compensation leases. Those lessees entitled to 75 percent compensation for improvements were:

• William and Alice Karauna, for 42 years from 1 January 1966, annual rent $1,175.00, rent reviewable in 1994; • Allan McMeekin, for 42 years from 1 July 1957, annual rent $280.00, rent reviewable in 1985; • Dulcie Ahipene, for 42 years from 1 July 1961, annual rent $540.00, rent reviewable in 1989; • Robert Parry, for 42 years from 1 July 1966, annual rent $1450.00, rent reviewable in 1994; • Tui Te Maari, for 21 years from 1 July 1974, annual rent $367.50; • Barlow Karaitiana, for 42 years from 1 July 1954, annual rent $233.75389

Upon acquiring management of the stations and the other individual dairy farms, the Trust attempted to accelerate its policy of engaging suitable sharemilkers to work the units once leases had expired or surrenders had been negotiated.390 The Trustee felt determined to secure all lands to the total use and control of the Trust as soon as it could, especially those farms with compensation leases still retained by the Board. The Trustee felt that it would prove far less costly to pay out the lessees promptly rather than having these continue to be administered by the Department. The Trustee’s legal advisor put further pressure on the Board to ensure that it would vigorously police the lease

388 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Pouakani 2 Trust’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 389 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Pouakani 2 Trust’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 390 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Farming Sub-Committee Report’, 1 September 1981, MLC 8-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Incorporation; Board of Maori Affairs: Rural Lending Submission, 1987 124

covenants as the Trustee was ‘disappointed at the apparent failure to take appropriate action in the past.’391 The Committee expressed its concern at the way two of the farms still being administered by the Board had deteriorated and believed that once again it seemed to be failing to ‘discharge its statutory responsibilities in respect of these two leases’.392 The Committee felt most concerned by the reaction of the Dairy Company if the two sheds were to close down, such was the poor standard of the farms. The Committee expected any defaults to be remedied immediately.

The Trustee thus moved to bring those leasehold dairy units under its complete control from the mid-1980s onwards, with surrendering lessees indicating that the offer to relinquish their leases was prompted by direct approaches from the Trust.393 In 1985 one lessee entitled to compensation died and his estate surrendered his lease. An advance of $76,708.00 was granted to the Trust by the Board to meet the compensation.394 Between 1986 and 1987 another six more leases were also surrendered, including two requiring compensation payouts.395 A further $515,021.56 had to be advanced to the Trustee to cover the surrender of these leases and purchase of chattels. All advances from the Board were secured by a mortgage while the Trust had a second mortgage to the Rural Bank which at April 1987 stood at $180,933.396 With these advances necessary to settle surrendering leases and upgrade facilities, combined with net cash deficits from farming for the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 financial years,397 the Trust soon found itself in financial difficulty. The Trustee claimed that mortgage repayments did not leave it with sufficient revenue to properly maintain its assets and once again applied to the Department for concessions, including a write-off of the residual scheme debt. The

391 J. Stevens, Johnston Lawrence Elder Barristers & Solicitors to the Assistant Director, Department of Maori Affairs, 22 January 1985, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 392 J. Stevens, Johnston Lawrence Elder Barristers & Solicitors to the Assistant Director, Department of Maori Affairs, 22 January 1985, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 393 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Rural Lending Submission’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 394 ‘Report: Pouakani 2 Block’, 12 April 1990, MA 63/66/1, vol. III, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 395 ‘Development Submission’, BBFZ 4942/783a 2600 (4), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 396 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Rural Lending Submission, 1989’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 125

Department’s District Office considered the Trustee’s application in early 1989 stating that ‘some form of concession is warranted to assure the future viability of the operation.’398 The Trust had fallen behind in its repayments on the Board’s advances, the instalment due at 31 March 1989 being $177,106. Although the Trust had paid $50,000 as of that date, $127,106 remained outstanding. The Trust was also required at this stage to make repayments on the Rural Bank advance of $37,728 per annum. Given the repayments faced by the Trust and its recent net cash deficit recordings, the Department’s Assistant District Manager believed that the granting of some relief to the Trust would be ‘reasonable and equitable’. He recommended to the Board that the Trust be granted remission of interest for the period 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988 and that the principal portion of the instalment due 31 March 1989 be postponed until 30 June 1991.399

Yet the Trust’s request for a write-off of debt was once again declined. While it was recognised that the Trust was currently experiencing financial difficulties, it was recommended to the Board that a write-off not be accepted as the Trust’s position could be improved if expenditure was controlled. The overall state of the Trust was considered sound. As of 30 June 1989 the Trust’s total assets were valued at $14,187,019 and liabilities at $996,372 leaving the owners with a substantial equity.400 The Assistant District Manager felt that the Trust’s high administration costs, rather than mortgage repayments, were the major problem. The Waiariki Maori Land Advisory Committee, established to deal with land issues and Maori land development financing throughout the district,401 supported the Manager’s recommendation that the debt remain, claiming that ‘comparatively high administration costs’ were causing the Trust’s immediate financial

397 Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 1987’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua. These deficits were $159,353 for the year ending 30 June 1986 and $236,708 for the year ending 30 June 1987. 398 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Rural Lending Submission, 1989’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 399 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Rural Lending Submission, 1989’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 400 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Rural Lending Submission, 1989’, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 401 ‘Report of the Department of Maori Affairs and the Maori Land Board and Maori Trust Office for the Year Ended 31 March 1983’, AJHR, 1983, E-13, p. 12 126

difficulties.402 The Committee concluded that these costs could be reduced, as the Trust had begun undertaking, and not only recommended that the request for write-off be declined but that all concessions be declined. The Board of Maori Affairs approved the Committee’s decision.403

The Trustee felt increasingly frustrated by these decisions, believing that it was only trying to gain concessions from a government department that had created the difficulties it was now confronting in the first place. This frustration was further intensified by the Department’s continuing administration of several of the dairy units, especially the lease to Jules Parkinson. The Board had approved a lease to Parkinson on 20 May 1974 for a term of 21 years at a rental of $2,808.00 per annum for the first 11 years.404 On 18 March 1975 the Board granted Parkinson an advance of $15,000 to construct a new cowshed as the existing one was condemned. Further advances of $2,900 were made by the Board for water supply improvements. Parkinson felt annoyed by the fact that he had to spend much money on the farm house to make it habitable as well as having to build a completely new cowshed. From the time of his settlement Parkinson failed to meet lease rentals and mortgage instalments. Parkinson’s son Daryl had taken over the farm by 1983 but substantial rentals continued to remain outstanding. The Incorporation’s Committee of Management repeatedly insisted that the Department re- enter the lease and was ‘most reluctant to see Darryl Parkinson accept responsibility for the debts of his father, in circumstances where it might prejudice his ability to service his overall debt and satisfactorily farm the property.’405 The Parkinson case was not bought before the Waiariki Maori Land Advisory Committee until October 1987 which approved re-entry of Jules Parkinson’s lease for non-payment of rent. Parkinson’s rent arrears alone dating from 1 July 1985 to 31 December 1987 amounted to $47,276.52.406

402 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Rural Lending Submission. Further comment’, 29 June 1989, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 403 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Pouakani No. 2 Block’, 12 September 1989, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 404 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Submission’, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 405 J. Stevens, Johnston Lawrence Elder Barristers & Solicitors to the Assistant Director, Department of Maori Affairs, 22 January 1985, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 406 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Submission, September 1989’, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 127

The Incorporation Committee felt adamant that Jules and his son should be evicted yet Darryl continued to farm the property so peaceful re-entry could not be effected. As Jules intended to take all steps to prevent his lease being terminated, the Department decided against High Court action due to the lengthy delay likely to be involved and tried to negotiate with the lessee. This proved unsuccessful but once Darryl Parkinson gained a sharemilking contract in Putaruru, peaceful re-entry was finally effected in July 1989. Yet Jules Parkinson quickly returned to the property and was only finally persuaded to leave after a Trespass Notice was verbally served upon him by Departmental Officers. Solicitors for Jules Parkinson informed the Department that the lessee would permanently vacate the farm and not pursue any claims against the Department or the Incorporation in respect of the lease if the Board agreed not to pursue payment of all rent and mortgage payments. Parkinson’s total rental arrears as of 10 July 1989 stood at $78,077,67. The Incorporation wished to see the farm returned to owner control and wanted reimbursement for the rental outstanding. The Waiariki Maori Land Advisory Committee approved that the farm be released from Part XXIV, and that legal remedies in respect of outstanding rent and breaches not be pursued. The Chairman noted, however, that ‘the Trustees of Pouakani No. 2 could bring action against the Crown for recovery of the outstanding rental.’407 The Board approved these recommendations in September 1989.

Once again the owners suffered in the case of defaulting lessees. The Incorporation Committee, as in the past, proved incapable of exercising any degree of authority in this situation. Whilst Departmental officers listened to its concerns, these were effectively ignored as the Department attempted to arrive at an acceptable resolution outside the Courts. The Department recognised that the Courts process in these cases usually proved inadequate and was trying to act in the owners’ best interests, but this still did not prevent the continued deterioration of the farm resulting from the extensive delay in final re-entry. The costs of deferred maintenance would once again fall upon the owners. Only after a ‘long protracted legal battle to gain an eviction on the grounds of non-payment of rent and endless breaches in the lease covenants’ was the farm

407 ‘Board of Maori Affairs: Submission, September 1989’, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 128

repossessed.408 The condition of the farm was so poor that the Trustee decided to amalgamate it to the adjacent bull farm and re-develop both units over a planned two year budget period with money obtained from the sale of the bulls. The issue of the outstanding rentals remained unresolved yet the owners perceived this as another unfair instance to be endured.

The move towards complete owner control of the dairy farms was further hampered by the fact that separate titles were not available for them upon transfer. Leases that had been granted by the Board under the provisions of Part XXIV could be registered against the land without needing to produce the certificate or certificates of title.409 The Trustee later claimed that this affected its overall financial strategy as the units ‘needed to continue in farming and therefore deferred maintenance was carried out at high cost. The mortgages on the land were without clear title for security and continued to rise.’410 The Trustee soon raised with the Department the issue of separate Land Transfer Office titles and legally defined roads not being on hand at the time of transfer. The Deputy Secretary of Maori Affairs agreed that it was necessary that surveys be quickly undertaken so that full and complete title was available to the Trustee. Yet his personal view was that:

Maori Affairs legislation has been, and still is, deficient in not requiring automatic registration in the Land Transfer Office of all Maori Land Court decisions. This has encouraged a separate and inferior Maori Land Court “title system” which is taking a great deal of work and time to bring up to standard.411

The Deputy Secretary felt that the cost of perfecting titles fell on the proprietors and that all survey work that had previously been undertaken by the Department had been done at no charge to the owners. Whilst it was possible to register a lease against the existing Certificate of title without the need for each leasehold property to be a separate title, the Deputy Secretary deemed that if it was required that ‘leasehold properties [were] to be

408 Chairman of the Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Report of Pouakani 2 Trust for the Year Ending 30 June 1990’, MLC 8-1-1 vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 409 Maori Affairs Act, New Zealand Statutues, 1953, II: No. 94, Part XXIV s (343) 410 Chairman, Proprietos of the Mangakino Township Incorporation to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 21 November 1991, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 411 Deputy Secretary, Department for Maori Affairs to the Chairman, Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, 7 March 1985, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 129

separately surveyed and separate titles issued this will be beyond the cost which can be carried by the Crown’.412 He believed that for this to occur, the Trustee should come to an arrangement with the lessees to share costs.

A significant title improvement exercise was thus initiated with extensive surveys of Pouakani 2 carried out.413 The Trustee felt a sense of grievance due to the costs and hold-ups involved in obtaining proper survey. The delay in survey matters meant that the issue of titles would not begin to clear up until several years later yet this had, according to counsel for the Trustee, delayed ‘refinancing arrangements.’414 The Trustee considered it unfair that it had to incur legal, administrative and other expenses to rectify the subdivision and title problem. It felt further frustrated by the fact that it was still waiting as late as November 1991 for the Iwi Transition Agency to release parts of Pouakani 2 from the provisions of the Maori Affairs Act which was now subject to Part II of the Maori Affairs Restructuring Act, 1989.415 The Trustee simply wanted to see all of the Pouakani properties free of the legislation that they had been subject to for so long.

