Huharua, Pukewhanake and Nga Kuri a Wharei

Home , Bay of Plenty, Otawa, Tahawai, Te Puna, Te Ranga, Te Wairoa (iwi)

HUHARUA, PUKEWHANAKE, AND NGA KUru A WHAREI

Heather Bassett Richard Kay

A research report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal forWai 47

December 1996 238 J ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Figures 3 "11

Introduction 4 The Claim 4 :l

1. Buharua 6 '''-.- 1.1 Introduction 6 ~ 1.2 Raupatu and the Creation of Reserves 6 1.3 Alienation of Maori Reserves 12 1.4 Control, Management and Access to Huharua 17 J 1.5 Summary 20

2. Pukewhanake 22 J 2.1 Location and People ofPukewhanake 22 2.2 Raupatu West of the Wairoa River 23 2.3 Lot 178 Parish ofTe Puna 26 :1 2.4 Control, Use and Management ofPukewhanake 27 2.5 Summary 31 :J 3. Nga Kuri a Wharei 33 3.1 Traditional Boundary: 'Mai Tikirau ki Nga Kuri a Wharei' 33 :1 3.2 Raupatu Boundary 35 3.3 Summary 37 ] Bibliography 39

Appendix One: Statement of Claim, Wai 47 41 :J :J .J J "1 L

~ 1 ! u

, '

,- ..

2 239

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Cultural Sites Around Tauranga Harbour (from Stokes, 1992, p 45)

Figure 2: Fords from Plummers Point (from WI 35/161 Omokoroa - Te Puna, National Archives Wellington)

Figure 3: Reserves in the Katikati Te Puna Purchase (from Stokes, 1990, p 192)

Figure 4: Lot 210 Parish ofTe Puna (ML423A)

Figure 5: Plummers Point 1886 (SO 5222)

Figure 6: Lot 178 Parish ofTe Puna Today (SDIMap)

Figure 7: Pa Sites on the Wairoa River 1864 (from Kahotea, 1996)

Figure 8: Boundaries of the Katikati Te Puna Purchases (from Stokes, 1996)

Figure 9: Plan of Native Reserves (ML 9760)

Figure 10: Pukewhanake 1 October 1996 (Photos by author)

Figure 11: Plan of the "Ngaiterangi" Purchase Deed (from Stokes, 1996)

Figure 12: Plan of the Tawera Purchase Deed (from Stokes, 1996)

Figure 13: Plan of the "Pirirakau" Purchase Deed (from Stokes, 1996)

Figure 14: Boundaries of the Katikati Te Puna Purchases (from Stokes, 1996)

Figure 15: Nga Kuri a Wharei and the Confiscation Line (from Stokes, Whanau a Tauwhao, p 19)

3 240

1. INTRODUCTION

My name is Heather Bassett. I have a Bachelor of Arts Honours degree, majoring in history, from Waikato University. From 1993 to 1995 I worked as a researcher for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, during which time I co-authored the Maori Land Legislation Manual. I was a staff member at the Waitangi Tribunal from June 1995 to October 1996, and have written research reports on the Otawa No 2 blocks (Wai 210) and the urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini (Wai 342 and Wai 370). I am now working as a contract historian based in Auckland.

My name is Richard James Kay. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in history, from Otago University and a Master of Arts Honours degree, majoring in history, from Waikato University. I have a Diploma of Teaching (secondary) from the Auckland College of Education. Since 1994 I have been teaching history and classical studies in Wellington. I am now based in Auckland and this is my third report for the Waitangi Tribunal.

All opinions, unless otherwise stated, are those of the authors. This report is a historical narrative, largely compiled from written sources. Although traditional evidence is cited, the report does not claim to speak for Maori. It is anticipated that the evidence produced in this report will be supplemented at Tribunal hearings by submissions from those Maori affected by the events herein described.

The Claim (see Appendix One)

The Wai 47 statement of claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal in February 1990. The claim was made on behalf of Ngati Pukenga, Ngaiterangi and Ngati Ranginui by William Ohia, who was then the chair of the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board. The claim lists several grievances relating to the whole of Tauranga Moana, including raupatu, compensation paid under the Tauranga Moana Trust Board Act 1981, Tauranga Harbour, and specific sites of significance.

This report has been produced as a result of a commission from the Tribunal to research one aspect of the Wai 47 claim: 5. The failure of the Crown to provide for the control and management by the claimant iwi and hapu of reserve areas and wahi tapu of special significance to them, namely:

Mauao (Mount Maunganui) Mangatawa Hill (Maunga Mana) Pukewhanake Otawhiwhi Reserve Nga Kuri a Wharei Huharua (plummers Point) Monmouth Redoubt

4 241

Mauao and Monmouth Redoubt are under research as part of commissions for other Tauranga claims (Wai 540 and Wai 580 respectively). This report covers Huharua, Pukewhanake and Nga Kuri a Wharei. Separate reports have also been completed under this research commission for Mangatawa and Otawhiwhi. There is also another statement of claim that is relevant to this report. Wai 611 was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1996 by Charles Tangitu on behalf of Ngati Ranginui. Wai 611 claims that the Crown has breached the Treaty with regard to the Tauranga Harbour, Mauao, the offshore islands, and Pukewhanake.

5 242

1. HUHARUA (PLUMMERS POINT)

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Plummers Point is a narrow peninsula of land that is located centrally on the western shores of Tauranga Harbour on the Te Puna Estuary between Omokoroa and Te Puna (see Figure 1). It looks north easterly towards Matakana and Motuhoa Islands and the entrance to Tauranga Harbour, and is at the mouth of the Te Puna River, where a tidal estuary is formed It is located on an estuary that today is a quiet semi-residential enclave with a shoreline fringed with willow trees, a jetty, boat-ramp, and camping ground. Historically peninsulas on this part of the harbour have been places to ford between the points of land. Plummers Point was an invaluable communication link between settlements at Omokoroa and Te Puna (see Figure 2). It was also the site of a deep water wharf and road link during the early part of this century. Similarly, for pre-European Maori the area was significant as a place to ford the point over to Omokoroa as well as being a valuable kai moana resource, with its shellfish beds near the shoreline and sheltered fishing grounds in the estuary. Today it is still considered wahi tapu by local Maori with its urupa, pa and kainga sites.

There are at least three important pa sites on the point of land between Te Puna and Omokoroa (see Figure 1). At the northern point were two pa, called Ongarahu and Huharua which, according to one source, were linked by an underground tunnel. l These pa were the site of important battles, and consequently there were many burial grounds in the area. Huharua has also been identified by D. Borell as the home of Pirirakau after Ngati Ranginui were defeated at Mauao by Ngaiterangi. 2 Further down the Te Puna estuary there is another point of land which was Te Hopuni pa.

In the nineteenth century the name 'Huharua' seems to have been used to refer to the whole point of land, rather than the specific pa site. References made to the 'Huharua reserve' probably do not mean Huharua pa, as the reserves made for Maori in this area were actually limited to three small areas of land south of Huharua itself. This report looks at the Crown acquisition of the area now known as Plummers Point, and the allocation of reserves there for certain Maori. Details are given of the subsequent alienation of those reserves, and then some examples are given that illustrate Maori concerns about the management of wahi tapu at Huharua.

1.2 RAUPATU AND THE CREATION OF RESERVES

Legal title to land at Plummers Point derives from the confiscation of the Tauranga district in 1865, and the subsequent purchase of the Katikati and Te Puna blocks by Crown agents. It is not the intention of this report to provide an historical account of the circumstances surrounding the purchase, and readers requiring further detail should consult reports which have been prepared for the Wai 215 inquiry, such as Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga

I Personal communication, Patrick Nicholas, 24 September 1996 2 Tauranga Historical Society, 'Report on Pa Sites Between Pahoia and the Waimapu Stream', 1969, Tauranga Public Library, Konae Maori, Archaeology

6 .." i 243

! OMOKOROA POINT. I I . 5"4.

I ~I ~I II J, ~I ~ I ~/ I J

/ / ZZ5' / 81·Z· o. // ] P/un."ne,/ / / \~ 1 /./ / "

, 1

IV TA·URANGA s. D. , 1 .$CA~IE. lOCH. TO I/W. 244

Lands, and Hazel Riseborough, 'The Crown and Tauranga Moana,.3 This report gives a brief outline of the confiscation and purchase of land at Tauranga, and then looks at the creation of a reserve for Maori at Huharua.

The Katikati Te Puna Purchase

The entire Tauranga district (approximately 290,000 acres4), from Nga Kuri a Wharei to Wairakei, was initially confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 on 18 May 1865.5 During peace negotiations held between Governor Grey and some Tauranga chiefs, Grey promised that only one-quarter of the confiscated lands would be retained by the Crown, and the remaining three-quarters would be returned to Maori ownership. However, out of the three-quarters returned to Maori, the Crown immediately arranged to purchase a substantial area north of the Te Puna Stream, amounting to 93,188 acres.6 This area has become known as the 'Katikati Te Puna Purchase'.

The purchase was achieved by a series of deeds signed by various groups of Maori. Initially the purchase was made from only eight Ngaiterangi chiefs, as described by '1'1 Professor Keith Sorrenson: ill late in August a party of chiefs visited Auckland to urge Grey to return their land. After discussions they returned home prepared to sell the Katikati Te Puna block to the Government. Clarke wasted no time in making a deal with these chiefs. On 26 August he paid them £1000 for the land. Only eight chiefs of the Ngaiterangi tribe signed this agreement - Enoka, Hohepa, Parere, Turere, Tomika, Reeia, Hamiora Tu and Tamati Hawao. Some of them had not been engaged in the fighting and had little claim to the block. This could not be considered a complete or valid purchase. Important Ngaiterangi chiefs including Tupaea, were not included; and other tribes who had claims to the block were completely ignored. The purchase created a great deal of dissatisfaction among left out claimants... 7

As a result of protests and petitions by other Maori with claims to the blocks, Civil Commissioners James Mackay Jr and Henry Clarke held a series of arbitrations on the Katikati Te Puna blocks. Records of the commissioners' decisions can be found in Stokes, Te Raupatu of Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands.8 As a result, payments were made to other tribes and more payments were made to members ofNgaiterangi. The commissioners also agreed to set aside certain reserves, such as urupa and .1 kainga, for Maori within the purchased area.

3 Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, 1990 (Wai 215, A2), Hazel Riseborough, 'The Crown and Tauranga Moana', Crown '1 Forestry Rental Trust, 1994, (Wai 215, A23). The summary of the purchase provided in this report , largely follows Rachael Willan, 'Katikati Railway Station Report', Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, pp 9-12. i. j 4 'Report of the Royal commission on Confiscated lands and other Grievances', Appendices to the Journals ofthe House o/Representatives (AJHR), 1928, G-7, p 19 • 1 5 New Zealand Gazette, 1865, p 187 I t. j 6 Vmcent O'Malley, 'The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu', An overview report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1995 (Wai 215, A22), p 5 7 M.P.K. Sorrenson, 'Tauranga Confiscation: Submission to Select Committee on Maori Affairs', 4 September 1978, reproduced in the Raupatu Document Bank, vol 139, pp 53355-53356 8 Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands, University ofWaikato, 1992, pp 87-:116

7 ------.~ Otahopu Korokoto • Trrohanga • Pukeroa ~. p:: Moturiki 'f.. ~ .Kikahek~ ~

~ ,., ~ t Pukemanuka \V\ Ote.hi. 8 Rangiata 8

Tahutaru Wa·lhire~ ~ Matakana 8,10puh·1 o Ratah·, \ .... TAURAN G A Kohomaru MOA N A c..P", \ "") Ahimate (0 1 0 1 2 km 1'11"",,1 , , MatO- 1 whairere - ·'Rauhuia

..;( o Peterehema Ongarohu 0:' \ ~wa'd5i o Huharua- ."-l T E PUNA BETHLEHEM ~ Pukewhanake 8 ..;( I o TePura ..;( -(Wairoa) N .J:::. a.. ..;( ~ U1 ..;( .0.. o Paerang,. .8 • PA PukekOOll' 246 '}

Throughout this period the claims of Pirirakau concerning ownership of the Te Puna 1 lands were consistently denied by Mackay and Clarke. Pirirakau had not surrendered to the Cro~ and refused to take part in the negotiations to sell the Katikati Te Puna blocks. When explaining why he did not need to get the consent of Pirirakau to the sale, Mackay described them as 'vassals ofHori Tupaea'. Mackay wrote: Some of them had inter-married with Ngatihaua and Ngaiterangi and had become to a certain extent incorporated into the latter tribe. They set up a claim to all the land from Te Wairoa to Waipapa and thence back to the range between the Thames and Tauranga. This was denied by the whole of the Ngaiterangi and Hori Tupaea. They contended that the Pirirakau claims were confined to the back forest between Te Wairoa and Te Puna; and that those were only the rights of a debased tribe the 'mana' was with them. Hohepa Hikutaia enraged them very much be saying they were 'he pataka kai no te Rangihouhiri' (a food store of the Rangihouhiri, the great conqueror :1 of Tauranga, and from whom Hohepa Hikutaia was descended). The Ngaiterangi allowed the claim of the old ChiefMangapoharu, of the Pirirakau, to some of the land near the coast between Te Wairoa and Waipapa. After the dispute between the ] Pirirakau and Hohepa Hikutaia they would not attend the meeting, and left on the 11 th July. I however saw Te Keepa Ringatu and others and offered to make a separate arrangement for payment for any claims which they could substantiate within the block under negotiation, and to make reserves where required. He approved of this :1 and went to his tribe to make the proposal. On the 12th July he wrote to say his tribe would not make any terms.

