Wai 1040, #A70

HORAHORA LOCAL STUDY

23 November 2016

Barry Rigby

Waitangi Tribunal Unit, November 2016

A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the local issues research programme for the Te Paparahi o Te Raki (Wai 1040) inquiry.

Contents

Preface ...... vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1 1. 1 The Research Commission ...... 1 1.2 Purpose ...... 1 1.3 Location ...... 2 1.4 Scope and Methodology ...... 2 1.5 The Claims ...... 9 1.6 Claimant Evidence ...... 10 1.7 Organisation of the Report ...... 11

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ...... 12 2.1 Origin of the Name ‘Horahora’ ...... 12 2.2 Remoteness ...... 13 2.3 Land and Landscape ...... 13 2.4 Te Waiariki ...... 15 2.5 Ngunguru Maori Population ...... 18 2.6 Ngunguru, 1870s – 1920s ...... 19 2.7 Summary and Conclusions ...... 22

CHAPTER 3: ASPECTS OF THE EARLY HISTORY OF HORAHORA ...... 23 3.1 Before 1877 ...... 23 3.2 Survey, 1877 ...... 23 3.3 Horahora Native Land Court Title, 1877 ...... 25 3.4 Partitions, 1877 – 1900 ...... 30 3.5 Summary and Conclusions ...... 31

CHAPTER 4: LAND ALIENATION AND FRAGMENTATION, MID 1890s-1930s...... 32 4.1 Introduction ...... 32 4.2 Legislation, 1890s ...... 33

ii 4.3 Horahora Alienation and Fragmentation ...... 35 4.4 Snapshot of Whangarei Maori Land, 1908 ...... 37 4.5 Continuing Alienation and Fragmentation, 1900 – 1940 ...... 41 4.6 Leasing, Land Retention and Vesting ...... 52 4.7 Land Exchanges, 1930s ...... 59 4.8 Rating Issues, 1920s and 1930s ...... 60 4.9 Summary and Conclusions ...... 61

CHAPTER 5: LAND ALIENATION AND FRAGMENTATION, 1940s – 1980 ...... 62 5.1 Introduction ...... 62 5.2 Legislation, 1940s – 1980s ...... 62 5.3 Alienation and Fragmentation, 1940 – 1980 ...... 64 5.4 Summary and Conclusions ...... 74

CHAPTER 6: THE NGUNGURU SANDSPIT ...... 76 6.1 Introduction ...... 76 6.2 Nineteenth Century Sandspit History and Significance to Te Waiariki ...... 77 6.3 Prelude to the 1963 Alienation ...... 77 6.4 Ngunguru Sandspit Timeline, 1963 – 2015 ...... 85 6.5 Summary and Conclusions ...... 90

CHAPTER 7: PUBLIC WORKS UP TO THE EARLY 1980s ...... 91 7.1 Introduction ...... 91 7.2 The Taking of Maori Land for Public Works ...... 91 7.3 Roading ...... 92 7.4 Summary and Conclusions ...... 96

CHAPTER 8: LAND DEVELOPMENT, FARMING AND OTHER LAND USE ...... 98 8.1 Introduction ...... 98 8.2 Horahora Land Development ...... 98 8.3 Horahora Land Reclamation ...... 102 8.4 Summary and Conclusions ...... 104

iii CHAPTER 9: HORAHORA AND THE CROWN’S COASTAL RESERVES, 1970 – 1980 ...... 105 9.1 Introduction ...... 105 9.2 Whangarei County Coastal Reserves ...... 106 9.3 Summary and Conclusions ...... 110

CHAPTER 10: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES AND DEVELOPMENTS ...... 111 10.1 Introduction ...... 111 10.2 Access to a Remedy under Section 45 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act ...... 112 10.3 Summary and Conclusions ...... 113

CHAPTER 11: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT ...... 114 11.1 Introduction ...... 114 11.2 Summary ...... 114 11.3 Answers to Commission Questions ...... 117

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 122 APPENDIX ...... 138 RESEARCH COMMISSIONS, Wai 1040, #2.3.15 AND #2.3.72 ...... 138

Figures

Figure 1: Location of Horahora in the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry Region ...... vii Figure 2: Topographical map of Horahora ...... viii Figure 3: ML 3795 Horahora ...... 6 Figure 4: Close up of left side of ML 3795 Horahora ...... 7 Figure 5: Close up of bottom of ML 3795 Horahora ...... 8 Figure 6: Aerial view of Horahora from the South ...... 12 Figure 7: ML 8855 survey of Horahora North ...... 14 Figure 8: Ngunguru Mill and Bullocks c1900 ...... 21 Figure 9: ML 10643 survey of Horahora South 1917 ...... 42 Figure 12: Family tree of Horahora 1B4B ...... 46 Figure 13: Horahora partitions ...... 47

iv Figure 14: Family tree of Horahora South ...... 48 Figure 15: Horahora North partitions...... 49 Figure 16: Fraser’s purchases by 1934 ...... 51 Figure 17: Areas vested in the Tokerau District Maori Land Board ...... 55 Figure 18: Horahora South partitions 1917 ...... 56 Figure 19: Horahora North Europeanised land ...... 66 Figure 20: Green’s purchases 1979-1980 ...... 68 Figure 21: Ngunguru Sandspit ...... 85 Figure 22: Horahora North roading ...... 94

v Preface

On 12 December 2014 the Waitangi Tribunal commissioned Dr Ann Beaglehole ‘to prepare a local study of titling, alienation, land administration and development issues concerning’ Horahora (Wai 1040, #2.3.15). When Dr Beaglehole was unable to complete the commissioned report due to illness her commission was cancelled. On 1 November 2016 the Tribunal commissioned Dr Barry Rigby to complete it (Wai 1040, #2.3.72).

Barry Rigby has presented evidence to the Waitangi Tribunal in the Muriwhenua, Kaipara, Tauranga Moana, Wairarapa ki Tararua, and Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiries. He has also published peer-reviewed articles in six scholarly journals since 1973.

Barry Rigby wishes to thank Ann Beaglehole for having completed much of the research for this report. He, of course, is accountable for any of the limitations that this report may contain. The short duration of his commission meant that he had to be selective in addressing some of the issues contained in the original research commission.

vi Figure 1: Location of Horahora in the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry Region

vii Figure 2: Topographical map of Horahora

viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1. 1 The Research Commission

The Tribunal commissioned this Horahora study as part of the agreed local issues research programme for the Te Paparahi o Te Raki (Wai 1040) inquiry. Claimant counsel John Kahukiwa and Alana Thomas on behalf of Te Waiariki initially proposed a local study of Horahora.

The Tribunal designed its local issues research programme to examine ‘key regional themes at the local level’. The research commission noted too that the Tribunal selected areas for examination partly ‘on the basis that sufficient archival and other source material was available to cover the significant historical issues raised’. Areas were selected for local studies on the basis of seven identified ‘key characteristics’: location, period, representative status, exceptional circumstances, significance, issues in contention between Maori and the Crown and research feasibility.

The original 12 December 2014 Horahora research commission (Wai 1040, #2.3.15 is appended as Appendix 1.

1.2 Purpose

The Waitangi Tribunal commissioned this report to cover the following main issues:

• The determination of title and initial subdivision of Horahora; • Protection mechanisms in respect of titling, alienation and administration of land; • The subsequent alienation from Maori ownership, and the underlying causes; • The extent of the Crown’s involvement in alienation and the processes they used, such as Public Works takings; • The management by the Crown of land remaining in Maori ownership;

1 • The extent of Crown attempts to overcome title fragmentation, and their outcomes; • The Crown assistance available to Maori to manage and utilise Horahora lands, including land development schemes.

Horahora is situated immediately south of Ngunguru 30 kilometres northeast of Whangarei. It has a Native Land Court-titled history dating from the 1877.

1.3 Location

The coastal Horahora of this report is not to be confused with the suburban Horahora near Northland Base Hospital in Whangarei (see Figure 1 above).

1.4 Scope and Methodology

This report examines major aspects of Horahora history from 1877 to the present day. The report briefly analyses the history of Maori land alienation and retention, focusing on Crown actions.. It traverses key events and Crown actions that affected the land and people of Horahora. It looks at the role of the Crown in order to understand its role in how land was lost and how some of it was retained. Most Maori land remaining at Horahora, however, remains less productive than the land alienated after 1877.

The report focuses on the changing ownership of the land, and its increasing fragmentation. It also deals with the changing fate of Te Waiariki, the recognised tangata whenua of Horahora. It concludes that Horahora’s remote location and relatively low productivity may explain the extent of Te Waiariki land retention. With difficult road access to the land and the hilly topography, particularly of Horahora North (No 1), Te Waiariki have become marginalised on relatively unproductive and fragmented land.

In chapter 4 the report examines Crown actions, such as vesting of Maori land in the Tokerau District Maori Land Board [TDMLB], and the subsequent re-vesting of the land

2 in the owners. It explores the extent to which this vesting and re-vesting activity during the early twentieth century contributed to Te Waiariki owners’ loss of control over their land.

In addition to the TDMLB, the report discusses the role of the other main judicial and Crown agencies:1 the Native/Maori Trustee, the Native/Maori Land Court, the Department of Native/Maori Affairs, and Maori Land Boards. It explores the part played by these agencies in facilitating land alienation and the partitioning and fragmentation of Horahora land. The report briefly touches on the main legislation under which Horahora land was alienated and fragmented at different times since 1877.

Public works takings for roading and bridges form another of the threads in Horahora history. As discussed in chapter 7, lack of adequate road access adversely affected Te Waiariki farming and other economic activities. The report examines the reasons for the delay in building the roads and bridges essential for Horahora economic development and the extent to which isolation, topography and Crown inaction contributed to the lack of adequate roads and bridges, particularly at Horahora North.

On the other hand, the poor access and the slower pace of development may have protected Te Waiariki owners at Horahora North from the kind of alienation that affected Horahora South. The lack of roads north of the river ironically made that land less desirable in the eyes of potential purchasers promoting commercial development.

In chapter 8 the report discusses the economic opportunities the Te Waiariki owners of Horahora pursued in the changing circumstances, noting the considerable pressures they came under to make the land productive or to sell it and the availability and nature of government assistance to farm up to and beyond the 1920s. The report notes that Horahora land was gazetted in 1931 as part of the Bay of Islands Development Scheme and assesses the extent to which the Crown delivered actual development assistance. It also considers the impact of the Crown’s 1970s policy of designating coastal reserves on Te Waiariki’s economic opportunities.

1 The Waitangi Tribunal’s Rekohu and Te Whanganui a Tara reports deemed the Native Land Court/Native Trustee and Maori Land Court/Maori Trustee to be judicial (not Crown executive) agencies.

3

The Crown’s coastal reserve designations, discussed in chapter 9, dominated Horahora history during the 1970s. Conservation issues then had a remarkable impact on Te Waiariki’s close association with the Ngunguru Sandspit. The sandspit struggle discussed in chapter 6 demonstrates belated Crown efforts to protect the area from exploitation. This eventually paved the way to a recent co-management agreement with Te Waiariki.

1.4.1 Economic and Social Experience The report examines documented Crown actions in relation to land and to the people of the land. The tangata whenua voice rarely entered the official record. Even the occasional Native/Maori Land Court notes of owners’ meetings provide little information on discussions preceding decisions. Fortunately, the Te Waiariki voice is available through the various briefs of evidence which claimants recently presented to the Waitangi Tribunal in the course of the Te Raki Inquiry. This evidence contains important echoes from the past.

Some Te Waiariki owners obviously chose to retain land, and some chose not to do so. The owners, for example, chose during the 1970s not to afforest their land under lease to the New Zealand Forest Service.2 The report looks briefly at the economic and social benefit they obtained from their continuing ownership at Horahora, asking what economic opportunities they pursued, or chose not to pursue, on their land.

During the 1930s Te Waiariki experienced poverty, poor housing and poor health. Depression roading gangs recruited ‘almost starving natives’ as workers to build the Ngunguru Ford Road. The Public Works Department paid them a pittance for their labour, but it provided them with food essential for the survival of their whanau.3

Dire poverty during the 1930s contributed to the alienation and fragmentation of Te Waiariki land. The relatively poor soil of Horahora North and the decline of timber

2 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 24 June 2015 3 Wm H Simons to Public Works Department, Whangarei, 13 February 1933, Roads – Ngunguru Ford Road, 1914-1971, AATE, A1003, 10880, Box 330, b, 18/7/110, Archives New Zealand (ANZ)

4 milling and coal mining also contributed continuing economic difficulties after World War II.

Pereri Mahanga in his January 2016 evidence testified to the plight of Te Waiariki today:

Our people are poor. Literally dirt poor. We cannot sustain ourselves because our estate has been ripped out from beneath us. The Pakeha here thrive. We are lucky to survive. The inequity is tangible.

Te Waiariki today relate this poverty to the fact that the land they live on today at Horahora is approximately a third of what the Native Land Court determined title to in 1877. 4

1.4.2 Paucity of Official Records The paucity of official records increases the difficulty of explaining Crown actions. Lack of recorded discussions at owners’ meeting limit an understanding of why they agreed to alienation and fragmentation. Claimant evidence has provided helpful information, but it reveals mainly Te Waiariki’s present-day motivations and aspirations. Although Te Waiariki today cannot speak directly to the lived experience of generations past, they have provided us with indirect evidence.

4 Pereri Mahanga, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U21, paragraphs 79 and 80

5 Figure 3: ML 3795 Horahora

6 Figure 4: Close up of left side of ML 3795 Horahora

7 Figure 5: Close up of bottom of ML 3795 Horahora

8 1.5 The Claims

Te Waiariki Claimants filed their original (Wai 620) hapu claim in 1996. Mitai Paraone Kawiti, Colin Malcolm, Haane Kingi, Louisa Collier, Haki Mahanga, Shayne Mahanga and Wini Wini Kingi filed this claim. They sought ‘a variety of redress, including the return of forestry land and compensation for land which cannot be returned and for the disruption and social dislocation which the hapu have suffered’. They named Horahora, among other areas ‘traditionally possessed by the claimant Hapu’.5

On 7 May 2007, Violet Sade (together with Philip Marsh and Tahau Mahanga) filed six further Te Waiariki claims relating specifically to Horahora. She specified as areas requiring further investigation: Horahora (including the Ngunguru Sandspit), and Pataua.6 She claimed that the Crown failed to protect Te Waiariki waterways, foreshore, seabed and marine and freshwater resources. She also held the Crown responsible for Te Waiariki poverty and economic stress and poor housing, health and education.7 In relation to a specific Horahora 1A2 wahi tapu, the claimants stated that the land was taken ‘when a person worked as Harbour master took the land when he worked for the Marine Board’.8 Regarding Horahora 1A1, the largest remaining Maori land parcel, they alleged that ‘a proposed paper road’ violated their wahi tapu.9 The claimants more generally alleged that ‘all lands in the Tutukaka and Ngunguru area have been [adversely] affected by the Local Government Act’.10

These seven initial Te Waiariki claims alluded to the following issues: • Alienation and fragmentation of land; • The Crown’s 1970s coastal reserves policy; • Native Land Court and Native Land legislation alleged to have facilitated the alienation and fragmentation; • Destruction and degradation of waterways; • Negative social and economic impacts; and

5 Te Waiariki/Ngati Korora hapu, Statement of claim, (Wai 620), 26 August 1996, Wai 1040, #1.1.76 6 Violet Sade, Statement of claim, (Wai 1412),Claim, 7 May 2007, Wai 1040, #1.1.168 7 Statement of claim, (Wai 1415) 7 May 2007, Wai 1040, #1.1.171 8 Statement of claim, (Wai 1411) 7 May 2007, Wai 1040, #1.1.167 9 Statement of claim, (Wai 1411) 7 May 2007, Wai 1040, #1.1.167 10 Statement of claim, (Wai 1414) 7 May 2007, Wai 1040, #1.1.170

9 • Negative effects of local government legislation.

This report addresses most of these issues set out in the statements of claim. The report focuses on alienation and fragmentation, and on the poverty, economic stress, poor housing, health and education that emerged at Horahora during the twentieth century.

1.6 Claimant Evidence

This report draws on several Te Waiariki briefs of evidence presented at Te Paparahi o Te Raki Stage 2 hearings from 2013 until 2016. As indicated above, this contemporary evidence provides an invaluable echo of the lived experience of past generations.

The evidence given in 2013 by Violet Hazel Rata Sade provided background information in support of her Te Waiariki claims. She referred to her maternal Mahanga descent.11 She stated that: ‘Both my mother and grandmother lived on our ancestral land at Horahora’.12 She identified Horahora as ‘one of the centres of our tribal activity. . . Horahora was a gathering place for the peoples of Te Waiariki and our neighbouring hapu.’13

Pereri Mahanga, in his 2013 evidence, gave more Te Waiariki background information. He described Te Waiariki as a ‘distinct and ancient tribe’ originating in Hawaiiki, and coming to Horahora by way of Hokianga. He emphasised their ‘intrinsic relationship with our moana and all beings and life forces that exist within our waterways’.14

In his 2016 evidence, Pereri Mahanga included specific Horahora history. He outlined the chronological sequence of Te Waiariki’s dispossession after 1877.15

Mitai Paraone-Kawiti’s 2016 evidence contained new insights into Pii Manu (Ngunguru Sandspit) history. He gave anecdotal evidence about Robert Arnard Green’s 1979-1980

11 Violet Sade, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 1 October 2013, Wai 1040, #I19, 1 October 2013, paragraphs 2, 4, 7 12 Violet Sade, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 1 October 2013, Wai 1040, #I19, 1 October 2013, paragraphs 7-9 13 Violet Sade, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 1 October 2013, Wai 1040, #I19, 1 October 2013, paragraphs 17 and 27 14 Pereri Mahanga, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 30 September 2013, Wai 1040, #I2, paragraphs 5, 41, 45-50 and 59 15 Pereri Mahanga, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U21, paragraphs 30-67

10 acquisition of land at the base of the spit. He also alluded to the ancestral relationship between the Ariki Te Ruki Kawiti, of Ngati Hine, and Te Waiariki.16

1.7 Organisation of the Report

The report follows a partly chronological and partly thematic organisation. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the main themes. Chapter 2 presents background information about Horahora and Te Waiariki. Chapter 3 looks at the Native Land Court’s creation of the Horahora ‘block’, at initial partitions and alienations, after 1877. Chapter 4 discusses aspects of the history of Horahora from the 1890s until the end of the 1930s, focussing on the pattern of alienation and fragmentation. Chapter 5 traces the continuation of alienation and fragmentation from the 1940s to the 1980s. Chapter 6 focuses on the history of the Ngunguru Sandspit, which attracted nationwide attention. Chapter 7 examines public works issues, including access to ‘land-locked’ Horahora parcels, and the time taken in the building of roads and bridges. Chapter 8 covers Crown assistance for Maori land development and afforestation. Chapter 9 analyses the Crown’s 1970s coastal reserves policy and its impact on Te Waiariki at Horahora. Chapter 10 brings Horahora history up to the present day. Chapter 11 contains a summary of the report’s main findings and presents its conclusions.

16 Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U37, paragraphs, 22- 32

11 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND

2.1 Origin of the Name ‘Horahora’

The name ‘Horahora’ signifies spreading out.17 Violet Sade suggested that the name ‘Horahora’ referred to the spreading out of the bodies of those who died in warfare.18 She added that her Te Waiariki tupuna washed and cleaned the bodies of fallen warriors in the Horahora River.19

Figure 6: Aerial view of Horahora from the South

17 Peter Dowling, Place Names of New Zealand, A W Reed, Auckland, 2010, p 171 18 Violet Sade, pers comm, 23 January 2015 19 Violet Sade, pers comm., 16 October 2016

12 ‘Ngunguru’ refers to sighing, murmuring or rumbling.20 According to Violet Sade, this also signifies the ‘rumble’, or the conflict, that led to the loss of life at Pii Manu, the Ngunguru Sandspit.21

2.2 Remoteness

Horahora, as illustrated in Figure 1, is located along the coast, northeast of Whangarei Harbour between the Ngunguru and Pataua Rivers. This remote location was more accessible by water than by roads for much of the twentieth century. The area south of the Horahora River was better served by roads than Horahora North, after the construction of the Pataua North road during the 1920s.

2.3 Land and Landscape

This section considers land and landscape, wahi tapu and significant places in the vicinity of Horahora. Horahora’s varying landscape may help explain why its people were able to retain much of their land north of the Horahora River. Horahora North is largely hilly, marginal land with heavy clay, or sandy soils. It supports manuka/kanuka scrub, rather than heavy forest or grassland. By contrast Horahora South is more undulating and better adapted to pastoral production.

20 Dowling, Place Names, p 273 21 Violet Sade, pers comm., 16 October 2016

13 Figure 7: ML 8855 survey of Horahora North

The original 1877 survey plan ML 3795 described Horahora North as ‘Fern and Tree land’ and pointed out the location of swamp, mangrove bush and sandspit.22 ML 8855, a 1912 survey plan of Horahora North (see Figure 7 above) described a similar vegetation pattern with dominant scrub interspersed with ‘Manuka Bush’.23

22 Horahora survey, ML 3795, 1877 23 Horahora North survey, ML 8855, 1912

14 Crown officials made several contradictory references to the varying quality of Horahora land. The Chief Surveyor wrote in 1895 that Horahora 2A contained ‘a good deal of inferior land’.24 The Crown purchased this 477 acre southern inland area in 1895 (see Chapter 4). Yet ML 3795 shows half of the purchased area (about 200 acres) to be heavily timbered. Conversely, it describes only about 100 acres north of the river as heavily timbered.25

2.4 Te Waiariki

Te Waiariki descend from both Hokianga Ngapuhi and from Whangarei Ngai Tahuhu. Te Waiariki may also be viewed as the ‘umbrella’ for allied hapu Ngati Korora and Ngati Taka Pari.26

In their account of Te Waiariki origins, Manuka Henare, Hazel Petrie and Adrienne Puckey wrote: ‘It is generally accepted that Te Waiariki were formed earlier than today’s major tribal groupings and were once a large tribe, from whom most Hokianga hapu were able to trace their descent.’27 Te Waiariki left the Hokianga around 400 years ago, though they have kept links with the area; but derive rights to their Horahora land from Ngai Tahuhu.28

Pereri Mahanga traced Te Waiariki connections to Hokianga through their tupuna Rakaihautu and Te Maawe. Te Waiariki left Hokianga under the leadership of Rangitawawaro and settled in Horahora among numerous other locations along the Whangarei coast before 1800.29

24 Berghan, ‘Northland Block Research Narratives, Native Land Court blocks, 1865-2005’, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 162 25 Horahora survey, ML 3795, 1877 26 Transcript of recorded hearing: 2011 Chief Judge’s MB 435, Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, ‘Brief of Evidence’, Wai 2561, #A63a, 24 May 2010, pp 176-2-4 27 Manuka Henare, Hazel Petrie, Adrienne Puckey, ‘He Whenua Rangatira’: Northern Tribal Landscape Overview: Hokianga, Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Whangarei, Mahurangi and Gulf Islands’, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2009, Wai 1040, #A37, p 192 28 Henare et al, Wai 1040, #A37, p 192. The authors attribute their information about Ngai Taihuhu to Violet Sade. 29 Pereri Mahanga, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 30 September 2013, Wai 1040, #I2, paragraph 45

15 Pereri Mahanga explained that Te Waiariki allied with their Ngati Korora and Ngati Taka Pari relatives only after they arrived in the Whangarei area. There they intermarried with Ngai Tahuhu, the original people of Whangarei.30

In his January 2016 evidence, Pereri Mahanga declared: ‘Te Waiariki are not Ngati Wai. We are not Ngapuhi. We have interconnections with both … but our mana is ours alone, absolute. Our relationship to the land is through our Te Waiariki whakapapa, not through Ngati Wai or Ngapuhi . . .’31

2.4.1 Relationships with Ngati Wai Te Waiariki and Ngati Wai are linked by whakapapa in the Ngunguru area immediately north of Horahora. They share a marae at Ngunguru township. Its wharenui is named after the famous Te Waiariki and Ngati Wai rangatira, Paratene Te Manu.32

Ngati Wai are generally described as a coastal people, distinct from but related to Ngapuhi. Ngati Wai descend directly from Ngati Manaia, and from Ngai Tahuhu in the larger Whangarei area.33

Marie Tautari observed that Te Wairariki, unlike Ngati Wai, came to the east coast from Hokianga. Ngati Wai have settled as far north as the Bay of Islands, and as far south as Aotea (Great Barrier Island), but they have always been an east coast people.34

Marie Tautari (Te Whakapiko-Ngati Manaia) helped Horahora Te Waiariki to join the Ngatiwai Land Retention Committee’s campaign to oppose the Crown’s 1970s coastal reserves policy. She also became a Maori Land Court-appointed trustee for Horahora between February 1975 and 1983. She referred to this role in her brief of evidence,

30 Pereri Mahanga, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 30 September 2013, Wai 1040, #I2, paragraphs 50- 54; Violet Sade, pers comm., 16 October 2016 31 Pereri Mahanga, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U21, paragraph 18 32 Paratene Te Manu is the subject of the prize-winning Paula Morris novel entitled Rangatira, Penguin Books, Auckland, 2011 33 Morore Piripi, ‘History of Ngatiwai’, Te Ao Hou, no 37, December 1961, p 18 34 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 5 May 2015

16 writing that she considered her role at Horahora as part of a larger struggle of coastal hapu to protect their whenua tuku iho.35

2.4.2 Key people Whina Cooper also left her mark on Horahora history during the 1970s. Her first husband Richard Gilbert (Kerepeti) was Te Waiariki. Whina Cooper’s Kerepeti children inherited Horahora land.36

Of the Pakeha purchasers of Horahora land, William MacKenzie Fraser and Robert Arnard Green feature most prominently in the local history. Fraser bought almost 70 percent of the remaining Te Waiariki land at Horahora South between 1914 and 1935 (see Figure 16 for Fraser’s purchases). Green purchased the Ngunguru Spit in 1968, and then adjoining land at the base of the spit in 1979-1980.