4.5. Pouakani 2 Trust and the Crown, 1990s For much of the 1990s the relationship between the Pouakani 2 Trust and the various Crown entities formed to replace the reorganised Department of Maori Affairs was marked by an ongoing dispute about the Department’s previous administration of the Pouakani 2 lands. The Trustee repeatedly made submissions to the Department’s successor agencies requesting redress on those unresolved matters. The Trustee specifically pointed out the issues of:

• unsatisfactory management of leases by Board of Maori Affairs • cost of remedy of breaches on surrender of leases • unsatisfactory leasing system and terms

412 Deputy Secretary, Department for Maori Affairs to the Chairman, Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, 7 March 1985, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 413 ‘Report: Pouakani 2 Block’, 12 April 1990, MA 63/66/1, vol. III, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 414 J. Stevens, Johnston Lawrence Elder Barristers & Solicitors to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 May 1990, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 415 Maori Affairs Restructuring Act, New Zealand Statutes, 1989, III: No. 68 130

• cost of and delay in survey and issue of titles • unsatisfactory recovery of rent and enforcement of remedy of breaches • substantial rent written off • debt at time of hand over not justified.416

The Trustee’s legal advisor also made submissions to the Minister of Maori Affairs, pleading the case of his client. It was pointed out to the Minister how the beneficial owners of Pouakani 2 had suffered in terms of the substandard state of the farms, especially the leasehold dairy units. Whilst the owners were able to offset some of the rental arrears and value of defaults under some of the compensation leases, the owners had to incur massive expenditure upgrading these farms to a reasonable quality, which meant that the owners could not use this money elsewhere for further development. The Trustee’s solicitor alleged that $745,000 had been borrowed for this purpose between 1983 and 1990.417 On top of this, there was the residue development debt of $312,213, with interest accrued over the same seven year period of $193,231, providing a total of $505,444 as of 8 May 1990. Such terms, the legal representative believed, were completely unfair and claimed that:

if the trustee of the scheme at the time of handover had been a private trustee, rather than a Crown agency, the beneficial owners would have been successful in an action for negligence against the trustee administering the property.418

Despite this assertion, the Trust basically received the same response to its submissions that had been given by the Department. Following a further decision by the Minister of The Iwi Transition Authority in 1989 not to consider the case of the Trustee for concessions and an interview, the Chairman of the Trustee ‘found this attitude incredible and hostile and so [he] immediately filed a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal.’419

416 General Manager, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 6 March 1991, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 417 J. Stevens, Johnston Lawrence Elder Barristers & Solicitors to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 May 1990, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 418 J. Stevens, Johnston Lawrence Elder Barristers & Solicitors to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 May 1990, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 419 Chairman of the Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Report of Pouakani 2 Trust for the Year Ending 30 June 1990’, MLC 8-1-1 vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 131

(The present author believes this to be the Wai 85 statement of claim.) The Iwi Transition Agency considered that the basis of the Trustee’s case was no different to that that had been brought before the Department. The Agency’s General Manager thought that it could ‘be argued that it is a “try-on” with the new Government organisation’.420 The Trust did not enjoy a change in reply to its submissions following the establishment of the Ministry of Maori Affairs (Te Puni Kokiri). The Minister of Maori Affairs, after another request made by the Trustee for concessions, wrote to the Chairman in 1992 informing him that he was ‘not in sympathy’ with the Trust’s claims.421 The Minister pointed to improvements that the Department had made to the land during the course of its development, increasing its value from $81,240 in 1949 to $11,788,219 in 1983. The Minister felt that none of the Trust’s arguments provided ‘grounds for a write down in the debt now owing to the Crown.’ This debt owing to Te Puni Kokiri as of 30 June 1992 amounted to $421,616.422 The Minister did feel concerned, however, by the delays and difficulties that the Trust claimed to be experiencing through lack of clear title to the farms. The Minister asked the Te Puni Kokiri Chief Executive to investigate this matter and rectify it immediately. Frustrated by this, the Trustee then wrote to the Prime Minister claiming that ‘it is trite to suggest, as implied from [the Minister of Maori Affairs’] comments, that because the value of the enterprise increased, mismanagement can be excused.’423

Along with the ongoing dispute concerning alleged past mismanagement, the Trustee and the Department’s successor agencies frequently clashed over the current administration of Pouakani 2. The Iwi Transition Agency was to release a total area of 1631.5089 hectares from the provisions of Part II of the Maori Affairs Restructuring Act 1989, according to a submission dated April 1990.424 This included nearly all the farming

420 General Manager, The Iwi Transition Agency to The Minister in Charge of The Iwi Transition Agency, 31 May 1990, MA 63/66/1, vol. I, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 421 Minister of Maori Affairs to The Chairman, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, 14 February 1992, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 422 Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust and The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation: Annual General Meetings 7 November 1992. Presentation of 1991/1992 Financial Accounts, MLC 8-1-1 vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 423 Chairman, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, 6 March 1992, MA 63/66/1, vol. III, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 424 ‘Development Submission’, BBFZ 4942/783a 2600 (4), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 132

units, most of which had already been taken over by the Trustee. The Trust had also assumed control of the Mangatahae and Mangakino stations but these were to remain under the provisions of Part II as security for the loan, as were three other leases that were entitled to 75 percent compensation upon expiry or surrender of the lease. These remaining lessees were:

• Alan McMeekin, expiry 1 July 1999; • Dulcie Ahipene, expiry 1 July 2003; • Robert Parry, expiry 1 July 2008.425

The Trustee felt determined to ‘assume full control of all its properties, including these leased properties.’426 It had approached each individual lessee encouraging them to surrender or vary their lease by removing the Iwi Transition Agency, and later Te Puni Kokiri, as lessor. The Trustee wanted administration of its lands completely ‘independent of the Crown’ and for these lessees to be paid their compensation. It was clear that the Trustee did not want to see this contingent liability rise even higher than it was, a total $470,250 at February 1993 values according to the Trust’s counsel.427 The Trustee had become annoyed at the Ministry’s apparent inability to adequately enforce the terms of its remaining leases. As the Trust was attempting to bring its units up to standard with modern farming practices, the Trustee felt disappointed to see that the Ministry had allowed the Ahipene and Parry farms to become heavily infested by ragwort. The General Manager of the Incorporation pointed out to the Ministry that ‘[o]n behalf of the owners your [Rotorua] office is responsible for the inspection of the leases but has failed in that capacity.’428 The mistrust and dissatisfaction that the owners’ representatives had towards the Department continued between the Trustee and the new Ministry of Maori Affairs.

425 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust to the Registrar, Maori Land Court, Waiariki District, Rotorua, 28 November 1994, MLC 8-1-2, vol. II, Pouakani No. 2, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 426 J. Stevens, Johnston Lawrence Elder Barristers & Solicitors to The Chief Executive, Te Puni Kokiri, 24 February 1993, MA 63/66/1, vol. III, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 427 J. Stevens, Johnston Lawrence Elder Barristers & Solicitors to The Chief Executive, Te Puni Kokiri, 24 February 1993, MA 63/66/1, vol. III, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 428 General Manager, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation to Rotorua Office, Ministry of Maori Development, 26 February 1992, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 133

The Trustee had now reached the point whereby it could no longer permit any further management of its lands by any entity other than itself.

In 1993 the Pouakani 2 Trust made a vigorous attempt to resolve its long outstanding issues with the Crown. Legal representation for the Trust once again outlined its case to the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri. The Trust’s solicitor felt that the Crown’s response, which seemed to be based on the notion that because the Trust had become financially prosperous after earlier difficulties and so did not need any type of compensation, was unsatisfactory. The Trustee still felt that the issues it had raised since 1983 deserved some form of concession. The Trust provided a proposal of settlement:

1. Balance of development debt at 30 June 1983 ($312,213.00) together with interest since accrued, is written-off. 2. Trust takes over administration of all remaining leases under administration of Crown. 3. Trust indemnifies Crown in respect of liability for payment out of compensation. 4. Trust undertakes to withdraw and not to make any further claims through the Waitangi Tribunal or otherwise in respect of past Crown involvement with the development of Trust lands.429

The Trustee’s solicitor met with various Te Puni Kokiri representatives to discuss these terms in March. He agreed with them that a previous submission made by the Chairman of the Trustee in November 1991 for compensation totalling $4,678,776430 was well in excess of what could be reasonably justified as adequate compensation.431 Some degree of compensation was still sought yet no agreement on this matter was reached. Further discussion took place concerning the cost of surveys and lack of titles, as well as the issue of outstanding rental of the Parkinson lease which had come to a final total of $87,646.58. It appeared that the Te Puni Kokiri officers were prepared to recommend this

429 J. Stevens, Johnston Lawrence Elder Barristers & Solicitors to The Chief Executive, Te Puni Kokiri, 24 February 1993, MA 63/66/1, vol. III, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 430 Chairman, Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 21 November 1991, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 431 Manager of Leases, Te Puni Kokiri, ‘Pouakani’, MA 63/66/1, vol. III, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 134

amount as a write-off of lost rental.432 The Iwi Transition Agency had earlier informed the Trust’s solicitor that it had not written off this outstanding rental but only that it had been removed from rent records because it was seen as unrecoverable.433 With Jules Parkinson a pensioner in his eighties, it was considered that recovery of the rent was impractical. Although this may have been correct, it was hardly fair from the point of view of the owners. The only agreement that seemed to have been made between the Trust’s solicitor and Ministry officials was that Te Puni Kokiri would open discussions with the individual lessees still under its administration to see if they could negotiate about the surrender or transfer of their leases to the Trust.434

The lack of progress in the Trust’s case against the Ministry and the unproductive meeting between its solicitor and Te Puni Kokiri representatives prompted the Trust to halt its instalments of the Te Puni Kokiri debt in March 1993. The loan, with interest payable at 12.5 percent per annum and principal and interest instalments of $9725.58 payable monthly, amounted to $482,243 for the year ending 30 June 1995.435 The Trust refused to pay any further instalments for the rest of the 1990s as it attempted to negotiate directly with Te Punk Kokiri for concessions. The Trustee saw no alternative other than to stop its payments on this debt in order to be granted some kind of reprieve. It no longer felt willing to pay money on a loan that it believed had been created by the Crown’s own failure ‘in setting up viable farm management systems prior to 1983’ until its issues were ‘addressed some time in the future.’436

As the Trust attempted to gain financial redress from the Crown, it also undertook its own moves to make it a more cost-effective operation so that it was able to prove more competitive in the market. The Trust had struggled to record net operating surpluses

432 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust to the Registrar, Maori Land Court, Waiariki District, Rotorua, 28 November 1994, MLC 8-1-2, vol. II, Pouakani No. 2, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 433 Programme Manager, The Iwi Transition Authority to J. Stevens, Johnston Lawrence Elder Barristers & Solicitors, 26 April 1990, BBFZ 4942/783a 2600 (4), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 434 Manager of Leases, Te Puni Kokiri, ‘Pouakani’, MA 63/66/1, vol. III, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 435 Pouakani 2 Trust, Annual Report for the Year Ending 30 June 1995, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 436 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Reports 1996’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 135

in the early 1990s and set about rectifying this. The first part of this process involved a major restructuring of the Pouakani farms during the mid-1990s so as to increase overall efficiency, transfer investment away from poor-yielding sheep and beef farming towards higher-yielding dairy units, and ensure the farms’ long term viability.437 The Trust felt that greater profits and opportunities would arise from dairying and land from the former stations was converted for dairy production. The second part of this process entailed the Committee of Management applying to the Maori Land Court for an amalgamation of the Incorporation’s and Trust’s assets as one incorporated entity. The Committee felt that it would be irresponsible if it continued to allow ownership of the Trust’s and Incorporation’s resources to diverge any further than what it already had. Additionally, it was considered that an amalgamation of the Incorporation and the Trust would reduce administrative costs, making management of the Pouakani assets more economical and freeing income for other purposes.438 Such a rearrangement would remove what the Trustee claimed was ‘duplicate unwieldy administrative bodies to deal with present land tenure systems.’439

The Committee of Management maintained that it had the support of approximately 20 percent of the beneficial owners of Pouakani 2 by mid-1996. Consent of only 15 percent of the owners was needed for an application to be made to the Maori Land Court. Whilst the necessary level of support had also apparently been obtained from the shareholders of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, a special committee was to first review the constitution and the appropriate provisions of including the farming operations in the Incorporation before an application to the Court was made. This application was held up after the Maori Land Court commenced a review of the Trustee under the provisions of the Te Ture Whenua Act 1993. Certain aspects of the Maori Land Court’s review were deemed irregular and beyond the Court’s jurisdiction by the Trustee’s legal representatives and the Trustee applied to the High Court for ‘judicial review of the actions of the Maori Land Court, claiming both lack of jurisdiction and

437 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Reports 1996’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 438 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township and Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Reports 1997’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 136

incorrect process.’440 An interim order made by the High Court suspended any further action by the Maori Land Court until it could hear the application of review. Unfortunately for the Trust, members of the Trustee became heavily involved in the review and much of the forward planning of its operations, including the application for amalgamation, were delayed.