The whole of the people of this hapu have been in rebellion from the commencement of the war, and with the exception of Mangapohatu and his family were all Hauhau at the time of the meeting.9 It is interesting to note that despite saying Pirirakau had. no real claim to the area, Mackay was still trying to get their agreement to the purchase and was willing to make reserves for Pirirakau. By dismissing the hapu as 'hauhau', and subservient to the Ngaiterangi chiefs with whom he was negotiating, Mackay was able to deny their ancestral rights to the land that was being sold by certain Ngaiterangi chiefs.

Four different deeds of sale for the Katikati Te Puna blocks were signed on behalf of various tribes (Ngatihura, Tawera, Ngatipukenga, Ngatimaru, Ngatitamatera, and Ngaiterangi) in 1866. Although Pirirakau's claims had. been denied in 1866, five years later they did receive a payment for the purchase. This was recorded in the Te Puna and Katikati No 5 Deed, which was signed on 16 May 1871. The deed said that £1,471 had been paid by H. T. Clarke to the: Chiefs and People of the Tribe Pirirakau and Ngatibinerangi . . . in consideration of the claims of these three hapus (viz. Pirirakau, Ngatihinerangi and Ngatitokotoko) to the land sold by all the Ngaiterangi to the Government. IO • 1

9 James Mackay Jr 'Report on the Katikati Purchase and other questions relating to the District of Tauranga, 1867', in Stokes, 1992, p 110 ' 10 Deed No 462, cited in Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, A Report Prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal. University ofWaikato, 1990, p 246

8 247

Historians have argued, given the circumstances in which the purchase was made, that it was, in effect a compulsory sale, and part of the confiscation of the Tauranga district. Stokes has commented: Ifl· The Katikati Te Puna Purchase, in the circumstances, must be seen as having the nature of a compulsory purchase. There were certainly many unwilling sellers and subsequent disputes over the 'rights' of"Ngaiterangi chiefs" to sell. II n And: Local people, however, were not really in a position to negotiate the terms of purchase and had little choice but to accept the government's offer.12

The arbitrations which occurred after the initial agreement to purchase had been made were really to decide who should receive payment for the block rather than to obtain consent to the sale.

It is not only revisionist historians who have described the purchase as a form of confiscation. One contemporary Crown official, at least, felt the same way about the purchase. In 1865 William Fox, the Colonial Secretary, wrote to Governor Grey: the Colonial Secretary expects unlimited claims of the same sort as these wherever the Cession principle may be attempted, none of which would probably have been heard of had the principle laid down in His Excellency's proclamation of 11th July 1863 been consistently adhered to and made the basis of what is after all a forced acquisition of native lands under the colour ofa voluntary sale [emphasis added]. 13

Reserves for Maori at Huharua

When negotiating the Katikati Te Puna purchase, it was also Mackay's role to set aside reserves for Maori. In the Parish ofTe Puna, most of the reserves were set aside on Omokoroa Point (see Figure 3). The Plummers Point area was planned to be the site for the Township of Te Puna. The township had been surveyed into lots by T. Heale at the end of 1864.14

However, three lots in the proposed Township ofTe Puna were set aside for Maori by Mackay. These reserves were agreed to by Mackay after he had largely finished awarding reserves, and were made in recognition of occupation rights deriving from Ngati Haua's role in Tauranga. Stokes gives the following description ofNgati Haua's relationship with the people ofTauranga: Te Waharoa had called on Tauranga support in campaigns against Te Arawa in the 1830s, following the killing of his relation, Hunga, by Haerehuka of Te Arawa. This led to the taking of Maketu Pa, and the retaliatory attack by Te Arawa on the Tauranga people at Te Tumu in 1836. Ngati Haua lived at various times in the .,1 Tauranga district, often at Omokoroa, but also on Motuhoa, Matakana and

11 Stokes, 1990, p 45 12 Stokes, 1990, p 40 13 William Fox to Governor Grey, 24 September 1865, G 17/3 No 15, National Archives, Wellington 14 'Report by T. Heale, 7 April 1865, re surveys at Tauranga' in Raupatu Document Bank, vol 124, p ·47616·

1 j

L J ~-.-. .'..... " ~.' -or ,~""":""""~~''''''-:'~''.'''.~::":'"' .. _:._.~..:=~~~;.;.:;.~=--.:.:=..~ .. '• .;;.. ..._: .. _ ... ,_,. ~'_:':'1 _40', "~'''~~'- ;~:~'~~~~~Z~~~:-~:;:"'~"':;.-:::-.:~.--~'~'t-""" ".~ -- .: .. ,._'---=-:'-'-'.-

N ,J::. 00

PARISH OF TAHAWAI

-n-, (J> t "\ (\) \)J -., I .... I --; , \ PARISH OF '\ \ TE PUNA PARISH OF , \ '-, I \ , TEMANIA I , '-, , , ...... I , PARISH OF APATA I Boundary I I Katlkati - PARISH OF \ I \ Te Puna: KATIKATI I I Purchase ( ,~,\ I --"' \ "\ r-" "',,\ "'''''''."~I \I '.... ,~ \ ""_...... -, II \ ,.; \ , ~ '01 \ ,.J KATIKATI - TE PUNA PURCHASE ""-., I (Sheet 2) ' ... 1 o 2 km \ « ,

. .... :1+ ~. ",'.- ,f,. '·,Ji:"1 -~ ,111 'I 1 ·<11_ ~- I I~ .Ai\. ' "'" ~ ""~. __ ._ ~~ ..".~=-oJ -.~-~,.I '~, .._ - ~ ~ ...... -...... ~ ~ ...... , ...... ~...tII n 249

Rangiwaea. Te Waharoa was on Motuhoa in 1836 when he took ill and was then n carried back to Matamata Pa where he died. His son Wiremu Tamihana Tarapipipi maintained the alliance with Tauranga Moana until his death in 1866. 15

]f.· J Mackay had earlier agreed to make other reserves for Ngati Haua, although they received no payment for the sale of the land. Mackay explained the Ngati Haua ,11 claims as follows in 1867: The Ngatihaua tribe represented by both loyal and rebel natives, only succeeded in making out claims to a piece of land about four hundred acres at Omokoroa, and also fifty acres at Purakaunui. (Memo. Another reserve of about eight acres was afterwards made ... 8 acres Huharua Reserve.) It appeared that at one time they had been entitled to occupy more land on account of the aid rendered to the Ngaiterangi by Te Waharoa (the father of William Thompson) in their wars with the Arawa and Thames tribes, but the Ngatihaua had given up all claims to these at a great meeting held some years ago at Ohuki, Tauranga. The pieces at Omokoroa and Purakaunui were reserved for them, this was however, much against the wish of the Ngaiterangi, 1]:t it . who would rather have seen them receive cash compensation.

It was evident that the Ngatihaua had no claim either through ancestry or conquest; but merely from being allowed to occupy for the reason above stated. Te Waharoa had asked for permission to do so in order to be near a port where he could obtain supplies of gunpowder from trading vessels. 16

The reserves made at Huharua were set aside after approaches from Ngati Tokotoko, regarding their rights, and those of Ngati Haua to land in the area Stokes gives the following account ofNgati Tokotokoand their relationship with Pirirakau and Ngati Haua: The Ngati Tokotoko and Ngati Hinerangi tribes occupied the Okauia area east of the Waihou River and into the Kaimai Ranges. They were a remant of Ngamarama who had been pushed eastward by the expansion of Ngati Raukawa and Ngait Halla, both ofTainui waka. They had close kin relationships with Pirirakau and Ngati Haua. Some of their ancestors were also among the Ngamarama who were dispossessed by Ngati Ranginui arrival in the lower Wairoa. However, many generations of intermarriage have made these kin relationsips difficult to unravel. In the 186Os, Ngati Tokotoko and Ngati Hinerangi ... maintained small settlements on the Tauranga side of the ranges. The Raukawa people were mainly in the lower Wairoa Valley; Ngati Tokotoko and others at Te Puna. 17

In November 1866 Mackay decided to reserve land for Ngati Haua at Huharua after being told by Ngati Tokotoko that Wiremu Tamihana had claims to the area: I visited Te Puna and some natives of the Ngatitokotoko hapu pointed out a piece of land at Huharua within the township surveyed by Capt Heale, about forty chains in length and two in width, or about eight acres, which they said William Thompson had formerly occupied. The Ngatihaua when present at the meeting in July 1866, never mentioned this piece, or made the slightest allusion to it. I however considered it expedient to reserve it and informed them it should be set apart. It appeared that

IS Stokes, 1990, p 171 16 James Mackay Jr 'Report on the Katikati Purchase and other questions relating to the District of Tauranga, 1867', in Stokes, 1992, p 109 f 1 17 Stokes, 1990, p 172

10 250 ]

Mangapohatu and the Ngatitokotoko had quarrelled about the land at Huharua and William Thompson was appealed to arrange it; he took possession of this strip to ], separate the disputants. 18 ] Although Mackay refers to an area of approximately 8 acres as the Huharua reserve, there were in fact three sections of land awarded to Maori. The area Mackay was probably referring to above was lot 214, which was 6 acres. Two other 50 acre reserves were also made; lot 210 and lot 211 (see Figure 3). J

Lot 210 was awarded to Pene Taka. This is a point of land on the eastern side of Plummers Point which extends into the Te Puna Estuary. Lot 210 included Te Hopuni rl pa site, which was marked on the survey plan of the reserve drawn up in 1874 (see Figure 4).19 It was later discovered that no Crown grant to Pene Taka was actually J issued at the time (see section 1.3 below). '

A Crown grant for lot 211 was issued on 3 June 1886.20 The grant was made under the Volunteers and Other Lands Act 1877 to the following Maori: Haehae Wharetakahia Hana Te Ruaone 1f1 Hera Te Ruaone Jrihapeti Haehae J Kahukoti Waitangi Karanama Te Tahatika Kiriwaitai Too Metera Metara Te Puru Mutu Te Tahatika ] Ngatapa Te Ruaone Paetutu Te Puru Pohei Te Tahatika Purangataua Te Puru Rangianewa Ratapa Purangataua ] Te Amo Te Hono Te Hira Te Makaka Te Puru Te Pum Te Mea ] Te Ratu Kahukoti Te Topehuia The reserve was a 50 acre strip of land south of lot 210. The grant was backdated to 15 December 1884. :1 Lot 214 was a 6 acre section which was awarded to Mere Taka.21 Interestingly, on a survey plan drawn up in 1886, it was only this section which was marked as a 'Native Reserve' .22

None of the Crown grants for the three lots record the hapu or iwi affiliation of the grantee. The identity of those persons named in the Crown grants is a matter that should be addressed by the claimants in their submission to the Tribunal.

Some members of Ngati Rangiwewehi also lived at Huharua. These were Te Arawa who had supported the Kingitanga and fought with Tauranga Maori, unlike other Te

., 18 James Mackay Jr 'Report on the Katikati Purchase and other questions relating to the District of , j Tauranga, 1867', in Stokes, 1992, p 116 19 Plan 423A 20 Particulars of Title, 13 July 1920, BCAC A187 Box 2172754 Te Puna Lot 211, National Archives (NA) Auckland 21 Particulars of Title, 1908, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NA Auckland 22 SO 5222

11 251 \ .-

....r."'J). ''''''' ...... {; ", .r, " ... ,'

.r .~ : ~·-U\~>d. i -~ ..';~t j <::~ j .-' 1 ~1 i ;

--.-~'~~."_-

OOt OOl o 001 OOl 009 09~ OlC nOb t"\..... t"\t"\_ ...... _ _ _ 252 J Arawa who had fought with the Crown.23 As a result they had stayed in Tauranga and j had been living on the Maori reserves at Omokoroa. Ngati Haua had leased their Omokoroa reserves to J. T. Gellibrand, and a dispute arose because the lease was opposed by other Maori in the area. Clarke resolved the dispute by arranging for Ngati Haua to sell the reserves to Gellibrand. He also encouraged Ngati Rangiwewehi 1 to agree to move to Huharua. 24 A census of the Maori population in 1881 recorded that 54 Ngati Rangiwewehi and 15 Ngati Rangi were living at Huharua.25 n 1.3 ALIENATION OF MAORI RESERVES it Lot 210 Parish ofTe Puna

On 2 June 1896 the Native Land Court appointed successors to Penetaka Tuaia, the J original owner of lot 210. The successors were: Mita Hamiora, Rikihana, Mere Hauporoa, Tuakiwaho Ihaka, Rauaka Ihaka, Wetea Ihaka, Te Tauawhi, and Hamiora Rahipera.26 Wetea Ihaka and Rauaka Ihaka were later succeeded to by Taukiwaho ] Ihaka. An earlier succession order had been made on 19 October 1893 in favour of Pumamao Puhirake and six others, but this order was never signed and sealed by the ~l Court, and was later marked as 'cancelled' .27

On 27 November 1915 Mita Hamiora, Rikihana, Taukiwaho Ihaka, Te Tauawhi, and ] Hamiora Rahipere signed a deed to sell lot 210 to Thomas Plummer for £250.28 The price was equivalent to the government valuation for the section.29 It appears that the alienation was confirmed by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board, subject to ] payment of the purchase price. 30

When arranging the sale, Plummer's solicitor, Tudhope, had checked the Native Land ] Court records to ascertain who held title to the land. After the transfer had been signed by those people named in the succession order of 1896, Tudhope requested the title to the land from the deeds office. It has then discovered that no Crown grant had ever actually been issued granting lot 210 to Penetaka Tuaia.31 This meant that Plummer could not obtain title to the land he had purchased from Maori, because legally it was still Crown land.