After serving as the Whangarei County engineer from 1907 to 1918, Fraser in 1927 began a 27-year association with the Whangarei Harbour Board. He worked as engineer, secretary, harbourmaster, treasurer, and later as superintendent. His biographer Mim Ringer wrote that ‘at one stage he was the harbour board: as secretary he wrote to himself as engineer, then sent letters to himself in return’. His ambitious reclamations at Whangarei Harbour ‘facilitated the development of a deep-sea port, provided sites for industry and recreation and added to the income of local authorities’. In 1953 he completed his career as a dominant figure on the Whangarei County Council, the Whangarei Borough Council, and on the Whangarei Harbour Board.37

Apart from his roles as harbourmaster, engineer and local politician, Fraser was a purchaser of Maori land. His several properties included sizable holdings at Horahora South, and a coastal dairy farm at Pataua.38

35 Marie Tautari, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 9 February 2016, Wai 1040, #U48, paragraph 5 36 Violet Sade, pers comm, 23 January 2015; 16 October 2016 37 Mim Ringer, ‘Fraser, William Mackenzie’, from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 25 September 2013, URL: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/4f23/fraser-william-mackenzie 38 Ringer, DNZB Fraser entry, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand

17 Robert Arnard Green (an Auckland company director) became a prominent Pakeha land owner and lessee at Horahora North during the 1970s. He played a major part in the story of the Ngunguru Sandspit (see Chapter 6). In 1959, Green established an interest in a coastal development company called Ocean Pines Limited. The New Zealand Companies Office incorporated Ocean Pines Ltd in February 1959. This company purchased EH Lambert’s Ngunguru Seaside Estates in 1968 to develop a holiday resort39 Then, in 1979-1980, he purchased a further 35.2 hectares at the base of the spit. He died in Auckland in 2015.40

2.5 Ngunguru Maori Population

In 1874, the first ‘Approximate Census of the Maori Population’ gave the total for Whangarei Ngapuhi as 445, with 66 given for the ‘half-caste’ population. The number was further broken up into ‘hapu’, with 11 given for Te Ngare Hauata residing at ‘Hora Hora’; and 30 given for ‘Wai Ariki’ residing at Ngunguru, with 1 more for the ‘half-caste’ population. The same census listed 16 Ngati Wai, with 6 additional ‘half-castes’, as residing at Tutukaka.41

In 1878 the Maori census gave the total Whangarei Ngapuhi population as 358, with 53 ‘half–castes’. The census figure given for Te Waiariki residing in Ngunguru was 14, with 8 ‘half-castes’. The 1878 census failed to record Ngati Wai population figures.42

Specific population data for Te Waiariki at Ngunguru or Horahora are lacking in other censuses of the Maori population in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In 1881 the total number of Maori listed in Whangarei was 404.43 The 1886 population

39 URL, http://coys.co.nz/company/?no=57809-oceans+pines+limited 40 Pat Heffey, ‘Ngunguru Sandspit Historical Timeline’, https://docs.indymedia.org/Aotearoa/Ngunguru; New Zealand Herald, 7-9 May 2015 41 Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, (AJHR), 1874, G7, ‘Approximate Census of the Maori Population’, pp 3-4 42 AJHR, G2, 1878, p 13 43 AJHR, 1881, G3, p 10

18 figure for Maori in Whangarei was 615.44 In 1911 the census declared the Maori population of Whangarei district to be 939.45

The available population data suggest a comparatively small Te Waiariki population at Horahora. This also appears to apply to the total Maori population in the larger Ngunguru-Pataua area, and indeed to the entire Whangarei ‘district’. This data, however, may be unreliable. Ian Pool, in The Maori Population of New Zealand, noted significant variations from one census to another due to changes in methods of classifying the Maori population. Pool discussed the low quality of Maori census data and significant under-enumeration in the Maori censuses of 1874, 1878 and 1881.46

2.6 Ngunguru, 1870s – 1920s

The larger Ngunguru area economy provides necessary context for understanding Horahora history during the period the from 1870 to 1930s. This larger area stretched from Tutukaka in the north to Pataua in the south.

The trading port at Ngunguru drew Tutukaka/Matapouri to the north and Horahora/Pataua to the south into its orbit. All traded goods within this larger area had to go through one deep water port.47

Ngunguru became a timber trading port well before 1840. The HMS Buffalo visited Tutukaka in 1834 and Ngunguru in 1836 on the first Admiralty kauri cutting voyages. James Busby, Capt WJ Lewington and Gilbert Mair established the first timber mill at Ngunguru in 1837.48 According to local historian Jack Lee, Busby and his partners established the Ngunguru mill at a cost of £750. During 1841 it produced ’16,000 feet of

44 AJHR, 1886, G2, p 12 45 AJHR, 1911, H14A, p 20 46 Ian Pool, The Maori Population of New Zealand, 1769-1971, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1977, p 41, pp 57-61 47 See Malcolm McKinnon, ed, New Zealand Historical Atlas, Bateman, 1997, plate 48, ‘The Kauri Harvest’ 48 Michael Roche, History of New Zealand Forestry, GP Books, Wellington, 1990, pp 18-21

19 plank and 6,000 [feet] of scantling’ for the construction of the new colonial capital in Auckland. Unfortunately, the enterprise failed after a few productive years.49

Florence Keene ascribed the failure of this, the first timber mill in the Whangarei district ‘to trouble with sawyers’. A more successful Ngunguru mill operated from 1873 to 1915.50 While Keene did not record Te Waiariki participation in the timber industry, they were probably heavily involved. In his 2016 evidence, Mitai Paraone-Kawiti wrote that during the 1840-1850 period Te Waiariki were ‘thriving’ at Ngunguru. ‘We had a mill and trade’.51 Ngaire Henare’s 2016 evidence included the statement that ‘Mohi Te Peke of Te Waiariki operated a large timber mill on the Ngunguru River. . .’.52

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Ngunguru Mill operated near the wharf at the entrance to the Ngunguru estuary. A photograph of Ngunguru Timber Mill and bullock team at about 1900 from the Northland Room Digital Collections at the Whangarei Library is reproduced below.53

49 Jack Lee, The Old Land Claims in New Zealand, Northland Historical Publications Society, Kerikeri, 1993, pp 53-54 50 Florence Keene, Milestone: Whangarei County’s first 100 years, 1876-1976, Northern Publishing Co. Ltd, Whangarei, 1977, p 31 51 Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U37, paragraph 12 52 Ngaire Elizabeth Henare, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U38, paragraph 42 53 Northland Room Digital Collections, URL: http://whangarei.recollect.co.nz/nodes/index/q:ANQM, accessed 5 February 2016

20 Figure 8: Ngunguru Mill and Bullocks c1900

Keene also described coal-mining in the vicinity of Horahora. The Kiripaka Mine, about 10 km from Horahora North, began operating after 1892. The coal field, ‘approximately four square miles in extent, covered the hills overlooking the river, and also occurred in the valleys around the heads of the Ngunguru and Horahora estuaries.’54

Kiripaka coal mining continued until the World War I years. In 1915 the Northern Advocate reported the simultaneous closing of both the Kiripaka coal mine and the Ngunguru sawmill.55 This marked the ending of an era of extractive industry at the doorstep of Horahora.

As timber and coal faded in importance, according to the Northern Advocate, ‘local energy was turned to the land’. By the 1920s, dairy farming had started in the larger

54 Florence Keene, Between Two Mountains: A History of Whangarei, Whitcombe and Tombs, Auckland, 1966, pp 142-143 55 Northern Advocate, 10 August 1915, p 1

21 Ngunguru area.56 Again, Te Waiariki participation in dairying does not feature in local newspapers, but Pita Kerepeti operated a successful dairy farm at Horahora 1A3B as ealy as 1925 (see Chapter 8 for further discussion of Horahora land development).

2.7 Summary and Conclusions

The economic development of the larger Ngunguru area helped shape Horahora and Te Waiariki history during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Timber milling and mining had by the 1920s given way to dairying. This encouraged Pakeha purchasers of Te Waiariki land, such as WM Fraser, to begin a long-term association with Horahora South. The Crown had little direct involvement in the extractive timber and coal industries that dominated the pre-World War I decades, but that would change with the introduction of intensive dairying during the 1920s.

56 Northern Advocate, 16 January 1923, p 7

22 CHAPTER 3: ASPECTS OF THE EARLY HISTORY OF HORAHORA

3.1 Before 1877

The dearth of documentary information about Horahora history before 1877 provides little background information to the Te Waiariki title determination application filed in the Native Land Court [NLC] that year. Yet Te Waiariki are known to have participated in several NLC title determination hearings in the larger Ngunguru area during the 1870s. They also participated in Crown purchase negotiations in that area during those years.

This chapter discusses aspects of the early history of Horahora. These include: the 1877 survey of the Horahora block; the Horahora claim before the Native Land Court in 1877; and the partitioning of Horahora land between the late 1870s and the mid-1890s. But first it notes the Maori land legislation of the 1870s and 1880s that was relevant to these events.

3.2 Survey, 1877

Before the NLC was prepared to consider title applications, it insisted on the presentation of a proper survey plan. The first Horahora survey, which covered 3,322 acres, took place in March 1877. This survey plan is now referred to as ML 3795.57 (see Figures 3-5, ML 3795, the first Horahora survey plan).

Whangarei surveyors Wilson and Taylor completed ML 3795 in March 1877 for the original Te Waiariki title applicants, Hohepa Mahanga and Kereama Te Peke. Section 56 of the Native Land Act 1873 required applicants to provide an approved survey in order to qualify for an NLC title determination hearing.58

57 Survey plan, ML 3795, 1877 58 David Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua: The Native Land Court 1864-1909, Huia Books, Wellington 1999, p 310

23 The 30 August 1877 Te Kahiti (Maori Gazette) notice of and the 5 September 1877 New Zealand Gazette notice confirmed Mahanga and Te Peke as the Horahora applicants.59 Mahanga and Te Peke first produced ML 3795 at the first Horahora NLC hearing in Whangarei on 21-22 September 1877 before Judge Henry AH Monro.60 Monro grew up in the Hokianga. His father, Peter Monro, was a participant in a pre-Treaty transaction at Te Mata, Hokianga, just across the harbour from Opononi.61

The first Horahora NLC hearing coincided with other title determinations, and accelerated Crown purchasing, in the areas surrounding Horahora during 1877. Te Waiariki brought title determination applications regarding neighbouring Waiparera (2,743 acres) and Te Taheke (3,810 acres), also on 20-21 September. The Crown purchased both Waiparera and Te Taheke from Te Waiariki on 21 September. The location of these areas along the western (inland) side of Horahora suggests that Te Waiariki were apparently prepared to alienate inland, but not coastal, areas.

Horomona Kaikou and Hohepa Mahanga of Te Waiariki negotiated the 21 September 1877 Te Taheke Crown purchase.62 The NLC on 22 September named both Kaikou and Mahanga as Horahora owners. Growing tensions over land between Te Waiariki and Ngati Hau during the 1870s may have contributed to the Te Taheke purchase. Te Waiariki and Ngati Hau contested NLC title determination at the Pukepoto hearing on 18-19 September 1877.63 Monro included both Te Waiariki and Ngati Hau in his 19 September Pukepoto title determination order, but contention between the two hapu continued.64

At Kopuatoetoe, another western area adjoining Horahora, Monro again included both Te Waiariki and Ngati Hau in the title.65 The two groups also previously clashed over nearby Waikariri.66 The NLC title determination process, combined with Crown

59 Te Kahiti, 30 August 1877, p 107; New Zealand Gazette, 5 September 1877, pp 907, 910 60 Survey Plan, ML 3795 61 Peter Monro’s old land claim at Hokianga was OLC 339 62 Te Taheke purchase deed, 21 September 1877, AUC ???, ABWN 8102, W5279, ANZ 63 Whangarei Minute Book [WMB], vol 2, pp 192-204, 17-18 September 1877 64 WMB, vol 2, p 204, September 1877 65 WMB, vol 2, 31 May 1879, pp 231-233, ‘Judgement’, p 234 66 WMB, vol 2, 15 September 1871, p 78

24 purchase negotiations, heightened conflict between the hapu. In addition to Waiparera and Te Taheke, the Crown purchased Omaikao in 1877. Then in 1880 it purchased Kakahoroa and Mangahui from Te Waiariki. These areas all occupied the inland Horahora zone of contention between Te Waiariki and Ngati Hau.67 Thus, the 1877 Horahora title determination emerged out of this welter of NLC and Crown purchase activity against a backdrop of Te Waiariki-Ngati Hau contention.

The survey plan presented at the 21-22 September 1877 Horahora hearing (ML 3795) became a standard reference tool for subsequent NLC hearings. The NLC used it for partition hearings in 1896, and in 1897 and 1898 in relation to subdivisions. The Native Appellate Court in 1902 used it; and it featured in more NLC-ordered partitions between 1907 and 1911 (see Figures 3-5: ML 3795).68

3.3 Horahora Native Land Court Title, 1877

The NLC minutes from the 21 September 1877 Horahora hearing recorded leading Te Waiariki applicant Hohepa Mahanga stating that: This land belonged to my ancestors. The first who owned it was . . . (Te Maire) . . . his descendants have been in occupation until now. I and my relatives have a settlement on the land at the present time. There are two pieces in the block – Horahora South and Horahora North.

Mahanga then provided an initial list of owners for the surveyed north and south division of Horahora.69 This list proved controversial. The 21 September minutes referred to a dispute within Te Waiariki over the Horahora South list. Monro accordingly adjourned the hearing overnight.70 On the following day of 22 September

67 Waiparera purchase deed, 21 September 1877, AUC 999; Omaikao purchase deed, 21 September 1877, AUC 998; Kakahoroa purchase deed, 14 September 1880, AUC 1207; Mangahui purchase deed, 14 September 1880, AUC 1206; ABWN 8102, W5279, ANZ 68 ML 3795 69 WMB, vol 2, 21 September 1877, p 219 70 WMB, vol 2, 21 September 1877, p 220

25 1877 Mahanga evidently settled this dispute by submitting new owners lists for both Horahora North and Horahora South.71

The 21-22 September 1877 minutes suggest that Te Waiariki owners had previously agreed to the north-south division. Mahanga stated this at the outset when he referred to ‘Horahora North’ and ‘Horahora South’. Why Te Waiariki agreed to this initial division, however, remains a mystery.

The minutes recorded two different sets of north-south ownership lists. Changes in the ownership lists from 21 September (when Mahanga first offered them) to 22 September (when Te Waiariki altered them) can be detected from the full lists given below.

Owners listed on 21 September for Horahora North were:

Hohepa Mahanga Kamira Te Mahara Anatipa Wero Kerepeti Te Peke

Those listed on 21 September 1877 for Horahora South were:

Rawiri Te Hinu Kereama Te Peke Maihi Mahanga Haki Kopa Paratene Te Manu

Those named as objecting to these initial lists on 21 September 1877 were:

Raha Taonui Haehae

71 WMB, vol 2, 22 September 1877, p 220

26 Heni Kaio Wiremu Te Tete Horomona Kaikou Himiona Tuakoi Tipene Te Uriheke

Significantly, Te Waiariki included three of the objectors in the greatly expanded revised list for Horahora South. They were Horomona Kaikou, Haehae and Tipene Te Uriheke.

Those listed on 22 September, as the final Horahora North owners were:

Rawiri Te Hinu Kereama Te Peke Maihi Mahanga Haki Kopa Paratene Te Manu Rihi Paea Horomona Kaikou Haehae Tipene Te Uriheke

Those listed on 22 September as the final Horahora South owners were:

Hohepa Mahanga Kamira Te Mahara Anatipo Wero Kerepeti Te Peke Heni Kaio Wiremu Te Tete Himiona Tuakoi Puriri Kake Hori Rewi Ruamoana

27 Erueti Kareama Hone Wiremu Te Arewa Patira Eruera Mahanga Hamiora Mahanga Ana Maraea Mahanga Meriana Patira Ruamahanga Patara Riria Hone Wiremu Mahanga Perapa Waihi Toki Te Ahiteranga Hariata Hona Tahere Pororua Marae Nawa Kereama Kerepeti Hinare Te Moananui Mihi Te Kerepeti72

Thus the five people who Mahanga initially listed for Horahora South agreed to transfer to the revised Horahora North list. Te Waiariki replaced them with 28 new Horahora South owners. Te Waiariki appears to have amended the initial lists through out-of- court negotiations among themselves. This suggests that a degree of hapu agency remained despite the NLC process. The fact that the title which emerged was still an individual one rather than one awarded to a hapu, however, limited this hapu agency.

More research may uncover different hapu associations among the claimants and objectors. An appreciation of these associations may lead to better understanding of the views and aspirations of Te Waiariki landowners in 1877.

72 WMB, vol 2, pp 219-222

28 Section 23 of the Native Lands Act 1865 enabled the NLC to determine hapu title but only in areas exceeding 5,000 acres.73 This compelled Te Waiariki to name only individual owners. Williams argued that Maori normally considered individual ‘owners’ to be acting as tribal trustees.74 In effect, Te Waiariki determined their own hapu title at Horahora, but the NLC could only recognise individual title.

The final 1877 NLC title determination orders presented the following pattern:

Horahora North 9 owners 1,986 acres Horahora South 28 owners 1,336 acres75

The 1877 NLC title determination orders for Horahora North and South also imposed restrictions on alienation of the land. These restrictions prevented owners from selling the land, but they were permitted to lease it for a term not exceeding 21 years.76 Under sections 48-49 of the Native Land Act 1873, the NLC could impose such restrictions.77 Williams noted that the NLC could also override such restrictions on alienation. Under section 65 of the 1873 Act, if some owners objected to a sale or lease but the majority wished to go ahead, the NLC could partition the land between the sellers and the non- sellers.78 Thus, the Crown purchased Horahora 2A in 1895, less than 21 years after title determination. While the section 49 of the Native Land Act 1873 provided for alienation if all owners agreed, with Horahora 2A, that was not the case. Owners of what became Horahora 2B opposed the 1895 Crown purchase.

73 The 1873 Act contained no such provision. See Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, pp 161-162 74 Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, pp 161-177 75 Certificate of Title no 3635, ABWN 8910 w5278/25, ANZW, cited in Paula Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 161 76 Horahora Memorial of Ownership, ANZ, ABWN, W5278 8910, Box 25, 3629-3650 77 Armstrong and Subasic, Wai 1040, #A12, p 775 78 Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, 1999, p 275, pp 277-278. Regarding restrictions on alienation and their removal, see Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenu’, 1999, pp 275-283

29 3.4 Partitions, 1877 – 1900

As several historians noted, during the late nineteenth century the Crown encouraged Pakeha settlement and attempted to individualise Maori land titles.79 This section surveys Horahora history between the 1877 title determination and the first major partitions. The NLC further partitioned Horahora South in 1896.80 Then the NLC partitioned Horahora North on 18 October 1898.81

Where the NLC Whangarei minutes refer to Horahora in the 1880s and in the early 1890s, they recorded succession orders. The various references to succession applications and orders reveal creeping fragmentation at Horahora. As Violet Sade stated in her 2013 evidence: ‘From 1877, a vast amount of transactions occurred within the Courts that further partitioned, individualized and fragmented the interests we had.’82

By 1900 the NLC-ordered fragmentation of Horahora developed a momentum of its own. David Williams attributed fragmentation to the 1867 ‘Papakura rule, as one generation of succession order has followed another . . .’. This generated fragmentation of Maori landownership.83 Chief Judge Fenton established this rule when he found in favour of all the children equally inheriting the land in question near the South Auckland village of Papakura.84

79 See for example, Richard Boast, Buying the Land, Selling the Land: Governments and Maori Land in the North Island 1865-1921, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2008, pp 66-72; I H Kawharu, ‘Foreword’, to Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, pp xv-xvii 80 Horahora no 2A Crown purchase deed, 9 March 1895, AUC 2027, ABWN 8102, W5279 81 See ML 3795 for this partition of Horahora 1A and 1B 82 Violet Sade, ‘Brief of Evidence,’, Wai 1040, #I19, 1 October 2013, Wai 1040, #I19, paragraph 35 83 Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, p 181 84 Williams, Te Kooti Tango Whenua, pp 179-181

30 3.5 Summary and Conclusions

The limited information available about the first survey of Horahora in 1877 and on Horahora’s title determination process fails to explain the initial north-south division. The motivations of Horahora’s Te Waiariki owners or the ‘preferences of local communities with interests’ remain a mystery.85

Some inkling about Te Waiariki’s motivation can be gleaned from contextual information regarding title determination and Crown purchase contention. This suggests that Te Waiariki may have participated in the NLC title determination process in and around Horahora. Te Waiariki eventually alienated inland areas, perhaps to safeguard more precious coastal land. But the NLC Horahora title was still an individualised one made out to a list of named hapu members, rather than to the hapu itself.

85 Research Question ‘a’, Research Commission, Wai 1040, #2.3.15

31 CHAPTER 4: LAND ALIENATION AND FRAGMENTATION, MID 1890s-1930s

4.1 Introduction

As was the case with Maori land elsewhere in New Zealand, the Crown presided over significant alienation of land at Horahora in the years following the first survey, titling and partitioning. This chapter analyses Horahora land alienations, outlining how much land was alienated; what type of alienations they were (Crown purchase, private purchase, vesting or leasing); and the circumstances surrounding the alienations.

Richard Boast and David Williams, among others, noted the ‘tsunami of Crown purchasing’ of Maori land after 1865.86 From the 1890s, the Liberal government ‘pushed’ land purchases along ‘with a great deal of energy and determination’.87 Between 1865 and 1910 Crown and private purchasers transferred a total of 14.21 million acres out of Maori ownership in the North Island.88 The Crown purchased around 10 million acres of Maori land in the North Island between 1870 and 1928.89 Surveyed acreage figures reveal that between 1866 and 1900 the Crown purchased 588,707.5 acres of land in Te Raki, compared to 522,034 acres purchased prior to 1866.90

Williams discussed patterns of NLC-facilitated alienation and fragmenation. Alienation and fragmentation went hand in hand. Each successor had less and less incentive to hold on to smaller and smaller parcels of land. Maori indebtedness also encouraged alienation.91

86 Richard Boast, Buying the Land, Selling the Land, back cover 87 Boast, Buying the Land, Selling the Land, p 193 88 Boast, Buying the Land, Selling the Land, p 36 89 Boast, Buying the Land, Selling the Land, p 37 90 Barry Rigby, ‘Validation review of the Crown’s tabulated data on land titling and alienation for the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry region: Crown purchase 1866-1900’, Waitangi Tribunal, 2016, Wai 1040, #A56, p 3, and p 9 for pre-1866 figure 91 Williams, ‘Te Kooti Tango Whenua’, p 181

32 These broader patterns of alienation and fragmentation apply at Horahora. At the same time, the Crown made some efforts to combat alienation and fragmentation. In 1905 the Crown enacted provisions for vesting Maori land parcels for management in the Tokerau District Maori Land Board [TDMLB] for leasing or alienation by sale. This chapter looks at the role of Crown actions in relation to Maori land. To what extent was it protective; to what extent was it coercive? In other words, was the Crown seizing control of land for its own ends of promoting settlement? Did leasing provide a viable alternative to absolute alienation so that Maori could derive income from their retained land?

4.2 Legislation, 1890s

By the Native Land Act 1894, the Crown restored pre-emption and therefore a monopoly position in the land market.92 Pre-emption provided the Crown with the opportunity of acquiring Maori land at far less than its real or market value. According to Armstrong and Subasic, Crown purchase agents took advantage of increasing Maori indebtedness.93

Williams, in Te Kooti Tango Whenua, explained that pre-emption as it operated in New Zealand law, ‘was not merely a right to make or to receive the “first offer” to purchase Maori-owned land but was an exclusive, monopoly right to be the only purchaser of such land’.94

92 Armstrong and Subasic, pp 73, 87-88 93 Armstrong and Subasic, p 24 94 Williams, ‘Te Kooti Tango Whenua’, p 104. (See Williams, ‘Te Kooti Tango Whenua’, pp 104-108 for a full discussion on Crown pre-emption)

33 4.2.1 Crown Pre-emption and Horahora The 1894 restoration of Crown pre-emption directly affected the alienation of Horahora 2A. The Crown purchased Horahora 2A (477 acres) immediately after section 117 of the Native Land Act 1894 restored pre-emption.95

In the lead up to the purchase, the Crown identified the full area of 1,336 acres for Horahora South as subject to purchase negotiations under the provisions of the Native Land Purchases Act 1892. The New Zealand Gazette of 18 July 1895 stated, in relation to Horahora South: ‘Notice of Entry into Negotiations for Acquisition of Native Lands by her Majesty’. The Gazette announced that, after the issuing of the notice: ‘. . . it shall not be lawful for any person other than Her Majesty to purchase or acquire from the Native owners any right, title, share or interest in the lands above mentioned unless and until this notice shall have been formally withdrawn.’96

The Crown purchase of the inland portion, designated Horahora 2A, constituted a ‘part- purchase’. Maori who were opposed to wholesale alienation, usually described as ‘non- sellers’, compelled the Crown to purchase only part of an NLC-titled area. Although the Crown often recorded the full ‘block’ acreage in the deed, it agreed to partition ‘non- seller’ interests out of the eventual purchase. Consequently, the Crown purchase deed often gave incorrect purchase acreage. The New Zealand Gazette provided more reliable acreage information.97

The 1895 Horahora 2A deed (AUC 2027) recorded the purchase of 1,336 acres, the total area of Horahora South. ‘Non-sellers’ however, retained the 859 acres that became Horahora 2B. The Crown purchased the remaining 477 acres as Horahora 2A.98

95 Horahora 2A purchase deed, 9 March 1895, AUC 2027, ANZ, ABWN 8102, W5279, ANZ, see Barry Rigby, ‘Validation review of the Crown’s tabulated data on land titling and alienation for the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry region: Crown purchases 1866-1900’, Waitangi Tribunal, 2016, Wai 1040, #A56, Appendix A, p 1 96 New Zealand Gazette, 18 July 1895, pp 1099-1100 97 Barry Rigby, ‘Validation review of Crown purchases 1866-1900’, Wai 1040, #A56, p 3 98 As verified in the New Zealand Gazette 1897, p 1747. Barry Rigby, Validation review, Wai 1040, #A56, p 3

34 4.3 Horahora Alienation and Fragmentation

Horahora alienation and fragmentation proceeded as two sides of the same coin. Crown purchase agent Christopher F Maxwell negotiated the 1895 alienation as a partition of Horahora 2A. He made full use of the legislation governing pre-emption, partition and alienation.99

In May 1893 Te Waiariki landowners applied for an NLC determination of relative interests in both Horahora North and Horahora South. Kerepeti Mohi Te Peke and others applied for the partition of Horahora North and Heni Kaio, Kerepeti Te Peke, Kamira Te Mahara, Aorewa Patira, Erueti Kareama, and Maraea Pororua applied for the partition of Horahora South.100

Crown Land Purchase Officer CF Maxwell reported his negotiations for the purchase and partition of Horahora South in January 1895.101 He assessed Horahora South as desirable land: The soil is fair throughout some of it on the coast very good; most of the block is rolling country. Contains a good deal of forest and would make a first class sheep run. The portion near the coast is worth 15/- [fifteen shillings per acre] and the part further up from the sea is worth 10/- [ten shillings per] acre and I believe would be readily taken up at those prices. I think an all-round price of 5/- per acre might be offered for this block as land is not getting scarce in Whangarei County.102 Maxwell asked the Chief Surveyor to ‘give this matter’ his consideration and ‘find a price for the land. Consider it is a desirable block to acquire.’ The Crown clearly took advantage of its monopoly position to offer a price that was far less than the land’s market value. The Crown valued the land at 10-15 shillings per acre, but purchased it for less than 4 shillings per acre.103

99 See ML 3795 for the Horahora 2A partition 100 New Zealand Gazette, 11 May 1893, p 632 101 C F Maxwell to Chief Surveyor, Auckland, 23 January 1895 MA-MLP1 42, ae, 1896/293, 1896, 102 Maxwell to CS, , MA-MLP1 1896/293, ANZ 103 CF Maxwell, November 1896, MA-MLP1 42, ae, 1896/293, ANZ

35 In the New Zealand Gazette of 18 July 1895, the Crown listed Horahora South as under negotiation for Crown purchase.104 As noted earlier, it is not known whether Crown removed the restriction on alienation by Order in Council prior to purchase. The Crown possibly exempted itself from these restrictions under section 76 of the Native Land Court Act 1894. Section 76 stated: ‘Nothing in this Act shall limit the power of the Crown to acquire land from Natives, and any deed shall be given effect to notwithstanding any law in force to the contrary.’105

On 1 October 1896, the Crown retrospectively partitioned Horahora South to cut out the interests it had acquired. The outcome was:

Horahora 2A Crown purchased 477 acres Horahora 2B 18 owners 858 acres106

The Crown obtained an NLC-ordered partition to ‘cut out’ Horahora South sellers’ interests. The Crown filed this 1896 partition order with its 1895 Crown purchase deed (AUC 2027).107 Of the original 28 Horahora South owners, 18 became ‘non-sellers’ in 1895. They accordingly became owners of the 858-acre coastal Horahora 2B The remaining 10 owners signed the 477 acre Horahora 2A Crown purchase deed.108

Even though Te Waiariki retained their Horahora North land, partitioning there began in the 1890s. On 20 November 1896 Rahiri Eruera and others appealed to the Native Appellate Court against the 16 October 1896 NLC order partitioning Horahora North.109 The appeal cost the appellants £15, but it failed to prevent the 18 October 1898 Horahora North partition into ‘two subdivisions’.110

104 New Zealand Gazette, 18 July 1895, p 1100 105 Williams, ‘Te Kooti Tango Whenua’, p 335 106 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 162 107 Horahora 2A purchase deed, 9 March 1895, AUC 2027, ANZ, ABWN, 8102, W5279 108 CF Maxwell, November 1896, MA-MLP1 42, ae, 1896/293, ANZ 109 MLC Whangarei, Horahora Corresp/Appln/K571 110 See ML 3795: ‘Produced before the NL Court Whangarei, 18 October 1898 on the partition of No 1 into two subdivisions, W Mair Judge.’ See also WMB vol 6, 15 October 1896 for the minutes of the original partition.