Although the Trust continued to be engaged with the Maori Land Court’s review, significant developments took place during the late 1990s regarding the administration of Pouakani. The long outstanding matter of the final compensation leases neared an end as two of the remaining three leases administered by the Ministry were surrendered. The Trust assumed control of the Ahipene estate after the lessee passed away, purchasing the lessee’s improvements in 1997.441 The Trust also gained control of the McMeekin lease in 1999, negotiating a settlement with the lessee worth $257,998.442 This left the Parry lease as the Trust’s last and only contingent liability whereby the lessee was entitled to 75 percent of the value of improvements upon termination or expiry of the lease. The rental income obtained from the lease was held as a provision for the payment of future compensation.443 While the Trust has attempted to negotiate a settlement with the lessee, this has so far proved unsuccessful. The lease is still running at the time of writing of this report and does not expire for at least another four and a half years.444

Probably of more significance, after much dispute and ‘lengthy and protracted negotiations’, the Trust and the Crown also came to an agreement concerning the development debt.445 A settlement was concluded in 1999 between the Trust and Te Puni Kokiri that also involved the Trust being compensated for the rental arrears of the

439 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Reports 1996’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 440 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township and Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Reports 1997’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 441 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township and Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Reports 1997’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua; Personal communication with Peter Little, Te Puni Kokiri, 15 October 2002 442 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation and Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘1999 Annual Report’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 443 The Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of the Pouakani 2 Trust’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 444 Personal communication with Peter Little, Te Puni Kokiri, 15 October 2002 137

Parkinson lease. The total amount of arrears plus accumulated interest on the Parkinson lease added to $262,608.00. This uncovered rental and interest was written against the Te Puni Kokiri debt, which reduced this amount to $477,031.38 as of 30 June 1999.446 A year later the debt had been completely removed from the Trust’s financial statements in its Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2000.447 The actual amount that was settled from the remaining debt is uncertain. According to the Incorporation’s financial accounts, of the $477,031.38 outstanding as of 30 June 1999, credits of $181,744.71 held by Te Puni Kokiri apparently owed to the owners reduced the amount to be settled to $295,286.67. It seems that within the next financial year, the Trust and the Ministry had brought this long running disagreement to an end by finally effecting a financial settlement. The present author was not able to determine whether any conditions were stipulated as part of the settlement. The Trust’s solicitor, in making his submissions for redress during the early 1990s, proposed to withdraw all claims to the Waitangi Tribunal regarding the Crown’s administration of the Pouakani lands if a settlement could be reached. This may very well have been the case of the successful negotiations during the late 1990s. Furthermore, although a financial settlement had been arranged, it is not clear whether Te Puni Kokiri agreed to this as a basis of liability for mismanagement of the Pouakani lands by itself and/or the previous applicable Crown organisations.

4.6 Conclusion The history of the Pouakani development scheme and land administration from 1970 to the present day involved the transition from absolute control by the Department of Maori Affairs of the Pouakani farms through to near-complete control by the Pouakani 2 Trust. This section has established the major issues that arose between the beneficial owners and the numerous Crown entities that administered the scheme and farming units at various stages during the thirty year period covered. From 1983 onwards, the Pouakani 2 Trust assumed management of many of its farming properties, even though these

445 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation and Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘1999 Annual Report’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 446 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation and Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘1999 Annual Report’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 447 The Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of the Pouakani 2 Trust’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 138 sometimes still officially remained subject to the provisions of the different legislative measures that had placed them under Crown administration.

During the course of the Department’s management, the beneficial owners felt a sense of grievance from many of the developments that had taken place over the years. By 1970 the owners had become quite dissatisfied, particularly with the Board’s supervision of the leases and the seemingly continuous high level of debt owed to the Department. This dissatisfaction continued well after the Department began transferring the farms back to the owners. The nature of the leasing system that had been employed at Pouakani caused much of the disagreement between the owners and the Crown. The Department had hoped that the provision of compensation would provide secure tenure for settlers and incentive for them to make adequate investments of their own capital and labour on effecting improvements. For various reasons, however, many original and subsequent lessees holding compensation leases surrendered these which unfortunately added substantial amounts to the owners’ already considerable debt. It was the policy of the owners at this time that the leases be held by Wairarapa Maori. Thus the Board had first right to buy back the leases and grant them to other owners rather than have these being taken by outsiders. The owners, though, had to finance the Board’s purchases by having these charged against the scheme. This policy created further problems when the owners were unable to put forward suitable nominees and farms had to revert back to the stations. Departmental officials also felt some concern regarding the overall quality of farmers available.

Yet such a policy was natural given the context of the situation as a whole. The block had sat idle for over thirty years with the owners being denied any practical access to it and incapable of effecting any major development by themselves due to the expensive costs involved. Once the block had been placed under the various Acts related to Maori land development and the Department’s control, it could hardly have been expected that the owners would have wanted any settlers other than their own people working the farms. Forced to wait such a long time before they could actually begin making some use of the block, Wairarapa Maori felt that only they should be allowed to farm it, especially while the Department remained in control. Once it became obvious 139

that the farms would be transferred to their control, the owners reversed this policy on their own accord and began contracting proven sharemilkers, mainly of European descent.

The nature of the compensation leases, nevertheless, proved financially detrimental in the particular case of Pouakani. The Department recognised this and, in consultation with the owners, agreed to terminate granting any further leases of this kind in 1971. Yet those lessees still holding these remained entitled to compensation. Only one of the farms at Pouakani 2 is currently subject to a compensation lease but the owners have had to expend vast amounts of money over the years settling the others as values have increased over time. The Department did not intend for such a problematic scenario to take place. Indeed, Departmental officials were expressing grave concern at the additional debt caused by the surrendered leases by the early 1960s. Yet the Department had been warned of the possible injurious affects that the compensation leases could cause to the owners. What obviously was not considered was the possibility of continual surrendered leases within a relatively short period of time, as had occurred during the late 1950s and 1960s. The general difficulties of the early 1970s further exacerbated this problem. By the time the decision had been taken to cease granting compensation leases, the damage had already been done. The Pouakani 2 Trust sought the surrender of these leases based on the assumption that it would prove less costly settling these earlier rather than later.

In approving these leases in the first place, however, the Department had hoped that this would attract quality farmers, as they had favourable terms of settlement for leasehold. The fact that these leases later became the source of much dissatisfaction for the owners of Pouakani 2 reflected the uncertainty regarding who the Maori land development schemes were supposed to primarily benefit: the settlers or the owners. As Professor Alan Ward has stated: ‘The question of priority between the farmer and the beneficial owners was never adequately resolved’.448 All development schemes shared this dilemma. In the specific case of Pouakani, both owner and Departmental recognition

448 A. Ward, National Overview (Wellington: GP Publications, 1997), II: p. 420 140

of the adverse effects of the surrender of the compensation leases meant that the Department eventually removed these as an option.

The owners also felt concerned by the Crown’s management of the leases and clearly suffered an injustice in several instances involving defaulting lessees. This particular issue, perhaps more so than any other, demonstrated quite clearly the lack of influence the owners’ representatives actually had in the administration of their lands. The Department repeatedly let lessees breach their covenants and incur substantial rental arrears, despite the concerns made known by the Advisory Committee. Although this sometimes may have been offset against compensation payments for improvements, the owners thought it unfair to have endure this in the first place. Additionally, the owners also had to bear the costs of deferred maintenance. It is obvious that the Crown’s overall administration of the leases failed to protect the interests of the owners at least until considerable breaches had already been made and leases finally re-entered.

The leasing terms were also cause for much friction between the owners and the Crown in regards to the condition of the farms, especially the alleged substandard state of these at the time of handover. The dispute centred on whether the farms should have been improved or existing improvements merely maintained. The Department’s view of this matter was based on the latter as the covenants did not specify for their continual upgrading. Whilst the Department felt it was acting accordingly, the owners understandably accused it of mismanagement. The owners’ concerns also applied to the Department’s administration of the stations. It is apparent that when the farms were transferred to the owners these possessed, at the very least, ample opportunity for substantial improvement. To what extent this could be solely attributed to Crown mismanagement is not clear. Departmental officials involved in the intricate matter of trying to serve the interests of the State, the owners and the settlers had to try and accommodate all parties, either at Pouakani or elsewhere.449 In attempting to manage a

449 ‘Annual Report of the Board of Maori Affairs, and of the Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs for the Year ended 31 March 1954’, AJHR, 1954, G-9, p. 22 141

large farming enterprise with many associated risks and variables, it was inevitable that decisions made could be perceived as incorrect with the benefit of hindsight.450

What can be established is that the owners suffered in that the leasing terms during the Department’s administration did not take into account the long-term viability of the farms. A policy that focussed only on the maintenance of existing improvements (an accusation made by the owners of the Department’s running of the stations as well) was not conducive to the establishment of highly productive competitive farms capable of creating reasonable sustained profits for the settlers and the owners. This was certainly the long term goal of the owners. Whilst Departmental officials may have shared this vision, it was not expected, nor desired, that officials would feature permanently in this long term objective. Rather they had an obligation to recover the debt owing to the Department for the costs of development. Once this had been achieved, the land was to be returned to owner control. It is obvious, therefore, that the divergent priorities of the Department and the owners at least contributed to the dispute over the standard of the farms. The Crown offered a cyclical argument to the owners’ complaints; that better improvements would merely have resulted in a greater debt. Yet this ignored the main concern of the owners and is insufficient as such an argument would also have to be set against the expenditure on deferred maintenance which generally came at a much higher cost. If the improvements were of a high standard to begin with then a better quality farmer may have been more likely to settle whilst better conditioned farms had more chance of creating profits. It would have been less risky for the owners to incur a larger debt than have the farms deteriorate to a degree that could have possibly led to their eventual closure.

The debt owed to the Crown, the other major significant issue, was in any case quite considerable during much of the Department’s administration. From the very beginning of settlement, Crown officials and owners felt concerned by the likely costs of developing Pouakani. The expenditure deemed necessary for developing marginal pumice land during the immediate post-war period would prove extensive and various

450 Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Owners of the Pouakani Development Scheme held at the Oddfellow’s Hall, Greytown, Saturday 30 September 1972, BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings, Archives New Zealand, 142

Crown officials felt that a write-off of debt may be required. Despite some initial concerns, the Department was principled in forging ahead with the development scheme regardless of the costs. To not have done so would have been a greater injustice than any other that has arisen from the scheme. As the undeveloped block had been given to the Wairarapa Maori by the Crown for their benefit, the only honourable option for the Department was to commence its development. Yet as this section has shown, the owners felt concerned by the debt owing to the Department throughout its administration and, of course, after the transfer. The interrelated issues of the compensation leases, purchase of improvements and defaulting lessees ensured that this debt continued to be high. Although a comparison with other development schemes has not proved possible in the limited time allocated for this report, it is clear that given all the circumstances outlined in this section, the costs incurred by the owners of Pouakani 2 for its development has been substantial. There is no doubt that the block falls into that category of schemes which, as historian Ashley Gould stated, ‘were required to bear a burden of development costs beyond that which might have been considered prudent.’451 It appears that after nearly 15 years of ongoing dispute about the residual scheme debt, the Crown has recognised this and a settlement was finally reached between Te Puni Kokiri and the Pouakani 2 Trust in 1999/2000.

Auckland 451 A. Gould, G. Owen and D. Tuuta, ‘Maori Land Development, 1929-1954: An Introductory Overview with Representative Case Studies’ (Report commissioned by Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1996), p. 85 143

Section V: Returns to Owners

5.1. Introduction The Secretary of the Department of Maori Affairs reported in 1959 that with the discovery that pumice land could be profitably farmed by the addition of cobalt to fertiliser, ‘the Pouakani Block has become a valuable asset of the owners.’452 Yet over thirty years later the Chairman of the Mangakino Township Incorporation complained to the Minister of Maori Affairs that after such a long period of farming administered by the former Department at Pouakani, ‘one would expect that profitability would arise to the extent that a dividend could have been paid but this did not arise.’453 The owners of Pouakani have long expressed their dissatisfaction with the Government concerning the lack of tangible rewards it has offered them. The purpose of this section is to examine the overall gains that Wairarapa Maori have received from the Pouakani lands, specifically the financial returns from the block’s forestry and farming operations. It will also examine other forms of benefit that the owners have obtained from Pouakani.

5.2. Early benefits and timber royalties Although the block known as part Pouakani may have been vested in certain Wairarapa Maori in 1916, the owners had to wait thirty years before they received the first of any real financial benefits from these ‘distant’ lands. The owners proved incapable of developing or using the block’s resources during this time due to its remoteness and the fact that the Crown failed to provide any form of practical access. Although they repeatedly protested this issue requesting that this hindrance be remedied, their appeals did not effect any appropriate response by the Crown. The Under Secretary of the Native Department informed his equivalent at the Lands and Survey Department on 23 January 1929 that the owners had complained to him that Pouakani, provided

as compensation for the foreshore of the Wairarapa Lake, has no road access and that they are therefore unable to obtain the use of it.

452 ‘Report of the Board of Maori Affairs, Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs and The Maori Trustee for the Year ended 31 March 1959’, AJHR, 1959, G-9, p. 17 144

Would you please say if this is correct and if so whether access could be provided from some public road otherwise the grant of the land to the Natives would be untenable.454

The Under Secretary for Lands asked the Commissioner of Crown Lands to verify this grievance. The Commissioner replied several weeks later, confirming that the block ‘has no access other than the Waikato River.’455 Although the Commissioner felt that a ‘satisfactory road of access could be run along the southern side of the Waikato River’ through Whakamaru, this was not provided until it was deemed necessary for the construction of the hydroelectric schemes.456 The Crown considered access to Pouakani was only required once it felt it was convenient for its own purposes, regardless of how detrimental this may have been to the owners in the meantime. Doubts over whether or not the owners could have made some use of the block before access was actually provided cannot be used as an argument for such a lengthy delay. This would involve mere speculation whereas the fact of the situation was that the owners did not receive adequate access for thirty years and so were denied any reasonable opportunity of the slightest chance of utilisation, no matter how minimal that might have been. As this land had been granted by the Crown to Wairarapa Maori as ‘compensation’, this clearly raises significant issues for the Waitangi Tribunal to consider.