As a result, Tudhope wrote to the Under Secretary of Lands, asking that a Crown grant be issued in favour of Penetaka Tuaia The Minister of Lands and Solicitor General then applied to the Native Land Court, under section 11 of the Native Land • 1 J

23 Evelyn Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980, P 114 • 1 24 Stokes, 1990, pp 171-172 25 Stokes, 1990, P 161 26 Particulars of Title, 27 November 1915, BCAC A187 Box 214744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland 27 Judge WIlson to Chief Judge, 27 May 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland 28 Memorandum of Transfer, 27 November 1915, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland 29 Valuation of 15 December 1915, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 TePuna, NAAuckland 30 Extract from Tauranga Minute Boo~, vol 10, fol6, 2 May 1917, BCAC A187 Box 214744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland 31lbid

12 n 253

Amendment Act 1912, for the court to ascertain which person should be included in n the list of owners for the land. Section 11 read as follows: n Where any Crown land has been set aside or reserved for the use or benefit of Natives, 11 or where it is proposed to so set aside or reserve any such land, the Court shall have jurisdiction, on the application of the Minister of Lands, to inquire and ascertain what persons shall be included in the certificate of title or other instrument of title of that land, and to detennine the relative interests of the persons so ascertained, and the n Court shall report its findings to the Governor.32

The application was heard before Judge Wilson on 2 May 1917.33 At the hearing Tudhope explained that the successors to the land, according to the Native Land n Court records, had sold lot 210 to Thomas Plummer, but now it had been revealed 1J that the original Crown grant had never been issued. Tudhope asked the court to declare Mita Hamiora, Rikihana, Taukiwaho Thaka, Te Tauawhi, and Hamiora Rahipere as the owners of the land.

This was objected to by Te Potaua Tangitu, who argued that those persons listed as q successors in the 1893 succession order were those who had been living on the land at J the time. He said that they should be present at the hearing to argue their claim to the land. This raises the question of the intended purpose of the Crown grant to Penetaka. q It may be that it was intended to grant him the land in trust for the hapu, or other d grouping, occupying the area. In contrast, the 1896 succession order was granted in favour of Penetaka's legal heirs, and may not have taken into account the claims of other beneficial owners in an implied trust.

Judge Wilson made the followingjudgment: Notes on the file show that Penetaka Tuaia is the sole owner of the land and two succession orders have been drawn up in favour of different people but the first in date (19th October 1893) was apparently cancelled and has never been signed nor ~ 1 completed. The second succession order is dated the 2nd June 1896 and it has been ) sealed and signed and succession orders have since been made to three of the persons named in the order of 2nd June 1896. Further the Board believing in the good faith of these persons; and as their successors have confirmed a sale of the Block and as the order of 2nd June 1896 comes within the provisions of Section 38/1909 we see no reason for setting aside the names produced by Mr Tudhope. Apparently the original Title should have been issued to Penetaka Tuaia and we are of opinion that is the proper course to pursue in this case. Ordered therefore that a Crown Grant be issued in favour of Penetaka Tuaia q antevesting from 1st January 1870.34 J The judge's reference to 'notes on file' that showed Penetaka to be the owner of the land was to notes written in Native Land Court title searches at the time the applications for succession were being made. These notes, apparently written by a clerk of the court, said that Penetaka was 'Sole owner. Title not issued yet', and 'Sole owner. Previous Order Cancelled. ,35

32 Section 11 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1912 33 Extract from Tauranga Minute Book, vol 10, fol6, 2 May 1917, BCAC A187 Box 214744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland 34 Ibid 3S Judge WIlson to Chief Judge, 27 May 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

, 1 13 254

The order to issue a Crown grant in favour of Penetaka Tuaia was then declared by the Solicitor General to be 'ultra vires' (that is, beyond the legal power or authority of the COurt).36 The Solicitor General argued that section 11 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1912 only empowered the court to report on the owners of the land to the Governor, and did not give the judge the power to make an order. 37 Although Wilson argued that he did in fact have the power to make an order, the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court agreed with the Solicitor General that Wilson had gone beyond his powers. Both the Chief Judge and the Solicitor General were concerned about the legal procedure, and were not challenging the correctness of Wilson's decision that the land should be granted to Penetaka. This was explained by the Chief Judge: The Solicitor General does not say that a title should not yet issue, he says, "It may be as a matter of fact in this individual case the land in question was at some previous period lawfully set aside for Penetake", but if so that should have been proved before your Court. 38

The matter was resolved by Tudhope petitioning the Minister of Lands to pass special legislation for the case.39 A draft clause was prepared by Tudhope for inclusion in the Native Land Amendment Bill of 1918. It was common practice at that time for unusual cases to be included in what was referred to as the 'washing up' Act. The Minister of Maori Affairs, Herries, agreed to the clause, and it was accordingly passed through the Native Affairs Committee and Parliament, to become section 10 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1918: Whereas the records of the Native Land Court, Waiariki District, show the following five aboriginal Natives of New Zealand - namely, Mita Hamiora, Rikihana, Taukiwaho Thaka, Te Tauawhi, and Hamiora Rahipere - to be the owners of the block of land called Allotment No. 210, Parish of Te Puna, containing fifty acres one rood sixteen perches, more or less, as successors to Penetaka Tuaia, deceased, the original sole owner, the title to the said land being shown on the said records as "Crown Grant": And whereas the said first-mentioned five owners, relying on their title as shown in the Native Land Court, agreed to sell the said land to Thomas Plummer, of Tauranga, farmer, a conveyance to whom was on the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and sixteen, duly confirmed by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board, subject to payment of purchase-money: And whereas after the said conveyance was signed it was ascertained that no trace of the issue of the Crown grant to Penetaka Tuaia could be found: And whereas on the nineteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and sixteen, application was made by the Minister of Lands, under section 11 of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1912, to the Native Land Court, to inquire and ascertain what persons should be included in the certificate of title to the said land and determine the relative interests so ascertained: And whereas on the second day of May, nineteen hundred and seventeen, Judge Wilson, after duly hearing the said application, made an order recommending the issue of a Crown grant to the said Penetaka Tuaia antevesting to the first day of January, eighteen hundred and seventy: And whereas doubts have arisen as to the powers of Judge Wtlson to make such an order: And whereas it is equitable that effect should be given to the aforesaid conveyance to

36 Sharp and Tudhope to Native Owners ofTe Puna 210, 17 December 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland 37 Chief Judge to Judge Wilson, 18 July 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland 38 Ibid 39 Sharp and Tudhope to Native Owners ofTe Puna 210, 17 December 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

14 n 255

Thomas Plummer: Now, therefore, the District Land Registrar at Auckland is hereby authorised to issue to the said Thomas Plummer a certificate of title to the said piece of land on production of a certificate from the Waiariki District· Maori Land Board n that all purchase-money under the said conveyance has been paid. 40 It should be noted that the special legislation passed by the government went as far as fl, validating the sale of the land to Thomas Plummer by those Maori who had signed the deed. This went further than the determination made by Judge Wilson, who simply ordered that a Crown grant should be issued to Penetaka Tuaia Wilson explained that hfl he had not wanted to award title to those person named in the 1896 succession order because of doubts over the previous succession order: At the enquiry I was requested to find in favour of the vendors, that is the successors 11il under the second order, but as no steps had been taken to remove the previous order of 21 st April, 1891, I decided to recommend that the name of Penetaka Tuaia be inserted on the certificate of title so that the purchaser could settle the matter between n himself and the two sets of successors.41 By granting a petition made by the solicitors who acted for the purchaser, the Crown passed legislation which effectively declared who were the rightful successors to Penetaka Tuaia. Those people who had agreed to sell the land were therefore said to be the rightful owners of the land, without the benefit of a full investigation by the Native Land Court, or the opportunity for other claimants to present their case. q Lot 211 Parish ofTe Puna ~J In August 1920 a meeting of the owners of lot 211 was held to consider the following resolution: 'That the said land be sold to William John Francis of Tauranga farmer at the price of seven pounds (£7) per acre.,42 The total price for the 50 acre block was therefore £350, which was the government valuation at the time.43

By this time successors had been appointed to seven of the original 22 owners.44 The meeting of owners to consider alienating the block was attended by three owners; Renare te Kuka, Timi Kuka, and Tuoia te Kuka, each of whom held a 1114 share in the block. Three other owners were represented by proxy; Tane te Kuka (1114), Moetutetahatika (2/6), and Kaiwai Take (2Y-s). The meeting voted unanimously in favour of selling the block to Francis.

Once the resolution had been passed by the assembled owners, it was necessary for the resolution to be confirmed by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board. In support of the application to the board, a declaration was submitted from George Moore, a 1 1 i licensed interpreter, as to the land holdings of the owners. Moore listed: 11 owners .J who had died and for whom no succession orders had been made; 11 owners who

40 Section 11 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1918 41 Judge Wilson to Chief Judge, 27 May 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland 42 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 26 August 1920, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland 43 Valuation Certificate, 16 July 1920, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NAAuckland 1 ! 44 Particulars of Title, 13 July 1920, BCAC A187 Box 2172754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland

15 256 1

were landless and were each entitled to only a fractional portion of an acre in the block, and two other owners who were entitled to succeed to other blocks. He J concluded that 'none of the said owners have ever resided on the said Block and that the said land is never likely to be a material means of support to them. ,45 J Despite this rather damning report the Waiariki District Maori Land Board met on 20 October 1920 and confinned the resolution passed by the assembled owners, subject n to the purchase money being paid to the board within two months.46 The £350 was deposited with the board on 15 December 1920.47 However, it was later discovered that the purchaser was due a refund because the actual area of the block was only 46 acres 2 roods 32 perches. This was because land had been taken from the block for a road line, which was surveyed in 1886.48 However, the proclamation taking the land for the road had not been registered on the title.49 As a result, the memorandum of transfer for lot 211 recorded that £326:18:0 had been paid to the board by William John Francis for 46 acres 2 roods 32 perches. 50 :1 Lot 214 Parish of Te Puna

On 22 December 1908 Mere Taka signed a deed transferring lot 211 to Herbert :1 Pasquale Clarke for £9. 51 The Deed had a Maori translation attached and was explained in Maori by a licensed interpreter, J.E. Dalton. The government valuation for the 6 acre section was £5. 52 At this time Maori land alienations had to be :1 confinned by the. local Maori Land Board, which was supposed to check, among other things, that the price was fair and the Maori owners would not be rendered landless by ] the sale. The Waiariki District Maori Land Board confinned the alienation on 21 March 1912, subject to the payment of the purchase money and proof that Mere Taka had other lands. 53

The requirements of the board were not met at that time, and it was not until 1920, after Mere Taka had died, that the sale was finally confinned. In March 1920 solicitors for the purchaser wrote to the Maori Land Board: We now enclose our cheque for £9 in payment of the purchase money, and as the owner Mere Taka has since died, we presume that you will not require a schedule of "other lands".s4 '1 ! 45 Declaration by George Moore, 13 October 1920, BCAC A187 Box 2172754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA • J Auckland 46 Confirmation of a Resolution passed by Assembled Owners, 20 October 1920, BCAC A187 Box 217 • 1 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland } 47 Urquhart and Roe to Registrar Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 15 December 1920, BCAC A187 Box 2172754 Te .Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland 48 SO 5222 49 Sharp Tudhope &Wdson to Registrar Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 7 February 1921, BCAC A187 Box217 2754 TePunaLot 211, NAAuckland 50 Memorandum of Transfer, BCAC A187 Box 2172754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland 51 Copy of Memorandum of Transfer, 22 December 1908, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NAAuckland 52. Application to recommend His Excellency the Governor to consent to the Sale of Maori Land, BCAC ·1 A187Box2151909-2 TePunaLot214, NAAuckland i 53 Urquhart & Roe to Registrar Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 19 March 1920, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NA Auckland 54lbid

16 257

1\/

.... .~ ..

• "

0' •

. ~ ':'" ~--

5 . (} ';'5-,1 33 - _ / ... ~-cr;--i- .. ~ .... ~.; ..... " ~ ~..'. __ o· 258

They provided no explanation of why this had not been done before, although the circumstances suggest that Mere Taka did not hold other Maori land interests .

. The President of the Waiariki Maori Land Board, H.F. Ayson, also noted that no explanation had been given of the long delay in completing the alienation, but agreed that if five percent interest was paid on the purchase price from 1912, then he would confirm the sale. 55 He also pointed out that the successors to Mere Taka were probably under the impression that she had been paid at the time of the sale, and that they should be informed of the situation and make an application for succession to the Native Land Court.

The solicitors paid the interest in May 1920 and informed the probable successors, as required by Ayson. As a result, Ayson signed the certificate confirming the sale on 16 July 1920.56

1.4 CONTROL, MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS TO HUHARUA

The Crown's 'purchase' of the Katikati Te Puna block alienated Maori from their villages and pa at Huharua. Only one of the three pa sites was included in the lots awarded to Maori, that is Te Hopuni which was on lot 210. Control of this pa was then lost in 1915 when it was sold to T. Plummer.

A survey plan drawn in 1886 shows three sites marked. 'native village', none of which were on lot 210,211 or lot 214 (see Figure 5).57 The northern point of the land was lot 225 which included a native village on the eastern side. This lot was also the site of Huharua pa. The section was sold by the Crown to private settlers. The area acquired the name of 'Plummers Point' because the point was owned and dominated for a number of years at the beginning ofthe century by the Plummer family. The impact of Plummer's ownership of Huharua and control of associated wahi tapu is discussed below. Another two native villages were marked within lot 224, one close to the northern boundary with lot 225, and one straddling the southern boundary with lot 223. These lots were also sold by the Crown to private settlers. It is possible that at the time the map was drawn up, Maori were continuing to live in these villages rather than on the reserves they had been allocated.