36 The NLC partitioned Horahora North again in 1902 into 1A, B and C. Horahora 1A was the 988-acre coastal area. Horahora 1B became the inland 993 acres north of the river. The 5-acre Horahora 1C urupa was located across from Ngunguru Township (where Te Waiariki buried Paratene Te Manu in 1897).111

On 7 October 1897 the Crown listed Horahora 2A under ‘Native Lands acquired by her Majesty declared to be Crown lands’ under the Land Act 1892, section 250.112 Even though only one third of the owners signed the 1895 Crown purchase deed, the Crown was able to cut out the 477 acres, which was 35.7% of the total 1,336 acre area. This provides an example of how Maori land legislation undermined hapu control at Horahora.113

As noted above, CF Maxwell played a significant part in the 1895 Horahora 2A Crown purchase. According to Armstrong and Subasic, Maxwell ‘accelerated Crown purchasing in the north’ during the 1890s.114 In their view, Maxwell’s purchases had ‘apparently little regard for wider Maori economic aspirations, or the extent of land which remained in Maori ownership. The main issue for Maxwell was acquisition of large areas of land suitable for settlement for the lowest possible price.’115

4.4 Snapshot of Whangarei Maori Land, 1908

The Stout-Ngata Commission’s 1908 report gave a snapshot of Whangarei Maori land (including Horahora).116 Its snapshot of Whangarei Maori land shows Horahora in relation to surrounding areas.

111 See ML 3795; URL: http: www.lindauer-on-line.co.nz/maori-portraits/paratene-te-manu 112 New Zealand Gazette, vol 2, 1897, p 1747 113 Horahora 2A was subsequently designated part of post-Second World War Maori Affairs administered Development Schemes under Part XXIV (24) of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. See discussion later in the report about Horahora and land development. 114 Armstrong and Subasic, Wai 1040, #A12, p 1147 115 Armstrong and Subasic, ‘Northern Land and Politics, 1860-1910’, p 1147, Wai 1040, #A12 116 AJHR, G1, 1908, ‘Native Lands and Native-Land Tenure: Interim Report of Native Land Commission, on Native Lands in the Counties of Whangarei, Hokianga, Bay of Islands, Whangaroa, and Mangonui’, 10 June 1908, pp 1-2, pp 10-11

37 The commission reported the total area of NLC-titled Whangarei Maori land as 52,707 acres. Untitled ‘papatupu land’ came to an estimated 5,500 acres.117 The report went on to say that, although a considerable number of Maori participated in farming, including dairying, they did so without ‘proper instruction’, and in a completely unsystematic way.118

The Stout-Ngata Commission recommended that the Crown reserve 15,674 acres for Maori farming , and that it should vest 13,098 acres in the TDMLB.119 The commission, therefore, thought that just under 27 percent of the Whangarei area it investigated should be retained by Maori under their direct control. On the other hand, it recommended that only 22.5 percent could be either vested or alienated. Presumably, it considered the balance (just over half) to be marginal land, unable either to support Maori or to attract Pakeha purchasers and leaseholders.

The Stout-Ngata Commission noted that:

The lands for sale and leasing are scheduled so as to show how the owners wish them to be disposed of. Inclusive of papatupu lands the area of land per head owned by the Maoris of this county is about 60 acres. The average quality of the land is fair pastoral, according to the reports of the Valuation and the Lands and Survey Departments. The area offered for general settlement (inclusive of lands under lease or negotiation for lease to Europeans) amounts to nearly one-half of the area inquired into by the Commission. It will probably be found that when the balance – 19,000 odd acres – is dealt with the same proportion [one-half] will be offered for European settlement.120

The commission admitted that it failed to investigate a total of 25,039 acres. Furthermore, no Maori attended its Whangarei hearing, owing to inclement weather.121 The commission assessed the future of Whangarei Maori land without directly consulting the actual owners of the land.

117 AJHR, G1, 1908, Stout Ngata reports, p 1 118 AJHR, G1, 1908, Stout Ngata reports, p 1 119 AJHR, G1, 1908, Stout Ngata reports, p 1 120 AJHR, G1, 1908, Stout Ngata reports, pp 1-2 121 AJHR, G1, 1908, Stout Ngata reports, p 2

38 The commission’s Whangarei summary read:

Lands leased: 4,406 acres Lands for Maori occupation – papakaingas, &c. 15,674 acres Lands for general settlement – leasing: 12,131 acres Lands for general settlement – sale: 966 acres Lands not dealt with – papatupu: 5,500 acres Lands not dealt with – other lands: 19,529 acres Total: 58,207 acres122

While there seem to various discrepancies in the commission figures, what is particularly noteworthy about the above data is that it apparently failed to examine 42.4 percent of the Whangarei Maori land. This shortfall hardly inspires confidence in its overall findings.

4.4.1 Horahora Land, 1908 Regarding Horahora land, the Stout-Ngata Commission listed as ‘recommended to be reserved for Maori occupation . . . Papakaingas, Burial Reserves, Landing-places, and family farms’:

Horahora 1A 13 owners 988 acres Horahora 1B1 7 owners 220 acres Horahora 1B4 9 owners 553 acres Horahora 1C 4 owners 5 acres (Burial reserve)123

This above list represents a total of 1766 acres, which made up 92.4 per cent of the total acreage of Horahora North (1,910 acres).124

122 AJHR, G1, 1908, Stout Ngata reports, p 2 123 AJHR, G1, 1908, ‘Stout Ngata reports, p 10 124 Acreage established by survey plan ML 8855 in 1912

39 Horahora land recommended ‘for General [Pakeha] Settlement’ included:

Horahora 1B2 3 owners 110 acres Horahora 1B3 1 owner 110 acres

This 220 acres represented only about 4.2 percent of the total surveyed area of Horahora North. Significantly, the commission recommended much more land for ‘General Settlement’ in Horahora South:

Horahora 2B1 4 owners 71 acres Horahora 2B2 2 owners 95 acres Horahora 2B3 16 owners 238 acres Horahora 2B4 5 owners 119 acres Horahora 2B5 3 owners 143 acres Horahora 2B6 1 owner 47 acres Horahora 2B7 1 owner 47 acres Horahora 2B8 2 owners 95 acres125

This above list totals 855 acres.126 It sets out quite starkly the commission’s view that Maori should manage no land in the economically more productive Horahora South area.

The report noted that Horahora contained milling timber and flax and that the Maori owners ‘urged’ leasing as ‘the method of disposal’.127 How the commission could conclude that Maori ‘urged’ leasing without having any Maori attend its Whangarei hearing remains a mystery. Since the Stout-Ngata Commission failed to consult any Whangarei owners, their preferences must remain a matter of conjecture.

125 AJHR, G1, 1908, Stout Ngata reports, p 11 126The 1917 survey ML 10643 accounts for roading deductions, which the commission did not take into consideration 127 AJHR, G1, 1908, Stout Ngata reports, pp 10-11

40 4.5 Continuing Alienation and Fragmentation, 1900 – 1940

NLC records document the continuing alienation and fragmentation of Horahora in the early twentieth century.128 WM Fraser became the main private Pakeha purchaser and lessee at Horahora. Fraser purchased Horahora 2B3B (175 acres) in 1917 from 10 owners. He paid them £528 for the land.129

The NLC partitioned the coastal Horahora 2B area on 12 April 1907 into 8 parcels.130 WM Fraser purchased Horahora 2B1 (65 acres) on 25 February 1918.131 Fraser continued a chain of 2B parcel purchases from 1917 until 1936.

These parcels, listed above and shown on the map, are on the south side of the Horahora River near its mouth.

The pattern of partitions and alienations at Horahora North differed from those at Horahora South. A series of inland Horahora North (1B) partitions in 1907-08 preceded the first alienation there in 1928. WT Simmons, a Pakeha, purchased 1B2 and 1B3 (totalling 206 acres) located along the Ngunguru Ford Road on 10 February 1928.

The NLC on 15 April 1907 partitioned Horahora 1B into four separate parcels. WT Simons on 10 February 1928, purchased Horahora 1B2 (105 acres), and Horahora 1B3 (101 acres) from Te Waiariki owners.132

128 Paula Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c; vols-4-9, p 163. 129 Berghan, Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 165 130 Berghan, Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 163 131 Berghan, Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 165 132 Berghan, Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 166

41 Figure 9: ML 10643 survey of Horahora South 1917

The same pattern of partitions preceding alienations followed in coastal Horahora North (1A). The NLC ordered a four parcel partition of Horahora 1A on 24 January 1911. Then Eliza Williams purchased Horahora 1A2 half way between the Horahora River and the Ngunguru Sandspit in 1918. Maori owners of the other three coastal partitions of Horahora 1A, however, retained most of their land until very recently.

42 4.5.1 Patterns of Land Loss: Alienation and fragmentation The alienations and fragmentation of Horahora land continued during and after World War I. Fraser and other private purchasers acquired Maori land, mainly at Horahora South. Records of meetings of owners are lacking that could assist with understanding the alienations and fragmentation from the Te Waiariki point of view. The different pattern of alienation between Horahora North and Horahora South, reflect the greater productive potential of Horahora South land, making it more attractive to Pakeha purchasers. The Pataua North Road built during the 1920s also provided better access to that land. That explains, in large part, why Fraser concentrated his purchases south of the Horahora River after 1914, leaving Te Waiariki with most of their marginal land north of the river.

Even though Horahora North remained less productive than Horahora South, the NLC succession and partition activity created fragmentation there similar to that at Horahora South. Figure 15 below, and Figures 10-12 (Family trees of Horahora) below, amply illustrates this pattern:

43 Figure 10: Family tree of Horahora North

44 Figure 11: Family tree of Horahora 1B4A

Horahora 1B4A 150/0/00 9 owners Key Partitioned blocks Sold Partitioned 12 January Remains Maori Land 1916

1B4A1 1B4A2 22/2/35 117/1/05 2 owners 17 owners

Partitioned 22 June 1917

1B4A2A 1B4A2B 1B4A2C 1B4A2D 37/0/16 15/1/26 15/2/25 51/0/18 17 owners 3 owners 1 owner 12 owners

Partitioned 17 October Partitioned 17 October 1918 1918

1B4A2B1 1B4A2D1 2/1/20 7/3/12 2 owners 5 owners

1B4A2B2 1B4A2D2 12/3/11 44/3/24 1 owner 11 owners

Partitioned 14 May 1947

1B4A2D2A 0/2/20 8 owners

1B4A2D2B 44 approx. 38 owners

45 Figure 12: Family tree of Horahora 1B4B

Horahora 1B4B 403/0/00 9 owners Key Partitioned blocks Sold Remains Maori Land Partitioned 22 June 1917

1B4B1 1B4B2 1B4B3 1B4B4 1B4B5 47/3/10 10/1/39 62/0/08 51/2/35 212/2/20 1 owner 2 owners 1 owner 1 owner 13 owners

Partitioned 18 June 1923

1B4B5A 1B4B5B 95/3/00 116/3/20 1 owner 10 owners

46 Figure 13: Horahora partitions

47 Figure 14: Family tree of Horahora South

48

Figure 15: Horahora North partitions.

4.5.2 Fraser’s Purchases by 1935 By 1935 Fraser owned over 460 acres of the coastal Horahora South (2B) parcels. This means that he had acquired over 70 percent of the original Horahora South area of 859 acres. This figure does not include the 44 acres of 2B3A he continued to lease. Fraser negotiated a total of eight purchases and three leases between 1917 and 1935. The relatively small number of the Pakeha purchasers involved suggests that perhaps the parcels of land available by the 1930s were so small that the only people who could make use of them were those who already owned adjacent land, creating a ‘natural’

49

monopoly. Fraser’s alienations were confined to coastal Horahora 2B, probably because the land there was more suitable for pastoral farming.

NLC data provides estimates of what Fraser paid for his Horahora South purchases:

2B2B £528 2B1 £70 2B5 £95/10/- 2B8 £95/10/- 2B4 £300 2B2A £160 Total £1,249

He paid approximately £2/14/1d per acre. In addition, Fraser paid £9 per annum for leasing Horahora 2B2B from 1921 to 1934, paying a total of £117; £8 per annum for leasing 2B2A from 1921 to 1931, paying a total of £85; and £9 per annum for leasing 2B3A from 1922 to 1935, paying a total of £117. Fraser’s total leasehold payments amounted to £319. Fraser leased a total of 132 acres along the southern side of the Horahora River estuary between 1921 and 1935.

50

Figure 16: Fraser’s purchases by 1934

4.5.3 Patterns of Alienation: Private alienations As noted at the beginning of this report, Horahora topography may provide part of the explanation why Te Waiariki owners at Horahora North retained a significant amount of land. Horahora North today remains mostly marginal land with heavy clay or sandy soils supporting mainly manuka/kanuka scrub. The Ngunguru Sandspit (Horahora 1A4) was always unsuitable for pastoral use. Horahora South, by contrast, has undulating topography, better adapted to pastoral production.133

Horahora South was more attractive to Pakeha purchasers like Fraser wishing to acquire pastoral land suitable for dairy farming.134 Better road access to Horahora South after 1930 also encouraged alienation. The Pataua North Road served Horahora

133 NZSM 260, H10 134 NZSM 260, H10

51

South from as early as the 1920s. The Ngunguru Ford Road did not provide access of the same quality to Horahora North. (see Chapter 7 on roading).

Leasing, Land Retention and Vesting

In spite of continued alienation and fragmentation, Te Waiariki succeeded in retaining significant land ownership at Horahora North. Ownership, however, did not necessarily mean that Te Waiariki owners controlled their land directly. They often resorted to leasing it, and the Crown vested 32.1 percent of their Horahora land in the TDMLB (see Figure 17: Areas vested in the Tokerau District Maori Land Board).

4.6.1 Leasing Horahora Land During the first half of the twentieth century, the Crown vested all Te Waiariki Horahora South land in the TDMLB. Donald Loveridge, in his 1996 report on Maori Land Boards, wrote that the Crown had by 1911 vested close to a million acres of Maori land nationally in Maori Land Boards for lease or sale.135 Loveridge described how vesting became increasingly compulsory after 1905:

The ways and means by which Maori could be compelled to place their lands in the hands of the land councils and land boards proliferated from year to year. The trend reached a peak in 1907, when a corollary principle was also abandoned. For the first time, lands involuntarily vested in the land boards could also be permanently alienated.136

Loveridge pointed out that ‘the seven Maori Land Boards in operation would oversee the sale of more than 115,000 acres of Maori freehold and vested land, on average, for each and every fiscal year from 1910 to 1911 through to 1929 to 1930’.137

A large number of unanswered questions persist relating to the Crown’s vesting of Te Waiariki’s Horahora South land. The TDMLB invariably leased out vested land to Pakeha ‘settlers’. Leasing did have the obvious advantage of allowing Te Waiariki owners to

135 Donald Loveridge, ‘Maori Land Councils and Maori Land Boards: A Historical Overview, 1900 to 1952’, December 1996, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, p viii 136 Loveridge, Maori Land Boards, p 61 137 Loveridge, Maori Land Boards, p 109

52

derive income from their land without selling it. In any case, multiple ownership of land was a problem for Te Waiariki to negotiate their own leasing arrangements. Leasing fragmented multiply-owned land meant a minimal return for each owner. Fragmented ownership also made it hard for individuals to farm land, which would have pushed owners towards leasing.

Despite all the drawbacks with the leasing of land vested in the TDMLB, the Crown had ‘a statutory duty to administer and manage the lands concerned in a manner calculated to serve and advance the interest of the owners’.138 In Hearn’s view: ‘For the owners vesting meant the loss of control and the loss of opportunity to use their lands as they considered best suited to their needs.’139

4.6.2 Vesting and re-vesting Vesting of Maori land in land boards often promoted alienation. Compulsory vesting in the TDMLB was itself a form of alienation, since the Board acquired full power to control and, if it so chose, to dispose of vested Maori land.140

A great many rules controlled the re-vesting of Maori land back to the original owners. Re-vesting enabled Maori owners to resume control. But with the Crown controlling both vesting and re-vesting, both processes often facilitated eventual alienation.

Loveridge wrote that the Native Land Amendment Act 1912 first made provision for vesting.141 The Crown’s decision to re-vest land was also related to a concern that Maori occupying and cultivating vested land ‘did on terms which scarcely encouraged them to invest and develop their lands for commercial farming’. The TDMLB’s failure to attract Pakeha ‘settlers’ to take on vested Maori land also encourage re-vesting. Hearn concluded that ‘[r]e-vesting was at least as much about encouraging further alienation

138 Terry Hearn, ‘Social and Economic Change in Northland c.1900 to c.1945: The Role of the Crown and the Place of Maori’, Wai 1040, #A3, p 175 139 Hearn, Social and Economic Change, Wai 1040, #A3, p 175 140Loveridge, Maori Land Boards, pp 41-48 141 Loveridge, Maori Land Boards, p 99

53

and settlement as it was about allowing and encouraging owners to develop their lands’.142

While Hearn noted that ‘the board appears not to have considered it to have been its responsibility to encourage or assist owners to seek re-vesting unless there were prospective purchasers in view’, he did not state whether this was a conscious Crown encouragement of alienation.143 Re-vesting at Horahora, particularly between 1914 and 1922, however, appeared to contribute to alienation.

142 Hearn, Social and Economic Change, Wai 1040, #A3, p 359 143 Hearn, Social and Economic Change, Wai 1040, #A3, pp 359-360

54

Figure 17: Areas vested in the Tokerau District Maori Land Board

55

4.6.3 Vesting and Re-vesting at Horahora, 1914-22 The Crown’s Horahora vesting normally promoted outright alienation, or sale. This appears to be consistent with Hearn’s information on the 1918 vestings in the TDMLB. He listed Horahora 1B2, 1B3, 2B4 and 2B7, an area of 361 acres.144 Land with good access was clearly desirable land for on-selling. The Crown vested inland sections of Horahora North, as well as coastal sections of Horahora South.145

The Crown’s re-vesting of Horahora land followed a similar pattern. The main periods of Horahora land re-vesting followed re-vesting taking place elsewhere in Northland. These periods were 1917 and 1918 and 1924-1927.146

Figure 18: Horahora South partitions 1917

The first Horahora re-vesting in 1914 affected Horahora 2B8 (88.5 acres). Eruera Mahanga and Patara Whenu, as owners, wrote the letter from the TDMLB to the Native

144 Hearn, Social and Economic Change, Wai 1040, #A3, pp 323-325 145 Hearn, Social and Economic Change, Wai 1040, #A3, pp 323-325 146 Hearn, Social and Economic Change, Wai 1040, #A3, p 357

56

Minister accompanying the Horahora 2B8 re-vesting application. The Board granted their application.147

Fraser purchased most of Horahora 2B8 in 1916, about two years after the re-vesting, for £95.148 The Crown re-vested Horahora 2B2 (88 acres) also in December 1914 to Hone Mahanga and Hone Wiremu.149 They leased Horahora 2B2A (34 acres) to Fraser in 1921 and then sold it to him in 1931. They leased Horahora 2B2B (54 acres) to Fraser in 1921 and then sold it to him in 1934. 150 After the Crown re-vested Horahora 2B5 (131.75 acres) in 1914, the owners sold it to Fraser in 1918.151

The Crown’s re-vesting of Horahora 2B6 (44 acres) in 1914 to Te Rua Mahanga who was the sole owner did not lead to immediate alienation.152 The NLC partitioned Horahora 2B6 into Horahora 2B6A (8 acres), Horahora 2B6B (13 acres), and Horahora 2B6C (22 acres) in 1945. In 1966 Haki Te Rautau Kawiti purchased Horahora 2B6A and Horahora 2B6B. Horahora 2B6C (22 acres) remains Maori land today.153

The Crown re-vested Horahora 2B3 (220 acres) in October 1915 in response to an application from its 18 owners.154 In September 1917 Fraser purchased Horahora 2B3B (175 acres). He purchased Horahora 2B3A (44acres) in 1924.155 The Crown vested Horahora 2B1 (65.5 acres) in the TDMLB in 1909, and re-vested it in the owners in 1917.156 Fraser then purchased 2B1 in February 1918.157

The alienation history of Horahora 1B2 (105 acres), on the north side of the river (see Figure 15), differed from the other re-vested land discussed so far. While other

147 TDMLB, Horahora 2B8, (Revesting), , Native Minister to Cabinet, 21 December 1914: TDMLB to Native Department, 9 December 1914, MA 1, 1137, 1914/3946, ANZ 148 WM Fraser to TDMLB, 20 December 1916, BAA1, A39, 11466, Box 73, b, 2764, Tai Tokerau Alienation file- Horahora 2B8, 1913-1929, ANZ 149 TDMLB to Native Department, 16 December 1914, MA 1, 1137, 1914/3946, ANZ 150 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c p 166 151 TDMLB to Native Department, 9 December 1914, MA 1, 1137, 1914/3946, ANZ 152 TDMLB to Native Department, 8 December 1914, MA 1, 1137, 1914/3946, ANZ 153 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 169 154 TDMLB to Native Minister, 1 October, 21 October 1915, MA 1, 1148, 1915/3391, ANZ 155 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, pp 165-166 156 TDMLB to Native Department, 10 Apri, 13 April 1917, MA 1, 1166, 1917/111, ANZ 157 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 165

57

Horahora parcels were generally debt-free prior to re-vesting, Horahora 1B2 in 1921 had unpaid survey charges of £15 1s 6d.158 The TDMLB reported stated:

. . . that the owners wish the land revested in order to enable them to sell. The Board being satisfied that it is in the better interests of the Native owners that the land be publicly auctioned or tendered for, in lieu of recommending the re- vesting recommends that an Order in Council be issued under Section 239 of the Native Land Act 1909 empowering the Board to sell.159

The Board eventually facilitated the alienation of Horahora 1B2 with owner consent for £105.160 The New Zealand Gazette described Horahora 1B2 as ‘[t]hird class land, mostly covered with scrub, small portion swamp’. The land had road access via the Ngunguru Ford Road.161

The Board followed the same path with the alienation of the adjoining Horahora 1B3 (101 acres).162 In considering re-vesting, the Board noted a survey debt of £21 owing on the land.163 The Board concluded that: . . . it is in the better interests of the Native owners that the land be publicly auctioned or tendered for, in lieu of recommending the re-vesting recommends that an Order in Council be issued under Section 239 of the Native Land Act 1909, empowering the Board to sell.164 Subsequently, WT Simmons purchased Horahora 1B3 in 1928.165

In 1921 the Board invited leasehold tenders for Horahora 2B4 (110.5 acres), located in the middle of Horahora South.166 Fraser eventually purchased the land in 1930.167 As previously indicated, Fraser eventually purchased 70 percent of Horahora South Maori land, perhaps because these fragmented parcels were not viable as individual units. As for the Te Waiariki owners of Horahora South, by the early twentieth century

158 TDMLB to Native Department, 14 July 1921, MA 1, 1267, 1921/260, ANZ 159 TDMLB to Native Department, 14 July 1921, MA 1, 1267, 1921/260, ANZ 160 Tua Patira to Native Minister, 12 January 1922, MA 1, 1267, 1921/260, ANZ 161 New Zealand Gazette, no 80, 1 September 1921 162 Horahora 1B3, For consent to sale under Section 239/1909, 1921, MA 1, 1267, 1921/290, ANZ 163 TDMLB to Native Department, 19 July 1921, MA 1, 1267, 1921/290, ANZ 164 TDMLB to Native Department, 19 July 1921, MA 1, 1267, 1921/290, ANZ 165 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 166 166 ML 10643, 1917 167 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39n, p 166

58

they had few commercial opportunities for their re-vested land. Ironically, both vesting and re-vesting proved a pathway to eventual alienation for them. As the TDMLB stated in 1921, ‘the owners wish the land revested in order to enable them to sell’.168

4.7 Land Exchanges, 1930s

In 1933, the NLC and the TDMLB drew up ‘exchange orders’ for Horahora 2B2A and 2B2B ‘in order to carry out the alteration of boundaries agreed upon between HW Mahanga and WM Fraser’. Horahora 2B2 was a riverside parcel adjacent to one of Fraser’s reclamations (see Chapter 8 and SO 26391). The Board vested portions of Horahora 2B2B (54 acres) in Fraser and portions of Horahora 2B2A (34 acres) in W Mahanga. Fraser paid £43 for the exchange.169

Mahanga took part of Kohatuwhawha (further along the Horahora River) from Fraser in exchange for 36 acres of Horahora 2B2B.170 By 1938, the NLC had neglected to confirm the Mahanga-Fraser exchange agreement dating back to 1933.171 Fraser’s 21 June 1938 letter to the NLC reminded the Registrar that the highly respected Native Department Consolidation Officer, William Cooper, supported the exchange.172 Cooper wrote that the Mahanga-Fraser exchange agreement was: . . . most beneficial to the Native although it does benefit Mr Fraser by effecting a consolidation of his holding. The Native resides across the river opposite Kohatuwhawha on a division of Otamaiti Block. This exchange is in effect a consolidation. I recommend favourable consideration by the Court of this transaction.173

168 TDMLB to Native Department, 14 July 1921, MA 1, 1267, 1921/260, ANZ 169 Registrar to Wm Cooper, Native Department, 10 January 1933, Horahora Corresp/K571, MLC Whangarei. 170 HW Mahanga to Registrar, Native Land Court, Auckland, 9 May 1938, Horahora Corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei 171 HW Mahanga to Registrar, Native Land Court, Auckland, 9 May 1938, Horahora Corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei 172 WM Fraser to Registrar, Native Land Court, 21 June 1938, Horahora Corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei 173 W Cooper to Registrar, Native Land Court, 23 June 1938, on WM Fraser to Registrar, Native Land Court, 21 June 1938, Horahora Corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei

59

Cooper’s support apparently ensured eventual NLC confirmation of the exchange. HW Mahanga’s descendant, Te Maawe Mahanga, now lives at Otamaiti, near the land exchanged with Fraser during the late 1930s.174

4.8 Rating Issues, 1920s and 1930s

The NLC raised rating issues at Horahora during the mid 1920s. Registrar W Earle’s 23 June 1926 report to MP Tau Henare on rating in the Whangarei area alerted him to numerous Whangarei County Council applications for NLC charging orders to recover rates arrears.175

Tau Henare acted upon Earle’s advice without delay by writing to the Chairman of the Whangarei County Council. He requested a reprieve for Maori landowners facing rate demands: . . . I am writing to ask if it could see its way to refrain from pressing these applications until the October sitting of the Court when I feel confident the Board and Natives will be in a better position to pay the rates.176

The NLC also identified Maori landowners, who were known to be able to afford the rates. About Pita Kerepeti, the sole owner Horahora 1A3B, Earle wrote: Pita Kerepeti, who is engaged in Dairy operations … should be in a position to pay his rates. . . Mr Steadman, Solicitor, Whangarei may be able to suggest a means for collection of the rates without the necessity for obtaining an order of the Court.177

174 William Cooper was Whina Cooper’s second husband. Michael King, Whina, Hodder and Stoughton, Auckland, 1983, pp 114-165 175 W Earle, Registrar, Native Land Court, to Tau Henare, MP, Wellington, 23 June 1926, Horahora corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei 176 Tau Henare to the Chairman, Whangarei County Council, 25 June 1926, Horahora corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei 177 MLC Whangarei, Horahora corresp/Appln/K571, W Earle, Registrar, 24 June (year not given), MLC Whangarei

60

4.9 Summary and Conclusions

The pattern of Crown vesting and re-vesting compromised owner control of both inland and coastal land. The Crown may have viewed vesting as a protective mechanism to preventing the further alienation. Under section 83 of the Native Land Act 1913, Maori owners could not alienate land vested in the Maori Land Boards.178 For the Crown, vesting created a statutory duty to administer and manage the vested lands in a way that advanced the interests of the owners.179 In practice, vesting deprived Te Waiariki owners of control of their lands. Ironically, the restoration of ownership rights through re-vesting land in the original owners appeared to facilitate further land alienation, with re-vesting becoming a prelude to alienation rather than an exercise of owner control.