There is little wonder, then, that the owners considered selling the block when the opportunity arose. The Minister of Lands received an offer in April 1930 by solicitors acting for a prospective purchaser (later revealed as New Zealand Perpetual Forests) interested in buying Pouakani for £25,000.457 The solicitors felt that the owners ‘now have an opportunity of obtaining a good and satisfactory price for this block’, especially considering that it was ‘waste land of little value, has no access and with very infrequent

453 Chairman, The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 21 November 1991, MA 63/66/1, vol. II, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 454 The Under Secretary, Native Department to The Under Secretary, Lands and Survey Department, 23 January 1929, LS 22/2474, vol. II, Department of Conservation, Wellington 455 The Commissioner of Crown Lands to The Under Secretary, Lands and Survey Department, 15 February 1929, LS 22/2474, vol. II, Department of Conservation, Wellington 456 See Section III above 457 Melville, Ferner and Broun, Barristers and Solicitors to The Minister for Lands, 2 April 1930, LS 22/2474, vol. II, Department of Conservation, Wellington 145

opportunity for realisation.’458 It appears that a majority of owners agreed with the solicitors’ case and, at a meeting held in Greytown on 4 July 1930, decided in favour of sale.459 It seems that the decision to sell, however, was not upheld by the Minister of Native Affairs, Sir Apirana Ngata, who envisioned the block as a potential candidate for his newly introduced Maori land development schemes.460 One writer suggests that Ngata’s decision may have been influenced by reports that scientists were making good progress in rectifying the soil deficiencies on the Volcanic Plateau, thus making farming on blocks such as Pouakani a distinct profitable possibility.461 Indeed, by 1931 it was discovered that certain iron rich compounds (limonite) taken by means of cattle licks had alleviated some of the affects of ‘bush sickness’. It would not be until three years later, however, that scientists found that cobalt was the potent element in limonite, eventually leading to the addition of cobalt in the application of superphosphate. In any case, Ngata’s intervention delayed the sale indefinitely and the block was retained by Wairarapa Maori.

Despite the owners decision to sell the block, this was both logical and reasonable given the circumstances at the time. More than thirty years had passed since Wairarapa Maori had offered the lakes to the Crown yet still they were no closer in developing or even using the land that had been provided as a reserve in return. As the Crown had so far failed to provide the owners with any sufficient road access and thus presented them with very little hope of ever gaining some benefit from it up to that point, the offer put to the owners would have been both very appealing and a means of escape from an increasingly unpromising situation. Such an offer would have been even more enticing as some of the original owners involved in the gifting of the lakes could at last gain some form of reward from the ‘exchange’. Ngata’s prevention of the sale provided the Crown with additional time to remedy the unfair terms that it had imposed on the owners of Pouakani thus far.

The Commissioner of Crown Lands recognised that any possible purchase of Pouakani by New Zealand Perpetual Forests would have further secured its investment in

458 Melville, Ferner and Broun, Barristers and Solicitors to The Minister for Lands, 2 April 1930, LS 22/2474, vol. II, Department of Conservation, Wellington 459 A. McIlraith, ‘From Eels to Butterfat’, Te Ao Hau, 5: 4 (November 1957), pp. 26-7 460 A. Ward, National Overview (Wellington: GP Publications, 1997), II: pp. 414-6 146

the area.462 The company at this stage was already well established on the eastern side of the Waikato River.463 Indeed, it was through forestry that Wairarapa Maori would receive their first real benefits from the block. The felling of native timber was already being undertaken in the broader Pouakani region during the 1930s, with mills established by the Taupo Totara Timber Company at the small settlements of Mokai and Tihoi. It also appears that this company approached the Wairarapa owners to gain cutting rights over the timber on Pouakani during the mid-1930s but they declined because of the offer’s low value.464 Another bid was made to purchase the timber a decade later.

The Native Land Court notified the owners in April 1946 that the Morningside Timber Company had offered to purchase the block’s timber for £29,500.465 A meeting was to be held at some point in the next few months to discuss the proposal while successions were made in the meantime. George Te Whaiti immediately wrote to a Company representative informing him that the offer was below that which the owners would accept as they had ‘first hand information of the value of the timber on Pouakani’.466 Te Whaiti claimed that a group of owners’ representatives had investigated the block during the 1930s with a State Forestry Service officer and felt that the Company’s offer was below the value which they had arrived at. In May the Company applied to the Native Land Court to summon a meeting of the owners under Part XVIII of the Native Land Act 1931 to pass a resolution that all the economically workable timber be sold to it for a sum now totalling £40,000, the payment to be spread over thirty years.467 The bush area comprised some 6,100 acres on the south-western portion of the block, the site considered to have poor farming potential and quite a cold climate. The owners discussed the Company’s proposals at a meeting held in Greytown on 26 July

461 A. McIlraith, ‘From Eels to Butterfat’, Te Ao Hau, 5: 4 (November 1957), pp. 26-7 462 The Commissioner of Crown Lands to The Under Secretary for Lands, 7 May 1930, LS 22/2474, vol. II, Department of Conservation, Wellington 463 B. D. Coburn, ‘Pouakani: People, Power and Place’ (A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography at Massey University, 1993), p. 67 464 G. Te Whaiti to S. Thompson, Morningside Timber Company, 12 April 1946, MS-Papers-6571-181, Pouakani: Administrative Papers, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 465 ‘Notice to Maori Owners of the Pouakani Block (Waiariki District)’, Native Land Court Office, 10 April 1946, MS- Papers-6571-181, Pouakani: Administrative Papers, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 466 G. Te Whaiti to S. Thompson, Morningside Timber Company, 12 April 1946, MS-Papers-6571-181, Pouakani: Administrative Papers, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 147

1946. It seems there was much deliberation as the owners required an independent assessment on the milling of timber whilst some thought that the Company was only interested in obtaining the pick of the timber. The owners eventually decided to pass a resolution stating:

That all the economically workable timber on the above block be sold to The Morningside Timber Co. Ltd. for the sum of £40,000 (less cost of State Forestry Appraisal) or the amount of the State Forestry Appraisal of such timber, whichever is the greater, payable by a deposit of £6,000.0.0, and the balance by annual instalments of £2,500 or the royalty value of the timber cut during the previous twelve months whichever is the greater. The said Company [is] to be granted a term of thirty years to cut and remove the said timber.468

The Native Land Court confirmed the resolution on 6 September 1946, the terms of the cutting rights to be fixed by the Maori Land Board. A final grant could not be executed until State Forestry had appraised the bush area but the Board agreed that if the Company could come to some arrangement with the Commissioner of State Forest, it could commence its operations before this was completed. As it could be some time before State Forest was able to evaluate the whole area, the Company began work on the 187 acres it had assessed by May 1947.469

State Forest, however, could only appraise the timber piecemeal as rangers became available. Indeed, the Service was finding it quite difficult to have appraisals completed before sawmillers’ requirements due to the rapidly increasing demand for timber from State and Maori-owned forests across the country.470 The inability of the Service to appraise the whole timber area meant that an executed grant could not be given to Morningside which needed this as security with bankers. This inconvenience eventually led to an arrangement whereby the timber on the whole area was valued at that

467 Board of Maori Affairs, ‘Memorandum: Pouakani Block: Timber Rights, 1949’, BBFZ 4942/790a, 2602 (1), Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 468 Board of Maori Affairs, ‘Memorandum: Pouakani Block: Timber Rights, 1949’, BBFZ 4942/790a, 2602 (1), Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 469 Board of Maori Affairs, ‘Memorandum: Pouakani Block: Timber Rights, 1949’, BBFZ 4942/790a, 2602 (1), Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 470 ‘Annual Report of the Director of Forestry for the Year ended 31 March 1948’, AJHR, 1948, C-3, p. 34 148

on the 187 acre portion already appraised and priced by the State Forest. This enabled the grant to be completed subject to endorsement of consent from the Board. The Company was required to supply periodical lists of timber extracted so that the owners would be fully paid for all the timber cut. The Board estimated in 1949 that the complete value of the timber would be approximately £100,000.471

Although the Board’s subsequent approval of the grant may have facilitated the Company’s operations, the basis of valuation on only a small portion of the bush could not have provided an accurate appraisal of the whole area. Furthermore, the owners took some exception to what they considered was the Native Land Court’s paternalistic management of the timber royalties. During the negotiations for the purchase of the timber, the owners

stressed the point that as they had had no dividend or benefit from this land during their ownership over the past fifty years, it was considered fair and reasonable that the present generation should receive the royalties from the sale of the timber and that the farmable area should be developed and made available for their young people and generations to come.472

The Native Land Court agreed to this request as long as the royalties were made subject to Section 281 of the Native Land Act 1931. This stipulated that any money payable could only be used with the consent of a Judge of the Native Land Court.473 All moneys would be paid to the Board or Native Trustee. This seems to have irritated the owners, with George Te Whaiti being recorded as saying at a meeting in Greytown on 30 March 1949 that ‘the people were somewhat concerned that these moneys were being made subject to Section 281 and’, he felt, ‘that his people were well able to look after their finances.’474 The Under Secretary of Native Affairs attempted to reassure the owners that ‘the legislation placed a responsibility on the Judges to see that such moneys were wisely

471 Board of Maori Affairs, ‘Memorandum: Pouakani Development Scheme, 1949’, BBFZ 4942/790a, 2602 (1), Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 472 Board of Maori Affairs, ‘Memorandum: Pouakani Block: Timber Rights, 1949’, BBFZ 4942/790a, 2602 (1), Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 473 Section 231, Part XIII, Native Land Act, New Zealand Statutes, 1931, No. 31, pp. 234-5 474 Registrar, Waiariki Native Land Court, ‘Memorandum’, 6 April 1949, BBFZ 4942/790a, 2602 (1), Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 149

spent and expended and he felt that the Judges in dealing with applications would be sympathetic and understanding.’475 The owners obviously felt aggrieved by the fact that having to wait for any kind of financial benefit from Pouakani for so long, they now had to seek the consent of the Court in wanting to use the first of those benefits. The Court informed the Pouakani Advisory Committee that any beneficiaries receiving royalties, especially large amounts, would be ‘expected to put their capital sum into something that will be [of] permanent value to them and that will raise the standard of living of the person and his descendants.’476 Such a request seems fair. Yet these royalties would prove of little value to the owners who had essentially been forced to give up something of much greater worth, both spiritually and materially, in the first instance.

The Morningside Timber Company, which later became Carter Merchants and absorbed into Carter Holt Harvey, proceeded with the felling of the indigenous timber at the southern end of Pouakani up to the 1970s.477 Between July 1948 and December 1970, the Maori Trust Office distributed $255,845 of timber royalties to the owners.478 As they had requested, the royalties had been distributed rather than applied to the reduction of the development debt, even though the Secretary of Maori Affairs certainly believed the Board was entitled to do this.479 In 1968, the Chairman of the Mangakino Township Incorporation hoped that once the payments of the timber royalties had ceased, the owners would ‘be able to receive at least as much from the Mangakino rents as they used to receive from Pouakani royalties and I am confident that the Incorporation will be able to do this.’480 The Incorporation would ultimately be able to provide its shareholders with

475 Registrar, Waiariki Native Land Court, ‘Memorandum’, 6 April 1949, BBFZ 4942/790a, 2602 (1), Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 476 Registrar, Wairaiki Maori Land Court, Rotorua to Secrertary, Pouakani Advisory Committee, 10 March 1949, BBFZ 4942/785a, 2601 (1), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 477 B. D. Coburn, ‘Pouakani: People, Power and Place’ (A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography at Massey University, 1993), p. 68 478 Maori Trust Office, Statement of Account of The Maori Trustee’s Administration, Pouakani (Wairarapa Maoris) Block, 26 July 1948 to 9 December 1970, BBFZ 4942/782b, 2600 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 479 Secretary, Department for Maori Affairs to The Ombudsman, 18 August 1970, AAMK 869/920a 63/66/1 pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme: Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 480 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Chairman’s Report to the Annual Meeting of Owners for the Year Ended 31 March 1968, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 150

dividends at least as much as that of the timber royalties, but the township’s rentals would only prove to be a small proportion, if any, of these.