As the Crown sold the land in lots, Maori lost the land they had been living on and any chance of involvement in the management of that land. The process of creating Pakeha farm settlements on Plummers Point meant that Maori were denied control, management and access to the land. This meant they became powerless to prevent the wahi tapu from being desecrated.

The following episode is a good example of the Crown's failure to allow Maori control of land that had considerable traditional and spiritual significance. The issue

55 Acting Registrar to Urquhart & Roe, 15 April 1920, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NAAuckland 56 Certificate of Confirmation under 1909/219 and Native Land Amendment Act 1913, 16 July 1920, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NA Auckland 57 SO 5222

17 {rlj . 259

was brought to the attention of the Crown when it was proposed to close the road through lot 225. This land was vitally important to local Maori as an access point to a pa site, burial ground and their traditional kai moana gathering place. The land was n owned by Plummer and the road went along the tidal foreshore of lot 225. The road was also considered vital to locals as the only road leading to the river and deep water landing. The Public Works Department maintained that the road should be closed because of slips along the coastline. Disagreement existed between Plummer, who favoured the road being closed, and his neighbours who wanted it to remain open. A petition from local settlers to stop the road closure was sent to the Minister of Internal Affairs. The Minister passed the letter on to the district engineer for comment and an assessment of the local council's position regarding the road closure. The petition to stop the road closure was organised by a Pakeha settler, W. McClinchie, and a local n Maori leader, Werahiko Borrell. Borrell wrote to Sir Maui Pomare stating: This is a petition from us that have signed their names hereunder in regard to the road leading to the cemetery at Huharoa, being part of Te Puna block:, wherein our ancestors are interred, praying that the Tauranga County Council be prevented from closing same because this road has been in existence for a long time and used as a. road to the cemetery of our ancestors. Secondly, this road runs to the sea shore and gives the Maoris access to the beach to obtain shell-fish upon which the Maoris live. This cemetery is one of the matters q submitted to the Confiscated Lands Commission for enquiry with the view of having d same reserved as a burial ground for all times. Wherefore we strongly object to the closing of this road. There is a pakeha growing food on this cemetery, and desecrating the remains of our ancestors. A petition from our European friends to close the said road has been lodged with the Minister. We strongly oppose this very wrong action of the Europeans. Be strong in opposing these wrong deeds of these Europeans. 58

Further insult and disregard for human decency was provided by Plummer, who informed the Crown that he had cultivated the area of the burial ground for his vegetable patch and found no evidence of human remains although he did acknowledge that human 'remains have been found in various parts of his section.,59 ,

Borrell was highly annoyed with the actions of the Crown. Borrell, by referring to the land as his, was speaking as a Maori on behalf of all Maori to a fellow Maori in the hope that together this wrong against Maoridom could be redressed. His interest in the road closure was based on cultural grounds as he wished to protect the physical integrity of the area which had once been Maori customary land. Borrell's letter had the Public Works Department inquiring whether he had any personal interest in land, with the presumption being that he oWned the adjoining section 224 and was , 1 interested in protecting his own interests. This was not the case. His concerns were .J with the rights of local Maori regarding land in which they had a particular interest: Land which Pakeha, in the process of developing, had damaged with little regard for Maori burial grounds or pa sites. From Borrell's perspective, Maori association with

S8 Werahiko Borrell to Sir Maui Pomare, 7 November 1927, Works (W) 1 351161 Omokoroa - Te Puna, National Archives (NA) Wellington. A check of petitions to the Sim Commission in the Raupatu u Document Bank failed to find a petition which specifically mentioned Huharua, or any urupa. S9 District Engineer to Permanent Head Public Works Department, 15 December 1927, W 1 35/161 1 I Omokoroa- TePuna, NA Wellington

: 1 18 260

this land remained strong regardless of who owned it at anyone point in time. This would appear to be a particularly valid position when one considers that he was also interested in protecting fishing grounds and shellfish beds as well as burial grounds.

From the government's perspective, Borrell's statements regarding the property were only relevant in so far as they were related to legal title of ownership. As Borrell did not hold title to either section 224 or 225, the Crown ignored his appeal. The government clearly felt that it was in no pOsition to address the issue in terms that would have suited Borrell's requirements. As far as the Public Works Department was concerned, it was witnessing a dispute between private individuals and the local body; A dispute it was able to say that it had no jurisdiction over. The debate over ownership and land usage and public interest degenerated into a neighbourly feud between Pakeha farmers. It was resolved by the building of gates and the putting up of fences. '] Borrell's attitude regarding Maori land, and the use made of it by the local council and the Crown, was also expressed in a subsequent letter to Pomare regarding land that he did own: :1 Herewith written in ink is the predicament into which an unsuspecting, innocent Maori is placed by the statutes of the white man and his so-called ravages. Involved in this case is the Public Works Act which gives me undue injustice. Twenty years ago three 1] acres of land was taken from me under that Act for the purpose of a school ground, which was, of course, a rather legitimate cause. However with the advent of the East Coast Railway there was a further requirement for land in its surveyance, which meant the complete severance of the property diagonally, the railway line cutting it right in ] half which is a rather awkward way to treat one's property. But let that suffice, and again I have been threatened by a further enforcement to accede to the request of the Tauranga County Council for a road to go through the whole length of the property ] again while there is a road giving access to their objective. Is this fair ? I strongly protest against this action and I sincerely recall their proverb "Mon Dieu et mon Droit" in accordance with the unconditional enforcement of this threat. Taking three acres for the school ground, eight acres for the railway and its respective isolation of the property. Now I am confronted with a threat that another eight acres will be taken. Will you grant me light or help in this predicament.60 This letter clearly identifies the strength of feeling that Borrell had towards the Crown, which he felt had taken land at will without any regard towards maintaining the cultural or ancestral integrity of the land for Maori, not to mention the practical integrity of farming land that had been dissected by a railway track.

Further evidence of land damage and disfigurement was the desecration of the pa sites and burial grounds on the Plummers' property. This information was recorded by D. Borrell, a member of the Tauranga Historical Society: • 1 ! The pa at Hakarua [ sic], as was subsequently found, was a repository of scores of

• J 60 Werahiko Borrell to Sir Maui Pomare, 15 November 1927, W 1 35/161 Omokoroa - Te Puna, NA Wellington

19 '1 ~f1 261 n· old artefacts within or immediately outside that pa.61 While this was presented as an archaeologically interesting story, the quote also proves that Plummer and his family had excavated and disturbed the pa site, and n removed a considerable amount of Maori cultural artefacts. It does not seem likely that any of these artefacts were handed over to Maori for care, and one gets the impression from the amount of material removed that the Plummers enthusiastically n collected whatever they could find on their land. In 1982 a submission was produced that echoed the concerns expressed by Borrell D back in 1927. The submission was made to the Tauranga County Council and Bay of Plenty Harbour Board by the Tauranga Moana District Maori Council, and argued for n protecting the harbour, as it is of great significance to Bay of Plenty Maori. One of the u main concerns of the submission was to alert local authorities to sites of ancestral n significance around the harbour edge: U There have been many instances of desecration of such sites, ranging from people in their ignorance picnicking on an old burial ground, to deliberate fossicking for artefacts, and disturbance of old bones .... Old burial grounds tend to be in two sorts of localities around the harbour shores - inside the earthworks of old pa, or in swampy or sandy areas often at or near high water mark. Not all have been identified here, but such areas should not be included in any form of public recreational use. In cases where an adjacent beach is used for public recreation, there should be clear indications that wahl tapu are not part of the public area, and that penalties for trespass or damage to such a site may be invoked. Maori complaints about such infringements should also be taken seriously by the County Council and Harbour Board.62 The last sentence of this quote can be seen as an expression of Maori frustration at not being able to have their views on the management of cultural sites taken into account.

Today, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council owns part of what was lot 225 as an esplanade reserve. This provides a narrow strip of reserve land on the coast of the northern point of land on which cars can be parked to admire the view. Presumably, the esplanade reserves include the pa sites and wahi tapu ofHuharua.

1.5 SUMMARY

~ 1 , \ ~J • The Crown acquired the Huharua area from Maori by means of the Katikati Te Puna purchase. The sale of the Katikati Te Puna blocks by some Tauranga Maori has been described as a compulsory sale, which was part of the confiscation of the Tauranga Moana region .

• Once the Crown had negotiated the Te Puna purchase, Mackay set aside three reserves for Maori within the proposed township of Te Puna. These were lot 210 (50 acres), lot 211 (50 acres), and lot 214 (6 acres).

61 D. Borell 'Historic TePuna', in Journal o/the TaurangaHistorical SOCiety, 1964, No 21, p 11 62 'Maori Cultural Values and Planning for Tauranga Harbour: Submission to Tauranga County Council and Bay of Plenty Harbour Board from Tauranga Moana District Maori Council', in Stokes, 1992, p 38

20 262

• Lot 210 was sold in 1915 to Thomas Plummer for £250. After the sale, it was discovered that a Crown grant had never been issued giving Maori title to the land. As a result special legislation was passed to validate the sale to Plummer. Section 10 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1918 empowered the District Land Registrar to issue a certificate of title to Thomas Plummer. This legislation went further than a determination made by the Native Land Court, because it effectively declared who were the rightful successors to the original grantee. Those people who had agreed to sell the land were therefore said to be the rightful owners of the land, without the benefit of a full investigation by the Native Land Court, or the opportunity for other claimants to present their case.

• Lot 211 was sold in 1920 to William Francis for £326:18:0. The decision to sell to Francis was made by a resolution of assembled owners~ which was confirmed by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board. At this time most of the shareholders were either landless, or unsucceeded to.

• The owner of lot 214 signed a deed in 1908 to sell the section to Herbert Clarke for £9. However, the sale was not confirmed by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board until 1920 by which time the owner had died and it was no longer necessary to prove she had other land interests.

• There are at least three pa sites on Plummers Point, but only one of them, Te Hopuni, was included in the land awarded to Maori. Huharua pa and Ongarahu pa were on land sold by the Crown to a Pakeha farmer, T. Plummer. This had the effect of further alienating Maori from their villages and pa at Huharua. Control, and management of and access to Huharua passed from Maori to the Crown and from there into the hands of a private individual. This was significant for Maori as Huharua was the site of at least three important pa, a number of important battle and burial grounds, and the home of Pirirakau after Ngati Ranginui were defeated by Ngaiterangi.

• Plummer's ownership and use of this land is an example of the Crown's failure to recognise the traditional and spiritual significance of this land to Maori. Urupa were desecrated as the result of cultivations. As well, control of the land was considered vitally important to Maori as it provided access to the above mentioned, sites as well as the estuary with its shellfish beds and fishing grounds. Plummer's control of this land also illustrated the problems of one individual controlling access to a coastal strip of land that is significant to a large group of people. This is illustrated by Plummer's blocking the road access, which had a detrimental effect on the lives of both Maori and Pakeha on the point. . , I I ,; J • Maori attempts to have the Crown intercede on their behalf concerning access to and ownership of this land were unsuccessful, with the Crown clearly feeling itself unable to intervene and protect the traditional cultural significance of the land when the concept of British legal ownership determined that Plummer owned the rights to the land. More recent submissions to local bodies and the Crown demand that Maori cultural values be recognised.

21 263

2. PUKEWHANAKE

2.1 LOCATION AND PEOPLE OF PUKEWHANAKE

Pukewhanake is an ancient pa site located on the spur of a low hill running along the west bank of Wairoa River, near the river mouth. Today, Pukewhanake is included within the boundaries of lot 178, Parish of Te Puna, which is privately owned farmland (see Figure 6).63 It is visible from Te Puna Station Road which runs parallel to the hill and is fenced on private fann land. Pukewhanake is also near to where the East Coast Main Trunk Railway crosses the Wairoa River. The hill remains eye catching: Not because of any natural feature but rather because it has one side sheered away by quarrying (see Figure 10).

Pukewhanake is a very important site to Ngati Ranginui because it was the site of their first settlement in Tauranga. When Ranginui, the son of Tamatea Pokai Whenua, bought his people to Tauranga, he settled at Pukewhanake, and subsequently established Ngati Ranginui in the area by defeating Ngamarama.64 J.A. Wilson provides the following account: Ranginui moved with his people from Hangaroa (between Poverty Bay and Wairoa, H.B.) to Tauranga, and camped on the left bank of the Wairoa, near where the bridge on the Katikati road is now. They were squatting on land belonging to Ngamarama, a numerous tribe, who owned the whole country west of Waimapu River. The Ngamarama resented the encroachment, and, to put a stop to it, caused two Ngatiranginui children to be drowned by their own children while bathing together in the Wairoa. The Ranginui children fled home and told what had been done to them. The tribe considered the matter, and next day the children were directed to return and bathe as though nothing had happened, and when the Ngamarama children joined them they were without fail to drown some of them; this the children did, and reported that they had drowned a Rangatira girl. War followed, resulting in time in the destruction and eXpatriation of Ngamarama, and this is how Ngatiranginui became possessed of Tauranga . . .65 Pukewhanake is therefore associated with the very establishment ofNgati Ranginui in Tauranga, and more particularly along the Wairoa River.

As well as Pukewhanake, there are many pa sites on both sides of the river, that have been identified by Des Kahotea as belonging to the hapu ofNgati Kahu, Ngati Pango, and Ngati Rangi (see Figure 7).66 These hapu are today generally considered as hapu ofNgati Ranginui, but they also trace their descent from Ngamarama.