While the overall trend of alienation and fragmentation of holdings contributed to Te Waiariki’s economic and social marginalisation, some economic opportunities remained for Te Waiariki at Horahora from the 1890s to the 1930s. For example, Pita Kerepeti, the sole owner of Horahora 1A3B, established what appears to have been a successful dairying operation there. HW Mahanga also arranged a successful land exchange with Fraser on the south side of the river. Such examples demonstrate that Te Waiariki were capable of succeeding in the new economic order when given opportunities to do so.

178 Hearn, Wai 1040, #A3, p 339 179 Hearn, 2006, p 175, Wai 1040, #A3

61

CHAPTER 5: LAND ALIENATION AND FRAGMENTATION, 1940s – 1980

5.1 Introduction

The alienation and fragmentation of Horahora continued into the late twentieth century. This chapter discusses the broad patterns of the scope and nature of alienation and fragmentation before considering a number of case studies to illustrate how the rules governing Te Waiariki landowners played out. These case studies include the RA Green purchase of land at the base of the Ngunguru Spit in 1979-1980.180

5.2 Legislation, 1940s – 1980s

The 1953 Maori Affairs Act became the key piece of Maori land legislation for the following 40 years. The 1953 Act and its subsequent amendments provided for the transfer of uneconomic shares (valued at less than £25) in multiply-owned land by sale to other owners or the Maori Trustee.181 The Maori Affairs Act 1953 also allowed the MLC to vest unused Maori land to be vested in either the Maori Trustee or specially established section 438 owner trusts.

5.2.1 Prichard - Waetford Report, December 1965 The Committee of Inquiry into Laws Affecting Maori Land and Powers of the Maori Land Court (known as Prichard-Waetford report after the Chairman Ivor Prichard and Hemi Tono Waetford) reported to JR Hanan, Minister of Maori Affairs, on 15 December 1965. The Minister commissioned Prichard and Waetford to consider ‘what measures should be adopted to improve the titles to Maori land and to make for the better use of it . . . [and to consider] What measures should be adopted to overcome the difficulties

180 Chief Judge’s MB, 5 February 2002, pp 54-72 181 Richard Boast, ‘Te tango whenua – Maori land alienation -20th century developments’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 22 September 2012, accessed 24 March 2016, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/te-tango-whenua-maori-land-alienation/page-9

62

inherent in the system under which Maori freehold land is held in common ownership; [with a view] to improve the existing state of the ownership’; and land use.’182

Both Prichard and Waetford had important Whangarei connections. Prichard had served as N/MLC Judge in the North. He had heard applications related to Horahora 2B6 in June 1945. Waetford had been a long-serving Maori Affairs official in the North and grew up in Whananaki.183

The Prichard-Waetford report identified a number of the difficulties that in turn applied to Te Waiariki land at Horahora. The report stated that: ‘Fragmentation and unsatisfactory partitions are evils which hinder or prevent absolutely the proper use of Maori lands. Fragmentation will become progressively worse unless urgent drastic remedial action is taken. These two conditions create others just as unsatisfactory.’184

Hugh Kawharu’s 1967 commentary on the Prichard-Waetford report fully endorsed its description of the harm done to Maori interests by fragmentation. Kawharu criticised the powers of the Maori Trustee to compulsorily acquire ‘uneconomic shares’. He also criticised the various title improvement measures, partition orders and other measures that, he maintained, contributed to the ‘evils of fragmentation’.185

5.2.2 Legislation Turning Maori Land into European Land and back to Maori Land The 1965 Prichard-Waetford report informed the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967. The Crown used the 1967 Act as an instrument to address the perceived problems associated with Maori land, particularly multiple ownership and uneconomic interests. Under the Act, the Crown could ‘Europeanise’ Maori freehold land with fewer than five owners. By changing its status to ‘General land,’ it could then be sold or mortgaged. The

182 Ivor Prichard and Hemi Tono Waetford, Report of Committee of Inquiry into Laws Affecting Maori Land and Powers of the Maori Land Court, 15 December 1965, Department of Maori Affairs, Government Printer, 1965 183 Prichard was appointed an NLC Judge in April 1945, and Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court in March 1961.New Zealand Gazette 19 Apr 1945, p 414; 29 Mar 1961, and p 498. Waetford’s obituary appeared in Te Ao Hou No 58 (Dec 1966) pp 3-4 184 Prichard-Waetford report, p 6 185 I H Kawharu, ‘Pacific Commentary: The Prichard-Waetford Inquiry into Maori Land’, The Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol 76, no 2, June 1967, pp 205-214

63

Act empowered ‘Improvement Officers’ to increase the economic value of the land by cancelling existing partitions or requiring alienation.186

5.3 Alienation and Fragmentation, 1940 – 1980

The alienation and fragmentation of Horahora land continued from 1940 until 1980 despite Crown efforts to ‘protect’ Maori land through vesting it in either land boards, or in the Native/Maori Trustee. As noted in the previous chapter, vesting and re-vesting of Horahora land generally failed as a protective mechanism. Vesting land in the TDMLB occasionally delayed permanent alienation, but it also denied Te Waiariki owners’ control over their land. Consequently, vesting and re-vesting often paved the way to alienation.

The Native/Maori Land Court recorded a wave of new Horahora partitions during and after World War II. An inexorable march of succession orders created the ever increasing multiple ownership of fragmented parcels that inevitably decreased in size. Figures 10-14 featuring the ‘Family trees’ of Horahora land illustrate the extent of this fragmentation.

The MLC recorded the following major Horahora North alienations between 1963 and 1980. EH Lambert on 26 February 1963 purchased Horahora 1A4A (192 acres, including most of the Ngunguru Sandspit) from the owners for £6,000. RA Green purchased Horahora 1A4A from Lambert in 1968.187 PG Crozier on 10 May 1973 purchased Horahora 1A3A1 (20 acres) from the owners for $11,500. Horahora 1A3A1 appears to be a long sliver of land along the northern boundary of what is today Greenhalgh land (Horahora 1A3A2).188 WW Viscoe on 12 September 1975 purchased Horahora 1A4D (35.1320 ha) from the owners for $23,000.189 Horahora 1A4D is located

186 Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967, no 124, part 1, ‘Status of Maori Land’; Controller and Auditor- General, ‘Maori land- What is it and How is it Administered?’, http://www.oag.govt.nz/2004/maori-land- court 187 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 167 188 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 167 189 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 167

64

on the southeastern side of the base of the Ngunguru Sandspit. It has become Lot 3, Deposited Plan (DP) 325466.190

RA Green’s purchases at the base of the Ngunguru Sandspit capped off these major alienations. On 11 December 1979 he purchased Horahora 1A4F (27.7190 ha) from the owners for $43,700.191 He purchased Horahora 1A4E (14.0560 ha) on 20 June 1980 from the owners for $28,000.192 Finally, during 1980, Green purchased Horahora 1A4B (5.1770 ha).193

5.3.1 Horahora 1B4A2B2: Partition for Returned Serviceman (Kingi Kerepeti) One of the Horahora partition applications to the Whangarei Native Land Court in 1945 was ‘to enable a returned soldier with family to have a house erected’ on Horahora 1B4A2B2 (12 acres). This area is located on the southeastern side of the Ngunguru estuary.194 Kerepeti Hare Kerepeti, Mere Hare Kerepeti and Rihi Hare Kerepeti owned Horahora 1B4A2B2 in equal shares. Kerepeti Hare Kerepeti wished to cut out 1.25 acres from the northwestern corner of the parcel. The Court considered the proposed partition as fair to all parties.

Kerepeti Hare Kerepeti wished to give the 1.25 acres of land to his son Kingi Kerepeti, a returned serviceman with a wife and six children.195 Although Native Land Court staff went to great lengths to assist Kingi Kerepeti, the most they could do for him was to further fragment an already miniscule parcel. What had been a 12-acre parcel became a fragment of little more than an acre for Kingi Kerepeti’s whanau to subsist on.196

190 Lot 3 DP 325466; WDS, GIS 191Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 167 192Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 167 193 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 167 194 WDS, GIS 195 WMB, Vol 22, Folios 218/221, Horahora 1B4A2B2, 10 October 1945, MLC Whangarei, Horahora Corresp/Appln/K571 196 JH Robertson, NLC Registrar to Hoani Waikato, 10 December [1945], MLC Whangarei, Horhora corresp, K571

65

5.3.2 Europeanization of Land under the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 Europeanisation under the Maori Affairs Act 1967 transferred approximately 270 acres at Horahora North out of Maori title. Horahora 1B4A1 (22.5 acres), became General land on 11 September 1968, by declaration under the 1967 Act. Horahora 1B4A2A (37 acres) became General land in the same way. On 9 June 1971, Horahora 1B4B2 (10.25 acres) followed the same status change On 5 April 1969, Horahora 1B4B4 (51.5 acres); on 5 November 1968, Horahora 1B4A2B2 (12.75 acres); and finally, on 2 February 1988 Horahora 1A3A2, (136 acres) ceased to be Maori land; that is, they became General land.197 These parcels are all shown in Figure 19 below.

Figure 19: Horahora North Europeanised land

197 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, pp 168-168

66

5.3.3 Horahora 1B4A2D2B and Whina Cooper’s Attempts to Partition it MLC files reveal Whina Cooper’s unsuccessful efforts to partition Horahora 1B4A2D2B (42.5 acres) in 1976. Whina Cooper wrote to Minister of Maori Affairs Duncan McIntyre in March 1976 requesting the further partitioning of land her Kerepeti children succeeded to.198 Horahora 1B4A2D2B is land along the Ngunguru Estuary, west of the base of the Ngunguru Sandspit looking across to Ngunguru Township.

Maori Affairs staff, on behalf of McIntyre, replied that the land in question was within a proposed coastal reserve. As such, neither the MLC nor the Whangarei County Council could ‘approve any subdivision or partition until or unless the designation has been uplifted’. They referred Whina Cooper to the Federation of Ngatiwai Incorporated, an organisation seeking removal of the reserve designation.199 On 26 August 1976 Whina Cooper accordingly withdrew her application for partition and survey.200 Perhaps Whina Cooper wished to challenge the proposed coastal reserves policy. She certainly supported the Ngatiwai Land Retention Committee campaign of 1974-1978. At one time she even tried to convince the Committee to include ‘Waiariki’ in their name.201

5.3.4 R A Green’s Purchases of Horahora 1A4 Parcels from the Amos Brothers, 1979 – 1980 RA Green’s purchases of Horahora 1A4B, E and F from the Amos brothers and other owners in 1979-1980 became the most controversial of all the Horahora North alienations. He purchased during a period when the law required a majority of owners before the MLC could confirm an alienation. Green’s ‘wheeling and dealing’ seems to have characterised the purchases, although much of the background information is anecdotal. The Maori Affairs District Solicitor who looked into the case suggested that Green negotiated in ‘bad faith’.202

198 Whina Cooper to Duncan McIntyre, Minister of Maori Affairs, 12 March 1976, Horahora corres, K571, MLC Whangarei 199 Draft reply from Minister of Maori Affairs to Whina Cooper, undated, Horahora corres, K571, MLC Whangarei 200 SL Bode (Solicitor) to Registrar, Maori Land Court, Whangarei, 26 August, 1976, Horahora corres, K571, MLC Whangarei 201 Marie Tautari pers comm., 22 May 2015 202 H P Sharma to Trust Officer Mr Coutts, 10 October 1980, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979- 1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ

67

Rate arrears and financial difficulties among the Te Waiariki vendors increased their succeptibility to Green’s offers. Maori Trustee alienation files document questionable aspects of these negotiations.203 Also complicating the negotiations was the fact that in 1974 the Whangarei County Council designated Horahora 1A4B, 1A4E and 1A4F as part of a proposed coastal reserve in its District Scheme, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953.204

Figure 20: Green’s purchases 1979-1980

203 Horahora 1A4B, E and F; 1979, BAA1, 1030, Box 713a & b, 15/9/381,377 part 1 204 Minister of Works and Development to Whangarei County Council, 2 July 1974 ANZ, BBEE, A1506, 15336, Box 23, e, 1/9/6/62, ANZ

68

The above map of Green’s purchases shows the strategic location of the land in question at the base of the Ngunguru Sandspit. Green negotiated principally with the two Amos brothers, George and Jack. Both had accumulated rate arrears on Horahora 1A4F. Green’s purchase agreement promised to discharge most of these rates arrears205 George and Jack Amos described themselves in the purchase agreement as a Fisherman and as a Carpenter, respectively.206

Later MLC and Maori Affairs correspondence set out the amount of rates owing on all three of the parcels up to 1981. The Amos brothers’ inability to pay the rates they owed on their land clearly made them predisposed towards alienation. Outstanding rates on Horahora 1A4B amounted to $498.95; on Horahora 1A4E they amounted to $1,512.65; and on Horahora 1A4F to $1,441.81.207

Rates and financial difficulties featured in the first owners’ resolution that began the alienation process. The assembled owners of Horahora 1A4F in April 1979 had resolved to ‘sell such land block to Robert Arnard Green . . . at a consideration of $43,700 which is equivalent to a Special Valuation of the block plus 15% with all outstanding rates owing . . .’. A 23 August 1979 Whangarei MLC minute book entry referred to Jack Amos’s difficult financial circumstances. Green’s solicitor NG Sidney, lawyer for the purchaser (Green), later spoke of Jack’s dire financial straits as explaining why he was ‘keen to sell’.208

The 25 May 1979 Whangarei MLC minute book earlier recorded the views of other owners who opposed the Horahora 1A4F purchase. Mr Brady, on behalf of opponent

205 Maori Trustee to NG Sidney, [Green’s] Solicitor, Whangarei, 12 June 1980; NG Sidney to Maori Trustee, 13 June 1980, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ 206 Memorandum of Transfer Horahora 1A4B, undated, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1A4B, 1980- 1980, BAAI, 1030, Box 7136, 15/9/382 Pt 1, ANZ 207 Treasurer, Whangerei Land Court, to the Department of Maori Affairs, 12 June 1980, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ 208 WMB, vol 56, Folios 12-13, 23 August 1979 , Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ

69

Sam Brown, asked for a Court adjournment to enable his client to obtain an independent valuation of the land in question.209

Another Horahora owner, Tom Cooper (also known as Puhi Cooper, an uncle of Te Maawe Mahanga), objected to the proceedings because he had not been given enough notice of the hearing. He was recorded as saying: ‘I knew of this fixture because I rang the Court yesterday. I had no notice.’ Owner Te Maawe Mahanga expressed the same sentiments. The Court adjourned to enable the opponents to get their valuation.210

The same opponents spoke at the 23 August 1979 hearing. Brady, on behalf of Sam Brown, however, was prepared to accept Green’s price of $43,000 for Horahora 1A4F. Tom Cooper still objected, but the Court offered him the option of partitioning out his interests. Te Maawe Mahanga stated: ‘I would like to keep my piece – from ancestors – do not want to sell’.211

The Court then adjourned to consider the partition option. Yet in December 1979 the Whangarei County Council reminded the Court that because the area was within a proposed coastal reserve, partition was out of the question.212 Consequently, the Court confirmed the purchases in principle. The 11 December 1979 Whangarei MLC minute book stated that:

The Court has now received formal notification that subdivision has been refused by the County Council. The decision of the Court is accordingly to confirm the resolution ample time was given then extended.213

209WMB, vol 55, Folios 314-5, 25 May 1979, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ 210 WMB, vol 55, Folios 314-5, 25 May 1979, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ 211 WMB, vol 56, Folios 12-13, 23 August 1979, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ 212 WMB, vol 56, Folio 71, 11 December 1979, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ 213 WMB, vol 56, Folio 71, 11 December, Ref. WH56/12-13 of 23 August 1979, WH56/20 of 14 September 1979, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ

70

The Court confirmed Green’s purchase of the adjoining Horahora 1A4B and 1A4E parcels on 20 March 1980. It confirmed the 1A4F purchase later. An agreement by which the Amos brothers acquired an Omaha property in exchange for their Horahora land proved to be the most controversial aspect of Green’s purchases.214

Green paid $43,700 for Horahora 1A4F and $28,000 for Horahora 1A4B and 1A4E. He deducted rate arrears totalling $6,210, which left the Amos brothers theoretically with a sum of $65,490. But they had agreed to purchase Green’s Omaha property for $54,000. Eventually Green’s solicitor paid George Amos only $5,466.56 for his share ‘of the sale proceeds’ of the three properties.215 George Amos’s solicitors, the Whangarei law firm Webb, Ross and Co, objected in a 30 September 1980 letter to the Whangarei MLC. They wrote that:

Our client is an invalid having recently suffered a stroke and being paralysed down his right side. He is aged 64 years. He and his brother Jack were the major shareholders in the property referred to above (that is in 1A4F, 1A4B and 1A4E) which was sold to one Green.

They challenged the Omaha exchange agreement as patently unfair. They asserted ‘that the property at Omaha has nothing like the value of $54,000.00. We understand the Government Valuation is in fact $26,000.00.’ They stated, with regard to the Omaha exchange, that the Court ‘should never have been approved as sufficient consideration for what it is purported to represent, i.e. $54,000.00‘. They copied their letter to the Maori Trustee, and the lawyers noted that in their view, ‘the proceeds, i.e. $71,7000.00, should have been paid to the Maori Trustee but it is apparent that at least $54,000 was not so paid’.216

214 WM Coutts, Executive Officer, Maori Trustee, Department of Maori Affairs, Whangarei, to MG Sidney, 13 June 1980, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ 215 MG. Sidney to Secretary, Whangarei Zone Patriotic Fund, 14 July 1980, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ 216 Webb, Ross and Co, to Registrar, Maori Land Court, Whangarei, 30 September 1980, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ

71

Tom Parore, on behalf of the Maori Trustee, replied to George Amos’s solicitors on 8 October 1980. He defended the Court’s confirmation of the Green purchases. He maintained that the Court arranged a ‘Special Government Valuation’ of Horahora 1A4B, and 1A4E in compliance with section 228 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. He noted that the Amos brothers shared the proceeds of the 1A4F purchase with 15 other owners. He maintained that Green’s solicitor informed him of the Omaha agreement by telephone on 11 June 1980, the day before he transferred purchase proceeds to the Maori Trustee. Parore insisted:

. . . that the Court in confirming the three sales was unaware of the related sale to the brothers Amos of the Omaha property and at no stage was it suggested to the Court that the value of the Omaha property should be treated as part of the consideration for the sale of the Maori land and in my opinion I strongly doubt that that would have been acceptable to the Court in any event. The Court merely carried out its statutory jurisdiction and confirmed the sales at what it considered to be adequate consideration.

The Maori Trustee demanded and received the full consideration established by the Court and in turn distributed these to the respective owners in accord with their due entitlement.

The Maori Trustee was aware that there was a related transaction between Green and the brothers Amos but quite understandably did not give great moment to that. The parties to the transaction had their own legal counsel, they negotiated the sale themselves and nothing in the sale of the Omaha property involved the Maori Trustee.217

217 T Parore for Maori Trustee to Webb, Ross & Co., 8 October 1980, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979-1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ

72

On the other hand, HP Sharma, the Maori Affairs District Solicitor, on 10 October 1980 expressed major concerns about the ethics of Green’s purchases. Sharma wished:

. . . to ascertain whether the alienation or transaction as a whole was not ‘contrary to equity or good faith’, or indeed ‘to the interests of the Maori alienating’ (old Section 227 dealing with conditions for confirmation). Formerly the Court was obliged, under those provisions to look below the surface of any alienation of Maori land.

Sharma referred to what he described as ‘bad faith’:

To me, it seems that the purchase of this property by Green was conditional. Conditional on the basis that Amos would enter into a collateral contract with Green to binding himself to purchase the Omaha property at an inflated price. That being so, the question of the adequacy of consideration does, under the circumstances, become a sham. To put it another way, if a portion of the consideration payable to the alienator is already committed as a condition of the purchase, to be expended in such a manner as imposed by the alienee then, in my view, the alienator does not accrue the full and real benefit of the consideration.

Sharma stated that while the Omaha exchange was ‘part and parcel of the [Horahora] deal . . .[this] was not drawn to the attention of the Court’. Sharma stated that, in his view, ‘the matter does not end there’. He believed:

. . . it was obligatory on the part of the solicitors acting for the purchaser to place this aspect of the transaction to the Court. For under section 227 as amended by Section 31 (1) (e) of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 the Court is charged not to confirm any alienation unless it is satisfied as to ‘any other special circumstances of the case’ which points towards the adequacy of the consideration.

Sharma concluded that in his estimation ‘the Amoses have lost out on a large sum of money – in the vicinity of some $20,000’.218

218 HP Sharma to Trust Officer Mr Coutts, 10 October 1980, Maori Trust – Alienations – Horahora 1979- 1979, BAAI, 1030, Box 712 K, 15/9/377 Part 1, ANZ.

73

Te Maawe Mahanga’s 2016 evidence reiterated his opposition to the 1979-1980 Green purchases:

We did not agree to the sale. However, the Amos brothers had bigger shares than us and they wanted to sell as they could not pay the rates. The significance of that whenua ki ahau was tuku iho. It wasn’t bought – it was handed down ‘tuku’ ‘mana korero’ – everything that had taken place on that whenua. It came down from my tupuna.219

Te Maawe Mahanga recalled receiving a payment of $1,000 ‘for my part share’. This amounted to ‘an offence’ in his eyes. In referring to the other owners, he stated that ‘they must have been pressured into signing. We were only small shareholders, we were not even in the equation. Once the major shareholders were in agreement it was all over.’220

After 1980, descendants of George Amos reopened the case under section 45 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. It became the subject of a special Maori Land Court hearing in 2002.221

5.4 Summary and Conclusions

Alienation and fragmentation of Horahora land continued from the 1940s to the 1980s. Maori Trustee alienation files and MLC correspondence files shed some light on the aspirations of Horahora owners.

The 1965 Prichard-Waetford report finding on the deplorable fragmentation of Maori land applied in full measure to Horahora. The report identified difficulties in relation to Maori land held in multiple ownership. The case study in this chapter of Green’s three Horahora purchases from the Amos brothers and others in 1979-1980 raises serious issues about informed owner consent. The records also call into question whether

219 Te Maawe Mahanga, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 5 February 2016, Wai 1040, #U46, paragraph 27 220 Te Maawe Mahanga, ‘Brief of Evidence’ 5 February 2016, Wai 1040, #U46 221 Chief Judge’s MB, 5 February 2002, pp 54-72

74

judicial and Crown agencies discharged their protective obligations to Te Waiariki owners at Horahora when HP Sharma, the Maori Affairs District Solicitor, expressed grave reservations about the purchases.

75

CHAPTER 6: THE NGUNGURU SANDSPIT

6.1 Introduction

Te Waiariki’s name for the Ngunguru Sandspit, ‘Pii Manu’, symbolises ‘the birds standing at Te Wahapu o Te Awa o Ngunguru’.222 According to Pereri Mahanga, Pii Manu literally means ‘small bird’. It probably refers to the New Zealand dotterel, a small wading bird that inhabits the sandspit.223

Pii Manu occupies a central place Te Waiariki’s history. There, Te Waiariki warriors fell in battle. Their koiwi abound at the spit. The controversial 1963 Lambert and 1979- 1980 Green purchases signal the role of the area in the trail of alienations climaxing in the twentieth century.