5.3. The Incorporation’s Forestry Assets The felling of the indigenous timber on Pouakani coincided with proposals by New Zealand Forest Products to utilise the block’s undeveloped and bush areas for afforestation. During the late 1960s, Forest Products made a series of offers to the Incorporation regarding the development of forestry on a section of Pouakani. These were:

1) To purchase the 15,716 acres for $88,000; 2) To lease for 99 years at 6.25 percent of Government valuation; 3) To joint venture for 99 years on the following terms: (a) Pay a rental of 5 cents per acre during the development years (b) To pay 10 percent of the stumpage value of the crop.481

The Incorporation’s Secretary was advised that 40 years gave a complete crop so that 99 years would provide two, allowing for time to clear the first one, and that no return other than the rental of 5 cents could be expected at least for the first ten years of growth. The secretary was also told that a timber crop on Pouakani was likely to produce 18,000- 20,000 cubic feet of timber per acre while it appears that the State Forest Service also advised that the 10 percent royalty offer ‘for this type of country is generous.’482 Calculations based on then present day values arrived at a figure of $1,357,858 as the total return for the next 40 years from a joint venture. This was considerably higher than any of the other options presented to the Incorporation. Thus the Secretary recommended that the owners consider entering into a joint venture with New Zealand Forest Products based on the following terms:

1) Lease of 99 years; rental of 5 cents per acre during non productive years.

481 Secretary, Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation to The Chairman, Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 27 August 1968, Pouakani Court Correspondence, vol. III, pt. 1, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 482 Secretary, Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation to The Chairman, Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 27 August 1968, Pouakani Court Correspondence, vol. III, pt. 1, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 151

2) Royalty of 10 percent of the stumpage value of the forest for the first planting and the percentage to be re negotiated for subsequent planting. This is mentioned because it seems to me that development will be more expensive (clearing, roading, etc)., in the early years and that once this has been paid for, the owners should expect a greater percentage of the crop. 3) Stumpage value to be determined as required by the N.Z. Forest Service acting as an independent arbitrator.483

The Secretary believed that on the basis of these proposals, a ‘worthwhile agreement’ could be arranged for the owners.

Although much discussion took place concerning the proposals for afforestation, it was generally agreed that this would be much more preferable to further grassland development.484 The area of approximately 16,000 acres anticipated to be included in the lease to Forest Products was in two main sections. The first was at the southern end of the block beyond the Pouakani farms and the second was north-west of Mangakino towards Waipapa. The Incorporation’s Committee of Management applied to the Maori Land Court to call a meeting of owners in order to have the land included in the Incorporation so that it could then be leased to Forest Products.485 The undeveloped and bush area of Pouakani had been included in the provisions of Part I of the Native Land Amendment Act 1936 in February 1947 when the then Department for Native Affairs designated it for development. Even though cutting rights had been granted to Morningside Timber Company, the bush area had been included under Part I, as the Board of Maori Affairs thought that it might utilise any remaining timber and unmarked trees once milling and logging had ceased.486 The Committee of Management recommended that the land, now

483 Secretary, Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation to The Chairman, Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, 27 August 1968, Pouakani Court Correspondence, vol. III, pt. 1, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 484 District Officer, Department for Maori Affairs to Fields Director, 27 February 1970, BBFZ 4942/782b, 2600 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 485 Assistant District Officer, Department for Maori Affairs, ‘Development Submission: Rotorua District’, February 1970, BBFZ 4942/782b, 2600 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 486 Board of Maori Affairs, ‘Memorandum: Pouakani Block: Timber Rights, 1949’, BBFZ 4942/790a, 2602 (1), Reports and Estimates, Archives New Zealand, Auckland 152

subsequently subject to Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, be included in the Incorporation for leasing to Forest Products.

A majority of owners at a meeting held in Masterton in May 1970 passed a resolution that the proposed land should be included in the body corporate to facilitate an afforestation lease.487 The Court approved the resolution and 16,044 acres 3 roods 25 perches was eventually released from Part XXIV to the Incorporation.488 An amendment was made to the Order of Incorporation in November 1970 with the inclusion of this additional land.489 Combined with the township lands comprising 683 acres 1 rood 15 perches, 16,728 acres 1 rood 00 perches (6769.6826 hectares) was now vested in the Mangakino Township Incorporation. The newly acquired lands were subsequently leased to New Zealand Forest Products, essentially based on those terms outlined by the Incorporation Secretary. The Incorporation was to receive a percentage share of the value of the tree crop, initially calculated and agreed at 10 percent. Although owners had previously complained of the low percentage, Forest Products officials felt this was fair given the high preparation costs involved.490 The lease also provided for a nominal ground rental to be paid during the years while the trees were growing.

By 1975 New Zealand Forest Products claimed to have planted 13,269 acres of the area under lease.491 Of this area 12,666 acres was in pinus radiata and 603 acres in eucalyptus. The balance of 2,776 acres consisted of power line reserves and catchment reserves for streams and the Waipapa and Waikato Rivers. Within two years, as much of the leased area as possible was planted while the Incorporation began its own afforestation programme, leasing 225 acres from the Board of Maori Affairs near Maraetai and planting 165 acres in pinus radiata with the balance being used for

487 Minutes of the Meeting of Assembled Owners of the Pouakani No. 2 Block held in Masterton, Saturday 9 May 1970, Pouakani Court Correspondence, vol. II, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 488 New Zealand Gazette, 1975, I: No. 34, 2 April 1975, pp. 888-9 489 Rotorua Minute Book 154/140, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 490 Minutes of the Meeting of Assembled Owners of the Pouakani No. 2 Block held in Masterton, Saturday 9 May 1970, Pouakani Court Correspondence, vol. II, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 491 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual Report to be Presented to the Annual General Meeting of Owners by the Committee of Management on 27 September 1975’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 153

pasture.492 The Committee Chairman reported of the impressive sight of the leased forests in his annual report of 1982, claiming that the areas ‘probably would have been still scrub and rubbish, but are now converted to magnificent pine forests’.493 Although the Incorporation was only receiving a small rental from the leasing of the land, it expected to receive good returns once the trees began to be cut and milled, which would take place in ten to fifteen years time.

The forestry rentals paid to the Incorporation at this stage were indeed quite low in relation to its overall income. For the year ending 31 March 1972, the first that Forest Products had to pay rental, the Incorporation received only $592.53.494 This represented only 1.3 percent of the Incorporation’s total income for that year. With the trees still in growth, the situation had hardly changed a decade later with rental from the forestry only accounting for 1 percent of the Incorporation’s total income for the year ending 31 March 1982.495 According to the Government’s latest evaluation for that year, the leased area to Forest Products was valued at $1,606,000 which represented 33 percent of the Incorporation’s total assets. In comparison, the township lands (valued at $3,203,300) comprised 66.3 percent of the Incorporation’s assets and rentals from this accounted for 67.5 percent of its total income. Within another ten years, however, the contribution of forestry to the Incorporation’s income had increased dramatically. For the year ending 30 June 1992, the Incorporation’s forestry income now comprised 31.7 percent of its total revenue.496 The leased forestry also now constituted 45 percent of the Incorporation’s total asset value. The Incorporation’s leased forestry blocks continued to become an increasingly important component of its business venture throughout the 1990s to the point that it has now become its dominant investment. This greater significance was

492 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual Report to be Presented to the Annual General Meeting of Owners by the Committee of Management on 24 September 1977’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 493 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Report of Committee of Management: Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 1982’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 494 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, Income and Expenditure Account for Year Ended 31 March 1972, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 495 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 1982’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 154

largely due to re-negotiations undertaken between the Incorporation and New Zealand Forest Products regarding the terms of lease.

By the end of the 1980s, the Committee of Management had become progressively more concerned with Forest Products’ management of the forests. The Committee believed that the forests were not being managed in the best interests of the owners but as a resource for pulp wood.497 It had been advised that the percentage of crop pruned and thinned was less than it should have been. The Committee Chairman believed that Forest Products was following a policy of producing lower cost wood on leased land and high cost wood on its own which was ultimately disadvantaging the Incorporation.498 The Chairman also felt concerned by moves from Carter Holt to take-over Forest Products, as well as the risk of Forest Products clear-felling the forests prematurely. To provide further security to its investment, the Incorporation opened negotiations with Forest Products once the lease came under review at 1 April 1991. After what the Incorporation’s legal advisor called ‘protracted, detailed and sometimes, very tough negotiations,’ the Committee of Management was able to secure a ‘very satisfactory’ settlement regarding the current crop and next two crops.499 The essentials of the settlement included:

• the objects of the lease are restated to make it clear that the primary intention is to maximise economic return from forest produce; • the stumpage share for the first crop is increased from 10 percent to 14 percent; • a revised formula provides for a more satisfactory calculation of the stumpage share for the second and third crops. This takes into account the inputs of Landowner and lessee;

496 Trustee Pouakani 2 Trust and the Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual General Meetings, 7 November 1992: Presentation of 1991/1992 Financial Accounts’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 497 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust’, October 1991, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 498 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Annual Report by the Chairman of the Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation for the year ended 30 June 1990’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 499 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust’, October 1991, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 155

• for the second crop the share is estimated at between 20 percent and 25 percent; • there is a right to have the formula reviewed for the third crop.500

The Incorporation also expected income flows to be brought forward with income from clear felling planned to be around $200,000 per annum from 1992 to 1998, and 1.75 million for the years 2002 to 2004.

The Incorporation received immediate benefits from the renegotiated lease. The rise from 10 to 14 percent of its share in the current harvest cycle increased its royalty value from $1.8 million in 1990 to $3.8 million a year later.501 Between the 1992 and 1993 financial years the Incorporation’s forestry income increased 174.6 percent from $81,264 to $223,124.502 This represented 51 percent of the Incorporation’s gross revenue for the year ending 30 June 1993. For the first time, forestry stumpage exceeded that of rentals which for the same period totalled $185,896 and 42.5 percent of the Incorporation’s total income. Furthermore, revaluations of the Incorporation’s long term assets over this time improved its overall asset base. While the value of fixed assets basically remained unchanged, a revaluation of the Incorporation’s royalty share in forestry resulted in an increase of 155 percent, causing a net increase of $8.1 million to $13.3 million. The Committee expected radiata clearfelling to commence early in the 1993/1994 financial year while the eucalyptus was currently being felled. The entire tree crop value at this time was estimated at more than $80 million.503

The Incorporation’s forestry investments soon provided it with unprecedented returns. As the Committee Chairman noted in his 1994 annual report:

The Incorporation has achieved a record financial performance in the 1993-94 fiscal year. In the main, this is as a result of the returns generated from the

500 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust’, October 1991, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 501 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 1991’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 502 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 1993’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 156

forestry sector. Hard and continuing negotiations with Carter Holt Harvey have resulted in better returns on the investment.504

For the year ending 30 June 1994, income from forestry stumpage was $483,226.505 This represented 66.2 percent of the Incorporation’s total income. Rental income for the same period merely accounted for 27 percent of gross income. Over 100,000 tonnes of logs had been harvested, most being eucalyptus that had been chipped at Kinleith and was being exported to Japan. The cleared land was being replanted in radiata. Negotiations between the Committee and Carter Holt Harvey continued to take place as the owners attempted to ensure that the lessee was adhering to the harvesting plan agreed to at the time of lease review.506 Clearfall production of radiata was expected to remain at about 100,000 tonnes per year up to 2000 while the average age class of trees would be higher between 2001 and 2006. So, production was to be increased and expected to be much more valuable during this period.

The Committee of Management had initiated a policy of maximum utilisation of its Pouakani lands for afforestation purposes if the land was deemed suitable. By 1996, the last available land vested in the Incorporation had been planted.507 The Committee thus began seeking other areas outside Pouakani where it could reinvest some of its forestry income into further forestries, specifically near Bennydale immediately west of Pouakani, or in the Wairarapa. Although the Chairman reported in his 1996 annual report that little progress was being made in the implementation of this plan, it is clear that the Incorporation was now obtaining sufficient funds from forestry for it to commence planning on expanding its investments. The Incorporation was by now a profitable enterprise capable of providing its own capital to broaden its asset base due to the returns from forestry. As one owner commented at the 1996 general meeting, ‘it was apparent

503 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 1993’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 504 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report, 1994’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 505 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report, 1994’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 506 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Reports, 1995’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 157

from the balance sheet that if it [was not] for the forestry income, the Incorporation would be out of business.’508 Forestry continues to be the Incorporation’s major source of income, accounting for 96.9 percent of its total income of $1,857,000 for the year ending 30 June 2000.

This substantial increase in overall revenue, and the almost complete dominance of forestry in accounting for the Incorporation’s gross income, was the result of further negotiations between the Committee of Management and Carter Holt Harvey. Discussions between the two partners undertaken during the 1998/1999 financial year caused a further restructuring of the lease. The aim of the restructuring was to provide the Incorporation with a more stable level of income that was less prone to fluctuations associated with the log market.509 Although forestry was now providing the Incorporation with an income that it was never able to realise from the township rentals, the Committee felt restrained by its volatile nature. The Committee claimed that the income and present lease was characterised by:

• High income when harvesting was in progress; • No income (for periods of ten years at a time) when there was no harvesting; • Levels varied dramatically according to the fortunes of the log market; • Future income was exposed to climatic, biological and fire risk; • Level of profit was dependent on [Carter Holt Harvey Forests] harvesting and marketing the wood for the best economic return to the forest. As owners of mills, they may sometimes have other interests; • Stumpage (net profit) calculations provided by [Carter Holt Harvey Forests] were required to be constantly audited, because of the many variables involved;

507 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report, 1996’, MLC 8-1- 1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 508 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Trustee, Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Annual Reports, 1996’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 509 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report, 1999’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 158

• Future income was dependant on [Carter Holt Harvey Forests] managing the forests in a way that would provide the best return to the forest [which was] not always in line with their own management philosophy.510

The new terms of the revised lease which resulted after lengthy negotiations provided the Incorporation with an indexed annuity income of $1.2 million. It was agreed that this would be indexed to the Consumers Price Index and a similar output price index related to the forestry industry, thus protecting it from inflation. The income was made constant over the term of the lease and free of usual forestry risks and Carter Holt’s management practices. The Committee expected an income from forestry of $1.6 million for the year ending 30 June 2001.511 At the same time it anticipated a loss of $2,000 from the township.