63 Certificate of Title, 2IB/I22 64 Turi Te Kani and Wrremu Ohia, 'A Maori History of Tauranga Moana', in Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands, University ofWaikato, 1992, p 19 65 'Extract from JA. Wilson, The Story of Te Waharoa and Sketches of Ancient Maori Life and History', in Stokes, 1992, p 68 66 Des Tatana Kahotea, 'Ngati Kahu, Ngati Pango, Ngati Rangi: Draft Report for the Waitangi Tribunal', 1996

22 DP 28844 Lot 1 24.6023 DP 28844

Lot 3 DPS 58780

Lot 1 DPS 57282 so~f~~~2lJ

tAllot453 •~~l.· ~~~: &..• TE PAPAPSH '_-A,.& ML 10589 Lot 4 / (53.0011) .... DPS62336 #" 5.2050/ ( ---.. ,;'; .~: ~ST co.-s" ""'" PtAliot 178 I ; TE PUNAPSH, 17.5860 .:::.. ML9760

ML 10145

PtAllot453 OPS 20753 DPS 71056 TE PAPAPSH Lot 2 ML10589 DPS27266 (53.0011) / 18.8506 ML'IU:)O=:f

DPS63158

Lot 4 DPS 71872 21.0478 GO 49

Lot DPS4 22.78

o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600m

PUKEWHANAKE Infor~t~~deriv_e~ .fro,!! the.p~e.a.rt_~en!.~f Survey and Lcm~_I~fc)rmation's Digital Databases. 265 Wairoa 1864

! . r 1/

.~. . ~

.A'mul." 7"rm:k• .;·.:·,·.·.' ....

'-#4.-'1/"-:--- s

.: /"

'_'_',,- 266 1

As well as being an ancient home ofNgati Ranginui, Pukewhanake was still inhabited ] in the 1840s. Alfred Brown, who established the Church Missionary Society station at Te Papa, recorded the following visits to Maori at Pukewhanake in his diary:67

Date Comment 7 May 1842 Went to Pukewhanaki to see the Native raise the posts of their new chapel, size 48 by 26. A party from Maungatautari, 70 in number, are over to assist in the erection. 1 March 1846 At Pukewhanaki. A small but attentive congregation of 50 Natives 15 April 1848 Went overland to Pukewhanaki in order to spend the sabbath with that party tomorrow 20 January 1850 Held Divine service at Pukewhanaki in the morning. 2 June 1858 Went to Pukewhanaki and addressed the Natives at evening seTVlce :1 Ensign Best also visited Pukewhanake and gave the following description: The chief of this place Hamiora was an old friend of mine a most intelligent and go ] ahead young man was not at home but his people treated us with every hospitality taking pride in showing me all they had worthy of attention. The principal objects were a well built and roomy church and a small field of fine wheat. Puke whanaki is prettily situated on the face of a steep cliff it is a place of considerable strength and the :1 regularity and cleanliness pervading the settlement bespeaks the presence of a Master mind.68

In the 1840s there was very little Pakeha settlement in Tauranga Moana However, after the Crown confiscation of Maori land in the 1860s, Pakeha settlement was actively encouraged. This severed the relationship Maori had with Pukewhanake, and other traditional sites.

2.2 RAUPATU WEST OF THE WAIROA RIVER

Legal title to Pukewhanake derives from the confiscation of the Tauranga district in 1865. It is not the intention of this report to provide an historical account of the circumstances surrounding the confiscation, and readers requiring further detail ~.J should consult reports which have been prepared for the Wai 215 inquiry, such as .. Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, and Hazel Riseborough, 'The Crown and Tauranga Moana,.69 It should be noted that the use of the term 'Pirirakau' in the following section follows the description used by nineteenth-century officials for those Maori who refused to , 1 i surrender. It may be that 'Pirirakau' actually included other Ngati Ranginui hapu from the Wairoa River area.

67 The table is compiled from extracts from Brown's diary in Kahotea, pp 38-39 68 cited in Kahotea, p 39 69 Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: The Corifiscation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, 1990 (Wai 215, A2), Hazel Riseborough, 'The Crown and Tauranga Moana', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1994, (Wai 215, A23).

23 1!fl 267

The entire Tauranga district (approximately 290,000 acres70), from Nga Kuri a n Wharei to Wairakei, was initially confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863.on 18 May 1865.71 During peace negotiations held between Governor Grey and some Tauranga chiefs, Grey promised that only one-quarter of the confiscated lands n would be retained by the Crown, and the remaining three-quarters would be returned to Maori ownership. It was later decided that the land to be confiscated was 50,000 n acres between the Wairoa and Waimapu rivers (see Figure 8).72 Nevertheless, in May 1866 the district surveyor reported that: f1~ nothing like an adequate quantity of "good agricultural land" can be obtained within the limits of the confiscated block, as the greater part of it is of so rugged and broken a character, that scarcely any practicable road at all can be laid out upon it ...73 n One of the government's objectives was to establish a military settlement at Tauranga. The Crown was therefore anxious to obtain a sufficient area of land that would be suitable for farming settlement. Premier Frederick Whitaker had instructed that the survey should proceed west of the Wairoa River towards Te Puna, so that q 50,000 acres could be obtained. d When the surveyors crossed the Wairoa River to survey land on the west bank, they were resisted by Pirirakau, who apparently had the support of Ngati Haua. The surveyors had their tents broken into and instruments stolen.74 Wiremu Tamihana wrote to Commissioner Clarke to tell him that the survey' on that side of the river should be stopped: When I arrived here I heard that you were living in trouble, the reason, because the survey has crossed this side of the Wairoa and other places of Tauranga, that is the places which the Natives have agreed should be surveyed. I have heard that the surveys have reached those places, and that the chain has been taken twice on this side of the Te Wairoa, and twice on another place. Now do you hearken. I agree to their sending back the chain. This is a decided word of mine to you. Stop your work let it cease at Te Wairoa and at Waimapu on the other side, do not persist detemUning. 75 This is a clear indication that Maori understood that the confiscated block to be retained by the Crown should be between the Wairoa and Waimapu rivers only. It also shows that those Maori who lived on the west of the Wairoa River had not agreed to their land being included within the confiscated block.

A meeting was held on 1 November 1866 to explain why the boundary of the confiscated block would extend to the Te Puna River. The following is Commissioner Mackay's account of the meeting: Some discussions ensued and the Arawa claims near Puwhenua were mentioned as a reason for the survey not being carried further back. Mr Clarke explained that the arrangement entered into with His Excellency the Governor and Mr Whitaker was that "if the fifty thousand acres could not be obtained between the rivers Waimapu and

70 'Report of the Royal commission on Confiscated lands and other Grievances', Appendices to the Journals oJthe House oJRepresentatives (AJHR), 1928, G-7, p 19 71 New Zealand Gazette, 1865, p 187 72 Stokes, 1990, p 39 73 cited in Stokes, 1990, p 102 74 Rachael Willan, 'Wairoa River Report', a Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, P 24 11 75 W. Tamihana Te Waharoa to Mr Clarke, AJHR, 1867, A-20, enclosure no. 3

, , 24 268 1 ,..------c---.-----.------.. ------.. ------.---.--.----- ]

BOUNDARIES OF THE ] KATIKATI TE PUNA PURCHASES

\TII Tuahu \ TE PUNA I BLOCK ]

I I I I I I I t

t t

J ,/ I :.·:~~".,7;.'.:; Katikati Te Puna Purchase ,t Boundary on deed plans .. ... f. Olanewainuku Additional area included on .. .. Tawera deed Watershed on Kaimai Ranges o 5 ,a 1_ L _: _ ! .. L_ !.~.1 ... ! ...~ :~J ~r\,)mtitrO$ • 1 L i I , J

t j

, '

, , 269

Wairoa, then the balance required was to be taken on the north bank of the Wairoa extending toward the Puna," that the surveyors had reported there were not 50,000 acres between the two rivers, consequently land had been surveyed between the Wairoa and the Puna. I then stated I had ascertained from the Survey Department that the surveyors had included 55,000 acres within their lines, and that this was wrong, being in excess of the quantity fixed by His Excellency the Governor in August 1864, and also the final arrangements in 1866. I therefore proposed to give back five thousand acres by cutting a line from the Ruangarara branch of the Wairoa to the Puna River, excluding the Pirirakau cultivations near Waiwhatawhata and Te Irihanga. As it also appeared that some loyal Natives had lost a good deal of land within the confiscated block; and some ex-rebels had little land elsewhere, I offered to make certain reserves which with those previously sanctioned by Mr Whitaker made a total of upwards of six thousand acres within this block, reducing the actual quantity retained by the Government to about forty-four thousand acres. The greater portion of these reserves either had water frontage or were near it. After some discu$sions this proposition was unanimously agreed to, the old chief Maungapohatu being a consenting party. A reserve of about four hundred acres was set apart for him and the Pirirakau.

I then expressed "my regret that the Pirirakau were not present" and the exclamation was, "who are they? What have those slaves to do with it ? The only man of any rank is Maungapohatu, he is connected with us. Take the land, Do not ask them about it." I however told them "I should like to see Pirirakau and would write to them again to come to the meeting.,,76 [Emphasis added.]

It should be noted that although Mackay claimed that his proposal received unanimous agreement, those people who were most effected, the Pirirakau hapu who lived west of the Wairoa River, were not present at the meeting to give their consent, or to object. Mackay himself seemed to acknowledge this by saying that he would like to meet with them. However, the Crown Commissioners were well aware that Pirirakau opposed the boundary extension. Not only had Pirirakau disrupted the surveys, and repeatedly refused to meet with the Crown and negotiate, they also wrote in protest: We will not agree to (or consent to give) the land from Te Wairoa extending to Waipapa. We will not consent to the money these words are true: No, for the money, No for the rebellion. Desist from your disputing (do not contend the point) stop where you are. This is a true word by the tribes of the Wairoa extending to Waipapa.77

However, by claiming that Pirirakau were 'slaves' ofNgaiterangi, and by pointing out that they were 'hauhau', Mackay was able to justify to the government the inclusion of Pirirakau lands within the confiscation boundary. He was also able to justify using their lands to reward those Maori who had agreed to his arrangements: This tribe were very much inclined to be troublesome when I was last at Tauranga. I would point out that with the exception of some two or three persons they have all been in rebellion, and have not returned to their allegiance to this day. In my opinion it would only be just to confiscate all their lands, reserving about 2,500 acres for their use and occupation. Their lands are principally between Te Puna and Wairoa, and I would suggest that a portion of these should be given to those friendly Natives who have lost land in the block of 50,000 acres before mentioned.78

76 cited in Stokes, 1990, pp 108-109 77 Tribes of the Wairoa to Waipapa to Mackay and Clarke, 3 November 1866, AJHR, 1867, A-20 78 Mackay to Rolleston, 25 September 1866, AJHR, 1867, A-20, P 22

25 270 f] n On 9 November the survey of the land west of the Wairoa was recommenced (see Figure 8). This time the surveyors were accompanied by several 'Ngaiterangi chiefs' and 200 soldiers for protection. 79 Although Clarke and Mackay had expressed fears that some Ngati Porou (who were in Tauranga with Pirirakau) might attempt to stop the survey, they met with no further resistance. It should be noted that at this time Pirirakau only 'numbered a total of87 men, women and children,.8o

The Crown decision to include land west of the Wairoa River within the confiscated , block was resisted and protested by those hapu who lived there. The result was that D land traditionally belonging to certain Ngati Ranginui hapu was acquired by the Crown without payment or consent. The intention was to obtain land that· would be suitable for settlement. It also meant that Pukewhanake, and other wahi tapu, were included in reserves awarded to chiefs for their 'loyalty' to the Crown.

2.3 LOT 178 PARISH OF TE PUNA

As part of the negotiations over the confiscated block, and the purchase of the Katikati Te Puna block, Clarke and Mackay were given the task of setting aside reserves for Maori within the land acquired. It has already been noted that Mackay planned that the land taken west of the Wairoa River could be used to provide land :1 for Maori who had not fought against the Crown, but who had lost their land in the 50,000 acre block. J The process used by Clarke and Mackay seems to have been largely informal, and based on promises made at various meetings. In 1866 Mackay recorded the following arrangements he had made about land at Pukewhanake: :1 Maihi and others at Pukewhanake to have sufficient land for their requirements. If not enough for Wiremu te Matewai within boundaries arranged with Mr Turner, an addition to be made for him. Enoka agrees to allow a right of road through his piece. Maihi wishes to have a site for houses near the bank of the Wairoa, but this is to be arranged between them. 81

In 1867 Clarke provided a return of the reserves he had allocated. The schedule of reserves included Pukewhanake, and said that 100 acres was to be awarded to 'Maihi, Ihaka, Wiremu Te Matewai, Te Uara and others.,82In 1871 Clarke reported to the government that the grants of land had been made. However, the arrangements were now slightly different. Maihi Haki and others had been granted lots 175 and 176, Parish of Te Puna, which totalled 60 acres. Enoka Te Whanake was granted lots 177 and 178, with a combined area of 125 acres. 83

79 Stokes, 1990, p 111 80 Ibid 81 'Memorandum of Outstanding promises, engagements etc by James Mackay Jnr, July 1866', in Raupatu Document Bank, vol 124, p 47755 82 from Stokes, 1990, p 249 f 1 83 from Stokes, 1990, p 254

26 ~.,

·"

:>-t ;-. "',-, . ~Ct." _1'-1 ::i -~,~ 'w~~ .... rj ~ ~~ . I:; .:..t '-, .~

~ ~ c:' - .- :JJ.-~ ~::l " ~'·~U-("e... ~~ " ~ 272

The 'Plan of Native Reserves between the Wairoa and Te Puna Rivers' shows that Pukewhanake itself was within lot 178 which had been granted to Enoka Te Whanake (see Figure 9).84 Lot 178 was 70 acres on the river bank. The other lot awarded to Enoka, lot 177, was immediately south of Pukewhanake, with a small river frontage. The lots granted to Maihi Haki were west of lot 178, with no river frontage or access. The Crown grant of lot 178 to Enoka Te Whanake was made on 5 January 1869, under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 and the New Zealand Settlements Amendment and Continuance Act 1865.85 The grant was made to Enoka as sole owner.