The Ngunguru Sandspit forms ‘a barrier sandspit’ by the accumulation of sand swept up the coast by tidal movement. Such formations usually develop across the mouth of a river or inlet and create a barrier which encloses the inlet further.224 Severe weather affects the fragile sandspit environment. Large tidal waves have caused flooding. An Easter storm in 1930 inundated the Ngunguru Sandspit, exposing what appeared to be ‘miles of’ koiwi. Recent proposals to develop the Ngunguru Sandspit for housing and as a holiday resort have threatened this fragile environment.225 Te Waiariki and conservationists have fought for the protection of the sandspit over the past four decades.

This discussion of the Ngunguru Sandspit focuses on its early history and on its cultural significance to Te Waiariki. It will then examine the Ngunguru Sandspit struggle

222 Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, ‘Brief of Evidence’ 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U37, paragraph 22 223 Pereri Mahanga, pers comm., 6 September 2016 224 Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment [OPCE], ‘Historic and Cultural Management in New Zealand: The Ngunguru Sandspit and the protection of Wahi Tapu’, June 1996, summary report, p 1, footnote 1, BBEE, A1682, 15333, Box 757, c, NCB 609-01, ANZ 225 Pat Heffey, Ngunguru Sandspit, Historical Timeline, URL: https://docs.indymedia.org/Aoteaaroa/Ngunguru

76

between 1963 and the present, culminating in the Crown’s acquisition of the spit for the conservation estate in 2011.

6.2 Nineteenth Century Sandspit History and Significance to Te Waiariki

Mitai Paraone-Kawiti’s 2016 evidence highlighted Pii Manu’s ‘great historical significance for us. Largely this is because it is a wahi tapu, but it is also a key coastal place that we have used for hundreds of years’.226

A 1996 report of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment [OPCE] recognised the special significance of the Ngunguru Sandspit to Te Waiariki. This was:

. . . because it was the scene of a battle which ended a sustained campaign by southern tribes against Te Waiariki in the early nineteenth century. The campaign had begun on the northern shores of Whangarei Harbour and moved up the coast to Ngunguru Sandspit. Numerous pa and kainga were destroyed along the coast line and the campaign almost annihilated Te Waiariki. The sandspit is tapu because the remains of the warriors who fell in the battle are buried there.227

The 1996 report noted that: ‘The rangatira ringa kaha, Paratene Te Manu’ was buried on the sandspit.228 He was buried in the 5-acre Horahora 1C urupa reserve across from Ngunguru township along the southeastern shore of the estuary.

6.3 Prelude to the 1963 Alienation

As long ago as 1953, private purchasers expressed interest in acquiring the sandspit from Te Waiariki. On 13 November 1953, real estate agents Farrell and Horrobin

226 Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, ‘Brief of Evidence’ 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U37, paragraphs 22, 28, and 29 227 OPCE report, p 3, BBEE, A1682, 15333, Box 757, c, NCB 609-01, ANZ 228 OPCE report, p 3

77

approached the TDMLB about purchasing Horahora 1A4.229 Nothing came of this approach, but just under a decade later, in February 1963, EH (Everard) Lambert purchased Horahora 1A4A (192.25 acres) from Te Waiariki owners for £6,000.230 Lambert acted as a Director of Ngunguru Seaside Estates Ltd in the 1963 purchase.231

In 1962, in the lead-up to the Lambert purchase, the honorary organiser of the Maori Education Foundation [MEF] for the Matapouri-Ngunguru area, George Morphett, initiated a plan to stop Lambert’s purchase of Horahora 1A4A. Instead, he wanted the owners to agree to amalgamate their titles and to develop the land in a way that would benefit both Te Waiariki owners and the MEF.232

6.3.1 The Maori Education Foundation The MEF’s role is relevant to the alienation of the Ngunguru Sandspit. Secretary of Maori Affairs JK (Jack) Hunn recommended the establishment of a MEF in his famous 1960 report on Maori affairs. Hunn believed that Maori land could fund Maori education in pursuit of socio-economic development.233

The Crown passed the Maori Education Foundation Act in 1961. The Foundation aimed at promoting Maori secondary and tertiary education.234 The Crown, however, failed to provide sufficient financial resources to support the foundation’s work. The Crown limited its financial support to providing only funds matching private donations.235

229 Farrell and Horrobin to Registrar, TDMLB, 13 November 1953, Horahora corresp, K571, MLC Whangarei 230 Berghan, Northland Research Narratives, Wai 1040, #A39c, p 167 231 Heffey, Ngunguru Sandspit, Historical Timeline 232 See next sections for more information, including information on the Maori Education Foundation Act 1961. On the issue of the amalgamation/consolidation/conversion of the various block titles of the sandspit/Ngunguru beach to facilitate the land’s development, see file Archives New Zealand, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583, n, 27/1/1378, Maori Trust Loans – Horahora 1A4A Block 5 Whangarei Survey District - Ngunguru Beach Project, 1962-1962 233 On Hunn’s influence on Maori development, see Atholl Anderson, Judith Binney, Aroha Harris, Tangata Whenua: An Illustrated history, Bridget Williams Books, 2014, pp 400-413 234 ‘Maori Education Foundation’, from Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 22 April 2009, URL: http://www.Te Ara.govt.nz/en/1966/maori-education-foundation 235 Ngapare Hopa, ‘Nga ropu – Maori organisations – Maori educational initiatives’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 5 March 2014, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/nga-ropu- maori-organizations/page-4)

78

6.3.2 The Hunn/Morphett Correspondence regarding Horahora 1A4A, 1962 Morphett of the MEF engaged in a prolific correspondence with Jack Hunn in the months leading up to the Lambert purchase. In addition to acting as MEF organiser for the Matapouri-Ngunguru area, Morphett also served as President of the Matapouri- Ngunguru National Party Branch.236

Morphett informed Hunn on 16 June 1962 that he was ‘very disappointed with the local response’ to the MEF’s fundraising campaign. He wrote that both Maori and Pakeha communities in Northland failed ‘to visualize a broader future for the children of the Maori race’. He proposed ‘the use of Maori lands in providing revenue for the Foundation’. He saw the commercial development of the Ngunguru Sandspit as a source of MEF revenue. Morphett described this area as ‘[t]he Golden sands of Northland’, comparing it with Australia’s Bondi Beach and Surfers’ Paradise. He told Hunn that he urged ‘the Maori [Horahora 1A4A] owners to hold onto their lands or if suitable have it vested, with compensation, in the Maori Education Foundation’.237

Morphett outlined Lambert’s purchase offer put to the Horahora 1A4 owners on 19 June 1962 at the Whangarei MLC. He suggested that the government could persuade the Court to postpone purchase confirmation until after he proposed a ‘community recreational’ alternative to Lambert’s offer. This alternative, he wrote, could see the establishment of a prosperous 1.7 mile long seaside community with direct road access.238

Morphett thought the project ‘would qualify for a Golden Kiwi Lottery subsidy of a pound for pound of Foundation Investment’. Morphett believed that seaside sections would fetch prices ranging from £1,000 to £1,800 each. He also thought that a Sandspit motel would warrant an investment of £56, 000.239

236 J R Hanan, Minister of Maori Affairs to D N (Don) McKay , MP 16 July 1962 ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 Don McKay was Keith Holyoake’s Minister of Health. Barry Gustafson, Kiwi Keith: A Biography of Keith Holyoake, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007, p 155. 237 Morphett to Hunn, 16 June 1962 ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 238 Morphett to Hunn, 16 June 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 239 Morphett to Hunn, 16 June 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583

79

Hunn brought Morphett’s proposal to the attention of the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court, Ivor Prichard. On 19 June 1962 Prichard informed Hunn that he had advised Judge Kenneth Gillanders Scott in Whangarei to slow down the Lambert purchase confirmation. Ivor Prichard, co-author of the subsequent Prichard-Waetford report on Maori land, served as Chief Judge from 1961 until 1964. The Crown appointed Judge Scott as MLC Chief Judge in 1974.240 Prichard’s note to Hunn concluded: ‘This seems as far as we can go – it should be for Mr [Morphett] to organize the owners if he can do that’.241

That same day Hunn reported to Morphett that Chief Judge Prichard had contacted Judge Scott over the MEF Horahora Sandspit proposal. ‘But that is, I am afraid, as far as I can go. It is a Court matter and if the owners decide to sell to Lambert, the price is adequate, everything is in order and the sale not contrary to the interests and if they really wish to sell he cannot refuse confirmation. . . He cannot in the ultimate dictate to whom they shall sell.’242

While Scott postponed the MLC confirmation hearing, Morphett on 24 June 1962 lobbied his local Member of Parliament Don McKay (Minister of Health in the Holyoake National government).243

Morphett stressed that his proposal was ‘not founded on speculation but put forward with knowledge of development of sea-side resorts and with concern’ for MEF finances. He outlined a vision of public-spirited coastal development ‘to make provision for “GREEN BELTS” on our coastlines as much as we provide “OPEN SPACES” in our towns and cities’. Such beneficial development ‘could become a bastion of strength’ for the MEF. Morphett concluded by asking McKay to pass on his request to Minister of Maori Affairs Hanan and Prime Minister Holyoake.244

240 URL: http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/maori-land-court/about-us/our judges 241 Chief Judge Prichard to Secretary, 19 June 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 242 Hunn to Morphett, 19 June 1962, ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 243 Morphett to Hon D N McKay, 24 June 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 244 Morphett to McKay, 24 June; 14 August 1962, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583

80

Hunn initially expressed reservations about whether the MEF was legally entitled to invest in any sort of commercial undertaking, but he later withdrew such reservations.245 Morphett explored the possibility of the Maori Trustee vesting Horahora 1A4A for development and subdivision. He evidently contacted George Amos who, on 28 June 1962, requested the Maori Trustee to convene a meeting of 1A4A owners to consider a resolution vesting the land in the Maori Trustee.246

Amos, on the same day, also applied to an MLC postponement of the hearing to confirm the Lambert purchase. Clearly, he intended to defeat the Lambert purchase in favour of vesting Horahora 1A4A in the Maori Trustee for the benefit of the MEF.247

Morphett informed Hunn of the Amos proposal in a 6 July letter. Hunn then phoned PJ Brewster, the Assistant Maori Affairs District Officer in Whangarei. Brewster told him that, in his view, the Te Waiariki owners would be ‘foolish to sell [to Lambert] for £6000. Agrees with me that vesting in the M.T. may be the best idea. Will meet Mr Morphett in a sympathetic spirit.’248

Hunn wrote to Morphett on 9 July assuring him of his ‘close personal interest in the Ngunguru beach project and the possibility of developing it to the best advantage of the Maori owners’. He added that he supported Morphett’s ‘suggestion that the land be vested in the Maori Trustee for development and subdivision’.249

Morphett outlined his sandspit plans in a long 11 July letter to Brewster.250 He then estimated the overall costs of the project in a 21 July letter to Hunn marked ‘Personal’. Morphett observed that there were ‘many obstacles to finding a way for Maori people to retain their lands and to make better use of them and at the same time give them responsibility, management and leadership in their affairs’. In this letter Morphett also

245 Hunn to Morphett, 14 August 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 246 George Amos to the Judge, Maori Land Court, Whangarei, 28 June 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 247 George Amos to the Judge, Maori Land Court, Whangarei, 28 June 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 248 Morphett to Hunn, 6 July 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 249 Hunn to Morphett, 9 July 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 250 Morphett to P J Brewster, Assistant District Officer, Department of Maori Affairs, 11 July 1962, ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583

81

reported that Judge Scott told him that he (the Judge) ‘could do many things for Maori that Europeans could do for themselves’.251

Morphett writing to McKay on 27 July reflected upon his sandspit proposal and the recommendations of the Hunn Report:

After reading the Hunn Report last Thursday week, I think it would be fair to say that the proposals now before the Maori Trustee are a challenge to implement our modern way of life and its amenities in the integration of the Maori people and their lands.

Morphett continued: ‘The alternative to rejection of acceptance of trusteeship is to allow the speculator full rein to exploit what could become the most attractive and popular holiday and residential resort in New Zealand’. [He probably meant: ‘the alternative to acceptance of trusteeship’]. Morphett concluded with his greenbelt theme: ‘I believe there is an urgent need to plan and preserve our near urban areas of cities-to-be, so that the family man, European and Maori, may have sections at a reasonable cost.’252

The Maori Affairs survey report of 27 July 1962 on the ‘Proposed Subdivisional Development of Horahora 1A4A and Adjacent blocks’ aimed to provide information to enable the department to recommend whether or not ‘the Maori trustee should back the Maori owners of the Ngunguru Sandspit in the proposed development as a beach resort’.253 The staff surveyor’s comment implied unanimous owner consent to the vesting proposal. Yet the owners were divided between those who had originally agreed to sell to Lambert and others who supported vesting in the Maori Trustee. The surveyor’s report concluded that from ‘the point of view of Whangarei, Northland, this scheme looks most attractive . . . But looking at cold facts it presents the Maori Trustee with perhaps a risky investment . . .’.254

Maori Affairs staff diligently followed the progress of the Lambert purchase. Brewster reported to Wellington in August: ‘It is generally understood that Mr Lambert is

251 Morphett to Hunn, 21 July 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 252 Morphett to McKay, 27 July 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 253 N T Kerr, Staff Surveyor to District Officer, 27 July 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 254 N T Kerr, Staff Surveyor to District Officer, 27 July 1962, p 6; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583

82

purchasing on behalf of Messrs McBreen Jenkins Ltd who are an exceptionally large road construction and general earth moving engineering firm. . . This firm has purchased considerable areas of land in and around the Whangarei area and undertaken some subdivision.’

Brewster thought that the Department of Maori Affairs had to ponder the possible consequences of supporting a public project in opposition to a private one:

In looking at any proposal whereby the sale to Lambert was refused by the Maori Land Court and then the Maori Trustee came in with finance to assist the Maori owners in developing the land themselves, there could be some public criticism at the apparent use of public moneys [Marginal note written in pen: ‘Maori money’] on a speculative project which could, in most people’s minds be more properly undertaken by private enterprise. (emphasis in original)255

Brewster cautioned that the Maori Trustee would have to invest at least £50,000 to construct a bridge across the Ngunguru River estuary to the proposed development. He proposed ‘a compromise’ plan. Maori Affairs could reduce the size of the Lambert purchase, and require him ‘to complete the approximate 3 miles of access road’ from the Ngunguru Ford Road. This would protect the Maori Trustee from a risky bridge-building investment with ‘Maori money’.256

Lambert’s solicitor responded ‘well’ to the Brewster compromise. Brewster thought that the Maori owners would also respond well to the prospect of greatly improved road access.257 Brewster reported on the following day (10 August) that ‘discussions took place today between Judge Scott, major owners of Horahora 1A4A and Departmental officers’. Apparently the owners signified their agreement to his compromise regarding the terms of the Lambert purchase.258

255 Brewster to Head Office, Department of Maori Affairs, 9 August 1962; AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 256 Brewster to Head Office, Department of Maori Affairs, 9 August 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 257 Brewster to Head Office, Department of Maori Affairs, 9 August 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 258 Brewster to Head Office, Department of Maori Affairs, 10 August 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583

83

Hunn also agreed with Brewster’s compromise. He wrote on 14 August to Brewster that his ‘suggested compromise’ appealed to him ‘very much’ and ‘even more when I discussed it with the Chief Judge on his return’.259

Brewster reported the results of the 24 August owners meeting to Wellington. At that meeting the owners failed to agree to Morphett’s vesting proposal, which required complex amalgamation applications. Consequently, on 18 September 1962 the Maori Land Court confirmed the Lambert purchase for £6,000.260

Morphett and Lambert offered different two types of development to the Te Waiariki owners of Horahora 1A4A and adjacent Horahora land. One was a recreational beach resort development if the owners vested their land in the Maori Trustee. The other was a housing subdivision type development if they cooperated with Lambert. The former option might have generated some benefits for Maori education through the work of the MEF. Both options would perhaps have led to some improvement in roading and bridges for landlocked Horahora. Te Waiariki were divided over how best to pursue their own interests. Eventually they turned down the chance to trade land for education.

By the 1960s Te Waiariki no longer supported vesting arrangements. They preferred instead to sell land they were in any case likely to lose control of should they vest it in the Maori Trustee. Te Waiariki considered the entire Ngunguru Sandspit area to be a wahi tapu. Unfortunately, protecting wahi tapu became much more difficult after alienation.

259 Hunn, to P J Brewster, Acting District officer, Department of Maori Affairs, 14 August 1962; ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583 260 Brewster to Head Office, Department of Maori Affairs, 6 November 1962, ANZ, AAMK, W3074

84

Figure 21: Ngunguru Sandspit

6.4 Ngunguru Sandspit Timeline, 1963 – 2015

The recent history of the Ngunguru Sandspit can be followed in a simplified timeline, based largely upon the chronology Pat Heffey of Ngunguru compiled from both official sources and local newspaper reports.261

261 Pat Heffey, Ngunguru Sandspit, Historical Timeline, URL: https://docs.indymedia.org/Aoteaaroa/Ngunguru

85

1963 - E H Lambert purchased Horahora 1A4A (206 acres/83.4 ha) from Te Waiariki owners.

1967 - The Whangarei County Council designated the Ngunguru Sandspit as a proposed public open space reserve in 1967. The Town and Country Planning Appeal Board confirmed this in 1979.262

1968 - RA Green, Company Director of Auckland , purchased Lambert’s Ngunguru Seaside Estates (Horahora 1A4A) for approximately $150,000 to develop a holiday resort.263

1973 - About 100 people formed the Ngunguru Sandspit Preservation Society [NSPS] in opposition to Green’s proposed resort. The Whangarei County Council [WCC] declined this Green’s application to rezone his sandspit land from recreational to residential. The WCC tried to purchase Green’s land as a public reserve but found his price too high.264

1974 – The Commissioner of Crown Lands Darcy O’Brien advised the WCC to continue to forbid any development which would prejudice the chances of buying the land for a reserve. The WCC agreed to comply with the requests.265

1979–1980 - Green purchased Horahora 1A4B (12.6 acres/5.1 ha), 1A4F (40 acres/16.1 ha) and 1A4E (34.5 acres/14 ha) at the base of the spit from the Amos brothers and 15 other owners.

1981 - Green offered the main sandspit parcel Horahora 1A4A to the Crown for $395,000 in 1981. The Crown, unwilling to pay more than current market value of $345,000, declined.266

262OPCE report 1996, p 5, BBEE, A1682, 15333, Box 757, c, NCB 609-01, ANZ 263 Pat Heffey, ‘Ngunguru Sandspit Historical Timeline’, https://docs.indymedia.org/Aotearoa/Ngunguru 264 Heffey timeline 265 Heffey timeline 266 OPCE report 1996, ‘Question for Written Answer’ and ‘Answer’, attached at the back of the report, BBEE, A1682, 15333, Box 757, c, NCB 609-01, ANZ

86

1986 – Green declined the Department of Conservation’s [DOC] offer of $600,000 for the main sandspit parcel (Horahora 1A4A).267

1989 - Green offered DOC Horahora 1A4A for $5.8 million, in spite of a current government valuation of $605,000.268

1993 - Bayleys Real Estate, on behalf of Green, advertised Horahora 1A4A for sale in New Zealand and overseas.269

1993 – 1994 – DOC’s Chief Executive recommended removing the sandspit’s protected reserve status. Both Te Waiariki and the NSPS organised local opposition to DOC’s removal of such protections. 1,500 local people signed a petition opposing any commercial development of the Ngunguru Sandspit.270

1995 - The New Zealand Historic Places Trust [NZHPT] gave Green permission to ‘destroy, damage and modify’ several sandspit archaeological sites.271

1996 - The Planning Tribunal rejected the Ngatiwai Trust Board appeal against the NZHPT decision.272 The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment [OPCE] produced a report highly critical of both DOC and the NZHPT. The OPCE report called for a cooperative approach between DOC, the NZHPT, the Northland Regional Council and the WCC. The NZHPT’s Maori Heritage Council registered the Ngunguru Sandspit as a wahi tapu.273

1998 - Green’s roading contractor bulldozed the two kilometre ‘lower roadway’ from the northern extension of the Ngunguru Ford Road onto his property (referred to in the

267 Heffey timeline 268 Heffey timeline 269 Heffey timeline 270 Heffey timeline 271 Heffey timeline 272 Ngatiwai Trust Board v New Zealand Historic Places Trust A13/96, cited in report of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 1996 273 Heffey timeline

87

2012 Maori Appellate Court decision) in the face of Te Waiariki opposition. The Mahanga whanau won a MLC injunction stopping work on the road.274

2001 - Property development company Ocean Pines Ltd, on Green’s behalf, applied to the WCC to subdivide about 90 ha of his land into 21 small farms. 1,000 local residents signed a petition opposing the application under the Resource Management Act 1991.275

2002 – The WCC’s Coastal Management Strategy report vowed to ‘seek protection in perpetuity of the special natural character, heritage and sense of place values of the Ngunguru Spit through the establishment of a reserve or park’.276

2003 - Green transferred his land on the Ngunguru Sandspit to BBG Coastal Ltd, a subsidiary of Landco. The government assessed the value of his land at $2.35 million.277

2004 - BBG Coastal Ltd put the Ngunguru Sandspit up for sale again through Bayleys Real Estate.278

2005 - BBG Coastal Ltd took the property off the market, having attracted no acceptable buyer. Over 2,300 petitioners to the WCC called for the protection of the Ngunguru Sandspit and for Te Waiariki’s adjacent maunga taou, Whakairiora. Te Waiariki, DOC and the NZHPT appealed to the Environment Court against the proposed subdivision at Whakairiora.279

2006 - In November Landco presented plans to build 350 houses on the sandspit. In December the WCC declared the Ngunguru Sandspit an iconic landscape. The WCC announced plans to seek changes to the Local Government Act to prohibit any development in areas designated as an iconic reserve.280

274 Heffey timeline 275 Heffey timeline 276 Heffey timeline 277 Heffey timeline 278 Heffey timeline 279 Heffey timeline 280 Heffey timeline

88

2007 - The Ngunguru Coast Action Group held a function presenting the history of the sandspit over the last 40 years and many people signed up as Friends and Guardians of the Ngunguru Sandspit. Landco prepared consent applications for its proposed Ngunguru Sandspit development.281

2007 - BBG Coastal Ltd became Landco Coastal Ltd in March.282

2009 - Landco became Ngunguru Coastal Holdings Ltd in August.283

2011 - DOC finally acquired the Ngunguru Sandspit as a Scenic Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 from the Todd Property Group (also known as Ngunguru Coastal Investments Ltd) in exchange for the Napier Hospital site.284 Ngunguru Coastal Holdings Ltd, as Ngunguru Coastal Investments Ltd, initiated the 2011 roading appeal to the Maori Appellate Court [MAC] in an effort to legalise the ‘lower roadway’.285

2012 – DOC organised a community engagement hui to discuss the future of the Ngunguru Sandspit Reserve. Te Waiariki, and the NSPS worked with DOC towards setting up a co-management agreement.286 The Maori Appellate Court refused to legalise Green’s ‘lower roadway’ in favour of an ‘upper roadway’ through Horahora 1B4B4 and 1A4D (now Lot 3 DP 325466).287

2015 –DOC signed a management agreement with Te Waiariki and the NSPS. According to DOC, the agreement is ‘principally to set the tone of our relationship and to allow specific activities, mainly regarding the control of pests on the Reserve within a 5 year period at which time the Agreement would be reviewed’.288

281 Heffey timeline; OPCE report 1996, BBEE, A1682, 15333, Box 757, c, NCB 609-01, ANZ 282 URL: http://coys.co.nz 283 URL: http://coys.co.nz 284 URL: www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/northland/whangarei- leades/5504727/Ngunguru; Management Agreement between the Department of Conservation and the Ngunguru Sandspit Protection Society, 1 November 2015, DOC-2304176 285 See 2012 MAC MB 80 286 Ngunguru; Management Agreement between the Department of Conservation and the Ngunguru Sandspit Protection Society, 1 November 2015, DOC-2304176 287 See 2012 MAC, 80-106 288 Nigel Miller, Senior Ranger – Services, Whangarei Office, to Ann Beaglehole, 25 July 2016

89

6.5 Summary and Conclusions

The history of Pii Manu/the Ngunguru Sandspit illustrates its great significance to Te Waiariki. They considered it to be a giant wahi tapu which they were determined to protect. Of course, the 1963 Lambert purchase put such protection in jeopardy. This 1963 purchase remains a puzzling part of Horahora alienation history. What should one make of the attempts of the Crown and of the MEF to defeat the Lambert purchase? Were these actions an attempt to protect Te Waiariki against a purely commercial development?

The letters between Jack Hunn, George Morphett, Ivor Prichard and others reflect the times these men lived in. While they and the other officials clearly felt some obligation to try to act in the best interests of Horahora Te Waiariki landowners, their ethnocentric outlook hampered their understanding of the situation. In fact, all the Crown and judicial institutions involved, such as the Maori Affairs Department, the Office of the Maori Trustee and the MLC, shared their paternalistic outlook. 289 The story of the Ngunguru Sandspit continues in Chapter 10 with brief consideration of a case brought by Amos descendants under section 45 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

Ultimately, Te Waiariki succeeded in joining forces with conservationist in the ‘save the Spit’ campaign. The Te Waiariki-NSPS campaign ultimately forced the Crown into adding Pii Manu to the conservation estate.

289 The Waitangi Tribunal normally does not refer to the Maori Land Court and the Office of the Maori Trustee as ‘Crown institutions’. See the Rekohu Tribunal’s 1994 interlocutory decision, Wai 64, #2.67 and the Te Whanganui a Tara Tribunal report, 2003, p 458 on the Maori Trustee.

90

CHAPTER 7: PUBLIC WORKS UP TO THE EARLY 1980s

7.1 Introduction

This chapter examines efforts to get the roading necessary for Horahora economic development. It includes some attention to rating issues since Whangarei County Council rates funded local road and bridge construction and maintenance.

Public works, particularly the building of roads and bridges, and the taking of Maori land to build roads and bridges, plays a significant part in the history of Horahora and Te Waiariki. (see Figure 22: Horahora North roading) Problematic relationships among the various land owners and lessees (Maori and Pakeha) and a difficult terrain made building Horahora roads difficult. By the mid-1920s, local authorities approached the Public Works Department to assist with providing road access to Horahora South. The southeastern extension of the Ngunguru Ford Road did not reach Horahora North until the 1930s. The Pataua North Road providing access to Horahora South from Whangarei appears to have favoured the largely Pakeha landowners there, such as Fraser. Similar road access to Horahora North’s largely Te Waiariki owned land lagged behind by at least a decade.