The massive gains made in forestry, particularly from the mid-1990s onwards, obviously had a significant impact on the amount of dividends the Incorporation could pay to its shareholders. The Incorporation’s approximately 1,600 shareholders in 1999 would have received dividends that would have seemed unimaginable only a decade earlier. Yet even then, due to the fluctuations of income that led to the Committee’s renegotiations of the forestry lease terms, it was still not able to provide dividends to its shareholders for several years (1997 and 1998).512 It is difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty just how much money individual shareholders received from the Incorporation since it began collecting rentals from the Mangakino township leases. This is due to the fact that it is not clear whether or not dividends recorded in financial statements were those actually paid out or simply the dividend declared. However, from the information presently available to the author, it is possible to demonstrate that overall sums proposed or actually paid to shareholders has on the whole increased since the early 1970s. Between 1972 and 1977, the Committee recommended or paid an average

510 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report, 1999’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 511 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Annual Report, 2000’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 512 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Annual Report, 2000’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 159

dividend of $9,569 over these six years.513 Between 1984 and 1986 this corresponding figure amounted to $18,513.514 For the period between 1992 and 1996, the average dividend had risen to $79,269.515 This increased even further for the years 1999 to 2001 when the Committee recommended an average dividend for these three years of $528,940.516 Without information of the intervening years (either due to no information at all or the fact that no dividends were paid), combined with the uncertainty of the actual amounts paid, the difficulties of determining how shareholders benefited are obvious. Yet a general trend can be seen, though, that dividends on average have increased, especially during the 1990s. This is, of course, because of the Incorporation’s increasingly prosperous forestry asset.

Establishing the monetary benefits obtained by individual shareholders is even more difficult. A comparison between years is further complicated by the fact that figures are given in dollar values of the time. It is possible again, nevertheless, to make some generalisations on the information at hand. This can be best achieved by examining the Incorporation’s most recent dividend payments, these being the highest aggregate figures recorded, and by significant margins. The 2000 dividend of $543,411 represented $1.00 per share.517 With the Incorporation having approximately 1,600 shareholders, there is no doubt that such a dividend would be of some assistance to shareholders, especially those on fixed incomes. Yet it is highly unlikely whether these would significantly improve the financial positions of those individual shareholders, unless, of course, the allocation of shares is very uneven. Claimants themselves may wish to provide oral evidence and submissions relating to this and also how representative this shareholder base is of the wider Wairarapa Maori community. Whilst the real value of dividend per share in earlier decades may have proved of more worth due to inflation over the years, their overall

513 Based on figures provided in financial statements, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 514 Based on figures provided in financial statements, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 515 Based on figures provided in financial statements, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 516 Based on figures provided in financial statements, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 517 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of the Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 160

benefit is markedly reduced due to the fact that the total dividends paid by the Incorporation were far less than they are now. Indeed, this is absurdly so. There is little question given the evidence on hand, then, that the Incorporation’s shareholders have, on the whole, received little in the way of financial returns since it was established.

5.4. The Pouakani 2 Trust returns The history of the Trust’s returns in some ways parallels that of the Incorporation. The details of the block’s farming operations has already been covered and, as has been shown,518 the profits made by the Department of Maori Affairs from the farming scheme were applied to reducing the development debt. This led the Incorporation’s Chairman to complain to the Minister of Maori Affairs in November 1991 that ‘[f]or something like thirty to thirty-five years a dividend was never once paid to the Owners.’519 Only once the scheme had been transferred to the owners after 1983 did they actually begin to receive dividends from the farming profits of the stations. Yet even then, this was irregular due to the fluctuating performance of the Trust during the 1980s and early 1990s. The owners have claimed, as outlined earlier, that this was largely because of significant costs spent to remedy aspects of the Department’s administration. In any case, it seems that the Trust has recovered from these more difficult times.

At over 4,700 hectares, the Pouakani 2 Trust lands represent the largest farming operation in the south Waikato region.520 Whereas the owners’ farming assets were valued at $11.9 million at the time the Trust assumed control from the Department,521 the owners have now converted this into an enterprise worth more than $36 million.522 By 1999, the Trust lands consisted of 13 dairy units covering approximately 2,230 hectares and milking around 5,300 cows; 2 dairy farms totalling 193 hectares leased long term; a sheep and cattle station of approximately 1,500 hectares carrying around 16,000 stock

518 See Section IV 519 The Chairman, The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 21 November 1991, MA 63/66/1, pt. 2, Pouakani Development Scheme, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington 520 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report, 1999’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 521 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 1984, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 161

units; and a small 30 hectare deer unit leased on a monthly basis.523 The performance of these assets in recent times has attracted favourable independent coverage, with one reporter declaring: ‘The scale, quality and value of the Pouakani No. 2 Trust assets are huge.’524 Both in 1999 and 2000 the Trust recorded net operating surpluses in excess of eight hundred thousand dollars.525 This is in stark comparison to the early 1990s when it ran regular deficits. It appears that the Trust’s restructuring policies of expanding dairy herd numbers initiated in the mid-1990s began to produce significant results by the end of the decade, contributing to its record financial performances. A notification by some shareholders to apply for partition of the Trust’s assets in October 2000 has been opposed by the Trustee on the basis that it has the advantage of economies of scale and size to the mutual benefit of all shareholders.526

As of 1999 there were 2,013 beneficiaries in the Trust. (The beneficiaries of the Trust and the Incorporation shareholders were once identical but became divergent due to different succession rates and types.527) Originally 863 shares were issued with most beneficiaries now holding a fraction of a share.528 The Trustee stated in 1999 that it would be adopting a policy of paying dividends to owners of 50 percent of the annual net tax paid profit.529 Thus for 1999 and 2000, the Trust was able to pay dividends of more than $400,000. These amounts are more than 250 percent higher than any other dividend

522 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of the Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 523 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report, 1999’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 524 M. Mountfort, ‘Trust Investing in Quality People for Quality Assets’, New Zealand Dairy Exporter, 76:12 (July 2001), p. 8 525 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report, 1999’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua; The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of the Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 526 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘The 2000 Annual Report of the Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 527 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report, 1999’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 528 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust’, May 1991, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 529 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report, 1999’, MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 162

the Trust has been able to pay since 1984.530 Again, due to a lack of information regarding a number of years and uncertainty whether the dividend declared is that actually paid, there is some difficulty in providing an accurate assessment of the returns for individual shares. However, given that overall dividends have increased significantly since 1999, as in the case of the Incorporation, it is obvious that the greatest returns to shareholders has come during this period. Since 1984 (where a dividend of only $24,267 was paid531), there has been no consistent payment of dividends. Prior to 1999, the highest recorded dividend was $103,560 in 1989.532 Although no meaningful comparison can be made between these dividends as they are in the dollar values of the year provided, it can be deduced from the total dividends declared that these have barely provided shareholders with what could only be considered a minor supplement to income. As in the situation of the Incorporation’s shareholders, however, these dividends would be of some importance to those elderly or dependants living on income support. Higher dividends may still come to the owners in the future if the Pouakani farming operations are able to increase their margins of profitability.

It is through the provision of dividends that the owners have mainly benefited from the Pouakani farms. Yet this had not been the original purpose of the development scheme. It was hoped that the grassed area of block of around 10,000 acres would support about 60 farms for Wairarapa Maori when it first came under development.533 This aspiration never eventuated, of course, and there was never more than half this number, the balance area comprising the stations. As these were run by the Department and their profits applied to the reduction of the development debt, they offered no direct benefits to the owners either in terms of dividends or the opportunity of settling further Wairarapa families. In any case, by 1970 (the year from which the present author was commissioned

530 Based on figures for years 1984-2000 where information was available in financial statements. MLC 8-1-1, vol. I and II, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances; MLC 8-1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 531 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township, Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 1984, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 532 The Proprietors of the Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Pouakani 2 Trust: Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 1990’, MLC 8-1-1, vol. I, Mangakino Township Accounts and Balances, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 533 ‘Minutes of Pouakani Meeting held on Friday 13 January 1950, Masterton’, AAMK 869/917b 63/66, pt.2, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 163

to cover the history of the development scheme) owners’ representatives were finding it increasingly difficult to fill vacated farms as settlers surrendered their leases. Empty farms had to revert back to the stations while progressively more non-owners farmed the smaller number of available units, eventually resulting in just a tiny fraction of the owners actually working the Pouakani lands.534 In any event, it is quite clear that Wairarapa Maori have not benefited from the block’s farming operations in the way that it was intended, and nor has this been much in financial terms.

5.5. Other benefits When the Maori Land Court decided to examine the Incorporation’s attempt to freehold some of its sections in 1978, the Investigating officer asked in his report if Pouakani was to be regarded as:

(a) Turangawaewae or (b) Maori ancestral land or (c) Traditional land.535

The Investigating officer concluded that it was neither of the first two options and not yet traditional land but was ‘fast becoming so and will be so in another generation.’536 The relationship of the owners to Pouakani has always been an ambiguous one. At the centre of this is the question of whether the block of land should be looked upon as an alternative home for Wairarapa Maori or merely as an economic resource to provide the owners with profits. Incorporation Secretary Donald Spiers certainly thought it was the latter, claiming that ‘Pouakani is not ancestral tribal land but land given as a business investment and could be regarded as such, and many of the Elders agreed with this

534 Coverage of the main period of settlement by Wairarapa Maori during the 1950s and 1960s is located in H. McCracken, ‘The Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation, Pouakani No. 2 Trust and the Crown, 1896-1990s’ (An Interim Report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001), pp. 128-81 535 Judge Sheehan’s Investigation of Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation Report, commissioned by Waiariki Maori Land Court on 6 June 1978, Rotorua Minute Book 189/40-82 536 Judge Sheehan’s Investigation of Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation Report, commissioned by Waiariki Maori Land Court on 6 June 1978, Rotorua Minute Book 189/40-82 164

thought.’537 If the Incorporation’s claims that only four percent of its shareholders live in the south Waikato are correct, then it seems that Spiers has been proven true.

Other than for the most part irregular payments of dividends, there has essentially been no other benefits for Wairarapa Maori accruing from these ‘distant’ lands. Any form of non-financial benefit has been negated by the fact that most owners of Pouakani have not looked upon it as a home. Wairarapa Maori or those that have originated from there will, understandably, always have a spiritual and social attachment to Wairarapa that can be never replaced. For those that have moved to Pouakani or are descendants of Wairarapa Maori migrants, however, the block is clearly regarded as their ‘traditional land’.538 They have treated it accordingly and established their own marae at Mangakino, naming their wharenui Tamateapokaiwhenua of Takitimu traditions.539 As early as the mid-1950s, Wairarapa migrants were requesting their own marae on Pouakani as they ‘did not like welcoming visitors on the Marae of other people’.540 Those owners that have lived their entire lives on the block have developed their own special relationship with the land and to them, at least, it is more than just a ‘business investment’.

For a great majority of owners, though, Pouakani simply remains a source of supplementary income. Yet this block of land has offered Wairarapa Maori other indirect benefits for social purposes. The revenue gained from the freeholding of sections in Mangakino during the mid-1980s led to the establishment of a separate social services component in 1987, ‘responsible for meeting the social, educational and cultural needs of the owners and their families.’541 Reflecting the enduring significance of the lakes to the descendants of the former owners, this social organisation was called the Wairarapa Moana Trust and is registered as a charitable trust. The trust, the Incorporation Chairman has stated, ‘is the Putea funding for the educational, welfare, special needs, training and

537 Judge Sheehan’s Investigation of Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation Report, commissioned by Waiariki Maori Land Court on 6 June 1978, Rotorua Minute Book 189/40-82 538 Personal communication with Pouakani Marae Committee Chairperson, 5 October 2002, Mangakino 539 Waitangi Tribunal, The Pouakani Report, Wai 33 (Wellington: Brooker and Friend, 1993), p. 302 540 Minutes of Meeting held at Mangakino with [Pouakani] Advisory Committee and settlers, 21 June 1955, AAMK 869/918d, 63/66/1, pt. 6, Pouakani Development Scheme, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 541 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust’, October 1992, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 165

treaty issues for the shareholders’.542 The Committee of Management decided to establish it so that the Incorporation and Pouakani 2 Trust could concentrate solely on their commercial operations. The Moana Trust derives much of its income from the rentals obtained from the Pouakani house in Masterton and interest earned on the balance of the freeholding fund.543 It was first based in Mangakino but, illustrating where the greatest number of owner families are still based, has relocated to the Wairarapa in Masterton. The Incorporation claimed in 2000 that since the Trust’s establishment 13 years earlier, it had spent nearly $750,000 on education grants.544 Shareholders were warned, however, that there was ‘little evidence to suggest that this money has been spent in a way that has seen [them] grow and benefit as a people.’545 The Wairarapa Moana Trust has, though, provided a forum for Wairarapa Maori to address social issues affecting the people as a whole and the Committee of Management anticipates it as having an increasingly important role in the future development of its people.