Not long afterwards, Enoka sold the block to Thomas Craig, a timber merchant from Auckland, on 13 May 1869.86 Craig paid £17:10:0 for the 70 acre lot. The deed was endorsed by licensed interpreter C.T.F. Baron de Thierry, who declared he had read the deed to Enoka in Maori and that Enoka understood the full meaning of the deed. It appears that the deed was signed in Auckland.

Craig, as well as being a timber merchant, seems to have been something of a land speculator, because in 1870 he sold lot 178, as part of a sale of 13 freehold and 8 leasehold lots to J.S. Macfarlane.87 The block passed through two more owners before being purchased by William Alfred Clarke of Tauranga. On 17 February 1877 Clarke paid £600 for lot 178.88

Lot 178 was held by the Clarke family until 1971, when it was transferred to 'Te Wairoa Farm Limited,.89 This may have been a Clarke family company, as the Clarkes had called their property 'Te Wairoa'. The first certificate of title for lot 178 was issued in 1930, and registered Florence Mary Clarke, the wife of Herbert Pasquale Clarke, as the owner of the land. In 1932 the land was transferred to Isabel and William Clarke, who then transferred it to Hector James Clarke in 1938.

2.4 CONTROL, USE AND MANAGEMENT OF PUKEWHANAKE

Pukewhanake was part of the area confiscated from its traditional owners west of the Wairoa River. Although it was part of an area of land that was subsequently awarded to Maori, the fact that it was awarded to a chief for his loyalty, rather than because he had traditional ties to the land, meant that it was quickly alienated into Pakeha ownership.

Once lot 178 had been transferred to private Pakeha ownership, Maori had no say over the use and management ofPukewhanake. Lot 178 became part of Clarke's farm on the west bank of the Wairoa River. Clarke's property, as it was in 1910, was i described by the Bay ofPlenty Times: , , '" j

84ML9760 8S Crown Grant 448k, South Auckland Land District 1 I, 86 Deeds Book K1I223, deed 449K 87 Deeds Index lK1394 88 Deeds Book K1I929, deed 1850K 1 I 89 Certificate of Title 521/214

27 273

A few days ago a Times representative visited "Te Wairoa' the property of Mr H.P. Clarke. The farm is situated about six miles from Tauranga wharf, on the Katikati main road. The holding may also be reached by water and is bounded for a considerable distance on the eastern side by the navigable Wairoa River .... The total area of the farm is 430 acres, consisting of 203 acres previously owned by the late Captain Clarke - father of the present owner - and 224 acres purchased in recent years by Mr H.P. Clarke from Messers Laurie Bros. and the Assets Realisation board. In Captain Clarkes time he engaged in sheep farming and cropping but Mr HP. Clarke now puts his faith principally in dairying. . . .

The highest point on the property is an eminence, know to the natives as Pukewhanake, which was in former days a strongly-fortified Maori pa. The fortifications have long since been dismantled to give place to English grasses. Pukewhanake overlooks the mouth of the Wairoa and the vicinity must have been the scene of many stirring conflicts between the natives. Numerous Maori weapons have been found in the vicinity including stone axes and tomahawks, and· valuable greenstone tiki picked up about eight years ago and subsequently disposed of to Captain Mair. A portion of the extreme end of the pa which was separated from the main pa by a ditch 30 feet wide and 15 feet deep may still be seen in its natural state. From the top of Pukewhanake is a magnificent view of Mount Maunganui, Mayor, Karewa, Rangiwaea, Matakana and Motuhoa Islands and all the surrounding country from Tauranga to Katikati. 90 This quote provides evidence that Pukewhanake had been plundered for cultural artefacts once it came into private ownership. It is unlikely that any of the taonga unearthed were given over to Maori, and indeed the pounamu tiki had been given to Captain Mair, who today would seem to have been a most inappropriate recipient.

Wairoa Bridge Construction

The most obvious desecration of Pukewhanake occurred in 1965 as a result of work carried out by the Crown to improve the bridge crossing the Wairoa River. The river was first bridged in 1875, when it provided an important link north for the growing settlement of Tauranga. In 1915 the original bridge was replaced by a one lane concrete bridge. By 1964 the Ministry of Works found it had to replace the concrete bridge because it had become unstable: Due to flood scouring, settlement is taking place in Pier Foundations with resultant serious damage to the superstructure and consequent costly repairs. Lately, 30 ton loads, and 15 m.p.h. speed restrictions, have been imposed by the Resident Engineer.91 Replacing the bridge also meant constructing new approaches to the bridge, and realigning State Highway 2 with the new bridge. The first stage was to deposit fill material for the bridge approaches. Work started in February 1965 on the eastern approach. Because the ground was swampy the approach was initially built up ten feet above the proposed grade so that it would settle properly. The resident engineer reported that when construction of the bridge was completed the excess fill would then be deposited between the old and new bridge to form a riverside park. 92

90 Bay ofPlenty Times, 1 April 1910 91 Designing Draughtsman to Chief Designing Engineer, 11 February 1965, W 72/2/3Ai2 Tauranga Section, National Archives (NA) Records Centre, Auckland 92 Resident Engineer to District Commisioner of Works, 21 April 1965, W 72/2/3Ai2 Tauranga Section, NA Records Centre, Auckland

28 274

The material used to fill the bridge approaches came from Pukewhanake. The a~ Ministry of Works contracted J.E. Prince Ltd to supply the filling material to the bridge site. Prince had a contract with R.J. Clarke to get fill from his property. To construct the eastern approaches, 44,000 cubic yards of material was removed from Pukewhanake, and then a further 26,000 yards was purchased by the Ministry of Works for the approach from the other side of the river. The following letter from the resident engineer in Tauranga clearly explains the transactions between the Ministry of Works and Prince Ltd, and between Prince Ltd and Clarke: 1. Further to Stores Quotation No. 1 dated 20.1.65 an additional quantity of 26,000 cubic yards of non-organic filling is now required for the north approach to the new Wairoa River Bridge on S.H. 2.

2. Quotation No. 1 for 44,000 cubic yards of filling was accepted from lE. Prince Ltd at a delivered price of3/- per cubic yard. The material supplied was a selected pumice which required ripping before it could be loaded, was extremely satisfactory as filling and was easily compacted. Lead from the borrow pit to the fill was approximately 1.5 miles. The contractor had to pay a royalty of 6d per yard to the owner of the land on which the pit is situated and had to maintain 1.1 miles of County Road (Te Puna Station Road) over which he carted the material.

3. The 26,000 yards of filling now required is to form the north approach fill to the bridge and also to form the new intersection of Te Puna Station Road with the State Highway. This worlc is necessary now so that the successful bridge contractor will not be inconvenienced by traffic when constructing abutment "A:' of the bridge.

4. Prince is prepared to supply the additional filling required as an extension to his original order of 44,000 yards at 3/- and it is recommended that this course be adopted for the following reasons:

(a) If fresh quotes are invited from interested contractors it is expected that the delivered price will be increased because it is known that the owner of the pit, Mr H.l Clarke, has been trying to increase his royalty charge to 1/- per yard; (b) Prince apparently has some agreement with Clarke whereby material delivered under the original order or extensions to it will incur a royalty payment of only 6d per yard; (c) Prince proved a most satisfactory contractor when the original fill was delivered; (d) He will be in a position to commence deliveries in approximately two three weeks time; (e) A delivered price of3/- per yard for this selected material is considered to be a most realistic and competitive price.93

This letter also shows that Clarke was in a position to make substantial amounts of money from exploiting the resources of Pukewhanake. This is confirmed by a later letter from the District Commissioner of Works, who recommended that the order from Prince Ltd should proceed because the material from Pukewhanake was in demand: I t J

93 Resident Engineer to District Commissioner of Works, 19 July 1965, W 721213A12 Tauranga Section, NARecords Centre, Auckland

29 n 275 n n n u1

Jr1 ,q ~J

~J i ] :1 ]

~ , .. J { 1 .Jr • 1 d 276

(a) Regarding royalty payable to the owner of the deposit, I understand that there is an outside market for the material even though the demand is nowhere near as great as our requirements. It would appear that the payment of a royalty cannot be avoided. (b) The material is exceptionally good for the type of filling required and the compaction costs should be well below those for material from alternative sources of supply. The quoted price of 3/- per cubic yard is reasonable in an area notoriously lacking in good fill material.94

Approval was given in August 1965 for the additional 26,000 yards to be supplied by Prince Ltd. In total 70,000 cubic yards of material was removed from the north face of Pukewhanake to supply the Ministry of Works. For this material Clarke received £4,200 in total.

Not only was the Pukewhanake pa damaged by the excavation of filling material (see Figure 10), but another form of desecration occurred as well. In the process of removing the hillside, skeletal remains were exposed. According to members ofNgati Kahu the bones were deposited on the road. Kaumatua from Ngati Kahu collected the bones from the road and buried them in the hapu cemetery on the other side of the river. 95

Calls for Protection of Pukewhanake

Ironically, the very fact that Pukewhanake had been damaged led to an interest being taken in its preservation. In 1970 the Lands and Survey Department sent a ] representative to Tauranga to identify coastal pa sites which were being threatened by roading and residential development. The senior assistant surveyor from Rotorua, M.J. Wilson, met with D. Borrell, representing the Tauranga Maori Executive and the Tauranga Historical Society, and N. Nicholls from the Tauranga District Museum Committee. After inspecting old maps Wilson decided that three pa were 'in immediate need of protection and preservation. , 96These were Pukewhanake and Paorangi, both owned by H.J. Clarke, and Oruamatua pa at Matapihi. The Bay of Plenty Times reported that Wilson intended: '1 approaching the landowners concerned seeking co-operation in protecting the sites d from further deterioration. He hopes to have the sites fenced off. Mr Wdson said it was apparent most of the other pa sites in the area were already protected by coastal reserves. Others were on private land within the city boundary well preserved by their owners. The department's concern, Mr Wdson said, was mostly with pas and fortifications adjacent to coastal reserves, but not quite protected by them. 97

It is not known whether Lands and Survey did approach Clarke about protecting the pa sites on his property, and if so, what the outcome was. However, it is clear that by this time, the Crown's attempt to preserve sites was too late. Pukewhanake had

94 District Commissioner of Works to Commissioner of Works, 3 August 1965, W 72/2/3A12 Tauranga

Section, NA Records Centre, Auckland 1 1 i 95 Des Tatana Kahotea, 'Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy: Cultural Resource Inventory: Features of Significance .to the Maori Community', Tauranga District Council, 1992, p 59 .- 96 Bay ofPlenty Times, 8 May 1970 97 Ibid

30 277 already been irrevocably damaged, and neither the Lands and Surveyor Public Works departments had shown any concern for its protection beforehand. It would also seem that what Lands and Survey meant by 'protection' was ensuring that pa sites were either in reserves, or being preserved by the land owners. There is no mention of involving Maori in the protection and preservation measures.

A recent report written for Ngati Kahu by Antoine Coffin explains why tangata whenua have concerns about the way traditional sites have been treated. It also shows the sorts of protections they would like to see sites such as Pukewhanake given: All areas of heritage significance to Ngati Kahu and other hapu on the Wairoa River and harbour margin must be preserved. These areas are Ngati Kahu's life history, a physical and spiritual link to the ancestors. Historic places, areas and wahi tapu exist along the banks of the Wairoa River, both on Ngati Kahu lands and lands in private ownership. Many of these sites have been modified. The excavation works on Pukewhanake is an example of degradation to historic sites that are not protected. Many more may be referred to in patere and whakapapa. The protection of these sites is required to; • stop further degradation of the sites by sub-division, residential and commercial development and vandalism. • preserve and maintain the ancestral landscape • preserve the importance ofthe place to Ngati Kahu and other hapu in reference to events, persons and mythology • restore the mana ofNgati Kahu over its ancestrallandscape.98

Today Pukewhanake is still in private ownership. Ngati Kahu have asked the Waitangi Tribunal to recommend that Pukewhanake be returned to Maori ownership, but the Treaty of Waitangi Act prohibits the Tribunal from making recommendations regarding land in private ownership. Regardless of whether the ancestral site can be returned to Maori or not, strong arguments can be made for greater say from Maori in how such sites are managed, to ensure that further destruction, such as that which has already happened at Pukewhanake, does not occur again.

2.5 SUMMARY

• Pukewhanake is an ancient pa site on a hill on the west bank of the Wairoa River. It is an important pa because it was the site ofNgati Ranginui's first settlement in Tauranga. There are many other pa sites on both sides of the river belonging to Ngati Kahu, Ngati Rangi and Ngati Pango, all hapu of Ngati Ranginui and tracing their ancestry to Ngamarama.