7.2 The Taking of Maori Land for Public Works

Crown agencies acquired Maori land at Horahora for roading and other public works purposes prior to subsequent alienation. At Horahora North and South the Crown recorded its total roading deductions from Maori land at just under 42 acres.290 The Crown’s taking of Maori land for public works (in New Zealand as a whole) took place for a wide range of reasons. Most relevant to Horahora public works is McBurney’s report on the situation in Northland. McBurney pointed out that ‘archival evidence indicates that Maori were just as enthusiastic about gaining road access to their land as

290 Acreage calculated from ML 8855, ML 10643 and ML 13681

91

were Pakeha’. He wrote: ‘Maori gave land for roads and gained employment building them. River shingle and other forms of road metal were often provided by Maori . . .’.291

7.3 Roading

Poor roading affected Northland generally. Horahora roading was no exception. The 13 June 1922 Northern Advocate, for example, referred to the ‘roadless North’.292 Stirling, in his Northland local government report, wrote that during the early twentieth century few rural roads were metalled, with many becoming impassable in winter. A Parliamentary motor tour of Northland in the summer of 1917, which involved ‘20-30 vehicles’, soon saw vehicles up to their axles in mud.293 According to Stirling: ‘Generally, it was not until after World War Two ended that much progress was made with Maori roading in the coastal districts north of Whangarei.’294 McBurney added: ‘For much of the twentieth century, Maori communities in more remote parts of Northland were denied access to roads and consequently to full participation in the New Zealand economy, in many cases, up until the 1960s.’295

Mitai Paraone-Kawiti’s 2016 evidence referred to roading as it affected Te Waiariki. He stated:

Generally roads have been laid out in our territory by pakeha in the absence of Te Waiariki consent . . . It was said that roads were laid out to bring development to the area. For Te Waiariki however, imposed roads have tended to further marginalise our place on our lands. Our experience with roads is that they have accelerated the erosion of our land base. It [roading] has brought a market to us, and to individuals of Te Waiariki that has found it difficult to resist offers to purchase land, in light of financial hardships and the like.296

291 Peter McBurney, ‘Northland: Public Works & Other Takings: c1871-1993’, Wai 1040, #A13, p 198 292 ‘Obituary’, Northern Advocate, 13 June 1922, p 4 293 Bruce Stirling, ‘”Eating Away at the Land, Eating Away at the People”: Local Government, Rates and Maori in Northland’, 2008, commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, Wai 1040, #A15, #A15a, p 209 294 Stirling, Local Government, #A15, p 508 295 McBurney, Public Works, #A13, p 201 296 Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U37, paragraphs 49 and 51

92

He identified as a major grievance how the southeastern extension of the Ngunguru Ford Road went ‘right through to our urupa of Whakapae’. The originally surveyed extension of the Ford Road (southeast of where it turns north to the actual Ngunguru Ford), however, remains to this day an unconstructed ‘paper road’. Access to Horahora 1A1 today via Te Waiariki’s own ‘restricted roadway’ (constructed in 1992) diverges from the ‘paper road’ that bisects the Whakapae urupa (see Figure 22: Horahora North roading).

7.3.1 Roading Contention The question of unequal roading remains contentious. The Crown’s attempt to ameliorate the adverse effects of fragmentation with the consolidation of Maori land also had some bearing upon roading. Te Waiariki landowners, particularly at Horahora North, had their separate parcels ‘adjusted’ by a ‘native consolidation board’ in an attempt to afford better road access.297 As indicated earlier, however, the largely Pakeha units at Horahora South after the 1930s featured the most successful consolidation, and the most effective road and bridge building. Fraser’s acquisition of 70 percent of Horahora South Maori land between 1914 and 1935 represented successful Pakeha land consolidation with superior road access. The Whangarei County Council [WCC] never built a bridge across the Horahora River (surveyed together with the ‘paper road’ as early as 1905), partly because the Pataua North Road by the 1920s already provided access to Fraser’s land at Horahora South.298

The delayed development at Horahora North may have been part of a cruel irony for Te Waiariki owners there. While the failure to build adequate roads hampered economic development, it may also have enabled Te Waiariki to keep their land there. Roading may have hastened land consolidation and development at Horahora South. But it also contributed to the alienation of 70 percent of that area to Fraser.

297 Wm H Simons to Hon A J Murdoch, 5 May 1931, Roads – Ngunguru Ford Road, 1914-1971, AATE, A1003, 10880, Box 330, b, 18/7/110, ANZ 298 See the original Horahora roading surveys: SO 13681, 1905; and SO 10643, 1917

93

Figure 22: Horahora North roading

7.3.2 Origins of the 1A1 Restricted Roadway, 1988-89 Te Maawe Mahanga in 1988 applied to the Whangarei Maori Land Court and the Whangarei County Council) for restricted roadway access to Horahora 1A1 over land described as ‘relatively steep’ and ‘covered in thick scrub’.299 In spite of several objections, Judge Spencer granted Te Maawe Mahanga’s application.300 This led to Te Waiariki’s 1992 construction of a four wheel-drive track from the ‘upper roadway’ that

299 Extract from WMB vol 67 pp 346-348, Hodges and Elrick, Land and Engineering surveyors, to County Clerk, Whangarei County Council, 7 December 1988 300 WMB vol 67 pp 346-348, 347, S 415/53 Horahora 1A1 & ORS, 27 February 1989

94

featured in the 2012 MAC decision. This track, or restricted roadway, now provides access to Horahora 1A1, the largest remaining Te Waiariki owned parcel.

7.3.3 Claimant Evidence on Access Issues In her 2013 evidence, Violet Sade complained vigorously about lack of effective road access to Te Waiariki Horahora North land. She pointed out that Te Waiariki in 1992 combatted the landlocking of Horahora 1A1 by building a restricted roadway.301 Although the restricted roadway to Violet Sade’s house is still no more than a four- wheel-drive track, it represents Te Waiariki’s sustained efforts to unlock landlocked hapu land.302

Te Maawe Mahanga made the same point in his 2016 evidence: ‘We were landlocked until . . . [we] pulled together to get access to their whenua.’ Mahanga, like many Te Waiariki owners, felt that they needed to overcome Crown neglect by building their own road over their own hapu land.303

The restricted roadway to Horahora 1A1, where Violet lives today, is shown in Figure 22 as diverging from the ‘Upper Roadway’ near the boundary of Horahora 1A4C and Lot 3 DP 325466 (formerly Horahora 1A4D). Both the MLC and neighbouring Pakeha landowners agreed to the construction of Te Waiariki’s own restricted roadway.304

7.3.4 Rates and Roading The difficulties associated with the rating of Maori land has delayed road building in parts of the North. Stirling’s local government report discussed a number of other aspects of roading and rating. He detailed the efforts of successive governments between the 1910s and the 1940s to deal with the issue of rating Maori land. He discussed the Pakeha pressure on successive governments to penalise Maori land

301 Violet Sade, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 1 October 2013, Wai 1040, #I19, paragraph 44 302 Violet Sade, pers comm., 16 October 2016 303 Te Maawe Mahanga, ‘Brief of Evidence ‘5 February 2016, Wai 1040, #U46 304 Violet Sade, pers comm., 9 December 2014

95

owners for accumulating rates arrears.305 He noted escalating stridency as Pakeha resentment grew over their perception that they bore an unfair share of the burden of rates.306

Generally, the Crown appears to have resisted Pakeha pressure to penalise Maori for rates arrears. Stirling wrote that the Crown acknowledged the difficulties confronting Maori were such that the crude application of rating law to them would result in widespread land alienation.307 Instead, the government focussed on helping Maori to develop their lands so that rates became affordable.308

7.3.5 Ngunguru Coastal Investments v Maori Land Court, 2012 The Te Waiariki restricted roadway to Horahora 1A1 entered into the 2012 MAC decision regarding the upper and lower roadways across Horahora North. Green bulldozed the lower roadway from the northern extension of Ngunguru Ford Road to his land at Horahora 1A4B in 1998 (see Figure 22: Horahora North roading, above). He did so in defiance of concerted Te Waiariki opposition, and without the permission of adjoining local landowners. The MAC in 2012 rejected a proposal to legalise Green’s lower roadway, which served General land. Conversely, the Court legalised the upper roadway that provided access to landlocked Te Waiariki land (particularly Horahora 1A1). The 2012 MAC decision favouring the upper roadway was therefore a victory for Te Waiariki.309

7.4 Summary and Conclusions

There are generally two different stories to be told about Horahora roading. One story is about Te Waiariki at Horahora North and the other about Pakeha at Horahora South. Pakeha at Horahora South gained better access to their land via the Pataua North Road than Te Waiariki obtained at Horahora North via the Ngunguru Ford Road. The poor

305 Stirling, Local Government, #A15, p 269 306 Stirling, Local Government, #A15, p 283, p 286 307 Stirling, Local Government, #A15, p 518 308 Stirling, Local Government, #A15, pp 520-521 309 2012 Maori Appellate Court MB 80-106

96

road access to parts of Horahora North certainly helped Te Waiariki to defend its largely untouched natural beauty and sparse population. But the spectacular coastal scenery made the land attractive for private purchasers like EH Lambert and RA Green.

Claimant concerns about landlocked Maori land and paper roads that fail to serve the needs of Te Waiariki landowners continue to this day. Claimant comments reveal the perceived differences between the ways local authorities treat Pakeha and Te Waiariki landowners. Only by falling back on their own resources were Te Waiariki able to unlock landlocked hapu land at Horahora 1A1.

97

CHAPTER 8: LAND DEVELOPMENT, FARMING AND OTHER LAND USE

8.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the Crown’s role in Maori land development at Horahora. Most current claimants who have presented land development evidence to the Te Raki Tribunal deny that the Crown has delivered any effective assistance to Te Waiariki landowners at Horahora.310

8.2 Horahora Land Development

In 1931 the Native Department gazetted the inclusion of Horahora in the Bay of Islands Development Scheme.311 The Native Department also designated some Horahora parcels as ‘development units’ during the following years.312 This encouraged Te Waiariki owners of Horahora land to expect development assistance in return for ‘development’ designation.

8.2.1 Legislation Ngata’s 1929 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act set up the legislative framework for Maori land development schemes. The Native Department established some development units at Horahora during the 1930s.313 After World War II, Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 succeeded Ngata’s 1929 legislation as the main vehicle for promoting Maori land development.

310 Violet Sade, pers comm, 9 December 2014 311 Bassett and Kay, Land Development Schemes, Wai 1040, #A10, pp 18-19 312 Consolidation Officer to Registrar, Native Land Court, 15 December 1932, Correspondence file, K571, Maori Land Court, Whangarei. 313 University of Auckland, ‘Maori Land Legislation Timeline, 1880-1998’

98

8.2.2 The Bay of Islands Development Scheme, 1931 – 1963 Although the Native Department in 1931 gazetted Horahora, along with 430,000 acres of other Maori land units, within the Bay of Islands Development Scheme,there is no evidence of any departmental development activity at Horahora. In Bassett and Kay’s 196-page summary of the scheme’s activities, there is not a single reference to Horahora.314 The Maori Purposes Act 1963 eventually revoked the blanket gazette notices issued in 1931, but only in respect of the 202 acres of Horahora A4A which was most of the land at the Ngunguru Sandspit.The practical consequences of this for the rest of the gazetted land remains a mystery.315

8.2.3 Development Units Native Trustee mortgage financing assisted at least one Te Waiariki farmer more effectively than the Bay of Islands Development Scheme In 1925 the TDMLB recommended Trustee mortgage financing to allow Pita Kerepeti, the sole owner of Horahora 1A3B (170 acres) to develop his land.316 Kerepeti operated a successful dairying farm, but he needed extra money to pay for wages and materials for to build a house on the land. The TDMLB considered Kerepeti was a safe bet for a Native Trustee loan. He was ‘milking 23 cows at present and will increase this to 40 and has arranged for one half of his monthly cream cheques to go in reduction of principal and interest’.317

Kerepeti purchased Horahora 1A3B in 1917 for £250. He had ‘ring-fenced’ it, and he eventually built a six-roomed house on it. Richard Harington and Thomas Steadman, a solicitor, both prominent Whangarei community leaders, agreed to guarantee the Native Trustee mortgage raised on Horahora 1A3B.318

314 Bassett and Kay, Land Development Schemes, Wai 1040, #A10, pp 366-562 315 Bassett and Kay, Land Development Schemes, Wai 1040, #A10, p 18. New Zealand Gazette 1963, p 350. 316 Mortgage finance was available to Maori farmers under section 230 of the Native Land Act 1909. Horahora 1A3B is currently owned by Ken McDonald. 317 President, TDMLB to TDMLB, Auckland, 19 November 1925, ANZ, MA1, 1373, 1925/442 318President, TDMLB to TDMLB, Auckland, 19 November 1925, ANZ, MA1, 1373, 1925/442. Both Harington and Steadman married daughters of Robert Mair, the eldest son of Gilbert Mair Sr (http://www.airgale.com.ou/mair/d2) Steadman was active in local politics, becoming Mayor of Whangarei in 1910. (http://thecommunityarchive.org.nz)

99

Kerepeti’s dairy farm had a 1926 capital valuation of £1,060.319 He paid 7 per cent per annum of interest on the £200 loan.320 His case, however, is an example of how more generous development assistance at Horahora could have created many more Te Waiariki dairying success stories.

Native Land Court records contain information on several Horahora ‘development units’, or land development activity. In one example, Native Land Court records in 1944 refer to how the Native Department assisted the widow of Pita Kerepeti to discharge his mortgage on Horahora 1A3B after his death. Her application requested that ‘an advance by the Board of Native Affairs out of Development Funds’ be used to repay the balance outstanding on the 1925 Native Trustee loan taken out by her late husband. The department apparently complied with her request.321

The Native Department evidently designated Horahora 1B4A2C, 1B4A2D and 1B4B3 as development units in 1938. NLC staff reported ‘certain advances’ to Eruera Mahanga, who had been occupying ‘the said land as the Development Unit . . . [the advances] have been made to him by the Board of Native Affairs for the purpose of developing the land’. Unfortunately, it is not known how much the department advanced the owners of these units. In the absence of this information, its significance cannot be assessed.322

The Wellington whanau applied in 1954 to the Maori Trustee for assistance to develop Horahora 1A3B, previously owned by the Kerepeti whanau. They apparently wanted to run dry stock on the coastal parcel of 170 acres.323

A whanau representative wrote on 3 August 1955 to the Maori Affairs Department. When the department ‘deferred’ consideration of the Wellington whanau’s application, the Court likewise ‘adjourned’ the application.324

319 Registrar, TDMLB to Native Department, 28 January 1926; ANZ, MA1, 1373, 1925/442 320 Copy of consent endorsed on deed, 10 February 1926; approved in Council, 10 February 1926; ANZ, MA1, 1373, 1925/442 321 Application to the Native Land Court in the matter of land known as Horahora 1A3B, 6 November 1944, Horahora Corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei 322 Application to the Native Land Court in the matter of land known as Horahora 1B4A2C, Horahora 1B4A2D and Horahora 1B4B3, 2 August 1938, Horahora Corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei 323 WMB vol 27, folio 321, 25 August 1954, Horahora Corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei 324 WMB vol 28, Folio 161, 3 August 1955, Horahora Corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei

100

8.2.4 Consolidation Judge Acheson, during his 1925-1943 service as the sole NLC Judge in the North, promoted land consolidation or ‘title improvement’ as a necessary precondition for effective land development. HW Mahanga applied in 1930 for a loan to purchase land at Otamaiti (just west of Horahora along the Waitangi River) in an attempt to consolidate his whanau holdings. Fraser supported his application, as did Consolidation Officer William Cooper. Fraser wrote that Mahanga was ‘improving’ his Otamaiti holding, and ‘proposes milking on it in a couple of years’ time so that any encouragement or assistance you can give him towards purchasing from Jones will not be wasted’.325 Native Minister Ngata on 31 March 1931 duly approved a loan of £70 to Mahanga.326

The ‘Mahanga Family Consolidation’ within Horahora 1A4A, 1A4F, 2B5B, 2B6, and 2B6 later brought together their whanau land along the lines Judge Acheson had consistently recommended. The Mahanga-Fraser Horahora 2B2B swap for Kohatuwhawha land referred to above also sought a sensible consolidation to create economies of scale. The ‘Mahanga Family Consolidation’ suggests that, at least in this case, the Crown appears to have assisted Te Waiariki farmers at Horahora.327

8.2.5 Forestry and Horahora

Marie Tautari recounted that in 1975 Graham Latimer, as President of the New Zealand Maori Council, suggested to Maori owners of Northland that coastal land be used for forestry to turn their ‘unproductive’ land into ‘productive’ land. Some Te Waiariki owners supported Latimer’s proposal, while others did not.328 She also recalled that some younger Te Waiariki at Horahora wanted to take Latimer’s advice. Marie Tautari and Colin Sutherland (New Zealand Forest Service Ranger, based in Kaikohe) met with Te Waiariki Horahora owners at the Whangarei Maori Affairs office during 1975. Marie

325 WM Fraser to Consolidation Officer, Native Land Court, Auckland, 3 September 1930; ANZ, MA1, 1534, 1930/348 326 Consolidation Officer, Auckland and Under Secretary to Native Minister, 31 March 1931, ANZ, MA1, 1534, 1930/348 327 ‘Mahanga Family Consolidation’, undated, unattributed, Horahora corresp/Appln/K571, MLC Whangarei 328 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 5 May 2015

101

recalled that while many younger owners supported Sutherland’s forestry leasehold proposal, the older generation, led by Tawai Kawiti opposed it.329 Tawai carried the vote when he referred to how private timber companies had stripped the North of its best kauri and totara during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. They then closed their mills, leaving Maori without either work or timber. He closed his case by stating ‘when the timber company left we had no money because we had all been so preoccupied in earning wages and working for them. We now had no money – because they were the money’. Colin Sutherland, therefore, failed to convince Te Waiariki at Horahora to lease their land to the NZFS for forestry.330

8.3 Horahora Land Reclamation

This section examines Fraser’s land reclamation along the south side of the Horahora River estuary. In his 2016 evidence, Mitai Paraone-Kawiti commented specifically on Fraser’s reclamation activities along the river. He stated: ‘Many of our fishing grounds on the river at Horahora were destroyed in the 1940s and 1950s or so by people like Fraser and others when they looked to reclaim the swamps and mudflats next to their general land blocks.’331

The archival record reveals that in 1929 Fraser applied to the Commissioner of Crown Lands for the right to drain his tidal sections along the river at Horahora 2B. He also wanted to buy other tidal sections in order to use the new land to ‘shut off the tides’ from his ‘adjoining lands’ by building a stop bank. Specifically, he wanted to purchase for £20 a 20-acre portion of Horahora 2B adjoining his sections 1, 2, 3A and 3B.332

In 1930, Fraser lobbied the Marine Department for farmers like himself to be able to ‘reclaim the waste mangrove flats’ – an action, he believed, ‘would result in benefit both to your department and to the country’.333 At the time of Fraser’s application, the Crown

329 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 5 May 2015 330 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 5 May 2015 331 Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U37, paragraph 42 332 WM Fraser, Whangarei Harbour Board to Commissioner of Crown Lands 26 February 1929; Marine Department to A J Murdoch, MP, 19 September 1929, ANZ, M1 597, 4/2296 333 W M Fraser to Marine Department, 9 April, 1930; ANZ, M1 597, 4/2296

102

had yet to gazette the ‘necessary regulations governing the disposal of mudflats for agricultural or pastoral purposes’.334 Nonetheless, the Marine Department granted Fraser’s application because the proposed reclamation would supposedly not affect the tides or navigation.335

The Marine Department evidently drafted special harbour leasing regulations to cater for Fraser’s needs. It designated foreshore areas for disposal under section 146 of the Harbours Act 1923 and section 152 of the 1950 Harbours Act.336 For this, the Marine Department charged Fraser a ‘nominal amount of rent’ for the lease of the foreshore areas.337 It also approved the stop bank he proposed to erect.338

GC Godfrey, the Secretary of the Marine Department, objected to Fraser’s application on 2 October 1931. Godfrey objected because Fraser failed to provide sufficient public notice to neighbouring landowners.339 At least one of the unnotified owners referred to was a Te Waiariki owner of Horahora 2B2B, who leased that parcel to Fraser.340

The Department of Lands and Survey on 6 October 1931 advised the Marine Department that ‘arrangements are being made for all owners likely to be interested in the reclamation area to receive direct notification regarding Fraser’s application. These arrangements will also hold good in every other similar case.’341 Godfrey clearly served the Crown well by reminding it of its obligation to maintain due process, and to avoid partiality towards wealthy landowners.

Land reclamation involved complex, intertwined issues around conservation, traditional fishing practices, economic development and farming. While in one instance, the Marine Department intervened on behalf of the Te Waiarki owners to ensure they were

334 Marine Department to W M Fraser, 26 May 1930; ANZ, M1 597, 4/2296 335 Department of Lands and Survey to Department of Marine, 12 November 1930; ANZ, M1 597, 4/2296 336Department of Lands and Survey to Marine Department, 21 July 1931; Harbour leasing regulations, 1930: To be set Apart for Disposal Under Section 146 of the Harbours Act 1923, ANZ, M1 597, 4/2296 337 Department of Marine to Department of Lands and Survey, 9 December 1930; ANZ, M1 597, 4/2296 338 Marine Department to Department of Lands and Survey, 11 September 1931; ANZ, M1 597, 4/2296 339 Marine Department to Department of Lands, 2 October 1931; ANZ, M1 597, 4/2296 340 Plan of Sec 18 Blk VII and Secs 5&6, Blk VIII Whangarei SD, 2639) See map of reclamations 341 Lands and Survey to Marine Department, 6 October 1931; ANZ, M1 597, 4/2296

103

consulted, overall the weight of official action seems to have been to support economic development by Pakeha farmers to the extent of passing special regulations.

8.4 Summary and Conclusions

In the early twentieth century, as pastoral production grew in importance nationally, in Northland and at Horahora, the Crown’s overall goal was to make lands ‘productive’. In this period the Crown did act to try and mitigate the effects of fragmentation of title, which had resulted from earlier legislation affecting succession to and partition of Maori land. In at least some cases, this helped Te Waiariki.

Fraser exemplifies both the economic potential and the conservation values associated with coastal land. His attention to coastal development contributed to the Crown’s growing coastal consciousness during the 1960s and 70s. This consciousness, in part, led to its coastal reserves policy of the 1970s, the subject of the next chapter.

104

CHAPTER 9: HORAHORA AND THE CROWN’S COASTAL RESERVES, 1970 – 1980

9.1 Introduction

The Crown’s coastal reserves policy during the 1970s provoked major Te Waiariki opposition at Horahora. The Department of Lands and Survey in 1974 undertook a nationwide coastal survey to set up an inventory of existing coastal reserves and to identify additional reserves that might be established. As a result, Lands and Survey proposed that the ‘entire Ngunguru-Horahora block should become a regional park for wilderness type recreational use’.342 The Ministry of Works and Development, at the request of Lands and Survey in 1978, designated, as part of a review of the Whangarei County district scheme, a ‘proposed public reserve’ of the land between the Ngunguru and the Horahora estuaries.343

Reviewing this ‘proposed public reserve’ designation, in 1980, the Commissioner of Crown Lands explained to the Te Waiariki owner of Horahora 1A3A1:

The [reserve] designation is merely a device to show that the Crown intends to purchase the property at some stage for reserve. It is a holding action so that the land is not compromised for future reserve purposes. Unfortunately, there are limited funds available for the purchase of land for reserve and I can see little possibility of purchase being affected [sic] in the coming financial year.344

Marie Tautari, who became an MLC-appointed Horahora trustee during Te Waiariki’s opposition to the coastal reserves policy, acknowledged their importance in the struggle led by the Ngatiwai Land Retention Committee [NLRC]. She recalled Whina Cooper’s last-minute attempt to add Te Waiariki to the name of the committee. To her surprise,

342 OPCE summary report 1996, p 5, BBEE, A1682, 15333, Box 757, c, NCB 609-01, ANZ 343 OPCE summary report 1996, p 5, BBEE, A1682, 15333, Box 757, c, NCB 609-01, ANZ 344 Note for file, Commissioner of Crown Lands, 15 February 1980; ANZ, BBEE, A1506, 15336, 20d, 1/9/6/44

105

Marie Tautari noticed that her father, Len Peters, signed the 1975 NLRC petition against the coastal reserves policy as ‘Waiariki’.345

9.2 Whangarei County Coastal Reserves

David Alexander, in his account of the better known NLRC campaign against the coastal reserves policy of the 1970s, did not include Te Waiariki participation.346 Regarding her involvement in opposing the Crown’s coastal policy at Horahora, Marie Tautari recalled that in 1975 the MLC appointed her as a Horahora trustee together with two men. ‘We had a limited function – that was dealing with the local council’s Scheme Plan that included designating lands for future Public Reserves and Open Space.’ Her trusteeship lasted from February 1975 until 1983.347

Explaining her Horahora trusteeship, Marie Tautari commented that:

The landowners trusted us to manage the problems they were facing. When the Registrar of the Maori Land Court saw our cohesion and how there seemed to be total support for what we were trying to do, and knowing how many landowners did not have local residential addresses, he suggested that we might wish to apply to the Maori Land Court to appoint three trustees as representatives of the owners under Section 438, Maori Affairs Act 1953. The Trustees had a limited defined role, to act on behalf of the landowners of 32 Maori Land Blocks under designation. This appointment was in February 1975 and lasted until 1983.348

Marie Tautari outlined how she and her husband, Mange, of the NLRC worked with Te Waiariki. One of Ben Mahanga’s sons (possibly Te Maawe) rowed them across the Horahora River to Ben’s house in 1974 to discuss the Crown’s reserves policy. We . . . carefully explained the Scheme Plan document and maps and Government intention at Horahora to have over 613 hectares [1515 acres] designated as a

345 Marie Tautari, pers comm., 22 May 2015 346 Alexander, ‘Land-Based Resources, Waterways and Environmental Impacts’, Wai 1040, #A7, p 960 347 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 17 April 2015 ;WMB, vol 233/O, Horahora 1A no 1, Order: Section 438(3) © 53, Terminating a Trust Order and Revesting Land in the Beneficial Owners, Section 34(10)\53, 30 March 1983, AT14\339) 348 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 22 May 2015

106

‘wilderness area’. At the time we arrived, Ben, a dairy farmer was not aware of the Scheme Plan and we spent considerable time carefully explaining what was proposed, discussing how this might interfere with what he was planning for his children’s future, likely adverse impacts and how we proposed to stop that from happening. We talked about the committee that had been formed, the NLRC. Ben did not want any adverse impacts on his land. He objected to others exercising decision-making over his lands. He asked us to include the Horahora land blocks in our processes of objection.349

Marie Tautari also remembered meeting with Whina Cooper’s whanau, who were then living on Te Waiariki land at Waiteuku on the north side of the Ngunguru River estuary, early in 1975.