The benefits of Pouakani to Wairarapa Maori have thus been channelled through three administrative bodies: the Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, the Pouakani 2 Trust and the Wairarapa Moana Trust. These entities, the Committee Chairman declared in 1996, ‘are inter-related by the Pouakani/Mangakino resource (farms, forest and township), the elected Committee of Management and the beneficiaries of the resources.’546 These bodies were streamlined in June 2002 with amalgamation of the Incorporation’s assets and the Pouakani 2 Trust finally approved by the Maori Land Court, the name of the new incorporated body changed to Wairarapa Moana ki Pouakani

542 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Trustee Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report’, 1996, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 543 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘He Panui: Mangakino, Pouakani me Wairarapa Moana Trust’, October 1992, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington 544 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Mangakino Mailer: Newsletter, October 2000’, Exhibit H2, Bundle of Documents Supporting Briefs of Evidence of Murray Hemi and Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of an Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 545 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, ‘Mangakino Mailer: Newsletter, October 2000’, Exhibit H2, Bundle of Documents Supporting Briefs of Evidence of Murray Hemi and Kingi Winiata Smiler in Support of an Application for Status Orders in the matter of The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 546 The Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporation, Trustee Pouakani 2 Trust, ‘Chairman’s Annual Report’, 1996, MLC 8-1-1, vol. II, Mangakino Township Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 166

Incorporation.547 The benefits that Wairarapa Maori will receive from the Pouakani lands in the future will now be directed through these organisations.

5.6 Conclusion The owners of Pouakani have had to wait many years before receiving any real benefit from these lands. The block remained isolated for nearly three decades as the Crown failed to provide the owners with any road access. Only when Works needed quality communications for the hydroelectric schemes during the mid-1940s was this finally provided. It is at this stage that a number of developments occurred at Pouakani simultaneously, each providing the owners with financial returns to varying degrees. The first tangible rewards received by the owners were royalties from the felling of the block’s native timber. The owners were at last able to gain some proceeds from the block after it being in their possession for thirty years. Some of the original owners no doubt never managed to see these proceeds by the time felling commenced. Over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars was distributed by the Maori Trustee over a period of 22 years to the owners. With there being several hundred owners, the royalties would at best have been a small supplement to income for the majority rather than a substantial improvement to their financial position. Yet there is no doubt that many Wairarapa Maori would have found these royalties helpful. It appears that this is the pattern for all returns obtained by the owners from the Pouakani block’s various commercial activities so far.

The Mangakino Incorporation was never able to make a high turn-over from the township rentals but has managed to make unprecedented profits recently from its joint partnership with Carter Holt Harvey. The Incorporation’s decision to undertake a programme of afforestation in 1970 has been rewarded by record surpluses during the 1990s. Subsequent re-negotiations of the lease have provided it with a stable annual income that has transformed the Incorporation into a successful and competitive business. Not merely content with maintaining its current asset base, the Committee has sought to expand its forestry investments outside of Pouakani, particularly in the Wairarapa. Given the Incorporation’s prosperity in recent times, it has been able to pay dividends which are

547 76 Taupo Minute Book 60-2, Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua 167

significantly higher than any paid by it before. Its peak dividend of $1.00 per share in 2000, however, suggests again that across a shareholder base of approximately 1600 people, the returns will not significantly alter the lives of those beneficiaries. Although these are a blessing and probably most valuable to those on fixed incomes, the distribution of dividends to a growing shareholder base diminishes those received by individuals. If individual returns are to be maintained, this will necessitate continually increasing profit margins by the Incorporation, and the Pouakani 2 Trust as well. Although each now possesses valuable investments, this is but one of the difficulties confronting the Incorporation and Trust in the future.

As the profits from the stations were applied to the reduction of the development debt, no dividends were paid to owners from the block’s farming operations until the owners assumed control from the mid-1980s. The tentative performance by the Trust for most of the 1980s and early 1990s, however, precluded any substantial dividends being paid to the owners. As with the Incorporation, only recently has it managed to move itself into a sound economic position from which reasonable dividends can be paid on a regular basis. Like the Incorporation again, however, these would have been of limited financial assistance. Both the Incorporation and the Trust have now developed into successful enterprises, at great cost and effort to the owners, and it could be that improved returns await their beneficiaries in the near future. For the most part up until now, though, the owners have only received minor financial returns from the block’s farming and forestry operations.

A majority of owners would have also received little other benefit from the Pouakani lands as well. As very few have decided to live there, the means from which they are to benefit from the block have largely been restricted to the payment of dividends. Yet the Mangakino Incorporation, from the proceeds of freeholding township sections, has established a charitable trust based in the Wairarapa aimed at promoting the educational, social and cultural needs of owners’ families. The Wairarapa Moana Trust has provided educational grants and intends to provide the social stimulus for development of the iwi. Those Wairarapa Maori that have benefited from any of the Moana Trust’s activities or grants have thus indirectly benefited from the Pouakani lands. 168

It is those Wairarapa descendants which live at Pouakani, though, that have gained the most social benefits from this block, it being their home. As the Incorporation maintains, however, this is only a small fraction of the owners, and a great majority only expect to benefit from these lands in a purely financial sense. Whilst these benefits may have been somewhat limited so far, the newly amalgamated Pouakani Incorporation has at present substantial investments that were never available to the owners before. Many Wairarapa Maori may have received no or little benefits from Pouakani thus far but their descendants may have a better opportunity of doing so. 169

Section VI: Conclusions The history of the Pouakani block since its vesting in the former owners of the Wairarapa lakes is unique. For over three generations, this block of land situated on the western banks of the Waikato river has been owned by an iwi that is not its tangata whenua. This was the result of the Crown’s failure to honour its promise to provide Wairarapa Maori with a reserve in their own traditional tribal area after it had acquired the lakes in 1896. Twenty years later, the Crown deemed it suitable to provide those former owners with a block of land hundreds of miles away from their native land. Wairarapa Maori, after failing for two decades in trying to have the promised reserves provided along their much treasured lakes’ foreshore, had little option but to accept. Thus began the ownership of a block of land in the south Waikato by a people still mainly resident in south Wairarapa. From the very outset, then, this was a peculiar case and, as Judge Harvey commented in 1947, ‘the Maori owners of this land were not in the same position as the owners of ordinary Native land.’

The purpose of this report was to assess the overall benefit of the Pouakani lands to Wairarapa Maori. No balanced evaluation could be undertaken without first taking into account the particular circumstances of how this people came to own this block. The conditions that eventually led to Wairarapa Maori ownership of this block, in fact, ultimately must provide the basis for which the benefits they have received from Pouakani must be measured. Those conditions, of course, were that Wairarapa Maori offered to the Crown a vital component of their material and spiritual lives so that the interests of the developing local farming community would be protected. The significance of this resource cannot be understated. Judge Mackay emphasised it quite clearly in his 1891 commission, stating that it was ‘the most important property they possessed.’ Yet Wairarapa Maori were then essentially deprived of this customary and valuable source by the Crown’s failure to provide adequate reserves on its foreshore. Despite repeated appeals by former owners of the lakes that this issue be immediately addressed, the Crown did not attempt any major effort to make good on its promise. Seddon wanted it recorded that the former owners should ‘not be impeded in fishing and obtaining from the lake food they are entitled to under the Treaty of Waitangi’. 170

Unfortunately for Seddon, but even more so for the former owners, this impediment did occur.

The reason for this was that the Crown did not deem it necessary to provide the owners with ‘ample reserves’ along the Wairarapa foreshore. Instead, the Crown offered the former owners some of its own undeveloped and inexpensive land that was at that stage surplus to its own requirements. These lands were still in their virgin state, uninhabited and inaccessible due to the absence of major roads. The easiest source of access was the Waikato River which the block lay adjacent to. After disposing of the relatively small but potentially valuable Wairarapa foreshore lands, the Pouakani block was selected by the Crown as ideal for those Wairarapa Maori who were promised reserves in 1896. The costs to the Crown of providing Pouakani would prove much less both in the short and long term than it would to have allocated a piece of the Wairarapa foreshore. The lakes’ margins were deemed valuable pasture land so a reserve for Wairarapa Maori had to be found ‘elsewhere’. Thus the proposition was put forward to the former owners that the ‘distant’ Pouakani block be a possible reserve.

Having been denied a reserve for so long, the former owners would have eventually realised that the Crown was not going to provide one in the Wairarapa. The appeals of many former owners that this be rectified were effectively ignored and by the time of the Pouakani proposal, some Maori, most notably Te Whatahoro, realised that this would probably be the best offer that the former owners would receive. Te Whatahoro sensed that there was no longer any point trying to gain reserves on the ‘Wairarapa foreshore lands, seeing that Government has sold these to Pakeha.’548 As the Crown sought maximum profits from the foreshore lands, Te Whatahoro realised only an insufficient acreage could be provided due to the high values involved. At Pouakani, however, the former owners would receive 30,000 acres, more than enough, Te Whatahoro felt, for them to live off. Opposition to the Pouakani proposal eroded as former owners either had to register their interests or lose out altogether. Many that had previously requested that reserves must be provided in Wairarapa now wished to be

548 Hoani Te Whatahoro to The Hon. Maui Pomare, 6 November 1915, LS 22/2474, vol. I, Department of Conservation, Wellington 171

included in the new list of owners of Pouakani. It was thus a no-win situation for those opposed to the Pouakani offer. So, the ‘Wairarapa exchange’ was officially completed with the vesting of Pouakani in the former owners of the Wairarapa lakes.

The ‘exchange’ did not prove beneficial to the former owners in any way whatsoever for at least another thirty years. The block was, as the Under Secretary of Maori Affairs later stated, ‘hundreds of miles away and at that time completely useless’.549 Although the Crown promised that access to Pouakani would be provided, this was not done until the Ministry of Works arrived in the mid-1940s, establishing the Mangakino township. Whilst Works had now provided access, it set about acquiring portions of the block for its hydroelectric schemes. Prime Minister Fraser required that Works only take those lands ‘absolutely essential’ for the power stations, eventually leading to a leasehold estate of the Mangakino township and its proposed removal once the stations had been completed. Works had entered Pouakani without informing the owners nor asking their consent yet proceeded to build a ‘semi-permanent’ town with permanent structures. Works officials, however, did not want to see their substantial investment possibly turned into a liability by having to move its buildings and other amenities. So, combined with the fact that many residents wished to remain at Mangakino, arrangements were made with the owners to maintain the township. It is not clear how much pressure was put on owners to do this, but pressure certainly did exist. The owners were to manage the town, with residents offered perpetual leases and paying rent for the sections on which their mainly former Works’ houses stood. The Wairarapa owners were never able to make any substantial profits from the township and nor did many enjoy the immediate benefits of living there, relatively few ever migrating there. The township itself became economically isolated after the completion of the schemes with a mainly dependent population living on fixed income. The owners never could extract sufficient profits from such an asset and ultimately decided to freehold the township to provide further capital for other investments. The costs of the township in the end exceeded any financial gain.

549 The Under Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs to The Minister of Maori Affairs, 3 January 1952, MA 1/1/80 5/5/125, pt. 1, Pouakani Block, Archives New Zealand, Wellington 172

Although it was recognised that the Ministry of Works obtain the land it needed for the Maraetai hydroelectric scheme, the permanent acquisition of nearly 800 acres of the Pouakani block could not be considered as just another standard public works taking. As this land had been granted to Wairarapa Maori as compensation in the first place, the fact that portions of it were further required by the Crown appears to the present author to raise significant issues about whether the owners were treated justly in terms of being able to derive maximum benefits from this land directly for themselves. This also includes the approximately 700 acres of land comprising Mangakino. Those parts of Pouakani that had been marked for permanent acquisition and the site of the township represented, as Prime Minister Fraser stated, ‘the easiest worked and most accessible portions of the block’. Yet the owners had effectively been denied the means of utilising these portions in a manner reflective of their best interests. The owners had essentially been deprived of the best part of the block – the ‘fat of Pouakani’ – before they even had an opportunity to use it.