• Pukewhanake was part of the area west of the Wairoa River confiscated by the Crown from its traditional owners. The decision to extend the boundary of the 50,000 acre confiscated block over the Wairoa River was resisted by Pirirakau and other Maori. Although Crown Commissioners met with various 'Ngaiterangi chiefs' to obtain their consent to the confiscated boundary, those Maori most

98 Antoine Coffin, 'Wairoa River and Coastal Environment Issues and Options Paper', Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, Tauranga, 1995, p 13

31 278

effected did not attend the meetings. This, and Pirirakau's hauhau connections, provided the commissioner with an excuse to confiscate their land.

• The result was that land traditionally belonging to certain Ngati Ranginui hapu was acquired by the Crown without payment or consent. The intention was to obtain land that would be suitable for settlement. It also meant that Pukewhanake, and other wahi tapu, were included in reserves awarded to chiefs for their 'loyalty' to the Crown.

• Pukewhanake was included in lot 178, Parish of Te Puna (70 acres), which was awarded to Enoka te Whanake by a Crown grant dated 5 January 1869. Although Pukewhanake was part of an area of land that was subsequently awarded to Maori, the fact that it was awarded to a chief for his loyalty, rather than because he had traditional ties to the land, meant that it was quickly alienated into Pakeha ownership.

• Enoka sold lot 178 on 13 May 1869 to Thomas Craig for £17:10:0. The section was later purchased by H.P. Clarke, and remained in the Clarke family for nearly 100 years. Once it had been sold into private pakeha ownership Maori had no say over the use and management of special sites on this land. Pukewhanake was turned into farmland, and the pa was 'robbed' of cultural artefacts, none of which appeared to have passed into Maori control.

• In 1965 serious damage was done to Pukewhanake, as a result of work carried out by the Ministry of Works to improve State Highway 2 where it crosses the Wairoa River. Fill material required to build up the level of the highway where it approached the new bridge was acquired from Pukewhanake. A total of 70,000 cubic yards of fill was quarried from Pukewhanake by a contractor for the Ministry of Works. For this Clarke received royalty payments of £4,200.

• As a result, Pukewhanake today has a clearly exposed cut northern face. Not only was the land itself desecrated, but skeletal remains were disinterred while the hillside was being removed. At that time, the Crown had little regard for the Maori people of the area or their maunga and this in turn led to the maunga's near total destruction. More recently Maori have called for greater say in how sites such as Pukewhanake are managed to prevent any further destruction.

32 279

3. NGA KURI A WHAREI

Nga Kuri a Wharei has proven to be an elusive site for research. Although it is relatively straightforward to present different accounts of Nga Kuri a Wharei as a boundary marker, conflicting sources mean that this report makes no attempt to pinpoint its exact location. As will be shown, various sources place Nga Kuri a Wharei at different points along the Western Bay of Plenty coast between Waihi Beach and Bowentown. Tangata whenua may be able to provide more specific information to the Waitangi Tribunal.

3.1 TRADITIONAL BOUNDARY: 'Mai Tikirau ki Nga Kuri a Wharei'

Nga Kuri a Wharei marks the western boundary of the territory inhabited by the descendants of the Mataatua waka. This territory is traditionally described as 'Mai Tikirau ki Nga Kuri a Wharei'. This area covers the Bay of Plenty from Cape Runaway to Nga Kuri a Wharei.99 The Western Bay of Plenty tribe descended from Mataatua is Ngaiterangi iwi.

Whanau a Tauwhao are a hapu of Ngaiterangi who inhabit the Otawhiwhi (Bowentown) area. Stokes provides the following description of Whanau a Tauwhao and their relationship with Nga Kuri a Wharei: At Otawhiwhi, they are the guardians of the western outpost of the Mataatua waka - Nga Kuri a Wharei. This Hawaiki name was originally applied to some rocks on the mainland at Moehau [Coromandel]. It is sometimes said these rocks were opposite the place where the canoes gathered off Ahuahu, Mercury Island. This name was referred to in the rahui composed by Muriwai, sister of Toroa, commander of Mataatua, after her children were drowned at sea - Mai I Nga Kuri a Wharei ki Tikirau. Today this name marks the western boundary of Mataatua settlements at the stream called Waiorooro, between Waihi Beach and Bowentown. lDo

A slightly different description of the location and meaning ofNga Kuri a Wharei was given to the Bay of Plenty Times in 1974 by George Bryan, a Whanau a Tauwhao kaumatua: their mainland border was marked by two mounds named, "Nga Kuri a Whare" two small mounds near Emerton Road, Athenree. George Bryan says the history of these little mounds goes back to the arrival of the Mataatua canoe in the Bay of Plenty over 600 years ago. The mounds represent supernatural dogs which came in the canoe, and travelled from Whakatane to Athenree.lOl

No other written traditional accounts of settlement or events at Nga Kuri a Wharei have been located. There is, however, some indication that the beach area was an ancient settlement site. Stokes quotes the following description by Mair of an ancient

99 Evelyn Stokes, A History oj Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980, p 25 100 Evelyn Stokes, Whanau A Tauwhao: A History oj a Ngaiterangi Hapu, Occasional Paper No 8, Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University ofWaikato, Hamilton, 1980, p 5 101 Bay ojPlenty Times, ] June ]974

33 280 f) village site which was uncovered about 1890 in the sand dunes near the Waiorooro it stream: About ten years ago, owing to the destruction of the vegetation by fire and the trampling of stock, the sandhill began to move seawards before the fierce and :1 prevailing westerly winds, leaving in a short time, the original surface of clayey [sic] soil, and forming a level sort of plateau some chains wide and perhaps 150 yards long, and disclosing the site of an ancient village with numerous middens and workshops. Around the latter cartloads of obsidian, chert, and different kinds of stone knives and flakes could be seen. Heaps of even-sized round stones for net-sinkers and fishing sinkers, and hundreds of bone implements made from whalebone, human bone, moa, albatros, and native-dog bones could be seen in every stage of manufacture. Barbed points for fish-hooks or bird spears also strewed the surface. In fact, here were to be found specimens of almost every domestic article used by a primitive people. Here and there were stone platfonns or pavements, consisting of flat stones neatly fitted J together and set in some kind of cement, apparently made from ashes or burnt shell. These places were circular, about 6ft. in diameter, and were probably used for roasting or drying food on. The comer posts (of totara) of many of the houses were still standing, but crumbled to brown dust on being touched. None of the huts :1 appeared to have been more than 8 ft. wide and 10ft. to 12ft. long. Stone hammers . were also very numerous, and so were stone axes, adzes, gouges, wedges, chisels, drill points, &c. - some showing signs of rough carving; but they fell to pieces on :1 being touched, as did most of the bone articles - hooks, &c. - excepting the uhis or tattoooing-adzes and beautiful little sewing needles, which, being made from the fine hard bone of the albatros-wing, are in prefect preservation. I also noticed a number of slabs of a kind of sandstone called "hoanga" by the natives, none of which, so far as I know, is to be found in the neighbourhood of Tauranga, and large smooth stones or anvils. The axes, adzes, &c., are also made from a hard kind of stone not found on the mainland, but probably obtained from Tuhua, or Mayor Island, which is just opposite and about fifteen miles off shore. A number of shafts made from bone, stone, or petrified wood were found .... Only a few greenstone ornaments or greenstone clips were found, and they are probably of much later date. The manner in which the stone weapons are chipped out is really most artistic, and evidences great skill. The dass of weapons are evidently the work of a people in a much lower stage of civilisation, and are not highly polished and like those used by the Hawaikians, or ancestors of the present Maoris. Many of the axes and adzes had been fitted with wooden handles, and even the binding of kiekie roots lay in spirals round the wood and stone, but was quite perished, and the wood crumbled at the lightest touch. Not the least interesting of my discoveries was finding the tiny model of an ancient pa tiwatawata, or palisaded fort, which had evidently been a plaything of the village children. It had been made by sticking three rows of totara splinters into the ground, fonning the three lines of defence knows as the Pekerangi, Kaikirikiri, and Kiri tangata. There were two gateways (waharoa), approached by long alleyways. It is evident that these villagers were a tribe of artisans who made weapons and domestic articles for trading purposes. While they were on a prolonged visit to some other place a gale of extraordinary severity must have overwhelmed their kainga, burying it 20 ft. or 30 ft. deep with drifting sand, and now, after a lapse of perhaps J hundreds of years, it has been exposed to view. Since I last visited it the sand has again covered the larger portion of the village-site. 102 . J

, ;

102 Stokes, Whanau a Tauwhao, pp 27-29

34 281

Nga Kuri a Wharei is within an area that became disputed territory between Ngaiterangi and Hauraki tribes. Numerous battles occurred between tribes such as Ngaiterangi, Ngati Tara, Ngati Tamatera, and Ngati Maru.103

3.2 RAUPATU BOUNDARY

The name 'Nga Kuri a Wharei' has always been given to the northern boundary of the Tauranga confiscation. The boundary of the confiscated district was described using Maori names to denote features of significance. At the time the boundaries were decided the land had not been surveyed and so the exact areas and locations were not known.

The entire Tauranga Moana area was confiscated on 18 May 1865 by a proclamation under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The schedule to the Order in Council described the confiscated district as: All that land estimated to contain 211,000 acres, known as the Tauranga Block. Bounded on the north-east by the sea from the mouth ofWairaki Creek to Ngakuria whare Point; on the south-east by a line bearing south 45° west (true) 16 miles; thence on the south-west by a line bearing north 45° west (true) to the summit or watershed of the dividing range of hills between the East Coast and the Thames Valley: and thence following the said watershed northward to the summit of the Aroha Mountain; and on the north-west by a straight line from the summit of the Aroha Mountain to Ngakuria-whare Point. Together with the Island of Tahua or Mayor Island, and such portions of Motiti or Flat Island as shall be adjudged to belong to the Ngaiterangi Tribe, or to individual members thereof 104

The Tauranga District Lands Act 1867 validated the Tauranga confiscation and subsequent arrangements that had been made. Section 4 of the Act declared that all lands in the Schedule to the Act should be taken to be the lands defined by the Order in Council. The Schedule to the Act is as follows: All that land estimated to contain two hundred and fourteen thousand acres known as the Tauranga Block. Bounded on the north-east by the sea from the mouth of the Wairakei Creek to Ngakuri-a-whare Point on the south-east by a line bearing south forty-five degrees west (true) sixteen miles thence on the south-west by a line bearing north forty-five degrees west (true) to the summit or watershed of the dividing range of hills between the East Coast and the Thames Valley and thence following the said watershed northward to the summit of the Aroha Mountain and on the north-west by a straight line from the summit of the Aroha Mountain to Ngakuri-a-whare Point.

Together with the Island ofTuhua or Mayor Island and such portions ofMotiti or Flat Island as shall be adjudged to belong to the Ngaiterangi tribe or to individual members thereof 105

The Tauranga District Lands Act 1868 replaced the Schedule of the 1867 Act with the following schedule:

103 For examples see Stokes, Whanau a Tauwhao, pp 21-27 104 New Zealand Gazette, 27 June 1865 lOS Tauranga District Lands Act, 1867, Schedule

35 282

All that land estimated to contain two hundred and fourteen thousand acres known as the Tauranga Block. Bounded on the North-east by the sea from Ngakuri-a-whare Point to Wairakei Creek on the South-east by a line from the mouth of the Wairakei Creek to Otara from thence to Otanewainuku from thence to Poutiki on the South west by a line from Poutiki to the summit of the watershed of the dividing range of hills between the East Coast and the Thames Valley and thence following the said watershed northward to the summit of the Aroha Mountain and on the North-west by a straight line from the summit of the Aroha Mountain to Ngakuri-a-whare Point.

Together with the Island ofTuhua or Mayor Island and such portions ofMotiti or Flat Island as shall be adjudged to belong to the Ngaiterangi Tribe or to individual members thereof 106 It is interesting to note that this description of the boundaries was also used in the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board Act 1981 which awarded compensation to :1 Tauranga Maori for the confiscation of their lands. 107 ~1 The above boundary descriptions all refer to the area originally confiscated by Order in Council. Within that area the Crown arranged to keep 50,000 acres as the confiscated block, and the rest of the land would be returned to Maori. However, the land north of the Te Puna Stream was then 'purchased' by the Crown, as described in ] the Huharua section of this report. / The various deeds signed by Maori selling the Katikati and Te Puna blocks also give 'Nga Kuri a Wharei' as the name of the northern coastal point of the sale. The Te Puna and Katikati No 3 deed, signed on 3 November 1866, gives the following ] boundary description:

Ko nga rohe enei 0 taua whenua ka timata I Nga Kuri-a-whare ka rere Waingaere ka rere Oteotahi ka rere te whareotumapere ka rere te Onepu ka rere Waimata ka rere nga Puketurua ka rere te Wharehakahaka 0 Rangihau ka rere te Onewhero ka rere :1 Huruhuru ka rere Pukekauri ka rere Mangahokio ka rere Kakarikikaitahi ara ki te Aroha auta katahi ka rere ke te tonga Pukekohatu ka rere Ngatukitukiahikawera ka rere Pukewhakataratara ka rere te Tuahu ka rere Motutapere ka rere Maungakahika ka rere Ngatamahinerua ka rere Haanga ka rere te Aroaro 0 Paretapu ka rere te RekerekeQkautere ka rere Maungakaiwhiria katahi ka whati mai whaka te moana te '1 Umuokorongaehe ka rere Te Ranga ka rere Pukemanuka ka rere Te Puna katahi ka • J haere it te tahataha moana a - Ngakuri a Whare te rohe 0 te timatanga.108

The translation was: .1 These are the boundaries of the Land commencing at ngakuri a whare thence to Waingaere thence to Oteotahi thence to Te whareotumapere thence to te Onepu thence to Waimata thence to Ngapuketurua thence to Wharehakahaka 0 Rangihau thence to Onewhero thence to Huruhuru thence to Pukekauri thence to Mangahokio thence to Kakarikikaitahi that is to say to Te Aroha auta thence in a southerly , 1 ! direction to Pukekohatu thence to Ngatukitukiahikawera thence to Pukewhakataratara • j thence to Te Tuahu thence to Motutapere thence to Mangakahika thence to Ngatamahinerua thence to Haanga thence to te Aroaro 0 Paretapu thence to te , I I .. J 106 Tauranga District Lands Act, 1868, Schedule 107 Vmcent O'Malley, Alan Ward, 'Draft Historical Report on Tauranga Moana Lands', Crown/Congress Joint Working Part, 1993, P 4 108 Te Puna and Katikati Block No.3, Tauranga, Bay of Plenty District, H.H. Turton, Maori Deeds of Land Purchase in the North Island 'of New Zealand, Wellington, Government Printer, 1877-1878, No 461

j -

36 283

Rekerekeokautere thence to Mangakaiwhiria thence turning towards the sea to te Umuokorongaehe thence to Te Ranga thence to Pukemanuka thence to Te Puna thence along the sea shore to Ngakuri a whare the commencing boundary. 109

The plans accompanying the purchase deeds show Nga Kuri a Wharei as being sharply north ofMt Te Aroha and the Waiau Estuary (see Figures 11, 12, 13). Today, this would be within the Waihi Beach township at the northern end of the sand dune beach.