It was in the 1975 Auckland Anniversary weekend that I visited one of the whanau of Whina Cooper at Waiteuku, Ngunguru, and explained to those gathered there, what we were trying to do. All these people were Waiariki, or connected to Waiariki through marriage, and had lands in the Horahora area on the northern side facing the Ngunguru River.350

Marie Tautari thought it may have been at that January 1975 Waiteuku meeting that Whina suggested renaming the NLRC as the ‘Waiariki and Ngatiwai Land Retention Committee’. Unfortunately, in her words, ‘NLRC had just had all its letterheads etc. printed at personal cost, so I resisted any suggestion of name change. In many instances landowners were both Waiariki and Ngati Wai’.351

On her role in relation to Te Waiariki landowners at Horahora, Marie Tautari recounted:

It was necessary to inform as many owners as possible about the Reviewed Scheme Plan and what its likely effects could be. Horahora lies between two rivers, to the south it is the Horahora River and on its northern banks it is the Ngunguru River. In 1974, there was only one family living right out at the Horahora south side of the peninsula, Penekaho (Ben) Mahanga and his family.

349 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 5 May 2015 350 Patuone Hoskins later became chairman of the Ngatiwai Land Retention Committee. 351 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 5 May 2015. Len Peters, Marie Tautari’s father, signed the 1975 land retention petition as ‘Waiariki.’ See 1975 Petition, Ngatiwai Land Retention Committee.

107

There was a house at the middle and some on the northern side of the block but most of the Maori landowners worked away and only used their places for recreation and holidays.352

The Town and Country planning hearings on objections to the reserve designations began in 1975, and continued until May 1976. In his report on the proceedings, the Lands and Survey Department’s Land Utilisation Officer made the following comments regarding Horahora:

The area covered by this designation is extremely large [613 hectares] but was seen by the Department as being suitable [f]or a large wilderness reserve . . .You will realize this is a very ambitious concept and it will require future supporting evidence and investigation before this area is capable of being upheld before the Appeal Board.353

After dealing with the designations of specific areas, the Land Utilisation Officer commented: ‘From the above, you will gain some appreciation of the complexities of the reserve designations over Maori land in the Whangarei County . . . I would stress the need for . . . discussions with the Ngatiwai Committee on the future of their lands.’354 He omitted reference to Te Waiariki.

The Whangarei County Council recommended in June 1976 to the Minister of Works and Development that he should remove all the Crown designations. In its letter to the Minister, the Council noted that of the 1,677 hectares designated by the Crown, 1,242 hectares was Maori-owned, and Maori had lodged 298 objections. It expressed a great deal of sympathy for the effect of the designations on a people who so strongly identified with their land. The Council also commented on the effect the designations would have ‘on the general welfare of the inhabitants of the district.355

352 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 5 May 2015. 352 Marie Tautari, pers comm, 5 May 2015 353 Quoted in Alexander, Waterways, Wai 1040, #A7, p 1001 354 Quoted in Alexander, Waterways, Wai 1040, #A7, p 1001 355 Quoted in Alexander, ‘Land-Based Resources, Waterways and Environmental Impacts’, Wai 1040, #A7, #A7(e), p 1002

108

9.2.1 Reviews and Appeals After reviewing the Horahora reserve designation, Lands and Survey reported: ‘Adjoins Ngunguru Spit. Outstanding recreational and scenic significance. Designation to be retained.’356 In other words, the Crown persisted with including Horahora as a designated reserve.

The February 1978 Town and Country Appeal Board’s report regarding Horahora stated:

Adjoins Ngunguru sandspit that is already designated; difficult access except by water; suitable for a wilderness type reserve; strong cultural and traditional associations, with owners anxious to farm and afforest southern part; designation to be uplifted from 200 acres at the southern end, but otherwise should retain.357

Marie Tautari, recalling Te Waiariki opposition to the Crown’s coastal reserves policy over 40 years ago, commented:

In retrospect I would say that most Maori who had managed to retain their ownership of land in the face of constant challenges from external sources, were not trusting of other people to make the best decisions for them. When I was appointed [as a MLC trustee], I remember my father saying to me ‘Well, you have been given a trustee role over my lands, but when it comes to decisions, I will be making them’. I accepted his statement/advice, and applied absolute respect to all the landowners exercising their rights, as owners, to make the final decisions.358

356 Quoted in Alexander, ‘Land-Based Resources, Waterways and Environmental Impacts’, Wai 1040, #A7, #A7(e), p 1008 357 Quoted in Alexander, ‘Land-Based Resources, Waterways and Environmental Impacts’, Wai 1040, #A7, #A7(e), pp 1025-1026 358 Marie Tautari, pers comm, email 5 May 2015. For further details about the Ngati Wai appeal and the decision of the Town and Country Appeal Board see ANZ, AADM, W3485, 7538, Box 380, 686/76,: P K (Penekaho) Mahanga and Others versus Minister of Works and Development regarding Whangarei County Council: Proposed Review District Scheme, 1978, AADM, W3485, 7538, Box 380, 686/76, ANZ

109

Eventually, the 1978 Appeal Board’s decision on Horahora concluded: ‘The Maori owners expressed great opposition to the prospect of being divested of their land. In particular they expressed a desire to continue farming two of the large southern [and central blocks] (Horahora 1A1 and 1A3B) and to develop two other large southern [central] blocks for forestry (Horahora 1B4B5A and B).’359 The Appeal Board had no idea that Te Waiariki rejected Colin Sutherland’s NZFS forestry proposal in 1975. On the other hand, it recognised that Te Waiariki resoundingly rejected the Crown’s coastal reserves policy.

9.3 Summary and Conclusions

The Crown’s 1970s coastal reserves policy met with concerted Te Waiariki resistance at Horahora. Te Waiariki landowners worked with the NLRC to oppose what they saw as further Crown encroachment on their remaining coastal land. Eventually, the Crown made concessions to Te Waiariki, and other opponents of its policy. As a result, most of the proposed coastal reserves were never established. Again, Te Waiariki could count this as a victory.

359 ‘Decision’, B95; ANZ, AADM, W3485, 7538, Box 380, 686/76, P K Mahanga and Others versus Minister of Works and Development regarding Whangarei County Council: Proposed Review District Scheme, 1978, ‘Decision’, B95.AADM, W3485, 7538, Box 380, 686/76, ANZ. For more information about Proposed Public Reserve designations of the Crown, including of Horahora land, see: ANZ, AADM, W3485, 7538, Box 380, 686/76, P K Mahanga and Others versus Minister of Works and Development regarding Whangarei County Council: Proposed Review District Scheme, 1978, and ANZ, BBEE, A1506, 15336, Box 21, d, 1/9/6/49,AADM, W3485, 7538, Box 380, 686/76; Whangarei County District Scheme – designation of land – Eastern side of Ngunguru River, Horahora 1B4B3 Block – Blocks 1V and V111 Whangarei Survey District, 1978-1982..., BBEE, A1506, 15336, Box 21, d, 1/9/6/49, both at ANZ. ‘Decision’, B95

110

CHAPTER 10: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES AND DEVELOPMENTS

10.1 Introduction

Various contemporary Crown policies have affected Horahora since the 1980s. These include: coastal management; roading matters; and rating issues affecting Maori multiply-owned land. These topics have all come up in articles in the Northern Advocate and other news sources during 2015-16.

Today there remain 23 Maori-owned Horahora parcels from the original 3,322 acre Horahora ‘block’.360 These parcels do not include Maori-owned General land.361 Estimates based on Maori Landonline indicate that approximately 362.1 hectares (or 894.75 acres) of Horahora North remains Maori land. This constitutes approximately 45 percent of the original 1,986 acres surveyed in 1877. At Horahora South approximately 70.5 hectares (174.2 acres) remains Maori land. This represents 13 percent of the original 1,336 acres surveyed in 1877.362 Taken together, Maori retain 432.6 hectares or 1,069 acres of the original 3,322 acres. They therefore retain 32 per cent of the originally surveyed area.

In Whangarei as a whole, about 14,350 hectares, or 5 per cent of the Whangarei District’s total 282,000 hectares, is ancestral Maori-owned land held in 868 individual parcels. Most Whangarei Maori land is concentrated in the Mangakahia hill country and along the east coast north of Whangarei Harbour.363

Mitai Paraone-Kawiti in his 2016 evidence provided an estimate of the size of the Te Waiariki population. He estimated that Te Waiariki number more than 10,000, based on his knowledge ‘of the size and number of the main families of Te Waiariki, which are growing not shrinking’.364

360 Violet Sade, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 1 October 2013,, Wai 1040, #I19, paragraph 40 361 URL: http://www.maorilandonline.govt.nz/gis/title/search.htm, accessed 4 April 2016 362 ML 3795 363 Mike Barrington, ‘Whangarei Report, Whangarei, Northland, 11 December 2014, http://readnow.isentia.com, accessed 15 December 2014 364 Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, ‘Brief of Evidence’, 29 January 2016, Wai 1040, #U37, paragraph 57

111

10.2 Access to a Remedy under Section 45 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act

Section 45 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 allows MLC applicants to seek a review of previous MLC decisions to establish any errors that may have occurred. If applicants demonstrate that a previous MLC order ‘was erroneous in the presentation of the facts . . .’ the Chief Judge may overturn the initial order ‘to remedy the mistake or omission . . .’.365

On 21 September 1998 the Amos Estate applied for such a review of the 1979-1980 MLC orders confirming Green’s purchases at the base of the Ngunguru Spit.366 According to Andrew Gray, one of the applicants, the key fact invalidating the orders was a debilitating stroke George Amos suffered on 1 June 1980. Gray maintained recently that neither Judge Spencer at the initial 1999 hearing in Whangarei nor Deputy Chief Judge Isaac in declining the section 45 application in 2002 were made fully aware of the significance of George Amos’s stroke.367

The applicants’ case in 2002 revolved around the two main contentions advanced in 1999 by Roger Bowden, counsel for the applicants. Bowden contended that Green had shortchanged the vendors by at least $20,000, and that he had exhibited ‘bad faith’ in numerous other respects during 1979-1980. Bowden emphasised how Green used the vendors’ solicitor, Malta Greening Sidney, as his own solicitor. In acting for both vendors and purchaser, he argued, Sidney clearly conflicted himself. Green’s use of Sidney epitomised his ‘bad faith’.368

Andrew Gray maintains, however, that Roger Bowden had a personal difficulty in bringing forward the crucial evidence that George Amos was incapable of exercising informed consent after his 1 June 1980 stroke. He alleges that because Roger Bowden’s mother acted as George Amos’s physician in 1980-1981, he felt constrained from presenting his mother’s medical evidence at the mid-1999 hearing.369

365 Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 366 Chief Judge’s MB, 5 February 2002, p 56, paras 2.11-2.12 367 Andrew Gray, pers comm., 8 October 2015, 2 November 2016 368 Chief Judge’s MB, 5 February 2002, pp 64-67, paras 8.1, 9.1, 10.1, & 10.3 369 Andrew Gray, pers comm., 2 November 2016

112

The Amos Estate applicants hoped to renew their section 45 application in 2015, but their current counsel advised them recently that such a renewal is no longer possible. The relevant section 49 of the Act provides for appeals to the Maori Appellate Court. It states that ‘[o]n the determination of any such appeal by the Maori Appellate Court, no further application in respect of the same matter shall be made under section 45’.370 Roger Bowden’s failure to file an appeal in 2002 may have exhausted the remedies available to the Amos Estate. This may suggest that the section 45 procedure under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 makes insufficient provision for a rehearing of cases in which an apparent miscarriage of justice is alleged.

10.3 Summary and Conclusions

Te Waiariki’s successful struggle to ‘save the Spit’ has brought it into the twenty-first century with a new sense of hapu empowerment. During the course of its 25-year-long campaign this was expressed in part through wider engagement with civil society, for example a long-term alliance with local conservationists such as Wade Doak.

370 Section 49, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

113

CHAPTER 11: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT

11.1 Introduction

This report on Horahora history covers ground to some extent familiar from previous Waitangi Tribunal-commissioned research. It provides an account of how Crown actions affected the local hapu, Te Waiariki.

Te Waiariki owners at Horahora North retained about 45 percent of their land. This is a higher rate of land retention than in other areas, such as the Bay of Islands. The different patterns of alienation between Horahora North and Horahora South stand out. The higher rate of retention by Te Waiariki owners at Horahora North can be explained by the facts that theirs was hilly, marginal land with heavy clay or sandy soils supporting manuka/kanuka scrub. Horahora South, by contrast, was more undulating and better suited to pastoral use. Te Waiariki owners retained no more than 13 percent of their land there.

11.2 Summary

Land The original 1877 Native Land Court title determination divided Horahora land into Horahora North (1,968 acres) and Horahora South (1,336 acres). Though Te Waiariki retained more Horahora North land, post-1877 alienation, combined with progressive fragmentation, meant that marginal land remaining there could not support the growing population. Te Waiariki landowners at Horahora North still sought to retain valued coastal land rather than less valued inland areas, which they chose to alienate.

Land Alienation By 1935 WM Fraser owned almost 70 percent of Horahora 2B. Maori Land Online suggests that only 70.5 ha (174.2 acres) remains as Maori land at Horahora South. That means Maori land today represents only 13 percent of the original 1,336 acres of Horahora South. Fraser pioneered the private purchasing of coastal land. Te Waiariki

114

previously retained the coastal section of Horahora South when they agreed to the Crown’s purchase of the inland area (Horahora 2A) in 1895.

Crown Agencies Crown agencies, such as Native Affairs/Maori Affairs, and Land Boards, acted both as protectors of Maori interests and as agents of alienation. Native/Maori land legislation (for example, vesting land in Land Boards) generally facilitated the alienation of Te Waiariki Horahora land.

Access Crown-facilitated land alienation, land development and road building shaped Horahora history. Crown support for the building of the Pataua North Road serving Horahora South contrasts with the struggle for funding to build the Ngunguru Ford Road serving Horahora North. The superior Pataua North Road served an area with much more land under General than under Maori title. By contrast, lack of effective road access limited the development of Horahora North, which remained predominantly Te Waiariki land. Ironically, by limiting the road access needed for the development, the Crown inadvertently helped Te Waiariki to retain more of their land at Horahora North.

Farming and Land Development Horahora land development shows some Te Waiariki farming successes despite difficult new economic circumstances during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Many chose to lease their land rather than to farm it themselves. Te Waiariki owners may have chosen to lease some of their land because increasingly fragmented holdings proved uneconomic. Likewise, they may have chosen to lease their land because of perceived difficulties associated with multiply-owned land.

Crown-supported development schemes promised assistance to Te Waiariki farmers. The Crown gazetted Horahora land into the Bay of Islands Development Scheme in 1931. The Crown did assist Pita Kerepeti with a Native Trustee loan. His unusual

115

position as the sole owner of Horahora 1A3B in 1925 simplified things for the private guarantors of his loan repayment.

Other Uses of the Land A good proportion of Horahora land remained unsuitable for intensive agriculture or dairying. Regarding land quality, for example, a 2016 Landcare research report states that 65 per cent of Horahora 1A1 (the largest Te Waiariki-owned parcel) is ‘[n]ot suited to cropping but good for pastoral and forestry’.371

During the 1970s, Colin Sutherland of the NZFS proposed that Te Waiariki lease their Horahora land for forestry. At that time, Te Waiariki landowners opposed the Crown’s plans to reserve their coastal land, and they opposed the commercial development of the Ngunguru Sandspit. Consequently, Te Waiariki also opposed the NZFS proposals to establish commercial forestry along their coastline.

Wahi tapu Protection Te Waiariki’s determination to protect their wahi tapu featured in Horahora history, particularly at Pii Manu/the Ngunguru Sandspit. In the period from the 1970s to the 1990s, the Ngunguru Sandspit cried out for wahi tpau protection , because it contained most Te Waiariki wahi tapu. Finally, in 2011, the Crown purchased the sandspit, but only as a result of the concerted conservation and iwi alliance to ‘save the Spit’.

Overall Summary Te Waiariki clearly struggled to exercise their rangatiratanga in the face of growing loss of control over their land and way of life. They were ultimately successful in retaining much of their coastal land. Today, at least, Pii Manu/the Ngunguru Sandspit is the subject of a co-management agreement between Te Waiariki, the NSPS and DOC.

371 URL: http://whenuaviz.landcareresearch.co.nz/parcel/32784

116

11.3 Answers to Commission Questions

a) Title and initial subdivision ‘How were title and the initial subdivision of the Horahora block determined? How did the Native Land Court operate in this block and with what outcomes for those with interests in the block? Did pre-title purchasing transactions play any role? To what extent did this process and outcomes reflect the preferences of local communities with interests in the block? How did the Crown respond to any Maori protests over this and what were the outcomes for the owners, including the ability of owners to continue to manage their land collectively?’

Answer: Answering some of these questions is limited by the paucity of official information. Information about the background to the 1877 Horahora NLC title determination fails to reveal much about Te Waiariki motives in dividing Horahora land between north and south. In other words, we cannot speak with any certainty about the extent of ‘the preferences of local communities . . .’.

Circumstantial evidence suggests that Te Waiariki applied to have their Horahora land surveyed, simply because they needed to do so in order to qualify for NLC title determination. Te Waiariki observed intense title determination activity in neighbouring areas (such as Waikariri, Te Taheke, Kopuatoetoe, and Pukepoto). Similarly, they observed simultaneous Crown purchase activity at Te Taheke, Waiparera, Kakahoroa and Mangahui in 1877-1880. Together these processes virtually compelled Te Waiariki to seek NLC title determination in an attempt to safeguard their land.

b) Crown Protection Mechanisms ‘How did the protection mechanisms provided by the Crown operate in respect of the titling, alienation and administration of land in the Horahora block? To what extent were Maori who wished to retain ownership and control of their land able to utilise the protections for their purposes, such as for reserves, wahi tapu or commercial

117

development? How did the Crown monitor the implementation of protections and respond to any difficulties with them raised by owners? What were the outcomes for Horahora owners?’

Answer: The Crown made some effort to protect Maori interests affected in the course of the titling, alienation and administration of land at Horahora. Under sections 48-49 of the Native Land Act 1873, for example, the Crown imposed restrictions on the alienation of Horahora land. The Crown purchased Horahora 2A in 1895 despite these restrictions on alienation. The fact that in 1895 ‘non-sellers’ at Horahora 2B had retained 858 acres of coastal land suggests continuity in a conscious Te Waiariki strategy of retaining valued coastal land at the expense of less valued inland areas.

Other Crown protection mechanisms which affected Horahora include the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905. This legislation aimed to protect Horahora Maori from landlessness by the compulsory vesting of land in Maori Land Boards The various protective mechanisms, however, failed to prevent the ongoing alienation and fragmentation of Te Waiariki land at Horahora.

Wahi tapu protection always loomed large for Te Waiariki, particularly in relation to the protection of Pii Manu/the Ngunguru Sandspit. Initially, the Crown failed to protect wahi tapu there. Only the concerted Te Waiariki-NSPS campaign for ‘saving the Spit’ caused the Crown to act decisively in 2011.

c) Maori Land Alienation ‘To what extent were Horahora lands alienated from Maori ownership and what were the major forms of alienation and in what periods? To what extent were these alienations the result of pre-title purchasing transactions, of fees or costs imposed on owners for determining or administering title, or of compulsory processes such as public works takings, rates demands, takings as the result of noxious weeds or compulsory vesting? How did the Crown monitor alienations in the block to ensure communities linked to Horahora

118

retained sufficient land for their needs? What were the outcomes for Horahora owners and their communities?’

Answer: About 33 percent of the land at Horahora remains in Maori ownership today. This land retention rate is probably related to Horahora’s remote location, topography and difficult access. The Crown alienated only about 14 percent of Horahora with its 1895 purchase. Private purchases (particularly WM Fraser’s) accounted for much subsequent alienation activity. The TDMLB’s vesting of land in long-term leases constituted a form of alienation in that it deprived owners of direct control over their land. The Crown subsequently re-vested land in the original Te Waiariki owners, but much of the re- vested land eventually passed out of hapu ownership.

d) Crown Involvement in Land Alienation ‘To what extent was the Crown, as well as any delegated territorial or special purpose authorities, involved in any such alienation and through what practices and processes, such as the use of monopoly purchase powers? When purchasing, what prices were paid and how did they compare with any valuations, on-selling returns and prices paid in nearby blocks, where known? To what extent did the Crown factor in the value of any timber, minerals or other resources on the lands purchased? How did the Crown respond to any protest or complaints regarding the actions of Crown purchase agents and with what outcomes for owners?’

Answer: The Crown’s purchasing powers were applied through Crown purchasing agents. Crown land purchase agent CF Maxwell negotiated the 1895 Horahora 2A Crown purchase. The restoration of Crown pre-emption in 1894 strengthened his hand. Yet, Crown purchases accounted for a much smaller acreage of Horahora alienations than subsequent private purchases.

The Crown’s vesting of Te Waiariki Horahora land in the TDMLB contributed to the removal of Maori owner control of significant areas. Te Waiariki lost the chance to

119

exercise their full rights of ownership over the vested land. The Crown vested around 15 per cent of Horahora land (mainly at Horahora South). Ironically, the later Crown policy of re-vesting land back in the original owners failed to restore Te Waiariki control.

e) Crown Policies and Practices ‘To what extent were Horahora lands remaining in Maori ownership subject to Crown policies and practices intended to overcome title fragmentation and other difficulties identified in the form of Maori title provided? This includes title reform such as amalgamation and consolidation and institutional measures such as block committees, trusts and incorporations, and vesting in Maori land boards. To what extent were these reforms and measures implemented by compulsion in the Horahora block, such as by compulsory vesting, conversion and Europeanisation of Maori land interests? To what extent did the Crown obtain consent from Horahora block owners before implementing such measures? What were the outcomes for Horahora owners and their ability to manage their lands, including for the commercial utilisation of their land?’

Answer: The Crown attempted limited ‘title improvement’ or consolidation at Horahora. Judge Acheson and Consolidation Officer Cooper advocated the importance of sensible consolidation to remedy fragmentation. Individual ambilineal (male and female) succession, following the 1867 Papakura rule, drove fragmentation. Multiple ownership and endless partitions created the intricate pattern of fragmentation illustrated by the Horahora family trees at Figures 10-14. The post-1967 Crown policy of Europeanisation of Maori land interests adversely affected several Te Waiariki landowners.

The Crown occasionally supported land exchanges as an antidote to fragmentation. Unlike compulsory vesting, land exchanges seemed to be voluntary at Horahora. For example, in the 1930s a voluntary land exchange between HW Mahanga and WM Fraser appears to have generated mutual benefit, at least in the opinion of Consolidation Officer William Cooper.

120

f) Crown Assistance ‘What kinds of Crown assistance were available to Horahora owners to manage and utilise their lands as they wished and to what extent were owners able to take advantage of it? To what extent and on what basis were Crown agencies such as the Tokerau Maori Land Council/Board, the Department of Maori Affairs and the Maori Trustee involved in the development and administration of Horahora land? To what extent did these agencies provide technical and financial assistance to Horahora owners, either directly or through state-run initiatives such as land development schemes? What was their relationship with the Maori owners? What kinds of obstacle, if any, did Horahora owners experience in obtaining such assistance and how did the Crown respond to any difficulties raised by owners? What were the outcomes for owners?’

Answer Crown land development schemes appear to have failed to deliver significant assistance to Te Waiariki farmers at Horahora. The Crown made other kinds of assistance available for a few Te Waiariki farmers. For example, the TDMLB ensured that the Kerepeti whanau benefitted from a Native Trustee loan in 1925. Then, in 1955, Pita Kerepeti’s widow received compassionate treatment from Maori Affairs officials over the retirement of that modest loan.

Crown actions to empower Te Waiariki owners to keep and use their land do not feature prominently in the official record. On the other hand, the 2011 public acquisition of Pii Manu/the Ngunguru Spit, and the subsequent co-management agreement may be a happy ending to this story.