The main involvement of Wairarapa Maori with Pouakani appears to have occurred in relation to the Maori land development scheme instigated in 1948. The Department for Maori Affairs brought the Pouakani block under relevant legislation to facilitate its development for grassland farming. The owners had proved incapable of effecting this themselves due to the Crown not providing access but also because of the high costs involved. No owner was likely to have the capital, or access to this, to bring the block up to a level that farming would be profitable. As Tunuiarangi had warned in 1911, only a ‘moneyed Pakeha’ could have achieved this, and that was to be the Government. The costs of developing marginal pumice land such as Pouakani would have been high enough in itself but this proved even more so during the immediate post- war era. The owners incurred a significant level of debt in the costs of development, the Department for Maori Affairs reducing this by drawing all profits from the scheme to paying this off. The reduction of this debt proved even more problematic as the owners had to pay out vast sums of compensation for those farmers walking off their leased units, such was the nature of the leases originally offered by the Department. This and other issues plagued the relationship between the Department and the owners for much of the former’s administration of the Pouakani lands. As the owners were for most of the time 173

confronted with a significant debt, none of the profits could have been distributed as dividends to the owners. The benefits of the scheme to the majority of owners, then, were limited, if indeed there were any at all. Only in very recent times have beneficiaries managed to receive some small financial rewards from the impressively performing Pouakani 2 Trust.

The first tangible rewards received by the owners of Pouakani did not come until the 1940s from timber royalties. A sum of over two hundred thousand dollars was distributed up to the 1970s, prior to an extensive programme of afforestation on the Pouakani block. The Incorporation entered into a 99 year lease with New Zealand Forest Products to plant the undeveloped and bush areas of Pouakani in mainly pinus radiata, with three crops expected to be harvested. The owners’ leased forestry (now to Carter Holt Harvey Forests) has become the Incorporation’s most vital investment after several renegotiations of lease during the 1990s. The forestry now provides the Incorporation with an annual income of over a million dollars, allowing it to make provisions for dividends which up until the late 1980s would have been unthinkable. Combined with the Trust’s successful farming operations, only recently has the Pouakani block truly ‘become a valuable asset of the owners’.

Yet this has come at great cost, effort and time to the descendants of the former owners of the Wairarapa lakes. Although the Pouakani block has been under the ownership of several generations of Wairarapa Maori, it is only now that owners are starting to enjoy sustained, if small per shareholder, financial benefits from their farming and forestry investments. It has taken approximately eighty years for the owners to secure from Pouakani viable and prosperous enterprises that are able to benefit all owners, not just those few immediately involved in these or actually living there. Many Wairarapa Maori would have received little, if any, financial rewards for being a part owner of this block over the years, but those present and future owners have an investment that will be of some support, no matter how small in real terms. Despite the limited extent to which Wairarapa Maori may have benefited financially, this is realistically the only form of benefit they are likely to gain. Very few have moved on to the block and so are unlikely to receive any other kind of direct benefit. Given this fact, a vast majority of owners 174

would find it difficult ‘to have any sense of turangawaewae in respect of such lands.’ Indirect social benefits may be realised from the activities of the Wairarapa Moana Trust as it attempts to facilitate the social development of Wairarapa Maori. It is difficult to determine the impact it has made, as the Committee has claimed, but should play an increasingly important role. The benefits that the owners of Pouakani should receive from this land in the future should surpass those obtained up to this point.

In comparison to the benefits provided by the source that was alienated by the Crown after 1896, however, the benefits of Pouakani are minor. The reserve offered in exchange of the Wairarapa lakes foreshore never did, nor could, serve as an equivalent to that which had supported Wairarapa Maori for so long, both spiritually and materially. The lakes were ‘the most important property’ that Wairarapa Maori possessed. It is highly unlikely that this will ever be said of Pouakani. Even though the Crown built a lake abutting the block (albeit for the Maraetai hydro station, of course), the Wairarapa lakes provided benefits to local Maori in far more abundance. As the statement of claim for Wai 770 specifies, and as this report has shown, the Pouakani block ‘never effectively replaced the food resource that was removed from the tangata whenua of Wairarapa and the descendants of Wairarapa’.550 The overall benefits of Pouakani to Wairarapa Maori have thus far been limited. This is not surprising as the Crown replaced the traditional economic base of Wairarapa Maori in the southern North Island by substituting it with a significantly inferior resource in the central North Island.

550 Wai 770 Statement of Claim, Waitangi Tribunal 175

Bibliography

Unpublished Primary Sources

Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington

88-070-23/27, Newspaper Clippings about Mangakino Township MS-Papers-2219, Mangakino Township and Pouakani MS-Papers-6571-180, Wairarapa Moana MS-Papers-6571-181, Pouakani: Administrative Papers MS-Papers-6571-182, Pouakani: Administrative Papers MS-Papers-6571-183, Pouakani: Administrative Papers MS-Papers-6571-184, Pouakani: Administrative Papers MS-Papers-6571-185, Pouakani: Administrative Papers MS-Papers-6571-186, Pouakani: Administrative Papers MS-Papers-6571-187, Pouakani: Administrative Papers MS-Papers-6571-188, Pouakani: Administrative Papers MS-Papers-6571-189, Pouakani: Administrative Papers MS-Papers-6571-225, Pouakani Block: Papers MS-Papers-6571-226, Pouakani Block: Papers MS-Papers-6571-227, Pouakani Block: Papers MS-Papers-6571-228, Pouakani Block: Papers MS-Papers-6571-229, Pouakani Block: Papers MS-Papers-6571-230, Pouakani Block: Papers MS-Papers-6571-231, Pouakani Block: Papers MS-Papers-6571-232, Pouakani Block: Papers MS-Papers-6571-233, Pouakani Block: Papers

Archives New Zealand, Auckland

BAPP 5113/855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 1, Power/Schemes/Projects/Stations/Maraetai BAPP 5113/855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 2, Power/Schemes/Projects/Stations/Maraetai BAPP 5113/855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 3, Power/Schemes/Projects/Stations/Maraetai BAPP 5113/855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 4, Power/Schemes/Projects/Stations/Maraetai BAPP 5113/855a W92/12/22/6, pt. 5, Power/Schemes/Projects/Stations/Maraetai BAPP 5113 W92/12/22/6/2

BBFZ 4942/782a 2600 (1), Pouakani Development Scheme BBFZ 4942/782b 2600 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme BBFZ 4942/782c 2600 (3), Pouakani Development Scheme BBFZ 4942/783a 2600 (4), Pouakani Development Scheme BBFZ 4942/784c 2600-a, Meeting of Owners BBFZ 4942/785a 2600 (1), Pouakani Development Scheme BBFZ 4942/785b 2601 (2), Pouakani Development Scheme BBFZ 4942/785c 2601 (3), Pouakani Development Scheme BBFZ 4942/786a 2601 (4), Pouakani Development Scheme 176

BBFZ 4942/787a 2601 (7), Pouakani Development Scheme BBFZ 4942/787b 2601 (8), Pouakani Development Scheme BBFZ 4942/793a 2603-4 (1), Annual Meetings BBFZ 4942/796a 2603-4-1 (1), Minutes of Meetings BBFZ 4942/796d 2603-4-4 (1), Handover to Incorporation BBFZ 4942/801d 2609, Employment and the Wairarapa BBFZ 4942/802b 2609b (2), Title Tenure and Correspondence with Owners BBFZ 4942/802c 2609b (3), Title Tenure and Correspondence with Owners BBFZ 4942/809b 2624 (1) Lease to Mangakino Township

Archives New Zealand, Wellington

AAMK 869/917a, 63/66, pt. 1, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/917b, 63/66, pt. 2, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/918a, 63/66/1, pt. 3, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/918b, 63/66/1, pt. 4, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/918c, 63/66/1, pt. 5, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/918d, 63/66/1, pt. 6, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/920a, 63/66/1, pt. 11, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/920b, 63/66/1, pt. 12, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/921c, 63/66/1, pt. 13, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/921d, 63/66/1, pt. 14, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/921e, 63/66/1, pt. 15, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/922a, 63/66/1, pt. 16, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/922b, 63/66/1, pt. 17, Pouakani Development Scheme AAMK 869/923a, 63/66/2, Pouakani Development Scheme

F W3129, 18/1/84, pt. 1, Morningside Timber Company: Pouakani Block F W3129, 18/1/84/12, pt. 2, Morningside Timber Company: Pouakani Block

LS 1 [Box 813] 54893

LE 1/1890/16, Wairarapa Lakes LE 1/1920/14, Native Affairs

MA 1/1910/4860 MA 1/1911/28 MA 1/1920/460 MA 1/1/309, 17/2/5, Employment of Maoris, Mangakino Township MA 1/1/181 5/5/125 pt. 1, Pouakani Block MA 1/1/181 5/5/125 pt. 2, Pouakani Block MA 1/1/181 5/5/125 pt. 3, Pouakani Block MA W2490 38/1/1, pt. 1, Assessment of Compensation for Maori Land MA W2459 225/33, 5/13/57, pt. 1 [Wairarapa Lakes] Petition

Maori Land Court Wairarapa Minute Books Maori Land Court Rotorua Minute Books 177

T 1/62/55, pts. 1-3, Expenditure (Public Works)

Department of Conservation, Wellington

3/3/109, vol. I 3/3/109, vol. II 22/2474, vol. I 22/2474, vol. II

Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington

MA 63/66/1 pt. 1, Pouakani Development Scheme MA 63/66/1 pt. 2, Pouakani Development Scheme MA 63/66/1 pt. 3, Pouakani Development Scheme

Waiariki Maori Land Court, Rotorua

MLC 8/1, Mangakino Township Incorporation, vols. 1-8 MLC 8/1/1, Mangakino Township: Annual Accounts and Balance Sheets, vols.1-2 MLC 8/1/2, Pouakani No. 2 (438 Ahu Whenua Trust), vols. 1-2 Pouakani Court Correspondence Files, vols. 1-4 Maori Land Court Rotorua Minute Books Maori Land Court Taupo Minute Books

Published Primary Sources

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives New Zealand Gazette New Zealand Parliamentary Debates New Zealand Statutes

Newspapers

Dominion Post New Zealand Herald New Zealand Mail New Zealand Times Waikato Times Wairarapa Daily Times Wairarapa Times-Age

Published Secondary Sources

Bagnall, A., Wairarapa: An Historical Excursion (Masterton: Hedley’s Bookshop, 1976) 178

Butterworth, G. and H. Young, Maori Affairs: A Department and the People Who Made It (Wellington: GP Books, 1990) Carnachan, H., ‘A Town like Mangakino’, Investigate 3: 22 (July 2002), pp. 39-44 Carter, M., Early Palliser Bay (Featherston: Featherston Publishing Committee, 1982) Coates, A., The Pumice Land Story (Hamilton: Times Commercial Printers, 1993) Crawford, P., Mangakino: Hydrotown and Community (Taupo: Taupo Regional Development Committee, 1976) Hasman, C., Mangakino in Perspective, 1945-1965: The Story of A Hydro Town (Turangi: Tongariro Welfare Association, 1976) Herbert, C., ‘Mangakino: Boom Town of the Waikato’, New Zealand Geographical Society Record, No. 12 (July-December 1951), 1-3 Jefferies, R., ‘Current Problems in the Valuation of Commercial Ground Lessors’ Interests in New Zealand’, New Zealand Valuers’ Journal (March 1991), pp. 11- 20 La Varis, C., The Future of Mangakino and the North Taupo District (Taupo: The Mangakino Community Council and the Taupo County Council, 1986) McIlraith, A., ‘From Eels to Butterfat’, Te Ao Hau, 5: 4 (November, 1957), pp. 24-8, 50 Martin, J. (ed.), People, Politics and Power Stations: Electric Power Generation in New Zealand, 1880-1990 (Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 1991) Mountfort, M., ‘Trust Investing in Quality People for Quality Assets’, New Zealand Dairy Exporter 76: 12 (July 2001), pp. 8-9 Revington, M., ‘Lonesome Town’, Listener (15 April 2000), pp. 32-4 Waitangi Tribunal, The Pouakani Report, Wai 33 (Wellington: Brooker and Friend, 1993) Ward, A., National Overview, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series 3 vols. (Wellington: GP Publications, 1997) ---, An Unsettled History: Treaty Claims in New Zealand Today (Wellington: Bridget Williams, 1999)

Research Reports

Crocker, T., ‘The History of Alienation of Wairarapa Moana’ (Draft report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, May 2001)

Goldsmith, P. ‘Wairarapa’ (Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1996)

Gould, A., G. Owen and D. Tuuta, ‘Maori Land Development, 1929-1954: An Introductory Overview with Representative Case Studies’ (Report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1996) 179

McClean, R., ‘Wairarapa 20th Century Environmental Overview Report: Inland Waterways’ (Report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001)

McCracken, H., ‘The Proprietors of the Mangakino Incorporation Pouakani No. 2 Trust and the Crown, 1896-1990s’ (Interim report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, July 2001)

Marr, C., ‘Public Works Takings of Maori Land, 1840-1981’ (Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1997)

White, B., ‘Inland Waterways: Lakes’ (Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1998)

Theses and Research Essays

Coburn, B.D., ‘Pouakani: People, Power and Place’ (A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography at Massey University, 1993) Harris, A., ‘Maori Land Development Schemes, 1945-1974: With Two Case Studies from the Hokianga’ (A thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy in Social Policy at Massey University, 1996) Johnston, M., ‘Mangakino: No Longer A Hydro-Town’, (A Research Exercise presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in History at Victoria University of Wellington, 1983)