However, it would appear that when the Katikati block was surveyed the named location ofNga Kuri a Wharei was changed. A map of the Katikati Te Puna purchase compiled by Evelyn Stokes (see Figure 14) clearly shows the difference. The 'original' confiscation line was as per the deed maps, but the 'Confiscation line and purchase boundary adjusted on survey' runs more directly from Mt Te Aroha to the coast, and places Nga Kuri a Wharei about half way down the coast between Waihi Beach and Bowentown,just to the north of the Waiau estuary.

Another map prepared by Stokes, places Nga Kuri a Wharei itself to the north of the confiscation line (see Figure 15). On this map, Stokes has placed Nga Kuri a Wharei at the mouth of the Waiorooro Stream. The Waiorooro Stream is shown as midway between Waihi Beach township and the confiscation line. A drive up the coast from Bowentown to Waihi Beach in October 1996 failed to find any stream which was marked with that name. Today most of the area is either coastal reserve or residential housing.

3.3 SUMMARY

• The importance of Nga Kuri a Wharei to Maori is recorded in the saying 'Mai Tikirau ki Nga Kuri a Wharei'. This marks the boundary of Mataatua territory.

• As a traditional site, the most likely location seems to be at the mouth of the Waiorooro Stream. Unfortunately, today at Waihi Beach, no stream is marked by this name.

• Nga Kuri a Wharei has always been the name of the northern boundary of the district confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act. 'Nga Kuri a Wharei' was a reference point in the Order in Council, the Tauranga District Lands Acts of 1867 and 1868, and the boundary descriptions of the purchase deeds for the Katikati Te Puna blocks. Sketch maps accompanying the deeds place Nga Kuri a Wharei at the northern end of Waihi Beach.

• However, when those blocks were surveyed, the northern boundary of the confiscated district seems to have been shifted south ofNga Kuri a Wharei itself to just north of the Waiau Estuary.

109 Ibid

37 284

• Nga Kuri a Wharei, as a distinct wahi tapu site, may therefore actually be outside the boundary of the land confiscated at Tauranga. However, the concept of the 'Nga Kuri a Wharei' remains as the northern boundary of the confiscation. These points can more fully be addressed by claimant evidence.

:l :1 :1 :1 :1 ]

• 1

38 285

BAYOFPLENTY DISTRICT

[TAURANCA}

Plan of the "Ngaiterangi" Purchase Deed, 3 September 1866. >:.

-.- 286

Ngakuri-a-whare Plan of the Tawera Purchase Deed 14 August 1866

\1,' , .\ : /; " ",1 Hikurangi Mt. .. \' '.' ~:.~~

TeTahawai

///....-... --/...- Rereatukahia

....'" ...... ///...-, --~-

...... '..:,'-,..... ////// //

....,.., ...... - ...... -- ..:::- ...... , ...... ::- ...... _- ...... -

",...... :::-

.....// ...... ,...... ~ , ...... -=:-.::::-

...... - ---:::...... " ...... ,,/ ......

...... :::-- ...... _---- Te Tutu ",....;::-"':::- ...... _- --- .....•..'-, ...... :::::-

Source of Waimapu

GMO:9/90 287

.~~ ",'to' . ..!' i.~"'~'''l

{ItIc.lt.W I"", kJ.tilr.L COLr ..

Te J\'ereaJ: ..IWu ..

Plan of the "Pirirakau" Purchase Deed, 16 May 1871.

'~ - 288

._._----_._-_._-_._-y--_... _-_ .... _ ..... -......

BOUNDARIES OF THE KATIKATI TE ·PUNA I I PURCHASES

I I

\Te Tuahu I \ TE PUNA I BLOCK I I . I '---... , ~ ...Jllairakeil ...... , ,,

, .,, , I

,I ,, Katikati Te Puna Purchase , Boundary on deed plans : I. Ot.1fleW,1inuku Additional area included on : Tawera deed .. .. Puwlwnua Watershed on Kaimai Ranges o 5 'o ,. 1_ L.I .. ~ .. J l.. ______._. ____. ___ ._ .. _____ . (,I,,:r.t,:!lb!>

\'t n 289 o 1 2km n I I I • Pa I KATIKATI\ .:::.:. Kainga n -.:.-. •••!e N Matariki A ~::~Waihi n fl . Ngo Kuri 0 Whorel tf] n

11.t.

Otawhiwhl ~: Te Po 0 Auturourou

Oturoa

TE PUNA Omanu whirt Te..Kauri

Figur~ \£" 290

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Published Sources

Appendices to the Journals ofthe House ofRepresentatives

Bay ofPlenty Times

New Zealand Gazette

Stokes, Evelyn, A History of Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980

Whanau A Tauwhao: A History of a NgaiterangiHapu, Occasional Paper No 8, Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1980

Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1990

Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: Volume· 2: Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1992

Raupatu Document Bank, vol 124

Turton, H.H., Maori Deeds of Land Purchase in the North Island of New Zealand, Wellington, Government Printer, 1877-1878

Unpublished Sources

Coffin, Antoine, 'Wairoa River and Coastal Environment Issues and Options Paper', Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, Tauranga, 1995, p 13

Kahotea, Des Tatana, 'Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy: Cultural Resource Inventory: Features of Significance to the Maori Community', Tauranga District Council, 1992, p 59

'Ngati Kahu, Ngati Pango, Ngati Rangi: Draft Report for the Waitangi Tribunal', 1996

O'Malley, Vincent, 'The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu', An overview report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1995

O'Malley, Vincent, Alan Ward, 'Draft Historical Report on Tauranga Moana Lands', Crown/Congress Joint Working Part, 1993

39 291

Riseborough, Hazel, 'The Crown and Tauranga Moana', Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1994

Stokes, Evelyn, 'Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana: Reserves for Maori in the Tauranga Confiscated Lands' Draft Only, 1996

Willan, Rachael, 'Katikati Railway Station Report', Waitangi Tribunal, 1996

'Wairoa River Report', Waitangi Tribunal, 1996

Files

BCAC A187 Box 214744 Lot 210 Te Puna, National Archives Auckland

BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, National Archives Auckland

BCAC A187 Box 2172754 Te Puna Lot 211, National Archives Auckland

W 1 35/161 Omokoroa - Te Puna, National Archives Wellington

W 72/2/3A12 Tauranga Section, National Archives Records Centre, Auckland

40 292 \

The Registrar , Waitang1 Tribunal Tribunal's Division Justice Department Private Bag Postal Centre WELLINGTON

I, WILLIAM OHIA of "Kopukai roa", Welcome Bay Road, R D 5, Tauranga, for ~self and the Ngati Pukenga ;wi of which I am a member and for the iwi and hapu of Ngai terangi and Ngati Rangi nui (and wi th the consent of the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board of which I am Chairman, whose members comprise representatives of all those iwi and all but two of those hapu) CLAIM to be prejudicially affected or likely to be prejudicially affected by the following actions, omissions, policies and practices of the Crown:

1. The confiscation last century by the Crown and its Agents of lands be 1ongi ng to the hapu of the Ngaterangi, Ngati Rangi nu;, Ngati Pulcenga and related peoples. These lands are Icnown as Raupatu 1 ands. The confi scati ons depri ved these 1wi and hapu of thei r mana and of an economic base on which to live and develop contrary to the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga in Article II of the Treaty.

2. The fa; 1 ure of the Crown adequately to compensate the claimants for thi s wrongful confi scat; on. Whil e the c1 aimants acknowl edge that the payment by the Crown of $250,000.00 on the setting up of the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board is a partial compensation for the confiscations, they insist that this payment is totally ; nadequate g; ven the Crown IS acknow1 edgement of the injustices which occurred and the catastrophic effect of the confiscations on the claimant iwi and hapu.

3. The fail ure of the Crown contrary to Articl e II of the Treaty to

Cont ••• 10c/18 ••• 12 293

-2-

protect the claimant iwi and hapu in the use control and management of the Tauranga Harbour and ; n the use, control and management of their shell and other fisheries within the Tauranga Harbour.

4. The fail ure of the Crown contrary to Article II of the Treaty to protect the claimant iwi and hapu in the use, control and management of their coastal fisheries which extend along the shore line from Maketu Bar to Whangamata to a distance of 100 miles off shore at right angles from that shore line.

5. The failure of the Crown to provide for the control and management by the c1 a; mant i wi and hapu of reserve areas and wah; tapu of special significance to them, namely:

Mauao (Mount Maunganui) Mangatawa Hill (Maunga Mana) Pukewhanake Otawhiwhi Reserve Nga Kur; A Wharei Huhara (Plummers Point) Monmouth Redoubt

6. The failure of the Crown to provide for the control and management by the claimant iwi and hapu of their ancestral places of special significance to them including:

The Te Ranga battle site Karewa Island Motuotau Moturi ki Hopu Kiroe (Mt Drury)

i Cont ••• I ; lOc/19 " ./3 \, ~RI 13: 10 ID:COONEY LEES ~ tlORGAN TEL NO: 64 7581433 *=1098 P04

294

-3-

8. Restrictions or proh1bitions placed by the Crown on the taking by the claimant iwi and hapu of matapuna kai (tlti &godwits). J AND WE CLAIM:

1. That all these matters are inconsistent with the princ1ples of the :1 Treaty of Wa1tangi. '1 2. The Tribunal is asked to recommend as follows: ] (a) Compensati on by the return of all tri ba 1 1ands sti 11 in Crown owner~hip and the payment of monies sufficient for the :1 iwi of Ngati Pukenga and the iwi and hapu of Ngaterangi and Ngati Ranginui to restore their mana and rebuild their ] tribal econoll\Y. "'1 (b) The amending of the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board Act " 1981 to provide proper compensat10n for the claimant iwi and hapu for the raupotu lands.

(c) Proper legislative measures to ensure that the claimant iwi and hapu regai n a say in the use control and management of the Tauranga Harbour and regain and maintain the use. control and management of thei r shell and other fisheri es within the Tauranga harbour.

(d) Proper legislative action to ensure that the claimant iw; ! 1 I and hapu rega1n and maintain the use, control and management iJ of their coastal fisheries.

(e) Proper legislative provision to ensure that the claimant iwi and hapu regain and maintain the control and management

Cont ••• lOc/20 ••• /4 • , .___ " '_' I o;...!_'

295

-4-

of reserve areas wah; tapu and ancestral places of special significance to them.

(f) The restoration of the right to take matapuna kai

(g) Such further or other relief as the Tribunal considers appropr1 ate.

3. The Tribunal is asked to commission a researcher to report on this cl aim before any heari ng. We seek 1 eave to amend thi s cl aim following that report.

4. The Tri buna 1 is ask.ed to appoi nt Mr J C Gooch of the fi rm of Messrs Cooney Lees &Morgan, SoliCitors, Tauranga to assist me.

5. The Tribunal is asked to hear the claim at a Marae in Tauranga.

6. Persons affected by this claim and who should have notice of it are:

(i) The Treasury Box 3724 Wellington

(1i) Works & Development Services Corporation (New Zealand) Limited, Box 12-041 Wellington.

(iii) Western Bay of Plenty District Council Private Bag, Tauranga

(1v) Tauranga City Council Private Bag, Tauranga

(v) Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Private Bag, Well1ngton

Cont ••• lOc!2l ••• /5 !:,"i ':HJ FR I 13: 12 I D: COONEY LEES & MUk:bRN TEL t'~O: 54 7581433 1:*098 P05

296

-5-

(vi) Department of Conservation, PO Box 10420, Wellington

(vii) Land Corporation Limited, PO Box 1790, Wellington

(viii) Department c.f Lands, PO Box 12162, Wellington

(ix) All other persons who may have lodged or who may lodge claims with the Tribunal concerning or touching any of the ] matters in respect of which this claim is made. ] 7. Thi s cl aim amends and repl aces the cl aim as given ; n the 1 ett·:- )f. 4 February 1988.

8. Notices to the claimant should be sent to the Offices of Me" .. '._ Cooney Lees & Morgan, Solicitors, 87 Fi rst Avenue (PO Box 143'. Tauranga •

..2a -: .~ .-: .. (9.~O. D4te

Signature

lOc/22

, 1 I • I t j

1 '