121

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARCHIVES NEW ZEALAND FILES (WELLINGTON)

ANZ, MA-MLP1 42, ae, 1896/293, From C F Maxwell, November 1896, ‘Native Land Court has defined interests of the Crown in Horahora no 2 Block, forwards list of non- sellers, 1896

ANZ, MA1 1137, 1914/3946, (includes 1914/3943, 1914/3944, 1914/3945), Horahora 2B8 (Re-vesting), Recommendation under Section 96/1913 that land be declared exempt from part XIV 1909, 1914

ANZ, MA1 1148, 1915/3391, Horahora 2B3, Board recommends under Section 96/1913 that the land be exempted from part XIV and be re-vested, 1915

ANZ, MA1 1166, 1917/111, Horahora 2B1, Board recommends issue of Order in Council, under Section 96 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1913, declaring the land to be no longer subject to part XIV/1909 and to be re-vested in the Native owners, 1917

ANZ, MA1 1267, 1921/290, Horahora 1B3, for consent to sale under Section 239/1909, 1921

ANZ, MA1 1267, 1921/260, Horahora 1B2, Board recommends consent to sale under Section 239/1909, 1921-1922

ANZ, MA1, 1373, 1925/442, Received: 16 November 1925. – From Registrar, Tokerau Maori Land Board, Auckland – Horahora 1A3B, Mortgage, Pita Kerepeti to R C M Harington and T H Steadman. For consent under Section 230/09, 1925-1926

ANZ, MA1, 1534, 1930/348, Received: 8 September 1930. – From W Cooper, Consolidation Officer, Auckland, Otamaiti E – As to advance to Hoani Wiremu Mahanga to enable him to purchase Part Section 8 Block VII Whangarei Survey District, 1930- 1931

122

ANZ, M1 597, 4/2296, Horahora River, Whangarei – Tidal land for reclamation, granted W M Fraser – Plans, reports, correspondence, 1929-1931

ARCHIVES NEW ZEALAND FILES (AUCKLAND)

ANZ, AADM, W3485, 7538, Box 380, 686/76, P K Mahanga and Others versus Minister of Works and Development regarding Whangarei County Council: Proposed Review District Scheme, 1978

ANZ, AADM, W3485, 7538, Box 584, 210/78, M M H M and R H Mahanga versus Whangarei County Council – Applicant: Ray Mahanga and Others: Appeal against council decision, 1978, an appeal against the Whangarei County Council and the Pataua Marae Committee)

ANZ, AAMK, W3074, 869, Box 1583, n, 27/1/1378, Maori Trust Loans – Horahora 1A4A block 5 Whangarei Survey District - Ngunguru Beach Project, 1962-1962

ANZ, AATE, A1003, 10880, Box 330, b, 18/7/110, Roads – Ngunguru Ford Road, 1914- 1971

ANZ, ABWN, W5278 8910, Box 25, 3629-3650, Maori Land Memorials of Ownership – Kaipara v 1 no 100-188, Memorial of Ownership Horahora North and Horahora no 2

ANZ, BAA1 A39 11466 Box 73, b, 2764, Tai Tokerau Alienation file- Horahora 2B8, 1913-1929, W M Fraser to Tokerau Maori Land Board, 20 December 1916

ANZ, BBEE, A1506, 15336, Box 20, b, 1/9/6/41, Whangarei County District Scheme – designation of land – mouth of Horahora River, Horahora 1A2 Block, Block VIII Whangarei Survey District, South British Guardian Trust Co. Ltd, 1974-1982

123

ANZ, BBEE, A1506, 15336, Box 20, d, 1/9/6/44, Whangarei County District Scheme – designation of land – North of Horahora River, Horahora 1A3A1 block, Block VIII Whangarei Survey District, Ernest Rowland Duncan, 1974-1985

ANZ, BBEE, A1506, 15336, 20d, 1/9/6/44, Whangarei County District Scheme – designation of land – North of Horahora River, Horahora 1A3A1, 1974-1985

ANZ, BBEE, A1506, 15336, Box 21, d, 1/9/6/49, Whangarei County District Scheme, Designation of Land – Eastern side of Ngunguru River, Horahora 1B4B3 block – Blocks 1V and VIII Whangarei Survey District, 1978-1982

ANZ, BBEE, A1506, 15336, Box 23, e, 1/9/6/62, Whangarei County District Scheme – designation of land – adjacent to Ngunguru River, Horahora 1A4B and 1A4E blocks – Block VIII Whangarei Survey District

ANZ, BBEE, A1682, 15333, Box 757, c, NCB 609-01, Northland Conservation Board – protection issues – Ngunguru Sandspit, 1995-2001, Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, ‘Historic and Cultural Management in New Zealand: The Ngunguru Sandspit and the protection of Wahi Tapu’, June 1996, summary report

BOOKS AND ARTICLES

Acheson, John and Richard Boast, ‘Acheson, Frank, Oswald, Victor’, from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara-the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 21 May 2013, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographines/422/acheson-frank-oswald- victor

Anderson, Atholl and Judith Binney, Aroha Harris, Tangata Whenua: An Illustrated history, Bridget Williams Books, 2014

Boast, Richard, Buying the Land, Selling the Land: Governments and Maori Land in the North Island, 1865-1921, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2008

124

Butterworth, Graham and Hepora Young, Maori Affairs, Iwi Transition Agency, Government Print Books, Wellington, 1990

Dowling, Peter, Place Names of New Zealand, revised, A.W. Reed, Auckland, 2010

Gustafson, Barry, Kiwi Keith: A Biography of Keith Holyoake, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007

Hames, Martin, Winston First, the unauthorized account of Winston Peters’ career, Random House, Auckland, 1995

Hill, Richard, S, State Authority, Indigenous Autonomy: Crown-Maori Relations in New Zealand/ Aotearoa 1900-1950, Victoria University Press, 2004, New Zealand Electronic Text Centre Collection, URL: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei, accessed 11 February 2015

Jourdain, W R, Land Legislation and Settlement in New Zealand, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, 1925

Judd, Beryl, E, Shadows beneath the mountain: the history of the Horahora district, Cambridge, 1986

Kawharu, I H, ‘The Pritchard-Waetford Inquiry into Maori Land’, The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol 76, No 2, June 1967, pp 205-214

Keene, Florence, Milestone: Whangarei County’s first 100 Years: 1876-1976, Northern Publishing Co Ltd, Whangarei, 1977

Keene, Florence, Between Two Mountains: A History of Whangarei, Whitcombe and Tombs Ltd, Auckland, 1966

King, Michael, Whina, Hodder and Stoughton, Auckland, 1983

125

Martin, Kene Hine Te Uira, ‘Kawiti Te Ruki’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 30 October 2012, URL:http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies

McKinnon, Malcolm, ed, New Zealand Historical Atlas, Bateman, 1997

Morris, Paula, Rangatira, Penguin Books, Auckland, 2011

New Zealand Business Who’s Who, from 1960s, New Zealand Financial Press Limited

Piripi, Morore, ‘History of Ngatiwai’, Te Ao Hou, no 37, December 1961

Pool, Ian, The Maori Population of New Zealand, 1769-1971, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1977

Puckey, Adrienne, Trading Cultures: A History of the Far North, Huia, Wellington, 2011

Ringer, Mim, ‘Fraser, William Mackenzie’, from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara- the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 25 September 2013, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/4f23/fraser-william-mackenzie

Ward, Alan, A Show of Justice: Racial ‘Amalgamation’ in Nineteenth Century New Zealand, Australian National University Press, Canberra, 1974

Williams, David, V, ‘Te Kooti Tango Whenua’: The Native Land Court 1864-1909, Huia, Wellington, 1999

126

NEWSPAPERS

Auckland Star Evening Post Northern Advocate New Zealand Herald

Te Ao Hau

THESES

Boniface, H G ‘Foxton: Its Site and Changing Functions’, MA thesis in Geography, Canterbury University College, Christchurch, 1947

REPORTS AND DOCUMENT BANKS

Alexander, David, ‘Land-Based Resources, Waterways and Environmental Impacts’, 2006, Crown Forestry Rental Trust (CFRT), Wai 1040, #A12, #A12a

Anderson, Robyn and Keith Pickens, ‘Wellington District: Port Nicholson, Hutt Valley, Porirua, Rangitikei, and Manawatu’, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series (Working Paper First Release), Wellington, 1996

Armstrong, David and E Subasic, ‘Northern Land and Politics, 1860-1910’, CFRT, 2010, Wai 1040, #A12 and #A12a

Armstrong, David, Vincent O’Malley, and Bruce Stirling, ‘Northland Language, Culture and Education, Part Two: Wahi Tapu, Taonga and Te Reo Maori’, CFRT, August 2008, Wai 1040, #A14

Bassett, Heather; Steel, Rachel; Williams, David, ‘Maori Land Legislation Manual’, vol 2, CFRT, 1994

127

Bassett, Heather and Richard Kay, ‘Tai Tokerau Maori Land Development Schemes 1930-1990, (Whangaroa, Hokianga, Bay of Islands, Whangarei and Mahurangi Inquiry Districts)’, CFRT, 2006, Wai 1040, #A10

Basset Kay Research, ‘Local Government, Rating and Native Township Scoping Report’, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2012 (for the Taihape District Inquiry)

Beaglehole, Ann, ‘Selected Indexed Document Bank on Land Development Opportunities for Maori and non-Maori in the Whanganui Inquiry District 1894-1930’, Waitangi Tribunal, 2009, Wai 903

Bennion, Tom, ‘Maori and Rating Law’, Rangahaua Whanui National Theme 1, Waitangi Tribunal, 1997

Berghan, Paula, ‘Block Research Narratives of the Urewera, 1870-1930’, CFRT, 2001

Berghan, Paula, ‘Block Research Narratives of the Tararua, 1870-2000’, CFRT, 2002

Berghan, Paula ‘Block Research Narratives of the Whanganui District, 1865-2000’, Waitangi Tribunal, 2003

Berghan, Paula, ‘Block Research Narratives of the Tongariro National Park District, 1865-2000’, CFRT, 2004

Berghan, Paula, ‘Heretaunga-Tamatea Block Research Narratives’, CFRT, 2007

Berghan, Paula, ‘Northland Block Research Narratives’, vol IV, Native Land Court Blocks, 1865-2005, vol 1, CFRT, 2006, Wai 1040, #A39c

Berghan, Paula, ‘Supporting Papers for Northland Block Research Narratives Native Land Court Blocks, 1865-2005, vol 1, CFRT, 2006, Wai 1040, #A39n

128

Clayworth, Peter, ‘“Located on the Precipices and Pinnacles”: A Report on the Waimarino Non-Seller Blocks and Seller Reserves’, Waitangi Tribunal, 2004

Cleaver, Philip, ‘Matahina Block’, Waitangi Tribunal, December 1999

Cleaver, Philip, ‘The Taking of Maori Land for Public Works in the Whanganui District’, Waitangi Tribunal, 2003

Collins, Damian and Robert Kearns, ‘Ngunguru Sandspit: Values, Community and Property on the Northland Coast’, Working Paper no 40, School of Environment, the University of Auckland, March 2010

Committee to review operations of the Maori Trustee, ‘The Role of the Maori Trustee, May 1979

Cookson-Ua, Kere T, ‘Te Awa-o-Tukorako & Whareroa Blocks’, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996

Gilling, Bryan D, ‘Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko Lands’, an interim report for the Ihaia Taueki Trust, March 1994

Gilling, Bryan D, ‘A Land of Fighting and Trouble’: The Rangitikei-Manawatu Purchase, commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, Wellington, May 2000

Gould, Ashley, ‘Maori Land Development Schemes, Generic Overview, c1920-1993’, CFRT, 2004, summary, pp 5-6, Wai 1200, #A67

Hearn, T J, ‘Social and Economic Change in Northland c.1900 to c1945: The Role of the Crown and the Place of Maori’, CFRT, 2006, Wai 1040, #A3, #A3a

Hearn, T J, ‘The Waitangi Tribunal Porirua ki Manawatu Inquiry District: A Technical Research Scoping Report’, CFRT, 2010

129

Henare, Manuka, Petrie, Hazel, Puckey, Adrienne, ‘“He Whenua Rangatira”: Northern Tribal Landscape Overview (Hokianga, Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Whangarei, Mahurangi and Gulf Islands)’, CFRT, 2009, Wai 1040, #A37

Hunn, J K, ‘Report on the Department of Maori Affairs’, 24 August 1960

Johnston, P T and P N Macdonald, ‘Puhiwai block: Whangapoua Forest Licence’, CFRT, 1993

Lange, Raeburn, ‘The Social Impact of Colonization and Land Loss on the Iwi of the Rangitikei, Manawatu and Horowhenua Region, 1840-1960’, CFRT, 2000

Loveridge, Donald, M, ‘Maori Land Councils and Maori Land Boards: A Historical Overview, 1900-1952’, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, December 1996

Luiten, Jane, ‘Whanganui ki Porirua’, supporting documents part 1, supporting documents to the exploratory report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal on early crown purchases, March, 1992

Luiten, Jane, ‘Local Government on the East Coast’, commissioned by History Works for CFRT, 2009

Luiten, Jane, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’, Waitangi Tribunal, 2011 (for the Te Rohe Potae Casebook Research Programme)

Marr, Cathy, ‘The Waimarino Purchase Report: The investigation, purchase and creation of reserves in the Waimarino block, and associated issues’, commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2004

Marr, Cathy, ‘Public Works takings of Maori land, 1840-1981’, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui series, (working paper first release) 1997

McBurney, Peter, ‘Northland: Public Works & Other Takings: c.1871-1993’, CFRT, 2007

130

Melvin, Matt, ‘Te Keti Block History’, Waitangi Tribunal, July 1997

Moore, D, Rigby, B, Russell, M, ‘Old Land Claims’, Rangahaua Whanui National Theme A, Waitangi Tribunal, 1997

Morrow, Diana, ‘Iwi Interests in the Manawatu, c.1820-c.1910’, a report for the Office of Treaty Settlements, May 2002

Neal, John, ‘Tairua Block’, Waitangi Tribunal, 1998

Oliver, Steven and Lecia Schuster, ‘Ohura South Block: A Draft Scoping Report’, Waitangi Tribunal, 2004

Pritchard, Ivor and Waetford, Hemi Tono, ‘Report of Committee of Inquiry into Laws Affecting Maori Land and Powers of the Maori Land Court’, 15 December 1965, Government Printer

Report of the Committee to Investigate Problems associated with farming Maori Leasehold Land, ‘Farming Maori Leasehold land’, 1977

‘Report of the Committee appointed to review the operations of the Maori Trustee’, ‘The Role of the Maori Trustee’, May 1979

Rigby, Barry, ‘Validation Review of the Crown’s tabulated data on land titling and alienation for the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry region: Crown purchases 1866-1900’, Waitangi Tribunal, 2016

Schmidt, Kieran and Fiona Small, ‘The Maori Trustee 1913-1953’, Twentieth Century Maori Land Administration Research Programme, May 1996, revised February 1998, Wai 1200, #A61

131

Stevens, Emma, ‘Socio-economic consequences of land loss for Maori in the Whanganui, Rangitikei, Manawatu and Horowhenua Districts, 1870-1960’, CFRT, 1997, Wai 903, #A32

Stirling, B, ‘”Eating Away at the land, Eating Away at the People”: Local Government, Rates and Maori in Northland’, CFRT, 2008, Wai 1040, #A15, #A15a

Taitoko, Wayne WW, ‘A History of the Tokanui Blocks’, Waitangi Tribunal, 1998

Ward, Alan, National Overview, vol 3, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, GP Publications, Wellington, 1997

STATEMENTS OF CLAIM

Violet Sade, Philip Marsh and Tahau Mahanga, Statement of Claim, Wai 1411 #1.1.1, 7 May 2007

Te Waiariki/Ngati Korora and Ngati Taka descendants, Statement of Claim, Wai 1412 #1.1.1, 7 May 2007

Violet Sade and others, Statement of Claim, Wai 1413 #1.1.1, 7 May 2007

Violet Sade, Philip Marsh and Tahau Mahanga, Statement of Claim, Wai 1414 #1.1.1, 7 May 2007

Violet Sade, Philip Marsh and Tahau Mahanga, Statement of Claim, Wai 1415 #1.1.1, 7 May 2007

132

BRIEFS OF EVIDENCE Briefs, before 2013 Bruce, W, ‘Brief of Evidence for Wai 620’, September 2013, #I18

Bruce, Waimarie, ‘Brief of Evidence of Waimarie Bruce’, Wai1040, #I18, 1 October 2013

Mahanga, Pereri, ‘Brief of Evidence of Pereri Mahanga’, 30 September 2013, Wai 1040 and Wai 620

Paraone-Kawiti, Mitai, ‘Brief of Evidence of Mitai Paraone Kawiti’, 20 December 2005

Paraone-Kawiti, Mitai, ‘Second Brief of Evidence of Mitai Paraone Kawiti’, 6 February 2006

Paraone-Kawiti, Mitai, ‘Third Brief of Evidence of Mitai Paraone Kawiti’, 24 May 2010, Wai 1040?

Norris, Mira, ‘Brief of Evidence of Mira Norris, Wai 1040, 2013?

Sade, V, ‘Brief of Evidence for Wai 620 & 1411-1416’, September 2013, #AI19

‘Sade, Violet Hazel Rata’, Wai 1040, #I19, 1 October 2013

Briefs, 2016 Fletcher, Marina, ‘Brief of Evidence of Marina Fletcher’, Wai 1040, 14 February 2016

Henare, Ngaire, Elizabeth, ‘Brief of Evidence of Ngaire Elizabeth Henare in support of the claims’, 29 January 2016, Wai 620, 1411-1416, 2239, Wai 1040

Hopkins, Keatley, ‘Brief of Evidence of Keatley Hopkins’, 18 August 2016, Wai 2561, Wai 2544

133

Mahanga, Arthur, ‘Brief of Evidence of Arthur Mahanga’, and Annexures, 5 February 2016, Wai 1040, Wai 620, Wai 1681, Wai 1683

Mahanga, Pereri, ‘Second Brief of Evidence of Pereri Mahanga in support of the claims’, 29 September 2016, Wai 620, 1411-1416, 2239, Wai 1040

Mahanga, Te Maawe, ‘Brief of Evidence of Te Maawe Mahanga’, 5 February 2016, Wai 1040, Wai 620, Wai 1681, Wai 1683

Paraone-Kawiti, Mitai, ‘Brief of Evidence of Mitai Paraone-Kawiti in support of the claims’, 28 January 2016, Wai 620, 1411-1416, 2239, Wai 1040

Tautari, Marie, ‘Brief of Evidence of Marie Tautari’, 9 February 2016, Wai 1040, Wai 156

WAI 1040 ROI ‘PAPERS IN PROCEEDINGS’ DOCUMENTS

Moorsom, Richard, Chief Historian, ‘Te Paparahi o Te Raki: Local Issues Research Review’, October 2013, Waitangi Tribunal Unit, #6.2.13

Moorsom, Richard, Chief Historian, ‘Te Paparahi o Te Raki: Local Issues Research Programme: Selection of land blocks for case studies’, 15 May 2014, Waitangi Tribunal Unit, #6.2.15

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDED HEARING

2011 Chief Judge MB 421

OFFICIAL INFORMATION

AJHR, 1877, G-1, ‘Reports from Officers in Native Districts’

AJHR, 1881, G-4, ‘Reports from Officers in Native Districts’

134

AJHR, 1884, vol 2, G, Native Affairs

AJHR, 1896, H-13B, ‘Census of the Maori Population’, pp 7-8

AJHR, 1901, H-26B, ‘Census of the Maori Population’, p 16

AJHR, 1906, H-26A, ‘Census of the Maori Population’, p 18

AJHR, G1, 1908, ‘Native Lands and Native-Land Tenure: Interim Report of Native Land Commission, on Native Lands in the counties of Whangarei, Hokianga, Bay of Islands, Whangaroa, and Mangonui’, 10 June 1908

AJHR, 1911, H-14A, ‘Census of the Maori Population’, p 21

AJHR, 1917, H-39A, ‘Census of the Maori Population’, p 6

AJHR, 1921, H-39A, ‘Census of the Maori Population’, pp 3-5

AJHR, 1931, vol 2, G-10, ‘Native Land Development: Statement by Hon Sir Apirana Ngata, Native Minister, pp 1-23

AJHR, 1940, G-10, report by Board of Native Affairs, ‘Native Land Development and the Provision of Houses for Maoris, including Employment Promotion’, p 3

Legislative Council

New Zealand Gazette

Native/Maori Land Court, Whangarei, correspondence files and minute books

New Zealand Statutes, 1877, Wellington, Government Printer

Te Kahiti (Maori Gazette) 1877

135

WEBSITES AND WEB-BASED INFORMATION

Complete list of all Judges – Maori Land Court, URL: http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/maori-land-court/about-us/our-judges, accessed 2 March 2016

Barrington, Mike, ‘Whangarei Report’, URL: http://readnow.isentia.com

Controller and Auditor-General, ‘Status of Maori Land: Maori land- What is it and How is it Administered?’, URL: http://www.oag.govt.nz/2004/maori-land-court), accessed March 2016

Controller and Auditor-General, ‘Summary of legislation about Maori Land’, URL: http://www.oag.govt.nz/2011/housing-on-maori-land, accessed 4 April 2016)

Landcare research: URL: http://whenuaviz.landcareresearch.co.nz/parcel/32784

‘Maori Land Online’ data base, URL: http://www.maorilandonline.govt.nz/gis/title/search.htm, accessed 4 April 2016)

Mrs Pat Heffey, Ngunguru Sandspit, Historical Timeline, URL: https://docs.indymedia.org/Aoteaaroa/Ngunguru) ‘North Island Flax Mills by site’, URL: http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/Flax%20Mills/North%20Island/North%20by

Ngatiwai Trust Board, URL: http://www.ngatiwai.iwi.nz

Northland Room Digital Collections, Whangarei Library, URL: http://whangarei.recollect.co.nz/nodes/index/q:ANQM, accessed 5 February 2016

Office of the Auditor General (OAG), Appendix, ‘Summary of legislation about Maori Land’, URL: http://www.oag.govt.nz/2011/housing-on-maori-land-appendix.htm

Radio New Zealand, URL: http://www.radionz/news/regional

136

Te Ara/DNZB, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz

The University of Auckland, Maori Land Legislation Timeline, 1880-1998, URL: http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/subject-guides/maori/guides/maori land, accessed 11 February 2015

URL: http: www.tourismradio.co.nz/shop/regions/Northland/Scenic+highlights/Kiripaka

INTERVIEWS, PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND EMAILS TO AUTHOR

Violet Sade, interviewed by Ann Beaglehole, 23 January 2015, Whangarei

Violet Sade, phone conversations with Ann Beaglehole on 9 December 2012, 28 May 2015

Marie Tautari, email message to Barry Rigby, 17 April 2015

Marie Tautari, telephone conversation with Ann Beaglehole, 5 May 2015

Marie Tautari, email to Ann Beaglehole, 5 May 2015

Marie Tautari, telephone conversation with Ann Beaglehole, 18 May 2015

Marie Tautari, interviewed by Ann Beaglehole, 22 May 2015, Wellington

Murphy Mahanga, interviewed by Barry Rigby 18 June 2015

Ken McDonald, interviewed by Barry Rigby, 14 January 2016

Nigel Miller, Department of Conservation, email to Ann Beaglehole, 25 July 2016

137

APPENDIX

RESEARCH COMMISSIONS, Wai 1040, #2.3.15 AND #2.3.72

138 Wai 1040, #2.3.15

Wai 1040

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

AND the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry

DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH 1. Pursuant to clause 5A of the second schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal commissions Dr Ann Beaglehole, a member of the Tribunal’s staff, to prepare a local study of titling, alienation, land administration, and development issues concerning the Horahora block, to the extent that they are not adequately covered by existing scholarship and by evidence on the Te Paparahi o Te Raki record of inquiry. 2. The report should address the following matters: a) How were title and the initial subdivision of the Horahora block determined? How did the Native Land Court operate in this block and with what outcomes for those with interests in the block? Did pre-title purchasing transactions play any role? To what extent did this process and outcomes reflect the preferences of local communities with interests in the block? How did the Crown respond to any Māori protests over this and what were the outcomes for the owners, including the ability of owners to continue to manage their land collectively? b) How did the protection mechanisms provided by the Crown operate in respect of the titling, alienation and administration of land in the Horahora block? To what extent were Māori who wished to retain ownership and control of their land able to utilise the protections for their purposes, such as for reserves, wāhi tapu or commercial development? How did the Crown monitor the implementation of protections and respond to any difficulties with them raised by owners? What were the outcomes for Horahora owners? c) To what extent were Horahora lands alienated from Māori ownership and what were the major forms of alienation and in what periods? To what extent were these alienations the result of pre-title purchasing transactions, of fees or costs imposed on owners for determining or administering title, or of compulsory processes such as public works takings, rates demands, takings as the result of noxious weeds or compulsory vesting? How did the Crown monitor alienations in the block to ensure communities linked to Horahora retained sufficient land for their needs? What were the outcomes for Horahora owners and their communities? d) To what extent was the Crown, as well as any delegated territorial or special purpose authorities, involved in any such alienation and through what practices and processes, such as the use of monopoly purchase powers? When purchasing, what prices were paid and how did they compare with any valuations, on-selling returns and prices paid in nearby blocks, where known? To what extent did the Crown factor in the value of any timber, minerals or other

resources on the lands purchased? How did the Crown respond to any protest or complaints regarding the actions of Crown purchase agents and with what outcomes for owners? e) To what extent were Horahora lands remaining in Māori ownership subject to Crown policies and practices intended to overcome title fragmentation and other difficulties identified in the form of Māori title provided? This includes title reform such as amalgamation and consolidation and institutional measures such as block committees, trusts and incorporations, and vesting in Māori land boards. To what extent were these reforms and measures implemented by compulsion in the Horahora block, such as by compulsory vesting, conversion and Europeanisation of Māori land interests? To what extent did the Crown obtain consent from Horahora block owners before implementing such measures? What were the outcomes for Horahora owners and their ability to manage their lands, including for the commercial utilisation of their land? f) What kinds of Crown assistance were available to Horahora owners to manage and utilise their lands as they wished and to what extent were owners able to take advantage of it? To what extent and on what basis were Crown agencies such as the Tokerau Māori Land Council/Board, the Department of Māori Affairs and the Māori Trustee involved in the development and administration of Horahora land? To what extent did these agencies provide technical and financial assistance to Horahora owners, either directly or through state-run initiatives such as land development schemes? What was their relationship with the Māori owners? What kinds of obstacle, if any, did Horahora owners experience in obtaining such assistance and how did the Crown respond to any difficulties raised by owners? What were the outcomes for owners?

3. The commission commenced on 28 October 2014. A complete draft of the report is to be submitted by 24 July 2015 and will be distributed to all parties. 4. The commission ends on 30 October 2015, at which time the report must be submitted for filing in unbound form, together with indexed copies of any supporting documents. An electronic copy of the report and supporting documents should also be provided in PDF file format. The report, the accompanying supporting papers and any subsequent evidential material based on it must be filed through the Registrar. 5. The report may be received as evidence and the author may be cross-examined on it. 6. The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to: Dr Ann Beaglehole Claimant counsel and unrepresented claimants in the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry (Wai 1040) Chief Historian, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Principal Research Analyst, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Manager – Research and Inquiry Facilitation Services, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Inquiry Supervisor, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Local Issues Research Programme Supervisor, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Inquiry Facilitator(s), Waitangi Tribunal Unit Solicitor-General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements

2

Chief Executive, Crown Forestry Rental Trust Chief Executive, Te Puni Kōkiri

DATED at Rotorua this 12th day of December 2014

Judge C T Coxhead Presiding Officer WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

3 Wai 1040, #2.3.72

Wai 1040

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

AND the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry

DIRECTION CONCERNING COMMISSIONED RESEARCH

1. On 12 December 2014, the Tribunal commissioned Dr Ann Beaglehole, a member of the Tribunal’s staff, to prepare a local study of titling, alienation, land administration, and development issues concerning the Horahora block as part of the Local Issues Research Programme for the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry (#2.3.15). The deadline for filing all evidence to be taken as read, including this report, was 28 October 2016 (#2.6.175).

2. I am advised that Dr Beaglehole has been, and will continue to be, unable to complete her local study of the Horahora block owing to prolonged illness. The commission is hereby cancelled.

3. Pursuant to clause 5A of the second schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal commissions Dr Barry Rigby, a member of the Tribunal’s staff, to complete the research specified in the original commission (#2.3.15).

4. The commission ends on Friday 18 November 2016, at which time the report must be submitted for filing in unbound form, together with indexed copies of any supporting documents. An electronic copy of the report and supporting documents should also be provided in PDF file format. The report, the accompanying supporting papers and any subsequent evidential material based on it must be filed through the Registrar.

5. The report may be received as evidence and the author may be cross- examined on it.

6. The Registrar is to send copies of the report and this direction to: Dr Ann Beaglehole Dr Barry Rigby Claimant counsel and unrepresented claimants in the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry Chief Historian, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Principal Research Analyst, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Manager Research and Inquiry Facilitation, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Inquiry Supervisor, Waitangi Tribunal Unit Inquiry Facilitator(s), Waitangi Tribunal Unit

Solicitor-General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Chief Executive, Crown Forestry Rental Trust Chief Executive, Te Puni Kōkiri

Dated at Wellington this 1st day of November 2016.

Judge C T Coxhead Presiding Officer WAITANGI TRIBUNAL